The ulster rugby trial

[AQMP]

With all the evidence on show MS, do believe the prosecution will get all three elements to prove to the jury to convict?

Refresh my memory to save me ploughing through the entire thread MR2 - what are the three elements??

[Syferus]

Anyone know what it is like to have your private parts discussed in such detail and across the airwaves?

Two thoughts: the accused should not be named until after a conviction.
Am more convinced a victim (if she is) would be better to try and take law into her own hands than go through truama and abuse of a trial.

At this stage as no one is innocent or guilty it is absolutely horrific for all parties.

No one will come out of this well and it is clear many lives are ruined irrespective of the outcome unfortunately

If the woman gets a conviction she's an absolute hero. Stop trying to draw false equivalence. You've attempted it a few times now.

[Hound]

Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.

Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

[AQMP]

Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.

Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

"It looked like consensual actions" - Surprised the prosecution QC didn't follow this up, but maybe he did and it just wasn't reported.

[Syferus]

Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.

Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

I don't think you still get that violence isn't a necessary component in rape, let alone when one hulking rugby player has already broken the victim's will.

[gallsman]

Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.

Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

Pretty big error you made there. You know, competent fabricating a piece of the story.

[LeoMc]

Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.

Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

"It looked like consensual actions" - Surprised the prosecution QC didn't follow this up, but maybe he did and it just wasn't reported.

They did. On re-examination Hedworth QC asked her if there were any signs of the woman "positively consenting". She said No.

[Taylor]

Anyone know what it is like to have your private parts discussed in such detail and across the airwaves?

Two thoughts: the accused should not be named until after a conviction.
Am more convinced a victim (if she is) would be better to try and take law into her own hands than go through truama and abuse of a trial.

At this stage as no one is innocent or guilty it is absolutely horrific for all parties.

No one will come out of this well and it is clear many lives are ruined irrespective of the outcome unfortunately

If the woman gets a conviction she's an absolute hero. Stop trying to draw false equivalence. You've attempted it a few times now.

Apologies your Honour.

And if she doesnt get a conviction that would make her a liar? Or worse? I think not.

Many lives are ruined irrespective of the outcome.

[AZOffaly]

Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.

Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

I don't think you still get that violence isn't a necessary component in rape, let alone when one hulking rugby player has already broken the victim's will.

Paddy Jackson? From the snippets and tweets, I think it's impossible to say she was raped, beyond reasonable doubt.

[Milltown Row2]

Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.

Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

"It looked like consensual actions" - Surprised the prosecution QC didn't follow this up, but maybe he did and it just wasn't reported.

They did. On re-examination Hedworth QC asked her if there were any signs of the woman "positively consenting". She said No.

What would that mean? Waving to the girl to join them or saying its ok I'm enjoying this? strange question

[Syferus]

Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.

Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

I don't think you still get that violence isn't a necessary component in rape, let alone when one hulking rugby player has already broken the victim's will.

Paddy Jackson? From the snippets and tweets, I think it's impossible to say she was raped, beyond reasonable doubt.

You've a strange opinion to say the least, AZ.

[magpie seanie]

Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.

Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

I don't think you still get that violence isn't a necessary component in rape, let alone when one hulking rugby player has already broken the victim's will.

Paddy Jackson? From the snippets and tweets, I think it's impossible to say she was raped, beyond reasonable doubt.

Ah come on AZ, you hardly think most girls would be physically able for an international professional rugby player. Just because it's said by Syf doesn't mean it's wrong.

Also - I think you need to see this afternoon's evidence.......and possibly there's more to come.

[AZOffaly]

Maybe, but from what I've read, it seems to be a case of he said, she said. The Witness was absolutely not saying it looked like a bad situation, even if she couldn't say it was absolutely consensual. (How would you know). The medical evidence seems to be inconclusive because the same results could be seen by consensual sex. The witness said Oldings hands were not on the girl.

The main lie that seems obvious is Jackson's statement to the cops that he didn't penetrate her. That seems to be a lie.

I suppose you could infer that his whole story is a lie, but I'm not sure.

There's enough doubt and inconsistencies that I'd be thinking they'd get off.

MASSIVE CAVEAT, based on what I see and read on twitter. I'm not in the courtroom or on the jury.

[Hound]

On re-examination Hedworth QC asked her if there were any signs of the woman "positively consenting". She said No.

Absolutely correct. But you could take Q3 below or Q6 below and requote at will to give opposite sides of the argument. Really need to take all of what she said re consent into account, rather than just one answer (and of course bearing in mind she was getting a very quick snapshot).

Q: "Did you have any concern when you left the room?"
A: "No."

Q: "Did you see any sign that (the complainant) was frozen with fear when you were stood watching her on the bed?"
A: "No,"

Q: "From what you could see, and please listen to my question very carefully: were there any signs of (the complainant) not consenting to what was going on?"
A: "No."

Q: "There was nothing unusual in the position that she was adopting that made you feel her position was forced or contrived in any way?"
A: "No."

Q: "Apart from turning her head, were there any actions?"
A: "No."

Q: "Were there any signs that (the complainant) was positively consenting?"
A: "No."

[AZOffaly]

Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.

Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

I don't think you still get that violence isn't a necessary component in rape, let alone when one hulking rugby player has already broken the victim's will.

Paddy Jackson? From the snippets and tweets, I think it's impossible to say she was raped, beyond reasonable doubt.

Ah come on AZ, you hardly think most girls would be physically able for an international professional rugby player. Just because it's said by Syf doesn't mean it's wrong.

Also - I think you need to see this afternoon's evidence.......and possibly there's more to come.

I was just saying there's no need to gild the lilly. JAckson is not a 'hulking' rugby player. He's about 5'9 or 5'10. Of course he's still stronger than a 19 year old girl. There's just no need to embellish.

It's amazing the way people can see the same tweets, and draw different conclusions. I presume I'm reading the same as you, but you seem to think that points to guilt. I don't see it that way.