The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Link

Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 01:29:41 PM
I see Jackson story is he didn't have penetrative sex with the girl and just used his hand - surely this would be easy to prove if the normal procedures where followed when she reported rape in the next few days?

Did i miss something?

I thought the report today was that he denied that anything happened when speaking to a 3rd girl who was interviewed today. i.e. not the accuser or the woman who opened the door to the room.

Asal Mor

Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 01:46:11 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 01:22:37 PM
[
I've no doubt that going no comment is the best course of action for anyone accused of anything under the current system.

I would strongly disagree. The right to silence has been greatly eroded over recent years and the level of inference that can be properly drawn has increased dramatically. There are plenty of times when no comment is still the best option but there's at least as many if not more when it is not.
I made a sweeping statement that was pretty dumb.

I think silence should be viewed as suspicious in this case if it turns out that the men went no comment.

Syferus

#632
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 13, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're not informed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Lads, this isn't Soviet Russia and the court case is being reported by multiple outlets with little to no discrepancies that I'm aware of. This idea of news reports being untrustworthy has leaked into this thread a few times with a bunch of head-nodding like the above greeting it, yet the salient point of the reporting being quite accurate seems to not be made as vociferously. I wonder why?

Looks like the witness was a total damp squib for the folks hoping it would get the frat boys off the hook - what will the next thing they latch onto be? Not looking good for them..

Hardy

Quote from: Avondhu star on February 13, 2018, 01:38:11 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 13, 2018, 12:51:54 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 11:16:54 AM... it amazes me that people actually would push for people to be put in a position where they can self incriminate themselves. This is not a fact finding mission unfortunately, this is justice and seeing that justice is done. Justice works on the presumption of innocence and while that is the bedrock of the legal system a defendant will never be compelled to give evidence.

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:30:20 AM
... silence would indeed raise serious questions about whether they have something to hide ...

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 12:09:00 PM
Not giving information at an interview is good advice ...

This does not mean I believe they are innocent Syferus and others who do think they are guilty..

NEVER talk to the police

Bullshit comment.
So if the police arrest you and question regarding a crime at a certain location and time you say nothing. Despite the fact that you were in a location 100 miles away at the time and there are witnesses and CCTV to support your story.
You deserve to be kept in custody for that type of stupidity

Watch the video and repeat that comment.

People mistakenly believe the role of the prosecutor is to secure justice. It is not. It is to secure convictions. People can be falsely convicted in circumstances similar to those you describe. For example.

And, by the way, why not try to be a little less uncouth in your contributions here?

Asal Mor

Most of what is reported are direct transcripts of what was said which wouldn't seem to leave much room for inaccuracy or interpretation though obviously we're not told every word that was said either.

I thought the underwear being shown to the court was under-reported. I only saw it on Frank Greaney's twitter feed. Can't see any justification for it. Humiliating and irrelevant , assuming it's true of course.

gallsman

Quote from: screenexile on February 13, 2018, 01:16:49 PM
Quote from: Itchy on February 13, 2018, 01:12:01 PM
Is anyone else uncomfortable reading the grilling that girl is getting today? I know the defence have to ask questions but it seems a very aggressive line today. I dont know how people work as barristers, dont think I could prey on a poor unfortunate person like they do. Smacks of deperation to me from the defence as the risk the girl now getting sympathy for the attack from jurors.

That was the prosecuting barrister who's on her side!!

This is a common mistake - the prosecution is not "on her side". It's the state that is prosecuting them. The prosecution barristers will rake get over the coals as much as the defense ones of it helps them secure the conviction.

AZOffaly

Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 02:38:36 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 13, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're not informed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Lads, this isn't Soviet Russia and the court case is being reported by multiple outlets with little to no discrepancies that I'm aware of. This idea of news reports being untrustworthy has leaked into this thread a few times with a bunch of head-nodding like the above greeting it, yet the salient point of the reporting being quite accurate seems to not be made as vociferously. I wonder why?

Looks like the witness was a total damp squib for the folks hoping it would get the frat boys off the hook - what will the next thing they latch onto be? Not looking good for them..

Why do you say that Syf? I haven't seen anything? The person refuting Paddy Jackson is the alleged victim, so I'd expect her to do so. The other witness I've seen said that she didn't see into the room, but her friend did and said 'I've seen a threesome'. Sure isn't that what they are saying?

