The ulster rugby trial

Started by caprea, February 01, 2018, 11:45:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

magpie seanie

Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

If you tell lies it looks like you're hiding something. That's why. Why not tell the truth?

Hound

Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

Sorry, are you saying that the fact that Jackson lied about whether he had full penetrative sex or not with an alleged rape victim, is neither here nor there in terms of the case?
I'm saying I believe Jackson had sex.
I'm saying the fact that he lied about that doesn't mean he raped her.

AQMP

Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:39:51 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.



Another false equivalence.

She made an incorrect assertion to a doctor and corrected it for her police statement, did she not? Calling it a lie is a bit harsh.....I'm sure she wasn't under caution in the rape crisis centre. She was also pretty traumatised at the time - there is supporting evidence from several parties to confirm this - so I think she can be forgiven in the light of all these matters and her otherwise very believable and consistent evidence.

No such mitigating circumstances exist for Jackson (or Olding). Olding's clothes never recovered either. People might say they panicked when the accusations were in the offing so at best they've stupidly made up some lies which I think is a crime anyway.

Police statements tomorrow including recordings of defendants.
Like I said, I agree that the defendant's lie or incorrect assertion has little relevance to the substance of the case. But unlike you, I think Jackson's lie is similar. He also would have been under severe stress when he made his statement, and perhaps (wrongly) thought that because he hadn't "finished" that embellishing his story with an "incorrect assertion" might help his case.

Police statements will be interesting alright.

So he thought it would be a good strategy to lie to the police?  Isn't that what guilty people usually do? ;)

Hound

Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:50:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

If you tell lies it looks like you're hiding something. That's why. Why not tell the truth?
Indeed, it doesn't help him.
But like you said, just because the woman lied to the doctor doesn't mean she was hiding something. Why not tell the truth?

As I said, I would guess Jackson told the lie because he thought there would be no physical evidence against him as he didnt finish and he thought this embellishment would help his case. Instead it's completely backfired for him, and I'd guess makes it more likely that he will take the stand. But absolutely that lie does not make him guilty.

AQMP

Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:50:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

Sorry, are you saying that the fact that Jackson lied about whether he had full penetrative sex or not with an alleged rape victim, is neither here nor there in terms of the case?
I'm saying I believe Jackson had sex.
I'm saying the fact that he lied about that doesn't mean he raped her.

But it does impact on his credibility.  If he lied about this, what else did he lie about?

Taylor

Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:50:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

If you tell lies it looks like you're hiding something. That's why. Why not tell the truth?

Much the same as why say Olding had intercourse with you to one party but then say he didnt to another party?

Hound

Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:49:56 PM

Well, regarding the "mess", Olding might have to explain, if he ejaculated on his stomach and went to the bathroom to clean up (as he has stated), how did the semen get on three items of the victim's clothing.

You really think every last drop will go exactly where he aimed?

Would some not have got onto her, and maybe she (inadvertantly or not) wiped it off? What was on her clothes was traces rather the huge amounts I believe. Again, not sure what the implications are either way?!

Frank_The_Tank

Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:42:20 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 21, 2018, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 21, 2018, 03:26:24 PM
I wonder how the coppers couldn't find Oldings clothing from the night in question!

perhaps he was getting them dry cleaned.  He may have changed from clothes he was wearing on night out in his parents house as an example. I dont think finding his clothes from the night in question would be massively telling for either the prosecution or defence

Is that what he said happened??

I don't know what he said happened - I was just speculating - don't think I read anywhere where they said what he said - just that the police searched the house and couldn't find them - I was giving two reasons they could not have been there.  Of course, another could have been that he took them and burned them but like I say I don't know and not sure if it was told in court - I'm sure like me everyone here is reading 2nd hand reports on the trial and isn't int the court every day
Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

Minder

This was today, for Syferus, who seems to think why would anyone say they were raped if it wasn't true 

