The ulster rugby trial

[HiMucker]

Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

I am not saying you're wrong, but I'd be interested in how you ascertained that.  I would imagine, although I am open to correction, that young men are much more likely to be involved in assaults in these type of scenarios, ie. back to after parties with strangers/acquaintances.  Unless your equating "dangers" with only sexual assault?

[gallsman]

Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

Why? She was out for the night, made the acquaintance of some people, appeared to show an interest in one of them. Why is going back to the house a bad idea? She was a grown woman, capable of making her own choices.

Or perhaps you think woman should live their lives fearing the presence of rapists around every corner

As a father, I'm just being realistic about the dangers. If PJ seemed nice then later raped her, as per her version of events, then I suppose you're right but I'd still be warning my daughter against it.

Against the danger of what though? Sex? Alcohol? Rape?

She was 19 year of age doing what 19 year olds do - go on nights out, drinking alcohol, exploring sexuality. If the "dangers" of that worry you, then I fear very much for your future. This is distinctly different from a father being uncomfortable with his daughter growing up.

[Milltown Row2]

Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

Why? She was out for the night, made the acquaintance of some people, appeared to show an interest in one of them. Why is going back to the house a bad idea? She was a grown woman, capable of making her own choices.

Or perhaps you think woman should live their lives fearing the presence of rapists around every corner

Will you be encouarging your daughters to make acquaintances with strangers and head back to their house for a 'party'

[Asal Mor]

Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

Why? She was out for the night, made the acquaintance of some people, appeared to show an interest in one of them. Why is going back to the house a bad idea? She was a grown woman, capable of making her own choices.

Or perhaps you think woman should live their lives fearing the presence of rapists around every corner

As a father, I'm just being realistic about the dangers. If PJ seemed nice then later raped her, as per her version of events, then I suppose you're right but I'd still be warning my daughter against it.

Against the danger of what though? Sex? Alcohol? Rape?

She was 19 year of age doing what 19 year olds do - go on nights out, drinking alcohol, exploring sexuality. If the "dangers" of that worry you, then I fear very much for your future. This is distinctly different from a father being uncomfortable with his daughter growing up.

If you wouldn't warn your daughter about the dangers of going back to a house full of strangers while drunk, good luck with it.

[HiMucker]

In terms of a cover up here is an excerpt from Gavan Duffy now speaking for Harrison and it's been mybview the whole time

'In relation to the prosecution's theory that a story was cooked up between the four defendants at Soul Food café, Mr. Duffy QC asks why would two Ulster rugby players have gone to the busiest and smallest café on Ormeau Rd to do so?'

If I was trying to cover something up I'd have met in the privacy of my own house and sorted it out there, not in the middle of the bloody Orneau Road!!!

I would say that I have agreed with nearly everything you have posted on this topic, and bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the legal system.  However, though it may be most unlikely that they met there the next day to orchestrate a cover up, I find it absolutely unbelievable that they didn't discuss any furore surrounding the incident involving the young women.
Do you believe the accused that this was not discussed?  Do you believe that Harrison never mentioned to them about what she text them?  Whatever about guilt or innocence I would find that implausible, in my opinion of course.

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!

yes, I have no doubt that is the case.  But is the other side of that not true?  That if the prosecution raises the question in jurors heads, that if they are surely lying about not talking about it, then what else could they be lying about?

It is, but the burden of proof lies with the prosecution - they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove the innocence of their client, merely convince the jury that proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been achieved.

Yes I understand that, I am merely pointing out that it can also be used as a tactic for the prosecution.  For the record from everything that I have read, I would agree that it doesn't look that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt.   I would say that in cases similar to this it would always be difficult to meet that bar, without some key piece of evidence.  As someone mentioned earlier, putting an innocent person behind bars would be considered the greatest tragedy in the justice system, and it is only right that the accused gets the benefit of that doubt.

[Asal Mor]

I do get the point that you need not put yourself in dodgy situations, *however* this was a house party in a nice area with a couple of well known sports stars. She wasn't exactly walking down the Falls singing the Sash and throwing petrol bombs at the houses.

My instinct on this is that the girl was attracted to Jackson, probably went with him, but at some point began to get uncomfortable and things, or the lads, were too far gone to row back. I don't believe this will translate into a guilty verdict.

This might well be what happened which I think supports my point about warning your daughter against going to a house full of strangers.

[gallsman]

Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

Why? She was out for the night, made the acquaintance of some people, appeared to show an interest in one of them. Why is going back to the house a bad idea? She was a grown woman, capable of making her own choices.

Or perhaps you think woman should live their lives fearing the presence of rapists around every corner

As a father, I'm just being realistic about the dangers. If PJ seemed nice then later raped her, as per her version of events, then I suppose you're right but I'd still be warning my daughter against it.

Against the danger of what though? Sex? Alcohol? Rape?

She was 19 year of age doing what 19 year olds do - go on nights out, drinking alcohol, exploring sexuality. If the "dangers" of that worry you, then I fear very much for your future. This is distinctly different from a father being uncomfortable with his daughter growing up.

If you wouldn't warn your daughter about the dangers of going back to a house full of strangers while drunk, good luck with it.

What danger are you talking about?!

Would I be uncomfortable with my daughter going back to house parties with strangers an having sex? Absolutely yes becasue it's something all fathers are uncomfortable with but at the end of the day, if she's a consenting adult, there is no "danger", it's her choice.

