The ulster rugby trial

[johnneycool]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

But we don't know the IP's background. To date she seems well educated and clued in. 

[Avondhu star]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

Seems to have fingers in a lot of different things

[Link]

Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she "100% saw sex" between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to "sex" they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson's bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.

Why would you just cherry pick all the points that were helpful to the prosecution and completely ignore all the points that were helpful to the defence?

I think your Olding paragraph is absolute nonsense, but the rest is spot on and is indeed good for the prosecution. But you left out the other side, that while the witness did not see consent actively given, what she witnessed seemed consensual. And in now way was the girl frozen. She was actively given Olding oral, while his hands were by his side, so no physical force being used. And when the IP saw the witness, she did not yell for help that these two lads were raping here, instead she turned her head away to hide her face.

That's all very unhelpful for the prosecution, but as you said, if it really is PJ's story that he didn't penetrate, then that would seem to have been caught out as a lie. Doesn't make him guilty but severely questions his credibility. Goes to the earlier comments that saying nothing to the police would have been wiser, as the temptation to exaggerate or lie when being accused of something, if you thought it would help you (regardless of whether you are actually guilty or not), must be great.

It turns out the couch where Olding crashed out was upstairs, so I'll give him that one. Still think it's weird that he would decide to lie down beside a woman who was asleep and had vomited earlier. But anyway.

You assert that "in no way was the girl frozen. She was actively giving Olding oral".

Going by the testimony as reported, you're in no position to be able to make that assertion. The witness who walked in said there were "no signs" of the complainant positively consenting.

"Actively giving oral", as you put it, would be classified as a sign of positive consent.

The witness who walked in testified that in her opinion the complainant did not look distressed. That was only her assumption - she was not in a position to know whether the complainant was distressed or not, because she is not the complainant.

Given that the witness stated that there were no signs of positive consent, the witness is thus in no position to be able to assert that what went on was consensual.

The default position of any normal person who walks in on a sexual encounter is to assume that it is consensual, given that the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters are consensual. People don't walk in on a sexual encounter and think to themselves, David Brent like, "I think that looks like a rape", unless it is absolutely obvious.

What is clear from the witness's testimony is that her belief that the encounter she walked in on was consensual was based on that very default assumption that sex is consensual. It was not based on any "signs" or appearance - because she has stated "there were no signs of positive consent".

The witness's testimony is consistent with the complainant's story.

Did the witness testimony not describe Olding having his hands on his thighs opposed to the back of the accusers head therefore not matching up?

[WT4E]

What is the maximum penalty for the charges involved?

[brokencrossbar1]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

[StGallsGAA]

There's no private schools in Ulster!

[Milltown Row2]

There's no private schools in Ulster!

There are paying schools I thought? but not like the public schools in England

[Owen Brannigan]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

Correct.  Both the socio-economic and geographic make up of the jury is a major factor in their decision making.  N.Ireland is a very small place.  The IP and the defendants all come from an affluent area of Belfast, all of them have been to grammar schools and are all middle class.  All parties in the case are young people of some privilege.  How will this affect the perception of the jurors? 

BTW the judge is Patricia Smyth.

[David McKeown]

What is the maximum penalty for the charges involved?

Life for the rape and perverting the course of justice charges. The exposure is 2 years. Can't remember what the other charges are.

[LeoMc]

Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she "100% saw sex" between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to "sex" they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson's bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.

Why would you just cherry pick all the points that were helpful to the prosecution and completely ignore all the points that were helpful to the defence?

I think your Olding paragraph is absolute nonsense, but the rest is spot on and is indeed good for the prosecution. But you left out the other side, that while the witness did not see consent actively given, what she witnessed seemed consensual. And in now way was the girl frozen. She was actively given Olding oral, while his hands were by his side, so no physical force being used. And when the IP saw the witness, she did not yell for help that these two lads were raping here, instead she turned her head away to hide her face.

That's all very unhelpful for the prosecution, but as you said, if it really is PJ's story that he didn't penetrate, then that would seem to have been caught out as a lie. Doesn't make him guilty but severely questions his credibility. Goes to the earlier comments that saying nothing to the police would have been wiser, as the temptation to exaggerate or lie when being accused of something, if you thought it would help you (regardless of whether you are actually guilty or not), must be great.

It turns out the couch where Olding crashed out was upstairs, so I'll give him that one. Still think it's weird that he would decide to lie down beside a woman who was asleep and had vomited earlier. But anyway.

You assert that "in no way was the girl frozen. She was actively giving Olding oral".

Going by the testimony as reported, you're in no position to be able to make that assertion. The witness who walked in said there were "no signs" of the complainant positively consenting.

