The ulster rugby trial

[LooseCannon]

This could be a 100-pager.

Halfway there.

[north_antrim_hound]

If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Surely if they meet all 3 things then they will be convicted?

And calm down, half waiting on seeing you outside Lagan court with a banner ffs

You're the one making a fool of yourself with what you seem to think are subtle attempts at showing your contempt for the victim. Or maybe you don't realise what you're doing..

Syferus lets set the record straight, Ive dont give a shit either way, if they are not guilty or if they are guilty... If they are guilty then throw the book at them, if they are not then get get off with it, thats how the jury system works, not the Syferus system, were everyone is guilty regardless of the facts...

Now let that sink in... I'd say most people here dont give a toss either, they are just curious as it involves a sports star, I'm sure there was a dozen rape cases lately that no one has even said anything as it wasnt in the news like this one...

So get off your soap box and talk about the facts of the case rather than your notions

Ignore that self promoting dips..t. He had his colours pinned to one party weeks ago before anyone took the stand or evidence heard. I say the reason the  girl isn't getting her fair share of a neutral and balanced perspective on here is because he had it in for the defendants from the get go. Like any other post he try's to hijack and goes on some crusade when the only motive is to belittle and provoke the first one who takes the bait.

On the case the taxi drivers evidence today suggests a clearly upset girl and a possible cover up. Bad Situation the whole affair

[TabClear]

If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Don't think.anyone is suggesting a 3 some didn't take place.  Have seen no evidence as yet to suggest it wasn't consensual?

and equally no evidence to suggest it was

The difficulty the prosecution will have is the "Beyond reasonable doubt" proviso

[Kickham csc]

If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Don't think.anyone is suggesting a 3 some didn't take place.  Have seen no evidence as yet to suggest it wasn't consensual?

and equally no evidence to suggest it was

StGallsGAA

The woman at the centre of the case, while on the stand and under oath, said it wasn't consensual. That is evidence. She has maintained this stance under cross examination and looks like she was a compelling witness (no obvious contradictions, and wasn't caught lying)

So the defence has to now present evidence that it was consensual.

But evidence in the form of sworn testimony has been presented

[general_lee]

I've been half following matters and like has been mentioned before numerous times, it is difficult to get a tangible grasp on things unless you are actually present at proceedings.

The taxi driver clearly knew something was amiss, from what I gather, and knew straight away when the police came what it was about. If I'm reading it correctly, PJ denies having penetrative sex yet there is a witness stating that she definitely saw him with alleged victim in a "threesome" with Olding. Was it only today that the alleged victim became aware that PJ was denying having penetrative sex or have I picked things up wrong?

Also there was a rumour going around about the identity of the alleged victim but this individual has turned out to be the witness who walked in and saw the alleged rape.

[Avondhu star]

If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Don't think.anyone is suggesting a 3 some didn't take place.  Have seen no evidence as yet to suggest it wasn't consensual?

and equally no evidence to suggest it was

StGallsGAA

The woman at the centre of the case, while on the stand and under oath, said it wasn't consensual. That is evidence. She has maintained this stance under cross examination and looks like she was a compelling witness (no obvious contradictions, and wasn't caught lying)

So the defence has to now present evidence that it was consensual.

But evidence in the form of sworn testimony has been presented

Exactly. Prosecution witness has given sworn testimony anders been cross examined. The defence  will have thei chance to either put their clients in the witness box or let the case go to the jury without having their side heard under oath

[rosnarun]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

[gallsman]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

[gallsman]

And as for the judge, I don't know about the specific affiliations of the judge in this case but the legal and judicial systems in the north are dominated by Catholics.

[Keyser soze]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Please say this is a windup??

[Syferus]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Please say this is a windup??

He may not have said it in the best terms but there is a massive advantage that monied, famous people enjoy in the justice system and in rape cases that star power aided by cultural biases meaning they're even more likely to get off than they should be.

Make no mistake, if the prosecution and this woman can nail these frat boys it will have been a remarkable achievement and I would hope those here would have the sense to acknowledge it.

[brokencrossbar1]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

[Keyser soze]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Please say this is a windup??

He may not have said it in the best terms but there is a massive advantage that monied, famous people enjoy in the justice system and in rape cases that star power aided by cultural biases meaning they're even more likely to get off than they should be.

Make no mistake, if the prosecution and this woman can nail these frat boys it will have been a remarkable achievement and I would hope those here would have the sense to acknowledge it.

Oh right, wasn't aware that that was the case, is there a factual basis for your assertions that wealth or renown are factors in acquittals of people in rape cases in NI?

[sid waddell]

Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she "100% saw sex" between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to "sex" they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson's bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.

Why would you just cherry pick all the points that were helpful to the prosecution and completely ignore all the points that were helpful to the defence?

I think your Olding paragraph is absolute nonsense, but the rest is spot on and is indeed good for the prosecution. But you left out the other side, that while the witness did not see consent actively given, what she witnessed seemed consensual. And in now way was the girl frozen. She was actively given Olding oral, while his hands were by his side, so no physical force being used. And when the IP saw the witness, she did not yell for help that these two lads were raping here, instead she turned her head away to hide her face.

That's all very unhelpful for the prosecution, but as you said, if it really is PJ's story that he didn't penetrate, then that would seem to have been caught out as a lie. Doesn't make him guilty but severely questions his credibility. Goes to the earlier comments that saying nothing to the police would have been wiser, as the temptation to exaggerate or lie when being accused of something, if you thought it would help you (regardless of whether you are actually guilty or not), must be great.

It turns out the couch where Olding crashed out was upstairs, so I'll give him that one. Still think it's weird that he would decide to lie down beside a woman who was asleep and had vomited earlier. But anyway.

You assert that "in no way was the girl frozen. She was actively giving Olding oral".

Going by the testimony as reported, you're in no position to be able to make that assertion. The witness who walked in said there were "no signs" of the complainant positively consenting.

"Actively giving oral", as you put it, would be classified as a sign of positive consent.

The witness who walked in testified that in her opinion the complainant did not look distressed. That was only her assumption - she was not in a position to know whether the complainant was distressed or not, because she is not the complainant.

Given that the witness stated that there were no signs of positive consent, the witness is thus in no position to be able to assert that what went on was consensual.

The default position of any normal person who walks in on a sexual encounter is to assume that it is consensual, given that the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters are consensual. People don't walk in on a sexual encounter and think to themselves, David Brent like, "I think that looks like a rape", unless it is absolutely obvious.

What is clear from the witness's testimony is that her belief that the encounter she walked in on was consensual was based on that very default assumption that sex is consensual. It was not based on any "signs" or appearance - because she has stated "there were no signs of positive consent".

The witness's testimony is consistent with the complainant's story.

[gallsman]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have twats like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape