The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

red hander

Quote from: Orior on February 07, 2018, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

Bit Freudian considering the circumstances...

Asal Mor

Quote from: fearbrags on February 07, 2018, 04:22:39 PM

""Justice will again have not been served in a rape trial.""

Why have a trail at all ?? Just Get Judge Syferus to read a few newspapers  and Give his verdict ;)
+1 a much fairer system, though he'd hate having that level of moral authority over everyone.

AZOffaly

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.

Asal Mor

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

StGallsGAA

Or he's saving that question for the accused as their version of the answer will look better...

Syferus

Quote from: StGallsGAA on February 07, 2018, 06:24:19 PM
Or he's saving that question for the accused as their version of the answer will look better...

That's literally another way of saying the same thing.

seafoid



Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

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

Milltown Row2

Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 06:59:03 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

I suppose then she'd have said same thing when the other girl walked in?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Syferus

Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 06:59:03 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

Sounds like the woman is making a holy show of the defence case. Good to see.

omaghjoe

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?

Avondhu star

Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:14:29 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

AZOffaly

Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

omaghjoe

Quote from: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 08:22:38 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:14:29 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.

Sooo.... Is that a No?

Milltown Row2

Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 07:54:39 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 06:59:03 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

Sounds like the woman is making a holy show of the defence case. Good to see.

She's been very good with her responses, smart girl, medical degree I heard (could be bullshit! ) . has remembered a serious amount of stuff for admitting being very hazy with the amount of booze taken. Not
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Main Street

#389
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.
Very interesting  that you offer a critique on the quality of the cross examination after she came back into the room ::)

Afaiu the defense team do realise the essence of courtroom strategy in a defense against  charges of rape and are desperately trying to establish that consent was given to one and all in that room. The whole focus so far on events after  she came into the room  is about consent.
You tell us, what is more important for the defense team than to first establish a level of acceptable consent from the morsels of the evidence? Isn't consent 99% of the case?
In a nutshell, rape is sex without consent and also you can only give consent if you know (within reason) what is about to transpire.
So far the woman is a compelling witness.