The ulster rugby trial

[Esmarelda]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?

Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

[general_lee]

The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.

Lawyer friend told me that PJ just submitted a written statement, didn't do a police interview.

Makes it strange that he would deny the act.  I wonder did he have a gf and if that influenced his statement!?

think he has bigger worries now than a girlfriend

Of course he does. That's not the topic though - if he had sex with her (as at least two people have claimed, one of them accusing him of rape) why would he lie about it to police? Maybe because he was a young lad who panicked, who knows? I can't imagine Jackson ever spent much time in police stations growing up or had much reason to ever suspect he'd face going to prison. Who knows how he'd react when suddenly faced with that?

Was he questioned by police or did he say no comment and then issue a statement denying having full sex?

[gallsman]

I've no idea, but the prosecution contended in court that Jackson's case was that he consensually digitally penetrated her.

If that wasn't his case, it would be pretty daft for the prosecution to suggest it was.

What I'm getting at is, one way or the other, that's his case!

[Orior]

Is there an age limit for GAA Board membership?

Wonder what 10 or 11 year old children make of all this content.

[longballin]

what in under God would a 10 year old be on this board for? 

[Syferus]

Is there an age limit for GAA Board membership?

Wonder what 10 or 11 year old children make of all this content.

I'd be more interested in you responding to how you'd react if it was your daughter in the witness box and if you'd be so willing to demean her and make light of the situation.

[north_antrim_hound]

what in under God would a 10 year old be on this board for? 

So that's what Syfres looks like, I had him a bit younger than that

[Avondhu star]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

I would say that if her comments re 100% seeing sex are accepted then her comments re not seeing distress or no consent must be accepted.

[tonto1888]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

I would say that if her comments re 100% seeing sex are accepted then her comments re not seeing distress or no consent must be accepted.

why? One is fact, one is opinion???

[gallsman]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

I would say that if her comments re 100% seeing sex are accepted then her comments re not seeing distress or no consent must be accepted.

Why? One is clearly more subjective than the other.

[Frank_The_Tank]

Is there an age limit for GAA Board membership?

Wonder what 10 or 11 year old children make of all this content.

I'd be more interested in you responding to how you'd react if it was your daughter in the witness box and if you'd be so willing to demean her and make light of the situation.

And how would you react if it was your son in the accused box? Would you have him in jail on day 1 of the trial?

[Main Street]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

And does that "shoot down" the defendants contention that he did not penetrate her with his penis?

It contradicts his evidence and corroborates the alleged victims evidence. I'd say that's unwelcome for the defence to put it mildly.

Unwelcome we can agree on but contradicts I think not.

The defendant did not say there was zero sexual activity. I think he admits to a specific act. He denies penetrating her vagina with his penis. The witness in the room did not offer anything definite to deny this. Her evidence seems to be confined to the area of consent. The case is about consent. I would think that the specific defendant would have preferred her to give a clear statement confirming his contention about t penetration ( which the case is not about) but would be happy with her evidence on the issue of consent (which the case is about)

The case is about consent and credibility and believably of the accused is a part of it.

The witness did contradict Jackson's statement that he did not penetrate her. She denied it by asserting the opposite, that's the definition of a contradiction.  In reply to questions, 'she was  "100pc" positive she had witnessed Mr Jackson having penetrative sex with the alleged victim.' "It wasn't assumption", she told him, adamant and almost in surprise.
"It was 100pc, I saw sex, from the movement."

There were no follow up questions quoted from the defence,  the defence did not pursue the questioning on this point or nothing much of significance. That's how it stands now. The jury are left with that witness' statement delivered with an adamant certainty, her testimony now assumes a higher value than something written by Jackson, under no pressure of cross examination.
Should Jackson fail to avail of his opportunity to answer questions in court and contest these contradictions, it will probably reflect poorly on his statement.

[smelmoth]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?

It doesn't "prove" anything. It is highly suggestive of something. It's up for jury to decide if Jackson thrusting at her from behind, naked, was penetrating her or just doing a bit of dry humping at the time.

Given Jackson's position is that all he did was consensually "digitally penetrate" her, it hardly looks good though, does it?

I didn't realise that his admission of fingering her also included a statement that he didn't dry hump her. I'll admit I haven't read everything on the trial though

[smelmoth]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?

Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?

[smelmoth]

She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

And does that "shoot down" the defendants contention that he did not penetrate her with his penis?

It contradicts his evidence and corroborates the alleged victims evidence. I'd say that's unwelcome for the defence to put it mildly.

Unwelcome we can agree on but contradicts I think not.

The defendant did not say there was zero sexual activity. I think he admits to a specific act. He denies penetrating her vagina with his penis. The witness in the room did not offer anything definite to deny this. Her evidence seems to be confined to the area of consent. The case is about consent. I would think that the specific defendant would have preferred her to give a clear statement confirming his contention about t penetration ( which the case is not about) but would be happy with her evidence on the issue of consent (which the case is about)

The case is about consent and credibility and believably of the accused is a part of it.

The witness did contradict Jackson's statement that he did not penetrate her. She denied it by asserting the opposite, that's the definition of a contradiction.  In reply to questions, 'she was  "100pc" positive she had witnessed Mr Jackson having penetrative sex with the alleged victim.' "It wasn't assumption", she told him, adamant and almost in surprise.
"It was 100pc, I saw sex, from the movement."

There were no follow up questions quoted from the defence,  the defence did not pursue the questioning on this point or nothing much of significance. That's how it stands now. The jury are left with that witness' statement delivered with an adamant certainty, her testimony now assumes a higher value than something written by Jackson, under no pressure of cross examination.
Should Jackson fail to avail of his opportunity to answer questions in court and contest these contradictions, it will probably reflect poorly on his statement.

What's the source of the precise quotations and the "almost in surprise" bits?