The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

sid waddell

Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

But it's far, far harder, almost impossible, for a witness in such a situation to determine whether what they have seen is consensual or rape than to determine whether intercourse was occurring.

That is because the majority of rape victims do not "fight" or scream.

A witness cannot know what the complainant is feeling.

In such a scenario they will always revert to a presumption that what is going on is consensual.

You don't walk in on such a scenario and immediately think "rape".

Determining whether intercourse is occurring is a much simpler task.

Even the slightest non-consensual penile penetration (ie. it doesn't have to be what one would commonly imagine as penetration) is still rape, by the way.


sid waddell

Quote from: screenexile on April 03, 2018, 10:59:09 AM
So Craig Gilroy is in the dock now for a comment he made on a whatsapp group?

Whatever about not liking somebody or their misogyny I'm pretty sure you can't stop people from working just because they are a dick!!
Given what I read at the weekend, I'd say there's a fair chance this could end up in a lawsuit between Jackson and the IRFU.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

But it's far, far harder, almost impossible, for a witness in such a situation to determine whether what they have seen is consensual or rape than to determine whether intercourse was occurring.

That is because the majority of rape victims do not "fight" or scream.

A witness cannot know what the complainant is feeling.

In such a scenario they will always revert to a presumption that what is going on is consensual.

You don't walk in on such a scenario and immediately think "rape".

Determining whether intercourse is occurring is a much simpler task.

Even the slightest non-consensual penile penetration (ie. it doesn't have to be what one would commonly imagine as penetration) is still rape, by the way.

And thats why the jury decide, not you. in all the evidence they heard they came up with the not guilty of rape verdict..

None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

sid waddell

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 12:09:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

But it's far, far harder, almost impossible, for a witness in such a situation to determine whether what they have seen is consensual or rape than to determine whether intercourse was occurring.

That is because the majority of rape victims do not "fight" or scream.

A witness cannot know what the complainant is feeling.

In such a scenario they will always revert to a presumption that what is going on is consensual.

You don't walk in on such a scenario and immediately think "rape".

Determining whether intercourse is occurring is a much simpler task.

Even the slightest non-consensual penile penetration (ie. it doesn't have to be what one would commonly imagine as penetration) is still rape, by the way.

And thats why the jury decide, not you. in all the evidence they heard they came up with the not guilty of rape verdict..

And your point is?

Milltown Row2

The trial is over and your point is pointless!
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

sid waddell

So, as ever, you don't have any point to make. Thanks.

BennyCake

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

longballin

Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

aye shame we can't abuse women and keep our feet on their necks without all this fuss

magpie seanie

Quote from: longballin on April 03, 2018, 02:45:30 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

aye shame we can't abuse women and keep our feet on their necks without all this fuss

+1  ::)

Milltown Row2

Quote from: longballin on April 03, 2018, 02:45:30 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

aye shame we can't abuse women and keep our feet on their necks without all this fuss


Allowing them the right to vote is were it all went wrong
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Orior

Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

I don't think the protests do any harm, and if it helps people vent their anger then all well and good. It might also remind people to do the right thing next time they're out on the pull.

Protests in the occupied six are a waste of time, unless they are about civil rights or about flegs on the city hall. The brits will continue to pay more per head to 6 county occupants than what brummies or scousers get. That is, until the english finally catch on.
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians

BennyCake

Quote from: Orior on April 03, 2018, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

I don't think the protests do any harm, and if it helps people vent their anger then all well and good. It might also remind people to do the right thing next time they're out on the pull.

Protests in the occupied six are a waste of time, unless they are about civil rights or about flegs on the city hall. The brits will continue to pay more per head to 6 county occupants than what brummies or scousers get. That is, until the english finally catch on.

But these protests indicate the men are to blame. Fact is, jury found them not guilty. Case closed. That's the end of it.

magpie seanie

Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 03, 2018, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

I don't think the protests do any harm, and if it helps people vent their anger then all well and good. It might also remind people to do the right thing next time they're out on the pull.

Protests in the occupied six are a waste of time, unless they are about civil rights or about flegs on the city hall. The brits will continue to pay more per head to 6 county occupants than what brummies or scousers get. That is, until the english finally catch on.

But these protests indicate the men are to blame. Fact is, jury found them not guilty. Case closed. That's the end of it.

Have you any idea of the amount of violence, sexual or otherwise, that is perpetrated against mainly women that goes unreported all the time?

Also - you do understand that not being convicted doesn't mean everything was fine. Far from it.

longballin

Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 03, 2018, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

I don't think the protests do any harm, and if it helps people vent their anger then all well and good. It might also remind people to do the right thing next time they're out on the pull.

Protests in the occupied six are a waste of time, unless they are about civil rights or about flegs on the city hall. The brits will continue to pay more per head to 6 county occupants than what brummies or scousers get. That is, until the english finally catch on.

But these protests indicate the men are to blame. Fact is, jury found them not guilty. Case closed. That's the end of it.

Case also highlighted the attitude of these 'men' to women and the treatment of women in courts who make accusations. It has opened a huge can. It ain't the end of it as much as you might like it to be. 

BennyCake

A few macho texts doesn't mean they are guilty.