The ulster rugby trial

[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.

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.

So he was covering up a rape that he didn't think happened. Right.

Some of ye seem to have serious trouble drawing straight lines when it comes to evidence that incriminates the defendants, or in this case a defendants incrimating themselves directly. It seems like it is easier for minds to bend over backwards to find reasons why the obvious answer is not the answer, but when roles are reversed there's pathetic attempts at discrediting the victim.

Everyone else can see the double standard in effect even if some refuse to.

[Milltown Row2]

I'd say Syferus you use crayons to draw!

I take the piss on most of these threads, I couldn't give a rats ass either way on most topics. But you actually believe your posts (or the ones you cut and paste from the internet) make people believe you!

[sid waddell]

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?

Nobody has to have been anywhere to know that the interviews given by the four defendants massively contradict each other.

[David McKeown]

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?

I'll try you'll have to forgive my dyslexia and use of double negatives. The jury will be told to look at all the evidence in the case. Having done so if they are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt (often referred to as being firmly convinced) that penetrative sex occurred and they a similarly satisfied that the injured party did not consent then they will have to consider what was the reasonable belief of the defendants at the time. Only if they are firmly convinced that either the defendants didn't believe the injured party consented or that in the circumstances that belief was not reasonable can they convict of rape.

To use extreme examples (which are not true to life and shouldn't be taken as indication of anything other than a hypothetical) if a defendant says I believed she had consented but the evidence in the trial was the girl was saying no very loudly or screaming out for help or crying that might be evidence a jury is told they can consider in deciding whether or not the defendants belief was reasonable. In that example it almost certainly wouldn't be.

Rape trials are rarely ever as straightforward. Another better example might be when the defendant says she said she was happy to have sex so we had sex even I knew she was soo drunk she couldn't stand and didn't know where she was. In that case the jury would be able to take into account the defendants knowledge of the state of the victim and could thereafter form a view that in all the circumstances the defendant knew the victim was too drunk to consent and therefore could not reasonably have believed that she consented.

Where it gets much more difficult is when the defence is for example she didn't say yes but she didn't say no and she seemed happy enough. Or she was a bit drunk but not too drunk or I didn't realise how drunk she was and she went along with what I was doing.

In this case I wouldn't envy the jury but again I don't know all the evidence

[David McKeown]

I should add I may have misunderstood your original post. Recklessness as a legal concept wouldn't apply here as it would mean that individuals may be convicted if they didn't take the appropriate steps to ensure consent.  That is to say if recklessness applied then even if they reasonably believed what they were doing was consensual defendants could still be convicted because they failed to ascertain if the victim was consenting either by for example forgetting to ask or getting very drunk.

That may not have been what you meant though.

[Main Street]

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?

Reckless is a legal issue and relates to this case. What you wrote Rois was pertinent.
An accused person could be judged reckless in being somewhat aware that the woman was not complaint, but carried on regardless. A legal standard of consent is that the accused genuinely believed he had consent from the woman. The jury might be asked that (about the accuseds'  belief being genuine)  from the Judge in this case.
We already know that merely having a belief that a woman was consenting is not a legal defence

[seafoid]

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?

Nobody has to have been anywhere to know that the interviews given by the four defendants massively contradict each other.

If it had been one defendant it would have been easier to make up a story and stick to it  . Olding and McIlroy didnt see how the claimant ended up without her trousers and underwear. It probably seemed too porn to be true . And they were drunk.

[seafoid]

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/contradictions-large-and-small-emerge-in-the-narrative-as-claims-of-damage-limitation-heard-36652424.html
"
It was "damage limitation", the detective had suggested to Rory Harrison during his final interview.

Going for lunch the next day had offered the friends a chance to "get around the table to talk about what happened", he put it to him.

"I deny that," Mr Harrison had said.

The detective continued, saying the alleged victim had said he did nothing wrong and on the face of it, that was true. However, he put it to him that he had deliberately intended to withhold information to protect his friends.

"You knew this was not consensual from an early stage," said the detective.

"You took her off-site to protect their reputations.

"It was a deliberate act on your part in the hope of calming her down and to discourage her from going to the police."

They had all met up the next day to provide his friends with the opportunity of corroborating their story, the detective continued.

"I deny it," Mr Harrison had repeated.

"Rory has given his full explanation for everything," his solicitor told the police, after his client had been further pressed.



Not for the first time, many considerable contradictions, large and small, emerged in the narrative.

In a repeat of the format used to read out Paddy Jackson's police interviews, Mr Harrison's interviews were dramatised, with the detective in the box reading his own lines and, this time, Rosemary Walsh, for the prosecution, reading the part of the defendant in her soft London tones.

It was admittedly slightly incongruous.

Unlike Mr Harrison's, Blane McIlroy's police interviews were played aloud in court, containing his claim that the alleged victim had voluntarily performed a sex act on him - although this is inconsistent with the accounts of all the other parties, including the alleged victim herself.

Smaller details were also gleaned - such as the fact Mr Harrison did not consider Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding or Blane McIlroy to be his "best friends or anything like that", and did not socialise with them often. Mr McIlroy lives in America, so he 'rarely' sees him, he added."

[Rois]

I should add I may have misunderstood your original post. Recklessness as a legal concept wouldn't apply here as it would mean that individuals may be convicted if they didn't take the appropriate steps to ensure consent.  That is to say if recklessness applied then even if they reasonably believed what they were doing was consensual defendants could still be convicted because they failed to ascertain if the victim was consenting either by for example forgetting to ask or getting very drunk.

That may not have been what you meant though.

This was what I meant as it came out in a conversation with my barrister brother in law early in the case when he introduced this concept to me. He had sat in on a few sessions though he is not involved,and he was speculating on possible arguments for conviction. We haven't talked about it since.  So how come  it wouldn't apply here ?  The last part of what you said sounds plausible but there's obv a reason why  it doesn't apply.

[Keyser soze]

Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.

[magpie seanie]

Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.

So he shouldn't be charged because he did it badly? Is that what you're saying?

[Keyser soze]

Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.

So he shouldn't be charged because he did it badly? Is that what you're saying?

You cannot even understand a simple sentence. 

Maybe you should give up again [that didn't last too long the last time unfortunately] as you are becoming as hysterical as that other buffoon.

[Frank_The_Tank]

a jury of eight men and three women.. Is it pure chance the gender balance in jury duty?  Would 50-50 not be better in cases like this?  Yes, I know it's down to 11 now.....

The juror will be replaced.

No they won't.

The jury is chosen before the case. There is a list of jurors and the prosecution and defence have the opportunity to challenge etc. You can't pick and chose procedure. There has to be uniformity.

The judge then decides whether this jury member should stand down or proceed. If the court requires the juror to stand down, one of the remaining three jurors will fill the space.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/jury-selection-process/#

I'm going off this. May only apply if they are dismissed before the case?

Is this proof that you know feck all squared?

I see Syf never responds to a post when he is clearly wrong to even admit his fallacy

[seafoid]

Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ? 

[AZOffaly]

Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.