Paddy Jackson apology

Started by yellowcard, April 06, 2018, 02:32:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

brokencrossbar1

I hope people are not suggesting that he is a cvnt?  (Spelling adjustment for bad words!). That's a real term of endearment where I'm from  ;D

seafoid

Quote from: AZOffaly on April 11, 2018, 06:50:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 11, 2018, 06:49:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 11, 2018, 06:32:41 PM
Theres a very easy joke there, but I'll be the bigger man.
The word for the worst type of person is the word for where the babies come from. It has to be a patriarchy.

p***k? Bollocks? Dick? Knob?

I don't think insults are gender constrained.
None of those gets anywhere near the ultimate insult
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

David McKeown

Quote from: Asal Mor on April 11, 2018, 04:40:16 PM
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.

The role of the jury is to decide cases on all relevant evidence. That said evidence can be excluded if it's prejudicial effect outweighs its probabitive value. In the article it mentions a couple of examples of this. Firstly the blood of someone else on the sheets. As that wasn't the complainants blood it's hard to see what if any probative value it would have. However blood on the sheets would likely have the jury asking questions like whose was it, how did it get there etc. It's easy to see how this might have been prejudicial to the defence if the evidence which is of little probabtive value was to be admitted.

The rationale behind not putting everything to the jury is the concern is they will become fixated on an irrelevance.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

tyssam5

Quote from: AQMP on April 11, 2018, 05:00:42 PM
Kelly and O'Donoghue both tried to have the jury discharged late in the trial.  For several grand a day they're not very good at reading juries, are they? :o

Yeah Kelly apparently 'on instruction' so neither they nor the lads were feeling very confident by the looks of it.

AQMP

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 11, 2018, 06:13:41 PM
Quote from: AQMP on April 11, 2018, 04:57:42 PM
I think it's quite clear where the additional blood on Jackson's sheets came from.

Really?  Quite clearly stated that it wasn't the complainants so it could have been Paddy Jackson's, or Stuart Oldings as he said he slept in the bed regularly.  Could have been any number of reasons. It wasn't the complainants so not relevant.

You're close

AQMP

Quote from: David McKeown on April 11, 2018, 08:14:50 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 11, 2018, 04:40:16 PM
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.

The role of the jury is to decide cases on all relevant evidence. That said evidence can be excluded if it's prejudicial effect outweighs its probabitive value. In the article it mentions a couple of examples of this. Firstly the blood of someone else on the sheets. As that wasn't the complainants blood it's hard to see what if any probative value it would have. However blood on the sheets would likely have the jury asking questions like whose was it, how did it get there etc. It's easy to see how this might have been prejudicial to the defence if the evidence which is of little probabtive value was to be admitted.

The rationale behind not putting everything to the jury is the concern is they will become fixated on an irrelevance.

Sure you get all the evidence on Twitter😉. Have to say O'Donoghues argument about Naomi Longs tweet was very weak. They mustn't have been too confident??

David McKeown

Quote from: AQMP on April 11, 2018, 08:40:00 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 11, 2018, 08:14:50 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 11, 2018, 04:40:16 PM
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.

The role of the jury is to decide cases on all relevant evidence. That said evidence can be excluded if it's prejudicial effect outweighs its probabitive value. In the article it mentions a couple of examples of this. Firstly the blood of someone else on the sheets. As that wasn't the complainants blood it's hard to see what if any probative value it would have. However blood on the sheets would likely have the jury asking questions like whose was it, how did it get there etc. It's easy to see how this might have been prejudicial to the defence if the evidence which is of little probabtive value was to be admitted.

The rationale behind not putting everything to the jury is the concern is they will become fixated on an irrelevance.

Sure you get all the evidence on Twitter😉. Have to say O'Donoghues argument about Naomi Longs tweet was very weak. They mustn't have been too confident??

Anyone who tries to second guess a jury is a fool.  Very very difficult to predict
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

sid waddell

Quote from: nrico2006 on April 11, 2018, 08:21:44 AM
Quote from: moysider on April 11, 2018, 01:31:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 10, 2018, 10:38:54 PM
Quote from: longballin on April 10, 2018, 10:35:11 PM
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.
They did not.

Quite amazing that this still has to be explained to posters.

Milltown Row2

What's amazing is you still don't get it! The case is over, not guilty.. let it go
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

magpie seanie

Quote from: sid waddell on April 12, 2018, 01:03:54 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on April 11, 2018, 08:21:44 AM
Quote from: moysider on April 11, 2018, 01:31:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 10, 2018, 10:38:54 PM
Quote from: longballin on April 10, 2018, 10:35:11 PM
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.
They did not.

Quite amazing that this still has to be explained to posters.

