The ulster rugby trial

[Aaron Boone]

The jury will defo have a night in a hotel, wherever that might be.

[magpie seanie]

The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.

Not to saying you are right or wrong but when I read some of the Tweets about the case you could easily come to the exact opposition conclusion.

For example. One Tweeters account is he says McIlroy was. Ever in the room and didn't have sex with the complainant and is therefore a liar. the other Tweeter seems to report the exact same evidence as I didn't see him in the room but he may well have been I've no reason to thing he would lie. Without getting the full picture which I suppose we never will I don't think I could reach definite conclusions either way.

Yes, fair point though "not seeing him in the room" is pretty much the same thing.....it's not like it's a ballroom full of people or anything. There are an awful lot of apparent inconsistencies. Some people went ape over a much smaller number of apparent inconsistencies over 6 or 7 days evidence by the alleged victim.

[Syferus]

Sure they were just being unbiased..

[David McKeown]

The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.

Not to saying you are right or wrong but when I read some of the Tweets about the case you could easily come to the exact opposition conclusion.

For example. One Tweeters account is he says McIlroy was. Ever in the room and didn't have sex with the complainant and is therefore a liar. the other Tweeter seems to report the exact same evidence as I didn't see him in the room but he may well have been I've no reason to thing he would lie. Without getting the full picture which I suppose we never will I don't think I could reach definite conclusions either way.

Yes, fair point though "not seeing him in the room" is pretty much the same thing.....it's not like it's a ballroom full of people or anything. There are an awful lot of apparent inconsistencies. Some people went ape over a much smaller number of apparent inconsistencies over 6 or 7 days evidence by the alleged victim.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you are incorrect in your assertions at all the point I'm making is you could easily read one set of tweets as well he wasn't in the room whilst I was there whilst you could read the other tweets as he was never in the room at all. That's two entirely different interpretations on what appears to be the same piece of evidence. That's why I think it's so hard to be trying to analyse and re analyse the strength of the evidence either way based on the synopsises we are seeing.

[David McKeown]

HIs interpretation of what a spit roast is won't do him any favours. Character reference from a young medical professional female though should sway things back for him.

Maybe some of the guys like BCB or DMcK might explain this to us. I thought there were only limited circumstances in which a character witness would be allowed before the jury give a decision? What weight would be attached to this testimony? Maybe his Mammy should be put on the stand to tell us he's a great fella.

A defendant is entitled to a good character direction from a judge and a character witnesses when they are of absolute good character (ie no previous convictions or reprehensible conduct alleged, admitted or proven) and they are of effective good character. Effective good character is a matter of law for the judge to decide whether a good character direction is necessary and permissible. There's a number of technial matters in respect of effective good character.

Good character can then relate to two things either a the defendants lack of propensity or his credibility. (Lack of propensity makes it more unlikely that he consider the offence alleged particularly relevant in more serious charges where people don't tend to have serious crimes as their first offence)

If a character witness is called their evidence has to relate to the overal character of the defendant and not simply an example or two.

The jury will be told that the defendants are entitled to good character directions and witnesses (assuming they are) but that like all other evidence in the cas what weight they place on it is a matter for the jury.

[AQMP]

The jury will defo have a night in a hotel, wherever that might be.

Ollie's??

[Taylor]

As Tony has left (temporarily) Syferus has taken up the baton as the village twat

It's funny because you're the one who has exposed yourself as a neanderthal in this thread. That you don't have the self-awareness to see that is surprising.

That gave me quite a chuckle this morning.

[seafoid]

When he took the stand Jackson went through his CV. Methody grammar school, captain of Ireland at u17 and U20 or whatever. Pretty impressive. And he ends up talking about what Stormy Daniels would call his junk in front of the world. If he is deemed guilty it will be a tragedy worthy of Shakespeare.

[AQMP]

As Tony has left (temporarily) Syferus has taken up the baton as the village twat

It's funny because you're the one who has exposed yourself as a neanderthal in this thread. That you don't have the self-awareness to see that is surprising.

Careful, there's a fella in big trouble for doing that (allegedly)

[Hound]

The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.

But Seanie, you are picking out bits that suit your argument.

Dara Florence was a prosecution witness.

From the texts read out it was clear that only Harrison had noticed she was in some kind distress hence he got in the taxi. None of the other men or women in the house saw this. In her own testimony she said it was only after she went downstairs that she started to break down.

