The ulster rugby trial

[Minder]

I think if Dara Florence didn't open the bedroom door we would never have heard another word about this

[BennyCake]

Party at Ollies anyone?! After party at Paddys hes told me, we're all invited...

In town with the better alf tomorrow, will have to keep an eye on her.. the top shaggers will be let loose

In all fairness, be interesting to see if this goes pubic with the IP, along the lines of a civil case....

Freudian slip, eh?

[thebigfella]

Have avoided posting on here due to the usuals suspects making the discussion a joke. One point though and it's based on the sketchy reports of the cases presented - I would have expected a jury of 11 to deliberate each of the charges individually?

Can't remember whether there were 5/6 charges for all 4 defendants; but 5 would equate to debating 45 mins per charge or ~4min per juror. Doesn't seem like a lot considering the length of trial and evidence presented (which was reported on)?

[take_yer_points]

Jackson's soliticor said Jackson's main priority is to now get back playing on the field for Ulster and Ireland.

Statement from IRFU and Ulster.. https://t.co/6XTknZ2Zk9

[Hound]

This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.

I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

[Avondhu star]

This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.

"if the girl lied" FFS
Not one of the jury believed here.
She got herself painted into a corner and thought she could lie herself out of it.

[AZOffaly]

Did you read the criteria for rape that has been posted here numerous times by David?

The girl may not have consented, but the guys may have reasonably believed she did.

That is not the same as her lying.

I'm not surprised at the verdict. It was always he said/she said, and as I said at the time, the witness statement *had* to introduce an element of doubt.

[Avondhu star]

Have avoided posting on here due to the usuals suspects making the discussion a joke. One point though and it's based on the sketchy reports of the cases presented - I would have expected a jury of 11 to deliberate each of the charges individually?

Can't remember whether there were 5/6 charges for all 4 defendants; but 5 would equate to debating 45 mins per charge or ~4min per juror. Doesn't seem like a lot considering the length of trial and evidence presented (which was reported on)?

Maybe after nine weeks the jury decided that they had wasted enough time on her lies

[Milltown Row2]

Where is the clampit that said a quick result would result in a guilty verdict?

[Avondhu star]

Could we have George Hook give his definitive opinion on the verdict?

[sid waddell]

Unanimous verdict after nine weeks of evidence. The jury were in no doubt who was lying.
The Prosecution Service should have a good review of the decision to prosecute.

At least some of the defendants were lying, and that's a fact.

Their accounts were riddled with contradictions of each others' testimony.

A not guilty verdict doesn't amount to saying the complainant was lying - it says nothing of the sort.

[GetOverTheBar]

Where is the clampit that said a quick result would result in a guilty verdict?

He's had a nightmare in this thread

[AQMP]

Where is the clampit that said a quick result would result in a guilty verdict?

Here??...I posted this:

God only knows, as long as it takes.

Some say that if the jury comes back quickly it's likely to be a guilty verdict and the longer it takes the more likely it is to be not guilty, or maybe that just in films!

[AZOffaly]

Will the jurors be allowed to give their reasoning, a lá American trials?

I wonder how long before the tabloids have their claws in.

[Avondhu star]

Unanimous verdict after nine weeks of evidence. The jury were in no doubt who was lying.
The Prosecution Service should have a good review of the decision to prosecute.

At least some of the defendants were lying, and that's a fact.

Their accounts were riddled with contradictions of each others' testimony.

A not guilty verdict doesn't amount to saying the complainant was lying - it says nothing of the sort.

Give up. The jury has spoken