The ulster rugby trial

[David McKeown]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

[sid waddell]

I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.

So she didn't lie about Olding having sex with her?

I dunno.

Likewise i dunno if jackson lied about not having sex with her.

If the woman was lying, she wouldn't have gone through an ordeal and would have had no trauma.

Some people here apparently think that rape trauma is not a real thing.

It is very much a real thing, and leads to confusion and fragmented memory.

Even more so after 30 hours without sleep, which she had been when she was examined at the Rowan centre.

A great deal of store has been placed on Dara Florence's evidence.

If you believe Dara Florence was telling the truth, you believe, by definition, that Paddy Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.

That's a serious double bind.

When she was examined by defence she admitted she couldn't see his thing or her thing, so would be unable to say with certainty they were having sex.

Florence was the only person in the house who hadn't been drinking.

"100% I saw sex" is a very categorical assessment of what was happening.

yeah, she said she saw consensual sex, but didnt see any private parts of either PJ or complainant

Most likely because it was in a particular place where she couldn't see it.

[imtommygunn]

you know more than me on these matters david and me and mr know about the same...

So does the fact that they got off mean she is deemed a liar by the law? I wouldn't have thought it does? Surely there are many nuances to the whole thing and the whole thing does not mean that "in the eyes of the law she is a liar"?

If she is a liar in the eyes of the law would she not be prosecuted?

[Milltown Row2]

you know more than me on these matters david and me and mr know about the same...

So does the fact that they got off mean she is deemed a liar by the law? I wouldn't have thought it does? Surely there are many nuances to the whole thing and the whole thing does not mean that "in the eyes of the law she is a liar"?

If she is a liar in the eyes of the law would she not be prosecuted?

My beef is mainly with the I believer her crowd.. you've bought into it, it seems

[David McKeown]

you know more than me on these matters david and me and mr know about the same...

So does the fact that they got off mean she is deemed a liar by the law? I wouldn't have thought it does? Surely there are many nuances to the whole thing and the whole thing does not mean that "in the eyes of the law she is a liar"?

If she is a liar in the eyes of the law would she not be prosecuted?

If you mean is she likely to be prosecuted for perjury? Then no she is not, infact its incredibly rare that anyone is prosecuted for perjury any more particularly if they are a complainant or a defendant.  Less rare if they are a witness but still rare.  The lack of a perjury charge should not be seen as some sort of vindication that the complaint (or the defendants) should be seen as telling the truth.

So there really isn't such a thing as in the eyes of the law she is a liar.  One of the roles for the jury was to asses the complainants credibility.  If they believed the complainant its difficult to see how they acquitted McIlroy (its easy to see how Olding and Jackson were acquitted as they would have had a defence of reasonable belief in consent) As a result its very unfair to castigate anyone who would say the jury didn't think she was lying (at least as it relates to McIlroy) as it implies something nefarious or inherently wrong with the process which I don't think there was. From that verdict it appears to me more likely that the jury thought she was lying than that they believed her.  Just to add unlike me they had the benefit of all the evidence live and could assess the body language and demeanour of those giving evidence.

[sid waddell]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

[Hound]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

Perhaps. It would be interesting to hear the actual reasoning of the jury. But I'd be very surprised if they gave any credence to McIlroy's story. Inconsistencies from the complainant and Dara Florence saying it looked consensual was more likely to have convinced the jury IMO.

[David McKeown]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

I think Jackson's version was actually that he didn't see McIlory enter the room or have oral sex with her but he had no reason to doubt McIlory but assuming you are correct you think two completely contradictory alternative versions to the complainants was enough to make the jury not believe the complainant?  I find that highly doubtful particularly if as we keep hearing the defendants were such bad witnesses.

All we know for sure is the Jury did not believe the complainant about what happened with McIlroy.  Anything else is speculation.

[Main Street]

I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.

So she didn't lie about Olding having sex with her?

I dunno.

Likewise i dunno if jackson lied about not having sex with her.

If the woman was lying, she wouldn't have gone through an ordeal and would have had no trauma.

Some people here apparently think that rape trauma is not a real thing.

It is very much a real thing, and leads to confusion and fragmented memory.

Even more so after 30 hours without sleep, which she had been when she was examined at the Rowan centre.

A great deal of store has been placed on Dara Florence's evidence.

If you believe Dara Florence was telling the truth, you believe, by definition, that Paddy Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.

That's a serious double bind.

When she was examined by defence she admitted she couldn't see his thing or her thing, so would be unable to say with certainty they were having sex.

Florence was the only person in the house who hadn't been drinking.