"Actively giving oral", as you put it, would be classified as a sign of positive consent.

The witness who walked in testified that in her opinion the complainant did not look distressed. That was only her assumption - she was not in a position to know whether the complainant was distressed or not, because she is not the complainant.

Given that the witness stated that there were no signs of positive consent, the witness is thus in no position to be able to assert that what went on was consensual.

The default position of any normal person who walks in on a sexual encounter is to assume that it is consensual, given that the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters are consensual. People don't walk in on a sexual encounter and think to themselves, David Brent like, "I think that looks like a rape", unless it is absolutely obvious.

What is clear from the witness's testimony is that her belief that the encounter she walked in on was consensual was based on that very default assumption that sex is consensual. It was not based on any "signs" or appearance - because she has stated "there were no signs of positive consent".

The witness's testimony is consistent with the complainant's story.

Did the witness testimony not describe Olding having his hands on his thighs opposed to the back of the accusers head therefore not matching up?

Did McIlroy not claim it was him received the BJ in Jacksons bedroom? (Toby Hedworth QC yesterday)

[Link]

Did the witness testimony not describe Olding having his hands on his thighs opposed to the back of the accusers head therefore not matching up?

Did McIlroy not claim it was him received the BJ in Jacksons bedroom? (Toby Hedworth QC yesterday)

No. McIlroy claimed a handjob.

I can't find the article which mentioned hands by his sides but Hound claimed that on her in the last few days.

[Avondhu star]

Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she "100% saw sex" between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to "sex" they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson's bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.

Why would you just cherry pick all the points that were helpful to the prosecution and completely ignore all the points that were helpful to the defence?

I think your Olding paragraph is absolute nonsense, but the rest is spot on and is indeed good for the prosecution. But you left out the other side, that while the witness did not see consent actively given, what she witnessed seemed consensual. And in now way was the girl frozen. She was actively given Olding oral, while his hands were by his side, so no physical force being used. And when the IP saw the witness, she did not yell for help that these two lads were raping here, instead she turned her head away to hide her face.

That's all very unhelpful for the prosecution, but as you said, if it really is PJ's story that he didn't penetrate, then that would seem to have been caught out as a lie. Doesn't make him guilty but severely questions his credibility. Goes to the earlier comments that saying nothing to the police would have been wiser, as the temptation to exaggerate or lie when being accused of something, if you thought it would help you (regardless of whether you are actually guilty or not), must be great.

It turns out the couch where Olding crashed out was upstairs, so I'll give him that one. Still think it's weird that he would decide to lie down beside a woman who was asleep and had vomited earlier. But anyway.

You assert that "in no way was the girl frozen. She was actively giving Olding oral".

Going by the testimony as reported, you're in no position to be able to make that assertion. The witness who walked in said there were "no signs" of the complainant positively consenting.

"Actively giving oral", as you put it, would be classified as a sign of positive consent.

The witness who walked in testified that in her opinion the complainant did not look distressed. That was only her assumption - she was not in a position to know whether the complainant was distressed or not, because she is not the complainant.

Given that the witness stated that there were no signs of positive consent, the witness is thus in no position to be able to assert that what went on was consensual.

The default position of any normal person who walks in on a sexual encounter is to assume that it is consensual, given that the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters are consensual. People don't walk in on a sexual encounter and think to themselves, David Brent like, "I think that looks like a rape", unless it is absolutely obvious.

What is clear from the witness's testimony is that her belief that the encounter she walked in on was consensual was based on that very default assumption that sex is consensual. It was not based on any "signs" or appearance - because she has stated "there were no signs of positive consent".

The witness's testimony is consistent with the complainant's story.

Did the witness testimony not describe Olding having his hands on his thighs opposed to the back of the accusers head therefore not matching up?

Look Ma! No hands!

[Syferus]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.

[Main Street]

The defence has the right to read through the evidence gathered pre-trial, which would also have included the statement given to the police from the woman who entered the room. It appears that Jackson's testimony, that he did not have penetrative sex, has been totally contradicted by that witness
and his testimony has been caught out on a lie and no small lie.

Could it be that the witness had not given a full statement to the police or that she wasn't asked enough questions about what she actually witnessed?  Did the defence lawyer walk into that one blindfolded? or did he unnecessarily put the defence case at a higher risk for so little gain?

[Frank_The_Tank]

I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.

Where have you got this information?  Article below and 3 others from the day they were discussing it doesn't mention i and the judge also mentions about details in the media being misrepresented so did you hear it in the courtroom

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/alleged-rape-victim-tells-jackson-and-olding-trial-she-was-handled-like-piece-of-meat-1.3383356