The ulster rugby trial

[GetOverTheBar]

Interesting stuff, turns out the man who knew all about the case from day one, has them hung drawn and quartered from that same day, found time for multiple soliloquy's and was fit to correct and criticise anyone who dared give a view that wasn't to his beliefs gets his info from the internet...

I just don't know what to believe anymore.

[David McKeown]

Jury selection process is quite straightforward. A panel of more than 50 will convened using the electoral register. From that panel 15-18 or so will be randomly selected. The first 12 will be used as the jury with the first person being the foreperson. The reason more than 12 are called is that some will be excused for any of a plethora of reasons tanging from knowing witnesses to having holidays booked etc.

As BC says jurors can also be challenged however a few years ago the rules changed so that jurors can only now be challenged when one side can show cause.

Once 12 are chosen the trial will begin and the excess jurors will return to the panel. They may be required for other cases. Once the trial has commenced if a juror is discharged they will not be replaced but the numbers required for majority verdicts will be amended if we get to that stage.

[magpie seanie]

Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.

[Avondhu star]

Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.

Sorry. We didn't know you were there on the night and are able to give a first hand account

Do you make a habit of looking in people's bedroom windows?

[Milltown Row2]

Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.

Liars or could have been pissed and struggled to remember. Either way it's down to the jury to decide. Thankfully otherwise you and the barrister Syferus would have them strung up!

[michaelg]

Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.

Liars or could have been pissed and struggled to remember. Either way it's down to the jury to decide. Thankfully otherwise you and the barrister Syferus would have them strung up!

That a typo?

[magpie seanie]

Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.

Liars or could have been pissed and struggled to remember. Either way it's down to the jury to decide. Thankfully otherwise you and the barrister Syferus would have them strung up!

Keep making excuses, good lad.

[Rois]

If they were so drunk as to forget, would this bring recklessness very much to the fore in the prosecution's argument, where the accused didn't care if they had consent or not?

I have to admit, I was incredibly confused today with the statements from McIlroy - seemed very much at odds with anything else that has been said by others (including the complainant on his role). 

[magpie seanie]

If they were so drunk as to forget, would this bring recklessness very much to the fore in the prosecution's argument, where the accused didn't care if they had consent or not?

I have to admit, I was incredibly confused today with the statements from McIlroy - seemed very much at odds with anything else that has been said by others (including the complainant on his role).

At best their evidence has to be considered very suspect and unreliable. It took a while but we saw today why Harrison is charged.

[Milltown Row2]

Yeah bad state of affairs.

[Syferus]

Yeah bad state of affairs.

Only if your deeply held wish is for the rapists not to be convicted, which is very much seems to be.

Very good day for the girl and some measure of vindication when the friend of the rapists himself thought a rape had occurred.

[David McKeown]

If they were so drunk as to forget, would this bring recklessness very much to the fore in the prosecution's argument, where the accused didn't care if they had consent or not?

I have to admit, I was incredibly confused today with the statements from McIlroy - seemed very much at odds with anything else that has been said by others (including the complainant on his role).

Recklessness isn't an issue. The jury will be told they can only convict if they are satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendants did not reasonably believe the injured party was not consenting.

[Milltown Row2]

Yeah bad state of affairs.

Only if your deeply held wish is for the rapists not to be convicted, which is very much seems to be.

Very good day for the girl and some measure of vindication when the friend of the rapists himself thought a rape had occurred.

Which legal search did you get that from? 

There's me thinking you had some background in legal stuff and it works out that you're just full of shit

[Tony Baloney]

Yeah bad state of affairs.

Only if your deeply held wish is for the rapists not to be convicted, which is very much seems to be.

Very good day for the girl and some measure of vindication when the friend of the rapists himself thought a rape had occurred.

He didn't think a rape had occurred, he believed that the girl "had cried rape". That's not the same thing. Try to keep up.

[Rois]

Recklessness isn't an issue. The jury will be told they can only convict if they are satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendants did not reasonably believe the injured party was not consenting.

OK - though I'm struggling with your explanation (my fault, not yours).   
If I interpret your wording in my own words, the jury can only find guilty if they reasonably believe that Jackson and Olding didn't think she was not saying yes.  That makes no sense to me - sorry!  Is there another less legal way of explaining it?