The ulster rugby trial

[seafoid]

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

[gallsman]

She was there because she accepted an invitation to go back. Nothing more to it. There has been no insinuation or suggestion that she was brought back there under duress.

Whether she, at that point, intended to kiss or ride Jackson or anyone else is irrelevant if she subsequently didn't consent.

[brokencrossbar1]

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!

Hi Brokencrossbar. All the discussion seems to be mostly about the two lads (for fairly obvious reasons), but where do you think Harrison stands? Reading as much evidence as is available to a member of public and trying to see it through the eyes of a juror, my stance is this. As I said before I'd be leaning towards the girl's testimony being more credible but not with enough conviction to convict so I'd have to go with a not guilty verdict for the pair. Also I'd be shocked if this is not the verdict.
But I'd be very frustrated with Harrison. A lot of the texts from him were not on court record and it is my understanding that in some cases this was a court decision but for others it's because the messages simply no longer exist. He looked to be on damage limitation duty right from the off, was clearly getting legal advice from his father very early but his phone was wiped long after the seriousness of the case was apparent. I'd regards those texts as extra evidence that could be crucial in building a clearer picture in order to arrive at a just decision and to say the least I'd be very very frustrated with him.

Harrison may or may not have had messages that could have helped or hindered the investigation but the thing is they are not part of the evidence so it is really immaterial. It is a real stretch to prove perverting the course of justice I think. It is a crime of specific intent and not reckless intent like some other crimes. He had to specifically have intended to pervert the course of justice. For all anyone knows he wiped his phone of messages as there were pictures of him riding a donkey up the Jacksie. We just don't know. His da is a solicitor. The injured parties uncle is a judge and cousin a solicitor. Was she coached by her family members to do things a certain way?  Quite possibly she was.

[Milltown Row2]

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

Over the last ten year, a huge proportion of members on this board have been students in the north, almost all of them male. I guarantee you at 19 years of age they'd absolutely have loved to be back in at a party with girls they didn't know after a night out. What danger were they in?

I didnt mention danger BTW

Girls or lads?

Girls, on a night out pissed and too drunk to really make the right choice and wake up regretting what happened

Lads, That someone they were having sex with decide that it wasnt sex the next day and said it was rape?

[gallsman]

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

Over the last ten year, a huge proportion of members on this board have been students in the north, almost all of them male. I guarantee you at 19 years of age they'd absolutely have loved to be back in at a party with girls they didn't know after a night out. What danger were they in?

I didnt mention danger BTW

Girls or lads?

Girls, on a night out pissed and too drunk to really make the right choice and wake up regretting what happened

Lads, That someone they were having sex with decide that it wasnt sex the next day and said it was rape?

That a frequent occurrence?

[AQMP]

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!

Hi Brokencrossbar. All the discussion seems to be mostly about the two lads (for fairly obvious reasons), but where do you think Harrison stands? Reading as much evidence as is available to a member of public and trying to see it through the eyes of a juror, my stance is this. As I said before I'd be leaning towards the girl's testimony being more credible but not with enough conviction to convict so I'd have to go with a not guilty verdict for the pair. Also I'd be shocked if this is not the verdict.
But I'd be very frustrated with Harrison. A lot of the texts from him were not on court record and it is my understanding that in some cases this was a court decision but for others it's because the messages simply no longer exist. He looked to be on damage limitation duty right from the off, was clearly getting legal advice from his father very early but his phone was wiped long after the seriousness of the case was apparent. I'd regards those texts as extra evidence that could be crucial in building a clearer picture in order to arrive at a just decision and to say the least I'd be very very frustrated with him.

Harrison may or may not have had messages that could have helped or hindered the investigation but the thing is they are not part of the evidence so it is really immaterial. It is a real stretch to prove perverting the course of justice I think. It is a crime of specific intent and not reckless intent like some other crimes. He had to specifically have intended to pervert the course of justice. For all anyone knows he wiped his phone of messages as there were pictures of him riding a donkey up the Jacksie. We just don't know. His da is a solicitor. The injured parties uncle is a judge and cousin a solicitor. Was she coached by her family members to do things a certain way?  Quite possibly she was.

I heard this too

[Milltown Row2]

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?

Yes I'd imagine it is, so its all about education, educate your daughters (and sons) as they grow up, if they make some mistakes as we all did, then hopefully they can deal with it and move on....

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

You give me far too much credit there MR2.  Some mistakes??...most weeks in my case!  Thank fcuk social media and CCTV wasn't around in my heyday!

I've a daughter in her mid-20s and of course I've given her advice and tips and told her to keep her wits about herself and to watch out etc.  Though a few years ago she did retort "Sure didn't you go out and go drinking when people were shooting each other and blowing each other up!".  My protestation that "That was different" fell on deaf ears!

My view is that if she ended up drunk at a party with people she didn't know very well or at all...and was attacked, I wouldn't consider her attendance at the party as the reason for her attack.  I'd be blaming whoever attacked her.

[/b]

Yes, totally blame anyone who has carried out a sexual attack, but only if they actually did, sexually attack them.. 

I've a 25 year son, and if he ever found himself going to a party with unknowns I'd be saying that your daft for doing that.. I'd been to plenty parties over the years that I'm glad my mum and dad didnt know, or my wife (then girlfriend) for that matter!! as they were in places during troubled times that a young catholic shouldnt have been in!

