The ulster rugby trial

[AQMP]

Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

[Franko]

Your theory immediately falls down because it assumes societal norms applying to likely rapists. If you're capable of rape you're more than capable of being callous and casual about it after the fact.

Yawn.  More horse manure.

[David McKeown]

Your theory immediately falls down because it assumes societal norms applying to likely rapists. If you're capable of rape you're more than capable of being callous and casual about it after the fact.

Well that's possibly true but I go back to the jury having to look at all the surrounding circumstances and having to be firmly convinced that the defendants did not reasonably believe the girl consented. Moreover the jury will have to do it on the basis of societal norms and not on the basis that the defendants are likely rapists who don't conform to such norms.

[Milltown Row2]

Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

If Syferus said during a trial or interview with the police that he had a legal qualification and couldn't back that up I'd certainly not believe him. 

The point I'm making is that if it plays with the jury the way it has played with almost everyone I've spoken to in the past 48 hrs, then they could be in trouble.  As I've said before the jury is not made up of QCs.  It's made up of people who work in shops and offices etc in other words they're ordinary people with their own prejudices.

Frankly, does anyone believe that they met up in a coffee shop to discuss the Ireland rugby tour? If not, neither will the jury.  If all the deleted text messages and WhatsApps said was "we are top shaggers" then we wouldn't be on page whatever (edit: 97) on this thread as there wouldn't have been a trial.

I said the other day it doesnt look good, as as you say most people and even my brother in law whos a lawyer has said its not looking good and he was wondering at the start why it was even taken to court.. deleting messages could be the nail in the coffin though, also heard other stuff which may be bullshit but if true they hopefully will get put away

But I'm still on the fence as to whether they did intentionally rape someone or was this a case of something started and in the end it wasnt what it was meant to be and the drink and stupidity of it all bring itself to this point! too many  inconsistencies for me to be 100% sure

[Keyser soze]

Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I didn't see that this happened, did these texts appear on the others' phones and if so what was in them...sorry i must have completely missed this being reported...was it mentioned on here?

[Syferus]

Your theory immediately falls down because it assumes societal norms applying to likely rapists. If you're capable of rape you're more than capable of being callous and casual about it after the fact.

Well that's possibly true but I go back to the jury having to look at all the surrounding circumstances and having to be firmly convinced that the defendants did not reasonably believe the girl consented. Moreover the jury will have to do it on the basis of societal norms and not on the basis that the defendants are likely rapists who don't conform to such norms.

If the prosecution does their jobs well the jury will beleive them to be rapists no matter what instruction is given to them.

The texts hurt more than they help the image of the likely rapists in that regard because they show a level of callousness that their more public-facing interviews with police do not.

[Milltown Row2]

Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

what way are you leaning MR?
Personally I have no idea what happened and have changed my mind that often Im just hoping now that justice is done

On the fence for me.. I thought at the start it was regret rather than rape, now its more a case of going over a line that they thought was ok, but in hindsight and without drink being taken they probably would have stopped a long time before it.. problem is if they have been giving it large most weekends then this is the norm to them and they thought this was another one of those nights!!

[David McKeown]

Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

[AQMP]

Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

If Syferus said during a trial or interview with the police that he had a legal qualification and couldn't back that up I'd certainly not believe him. 

The point I'm making is that if it plays with the jury the way it has played with almost everyone I've spoken to in the past 48 hrs, then they could be in trouble.  As I've said before the jury is not made up of QCs.  It's made up of people who work in shops and offices etc in other words they're ordinary people with their own prejudices.

Frankly, does anyone believe that they met up in a coffee shop to discuss the Ireland rugby tour? If not, neither will the jury.  If all the deleted text messages and WhatsApps said was "we are top shaggers" then we wouldn't be on page whatever (edit: 97) on this thread as there wouldn't have been a trial.

I said the other day it doesnt look good, as as you say most people and even my brother in law whos a lawyer has said its not looking good and he was wondering at the start why it was even taken to court.. deleting messages could be the nail in the coffin though, also heard other stuff which may be bullshit but if true they hopefully will get put away

But I'm still on the fence as to whether they did intentionally rape someone or was this a case of something started and in the end it wasnt what it was meant to be and the drink and stupidity of it all bring itself to this point! too many  inconsistencies for me to be 100% sure

So am I.  I'm trying to put myself in the position of a juror.  My experience of being on a jury was eye opening!  It was an assault case and the jury foreman opened deliberation with (paraphrase) "I suppose if he's up in court he must be guilty".

A couple of weeks ago I was 55/45 PJ and SO would be acquitted.  I have to admit I'm now 55/45 they'll be convicted. 

Who knows exactly what went on in that room, that night?  I certainly don't.

One thing's for sure I doubt either will ever throw or kick a rugby ball in anger again.

[TabClear]

Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.

[AQMP]

Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

I'm not sure, but Hedworth/Hepworth?? the prosecution QC told the jury that though they had the substance of the texts and WhatsApps they couldn't be sure of the chronology because they'd been deleted.

[Avondhu star]

Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

Don't stop making a decision on guilt or not guilty because you haven't seen all the evidence.
There is loads on this site who have decided that the 4  are guilty before seeing any evidence

[Sweeper 123]

I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

[AQMP]

Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

Don't stop making a decision on guilt or not guilty because you haven't seen all the evidence.
There is loads on this site who have decided that the 4  are guilty before seeing any evidence

And as many who think there's reasonable doubt?

[Syferus]

Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.

When there is a systematic and societal bias against rape victims even coming forward I have little issue with names being made public once charged. If the police and the state didn't beleive a rape happened it wouldn't reach that point to begin with. It again goes without saying that a not guilty verdict does not equal innocence or a right to pick up their lives as if nothing occurred.

I am amused by the hand wringing in this thread over them being named despite it being common in many other types of cases. Do you realise the bias you're propigating here?