The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Syferus

Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

I'm not a solicitor but I would refute that in its entirety. For a start it would be counter productive. You behave like that you get a reputation for it, your job becomes more difficult it gets harder to get future work.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

OnTheLine

I'm not going to comment on the case per se here, but did anyone find the following quote from Olding's barrister extremely offensive? 
"A lot of middle class girls were downstairs, they were not going to tolerate a rape or anything like that."
So, working class girls would tolerate rape? I just find it bizarre (and indicative of the bubble the 'professional classes' are in) that anyone would make that comment. Surely the jury isn't entirely made up of 'nice' middle-class people?

seafoid

Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     
I can't speak for anyone else but my notion that the verdict should be not guilty is not pre-conceived but based on the fact that, as Olding's barrister said today, the evidence isn't anywhere near the required quality to convict. I actually think the case should never have been prosecuted. Everyone is much worse off and only the 2 bit part players face any chance of being convicted.

Very strong from Olding's barrister today.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/there-is-no-case-here-stuart-oldings-defence-barrister-tells-court-36728286.html
How would the evidence compare to that in other rape trials ?
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

longballin

Quote from: OnTheLine on March 21, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
I'm not going to comment on the case per se here, but did anyone find the following quote from Olding's barrister extremely offensive? 
"A lot of middle class girls were downstairs, they were not going to tolerate a rape or anything like that."
So, working class girls would tolerate rape? I just find it bizarre (and indicative of the bubble the 'professional classes' are in) that anyone would make that comment. Surely the jury isn't entirely made up of 'nice' middle-class people?

Good point sir... was very elitist comment and by reason wud suggest working class girls dont have the same standards.

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

I'm not a solicitor but I would refute that in its entirety. For a start it would be counter productive. You behave like that you get a reputation for it, your job becomes more difficult it gets harder to get future work.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

seafoid

#2420
Very interesting line of thought condensed to Mrs McIlroy shops at Marks n Sparks ergo junior is nor guilty.


https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/blane-mcilroy-has-put-his-parents-through-the-ringer-rugby-rape-trial-hears-36730189.html

Blane McIlroy has put his "parents through the ringer", his defence counsel has said.

Given his background and character they would expect he would tell them the truth, the court was told.

Mr Harvey said: "Mr McIlroy has told the truth. The truth is simply not compatible with the account of (the complainant)."

Another piss poor argument:


the QC asked whether or not it was possible that McIlroy "deliberately lied to his parents and deliberately manufactured an account he would then deliver to the police over the course of 12 interviews."


"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Asal Mor

Quote from: OnTheLine on March 21, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
I'm not going to comment on the case per se here, but did anyone find the following quote from Olding's barrister extremely offensive? 
"A lot of middle class girls were downstairs, they were not going to tolerate a rape or anything like that."
So, working class girls would tolerate rape? I just find it bizarre (and indicative of the bubble the 'professional classes' are in) that anyone would make that comment. Surely the jury isn't entirely made up of 'nice' middle-class people?
Very good point.

Asal Mor

Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 07:22:47 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     
I can't speak for anyone else but my notion that the verdict should be not guilty is not pre-conceived but based on the fact that, as Olding's barrister said today, the evidence isn't anywhere near the required quality to convict. I actually think the case should never have been prosecuted. Everyone is much worse off and only the 2 bit part players face any chance of being convicted.

Very strong from Olding's barrister today.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/there-is-no-case-here-stuart-oldings-defence-barrister-tells-court-36728286.html
How would the evidence compare to that in other rape trials ?
I think DF walking in would make this a very unusual rape case. It's not your typical her word versus his case.

Syferus

Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 07:22:47 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     
I can't speak for anyone else but my notion that the verdict should be not guilty is not pre-conceived but based on the fact that, as Olding's barrister said today, the evidence isn't anywhere near the required quality to convict. I actually think the case should never have been prosecuted. Everyone is much worse off and only the 2 bit part players face any chance of being convicted.

Very strong from Olding's barrister today.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/there-is-no-case-here-stuart-oldings-defence-barrister-tells-court-36728286.html
How would the evidence compare to that in other rape trials ?
I think DF walking in would make this a very unusual rape case. It's not your typical her word versus his case.
The witness who contradicts Jackson's claim there was sex at all.

Asal Bore.

David McKeown

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

I'm not a solicitor but I would refute that in its entirety. For a start it would be counter productive. You behave like that you get a reputation for it, your job becomes more difficult it gets harder to get future work.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Excellently put
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Milltown Row2

Quote from: longballin on March 21, 2018, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: OnTheLine on March 21, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
I'm not going to comment on the case per se here, but did anyone find the following quote from Olding's barrister extremely offensive? 
"A lot of middle class girls were downstairs, they were not going to tolerate a rape or anything like that."
So, working class girls would tolerate rape? I just find it bizarre (and indicative of the bubble the 'professional classes' are in) that anyone would make that comment. Surely the jury isn't entirely made up of 'nice' middle-class people?

Good point sir... was very elitist comment and by reason wud suggest working class girls dont have the same standards.

Or intellect I think is the way he was going with that statement..

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

Syferus

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 08:28:27 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 21, 2018, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: OnTheLine on March 21, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
I'm not going to comment on the case per se here, but did anyone find the following quote from Olding's barrister extremely offensive? 
"A lot of middle class girls were downstairs, they were not going to tolerate a rape or anything like that."
So, working class girls would tolerate rape? I just find it bizarre (and indicative of the bubble the 'professional classes' are in) that anyone would make that comment. Surely the jury isn't entirely made up of 'nice' middle-class people?

Good point sir... was very elitist comment and by reason wud suggest working class girls dont have the same standards.

Or intellect I think is the way he was going with that statement..

So working class people aren't smart enough to know rape is bad?

Asal Mor

#2427
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 08:09:01 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 07:22:47 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     
I can't speak for anyone else but my notion that the verdict should be not guilty is not pre-conceived but based on the fact that, as Olding's barrister said today, the evidence isn't anywhere near the required quality to convict. I actually think the case should never have been prosecuted. Everyone is much worse off and only the 2 bit part players face any chance of being convicted.

Very strong from Olding's barrister today.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/there-is-no-case-here-stuart-oldings-defence-barrister-tells-court-36728286.html
How would the evidence compare to that in other rape trials ?
I think DF walking in would make this a very unusual rape case. It's not your typical her word versus his case.
The witness who contradicts Jackson's claim there was sex at all.

Asal Bore.
I don't believe Jackson's claim that he didn't have sex with her. As gallsman said it would be ludicrous to believe he invited someone else to join in if he couldn't get it up and was engaging in dry humping. Parts of the girl's story are equally ludicrous. Not guilty for PJ and SO is the only verdict.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: gallsman on March 21, 2018, 06:06:13 PM
Lads, the door was open for 45 seconds. You know this for sure because Milltown mentioned it above. He hasn't pulled that out of his arse or anything so one of them must have had a stopwatch on the go and it's been leaked to him but not mentioned in court.

It was under a minute. It could be 10 or 50 .. if I open a door in a room and someone is having sex I could make a quick call on that, and whether it's the correct call it's still my view, as it's DF's view as it's your view and others
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 08:15:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

I'm not a solicitor but I would refute that in its entirety. For a start it would be counter productive. You behave like that you get a reputation for it, your job becomes more difficult it gets harder to get future work.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Excellently put

Thank you and conveniently ignored....as always.