The ulster rugby trial

[Asal Mor]

Fair points seafoid but it seems unfair to put inconsistencies and strange behaviour/explanations on one side down to trauma and on the other side down to lies which I think is what the jury will have to do in order to convict.

Asal, I would say the prosecution will focus on credibility and drink taken.
23 drinks is shocking.

I can't argue with that either seafoid.

[macdanger2]

Fair points seafoid but it seems unfair to put inconsistencies and strange behaviour/explanations on one side down to trauma and on the other side down to lies which I think is what the jury will have to do in order to convict.

Asal, I would say the prosecution will focus on credibility and drink taken.
23 drinks is shocking.

I think it'll all come down to this. It's a he said/she said and who comes across better on the stand

[passedit]

Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

This is it for me.

The claimant maitains that Jackson had rough non consensual vaginal sex with her.
Her story is corroberated (with the obvious exception of consent but this is not contradicted either) by the medical evidence, Dara Florence and the men's own text exchanges.
Jackson's defence is that he didn't have vaginal sex with her and in any case there was no roughness. His evidence has been contradicted by Dara Florence and his own text exchanges and not helped by the other defendants.

If he'd claimed consensual vaginal sex then maybe there'd be some doubt but he doesnt, he's done.

[Hound]

The police interview is claimant led according to someone in the PSNI. It is not structured to cover everything given the trauma associated with rape.

It's little details like this that are being ignored or people are unaware of that are crucial I think.

Another thing that strikes me as weird was "asking" her to take her top off. Doesn't ring true at all. I'm sure I'm wrong....

I'm sure the words were something like "Take your top off"

Which would not be an uncommon thing to say to someone in a consensual arrangement. And it's 99% of the time a request not an order.

But without tone or body language we can't know for sure whether this was said as a question or an intimidating threat or something in between. Or why she complied, rather than saying f.uck off and walking out. 
I keep coming back to the point that there was no threat of physical violence so why just comply. And I know the doctor said that victims often comply, but there was no follow up to dig into the detail, because I can certainly imagine that scenario where there is a threat of violence. But not in a situation where there are 3 other girls in the house and they'd be almost certain to react to a cry for help. 

[Hound]

Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

This is it for me.

The claimant maitains that Jackson had rough non consensual vaginal sex with her.
Her story is corroberated (with the obvious exception of consent but this is not contradicted either) by the medical evidence, Dara Florence and the men's own text exchanges.
Jackson's defence is that he didn't have vaginal sex with her and in any case there was no roughness. His evidence has been contradicted by Dara Florence and his own text exchanges and not helped by the other defendants.

If he'd claimed consensual vaginal sex then maybe there'd be some doubt but he doesnt, he's done.

The "rough" wasn't corroborated. A small cut most likely caused by a fingernail. Only bruise of any significance was on the elbow and she didnt know how that arose.

The 2nd doctor disagreed with 1st doctor and said the amount of blood couldnt have come from such a cut and is likely menstrual and said 1st doctor's examination was lacking. So still doubt on that.

[macdanger2]

Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

This is it for me.

The claimant maitains that Jackson had rough non consensual vaginal sex with her.
Her story is corroberated (with the obvious exception of consent but this is not contradicted either) by the medical evidence, Dara Florence and the men's own text exchanges.
Jackson's defence is that he didn't have vaginal sex with her and in any case there was no roughness. His evidence has been contradicted by Dara Florence and his own text exchanges and not helped by the other defendants.

If he'd claimed consensual vaginal sex then maybe there'd be some doubt but he doesnt, he's done.

The "rough" wasn't corroborated. A small cut most likely caused by a fingernail. Only bruise of any significance was on the elbow and she didnt know how that arose.

The 2nd doctor disagreed with 1st doctor and said the amount of blood couldnt have come from such a cut and is likely menstrual and said 1st doctor's examination was lacking. So still doubt on that.

Was there evidence to that effect?

[seafoid]

It's a rape trial. The prosecuting QC has presumably seen a few which should move things beyond he said/she said. I just don't think Jackson''s story about Olding walking in and taking over from him just like that is credible either.

