The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

AZOffaly

Quote from: straightred on February 09, 2018, 01:11:55 PM
i see the jury visited Jackson's house today. How does that work? Has the house been effectively locked up since this allegedly took place?

It's not forensics they're looking at. I'm sure it's to give them a chance to get their bearings and visualise stuff. When someone says I went up stairs and the bedroom was on the left or whatever, they can picture the scene a lot better. It might also be used to show how someone may, or may not, see something from outside the room if the door was opened for example.

David McKeown

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:58:00 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 09, 2018, 12:57:01 PM
That's not legally right. There are limited circumstances when character witnesses can be called to speak to the good character of a witness. I am not saying that is happening in this case but it's not right that character witnesses only appearing at sentencing. They can albeit rarely appear as witnesses at trial.

Good character of a witness David? As in corroborating this witness testimony because he's a good guy? Or as character witness for accused?

Any defendant of previous good character is entitled to a good character direction from the Judge ie the jury are entitled to be told that a defendant has no record and that the jury may consider this as making it more unlikely that they committed the offence alleged. It's been that long since I've seen a witness called that I can't remember the rules for doing so off the top of my head.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

GetOverTheBar

Quote from: straightred on February 09, 2018, 01:11:55 PM
i see the jury visited Jackson's house today. How does that work? Has the house been effectively locked up since this allegedly took place?

It gives them a chance to see the house, visualize what's happened and gather a better perception of the events. The big details in this case are to come - I think the 'sound' of the house will become quite important. It's already been stated it wasn't a 'party', by that I take it the music was low to muted and I've a fair idea that all involved as witnesses in this case will be asked to describe what, if any noises they heard coming from upstairs. I had written before in here that the young lady in question who came into the middle of the whole thing, will be asked especially to describe if what she heard (if she can remember) before she entered the room sounded like, as in, did it appear to be a struggle or was there any noises to indicate what was happening behind the door / indeed, was it noise that prompted her to even go up to the room in the first place / why?

Avondhu star

Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2018, 01:40:24 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:08:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 12:02:54 PM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.
I should avoid this thread but before I do,

Broadly speaking people do NOT react the same.
Yes there are 5 well land marked stages of grief that people generally pass through, however one person may linger in a shocked state far longer than someone else. One person may get stuck forever and not get to the stage of acceptance, another may linger long in anger or despair before moving on.
Like wise with Rape Trauma Syndrome, broadly speaking people do not react the same.
The evidence of the demeanor of the woman during that night and subsequent days does not contradict her claim that she was raped. Her demeanor during all that period can be perceived as being entirely consistent with a rape trauma experience.

Going by the defense's line of questioning so far and their focus on consent, I'd say the case will probably come down to,
did she give consent at the time AND can the defendants prove beyond reasonable doubt that she gave consent?
Did she give clear consent to all the sexual activity that was inflicted upon her that night?
Did she say no at any time?
If she didn't say no, why not? was she incapacitated? threatened? did she feel intimidated?

So what you have concluded  is that in a rape case the presence or absence of consent is the deciding factor?
How many years  in Harvard Law School did it take for you to be able to come to that conclusion?
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

magpie seanie

Quote from: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:59:05 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 12:52:54 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:49:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:38:21 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?

Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they're not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel

The judge obviously felt it was noteworthy and issued instruction to the jury. It wasn't to intimidate the witness, it was sending a message to the jury.
Nothing to do with the social media backlash aimed at Best I'm sure.

The judge KNOWS the jury saw Best in the gallery. This was caused by Best's attendance.

The judge does NOT KNOW if the jury have seen a "backlash aimed at Best" on social media. Again though, this was caused by Best.

Can't see where the sympathy for Best is coming from.

This is a separate issue to belief of whether the accuses are guilty or not.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 02:00:49 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:59:05 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 12:52:54 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:49:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:38:21 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?

Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they're not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel

The judge obviously felt it was noteworthy and issued instruction to the jury. It wasn't to intimidate the witness, it was sending a message to the jury.
Nothing to do with the social media backlash aimed at Best I'm sure.

The judge KNOWS the jury saw Best in the gallery. This was caused by Best's attendance.

The judge does NOT KNOW if the jury have seen a "backlash aimed at Best" on social media. Again though, this was caused by Best.

Can't see where the sympathy for Best is coming from.

This is a separate issue to belief of whether the accuses are guilty or not.

So if they are not guilty MS, and it was just young ones having sex, and afterwards sent text messages bragging about the night before, sent between the lads (normal stuff nowadays) will you then back Best?

Or have you the lads guilty already in this short space of time with the evidence only half given out? Fireside lawyer much? or just a moral crusader on "top shaggers"
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

magpie seanie

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 02:34:02 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 02:00:49 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:59:05 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 12:52:54 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:49:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:38:21 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?

Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they're not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel

The judge obviously felt it was noteworthy and issued instruction to the jury. It wasn't to intimidate the witness, it was sending a message to the jury.
Nothing to do with the social media backlash aimed at Best I'm sure.

The judge KNOWS the jury saw Best in the gallery. This was caused by Best's attendance.

The judge does NOT KNOW if the jury have seen a "backlash aimed at Best" on social media. Again though, this was caused by Best.

Can't see where the sympathy for Best is coming from.

This is a separate issue to belief of whether the accuses are guilty or not.

So if they are not guilty MS, and it was just young ones having sex, and afterwards sent text messages bragging about the night before, sent between the lads (normal stuff nowadays) will you then back Best?

Or have you the lads guilty already in this short space of time with the evidence only half given out? Fireside lawyer much? or just a moral crusader on "top shaggers"

I thought I couldn't have been clearer but I'll try again.

Regardless of how the trial ends up I think Best (especially) was very wrong to attend. It displayed poor judgement at best and I personally think he allowed himself to be used by the defence. All they're trying to do is create any doubt.....it's their job. Best might be a decent fella and most people say he is but this was a misjudgement. Especially when you come out with a c**k and bull story afterwards which is clearly false. Best is a tremendous player and as I've said supposed to be a very decent guy. He let himself down here in my view.

If you want my opinion on the trial here it is. I'm not sure what happened. I'm only guessing like everyone else. I hope it becomes clearer as the trial unfolds. I'm no prude and I'd be fairly aware of what goes on these days. Little would surprise me. I had a strong leaning early on I'll admit but I'm trying to keep an open mind now. I also now realise that if all the evidence is not being reported in the media I need to be a bit more cautious about forming my opinions. Can I be truly sure - probably not. Lets hope the jury can be when it's all over.

One other point to clarify though - text messages sent between the lads might be normal stuff nowadays but that doesn't make it right. They read quite poorly to me and seem a little sad and juvenile. Not a crime of course but a tad pathetic.

Milltown Row2

Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Syferus


Milltown Row2

None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Frank_The_Tank

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

AQMP

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!

AQMP

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?
Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's on trial for rape and will end up in clink if convicted??

Syferus

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

magpie seanie

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

No, it's poor judgement full stop. It was going to create a sh1t storm, as such a recognisable figure he was being used by the defence to send a message to the jury plus the pure rubbish explanation.......it was very poor judgement.