The ulster rugby trial

[AQMP]

Don't do twitter! This would be the only social media thingy I'd be on..

Some wild stuff!

[Hound]

The one thing that I learned was the physical response to rape. I would have assumed that a girl, in a house full of other people, would scream at least if she was being raped. I am genuinely gobsmacked that this is not the case, and I hold up my hands that I was completely ill informed about that. I thought the fight or flight reflex would kick in.

I could see it in a dark alley type scenario with no one around, but in a busy house? I was very surprised and had my eyes opened on that.

I don't have the exact words, but the doctor said something along the lines that in "most rapes" the woman doesn't fight, and I can see exactly why, as it could mean an even worse fate than the already horrific rape.

But (to the best of my knowledge based on the twitter summaries I remember) the doctor didn't refer or wasnt asked whether such a reaction would be likely in this case. I would have thought that "most rapes" don't occur in a busy house with other women within shouting distance or with potential rescuers walking in on them in the middle of it.


Anyone remember what the actual reason was for parading the underwear in court? That was hugely distasteful. That happened, as far as I remember in the earlier part of the trial when the prosecution was still presenting its case, although not sure whether it was prosecution or defence that brought it forward (can't see how it helped or hindered either side, so seems wholly unnecessary, but as I said I can't remember the legal reason)

[Milltown Row2]

Don't do twitter! This would be the only social media thingy I'd be on..

Some wild stuff!

Are people losing their minds?

[Syferus]

Don't do twitter! This would be the only social media thingy I'd be on..

Some wild stuff!

Are people losing their minds?

You seem like you'd know the symptoms intimately anyways.

[Hound]

I also cannot get away from the thought in my head that this should this girl be 100% telling the truth, effectively she couldn't reasonably have done any more to get a conviction. It really bothers me to be honest. I've many other thoughts on this case and the wider issues it highlights which I'll not share here because they're only my opinions and I'd be here until Christmas defending them as there's a level of my personal judgement based on what I've heard, seen and experienced.

Olding was initially charged with vaginal rape as a result of the initial statements by the complainant. The fact that she changed her story doesn't impact on your opinion about her 100% telling the truth?

[Syferus]

I also cannot get away from the thought in my head that this should this girl be 100% telling the truth, effectively she couldn't reasonably have done any more to get a conviction. It really bothers me to be honest. I've many other thoughts on this case and the wider issues it highlights which I'll not share here because they're only my opinions and I'd be here until Christmas defending them as there's a level of my personal judgement based on what I've heard, seen and experienced.

Olding was initially charged with vaginal rape as a result of the initial statements by the complainant. The fact that she changed her story doesn't impact on your opinion about her 100% telling the truth?

Did you actually read what he said before you fell over yourself to defend the top shaggers again?

[AQMP]

I also cannot get away from the thought in my head that this should this girl be 100% telling the truth, effectively she couldn't reasonably have done any more to get a conviction. It really bothers me to be honest. I've many other thoughts on this case and the wider issues it highlights which I'll not share here because they're only my opinions and I'd be here until Christmas defending them as there's a level of my personal judgement based on what I've heard, seen and experienced.

Olding was initially charged with vaginal rape as a result of the initial statements by the complainant. The fact that she changed her story doesn't impact on your opinion about her 100% telling the truth?

seanie can explain better than me but, to be fair to him, that's not the way I take what he posted

[Milltown Row2]

I also cannot get away from the thought in my head that this should this girl be 100% telling the truth, effectively she couldn't reasonably have done any more to get a conviction. It really bothers me to be honest. I've many other thoughts on this case and the wider issues it highlights which I'll not share here because they're only my opinions and I'd be here until Christmas defending them as there's a level of my personal judgement based on what I've heard, seen and experienced.

Olding was initially charged with vaginal rape as a result of the initial statements by the complainant. The fact that she changed her story doesn't impact on your opinion about her 100% telling the truth?

Did you actually read what he said before you fell over yourself to defend the top shaggers again?

Their only crime! Top shaggers! How's the law course coming along? Judge yet??

[Asal Mor]

I'm sorry if you disagree with the result but I don't understand how anyone can advocate a system where the IP version of events are not challenged in a court of law. There's a lot of shite that she shouldn't be questioned for so long. Not 3 weeks ago everyone of this guardian reading crowd were celebrating how well she acquitted herself in the witness box. The IP version of events must be scrutinised as closely as the defendants if their is to be any sense of fairness or equality within the law.

There's this bizarre argument out there that seems to suggest that in cases of rape the IP's testimony should be above reproach.

Excellent post trileacman. They are angry that the girl was treated very badly and there's no doubt she was but what specific changes would they like to see to the system? It's terrible that in an accusation of gang rape the accuser gets questioned by several barristers but difficult to see a way round it. Anonymity until the verdict would be a good change but I don't think the protesters would want anything that would make life easier for the accused.

