The ulster rugby trial

[tonto1888]

I don't understand how someone who has been charged with a crime and is being prosecuted for it cant be called by the prosecution. Can someone try and explain it?

[magpie seanie]

Looks like the defence QC had another bad day today with the alleged victims friend. Odd line of questioning.

[smelmoth]

I don't understand how someone who has been charged with a crime and is being prosecuted for it cant be called by the prosecution. Can someone try and explain it?

Nobody can be compelled to give evidence against themselves

[HiMucker]

I don't understand how someone who has been charged with a crime and is being prosecuted for it cant be called by the prosecution. Can someone try and explain it?

I think one of the legal eagles on here explained it.  Our whole justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty.  The burden of proof  is on the prosecution to determine you are guilty.  Not you to prove that you are innocent. 

[smelmoth]

The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.

The defense team has already blundered in the questioning of the woman witness, there is now a witness who clearly contradicts  Paddy Jackson in an important aspect  (albeit not crucial)  of his statement.
Seeing as Paddy's lawyer emphasised  very clearly in court Paddy's version of that event and got shot down by the witness, it would look very poorly if PJ does not take the stand and defend himself.

The opposite inference is usually drawn. Typically the defendant will not take the stand.

Remember the defendant is only there to rebut the prosecution case. Therefore if they contend that the prosecution case isn't strong enough they don't take stand. And if they do take the stand they will only be allowed to rebut the prosecution case. If they veer off into putting forward alternative stories or unconnected positive images of themselves they will get pulled up by the judge and that plays badly with a jury

I would have thought that the witness who shot down the defence lawyers question (re penetration sex) was strong enough to question the credibility of PJ´s statement,  as it stands now PJ's statement has a significant unbelievable factor. But perhaps the defence team will try to repair that in other ways.

Shot down??

Did she say she had a clear view of penetrative sex by PJ?

[gallsman]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

[Orchard park]

The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.

Lawyer friend told me that PJ just submitted a written statement, didn't do a police interview.

Makes it strange that he would deny the act.  I wonder did he have a gf and if that influenced his statement!?

think he has bigger worries now than a girlfriend

[smelmoth]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

And does that "shoot down" the defendants contention that he did not penetrate her with his penis?

[magpie seanie]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

And does that "shoot down" the defendants contention that he did not penetrate her with his penis?

It contradicts his evidence and corroborates the alleged victims evidence. I'd say that's unwelcome for the defence to put it mildly.

[johnneycool]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

[smelmoth]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

And does that "shoot down" the defendants contention that he did not penetrate her with his penis?

It contradicts his evidence and corroborates the alleged victims evidence. I'd say that's unwelcome for the defence to put it mildly.

Unwelcome we can agree on but contradicts I think not.

The defendant did not say there was zero sexual activity. I think he admits to a specific act. He denies penetrating her vagina with his penis. The witness in the room did not offer anything definite to deny this. Her evidence seems to be confined to the area of consent. The case is about consent. I would think that the specific defendant would have preferred her to give a clear statement confirming his contention about t penetration ( which the case is not about) but would be happy with her evidence on the issue of consent (which the case is about)

[smelmoth]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?

[brokencrossbar1]

The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.

Lawyer friend told me that PJ just submitted a written statement, didn't do a police interview.

Makes it strange that he would deny the act.  I wonder did he have a gf and if that influenced his statement!?

Knowing who his Solicitors are that's exactly what I would have expected and exactly what should have been done. I think I said that was the likely situation and the statement would contain his denials of the allegations and that if he had sex it was fully consensual. That is the only way you deal with this type of an allegation.

[gallsman]

The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.

Lawyer friend told me that PJ just submitted a written statement, didn't do a police interview.

Makes it strange that he would deny the act.  I wonder did he have a gf and if that influenced his statement!?

think he has bigger worries now than a girlfriend

Of course he does. That's not the topic though - if he had sex with her (as at least two people have claimed, one of them accusing him of rape) why would he lie about it to police? Maybe because he was a young lad who panicked, who knows? I can't imagine Jackson ever spent much time in police stations growing up or had much reason to ever suspect he'd face going to prison. Who knows how he'd react when suddenly faced with that?

[gallsman]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?

It doesn't "prove" anything. It is highly suggestive of something. It's up for jury to decide if Jackson thrusting at her from behind, naked, was penetrating her or just doing a bit of dry humping at the time.

Given Jackson's position is that all he did was consensually "digitally penetrate" her, it hardly looks good though, does it?