The ulster rugby trial

[gallsman]

The one question we haven't got an answer to, is why did this girl leave her friends and go back to Jackson's house with 3 other girls she vaguely knew. What was she doing there?

She was invited back and accepted.

[nrico2006]

Did she know who Paddy Jackson was prior to that night in Ollies?  Was she a follower of Rugby?

[Minder]

Did she know who Paddy Jackson was prior to that night in Ollies?  Was she a follower of Rugby?

She said she didn't know who he was

[johnnycool]

Did she know who Paddy Jackson was prior to that night in Ollies?  Was she a follower of Rugby?

Allegedly not.

She still didn't know Oldings name after the event.

[longballin]

This must be the worst thread ever been on this Board. Is impossible to get any sense of a trial from snapshots in the press. Trials are fascinating and a pity they aren't live on TV... having said that they are horrific for those involved and what rape victims are put through is just callous. Don't know in this case if  she is a victim or not no more than anyone else here knows. But as I've said before, 'beyond reasonable doubt' is  a high bar.

[Keyser soze]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going to say that, its the entire basis of his case but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?

[nrico2006]

Did she know who Paddy Jackson was prior to that night in Ollies?  Was she a follower of Rugby?

Allegedly not.

She still didn't know Oldings name after the event.

Her texts would insinuate differently though.  Telling her friend she was back at 'Paddy Jacksons house' and even her friends response would suggest that they both knew who he was before.  Also, if she knew nothing about Rugby etc she wouldn't see Ulster Rugby as some powerful entity that she would have to go up against if she wanted to take her allegations further. 

[seafoid]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going ro say that, its the entire basis of his case u but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?

The nympho implication is in the quote I kindly provided.
No need for insults either.
They degrade your argument.

[gallsman]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going ro say that, its the entire basis of his case u but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?

"U" asked him to list some indicators of consent. He did precisely that. Then "u" fail to understand how that works. It is "u" that is postulating here and, apparently, "u" that is the dolt.

[gallsman]

Did she know who Paddy Jackson was prior to that night in Ollies?  Was she a follower of Rugby?

Allegedly not.

She still didn't know Oldings name after the event.

Her texts would insinuate differently though.  Telling her friend she was back at 'Paddy Jacksons house' and even her friends response would suggest that they both knew who he was before.  Also, if she knew nothing about Rugby etc she wouldn't see Ulster Rugby as some powerful entity that she would have to go up against if she wanted to take her allegations further.

How does knowing who Paddy Jackson is insinuate she was a follower of rugby?

As a former methody pupil, she'd know all about Ulster rugby and its network without having to go to Ravenhill every second Friday to cheer on the boys.

[Keyser soze]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going ro say that, its the entire basis of his case u but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?

The nympho implication is in the quote I kindly provided.
No need for insults either.
They degrade your argument.

We are not having an argument. An argument is where 2 sides present facts and use reason and logic to debate these facts. This is not what is happening here though.

What is happening here is that you have made up a load of baseless nonsense ie that the defence case is based on portraying the complainant as a nymphomaniac, and I am showing u for the complete fool that you undoubtedly are.

[seafoid]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going ro say that, its the entire basis of his case u but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?

The nympho implication is in the quote I kindly provided.
No need for insults either.
They degrade your argument.

We are not having an argument. An argument is where 2 sides present facts and use reason and logic to debate these facts. This is not what is happening here though.

What is happening here is that you have made up a load of baseless nonsense ie that the defence case is based on portraying the complainant as a nymphomaniac, and I am showing u for the complete fool that you undoubtedly are.

How many men in the one session would you consider necessary to qualify for nympho status? The defence claim she had sex with 3 men in less than an hour.
The witness saw what was going on with Jackson and Olding and it was her first time seeing a threeesome live.
Or is that a standard Monday night in Belfast ?   

[Milltown Row2]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

[Owen Brannigan]

I still believe the jury will fail to come to a majority verdict and there will be no re-trial given the publicity and media reports.

[brokencrossbar1]

I still believe the jury will fail to come to a majority verdict and there will be no re-trial given the publicity and media reports.

That's a pretty likely scenario I'd say