You're wasting your time Sid. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Milltown Row2

The jury believed there was consent..

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

TabClear

#176
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2018, 09:19:33 AM
The jury believed there was consent..

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Not necessarily. The jury believed at a minimum that it was reasonable for the defendants to have believed there was consent.

The reality is that nobody still knows for definite what went on that night, and that possibly includes those involved! The recent reporting from the previously restricted part of the case does indicate the defendants and their legal teams were worried.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: TabClear on April 12, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2018, 09:19:33 AM
The jury believed there was consent..

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Not necessarily. The jury believed at a minimum that it was reasonable for the defendants to have believed there was consent.

The reality is that nobody still knows for definite what went on that night, and that possibly includes those involved! The recent reporting from the previously restricted part of the case does indicate the defendants and their legal teams were worried.

I've said that, but the jury is what really matters here and how the judge directed them and having heard all the evidence that was available to them.. you could have another 200 odd posts on this with ones believing they were raping a girl, and others going, well it could have bee this and that and ones flatly saying she was consenting to sex and just felt bad afterwards and got way in over her head

The legal team will always try and get information withdrawn to suit their own case, as would the QC trying to get stuff put into the case to strengthen theirs... to be honest though I didnt see anything in the extra stuff to make me think that the jury would have changed their minds, considering they only took under 4 hours to get the verdict
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

TabClear

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2018, 09:47:17 AM
Quote from: TabClear on April 12, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2018, 09:19:33 AM
The jury believed there was consent..

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Not necessarily. The jury believed at a minimum that it was reasonable for the defendants to have believed there was consent.

The reality is that nobody still knows for definite what went on that night, and that possibly includes those involved! The recent reporting from the previously restricted part of the case does indicate the defendants and their legal teams were worried.

I've said that, but the jury is what really matters here and how the judge directed them and having heard all the evidence that was available to them.. you could have another 200 odd posts on this with ones believing they were raping a girl, and others going, well it could have bee this and that and ones flatly saying she was consenting to sex and just felt bad afterwards and got way in over her head

The legal team will always try and get information withdrawn to suit their own case, as would the QC trying to get stuff put into the case to strengthen theirs... to be honest though I didnt see anything in the extra stuff to make me think that the jury would have changed their minds, considering they only took under 4 hours to get the verdict

Agree with that. in my view (with no legal expertise) the idea that a jury could potentially get discharged because of a tweet that someone with no link to the case tweeted is bizarre. I know it was discounted in this case but there obviously must be some sort of legal argument for it to have been raised by a senior barrister. I get the whole need for a fair trial and concerns around "trial by media"  but is there a concern that any quasi public figure could influence court proceeding in a case they have no link to? You look at some of the tweets the like of trump, Katie Hopkins etc put out which would be a lot more inflammatory and widely reported than Naomi Long.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: TabClear on April 12, 2018, 10:10:25 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2018, 09:47:17 AM
Quote from: TabClear on April 12, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2018, 09:19:33 AM
The jury believed there was consent..

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Not necessarily. The jury believed at a minimum that it was reasonable for the defendants to have believed there was consent.

The reality is that nobody still knows for definite what went on that night, and that possibly includes those involved! The recent reporting from the previously restricted part of the case does indicate the defendants and their legal teams were worried.

I've said that, but the jury is what really matters here and how the judge directed them and having heard all the evidence that was available to them.. you could have another 200 odd posts on this with ones believing they were raping a girl, and others going, well it could have bee this and that and ones flatly saying she was consenting to sex and just felt bad afterwards and got way in over her head

The legal team will always try and get information withdrawn to suit their own case, as would the QC trying to get stuff put into the case to strengthen theirs... to be honest though I didnt see anything in the extra stuff to make me think that the jury would have changed their minds, considering they only took under 4 hours to get the verdict

Agree with that. in my view (with no legal expertise) the idea that a jury could potentially get discharged because of a tweet that someone with no link to the case tweeted is bizarre. I know it was discounted in this case but there obviously must be some sort of legal argument for it to have been raised by a senior barrister. I get the whole need for a fair trial and concerns around "trial by media"  but is there a concern that any quasi public figure could influence court proceeding in a case they have no link to? You look at some of the tweets the like of trump, Katie Hopkins etc put out which would be a lot more inflammatory and widely reported than Naomi Long.

Its about how many would follow her (30,000 i heard) that could have an impact for sure and with her being a past MP and the leader of a political party then it may sway someone, who knows but if i needed a defense to fight my case I'd be hoping they work every move to help me through it and give me the best possible chance of a not guilty verdict ..

I'm glad the case is over by by fcuk its really pushing me to come off social media altogether
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea