The ulster rugby trial

[Milltown Row2]

Hmmm, let's see how long it takes to get a reply from Judge Rinder

[Minder]

Syferus- case in point about "money", O'Donoghue represented the wee scum bag from the Shankill when I was doing jury service, courtesy of legal aid.

[screenexile]

Bcb1 wins!!

[Therealdonald]

That was cold BCB. Syferus do you need a hug?

[macdanger2]

Syf still hasn't addressed bcb's post. If it was anyone else he'd be over it like a rash.

He is a rash

Beidh sé a rash arís

Very good 

[GetOverTheBar]

Someone do the right thing and throw the towel in for the man.

[Main Street]

In terms of a cover up here is an excerpt from Gavan Duffy now speaking for Harrison and it's been mybview the whole time

'In relation to the prosecution's theory that a story was cooked up between the four defendants at Soul Food café, Mr. Duffy QC asks why would two Ulster rugby players have gone to the busiest and smallest café on Ormeau Rd to do so?'

If I was trying to cover something up I'd have met in the privacy of my own house and sorted it out there, not in the middle of the bloody Orneau Road!!!

I thought you would be more moved by rationality than emotion. Duffy's reference to a known public meeting place and language he used was plainly meant to appeal to emotion.
We do know that the accused are not the same as  you, why do you try and make them out to be the same as you?  People who have done a  stupid thing, a criminal action, can also follow up that stupid action with more stupidity. Why on earth would you even equate yourself to one who was complicit in covering up a rape?  And if there was some meeting to get an account straight, maybe it happened elsewhere. 
The "if i had just raped a girl why on  earth would I go on a soup run for the homeless?"  type argument  just appeals to the prejudice of people that a person who has a good appearance does not do bad things.  And yet the evidence points to the opposite.

[brokencrossbar1]

In terms of a cover up here is an excerpt from Gavan Duffy now speaking for Harrison and it's been mybview the whole time

'In relation to the prosecution's theory that a story was cooked up between the four defendants at Soul Food café, Mr. Duffy QC asks why would two Ulster rugby players have gone to the busiest and smallest café on Ormeau Rd to do so?'

If I was trying to cover something up I'd have met in the privacy of my own house and sorted it out there, not in the middle of the bloody Orneau Road!!!

I thought you would be more moved by rationality than emotion. Duffy's reference to a known public meeting place and language he used was plainly meant to appeal to emotion.
We do know that the accused are not the same as  Duffy, why does he try and make them out to be the same as him?  People who have done a  stupid thing, a criminal action, can also follow up that stupid action with more stupidity. Why on earth would Duffy even equate himself to one who was complicit in covering up a rape.  And if there was some meeting to get an account straight, maybe it happened elsewhere. 
The "if i had just raped a girl why on  earth would I go on a soup run for the homeless?"  type argument  just appeals to the prejudice of people that a person who has a good appearance does not do bad things.  And yet the evidence points to the opposite.

The last paragraph was my words not Gavan Duffy

[Main Street]

In terms of a cover up here is an excerpt from Gavan Duffy now speaking for Harrison and it's been mybview the whole time

'In relation to the prosecution's theory that a story was cooked up between the four defendants at Soul Food café, Mr. Duffy QC asks why would two Ulster rugby players have gone to the busiest and smallest café on Ormeau Rd to do so?'

If I was trying to cover something up I'd have met in the privacy of my own house and sorted it out there, not in the middle of the bloody Orneau Road!!!

I thought you would be more moved by rationality than emotion. Duffy's reference to a known public meeting place and language he used was plainly meant to appeal to emotion.
We do know that the accused are not the same as  Duffy, why does he try and make them out to be the same as him?  People who have done a  stupid thing, a criminal action, can also follow up that stupid action with more stupidity. Why on earth would Duffy even equate himself to one who was complicit in covering up a rape.  And if there was some meeting to get an account straight, maybe it happened elsewhere. 
The "if i had just raped a girl why on  earth would I go on a soup run for the homeless?"  type argument  just appeals to the prejudice of people that a person who has a good appearance does not do bad things.  And yet the evidence points to the opposite.

The last paragraph was my words not Gavan Duffy

I had edited my post to reflect that they were your words and not Duffy's as I had stated.
Perhaps I was too late or you were just ahead of the game.

