Ulster Rugby Trial - Poll

Started by macdanger2, March 22, 2018, 09:46:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Having heard snippets of the evidence and read half-baked court reports, what do you think will happen?

Defendants are innocent and will be found not guilty
61 (35.9%)
Defendants are innocent and will be found guilty
0 (0%)
Defendants are guilty and will be found guilty
7 (4.1%)
Defendants are guilty and will be found not guilty
47 (27.6%)
Some defendants will be found guilty, some found not guilty
18 (10.6%)
Don't know
37 (21.8%)

Total Members Voted: 170

Owenmoresider

Not followed the details of this sordid matter too closely, but I imagine if this trial was being held under Scottish law the "not proven" verdict might have been a possibility.

WT4E

I put Don't know and I am willing to trust the jury on this one and I will take their judgement on it.

I hope everyone else will.

Syferus

#17
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.
I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

You've said this twice but how can you even accurately judge that a jury get a decision right? Ultimately you'll only know they got it wrong if they make an egregious mistake (Rodney King, OJ) or there is some new evidence that comes to light. What about all the cases coated in shades of gray, which includes alot of sexual assault and rape cases?

At the end of the day juries are just people and people are prone to biases and errors. People will try to see what they want to see, as this trial has shown. You've too much faith in a subjective system.

Milltown Row2

So basically what he's saying, Syferus will be right regardless of the verdict, and gives the system no credence..
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Syferus

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 10:46:09 AM
So basically what he's saying, Syferus will be right regardless of the verdict, and gives the system no credence..

Nope. Can you read?

Rossfan

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 10:46:09 AM
So basically what he's saying, Syferus will be right regardless of the verdict,
Syfīn is always right about everything all the time. 



Better put one of these  ;D in for the benefit of the 6 Cos folks.
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: Syferus on March 23, 2018, 10:42:56 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.
I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

You've said this twice but how can you even accurately judge that a jury get a decision right? Ultimately you'll only know they got it wrong if they make an egregious mistake (Rodney King, OJ) or there is some new evidence that comes to light. What about all the cases coated in shades of gray, which includes alot of sexual assault and rape cases?

At the end of the day juries are just people and people are prone to biases and errors. People will try to see what they want to see, as this trial has shown. You've too much faith in a subjective system.

The Rodney Kings and the OJs are the exception to the rule and I don't see how you can use cases in a different jurisdiction as an equivalence. They are the ones that make the 'big' news that people feed into and see as the way the system works, albeit in a different country with different dynamics and undertones. Everyone is prone to bias and error but the reality is that this is the system that there is. The majority of the time the system works correctly. At times

David McKeown

We also have an appellate court structure for a reason. Occasionally judges, juries etc will make mistakes but the system allows the mistakes to be corrected when and if they have occurred reducing significantly the potential for miscarriages
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

andoireabu

Not a big talker on the board and I will keep my thoughts to myself on my opinion of this trial, but I wanted to say fair play to brokencrossbar1 and davidmckeown for giving a proper insight into how this case might work and their thoughts on it. They have been the most insightful posts to read here against a back drop of perceived knowledge and jumped to conclusions so maith sibh. No matter the outcome, 5 lives will be adversly affected, no matter of guilt or innonence. Annonimity should be mandatory for cases like these, for everyones sake.
Private Cowboy: Don't shit me, man!
Private Joker: I wouldn't shit you. You're my favorite turd!

nrico2006

#24
Quote from: Syferus on March 23, 2018, 10:42:56 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.
I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

You've said this twice but how can you even accurately judge that a jury get a decision right? Ultimately you'll only know they got it wrong if they make an egregious mistake (Rodney King, OJ) or there is some new evidence that comes to light. What about all the cases coated in shades of gray, which includes alot of sexual assault and rape cases?

At the end of the day juries are just people and people are prone to biases and errors. People will try to see what they want to see, as this trial has shown. You've too much faith in a subjective system.

Spot on. Find it strange that people can state most juries get it right etc etc. Unless you can view or witness a crime you don't really know. DNA etc can help, but in cases like this its simply down to jurors opinion, barrister percormance and defendants/claimants acting ability. As for appeals, it's not easy to be able to be granted an appeal unless its on a point of law/error. Take this case for example, seems 50/50 and if Jackson et all are convicted, could they appeal (if trial followed procedure correctly and judge did their job)? Also seems easier for the prosecution to get another go than the defence
'To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal, light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle.'

Avondhu star

Quote from: andoireabu on March 24, 2018, 03:39:52 AM
Not a big talker on the board and I will keep my thoughts to myself on my opinion of this trial, but I wanted to say fair play to brokencrossbar1 and davidmckeown for giving a proper insight into how this case might work and their thoughts on it. They have been the most insightful posts to read here against a back drop of perceived knowledge and jumped to conclusions so maith sibh. No matter the outcome, 5 lives will be adversly affected, no matter of guilt or innonence. Annonimity should be mandatory for cases like these, for everyones sake.

Confucius him say" he who dips wick must pay for oil"
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

David McKeown

Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2018, 04:37:10 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 23, 2018, 10:42:56 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.
I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

You've said this twice but how can you even accurately judge that a jury get a decision right? Ultimately you'll only know they got it wrong if they make an egregious mistake (Rodney King, OJ) or there is some new evidence that comes to light. What about all the cases coated in shades of gray, which includes alot of sexual assault and rape cases?

At the end of the day juries are just people and people are prone to biases and errors. People will try to see what they want to see, as this trial has shown. You've too much faith in a subjective system.

Spot on. Find it strange that people can state most juries get it right etc etc. Unless you can view or witness a crime you don't really know. DNA etc can help, but in cases like this its simply down to jurors opinion, barrister percormance and defendants/claimants acting ability. As for appeals, ots not eaay to be able to be granted an appeal unless its on a point of law/error. Take this case for example, seems 50/50 and if Jackson et all are convicted, could they appeal (if trial followed procedure correctly and judge did their job)? Also seems easier for the prosecution to get another go than the defence

You've lost me with that last line there.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2018, 04:37:10 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 23, 2018, 10:42:56 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.
I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

You've said this twice but how can you even accurately judge that a jury get a decision right? Ultimately you'll only know they got it wrong if they make an egregious mistake (Rodney King, OJ) or there is some new evidence that comes to light. What about all the cases coated in shades of gray, which includes alot of sexual assault and rape cases?

At the end of the day juries are just people and people are prone to biases and errors. People will try to see what they want to see, as this trial has shown. You've too much faith in a subjective system.

Spot on. Find it strange that people can state most juries get it right etc etc. Unless you can view or witness a crime you don't really know. DNA etc can help, but in cases like this its simply down to jurors opinion, barrister percormance and defendants/claimants acting ability. As for appeals, it's not easy to be able to be granted an appeal unless its on a point of law/error. Take this case for example, seems 50/50 and if Jackson et all are convicted, could they appeal (if trial followed procedure correctly and judge did their job)? Also seems easier for the prosecution to get another go than the defence

I quite clearly stated that generally they make the right call. There are mistakes but not as many as you would think. There are a hell of a lot of trials in Northern Ireland every year and I'd say that more than not the decisions are correct.

As for your last line please can you give examples of this

nrico2006

Is the threshold for an appeal the same as that which the prosecution needs to meet in order to have a second try at someone initially found innocent?
'To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal, light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle.'

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: nrico2006 on March 26, 2018, 08:30:29 AM
Is the threshold for an appeal the same as that which the prosecution needs to meet in order to have a second try at someone initially found innocent?

The exact same criteria.