Man cleared of raping teenage boy in Belfast Falls Park


A 40-year old father of two has been acquitted of raping a teenage boy in west Belfast's Falls Park.
Gerard Scannell faced four charges arising from an alleged sex attack against the boy, who was 16 at the time.
The teenager claimed he was dragged into bushes and raped in July 2016.
However, after it emerged on Wednesday that the Crown would not be proceeding with the case, Mr Scannell was found "not guilty by direction of the court".
Mr Scannell, who is originally from Ballymurphy Road, but who was living at an undisclosed bail address in another area of Belfast, was charged with three counts of rape and of sexually assaulting the teenager.
'I'm going home'
The painter and decorator spent about 100 days on remand as well as being unable to return to west Belfast as a result of the allegations, which he consistently denied.
A trial which opened at Belfast Crown Court last month had to be aborted after the alleged injured party refused to continue with his evidence.
During his cross-examination, the teenager got up mid-question and said: "I'm going home".
A retrial was due to commence on Wednesday, but after a jury was sworn in, Judge Geoffrey Miller QC was told that the Crown would not be offering any evidence in the case.
As a result, Mr Scannell was acquitted on all four charges.
Judge Miller told the jury: "A trial was commenced some weeks ago and had to be adjourned mid-way though evidence being given.
"As a result of matters which arose at that time, the prosecution reviewed the nature and quality of the evidence in the case, and reached a determination that the test for prosecution is no longer met."
Telling the jury that Mr Scannell was entitled to a not guilty verdict, Judge Miller directed them to return that verdict.
When Mr Scannell was told he was free to go, his family applauded in the public gallery, and he was hugged as he left the court.
'My life has been destroyed'
Speaking afterwards, Mr Scannell said: "Since July 2016, I have faced unbearable anguish, removal from my home and family, and have spent some of this time in prison.
"I am both grateful and relieved to have been found not guilty of these allegations, some two years later."
He added: "My life has been destroyed over the last two years. I have been removed from my family and community - but I hope now to be able to rebuild my life and return to my community, with the help of my family.
"I will be forever grateful to all who supported me through this difficult process. I am also thankful to my legal team, and my faith in the legal process has been restored.
"I hope now, with the help of my family, to regain my standing within society and my own community."





"When it's too tough for them, it's just right for us"

gallsman

Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:52:41 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?
That's not evidence!
That's just saying no resistance doesn't necessarily mean no rape.

You seem to be reading it as No Resistance = Rape!

You can't have a civilised conversation around here.
Seriously?
I thought you said this was crucial piece of evidence for the prosecution. Apologies if I misread

Given that you're the one completely fabricating stories today, you'll have up forgive anyone who gets a bit fed up with you when your fail to understand an opinion and then compound your own stupidity by incorrectly summarising said opinion.

Hound

Quote from: gallsman on February 21, 2018, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:52:41 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?
That's not evidence!
That's just saying no resistance doesn't necessarily mean no rape.

You seem to be reading it as No Resistance = Rape!

You can't have a civilised conversation around here.
Seriously?
I thought you said this was crucial piece of evidence for the prosecution. Apologies if I misread

Given that you're the one completely fabricating stories today, you'll have up forgive anyone who gets a bit fed up with you when your fail to understand an opinion and then compound your own stupidity by incorrectly summarising said opinion.

I held hands up straight away, apologised, corrected what I said.

He said it was a "pretty important piece of evidence given by the defence doctor" and "to me, that's crucial".

gallsman

You did, to your credit.

Doesn't explain how on earth you came up with it in the first place. The only logical assumption is that you invented it due to your own prejudiced view of the proceedings.

Hound

Interesting comments on the blood from the doctor today (from Greaney's twitter):

Yesterday, Dr. Lavery told the trial he saw a 1cm bleeding laceration (tear) on the complainant's vaginal wall. Court heard he took a video recording of it. The defence's medical witness has watched the video.

She said: "I didn't see the injury, I saw a pool of blood and didn't see where that blood was coming from. I would have liked to have seen the injury and the blood being swabbed away so I could identify the injury."

After reflecting overnight, she said she would have been concerned that a lesion was still bleeding after 14 hours. She said if was still visible, she would have been thinking "how do I stop it?"

She tells the court bleeding injuries are not common in these cases and that she would have been left with the question "could it still be menstrual?"

Doctor says if injury (tear to vaginal wall) was caused by the excessive force of a penis, she would have expected other external structures to be injured as well.

Hound

Quote from: gallsman on February 21, 2018, 04:38:39 PM
You did, to your credit.

Doesn't explain how on earth you came up with it in the first place. The only logical assumption is that you invented it due to your own prejudiced view of the proceedings.
That was my honest recollection of what I read in the Irish Times the following day. I was surprised when I saw people questioning it and got googling immediately.

I'm not prejudiced, but I do find it very hard to see what Olding did wrong.

Jackson, I'm less sure about, but haven't seen evidence yet that would make me vote Guilty.

trailer

Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.