The ulster rugby trial

[Taylor]

If the case were to finish today PJ and Olding would probably get off IMHO as beyond all reasonable doubt not clear cut however him saying he didn't have intercourse and the taxi drivers testimony don't sit well

[gallsman]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.

Thighs are a fatty, fleshy part of the body. Easily bruised. If Jackson lied about having penetrative, vaginal sex, as it very much appears he did, that again does not mean he raped her. It means he lied about having sex with her. You continually ignore the fact that the prosecution said her injuries alone so not automatically point to rape. You accuse everyone on this thread of blindly following a narrative hey hypocritically do the exact same thing.

Simply put, you're a sanctimonious gobshite who has made his mind up about the case a much as you claim others have. You went the lads hung out to try without waiting for proof of their guilt. For all your posturing, you've no interest in true justice at all.

[tonto1888]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.

Thighs are a fatty, fleshy part of the body. Easily bruised. If Jackson lied about having penetrative, vaginal sex, as it very much appears he did, that again does not mean he raped her. It means he lied about having sex with her. You continually ignore the fact that the prosecution said her injuries alone so not automatically point to rape. You accuse everyone on this thread of blindly following a narrative hey hypocritically do the exact same thing.

Simply put, you're a sanctimonious gobshite who has made his mind up about the case a much as you claim others have. You went the lads hung out to try without waiting for proof of their guilt. For all your posturing, you've no interest in true justice at all.

why would he lie about having sex with her? I don't get that. If he is innocent but did have sex with her, why not say it?

[Avondhu star]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.

Thighs are a fatty, fleshy part of the body. Easily bruised. If Jackson lied about having penetrative, vaginal sex, as it very much appears he did, that again does not mean he raped her. It means he lied about having sex with her. You continually ignore the fact that the prosecution said her injuries alone so not automatically point to rape. You accuse everyone on this thread of blindly following a narrative hey hypocritically do the exact same thing.

Simply put, you're a sanctimonious gobshite who has made his mind up about the case a much as you claim others have. You went the lads hung out to try without waiting for proof of their guilt. For all your posturing, you've no interest in true justice at all.

why would he lie about having sex with her? I don't get that. If he is innocent but did have sex with her, why not say it?

Correct. It's a lot easier to say he had sex with her consent than deny it completely especially when there are witnesses including a co  accused who could turn on him to save his own neck

[StGallsGAA]

Young men and women say stupid things when put under pressure. Panic sets in.

We've all had our end away. How many girls get asked - "Do you want it?" and actually answer "Yes"?  The vast majority of communications in the bedroom is non-verbal. 

[gallsman]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.

Thighs are a fatty, fleshy part of the body. Easily bruised. If Jackson lied about having penetrative, vaginal sex, as it very much appears he did, that again does not mean he raped her. It means he lied about having sex with her. You continually ignore the fact that the prosecution said her injuries alone so not automatically point to rape. You accuse everyone on this thread of blindly following a narrative hey hypocritically do the exact same thing.

Simply put, you're a sanctimonious gobshite who has made his mind up about the case a much as you claim others have. You went the lads hung out to try without waiting for proof of their guilt. For all your posturing, you've no interest in true justice at all.

why would he lie about having sex with her? I don't get that. If he is innocent but did have sex with her, why not say it?

Presumably terrified at the thought of being asked in for questioning over a rape charge.

[highorlow]

Just following this trial on and off and the believability of witnesses is really only definitive if your face to face with the person. I believe that most Irish people are good judges of each other so whichever outcome is decided justice will be served.

However one fact I have picked up on though, and maybe, I stand corrected, maybe the poster McKeown can confirm this? Is that the IP did fail to mention in her initial statements anything about the witness that entered the room? She was never mentioned by the IP to the cops in either of her visits to them?

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

[gallsman]

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that fucks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.

[seafoid]

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that f**ks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.

She might have looked for a few seconds. It was her first live view of a threesome. That novelty value was what registered. 

[Taylor]

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that f**ks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.

She might have looked for a few seconds. It was her first live view of a threesome. That novelty value was what registered.

Alright so, you are dismissing her evidence because it was the novelty value that registered. Nothing else.

And you know this how?

[highorlow]

The lawyer added: "From what you could see, and please listen to my question very carefully: were there any signs of (the complainant) not consenting to what was going on?"

Again, Ms Florence replied: "No."

Ok, I just went by the transcript from the testimony. That's all, nothing "throwaway" in what I've said.

I still am unsure if this witness was mentioned by the IP in both cop interviews, she certainly didn't mention her in the early interview,  the one a few weeks later, perhaps she did mention her? The IP also never mentioned this witness to her friends the next day.

Why would the IP not mention this lady to the cops in that interview or to her friends?

The taxi journey is not contemporaneous evidence.

[seafoid]

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that f**ks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.

She might have looked for a few seconds. It was her first live view of a threesome. That novelty value was what registered.

Alright so, you are dismissing her evidence because it was the novelty value that registered. Nothing else.

And you know this how?

I think her evidence on the basis of a few seconds is a thin reed on which to lean for the defence. If it was consensual why was the lady in a state in the taxi home?

I think that PJ and SO most likely had a bad dose of buidín foolish and were led by their penises and that the situation spiralled out-of control. They tried to cover it up but there are too many inconsistencies. 
That is my impression.

[Taylor]

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that f**ks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.

She might have looked for a few seconds. It was her first live view of a threesome. That novelty value was what registered.

Alright so, you are dismissing her evidence because it was the novelty value that registered. Nothing else.

And you know this how?

I think her evidence on the basis of a few seconds is a thin reed on which to lean for the defence. If it was consensual why was the lady in a state in the taxi home?

I think that PJ and SO most likely had a bad dose of buidín foolish and were led by their penises and that the situation spiralled out-of control. They tried to cover it up but there are too many inconsistencies. 
That is my impression.

And to consider both sides of the story, perhaps it all when wrong when the IP freaked out because the other woman entered the room and the IP feared it would all end up on social media. I believe that was a concern of hers and she called/contacted people to see if there had been any recordings of it released.
That's just for balance and not to assume guilt/innocence before the resident judge comes on to say I'm an apologist

[Milltown Row2]

Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

[gallsman]

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that f**ks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.

She might have looked for a few seconds. It was her first live view of a threesome. That novelty value was what registered.

Alright so, you are dismissing her evidence because it was the novelty value that registered. Nothing else.

And you know this how?

I think her evidence on the basis of a few seconds is a thin reed on which to lean for the defence. If it was consensual why was the lady in a state in the taxi home?

Simple explanation for that too from a defence point of view - they'll simply say she was mortified to have been involved in a threesome and have it witnessed, knowing it would get out.

The lawyer added: "From what you could see, and please listen to my question very carefully: were there any signs of (the complainant) not consenting to what was going on?"

Again, Ms Florence replied: "No."

Ok, I just went by the transcript from the testimony. That's all, nothing "throwaway" in what I've said.

I still am unsure if this witness was mentioned by the IP in both cop interviews, she certainly didn't mention her in the early interview,  the one a few weeks later, perhaps she did mention her? The IP also never mentioned this witness to her friends the next day.

Why would the IP not mention this lady to the cops in that interview or to her friends?

The taxi journey is not contemporaneous evidence.

Because her walking into a room momentarily and not seeing anything particularly concerning with regards consent (violence, evidence of a struggle etc) is not the same as her saying "I saw consensual sex" as you implied. That's why it's a throwaway comment - you're paraphrasing the witness.