The ulster rugby trial

[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.

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.

You are completely right here. Much is made of the treatment she got in the witness box but there is an old saying in the legal system " if you come seeking justice come with clean hands". The defence asked the questions which the police didn't because they were afraid of upsetting her. If they had asked the necessary questions the case would never have gone to court

[Hound]

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.

I still struggle with the 9-3 split on the jury, and from recollection I think you said that's not unusual at all.

I remember an old concept that went something like "justice must be done and must be seen to be done". Not sure if there's any weight in that at all, but you'd think a split closer to 50:50 would give a better appearance of justice being seen to be done. If you toss an unbiased coin 12 times, it would be very rare that you'd get one side coming up 9 times.

Would a 9-3 jury in favour of females be also common (or is there a reason there are much more males in the pool, or is that even the case)?

[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 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.

So nowhere, absolutely nowhere, at any time, did the judge say "they should walk free" if the jury found that she lied to Dr. Lavery, as you originally claimed?

[Applesisapples]

Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.

I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

[TabClear]

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.

I still struggle with the 9-3 split on the jury, and from recollection I think you said that's not unusual at all.

I remember an old concept that went something like "justice must be done and must be seen to be done". Not sure if there's any weight in that at all, but you'd think a split closer to 50:50 would give a better appearance of justice being seen to be done. If you toss an unbiased coin 12 times, it would be very rare that you'd get one side coming up 9 times.

Would a 9-3 jury in favour of females be also common (or is there a reason there are much more males in the pool, or is that even the case)?

I'm open to correction on this but I think I read an article years ago that said a much higher proportion of women defer jury duty due to childcare commitments. Dont have the source but I could understand that being the case to some extent. However whether it is enough to materially skew the overall gender balance for juries I have no idea

[Milltown Row2]

On Facebook (bar here, it's the only social media I do) I'd say there was a good split of men women saying not guilt was the right decision.. if it had have been 50/50 I doubt (my opinion) that would have made any difference on the verdict

[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.

You are completely right here. Much is made of the treatment she got in the witness box but there is an old saying in the legal system " if you come seeking justice come with clean hands". The defence asked the questions which the police didn't because they were afraid of upsetting her. If they had asked the necessary questions the case would never have gone to court

Thanks AS.  Unsurprisingly none of the #Ibelieveher anger seems to be directed at the police.

[Asal Mor]

On Facebook (bar here, it's the only social media I do) I'd say there was a good split of men women saying not guilt was the right decision.. if it had have been 50/50 I doubt (my opinion) that would have made any difference on the verdict

Given the verdict was so swift and unanimous it seems a red herring but I think Hound's point was more about justice being seen to be done. A 50/50 jury would have delivered the same verdict and given the crazies one less thing to howl about.

[brokencrossbar1]

Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.

I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

[AZOffaly]

That last sentence is harsh BCB. Of course he doesn't believe her story, he spent the last 9 weeks in court refuting it. What I read was that a) He wished it didn't happen, and b) He accepts she has a different view of the event. He just doesn't agree with it, and is glad the jury sided with him.


It's fairly clear they acted like knobs, especially afterwards, and that's why I'd be cynical about his statement. But I wouldn't be too hard on that statement because he doesn't agree with her version of events..

[Applesisapples]

Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.

I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

Agreed he has to call her a liar or admit guilt, but he did not have to acknowledge that she has been hurt by the events of that evening, and in his position I'm not sure I would have been as generous.

[seafoid]

That last sentence is harsh BCB. Of course he doesn't believe her story, he spent the last 9 weeks in court refuting it. What I read was that a) He wished it didn't happen, and b) He accepts she has a different view of the event. He just doesn't agree with it, and is glad the jury sided with him.


It's fairly clear they acted like knobs, especially afterwards, and that's why I'd be cynical about his statement. But I wouldn't be too hard on that statement because he doesn't agree with her version of events..

I thought the statement was designed to draw a line under everything. He could have done worse.
It will be 8nteresting to see what happens next.

[AQMP]

Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.

I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

Jeez, another 5 pages since yesterday evening!

Agree bcb1, I think the IP would be ill advised to take this any further.  Look at where we are today.  OK, not guilty all around, but she is still generating a lot of sympathy right from the #ibelieveher crowd to people like me and others here, who while fully accepting the jury's verdict as being the "right" one and being honest enough to state that I probably would have reached the same verdict, don't believe that she out and out lied.  The number of inconsistencies in her evidence taken in the round meant that the evidence was not near beyond a reasonable doubt.  So I still have sympathy for what she's been through.

Also although the defendants are free, they're not exactly leaving the court "without a stain on their character".  So again the focus is still on the four boyos and it remains to be seen how Ulster Rugby deal with this case.  There's still a lot of public opprobrium for them and their attitudes.  As reported on joe.ie Harrison's decision to decamp straight to the bar of the Hilton Hotel from the court at lunchtime made me ask has he learned anything from this process!?!?

All that could be lost with another case and given the speed an unanimity of the decision would she even make the "on the balance of probability" threshold?

Also quick thanks to yourself and David McKeown for the legal info.  Never thought I'd say I learned a lot on the GAA Board, but I did!

[caprea]

Two questions

Did paddy Jackson know when he gave his statement that the dna evidence showed no evidence of him having vaginal intercourse with the compliant? He he didn't know it makes his account more believeable as the DNA evidence could have sunk him if it showed a sperm sample from him.

Was the compliant wearing shoes during the incident? She said Jackson pulled down her trousers at the start of the rape and at the end she put her underwear in her pocket. Meaning it had come all the way off her legs. If she was wearing shoes who took the shoes off? If she took them off during sexual activity it does denote consent to a fair ..nearly absolute degree if i was on the jury.

Probably no one knows here but if i was on the jury i would have liked to have known the answers to the two questions.

[Farrandeelin]

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.

You are completely right here. Much is made of the treatment she got in the witness box but there is an old saying in the legal system " if you come seeking justice come with clean hands". The defence asked the questions which the police didn't because they were afraid of upsetting her. If they had asked the necessary questions the case would never have gone to court

Thanks AS.  Unsurprisingly none of the #Ibelieveher anger seems to be directed at the police.

Who is the #ibelieveher anger directed at? The jury who acquitted her? Or are they just letting off steam because they hoped the fellas would be put away? Genuine question. I have unfollowed circa 90% of my fb friends, I have a Twitter account I don't remember the password for. The only thing I use is Instagram whenever I get notifications for it and there's two or three #ibelieveher pics on it.