The ulster rugby trial

[RedHand88]

Seems Jackson has survived the prosecution cross examining him OK. No knockout blows landed.

[AQMP]

The character witness is a friend of Jackson's, Dr Katy Donaldson.  Trial is over for the day, will resume tomorrow

[longballin]

I think they all walk as I keep thinking, 'beyond reasonable doubt' is such a high bar to get over although we only get snapshots of the case and don't get to see the demeanour of those giving evidence etc.

[AQMP]

Seems Jackson has survived the prosecution cross examining him OK. No knockout blows landed.

No major single thing but maybe a drip, drip, drip effect on his credibility?

[general_lee]

HIs interpretation of what a spit roast is won't do him any favours. Character reference from a young medical professional female though should sway things back for him.

[magpie seanie]

Seems Jackson has survived the prosecution cross examining him OK. No knockout blows landed.

No major single thing but maybe a drip, drip, drip effect on his credibility?

And if they put Olding, McIlroy and Harrison on the stand this will continue. I'm really surprised the defence are doing this. Maybe all the people who are sure they're going to walk here are more confident than the defence lawyers?

[magpie seanie]

HIs interpretation of what a spit roast is won't do him any favours. Character reference from a young medical professional female though should sway things back for him.

Maybe some of the guys like BCB or DMcK might explain this to us. I thought there were only limited circumstances in which a character witness would be allowed before the jury give a decision? What weight would be attached to this testimony? Maybe his Mammy should be put on the stand to tell us he's a great fella.

[Syferus]

I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

[Milltown Row2]

I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

[Syferus]

I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

There's no way they'd take the stand if they thought the case was in the bag.

Massive risk to put a defendant on the stand in any case, and the reasons have already been made clear why that is today with Jackson's mealymouthed explaination of the difference between his texts and his police statements.

[NAG1]

I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

Or are the innocent of rape and want to take the stand?

[AQMP]

I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

Usually if you feel the prosecution case is weak you'd not give evidence as you run the risk of tripping yourself up.  I'm no expert but maybe here since the complainant was on the stand for 6 or 7 days, the defence barrister thinks the jury needs to hear his side of the story from his own mouth to counter what she said.

[Milltown Row2]

I’m sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

Usually if you feel the prosecution case is weak you'd not give evidence as you run the risk of tripping yourself up.  I'm no expert but maybe here since the complainant was on the stand for 6 or 7 days, the defence barrister thinks the jury needs to hear his side of the story from his own mouth to counter what she said.

yeah and thats fine but he was up in the stand for how long? And was there really any damage from that questioning? only based on whats been posted I dont think its that bad, I'd have a lot more questions for him

[Syferus]

I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

Or are the innocent of rape and want to take the stand?

You'd want to be an idiot or have a terrible lawyer to be let take the stand if you thought you had it won already.

[Keyser soze]

I can't understand why Jackson isnt being questioned about the issue of consent, as in why did he believe he had consent to indulge in any sexual activity with the girl. Surely this is the crux of the whole case, did the twitterers not make any mention of it?