The ulster rugby trial

[GetOverTheBar]

"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Which "mate" was this, now?

The "mate" who wasn't her mate at all?

A couple of weeks back you were saying that it was the complainant that was getting sick, so this is the second time you've displayed yourself unaware of a basic fact regarding the same specific detail of the case.

You'll get there in the end.

Maybe.

LOL......youre very touchy.....does shagging paralytic drunk birds hit a little close to home for you?

I misread the original newspaper article and another poster corrected me and said no, it was her friend. Maybe he was wrong too.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rape-trial-ireland-rugby-player-olding-embarrassed-of-immature-boasting-whatsapp-messages-36685172.html

One of the parties involved had 22 alcoholic beverages

Someone else is projectile vomiting in the bathroom

The victim herself has given conflicting evidence and contradictory statements

If she too was impaired, that would possibly explain the inconsistencies

Why don't you read some facts before posting up horseshit here? It's well documented the amounts of alcohol taken by the alleged victim and others in this case. And none of her friends were in the house.

Well then answer the fvckin question then.....how much did she have to drink?

The woman told the trial during her evidence she had one and a half glasses of wine and three double vodkas during the night.

99.9% sure there was a video of her played during the trial which showed her uneasy on her feet in a VIP section. Would you say that quantity gets a woman drunk? Probably would? Uneasy on feet? Not sure.

[screenexile]

If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.

I thought that too seanie. The bits of direction we are quoted here almost gives the girl a bye ball for any inconsistencies, which I thought was a bit surprising.

Mind you, she also said that the jury should not place too much emphasis on the whatsapp messages between the lads, as young men embellish and exaggerate their conquests.

Not today!!!

"If you believe she lied or made false allegations, then you need to exercise extreme caution in your approach to her evidence, in particular whether you feel you can safely rely on the account she later gave to police," she said.

"If you feel she has actually lied to Dr. Lavery about the accused, then I am directing you not to rely on her complaints in relation to the first three defendants (Jackson, Olding & McIlroy) unless you find there's other independent evidence to support what she says".

[RedHand88]

So is today D Day then??!

Could be. Depends how long they deliberate. Could be 20mins, could be a week. I would guess a quick deliberation would be a sign they are walking.

[Taylor]

If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.

I thought that too seanie. The bits of direction we are quoted here almost gives the girl a bye ball for any inconsistencies, which I thought was a bit surprising.

Mind you, she also said that the jury should not place too much emphasis on the whatsapp messages between the lads, as young men embellish and exaggerate their conquests.

Not today!!!

"If you believe she lied or made false allegations, then you need to exercise extreme caution in your approach to her evidence, in particular whether you feel you can safely rely on the account she later gave to police," she said.

"If you feel she has actually lied to Dr. Lavery about the accused, then I am directing you not to rely on her complaints in relation to the first three defendants (Jackson, Olding & McIlroy) unless you find there's other independent evidence to support what she says".

Whao.
After yesterdays judge statements I thought they could be done - but definitely not after hearing that.

Has the judge contradicted herself?

f**k this is one confusing case

[sid waddell]

If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.

I thought that too seanie. The bits of direction we are quoted here almost gives the girl a bye ball for any inconsistencies, which I thought was a bit surprising.

Mind you, she also said that the jury should not place too much emphasis on the whatsapp messages between the lads, as young men embellish and exaggerate their conquests.

Talk to a psychiatrist and it's not even up for discussion.....this is accpted fact. One I wasn't aware of and I think one very many refuse to accept. The minor inconsistencies in the alleged victims account are perfectly consistent with rape cases. That along with the "submitting" as opposed to fighting back were two things I hadn't appreciated and which closed any doubts I had as to the alleged victims story.

True Seanie.  It's very hard to understand how you wouldn't fight or scream, especially in a crowded house, but this is, as you say, accepted fact in the case of rape.

Apparently it's harder to understand the lack of screaming by the complainant given that she was in a house in which there were three "middle class girls".

"Middle class girls" are apparently uniquely abhorred by rape compared to "girls" of any other social class, at least if one is to listen to Frank O'Donoghue QC.

[AZOffaly]

the confusion is because we are not there. This reporting in snippets and without context makes everything confusing, and adds weight to certain things, while trivialising others. In reality, depending on context in the courtroom, the relative importance might be completely different.

[Hardy]

Is my indicator working?
- Yes, no, yes, no ....

Some people don't seem to be able to remember the first clause in a two-clause sentence after they've read the second.

That's what scares me about juries - some of them may believe they've now been directed by the judge to disregard the complainant's evidence.

