The ulster rugby trial

[OgraAnDun]

Harry & Meaghan in Belfast today.  Possible late character witness??

Meaghan is going to give all the Barristers a run down on how to do their jobs. She works for a law firm, Pearson Specter Litt.

I think that is outrageous, sure she hasn't been in court for the whole proceedings and is probably only following the same bits n bobs as the rest of us. Also she us surely only qualified as a lawyer in the US whuch has completely different laws and procedures than in this wee country.

🎣

Sure she's only a paralegal. Hasn't even finished her degree. Outrageous.

[AQMP]

On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.

That seems incredible to me. So basically if an accused gets off because of insufficient evidence, the person who destroys possible evidence is not guilty of a crime, because the accused was not convicted (because of insufficient evidence).

Note: I was talking in general and not necessarily specifically about this case

I see what you mean, but maybe that's why he has two charges against him (number 5 and 6). If the lads are not guilty, then Harrison must be not guilty of Charge 6, but he can still be guilty of Charge 5

Charge 5: Perverting the course of justice:

The prosecution must prove 3 things beyond reasonable doubt:
1) on a date between 27/06/16 and 1/07/16 Rory Harrison made a witness statement in which he lied about his dealings with the woman or deliberately omitted information in the statement relevant to the police
2) the lie or omission had a tendency to pervert the course of justice
3) that Rory Harrison intended to pervert the court of justice

Charge 6: Withholding information about a crime he knew or believe had been committed (so for this one, it seems that no crime means no charge to answer)

Yeah, that looks like it makes sense Hound, thanks.

[Avondhu star]

Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

Judge is giving them direction today . . . going over how they should make their decision important points of evidence etc.

Looks like they deliberating will start on Monday/Tuesday.

Could be a good night in Ollies on Wednesday so.
Extra cocktail sausages being ordered

[general_lee]

Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

Judge is giving them direction today . . . going over how they should make their decision important points of evidence etc.

Looks like they deliberating will start on Monday/Tuesday.

Could be a good night in Ollies on Wednesday so.
Extra cocktail sausages being ordered

You'll be in your element

[seafoid]

Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

Judge is giving them direction today . . . going over how they should make their decision important points of evidence etc.

Looks like they deliberating will start on Monday/Tuesday.

Could be a good night in Ollies on Wednesday so.
Extra cocktail sausages being ordered

McIlroy will be on sausage rolls

[David McKeown]

My understanding is that only the Acteus Reus of the offence need be committed but I'd need to look that up. Be interesting to see if there's any requisitions come Monday

[AQMP]

My understanding is that only the Acteus Reus of the offence need be committed but I'd need to look that up. Be interesting to see if there's any requisitions come Monday

Are you referring to Harrison's charges David. Also what do you mean by requisitions??

[David McKeown]

Sorry yes I meant Harrison's charges. Requisitions are when the prosecution or the defence at the end of the Judge's charge raise issues that may have arisen during the charge. Such as an error in summing up or on the legal direction given. If necessary the jury will then be recalled and the error corrected or clarified.

[AQMP]

Sorry yes I meant Harrison's charges. Requisitions are when the prosecution or the defence at the end of the Judge's charge raise issues that may have arisen during the charge. Such as an error in summing up or on the legal direction given. If necessary the jury will then be recalled and the error corrected or clarified.

Thanks for that David.

[Over the Bar]

Is Syferus on holidays???

[Asal Mor]

If you had an 18/19 year old daughter, would you not warn her about the dangers of drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers?

If you had a pro rugby playing son would you not warn him about the dangers of drinking too much and what might happen with strangers ?

The last of the people who lived on the Blasket islands was given advice by his father when he left

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7gw78SWlNw
at 4.12

he didn't mention spit roasting

Of course I would seafoid. I don't have a son though so am looking at it from the other pov. If they raped her they're 100% responsible for that. That's so obvious it shouldn't need to be stated. It doesn't mean there aren't lessons to be learned or that every decision the girl made that evening was spot on.

[Asal Mor]

I do get the point that you need not put yourself in dodgy situations, *however* this was a house party in a nice area with a couple of well known sports stars. She wasn't exactly walking down the Falls singing the Sash and throwing petrol bombs at the houses.

My instinct on this is that the girl was attracted to Jackson, probably went with him, but at some point began to get uncomfortable and things, or the lads, were too far gone to row back. I don't believe this will translate into a guilty verdict.

This might well be what happened which I think supports my point about warning your daughter against going to a house full of strangers.

Victim blaming. Again. It happened because she put herself in a dangerous situation. Rather than, you know, the lads might be rapists. You're f**king pathetic.

Resort to stock phrases like "victim blaming" and personal abuse because your argument doesn't stand up. We're debating whether we should warn our teenage daughters about getting into situations like this. AZ says he thinks that the girl got herself into a situation she couldn't get herself out of. I say that supports my point that maybe it's the kind of situation we should advise our daughters against getting into. It doesn't in any way take away from their crimes if they did rape her. It doesn't make the girl in any way responsible, it just means that others can learn from what happened.

An as for being pathetic, I would say that firing out personal insults in an aggressive tone on an anonymous Internet forum is the definition of that.

[gallsman]

There you go again. She got herself into "this situation". There was no "situation" until she was allegedly raped.

[Asal Mor]

Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?

How do they define "know or are acquainted with"? The girl had been drinking with Jackson and his friends so I think might have fitted into the 90% rather than the 10% (if she was raped that is, from what I've heard I believe she consented).

[Asal Mor]

"Got herself into a situation" were my words not AZs obviously. I don't want to misrepresent anyone.