The ulster rugby trial

[GetOverTheBar]

Any of you follow Sophie Long on Twitter?

Don't think she's quite got the presumption of innocence until proven guilty thing either.

[Hound]

This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.

I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

This is the third or fourth time you've been pulled on this. You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid. I'm not sure which it is but you feel free to decide.

What the judge actually said was that if they felt she lied to the doctor, she was directing them not to rely on that evidence unless they believed there was other independent evidence to support it. Yesterday you went as far at posting the utterly stupid comment that the judge had said, in these circumstances, the lads should "walk free".

I am as entitled to give my opinion on this as anyone, and I have no need for your pomposity.

If you don't think the judge's comments below were not important then you are entitled to that opinion. For me, in my opinion, I think it was absolutely key in the quick decision to acquit the defendants on all charges:

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.

[brokencrossbar1]

It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.

And that nuance is important, as I'm sure BCB would agree.

The presumption is they are innocent as the case against them has not been proven therefore they are innocent. That's it lads. Pretty simple really. You can get twisted up with word play and nuances. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is that. If this was a majority verdict after a day or two deliberations then I reckon there could be questions raised but for a quick, unanimous verdict to be called says everything. The whole issue here was consent otherwise the sexual assault charge against PJ could have gone against him. The jury in my opinion believed that she consented and as a consequence the rest of the charges ultimately fell.

[gallsman]

This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.

I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

This is the third or fourth time you've been pulled on this. You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid. I'm not sure which it is but you feel free to decide.

What the judge actually said was that if they felt she lied to the doctor, she was directing them not to rely on that evidence unless they believed there was other independent evidence to support it. Yesterday you went as far at posting the utterly stupid comment that the judge had said, in these circumstances, the lads should "walk free".

I am as entitled to give my opinion on this as anyone, and I have no need for your pomposity.

If you don't think the judge's comments below were not important then you are entitled to that opinion. For me, in my opinion, I think it was absolutely key in the quick decision to acquit the defendants on all charges:

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.

Yes, we've been over this. She followed that with, as you well know,  "unless you find other independent evidence to support what she says"

So, now we've established that you selectively edit statements from the judge, would you like to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the judge stated that the three should "walk free"?

[RedHand88]

Any of you follow Sophie Long on Twitter?

Don't think she's quite got the presumption of innocence until proven guilty thing either.

Lost faith in her a while ago when she stated women had reason to fear all men.

[AQMP]

It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.

And that nuance is important, as I'm sure BCB would agree.

The presumption is they are innocent as the case against them has not been proven therefore they are innocent. That's it lads. Pretty simple really. You can get twisted up with word play and nuances. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is that. If this was a majority verdict after a day or two deliberations then I reckon there could be questions raised but for a quick, unanimous verdict to be called says everything. The whole issue here was consent otherwise the sexual assault charge against PJ could have gone against him. The jury in my opinion believed that she consented and as a consequence the rest of the charges ultimately fell.

That makes sense bcb1.  Really, once the jury came to the decision that Jackson was not guilty of rape, the rest of the charges fall away.  The jury either believed she had consented, or that it was reasonable for Jackson to think she was consenting.

[AQMP]

This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.

I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

This is the third or fourth time you've been pulled on this. You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid. I'm not sure which it is but you feel free to decide.

What the judge actually said was that if they felt she lied to the doctor, she was directing them not to rely on that evidence unless they believed there was other independent evidence to support it. Yesterday you went as far at posting the utterly stupid comment that the judge had said, in these circumstances, the lads should "walk free".

I am as entitled to give my opinion on this as anyone, and I have no need for your pomposity.

If you don't think the judge's comments below were not important then you are entitled to that opinion. For me, in my opinion, I think it was absolutely key in the quick decision to acquit the defendants on all charges:

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.

While we're getting all hung up on semantics, was the girl not the complainant?

[gallsman]

Any of you follow Sophie Long on Twitter?

Don't think she's quite got the presumption of innocence until proven guilty thing either.

I'm generally a fan of hers and applaud her progressive unionist views (not sure many unionists do though) but she's gone way off the reservation on this one.

