The ulster rugby trial

[David McKeown]

3. A reminder once again, the IP was not on trial. The suggestion that she should now be sued by the defendants for defamation is quite a silly one. David McKeown and BCB1 will likely know this better than I do, but I don't think you can defame, libel or slander someone in a courtroom between the defence and prosecution parties. It's possible that an IP in such a case like this could be charged after the trial for wasting police time, perjury etc. if during the course of the trial evidence comes to light that the accuser is clearly lying but from the limited amount of info I've seen from this trial there is nothing to suggest any of this occoured, nor is there any apparent public interest to do so.

On that part, I thought it was obvious that she did not take the case against the defendants, the CPS did. She had no responsibility with that decision. She gave her statement to the police, she made her accusations,  she gave herself to be examined verbally, physically and emotionally, by police, a counselor and a medic. The investigation team handed all the evidence to the CPS and they decided to prosecute after testing the quality of the evidence. She had no say in that decision except for the obvious, that she would have to be prepared to give evidence in court.
Afaia her testimony in court was consistent  enough at least well within the boundaries, and she held on to her account against 4 different legal teams. She has nothing to answer for.

There seems to be an element that someone or some group within the PPSNI was very persuavive to the IP in getting her to testify. Not that she wasn't explicitly not going to so but rather she had doubts that it would be effective if reports earlier in the trial are correct. Obviously without her giving evidence in court the case against the defendants would almost certainly collapse very early. Agree that she hasn't anything to answer for.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think only the PPS can file for charges as a prosecuter in criminal cases in NI?

No technically private prosecutions can be brought but if they are the PPS must consider them and decide whether or not to take over the running of them. Also local councils and some government bodies bring their own criminal charges as well. For example fisheries bodies and coast guard.

[Capt Pat]

Jaysus 205 pages in and this thing still has legs. It is over, the verdict is in, time to move on to new and more interesting topics.

[Aaron Boone]

What's "IP" again?

[David McKeown]

Injured party

[moysider]

Jaysus 205 pages in and this thing still has legs. It is over, the verdict is in, time to move on to new and more interesting topics.

Nah. This is huge. This forum is mostly male. Not reflective of general opinion out there.
The thing is, a jury is chosen from people like posters on this board. The defence choose  - in the South the defence dismiss people they don't fancy to be jurors. I expect the North not different in that respect?

If you took the opinions here as being a template for the jurors then there is no way that you could get convictions.

People on here that followed the case have been as well informed as the jurors. Press can only report what the jurors heard. So any nonsense that we were not there is ....... nonesense. The only thing we didnt get was body language under cross examination.

This is as big as Haughey, Casey, Dunne, Cleary, Flynn and Brian Lenihan's mature recollection. It's huge and will get bigger.

I didn't want to see those kids go to gaol but not comfortable about the whole process.

Unless a girl is dragged down a lane or into trees at knife point, kicking and screaming, prosecution are wasting their time. That is the message here.

I don't think that this was those lads first rodeo.

You look at reporting of rapes being very low. This wont help those stats. If anything, it's open season on young girls. She was only 19 at the time. Whatever the verdict, she was treated like no person should ever be.

I hope this story does not go away.

[Asal Mor]

A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.

A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

I said the case as it was handled should never have made it to court. Leaving aside my own personal views on the truthfulness of her claim for a moment, once the police failed to ask her the most basic of questions at the interview stage and her interview contained no mention of DF or her top it was over. No jury could safely convict after that.

Getting back to my own personal view, from the girl's texts the following morning she was clearly worried that she wouldn't be believed. She had to be thinking of the fact that another girl had walked in and thought that nothing was amiss and how this would look to the police. Yet she claimed she "forgot" to tell them about in an interview that lasted an hour and told her story from start to finish. She claimed DF's walking in was "secondary" in her mind but for a girl who was worried about being believed I'm flabbergasted that anyone is buying that. Some people seem determined to believe her though.  We had Magpie seanie saying on here a few days ago that for him there were no holes in the girl's story which really brought logic to a whole other dimension.

[moysider]

A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.

A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

I said the case as it was handled should never have made it to court. Leaving aside my own personal views on the truthfulness of her claim for a moment, once the police failed to ask her the most basic of questions at the interview stage and her interview contained no mention of DF or her top it was over. No jury could safely convict after that.