[brokencrossbar1]

Lads the role of the judge needs to be clarified here. She has to give them all the evidence and let them weigh it all up. The timing of this is very important in my view. She give the direction yesterday which would have swayed jurors towards guilt. Then she let them sleep On that and is now giving the other side and this will be foremost in their minds when they go into their deliberations. That is the way it's is always done, but the time gap could be vital as this will have potentially lessened their opinion due to having slept on it but it could have the converse effect and they could have hardened their views. It's really hard to tell but I think they'll find it difficult to get a 10 majority either way and the jury will be hung and there will be no retrial.

[HiMucker]

Lads the role of the judge needs to be clarified here. She has to give them all the evidence and let them weigh it all up. The timing of this is very important in my view. She give the direction yesterday which would have swayed jurors towards guilt. Then she let them sleep On that and is now giving the other side and this will be foremost in their minds when they go into their deliberations. That is the way it's is always done, but the time gap could be vital as this will have potentially lessened their opinion due to having slept on it but it could have the converse effect and they could have hardened their views. It's really hard to tell but I think they'll find it difficult to get a 10 majority either way and the jury will be hung and there will be no retrial.

Re. a not guilty verdict, do they tell you the split or do they just say not guilty?  Would the public know that it was 10-1, 7-4 etc etc?

[Syferus]

So is today D Day then??!

Could be. Depends how long they deliberate. Could be 20mins, could be a week. I would guess a quick deliberation would be a sign they are walking.

You'd guess wrong. Statistically, quick deliberations favour guilty verdicts.

[whitey]

"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Which "mate" was this, now?

The "mate" who wasn't her mate at all?

A couple of weeks back you were saying that it was the complainant that was getting sick, so this is the second time you've displayed yourself unaware of a basic fact regarding the same specific detail of the case.

You'll get there in the end.

Maybe.

LOL......youre very touchy.....does shagging paralytic drunk birds hit a little close to home for you?

I misread the original newspaper article and another poster corrected me and said no, it was her friend. Maybe he was wrong too.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rape-trial-ireland-rugby-player-olding-embarrassed-of-immature-boasting-whatsapp-messages-36685172.html

One of the parties involved had 22 alcoholic beverages

Someone else is projectile vomiting in the bathroom

The victim herself has given conflicting evidence and contradictory statements

If she too was impaired, that would possibly explain the inconsistencies

Why don't you read some facts before posting up horseshit here? It's well documented the amounts of alcohol taken by the alleged victim and others in this case. And none of her friends were in the house.

Well then answer the fvckin question then.....how much did she have to drink?

The woman told the trial during her evidence she had one and a half glasses of wine and three double vodkas during the night.

Thank you

[sid waddell]

Lads the role of the judge needs to be clarified here. She has to give them all the evidence and let them weigh it all up. The timing of this is very important in my view. She give the direction yesterday which would have swayed jurors towards guilt. Then she let them sleep On that and is now giving the other side and this will be foremost in their minds when they go into their deliberations. That is the way it's is always done, but the time gap could be vital as this will have potentially lessened their opinion due to having slept on it but it could have the converse effect and they could have hardened their views. It's really hard to tell but I think they'll find it difficult to get a 10 majority either way and the jury will be hung and there will be no retrial.

Does anybody have any statistics for how many rape trials, UK or otherwise, result in a hung jury?

I know the Otto Putland case was one but the question is what percentage of all rape trials result in such?

[brokencrossbar1]

Lads the role of the judge needs to be clarified here. She has to give them all the evidence and let them weigh it all up. The timing of this is very important in my view. She give the direction yesterday which would have swayed jurors towards guilt. Then she let them sleep On that and is now giving the other side and this will be foremost in their minds when they go into their deliberations. That is the way it's is always done, but the time gap could be vital as this will have potentially lessened their opinion due to having slept on it but it could have the converse effect and they could have hardened their views. It's really hard to tell but I think they'll find it difficult to get a 10 majority either way and the jury will be hung and there will be no retrial.

Re. a not guilty verdict, do they tell you the split or do they just say not guilty?  Would the public know that it was 10-1, 7-4 etc etc?

It's been a while but my understanding is that in a guilty verdict the jury can be asked to state who voted what way if it's a majority verdict but cannot in the case of an acquittal.

[magpie seanie]

Lads the role of the judge needs to be clarified here. She has to give them all the evidence and let them weigh it all up. The timing of this is very important in my view. She give the direction yesterday which would have swayed jurors towards guilt. Then she let them sleep On that and is now giving the other side and this will be foremost in their minds when they go into their deliberations. That is the way it's is always done, but the time gap could be vital as this will have potentially lessened their opinion due to having slept on it but it could have the converse effect and they could have hardened their views. It's really hard to tell but I think they'll find it difficult to get a 10 majority either way and the jury will be hung and there will be no retrial.

Again, thanks for your insight (goes for the others who have knowledge and experience in the area too - most informative). I've learned a lot on this thread, making the other BS just about worth it.

[screenexile]

Deliberations have started . . . can any of the legal eagles give an estimate if this will finish today or most likely tomorrow?