The ulster rugby trial

[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.

Give up. The jury has spoken

Please address the points I made. You didn't.

[TabClear]

Every woman in Ireland under the age of 25 seems to be believe her. Their Twitter outrage is hysterical in every sense of the word. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she waives her right to anonymity due to the support behind her.

I know I'm a Philistine in these matters but Twitter outrage doesn't seem to me to be a good base to build a legal case on.

As has been mentioned above there is the possibility that (barring inconsistencies related to either trauma or alcohol) that nobody is lying here. i.e. She did not consent and "froze" but the guys had no reason to think that she was not consenting or had withdrawn consent.

In any case, no winners here except the lawyers. I agree with the comment earlier that regardless of who you do or do not believe, the publicity and level of detail this case has disclosed will reduce the likelihood of women coming forward on rape cases. Anonymity for all parties until a guilty verdict is returned would be to everyone's benefit in my opinion.

[Kickham csc]

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.

Don't think it is as easy as saying that there was no doubt who was lying. Without rock solid material evidence to collaborate one version of events over another, the case becomes a he said / she said argument which doesn't then to deliver unanimous decisions are Unconscious biases will come into effect and if any of the team have doubts, you can't convict, so one holdout can lead to a not guilt decision.

[Minder]

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!

Clampit 

Though i was conviced it was Syferus, i'm sure its somewhere though

Yeah he came in behind AQMP if I remember correctly to contradict him

[sid waddell]

As has been mentioned above there is the possibility that (barring inconsistencies related to either trauma or alcohol) that nobody is lying here. i.e. She did not consent and "froze" but the guys had no reason to think that she was not consenting or had withdrawn consent.

Given the massive inconsistencies between the defendants accounts', at least some of the defendants were lying. It is impossible that they were not, because their accounts directly contradict each other.

Jackson's and McIlroy's accounts of the time McIlroy entered the room, for instance, directly contradict each other. McIlroy claimed he recieved oral sex from the woman and was talking to Jackson as this happened. Jackson said "that didn't happen", that McIlroy never even entered the room. One of them has to be lying.

The accounts of how the complainant left the house were all over the place - the accounts of Jackson, McIlroy and Harrison all contradicted each other. At least two of them had to be lying.

[Dougal Maguire]

God help whoever is going to have to carry drink to them tonight

[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

Please address the points I made. You didn't.

Yes I have

[Taylor]

As has been mentioned above there is the possibility that (barring inconsistencies related to either trauma or alcohol) that nobody is lying here. i.e. She did not consent and "froze" but the guys had no reason to think that she was not consenting or had withdrawn consent.

Given the massive inconsistencies between the defendants accounts', at least some of the defendants were lying. It is impossible that they were not, because their accounts directly contradict each other.

Jackson's and McIlroy's accounts of the time McIlroy entered the room, for instance, directly contradict each other. McIlroy claimed he recieved oral sex from the woman and was talking to Jackson as this happened. Jackson said "that didn't happen", that McIlroy never even entered the room. One of them has to be lying.

The accounts of how the complainant left the house were all over the place - the accounts of Jackson, McIlroy and Harrison all contradicted each other. At least two of them had to be lying.

As do many parts of the womans evidence contradict previous statements etc she made

[Keyser soze]

Apparently Blane McIlroy is demanding a retrial.

[TabClear]

As has been mentioned above there is the possibility that (barring inconsistencies related to either trauma or alcohol) that nobody is lying here. i.e. She did not consent and "froze" but the guys had no reason to think that she was not consenting or had withdrawn consent.

Given the massive inconsistencies between the defendants accounts', at least some of the defendants were lying. It is impossible that they were not, because their accounts directly contradict each other.

Jackson's and McIlroy's accounts of the time McIlroy entered the room, for instance, directly contradict each other. McIlroy claimed he recieved oral sex from the woman and was talking to Jackson as this happened. Jackson said "that didn't happen", that McIlroy never even entered the room. One of them has to be lying.

The accounts of how the complainant left the house were all over the place - the accounts of Jackson, McIlroy and Harrison all contradicted each other. At least two of them had to be lying.

Fair point, what I meant was nobody is lying in respect of the key "Was there consent" question.

[AQMP]

As has been mentioned above there is the possibility that (barring inconsistencies related to either trauma or alcohol) that nobody is lying here. i.e. She did not consent and "froze" but the guys had no reason to think that she was not consenting or had withdrawn consent.

Given the massive inconsistencies between the defendants accounts', at least some of the defendants were lying. It is impossible that they were not, because their accounts directly contradict each other.

Jackson's and McIlroy's accounts of the time McIlroy entered the room, for instance, directly contradict each other. McIlroy claimed he recieved oral sex from the woman and was talking to Jackson as this happened. Jackson said "that didn't happen", that McIlroy never even entered the room. One of them has to be lying.

The accounts of how the complainant left the house were all over the place - the accounts of Jackson, McIlroy and Harrison all contradicted each other. At least two of them had to be lying.

With the speed of the verdict I'd say they didn't even consider the defendant's evidence.  I'd guess it was based on the complainants evidence and her credibility??  I mean the fact that the defendants contradicted each other didn't change her evidence, and if you don't believe her, then it matters less what the defendants said.

[trileacman]

My view of events was that she blew Jackson and olding, gets caught in the act by Florence and then Mc ilroy comes in trying to get in on the act after olding leaves. The woman get upset by the manner in which the men were passing her around, leaves in tears and being upset she texts her friends to say she was raped. Once she says that they get into hysterics and she can't back down by saying "ah it wasn't really rape I just got treated like shite".

I've always thought Mc Ilroy was guilty of exposure just because that to me seems a likely scenario. She'd no reason to make up an extravagant lie involving Mc ilroy, so in some way I believe there was some interaction between them that night that upset her. Whilst all accounts are inconsistent wth each other the truth probably lies in the middle of them all.

I feel sorry for Jackson and Harrison, seem decent enough. Mc ilroy and olding probably had a sexual assault case coming some day or other..

[MoChara]

There's an 'I Believe Her' rally being held at the The Spire on O'Connells street tomorrow if any one fancies it.... and I'm not joking

[yellowcard]

A dilemna for Ulster rugby, how long have Jackson and Olding got left on their contracts?

I think a parting of the ways via mutual consent would suit all parties here. I'd heard a few weeks ago that Jackson had an offer of a €600k contract awaiting to play in France.

[seafoid]

A dilemna for Ulster rugby, how long have Jackson and Olding got left on their contracts?

I think a parting of the ways via mutual consent would suit all parties here. I'd heard a few weeks ago that Jackson had an offer of a €600k contract awaiting to play in France.

That would be the end of his Ireland career