Except for a few bellends at the extremes of the spectrum on here, most of us have generally acknowledged that it is impossible to say what happened that night. In the absence of compelling evidence, it came down to her word against theirs, which makes it nigh on impossible to say that they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sorry to say it but I lot of the "I believe her" stuff appears to be based on nothing more than she is a fellow woman.

[gallsman]

It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.

And that nuance is important, as I'm sure BCB would agree.

The presumption is they are innocent as the case against them has not been proven therefore they are innocent. That's it lads. Pretty simple really. You can get twisted up with word play and nuances. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is that. If this was a majority verdict after a day or two deliberations then I reckon there could be questions raised but for a quick, unanimous verdict to be called says everything. The whole issue here was consent otherwise the sexual assault charge against PJ could have gone against him. The jury in my opinion believed that she consented and as a consequence the rest of the charges ultimately fell.

That makes sense bcb1.  Really, once the jury came to the decision that Jackson was not guilty of rape, the rest of the charges fall away.  The jury either believed she had consented, or that it was reasonable for Jackson to think she was consenting.

I'm not sure I agree with that, particularly in the case of Mcilroy given that Jackson's and his evidence contradicted each other so fundamentally in relation to McIlroy's presence in the room.

[north_antrim_hound]

Sufferus is upset because the Jury stupidly went on the evidence presented in Court rather than doing what he wanted.
He really is an embarrassment to our County and needs to come out of his own arrogant arsehole and stop polluting GAABOARD with his non stop drivel.

That's the worst thing about this sorry affair coming to it's conclusion
The oxygen thief will pollute some other thread with a view nobody either respects or pays heed.
He should be shot with a ball of his own dung

[Minder]

Any of you follow Sophie Long on Twitter?

Don't think she's quite got the presumption of innocence until proven guilty thing either.

When did she become a thing?

[AQMP]

It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.

And that nuance is important, as I'm sure BCB would agree.

The presumption is they are innocent as the case against them has not been proven therefore they are innocent. That's it lads. Pretty simple really. You can get twisted up with word play and nuances. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is that. If this was a majority verdict after a day or two deliberations then I reckon there could be questions raised but for a quick, unanimous verdict to be called says everything. The whole issue here was consent otherwise the sexual assault charge against PJ could have gone against him. The jury in my opinion believed that she consented and as a consequence the rest of the charges ultimately fell.

That makes sense bcb1.  Really, once the jury came to the decision that Jackson was not guilty of rape, the rest of the charges fall away.  The jury either believed she had consented, or that it was reasonable for Jackson to think she was consenting.

I'm not sure I agree with that, particularly in the case of Mcilroy given that Jackson's and his evidence contradicted each other so fundamentally in relation to McIlroy's presence in the room.

I suppose I'm saying that ultimately they didn't find her account of what happened convincing or credible enough.   The fact that the defendants accounts were all over the place is secondary as she was the one doing the accusing.  Believe her and it's guilty no matter what the defendants say.  Don't believe her and it's not guilty no matter what the defendants say?

[Franko]

Sufferus is upset because the Jury stupidly went on the evidence presented in Court rather than doing what he wanted.
He really is an embarrassment to our County and needs to come out of his own arrogant arsehole and stop polluting GAABOARD with his non stop drivel.

That's the worst thing about this sorry affair coming to it's conclusion
The oxygen thief will pollute some other thread with a view nobody either respects or pays heed.
He should be shot with a ball of his own dung

An absolute gobshite of the highest order.  Who continually runs away and hides when anyone refutes his bullshit with some facts.  But it is quite funny to watch him being made a fool of, time and time again.

[Asal Mor]

This case should never have come to court after the mess the police made of the girl's interview. If they'd asked her the right questions it most likely would have been dropped there and then anyway. The verdict couldn't have been reached much faster given there were 4 defendants. It strongly suggests that reasonable doubt didn't come into it.

[paddyjohn]

https://www.joe.ie/news/moment-not-guilty-verdict-announced-belfast-trial-620688