WHAT DANGER ARE YOU SO WORRIED ABOUT?

[AQMP]

Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?

[gallsman]

I do get the point that you need not put yourself in dodgy situations, *however* this was a house party in a nice area with a couple of well known sports stars. She wasn't exactly walking down the Falls singing the Sash and throwing petrol bombs at the houses.

My instinct on this is that the girl was attracted to Jackson, probably went with him, but at some point began to get uncomfortable and things, or the lads, were too far gone to row back. I don't believe this will translate into a guilty verdict.

This might well be what happened which I think supports my point about warning your daughter against going to a house full of strangers.

Victim blaming. Again. It happened because she put herself in a dangerous situation. Rather than, you know, the lads might be rapists. You're f**king pathetic.

[Milltown Row2]

Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?

Yes I'd imagine it is, so its all about education, educate your daughters (and sons) as they grow up, if they make some mistakes as we all did, then hopefully they can deal with it and move on....

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

[Look-Up!]

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!

Hi Brokencrossbar. All the discussion seems to be mostly about the two lads (for fairly obvious reasons), but where do you think Harrison stands? Reading as much evidence as is available to a member of public and trying to see it through the eyes of a juror, my stance is this. As I said before I'd be leaning towards the girl's testimony being more credible but not with enough conviction to convict so I'd have to go with a not guilty verdict for the pair. Also I'd be shocked if this is not the verdict.
But I'd be very frustrated with Harrison. A lot of the texts from him were not on court record and it is my understanding that in some cases this was a court decision but for others it's because the messages simply no longer exist. He looked to be on damage limitation duty right from the off, was clearly getting legal advice from his father very early but his phone was wiped long after the seriousness of the case was apparent. I'd regards those texts as extra evidence that could be crucial in building a clearer picture in order to arrive at a just decision and to say the least I'd be very very frustrated with him.

[gallsman]

In terms of a cover up here is an excerpt from Gavan Duffy now speaking for Harrison and it's been mybview the whole time

'In relation to the prosecution's theory that a story was cooked up between the four defendants at Soul Food café, Mr. Duffy QC asks why would two Ulster rugby players have gone to the busiest and smallest café on Ormeau Rd to do so?'

If I was trying to cover something up I'd have met in the privacy of my own house and sorted it out there, not in the middle of the bloody Orneau Road!!!

I would say that I have agreed with nearly everything you have posted on this topic, and bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the legal system.  However, though it may be most unlikely that they met there the next day to orchestrate a cover up, I find it absolutely unbelievable that they didn't discuss any furore surrounding the incident involving the young women.
Do you believe the accused that this was not discussed?  Do you believe that Harrison never mentioned to them about what she text them?  Whatever about guilt or innocence I would find that implausible, in my opinion of course.

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!

yes, I have no doubt that is the case.  But is the other side of that not true?  That if the prosecution raises the question in jurors heads, that if they are surely lying about not talking about it, then what else could they be lying about?

It is, but the burden of proof lies with the prosecution - they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove the innocence of their client, merely convince the jury that proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been achieved.

Yes I understand that, I am merely pointing out that it can also be used as a tactic for the prosecution.  For the record from everything that I have read, I would agree that it doesn't look that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt.   I would say that in cases similar to this it would always be difficult to meet that bar, without some key piece of evidence.  As someone mentioned earlier, putting an innocent person behind bars would be considered the greatest tragedy in the justice system, and it is only right that the accused gets the benefit of that doubt.

It can definitely be used as a tactic, but it's much more effective as a defence tactic. If the members of the jury are intelligent enough and the judge gives them proper instructions, they should hopefully be capable of understanding that "if they lied about that, what else might they lie about", despite the questions it may raise, doesn't specifically advance the case to the beyond reasonable doubt threshold.

That might be asking too much of judges and juries though...

[gallsman]

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

Over the last ten year, a huge proportion of members on this board have been students in the north, almost all of them male. I guarantee you at 19 years of age they'd absolutely have loved to be back in at a party with girls they didn't know after a night out. What danger were they in?

[trailer]

I was wondering when this was going to come up. It's a question not answered by the prosecution. That girl left her friends and voluntarily went back to PJ's house. Why did she do that? Her friends tried to get her to come home but she refused and went back to the house. What was she doing back there?

I'm not blaming her and of course she has a right to go back and sleep with 1,2, or more of the men and women at the party. But when she went back she was looking for something to happen, perhaps just a kiss but that has been glossed over. She says she didn't know the Ulster Rugby guys, didn't follow it. So she wasn't 'star struck' to her they were 4 ordinary men and 3 ordinary girls. Why leave her friends and go back?

[AQMP]

Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?

Yes I'd imagine it is, so its all about education, educate your daughters (and sons) as they grow up, if they make some mistakes as we all did, then hopefully they can deal with it and move on....

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

You give me far too much credit there MR2.  Some mistakes??...most weeks in my case!  Thank fcuk social media and CCTV wasn't around in my heyday!

I've a daughter in her mid-20s and of course I've given her advice and tips and told her to keep her wits about herself and to watch out etc.  Though a few years ago she did retort "Sure didn't you go out and go drinking when people were shooting each other and blowing each other up!".  My protestation that "That was different" fell on deaf ears!

My view is that if she ended up drunk at a party with people she didn't know very well or at all...and was attacked, I wouldn't consider her attendance at the party as the reason for her attack.  I'd be blaming whoever attacked her.