Personally I think any protests should be aimed at the police who were no doubt influenced by the prevailing culture in not questioning the accuser during her police interview. If they had, depending on the answers the girl had given, they could have either dropped the case or proceeded with a genuine case of conviction.

Very few  of these people who are so angry about the case seem to accept that the 100% correct verdict was reached by the jury given the evidence. That's not to say with 100% certainty that the girl wasn't raped.

If these protesters want the law changed so that a man has to be able to prove consent (maybe technology could play a role here- some kind of consent app?)beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be a worthwhile debate and if things did go that way at least it would be clear.

The problem with the protests is that they just seem angry and vindictive and will end up being about ruining the next few years of the accused men's lives.

We haven't always seen eye to eye over this case AM, but that's a good, clear logical posts around some of the issues and I'd concur with all of it.

Cheers AQMP,  we haven't but you've always argued the points well and without any of that "victim blaming/misogynist/apologist" shite.

[Syferus]

I'm sorry if you disagree with the result but I don't understand how anyone can advocate a system where the IP version of events are not challenged in a court of law. There's a lot of shite that she shouldn't be questioned for so long. Not 3 weeks ago everyone of this guardian reading crowd were celebrating how well she acquitted herself in the witness box. The IP version of events must be scrutinised as closely as the defendants if their is to be any sense of fairness or equality within the law.

There's this bizarre argument out there that seems to suggest that in cases of rape the IP's testimony should be above reproach.

Excellent post trileacman. They are angry that the girl was treated very badly and there's no doubt she was but what specific changes would they like to see to the system? It's terrible that in an accusation of gang rape the accuser gets questioned by several barristers but difficult to see a way round it. Anonymity until the verdict would be a good change but I don't think the protesters would want anything that would make life easier for the accused.

Personally I think any protests should be aimed at the police who were no doubt influenced by the prevailing culture in not questioning the accuser during her police interview. If they had, depending on the answers the girl had given, they could have either dropped the case or proceeded with a genuine case of conviction.

Very few  of these people who are so angry about the case seem to accept that the 100% correct verdict was reached by the jury given the evidence. That's not to say with 100% certainty that the girl wasn't raped.

If these protesters want the law changed so that a man has to be able to prove consent (maybe technology could play a role here- some kind of consent app?)beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be a worthwhile debate and if things did go that way at least it would be clear.

The problem with the protests is that they just seem angry and vindictive and will end up being about ruining the next few years of the accused men's lives.

We haven't always seen eye to eye over this case AM, but that's a good, clear logical posts around some of the issues and I'd concur with all of it.

Cheers AQMP,  we haven't but you've always argued the points well and without any of that "victim blaming/misogynist/apologist" shite.

The problem is you are.

[Asal Mor]

Again I've seen figures bandied about left right and centre. Certainly crime is underreported in this jurisdiction generally and specifically sexual crime. I don't think the coverage of this case is going to help in this regard. This leads me on to my issues with this #ibelieveher movement.

Right I have the following issues with the #ibelieveher movement and today's protest for the following reasons.

A doubt many in the movement heard all the evidence in the case. The general public certainly didn't. Without hearing all the evidence it's impossible to have formed any sort of view of this women's credibility. The jury heard all the evidence and in very short order acquitted all 4 defendants. Significantly they acquitted McIlroy too who unlike Jackson and Olding did not have the defence of reasonable belief in consent. The jury could only have done that if they didn't believe the girl. Whilst I acknowledge that jurors can and do make mistakes. Both of those things are significant for me. If they didn't believe her then I think people have every right not to believe her. People shouldn't be castigated or abused for this.

2. The movement is doing more harm than good by spreading misinformation about the criminal justice system. The fact is rape trials are treated differently to any other type of trials. Rape victims are automatically eligible for special measures. Rules about admission of hearsay are less strict and non defendant bad character more strict etc. The criminal justice system does plenty to assist rape victims but this movement is portraying that it doesn't. That will put victims off coming forward.

3. There's a lot of background info that wasn't shared about the girl and for good reason.

4. Any attempt to explain this or reason with the movement has been labelled rape apologists or rapists. That doesn't help anyone

5. They've intensified the scrutiny on an alleged rape victim either deliberately or accidentally. That's counter productive in the extreme and again is likely to discourage rape victims from coming forward.

Excellent post David.

[RedHand88]

Twitter has actually been bats*** crazy last few days. It's crazy the stuff being thrown around against a fast unanimous verdict.

[ONeill]

Will people please get off Twitter. For the love of Peter.

[Milltown Row2]

Haven't  seen the twitter stuff but the shite on Facebook would sicken your hole!

I've deleted about 10, I haven't commented about the case on Facebook but by hack I've wanted too

[Asal Mor]

Will people please get off Twitter. For the love of Peter.

#Suemepaddy is trending now,  the idea being that people post something derogatory about PJ along with the hashtag. It's like a particularly disturbing episode of Black Mirror at this stage. Paddy probably should have gone down the disingenuous apology written and read by a third party route that seems to have worked for Olding.