Getting back to my own personal view, from the girl's texts the following morning she was clearly worried that she wouldn't be believed. She had to be thinking of the fact that another girl had walked in and thought that nothing was amiss and how this would look to the police. Yet she claimed she "forgot" to tell them about in an interview that lasted an hour and told her story from start to finish. She claimed DF's walking in was "secondary" in her mind but for a girl who was worried about being believed I'm flabbergasted that anyone is buying that. Some people seem determined to believe her though.  We had Magpie seanie saying on here a few days ago that for him there were no holes in the girl's story which really brought logic to a whole other dimension.

Why are you trying to second guess what the girl said or thought? Of course she would be worried she would not believed! And she was right to think like that. The jury could not return a guilty verdict - no brainer, but she was badly abused by those lads and by the judicial process as well. The process is what it is and justice was served but while she got justice, she did not get a result she wanted. She was mad to go through the process.

[Asal Mor]

A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.

OJ Simpson was acquitted in an hour.

Presumably you think that was as clear cut as it gets too.

The police botched this Sid. That is clear cut.

Fair enough if you believe she was raped. I must concede it's possible that's what happened just as you must concede it's possible that she lied. We weren't there so we'll never know for sure. What is not questionable is whether the investigation was carried out in a remotely unbiased or competent way. It wasn't and a conviction would have been unjust in those circumstances.

Apparently the OJ verdict took closer to four hours but I take your point. The jury were 100% right in Belfast though in coming to the only just verdict in the circumstances.

[Asal Mor]

A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.

A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

I said the case as it was handled should never have made it to court. Leaving aside my own personal views on the truthfulness of her claim for a moment, once the police failed to ask her the most basic of questions at the interview stage and her interview contained no mention of DF or her top it was over. No jury could safely convict after that.

Getting back to my own personal view, from the girl's texts the following morning she was clearly worried that she wouldn't be believed. She had to be thinking of the fact that another girl had walked in and thought that nothing was amiss and how this would look to the police. Yet she claimed she "forgot" to tell them about in an interview that lasted an hour and told her story from start to finish. She claimed DF's walking in was "secondary" in her mind but for a girl who was worried about being believed I'm flabbergasted that anyone is buying that. Some people seem determined to believe her though.  We had Magpie seanie saying on here a few days ago that for him there were no holes in the girl's story which really brought logic to a whole other dimension.

Why are you trying to second guess what the girl said or thought? Of course she would be worried she would not believed! And she was right to think like that. The jury could not return a guilty verdict - no brainer, but she was badly abused by those lads and by the judicial process as well. The process is what it is and justice was served but while she got justice, she did not get a result she wanted. She was mad to go through the process.

If she had said she omitted to mention DF because she was afraid she wouldn't be believed I could buy that. She said she forgot and that DF walking in was secondary in her mind. For a girl who was so worried about being believed that doesn't remotely add up. Like the lads though, I genuinely hope she's let get on with her life. Like the lads, unfortunately, I'd doubt she will be.  The police and CPS have once again ruined a lot of lives here.

[gallsman]

Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

[screenexile]

Jaysus 205 pages in and this thing still has legs. It is over, the verdict is in, time to move on to new and more interesting topics.

Nah. This is huge. This forum is mostly male. Not reflective of general opinion out there.
The thing is, a jury is chosen from people like posters on this board. The defence choose  - in the South the defence dismiss people they don't fancy to be jurors. I expect the North not different in that respect?

If you took the opinions here as being a template for the jurors then there is no way that you could get convictions.

People on here that followed the case have been as well informed as the jurors. Press can only report what the jurors heard. So any nonsense that we were not there is ....... nonesense. The only thing we didnt get was body language under cross examination.

This is as big as Haughey, Casey, Dunne, Cleary, Flynn and Brian Lenihan's mature recollection. It's huge and will get bigger.

I didn't want to see those kids go to gaol but not comfortable about the whole process.

Unless a girl is dragged down a lane or into trees at knife point, kicking and screaming, prosecution are wasting their time. That is the message here.

I don't think that this was those lads first rodeo.

You look at reporting of rapes being very low. This wont help those stats. If anything, it's open season on young girls. She was only 19 at the time. Whatever the verdict, she was treated like no person should ever be.

I hope this story does not go away.

Well that's just not true not true at all.

How can we be fully informed of this case from getting 240 characters every half an hour and a summary at the end of the day?

To say people following the case in the media are as well informed as the jury is just plain wrong!!!

[Avondhu star]

A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.

A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

I said the case as it was handled should never have made it to court. Leaving aside my own personal views on the truthfulness of her claim for a moment, once the police failed to ask her the most basic of questions at the interview stage and her interview contained no mention of DF or her top it was over. No jury could safely convict after that.

