The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Asal Mor

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:10:43 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can't be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!
BC is it therefore possible that the defendants could have given totally different explanations to police when interviewed, to the versions their barristers are now quoting when questioning the girl and this will not come to light unless they take the stand?

It seems most unfair to me that the defendants can choose whether or not to take the stand and if they don't it renders key evidence inadmissible, if I'm understanding it correctly. What is the legal reasoning for this?

Avondhu star

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:10:43 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can't be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!

The defence will make an application to stop this going to the jury on the basis of irregularities in evidence, alcohol etc. But if that doesnt succeed we will see the accused in the witness box giving their version. They will be well prepared for this
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

gallsman

She's back in the witness box today, her eighth day. Being re-examine by prosecution.

AZOffaly

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 10:34:06 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 10:27:45 AM
BC, do you think they are labouring the 'drunk' and hazy stuff, making the girl continually say she wasn't out of it, so that they can present some sort of evidence that implies consent later on. They'd not have to worry about drunk consent is no consent then.

She is being treated horrifically though, I don't know why anyone would report a rape to the police if this is how they are treated at trial. If I was her father, I think I'd be more inclined to visit these lads privately than put her through this.

Assuming they are guilty?

That's the worry. If you know that a rape trial involves 7 days of humiliating testimony, cross examination and stress and upset for the victim, it must be tempting to spare yourself that.

If you know that an attack has happened, and you feel the justice system is not protecting and caring for you or your daughter, you must be tempted to do something else.

Asal Mor

Very true AZ. It's been a 2 week advertisement for vigilante justice so far.

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:10:43 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can't be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!
BC is it therefore possible that the defendants could have given totally different explanations to police when interviewed, to the versions their barristers are now quoting when questioning the girl and this will not come to light unless they take the stand?

It seems most unfair to me that the defendants can choose whether or not to take the stand and if they don't it renders key evidence inadmissible, if I'm understanding it correctly. What is the legal reasoning for this?

Possible but highly unlikely. They would have done one of two things in the policie station. They would have had a no comment interview with maybe a short preprepared statement along the lines of 'i fully deny all charges etc etc and am exercising my right to silence' or they went into detail about their side of events and painted a picture of a willing party girl who consented to what happened. It's hard to tell what may have happened but I would err on the side of the first course of action given the Solicitors involved as the worst that can happen is inferences can be drawn from silence but if you have denied the charge then it's up to the prosecution to prove it.

The legal reasoning is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. You are presumed to be innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove otherwise. Its an adversarial system and it's their responsibility to prove you guilty not your responsibility to prove your innocence. Given the level of miscarriages of Justice over the years through false confessions etc 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.

quit yo jibbajabba

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:08:01 AM
Very true AZ. It's been a 2 week advertisement for vigilante justice so far.

The paedo hunters will be branching out if they read this

Asal Mor

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:10:43 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can't be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!
BC is it therefore possible that the defendants could have given totally different explanations to police when interviewed, to the versions their barristers are now quoting when questioning the girl and this will not come to light unless they take the stand?

It seems most unfair to me that the defendants can choose whether or not to take the stand and if they don't it renders key evidence inadmissible, if I'm understanding it correctly. What is the legal reasoning for this?

Possible but highly unlikely. They would have done one of two things in the policie station. They would have had a no comment interview with maybe a short preprepared statement along the lines of 'i fully deny all charges etc etc and am exercising my right to silence' or they went into detail about their side of events and painted a picture of a willing party girl who consented to what happened. It's hard to tell what may have happened but I would err on the side of the first course of action given the Solicitors involved as the worst that can happen is inferences can be drawn from silence but if you have denied the charge then it's up to the prosecution to prove it.

The legal reasoning is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. You are presumed to be innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove otherwise. Its an adversarial system and it's their responsibility to prove you guilty not your responsibility to prove your innocence. Given the level of miscarriages of Justice over the years through false confessions etc 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.
Like most on here I'm an ignoramus when it comes to the nuances of the justice system but it would seem to me that a video recorded interview taken at the point of initial arrest where defendants are expected to answer questions about the case openly and honestly(and where silence would indeed raise serious questions about whether they have something to hide) doesn't lend itself to miscarriages of justice like the old signed confessions used to. The girl has been open and consistent from the start. If the lads were telling the truth there should be no need for silence until they have a chance to confer and get their story straight.

Asal Mor

It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.

AZOffaly

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:34:43 AM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.

I think that is the legal system in a nutshell.  By virtue of the fact that we have an adversarial system, and defence tactics resolve around trying to plant reasonable doubt, it leads to a lot of smoke screens, confusion and obfuscation in a bid to make the jury think something doesn't sit well with them. Prosecution try to remove all that and get them to focus on the clear evidence they believe.

I think that system, barring cases where there is very clear forensic or visual evidence, leads to this sort of trial, and it must be very frustrating to be caught up in it.

Look at the OJ Simpson trial for example. Brought to its knees because the defence managed to make it about race and Mark Furman.

Denn Forever

I have more respect for a man
that says what he means and
means what he says...

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:34:43 AM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.

Should just raise the Chewbacca Defence


Milltown Row2

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:34:43 AM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.

Not giving information at an interview is good advice, their recollection of the night will be hazy due to being drunk, so the smart thing would be to collect your thoughts on the matter and then give a more accurate response to the questions.

They must have shit themselves when the police came to question them... the girl has also been coached on how to answer the questions in court and the lads will also. I would imagine thats the norm but it does not mean they are guilty.

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

As for the loopholes, lawyers will always look at that as a means to get their client off the hook.. there has to be good evidence rather than his word against mine, if 4 or 5 people give the same story and one person has theirs then unless you can prove that story to be wrong who do you believe?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

David McKeown

I think there's a clear difference between loopholes and testing the veracity of the evidence. It's often said that the worst thing that can be done in the criminal justice system is to convict an innonence person. In order to prevent that from happening lawyers will be trained to test the evidence to its fullest. Judges are there in crown court cases to have the final word and prevent any sort of smoke or mirrors being applied. Cross examination questions must be relevant to the pertinent issues in the case. I think it's a massive disservice to the fine men and women on all sides who work hard to ensure that we have one of the finest criminal justice systems in the world.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

David McKeown

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.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner