The ulster rugby trial

[Milltown Row2]

I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.

From the Irish Times report:

At the outset of Monday's hearing there was legal discussion of media reporting of how Mr Best attended the trial last Wednesday.  The court was told Mr Best attended the hearing because he was instructed to be present by lawyers involved in the case. The matter was raised by lawyers for the defence.  It was agreed that this fact should be reported by the press.

It doesn't say it directly, but I think this infers he was "instructed" to attend by the defence?

That suggests the opposite to me but regardless it still not clear if it was one of the defence seniors which one. I again go back to my earlier point that I am always reluctant to believe press reports of cases given previous experience

Just refer to Judge Dredd, or Syferus as he's know here!

[Syferus]

If he was there on the instruction of the defence why did the explanation only come out on Monday, 5 days later? Why was it brought up in the rugby presser?

Because the judge felt the need to address it, either because of a query by a juror or by her own volition. Try to keep up, Sea.

[macdanger2]

The reasoning that they was going because he was asked to give a character reference is patently bullsh*t for two reasons - firstly, a character reference is prohibited from mentioning the case at hand (it's already been decided by the jury at that time) and secondly, are they really going to garner enough information by attending one day of a 5 week trial to change their opinion of a guy they've known pretty well for 5+ years?

As I said previously, they were at best foolish & misguided in attending and I find it hard to believe they didn't realise that this would cause a storm.

[Tony Baloney]

When do Best and Henderson get sentenced? Was there not a couple of other fellas involved at one stage?

[square_ball]

When do Best and Henderson get sentenced? Was there not a couple of other fellas involved at one stage?

They're going to let them get the 6 nations out of the road first and then I believe there is a public stoning at city hall planned for 18th March #stillmycaptain

[nrico2006]

Can we get a full attendance sheet of all those who have been so far? Be interested to see who else should get attacked. You can go to a trial if you want, just out of interest. Or you could go if a friend is accused of something, for a bit of support etc. On another note, wonder if the defence have evidence that the girl is a rugby follower and knows who Jackson is?

[yellowcard]

Clare Byrne was discussing how a similar rape case in Ireland would have been a private trial. The fact that it's a high profile case for nvolving sports stars has led to far too much discussion in the public domain and it's easy to see where the girl is coming from when fearing that she was going up against Ulster rugby from the outset.

[Asal Mor]

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". It seems it will be key if one side can get the jury to believe their version of why the girl returned to the room. After that you're trying to prove consent or lack of it on the basis of body language. The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?

I don't think the argument that she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine is necessarily true either. Feelings of humiliation and regret could lead to a false accusation.
The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's perfectly logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered and not reported but the details in the public domain are way too thin at this stage for anyone other than narrow-minded gobshites to have made up their minds.

The texts and WhatsApp messages prove nothing other than that they are arsèholes.

[Asal Mor]

Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers". I don't think either argument would stand up in court though.

[Syferus]

Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers". I don't think either argument would stand up in court though.

This logic only works if you somehow think they are both capable of rape and yet not capable of being callous animals. Pure nonsense.

[Asal Mor]

You could say the messages make them callous animals regardless but if they had any fear of police involvement they wouldn't have been sending messages like that. It seemingly never crossed their minds that the police would get involved.

It's nonsensical in relation to the case but no more so than your argument that she wouldn't go through with it if she hadn't been raped ( I can't remember if it was you that posted it but I assume it was).

[sid waddell]

Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".

No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.

[seafoid]

I would love to know what rugby people like Neil Francis think about the story. I was reading Paul Kimmage's article about Tom Humphries a while ago. It went out of control even though on the surface everything looked normal. At the end nobody supported him.

[Asal Mor]

I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.

[DuffleKing]

We haven't a full picture as I'm going on the court reportings but my view at the moment based on the detail I know is that I would struggle to convict.

The juror have heard the girl directly give evidence, which would be key for me, but to end these lads lives as they know them I would need convincing around a few things:

Why did she go back upstairs into Jackson's bedroom?
Was there really resistance to this coupling?
The text messaging around this time suggests that something beyond the initial coupling may have been discussed before Olding arrived on the scene.
Knowing modern societal norms now, this is not a ridiculous scenario.
She seems to have been just sitting around when defendant 3 arrived and decided that was too much.

I say all of this as someone who knows and despises 'Ulster Rugby' and the culture around their players at first hand.