"100% I saw sex" is a very categorical assessment of what was happening.

yeah, she said she saw consensual sex, but didnt see any private parts of either PJ or complainant

She said in court  "I would say 100% I saw sex, from the (Jackson's) movement,"
She said in her police statement that "her impression was that she saw not a non-consensual act".
An impression is not a 100% certainty.
However she was 100% certain she saw sex  and in my book that testimony has at least equal or even bit more value than an  impression of witnessing a consensual act.
I would consider that 100% certainty as evidence of a discrepancy in the accused's statements, at least equal to the much focused upon complainant's discrepancy.

[David McKeown]

The complainant's evidence is always going to be the subject of more scrutiny and debate.  Ultimately you can not believe the defendants and still either convict or acquit them. After all they do not have to prove anything.  You can not however not believe the complainant and still convict

[sid waddell]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

I think Jackson's version was actually that he didn't see McIlory enter the room or have oral sex with her but he had no reason to doubt McIlory but assuming you are correct you think two completely contradictory alternative versions to the complainants was enough to make the jury not believe the complainant?  I find that highly doubtful particularly if as we keep hearing the defendants were such bad witnesses.

All we know for sure is the Jury did not believe the complainant about what happened with McIlroy.  Anything else is speculation.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/paddy-jackson-says-he-would-have-gone-to-police-if-told-of-rape-allegation-1.3418181

Mr McIlroy's counsel asked Mr Jackson about his evidence that he never saw Mr McIlroy in the room. Mr McIlroy told police he was in the room and received oral sex from the woman while Mr Jackson was there.

Mr Jackson agreed with counsel he was drunk and very tired by the end of the night. He said it was possible he could have been drifting in and out of consciousness when the complainant was leaving his bedroom.

Counsel put it to Mr Jackson that his client says Mr Jackson was doing something with the woman while she performed oral sex on Mr McIlroy.

"That didn't happen," Mr Jackson said, adding: "He wasn't in the room".

He said he could think of no reason for Mr McIlroy to lie about being in the room.

------

My take is that is that the contradictory testimony of the defendants as well as the testimony of Florence created a sort of "fog of war" scenario. Ultimately the weight of having four different defendants with conflicting stories confused the hell out of the jury who basically didn't know what was what by the end of the trial and thus had to acquit on all counts.

[David McKeown]

So again the jury didn't believe the complainant at least in respect of her allegation against McIlroy. Did Florence give any evidence regarding McIlroy.

[sid waddell]

So again the jury didn't believe the complainant at least in respect of her allegation against McIlroy. Did Florence give any evidence regarding McIlroy.

Again, strong belief = not guilty.

I don't recall Florence giving any evidence that would have materially affected the charge against McIlroy, I think she had left the house, along with Clare Matthews, by the time of the alleged incident involving him.

[imtommygunn]

For what it is worth David I don't think there is anything wrong with the process as I don't see how on what was known for definite they could have convicted.  I just don't think it is correct to say in the eyes of the law the girl is a liar.

[Asal Mor]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

I think Jackson's version was actually that he didn't see McIlory enter the room or have oral sex with her but he had no reason to doubt McIlory but assuming you are correct you think two completely contradictory alternative versions to the complainants was enough to make the jury not believe the complainant?  I find that highly doubtful particularly if as we keep hearing the defendants were such bad witnesses.

All we know for sure is the Jury did not believe the complainant about what happened with McIlroy.  Anything else is speculation.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/paddy-jackson-says-he-would-have-gone-to-police-if-told-of-rape-allegation-1.3418181

Mr McIlroy's counsel asked Mr Jackson about his evidence that he never saw Mr McIlroy in the room. Mr McIlroy told police he was in the room and received oral sex from the woman while Mr Jackson was there.

Mr Jackson agreed with counsel he was drunk and very tired by the end of the night. He said it was possible he could have been drifting in and out of consciousness when the complainant was leaving his bedroom.

Counsel put it to Mr Jackson that his client says Mr Jackson was doing something with the woman while she performed oral sex on Mr McIlroy.

"That didn't happen," Mr Jackson said, adding: "He wasn't in the room".

He said he could think of no reason for Mr McIlroy to lie about being in the room.

------

My take is that is that the contradictory testimony of the defendants as well as the testimony of Florence created a sort of "fog of war" scenario. Ultimately the weight of having four different defendants with conflicting stories confused the hell out of the jury who basically didn't know what was what by the end of the trial and thus had to acquit on all counts.

That's quite a take Sid but they reached not guilty verdicts for all 4 defendants in four hours. Surely in the scenario you're desperately clinging to there would have been a long period of deliberation followed by a hung jury. The notion that you acquit multiple defendants because their lies are too conflicting and confusing despite having a strong belief in the complainant's evidence is insane. As David has said if they had any faith in the girl's evidence Mcillroy would have been convicted. There is zero to corroborate his story even from his fellow defendants and he came across very stongly as an arrogant bullshitter in the messages.

I'm honestly unsure if that last paragraph is a wind-up Sid as you surely can't believe it to be the case when the verdict was reached unanimously and so quickly.