Getting back to my own personal view, from the girl's texts the following morning she was clearly worried that she wouldn't be believed. She had to be thinking of the fact that another girl had walked in and thought that nothing was amiss and how this would look to the police. Yet she claimed she "forgot" to tell them about in an interview that lasted an hour and told her story from start to finish. She claimed DF's walking in was "secondary" in her mind but for a girl who was worried about being believed I'm flabbergasted that anyone is buying that. Some people seem determined to believe her though.  We had Magpie seanie saying on here a few days ago that for him there were no holes in the girl's story which really brought logic to a whole other dimension.

Why are you trying to second guess what the girl said or thought? Of course she would be worried she would not believed! And she was right to think like that. The jury could not return a guilty verdict - no brainer, but she was badly abused by those lads and by the judicial process as well. The process is what it is and justice was served but while she got justice, she did not get a result she wanted. She was mad to go through the process.

If she had said she omitted to mention DF because she was afraid she wouldn't be believed I could buy that. She said she forgot and that DF walking in was secondary in her mind. For a girl who was so worried about being believed that doesn't remotely add up. Like the lads though, I genuinely hope she's let get on with her life. Like the lads, unfortunately, I'd doubt she will be.  The police and CPS have once again ruined a lot of lives here.

How did the celebrations go last night?

[yellowcard]

Olding did at least acknowledge the trauma caused to the girl in his statement afterwards even if his perception of events was different to hers. They should all now be allowed to get on with their lives, you would like to think that lessons could be learned. Sadly they won't though.

[David McKeown]

Jaysus 205 pages in and this thing still has legs. It is over, the verdict is in, time to move on to new and more interesting topics.

Nah. This is huge. This forum is mostly male. Not reflective of general opinion out there.
The thing is, a jury is chosen from people like posters on this board. The defence choose  - in the South the defence dismiss people they don't fancy to be jurors. I expect the North not different in that respect?

If you took the opinions here as being a template for the jurors then there is no way that you could get convictions.

People on here that followed the case have been as well informed as the jurors. Press can only report what the jurors heard. So any nonsense that we were not there is ....... nonesense. The only thing we didnt get was body language under cross examination.

This is as big as Haughey, Casey, Dunne, Cleary, Flynn and Brian Lenihan's mature recollection. It's huge and will get bigger.

I didn't want to see those kids go to gaol but not comfortable about the whole process.

Unless a girl is dragged down a lane or into trees at knife point, kicking and screaming, prosecution are wasting their time. That is the message here.

I don't think that this was those lads first rodeo.

You look at reporting of rapes being very low. This wont help those stats. If anything, it's open season on young girls. She was only 19 at the time. Whatever the verdict, she was treated like no person should ever be.

I hope this story does not go away.

Jurors can only be dismissed in North now if either side can show cause. You used to be able to manipulate juries you can not anymore.

We most certainly were not as well informed as the jury not even close. We weren't getting direct evidence we were getting people's interpretation of direct evidence boiled down to 240 characters. We even discussed at one stage on this thread how two people reporting the same piece of evidence gave two completely different interpretations.

Also there will continue to be cases not just rapes that will boil down to he said she said. Some of these will be brought to trial and some will result in convictions. Others will not.  We have a robust judicial system which is viewed admirably around the world. It can cope with cases like that so I hope this doesn't discourage genuine complaints from coming forward in the future.

[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 defendants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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 defendants.

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"?

Good man. The judge did not say "to support what she says", she said the jury can rely on independent evidence even if they do not rely on the woman's account. And, I did absolutely mention about the independent evidence in an earlier post (and I also said that my opinions are based solely on twitter summaries which can be unreliable), but it seems to me that in reality there was no other independent evidence as the medical evidence was inconclusive at best and the only third party evidence, while she said she saw sex, she said she didn't think she witnessed a rape.

So I won't go down your line of calling people names and saying "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", because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, in my opinion and based on twitter summaries, I honestly think it's hard to believe that anyone thinks there would be independent evidence that would come near convicting the defendants (particularly the 3 in the bedroom).

And therefore, in my opinion, the fact that she initially said that Olding vaginally raped her (and the police even charged him with that before changing to oral rape), together with the judge's closing summary and direction to the jury if they thought it was a deliberate lie, was key in the quick decision (which is the entire point I'm trying to make!

My guess is that most of the deliberations of the jury was around Harrison and one of his charges, as hardly any of the case against him depended on the complainant's initial complaint, but there was the driver and text messages, deletions, etc that were certainly worthy of discussion.