The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Taylor

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility

While it seems clear they are all telling lies or at the very least dont clearly remember what happened I had thought Harrison is more at risk for what he is charged of given the deleted texts/forgotten phone calls/not telling the police info

Cant see strong enough reasonable doubt to convict the other two of rape

TabClear

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility

I know what you are saying BCB and I think the decision of PJ and SO will definitely influence the jury but do you know what that the standing is from a legal perspective? I would assume that irrespective of whether a crime had been committed, taking actions that hinder a police investigation into an alleged crime could be convicted on a standalone basis? This is probably one of those cases where a hypothetical jury comprised of legal professionals could come to a very different verdict to a "normal" jury.

magpie seanie

Quote from: TabClear on March 13, 2018, 01:45:15 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility

I know what you are saying BCB and I think the decision of PJ and SO will definitely influence the jury but do you know what that the standing is from a legal perspective? I would assume that irrespective of whether a crime had been committed, taking actions that hinder a police investigation into an alleged crime could be convicted on a standalone basis? This is probably one of those cases where a hypothetical jury comprised of legal professionals could come to a very different verdict to a "normal" jury.

Yeah. Harrison doesn't know for definite that there wasn't a crime committed so even if Jackson and Olding are found not guilty I think Harrison could be found guilty but then again I've no qualifications or experience in this area.

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: TabClear on March 13, 2018, 01:45:15 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility

I know what you are saying BCB and I think the decision of PJ and SO will definitely influence the jury but do you know what that the standing is from a legal perspective? I would assume that irrespective of whether a crime had been committed, taking actions that hinder a police investigation into an alleged crime could be convicted on a standalone basis? This is probably one of those cases where a hypothetical jury comprised of legal professionals could come to a very different verdict to a "normal" jury.

He can be found guilty even though the other two are found not guilty but I think the jury will be looking at it as an all duck or no dinner type scenario.

sid waddell

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility
Why would McIlroy be convicted of exposure and not Olding of rape and Jackson of at least sexual assault?

The woman alleges that the sexual contact with Jackson and Olding was not consensual. Jackson and Olding allege it was consensual.

The woman alleges that McIlroy exposing himself was uninvited on her part. McIlroy alleges it was invited.

It basically all comes down to to the same questions of whether consent was given or not, or whether there was reasonable belief in consent, across all three of these defendants.

Asal Mor

Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 09:06:24 AM
Defence has been an absolute joke! Allowing McIlroy and Harrison take the stand was a disaster, and completely predictably so. That's a big disadvantage of having 4 separate defence teams, as they all try and save themselves rather than having a co-ordinated approach. I wondered at the start why McIlroy and Harrison were even charged, but the prosecution knew exactly what they were doing.

Having said all that, I think not guilty is still a strong possibility. Frozen/complying when you've no way out, when it's the least worst option is not only believable, its almost automatic. However, when you've 3 other girls nearby, when there's no violence or threats, when you take off your own top, when one scream would have ended it all, when a rescuer actually comes into the room and you ignore her, I couldn't vote guilty. But I haven't seen every piece of evidence, so will see what the jury comes up with.

Perjury on the other hand, especially for McIlory, I'd vote for that all day long!
Great post Hound. Would agree with all of that.

David McKeown

Quote from: sid waddell on March 13, 2018, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility
Why would McIlroy be convicted of exposure and not Olding of rape and Jackson of at least sexual assault?

The woman alleges that the sexual contact with Jackson and Olding was not consensual. Jackson and Olding allege it was consensual.

The woman alleges that McIlroy exposing himself was uninvited on her part. McIlroy alleges it was invited.

It basically all comes down to to the same questions of whether consent was given or not, or whether there was reasonable belief in consent, across all three of these defendants.

I think it's completely different. The jury would be perfectly entitled to conclude the following. We believe the injured party. There was penetration from both Jackson and Olding, she didn't consent to it. However when we look at all the circumstances we can't be convinced that Jackson and Olding didn't reasonably believe she was consenting. We also believe that no penetration occurred with McIlroy however in all the circumstances we don't believe he had a reasonable belief she was consenting to him exposing himself.

In such a scenario Jackson and Olding would be not guilty and McIlroy would be guilty. I still have no idea what the substance of the charges are against Harrison.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Hound

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think

Owen Brannigan

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think

And teachers.

angermanagement

Doctors, nurses, pharmacists etc.

If your self employed or own your own business your accountant can write a letter to the court stating your business wouldn't survive while you were on jury service you can get an exemption.

Hound

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased

Syferus

Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children


I had heard plenty by the time I decided they were probably guilty.

tintin25

Quote from: tintin25 on March 12, 2018, 04:23:55 PM
I alluded to it previously, but could say Olding be acquitted due to lack of evidence and Jackson be found guilty? (Based on what an earlier witness saw in the room and given he has denied penetrating?).

Anyone?

mackers

I wouldn't be saying that a jury with more men would necessarily more likely to let them off either. I was on a jury in a sexual abuse case in Newry courthouse. I reckoned the accused was guilty and there were six women on the jury. I was sure that the 6 women would definitely find the accused guilty.  When we got down to the deliberations the six women reckoned that he was innocent.  I was amazed.  We had a hung jury and the case ended up in Belfast at a higher court where the guy was found guilty.
Keep your pecker hard and your powder dry and the world will turn.