[brokencrossbar1]

In terms of a cover up here is an excerpt from Gavan Duffy now speaking for Harrison and it's been mybview the whole time

'In relation to the prosecution's theory that a story was cooked up between the four defendants at Soul Food café, Mr. Duffy QC asks why would two Ulster rugby players have gone to the busiest and smallest café on Ormeau Rd to do so?'

If I was trying to cover something up I'd have met in the privacy of my own house and sorted it out there, not in the middle of the bloody Orneau Road!!!

I thought you would be more moved by rationality than emotion. Duffy's reference to a known public meeting place and language he used was plainly meant to appeal to emotion.
We do know that the accused are not the same as  you, why do you try and make them out to be the same as you?  People who have done a  stupid thing, a criminal action, can also follow up that stupid action with more stupidity. Why on earth would you even equate yourself to one who was complicit in covering up a rape?  And if there was some meeting to get an account straight, maybe it happened elsewhere. 
The "if i had just raped a girl why on  earth would I go on a soup run for the homeless?"  type argument  just appeals to the prejudice of people that a person who has a good appearance does not do bad things.  And yet the evidence points to the opposite.

It seems that their behaviour is not very logical if they are trying  to cover something up.

[HiMucker]

In terms of a cover up here is an excerpt from Gavan Duffy now speaking for Harrison and it's been mybview the whole time

'In relation to the prosecution's theory that a story was cooked up between the four defendants at Soul Food café, Mr. Duffy QC asks why would two Ulster rugby players have gone to the busiest and smallest café on Ormeau Rd to do so?'

If I was trying to cover something up I'd have met in the privacy of my own house and sorted it out there, not in the middle of the bloody Orneau Road!!!

I would say that I have agreed with nearly everything you have posted on this topic, and bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the legal system.  However, though it may be most unlikely that they met there the next day to orchestrate a cover up, I find it absolutely unbelievable that they didn't discuss any furore surrounding the incident involving the young women.
Do you believe the accused that this was not discussed?  Do you believe that Harrison never mentioned to them about what she text them?  Whatever about guilt or innocence I would find that implausible, in my opinion of course.

[HiMucker]

Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.

I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."

I would say you'd be correct, and any comments of this nature would be grossly unfair, given the difficulty of this case and how it has split opinion.  However there has been some comments on this thread, regardless of guilt or innocence that have been akin to the old "sure she was wearing a short skirt..." and worse.  It is only right that they be challenged and that shouldn't be confused with "hang them at dawn".

[brokencrossbar1]

In terms of a cover up here is an excerpt from Gavan Duffy now speaking for Harrison and it's been mybview the whole time

'In relation to the prosecution's theory that a story was cooked up between the four defendants at Soul Food café, Mr. Duffy QC asks why would two Ulster rugby players have gone to the busiest and smallest café on Ormeau Rd to do so?'

If I was trying to cover something up I'd have met in the privacy of my own house and sorted it out there, not in the middle of the bloody Orneau Road!!!

I would say that I have agreed with nearly everything you have posted on this topic, and bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the legal system.  However, though it may be most unlikely that they met there the next day to orchestrate a cover up, I find it absolutely unbelievable that they didn't discuss any furore surrounding the incident involving the young women.
Do you believe the accused that this was not discussed?  Do you believe that Harrison never mentioned to them about what she text them?  Whatever about guilt or innocence I would find that implausible, in my opinion of course.

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!

[Milltown Row2]

Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.

I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."

I would say you'd be correct, and any comments of this nature would be grossly unfair, given the difficulty of this case and how it has split opinion.  However there has been some comments on this thread, regardless of guilt or innocence that have been akin to the old "sure she was wearing a short skirt..." and worse.  It is only right that they be challenged and that shouldn't be confused with "hang them at dawn".

Show a post we're a poster said "sure she was wearing a skirt"  and besides I think she was wearing trousers

[trueblue1234]

Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.

I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."

I would say you'd be correct, and any comments of this nature would be grossly unfair, given the difficulty of this case and how it has split opinion.  However there has been some comments on this thread, regardless of guilt or innocence that have been akin to the old "sure she was wearing a short skirt..." and worse.  It is only right that they be challenged and that shouldn't be confused with "hang them at dawn".

Anyone who was saying the likes of above was in the same boat as Syf and had a decision formed before starting to look at the evidence. Both bad positions to take up.