The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Avondhu star

Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 05:09:40 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 04:37:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.
I would say that if her comments re 100% seeing sex are accepted then her comments re not seeing distress or no consent must be accepted.

Why? One is clearly more subjective than the other.
Agreed but will a 9/3 male female jury be as forensic in deliberation
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

Avondhu star

Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
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?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?

"dry humping" requires clothing to be between the flesh contact. Check out Charleton Commission
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

Esmarelda

Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
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?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?
I don't have any statistics but I'd say if a heterosexual man is naked and a naked lady is in the position that this lady is alleged to have been in then the man is much, much, much more likely to have intercourse with her than to "dry hump" her. Now maybe the jury and the world at large think differently and maybe someone will give evidence of Jackson's love for dry humping. I doubt it though. If dry humping was his thing, he'd probably keep his clothes on, in case he got accused of rape or something.

longballin

Trial and comments here affirm my original comment... better if possible to sort it out yourself with a baseball bat rather than this retrauma and intrusion

Esmarelda

Quote from: hardstation on February 16, 2018, 02:17:57 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 12:56:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
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?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?
I don't have any statistics but I'd say if a heterosexual man is naked and a naked lady is in the position that this lady is alleged to have been in then the man is much, much, much more likely to have intercourse with her than to "dry hump" her. Now maybe the jury and the world at large think differently and maybe someone will give evidence of Jackson's love for dry humping. I doubt it though. If dry humping was his thing, he'd probably keep his clothes on, in case he got accused of rape or something.
He could have had a bit too much to drink and despite his best efforts, it was all he could muster.
So attempted rape perhaps?

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 02:38:44 PM
Quote from: hardstation on February 16, 2018, 02:17:57 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 12:56:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
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?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?
I don't have any statistics but I'd say if a heterosexual man is naked and a naked lady is in the position that this lady is alleged to have been in then the man is much, much, much more likely to have intercourse with her than to "dry hump" her. Now maybe the jury and the world at large think differently and maybe someone will give evidence of Jackson's love for dry humping. I doubt it though. If dry humping was his thing, he'd probably keep his clothes on, in case he got accused of rape or something.
He could have had a bit too much to drink and despite his best efforts, it was all he could muster.
So attempted rape perhaps?

I am open to correction here by my learned friend Mr McKeown but I don't think there is actually any offence of attempted rape. As it is such a 'specific' action it is very hard to classify attempted rape and in the event of an actual 'attempted' rape that doesn't fulfill the criteria I would imagine the only way thing they can be charge with is sexual assault.

Esmarelda

My comment was partially tongue in cheek in response to a comment of similar nature.  Not appropriate given the context, I admit.

brokencrossbar1

Hardstation I actually was thinking that myself. Maybe....long night drinking, maybe wee PJ had no lead in his pencil. Was trying his best but as the crime is so specific then if there is no penile penetration then there is no rape, end of story. If he couldn't get it up he cannot be convicted of it. The witness may think she has seen 'sex' but in the blink of an eye did she see what was actually happening....no. It is getting more difficult for the prosecution I feel.

TyroneOnlooker

PJ is denying there was any sex yet witness says she saw him  IP thrusting in sex movements. Did the witness say that she saw where both his hands were placed? Trying to look at the rationale of this and without being too graphic, is it outside the realms of possibility that there was no penile penetration by PJ but he was using his fingers/hand/fist? It might explain (1) why PJ is denying penile sex (2) the injuries to IP (im sure a rough fisting could do as much damage as rough sex. In a drunken/traumatic state and not facing away from PJ, the IP could have been mistaken into thinking it was his penis rather than hand/fist (no need for jokes about size etc)

Maybe clutching at straws but can't understand why PJ and witness could be contradictory otherwise.

If that is the case, is that still rape or just sexual assault?

Also, today's testimony from the policeman who interviewed Harrison and Harrison's statement appear to differ somewhat from the taxi driver account in terms of IP crying, Harrison's actions on phone etc.

Syferus

Harrison is basically highlighting why he was charged with withholding information and obstructing justice. If you can't put these pieces together and figure out something rotten happened there's no convincing you.

sid waddell

Things are looking bad for Lying Paddy Jackson, Slithery Stuart Olding, Mendacious McIlroy and Tall Tales Harrison.

johnneycool

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 16, 2018, 02:55:52 PM
Hardstation I actually was thinking that myself. Maybe....long night drinking, maybe wee PJ had no lead in his pencil. Was trying his best but as the crime is so specific then if there is no penile penetration then there is no rape, end of story. If he couldn't get it up he cannot be convicted of it. The witness may think she has seen 'sex' but in the blink of an eye did she see what was actually happening....no. It is getting more difficult for the prosecution I feel.

Did the girl who glimpsed in the room not say she saw one hand on the IP's hip,but couldn't see the other?

There was also another statement from the IP to PJ about putting a condom on at least. She went for the morning after pill so she was convinced that penile penetration had occurred.

Paddy must have thick fingers.

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: johnneycool on February 16, 2018, 03:54:53 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 16, 2018, 02:55:52 PM
Hardstation I actually was thinking that myself. Maybe....long night drinking, maybe wee PJ had no lead in his pencil. Was trying his best but as the crime is so specific then if there is no penile penetration then there is no rape, end of story. If he couldn't get it up he cannot be convicted of it. The witness may think she has seen 'sex' but in the blink of an eye did she see what was actually happening....no. It is getting more difficult for the prosecution I feel.

Did the girl who glimpsed in the room not say she saw one hand on the IP's hip,but couldn't see the other?

There was also another statement from the IP to PJ about putting a condom on at least. She went for the morning after pill so she was convinced that penile penetration had occurred.

Paddy must have thick fingers.

May well all be true. Haven't seen all the evidence. The reality is that medical evidence will be key here

StGallsGAA

Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 02:38:44 PM
Quote from: hardstation on February 16, 2018, 02:17:57 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 12:56:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
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?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?
I don't have any statistics but I'd say if a heterosexual man is naked and a naked lady is in the position that this lady is alleged to have been in then the man is much, much, much more likely to have intercourse with her than to "dry hump" her. Now maybe the jury and the world at large think differently and maybe someone will give evidence of Jackson's love for dry humping. I doubt it though. If dry humping was his thing, he'd probably keep his clothes on, in case he got accused of rape or something.
He could have had a bit too much to drink and despite his best efforts, it was all he could muster.
So attempted rape perhaps?

Or attempted dry humping?

Orior

Quote from: Syferus on February 15, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 15, 2018, 03:42:57 PM
Is there an age limit for GAA Board membership?

Wonder what 10 or 11 year old children make of all this content.

I'd be more interested in you responding to how you'd react if it was your daughter in the witness box and if you'd be so willing to demean her and make light of the situation.

Listen here Syferus son, you have issues.
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians