Paddy Jackson apology

[Milltown Row2]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

[longballin]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

OJ wasn't convicted of double murder. The world is mad anyway, Tyson got done for rape and is still a hero to many.

[Milltown Row2]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

OJ wasn't convicted of double murder. The world is mad anyway, Tyson got done for rape and is still a hero to many.

No he wasn't but if you link a rape case where someone got 'off' in you're mind then that may work.. as for Tyson he was an animal

[longballin]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

OJ wasn't convicted of double murder. The world is mad anyway, Tyson got done for rape and is still a hero to many.

No he wasn't but if you link a rape case where someone got 'off' in you're mind then that may work.. as for Tyson he was an animal

I didnt say 'got off' - I said he was 'cleared'

[David McKeown]

I don't agree with the notion of pre-recorded evidence. I believe that the evidence should be heard in the presence of the jury but I do believe that it would possibly be an idea that it be done in camera with reporting restrictions on it till after the trial.

Correct.  A hearing in camera with the legal teams, defendants and jury present with each witness and the defendant given the option to give evidence by video link if necessary is the minimum standard.  The IP must be willing to give his/her evidence in court but not public. Reporting restrictions are also a necessity and only lifted in exceptional circumstances.  Video recording of initial interviews would be a big step forward and, as shown in this case, properly experienced medical examiners.

Whilst I can see the obvious advantages I'm not sure thats necessarily the way to go either, for justice to be done it must also be seen to be done.  In camber hearings do little to dissuade other would be offenders and allow for the possibility of all sorts of accusations of why people are acquitted. Neither way is perfect but I think the current system is slightly preferable to that alternative.

ABE interviews like those used with child witnesses isn't a bad idea but and while Ive only run a few cases with ABE interviews instead of examination in chief, I feel a lot of the force of a complainants evidence can be lost when they are used.  Again I can see the advantages though so it may be worth trailing.

[moysider]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

What's the differnce? Both trials conducted on their own merits. OJ walked and the Jackson trio walked. No consistency thinking that OJ got away with murder and Jackson and co. didn't get away with rape. You might think that a  gang- bang on an 19 yr old girl is not a big deal- but this girl obviously was not a willing participant. Does a girl have to be killed or badly beaten before there is a conviction? It appears like there is no point police or procecution bothering with a case otherwise.

Maybe the whole thing about definition of rape needs to be looked at? The message seems to be that unless a girl is destroyed by a phycho, forget about it, she were asking for it. You happy with that? Ever wonder in a lot of cultures around the world that girls are subjected to genital mutilation, others forced to wear burkas and hijabs and be chaperoned by family?
The thing that a lot of people are missing in this story is the lack of care and responsibility there was towards that girl. Girls have freedom here that they don't have in other parts of the world and that should be cherished, not taken advantage of. Jackson had a duty of care for that girl in his house and he fucked up. Their 'apologies' afterwards acknowledged that to an extent. 

[nrico2006]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

What's the differnce? Both trials conducted on their own merits. OJ walked and the Jackson trio walked. No consistency thinking that OJ got away with murder and Jackson and co. didn't get away with rape. You might think that a  gang- bang on an 19 yr old girl is not a big deal- but this girl obviously was not a willing participant. Does a girl have to be killed or badly beaten before there is a conviction? It appears like there is no point police or procecution bothering with a case otherwise.

Maybe the whole thing about definition of rape needs to be looked at? The message seems to be that unless a girl is destroyed by a phycho, forget about it, she were asking for it. You happy with that? Ever wonder in a lot of cultures around the world that girls are subjected to genital mutilation, others forced to wear burkas and hijabs and be chaperoned by family?
The thing that a lot of people are missing in this story is the lack of care and responsibility there was towards that girl. Girls have freedom here that they don't have in other parts of the world and that should be cherished, not taken advantage of. Jackson had a duty of care for that girl in his house and he fucked up. Their 'apologies' afterwards acknowledged that to an extent. 

The girl is an adult, it is her responsibility to look after herself, its wasn't up to Jackson or anybody else.  He probably 'f*cked up' in allowing strange girls into his house and probably won't make that mistake again.  As for the 'gang-bang' or whatever you want to term the incident that played out that night, the jury found that she was a willing participant. 

[Hound]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

What's the differnce? Both trials conducted on their own merits. OJ walked and the Jackson trio walked. No consistency thinking that OJ got away with murder and Jackson and co. didn't get away with rape. You might think that a  gang- bang on an 19 yr old girl is not a big deal- but this girl obviously was not a willing participant. Does a girl have to be killed or badly beaten before there is a conviction? It appears like there is no point police or procecution bothering with a case otherwise.

Utter nonsense moy.

It wasn't obvious to Dara Florence. And, more importantly, it wasn't obvious to the 11 jurors who actually listened to all the evidence presented.

But it's obvious to you! 

Based on what? The word of someone who falsely accused Olding of vaginal rape, before changing her mind?

[Asal Mor]

+1. Well said Hound.

[Milltown Row2]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

What's the differnce? Both trials conducted on their own merits. OJ walked and the Jackson trio walked. No consistency thinking that OJ got away with murder and Jackson and co. didn't get away with rape. You might think that a  gang- bang on an 19 yr old girl is not a big deal- but this girl obviously was not a willing participant. Does a girl have to be killed or badly beaten before there is a conviction? It appears like there is no point police or procecution bothering with a case otherwise.

Maybe the whole thing about definition of rape needs to be looked at? The message seems to be that unless a girl is destroyed by a phycho, forget about it, she were asking for it. You happy with that? Ever wonder in a lot of cultures around the world that girls are subjected to genital mutilation, others forced to wear burkas and hijabs and be chaperoned by family?
The thing that a lot of people are missing in this story is the lack of care and responsibility there was towards that girl. Girls have freedom here that they don't have in other parts of the world and that should be cherished, not taken advantage of. Jackson had a duty of care for that girl in his house and he fucked up. Their 'apologies' afterwards acknowledged that to an extent.

So you think that Padyy and his mates had a gang bang? are you saying he raped that girl?

[Mourne Red]

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/additional-blood-on-jacksons-sheets-a-pornographic-video-and-middle-class-tweet-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-lifted-36797424.html

Jesus, wonder what they had on the judge.. Wouldn't allow anything, very favourable to the defence

[LeoMc]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

What's the differnce? Both trials conducted on their own merits. OJ walked and the Jackson trio walked. No consistency thinking that OJ got away with murder and Jackson and co. didn't get away with rape. You might think that a  gang- bang on an 19 yr old girl is not a big deal- but this girl obviously was not a willing participant. Does a girl have to be killed or badly beaten before there is a conviction? It appears like there is no point police or procecution bothering with a case otherwise.

Utter nonsense moy.

It wasn't obvious to Dara Florence. And, more importantly, it wasn't obvious to the 11 jurors who actually listened to all the evidence presented.

But it's obvious to you! 

Based on what? The word of someone who falsely accused Olding of vaginal rape, before changing her mind?

Falsely accused or couldn't prove?


Stuart Olding's lawyer, Frank O'Donoghue QC, was successful in having the forensic evidence regarding his client somewhat played down. Samples of Mr Olding's semen were found by forensic scientists on the crotch area of the young woman's white jeans.

A charge of vaginal rape against Mr Olding was dropped before Christmas and he was charged, and subsequently acquitted, of one count of oral rape. Mr O'Donoghue argued that if the jury was told where the semen had been found on the woman's jeans, it might create an "unfair suspicion" in the minds of jurors

[Hound]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

What's the differnce? Both trials conducted on their own merits. OJ walked and the Jackson trio walked. No consistency thinking that OJ got away with murder and Jackson and co. didn't get away with rape. You might think that a  gang- bang on an 19 yr old girl is not a big deal- but this girl obviously was not a willing participant. Does a girl have to be killed or badly beaten before there is a conviction? It appears like there is no point police or procecution bothering with a case otherwise.

Utter nonsense moy.

It wasn't obvious to Dara Florence. And, more importantly, it wasn't obvious to the 11 jurors who actually listened to all the evidence presented.

But it's obvious to you! 

Based on what? The word of someone who falsely accused Olding of vaginal rape, before changing her mind?

Falsely accused or couldn't prove?


Stuart Olding's lawyer, Frank O'Donoghue QC, was successful in having the forensic evidence regarding his client somewhat played down. Samples of Mr Olding's semen were found by forensic scientists on the crotch area of the young woman's white jeans.

A charge of vaginal rape against Mr Olding was dropped before Christmas and he was charged, and subsequently acquitted, of one count of oral rape. Mr O'Donoghue argued that if the jury was told where the semen had been found on the woman's jeans, it might create an "unfair suspicion" in the minds of jurors

Maybe I am taking you up wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that he may have ejaculated through vaginal sex with semen being found on the crotch area of the woman's jeans?
So are you saying she lied about the BJ, or that he ejaculated twice? Which was first?

Your implication doesn't come anywhere near to adding up.

As agreed by all parties, the crotch area of her jeans wasn't at her crotch area when Olding entered the room. Splatters could have gone anywhere when he ejaculated. He aimed for his stomach but difficult to get it all there! And even as he's getting up it's inevitable that splatters will go in various places.

Olding's story when he first told the police and when he gave evidence to the court was pretty much exactly the same. He was the most consistent of all the parties. She changed her story to tie in to something very close to Olding's story, bar the consent. Her initial story was a lot different.

[Asal Mor]

Could the semen have ended up there from him earlier having ejaculated inside her when she'd gotten dressed? You'd imagine it would also have been found on her underwear though.

I'm against evidence being withheld from the jury. It doesn't make sense to me why you wouldn't let them decide how relevant it is but I'd be interested to hear David's or bcb's take.

[LeoMc]

I remember it happened to OJ Simpson as well. He got cleared and was vilified and ostracised afterwards...

Double murder and a threesome? Are you for real?

What's the differnce? Both trials conducted on their own merits. OJ walked and the Jackson trio walked. No consistency thinking that OJ got away with murder and Jackson and co. didn't get away with rape. You might think that a  gang- bang on an 19 yr old girl is not a big deal- but this girl obviously was not a willing participant. Does a girl have to be killed or badly beaten before there is a conviction? It appears like there is no point police or procecution bothering with a case otherwise.

Utter nonsense moy.

It wasn't obvious to Dara Florence. And, more importantly, it wasn't obvious to the 11 jurors who actually listened to all the evidence presented.

But it's obvious to you! 

Based on what? The word of someone who falsely accused Olding of vaginal rape, before changing her mind?

Falsely accused or couldn't prove?


Stuart Olding's lawyer, Frank O'Donoghue QC, was successful in having the forensic evidence regarding his client somewhat played down. Samples of Mr Olding's semen were found by forensic scientists on the crotch area of the young woman's white jeans.

A charge of vaginal rape against Mr Olding was dropped before Christmas and he was charged, and subsequently acquitted, of one count of oral rape. Mr O'Donoghue argued that if the jury was told where the semen had been found on the woman's jeans, it might create an "unfair suspicion" in the minds of jurors

Maybe I am taking you up wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that he may have ejaculated through vaginal sex with semen being found on the crotch area of the woman's jeans?
So are you saying she lied about the BJ, or that he ejaculated twice? Which was first?

Your implication doesn't come anywhere near to adding up.

As agreed by all parties, the crotch area of her jeans wasn't at her crotch area when Olding entered the room. Splatters could have gone anywhere when he ejaculated. He aimed for his stomach but difficult to get it all there! And even as he's getting up it's inevitable that splatters will go in various places.

Olding's story when he first told the police and when he gave evidence to the court was pretty much exactly the same. He was the most consistent of all the parties. She changed her story to tie in to something very close to Olding's story, bar the consent. Her initial story was a lot different.

Just stirring the pot... though it is a great defence argument "you cant use something which will will make my client look bad".



Just thought it was a great argument by the defence