[Minder]

I heard this house described as a "gang banging house" by someone that knows of it so I doubt the "sharing" and taking turns is anything new for these fellas

[Hound]

Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

This is it for me.

The claimant maitains that Jackson had rough non consensual vaginal sex with her.
Her story is corroberated (with the obvious exception of consent but this is not contradicted either) by the medical evidence, Dara Florence and the men's own text exchanges.
Jackson's defence is that he didn't have vaginal sex with her and in any case there was no roughness. His evidence has been contradicted by Dara Florence and his own text exchanges and not helped by the other defendants.

If he'd claimed consensual vaginal sex then maybe there'd be some doubt but he doesnt, he's done.

The "rough" wasn't corroborated. A small cut most likely caused by a fingernail. Only bruise of any significance was on the elbow and she didnt know how that arose.

The 2nd doctor disagreed with 1st doctor and said the amount of blood couldnt have come from such a cut and is likely menstrual and said 1st doctor's examination was lacking. So still doubt on that.

Was there evidence to that effect?

Note "most likely"

The 2nd doctor said very unlikely to have been caused by manhood, given no bruising elsewhere. Also shape of nail versus shape of anything else. A ring on a finger would be 2nd most likely I'd guess. There's no doubt he used his fingers.

I'd guess he tried to have a go with the lad but couldn't keep er lit with all the drink. Otherwise he wouldnt have stopped and there'd be fluid evidence.

Sounds like McIlroy heard a version of what happened to Olding and in his haze of drink imagined it happened to himself! A complete BS artist is my guess! 

[johnnycool]

I heard this house described as a "gang banging house" by someone that knows of it so I doubt the "sharing" and taking turns is anything new for these fellas

Since you've broken the ice Minder, I heard something similar recently and that Mammy and Daddy Jackson have bailed young Patrick out in the recent past allegedly.....
Could all be bullshit as I'm obviously going on nth hand information.

[DuffleKing]

Since you've broken the ice Minder, I heard something similar recently and that Mammy and Daddy Jackson have bailed young Patrick out in the recent past allegedly.....
Could all be bullshit as I'm obviously going on nth hand information.

Why would you bother your hole typing that sort of garbage out?

[johnnycool]

Since you've broken the ice Minder, I heard something similar recently and that Mammy and Daddy Jackson have bailed young Patrick out in the recent past allegedly.....
Could all be bullshit as I'm obviously going on nth hand information.

Why would you bother your hole typing that sort of garbage out?

Because Minder had heard of similar incidents with our Patrick which gave a bit of credence to my source which i'd known about for a few weeks now and didn't post.

Patricks wholesome character that he was portraying in Court looks to be garbage.

You can chose to ignore it if you want, I'm sure you're a big enough boy.

[Orchard park]

Since you've broken the ice Minder, I heard something similar recently and that Mammy and Daddy Jackson have bailed young Patrick out in the recent past allegedly.....
Could all be bullshit as I'm obviously going on nth hand information.

Why would you bother your hole typing that sort of garbage out?

Because Minder had heard of similar incidents with our Patrick which gave a bit of credence to my source which i'd known about for a few weeks now and didn't post.

Patricks wholesome character that he was portraying in Court looks to be garbage.

You can chose to ignore it if you want, I'm sure you're a big enough boy.

But Declan fitzpatrick or some such named Z rated ex team mate said hes a lovely lad and came to his stag and wedding and had a similar sense of humour...

what is the point of those fecking character witnesses

[Keyser soze]

Wow some real scummy comments on here...a new low point. 

[Hound]

You'd have to wonder about the competence of the defence team allowing McIlroy take the stand. I understand Jackson (had to explain his version of the Dara Florence interruption), neutral re Olding, but nothing to be gained and only something to be lost by letting the other 2 talk. McIlroy, in particular because he's a headcase (and maybe an imbecile), and Harrison because he was genuinely worried something untoward had happened even though he hadnt witnessed it first hand.

Unsure re whether Harrison will take the stand, but McIlroy as a defence witness has not helped the defence one iota, and could very well have damaged it