The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Square Ball

To get a guilty verdict do the jury have to convict beyond  reasonable doubt?
Hospitals are not equipped to treat stupid

David McKeown

#2281
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 07:46:33 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Is that your basis for conviction??

The woman who was raped saying she was raped goes a long way towards indicating what happened. What tells you she is lying?

I don't think she is lying at all but I still can't get round the issue of whether or not the defendants reasonably believed she wasn't consenting.

The fact they were drunk doesn't make their belief less reasonable if anything in law it makes it more reasonable. The jury have to look at all the evidence and see if they are convinced that the defendants in the case didn't reasonably believe she was consenting.

Taking the original Ched Evans case as a great example of this. In that case the Court of Appeal opined at one stage the complaint was soo drunk she couldn't have legally consented but that McDonald was also so drunk that it couldn't be said that his belief in her consent wasn't reasonable. Hence his acquittal was not inconsistent with Evans original conviction
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

longballin

Quote from: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 08:28:10 PM
To get a guilty verdict do the jury have to convict beyond  reasonable doubt?

That's the one... a high bar

Square Ball

Quote from: longballin on March 17, 2018, 08:31:58 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 08:28:10 PM
To get a guilty verdict do the jury have to convict beyond  reasonable doubt?

That's the one... a high bar

Well based on the opinions on here thats not going to happen then.
Hospitals are not equipped to treat stupid

gallsman

Quote from: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 08:28:10 PM
To get a guilty verdict do the jury have to convict beyond  reasonable doubt?

Yes. This is the case for all criminal trials.

longballin

Quote from: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 09:16:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 17, 2018, 08:31:58 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 08:28:10 PM
To get a guilty verdict do the jury have to convict beyond  reasonable doubt?

That's the one... a high bar

Well based on the opinions on here thats not going to happen then.

I don't think so but we only get a snapshot of the evidence and don't see the body language and demenour of witnesses but there are a lot of fireside barristers her no doubt!

RedHand88

IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

Syferus

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?

RedHand88

Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-saw-a-threesome-in-paddy-jacksons-room-woman-tells-rape-trial-36601326.html

She did.

Syferus

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:21:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-saw-a-threesome-in-paddy-jacksons-room-woman-tells-rape-trial-36601326.html

She did.

Are you sure?

RedHand88

Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 11:25:44 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:21:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-saw-a-threesome-in-paddy-jacksons-room-woman-tells-rape-trial-36601326.html

She did.

Are you sure?

Pretty sure...

Reading from one of her police statements, Mr Kelly quoted Ms Florence as saying: "I would not say the female was distressed."

When asked by Mr Kelly if this remains her recollection she said: "One hundred per cent."

She further added in her police statement: "When I left the room I did not feel that I had just witnessed a rape."

Mr Kelly asked: "Is that still correct?"

"Yes," she replied.

Frank_The_Tank

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:33:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 11:25:44 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:21:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-saw-a-threesome-in-paddy-jacksons-room-woman-tells-rape-trial-36601326.html

She did.

Are you sure?

Pretty sure...

Reading from one of her police statements, Mr Kelly quoted Ms Florence as saying: "I would not say the female was distressed."

When asked by Mr Kelly if this remains her recollection she said: "One hundred per cent."

She further added in her police statement: "When I left the room I did not feel that I had just witnessed a rape."

Mr Kelly asked: "Is that still correct?"

"Yes," she replied.

Not point arguing with thon clown.  He was in the room on the night and knows it was 100% rape.
Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

Syferus

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:33:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 11:25:44 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:21:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-saw-a-threesome-in-paddy-jacksons-room-woman-tells-rape-trial-36601326.html

She did.

Are you sure?

Pretty sure...

Reading from one of her police statements, Mr Kelly quoted Ms Florence as saying: "I would not say the female was distressed."

When asked by Mr Kelly if this remains her recollection she said: "One hundred per cent."

She further added in her police statement: "When I left the room I did not feel that I had just witnessed a rape."

Mr Kelly asked: "Is that still correct?"

"Yes," she replied.

Read it again.

Asal Mor

#2293
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 08:17:02 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 17, 2018, 07:52:54 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 07:46:33 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Is that your basis for conviction??

The woman who was raped saying she was raped goes a long way towards indicating what happened. What tells you she is lying?
A woman saying she was raped isn't enough to convict someone of rape. Being unable to prove she is lying still isn't.
I would venture that in most rape cases, there are no independent witnesses to the crime - that's the nature of such a crime.

So, how on earth do rapes ever get convicted, one wonders?

But they do - 58% of UK rape trials in the last five years have resulted in a conviction.

I'd bet my last euro that if these cases were discussed here, there would be a large cohort of people who would be demanding an acquittal in most of them.
As you said cases don't often  feature an independent witness , certainly not one who felt it hadn't looked like rape and who was ignored by the alleged victim rather than being asked for help.


If this was her word against their's they'd be convicted imo. As Kelly said the testimony of Florence is extraordinary and it's not a he said v she said case.

sid waddell

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM

1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.

She said she saw no signs of positive consent.

Dara Florence was simply not in a position to be able to say categorically that that it was not rape, because she is not the complainant, and cannot know what the complainant was feeling.

If there were no signs of positive consent, the most that could have been observed is compliance.

Compliance is not consent.

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.

Not inconclusive. Dr. Lavery who actually examined the complainant, was quite clear on this, and that the source of the blood was not menstrual, rather it was from a "full laceration tear".

The medical witness who questioned this did not examine the complainant, so again, she was in no position to dispute Dr. Lavery's findings. She was basically a hired gun for the defence.

No wound or bruising can by itself prove that rape occurred. But a wound and bruising of that nature is certainly "consistent with rape or sexual assault".

It's all about the framing. That's how a similar wound to the victim of Mike Tyson was framed. It applies in this case too.