WT4E

Looks like the case has took a major twist.

I said I wouldn't make up my mind until the end but starting to form an opinion now!!!!

AZOffaly

Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 03:06:23 PM
Looks like the case has took a major twist.

I said I wouldn't make up my mind until the end but starting to form an opinion now!!!!

?? What am I missing? All I see is a girl saying she didn't feel threatened, she didn't see in to the room, but her friend said in a jokey fashion I've seen a threesome.

Is there something else?

spuds

Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 01:29:41 PM
I see Jackson story is he didn't have penetrative sex with the girl and just used his hand - surely this would be easy to prove if the normal procedures where followed when she reported rape in the next few days?

Was it Jackson who said they were "top shaggers"?
"As I get older I notice the years less and the seasons more."
John Hubbard

WT4E

I'm still not sure to be honest but is Jackson not saying they didn't have penetrative sex and this witness is saying she saw him thrusting into her?

Syferus

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:03:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 02:38:36 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 13, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're not informed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Lads, this isn't Soviet Russia and the court case is being reported by multiple outlets with little to no discrepancies that I'm aware of. This idea of news reports being untrustworthy has leaked into this thread a few times with a bunch of head-nodding like the above greeting it, yet the salient point of the reporting being quite accurate seems to not be made as vociferously. I wonder why?

Looks like the witness was a total damp squib for the folks hoping it would get the frat boys off the hook - what will the next thing they latch onto be? Not looking good for them..

Why do you say that Syf? I haven't seen anything? The person refuting Paddy Jackson is the alleged victim, so I'd expect her to do so. The other witness I've seen said that she didn't see into the room, but her friend did and said 'I've seen a threesome'. Sure isn't that what they are saying?

Like I said was likely, she stumbled on the event and didn't spend long gawking. What's the difference between a gang rape and a threesome when you peak into a room for a second?

Deliciously, the witness also confirmed the victim wasn't terribly drunk in the house, which undermines massively what the defendants lawyers were trying to insinuate for the last two weeks.

Dinny Breen

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:08:02 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 03:06:23 PM
Looks like the case has took a major twist.

I said I wouldn't make up my mind until the end but starting to form an opinion now!!!!

?? What am I missing? All I see is a girl saying she didn't feel threatened, she didn't see in to the room, but her friend said in a jokey fashion I've seen a threesome.

Is there something else?

Follow Frank Greaney on Twitter.
#newbridgeornowhere

Itchy

Quote from: screenexile on February 13, 2018, 01:16:49 PM
Quote from: Itchy on February 13, 2018, 01:12:01 PM
Is anyone else uncomfortable reading the grilling that girl is getting today? I know the defence have to ask questions but it seems a very aggressive line today. I dont know how people work as barristers, dont think I could prey on a poor unfortunate person like they do. Smacks of deperation to me from the defence as the risk the girl now getting sympathy for the attack from jurors.

That was the prosecuting barrister who's on her side!!

No its not. I'm referring to the grilling about her "creating a narrative" which was from the defense.

screenexile

Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:10:29 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:03:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 02:38:36 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 13, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're not informed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Lads, this isn't Soviet Russia and the court case is being reported by multiple outlets with little to no discrepancies that I'm aware of. This idea of news reports being untrustworthy has leaked into this thread a few times with a bunch of head-nodding like the above greeting it, yet the salient point of the reporting being quite accurate seems to not be made as vociferously. I wonder why?

Looks like the witness was a total damp squib for the folks hoping it would get the frat boys off the hook - what will the next thing they latch onto be? Not looking good for them..

Why do you say that Syf? I haven't seen anything? The person refuting Paddy Jackson is the alleged victim, so I'd expect her to do so. The other witness I've seen said that she didn't see into the room, but her friend did and said 'I've seen a threesome'. Sure isn't that what they are saying?

Like I said was likely, she stumbled on the event and didn't spend long gawking. What's the difference between a gang rape and a threesome when you peak into a room for a second?

Deliciously, the witness also confirmed the victim wasn't terribly drunk in the house, which undermines massively what the defendants lawyers were trying to insinuate for the last two weeks.

Strange language to be using in this context!! The victim herself has already said numerous times her recollection is hazy.

We pretty much expected this is what the witness would say it doesn't change much. Jackson says he didn't actually penetrate the girl yet the witness doesn't appear to have been asked about it?!