Afterwards the texts suggest that Harrison only told McIlroy about her being upset. Neither of them mentioned the distress on the WhatsApp groups. So Jackson's testimony supports all that. Prosecution said surely they talked about it with Jackson, but he said they didn't and that he's disappointed in them that they didnt. Personally I think that is completely believeable. If they had told Jackson, whether he was guilty or not, he would have gone to the girl to try and sort it out.

To say the girl didnt have inconsistencies in her story means that you must have missed some of it. There were numerous times when she explained inconsistencies by saying he wasn't thinking straight given the circumstances. And little things like saying she didn't fancy Jackson, but not denying she may have been staring at him and she did consensually kiss him the first time.

Given everyone had a heap to drink, there are bound to be inconsistencies in everyone's stories.

Also I think there's been a helluva lot of half-arsed reporting on Jackson's testimony for some reason (and probably everyone else's too), particularly around McIlroy. Some reports saying Jackson said McIlroy never came in, yet clearly Jackson said he did come in as he spent the night in the room. There's doesn't seem to be anyone reporting the full list of questions and answers which would help fill in the missing links. The Irish Times report of Jackson's testimony didn't even mention the McIlroy bits, so their reporter thought it was less important.

[Frank_The_Tank]

The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.

Is she the defence star witness - the defence only started this week - she was called by the prosecution previously.   I will imagine she will be called again by the defence - with the defence likely saying can you be sure of what you seen going on in the room - or perhaps the defence wont call her

[Hound]

Is she the defence star witness - the defence only started this week - she was called by the prosecution previously.   I will imagine she will be called again by the defence - with the defence likely saying can you be sure of what you seen going on in the room - or perhaps the defence wont call her

Prosecution witness. Defence had opportunity to cross-examine. As I understand it, she can't be called again unless in exceptional circumstances.

But some of her story supports the defence, some of it supports the prosecution.

[AQMP]

The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.

But Seanie, you are picking out bits that suit your argument.

Dara Florence was a prosecution witness.

From the texts read out it was clear that only Harrison had noticed she was in some kind distress hence he got in the taxi. None of the other men or women in the house saw this. In her own testimony she said it was only after she went downstairs that she started to break down.

Afterwards the texts suggest that Harrison only told McIlroy about her being upset. Neither of them mentioned the distress on the WhatsApp groups. So Jackson's testimony supports all that. Prosecution said surely they talked about it with Jackson, but he said they didn't and that he's disappointed in them that they didnt. Personally I think that is completely believeable. If they had told Jackson, whether he was guilty or not, he would have gone to the girl to try and sort it out.

To say the girl didnt have inconsistencies in her story means that you must have missed some of it. There were numerous times when she explained inconsistencies by saying he wasn't thinking straight given the circumstances. And little things like saying she didn't fancy Jackson, but not denying she may have been staring at him and she did consensually kiss him the first time.

Given everyone had a heap to drink, there are bound to be inconsistencies in everyone's stories.

Also I think there's been a helluva lot of half-arsed reporting on Jackson's testimony for some reason (and probably everyone else's too), particularly around McIlroy. Some reports saying Jackson said McIlroy never came in, yet clearly Jackson said he did come in as he spent the night in the room. There's doesn't seem to be anyone reporting the full list of questions and answers which would help fill in the missing links. The Irish Times report of Jackson's testimony didn't even mention the McIlroy bits, so their reporter thought it was less important.

Yeah, I'm surprised that this exchange hasn't been covered in much detail (except for here!) as it seems to me that it's quite important if Jackson is contradicting McIlroy's statement.

[Frank_The_Tank]

Is she the defence star witness - the defence only started this week - she was called by the prosecution previously.   I will imagine she will be called again by the defence - with the defence likely saying can you be sure of what you seen going on in the room - or perhaps the defence wont call her

Prosecution witness. Defence had opportunity to cross-examine. As I understand it, she can't be called again unless in exceptional circumstances.

But some of her story supports the defence, some of it supports the prosecution.

Right wasnt away of that - shows what can happen with fireside lawyers

[Milltown Row2]

Is she the defence star witness - the defence only started this week - she was called by the prosecution previously.   I will imagine she will be called again by the defence - with the defence likely saying can you be sure of what you seen going on in the room - or perhaps the defence wont call her

Prosecution witness. Defence had opportunity to cross-examine. As I understand it, she can't be called again unless in exceptional circumstances.

But some of her story supports the defence, some of it supports the prosecution.

Right wasnt away of that - shows what can happen with fireside lawyers

Still waiting on Syferus showing me his qualification on the fireside lawyer degree he has.. 10 attempts, still waiting