[Milltown Row2]

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

Over the last ten year, a huge proportion of members on this board have been students in the north, almost all of them male. I guarantee you at 19 years of age they'd absolutely have loved to be back in at a party with girls they didn't know after a night out. What danger were they in?

I didnt mention danger BTW

Girls or lads?

Girls, on a night out pissed and too drunk to really make the right choice and wake up regretting what happened

Lads, That someone they were having sex with decide that it wasnt sex the next day and said it was rape?

That a frequent occurrence?

I'm not sure, but its happened, what has the frequency of it mean? it only has to happen to you once for it to be a problem.. I'm not at the courts and wouldnt have the figures of rape cases that involve a, he said she said, no physical or witness evidenced based case..           

[gallsman]

What has frequency to do with it? Everything.

Say, for example, 0.1% of casual sexual encounters result in a false accusation of rape. That may be high, it may be low. I've no idea, but i suspect I'm being exceptionally generous. 1 in a thousand instances. You'd be warning your sons about the danger of it and sitting up at night worrying for them, waiting desperately for them to get home, just in case someone has accused them of rape?

[tiempo]

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?

Yes I'd imagine it is, so its all about education, educate your daughters (and sons) as they grow up, if they make some mistakes as we all did, then hopefully they can deal with it and move on....

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

You give me far too much credit there MR2.  Some mistakes??...most weeks in my case!  Thank fcuk social media and CCTV wasn't around in my heyday!

I've a daughter in her mid-20s and of course I've given her advice and tips and told her to keep her wits about herself and to watch out etc.  Though a few years ago she did retort "Sure didn't you go out and go drinking when people were shooting each other and blowing each other up!".  My protestation that "That was different" fell on deaf ears!

My view is that if she ended up drunk at a party with people she didn't know very well or at all...and was attacked, I wouldn't consider her attendance at the party as the reason for her attack.  I'd be blaming whoever attacked her.

[/b]

Yes, totally blame anyone who has carried out a sexual attack, but only if they actually did, sexually attack them.. 

I've a 25 year son, and if he ever found himself going to a party with unknowns I'd be saying that your daft for doing that.. I'd been to plenty parties over the years that I'm glad my mum and dad didnt know, or my wife (then girlfriend) for that matter!! as they were in places during troubled times that a young catholic shouldnt have been in!

If you had your time again would you go there or be square?

[passedit]

Maybe all the 'she was asking for it' merchants with the advice for their daughters would be better advising their sons not to be complete scumbags around women maybe?

On the trial, my opinion is this would never have come to court if Jackson had claimed consensual sex. The fact that he claimed not to have had sex at all and was proved to be lying sinks him for me, but I'm only going on what's been reported from the trial. Of the rest of them, Olding would be the hardest for me to convict, not because he's anything other than a sc**bag but there isn't enough evidence (I wonder what happened to his clothes/ the girl on the settee) Harrison guilty for me, telling someone not to bring his phone to the interview then wiping his own? Not buying his story at all.

[Milltown Row2]

What has frequency to do with it? Everything.

Say, for example, 0.1% of casual sexual encounters result in a false accusation of rape. That may be high, it may be low. I've no idea, but i suspect I'm being exceptionally generous. 1 in a thousand instances. You'd be warning your sons about the danger of it and sitting up at night worrying for them, waiting desperately for them to get home, just in case someone has accused them of rape?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFTRwD85AQ4

[Milltown Row2]

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?

Yes I'd imagine it is, so its all about education, educate your daughters (and sons) as they grow up, if they make some mistakes as we all did, then hopefully they can deal with it and move on....

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

You give me far too much credit there MR2.  Some mistakes??...most weeks in my case!  Thank fcuk social media and CCTV wasn't around in my heyday!

I've a daughter in her mid-20s and of course I've given her advice and tips and told her to keep her wits about herself and to watch out etc.  Though a few years ago she did retort "Sure didn't you go out and go drinking when people were shooting each other and blowing each other up!".  My protestation that "That was different" fell on deaf ears!

My view is that if she ended up drunk at a party with people she didn't know very well or at all...and was attacked, I wouldn't consider her attendance at the party as the reason for her attack.  I'd be blaming whoever attacked her.

[/b]

Yes, totally blame anyone who has carried out a sexual attack, but only if they actually did, sexually attack them.. 

I've a 25 year son, and if he ever found himself going to a party with unknowns I'd be saying that your daft for doing that.. I'd been to plenty parties over the years that I'm glad my mum and dad didnt know, or my wife (then girlfriend) for that matter!! as they were in places during troubled times that a young catholic shouldnt have been in!

If you had your time again would you go there or be square?

Yes, i'd proabaly make the same mistakes, drink in, wit out!

[Hound]

Maybe all the 'she was asking for it' merchants with the advice for their daughters would be better advising their sons not to be complete scumbags around women maybe?

On the trial, my opinion is this would never have come to court if Jackson had claimed consensual sex. The fact that he claimed not to have had sex at all and was proved to be lying sinks him for me, but I'm only going on what's been reported from the trial. Of the rest of them, Olding would be the hardest for me to convict, not because he's anything other than a sc**bag but there isn't enough evidence (I wonder what happened to his clothes/ the girl on the settee) Harrison guilty for me, telling someone not to bring his phone to the interview then wiping his own? Not buying his story at all.

Both said in court that nothing happened. She said she vomited and fell asleep. He said he lay down beside her and fell asleep. He said that she was under a blanket and he stayed over the blanket.

[Over the Bar]

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