The ulster rugby trial

[seafoid]

We haven't heard much about the obstruction of justice case against the fella who accompanied the complainant in the taxi.

[sid waddell]

I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change

the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.

How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

Unless of course you believe the expert evidence of the rebuttal witness who suggested that in their vast experience there's no way it could have been. These 4 may be guilty they may be not guilty or they may be innocent but it never ceases to amaze me how people can read tweets about hours of evidence and know what's fact and what's opinion and completely ignore or spin anything that doesn't suit that narrative. It's happened continually throughout the reporting of this trial from all sides. From the supposed PJ lie about not using his penis, to what the witness who entered the room saw, to this and everything in between. No wonder the criminal justice system is pilloried when people have minds made up without considering all the evidence and will then be the first to criticise jurors who have considered it all.

It was not "expert evidence". It was the evidence of an expert who didn't examine the complainant, which is a different thing altogether. She also didn't say "there's no way it could have been" in relation to the wound still bleeding 14 hours later.

She basically asked a question about the source of the blood and that was it.

What she was in a position to be able to do as an expert was to confirm that the behaviour of the complainant during the chain of events was perfectly normal for a woman suffering a rape ordeal.

Dr. Lavery was the one who performed the forensic examination. He was clear that the blood was not menstrual. And he was the only independent witness with the authority to make that call.

Forensic evidence to date when the blood stains appeared on the complainant's trousers and underwear tallies with the complainant's description of events. She was not bleeding before the chain of events in Jackson's bedroom.

[highorlow]

From the supposed PJ lie about not using his penis

Correct, I was waiting for someone to raise this.

Where is this established as a lie? Have people read his full statement to the cops? Wouldn't his full statement need to be seen to contextualise events?

[sid waddell]

I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change

the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.

How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

How is the complainant's credibility at this point any higher than the defendant's?

Because her story has almost completely held up.

We'll know more after today, but there already appear to be numerous inconsistencies in the accounts of the defendants and too many coincidences to believe there wasn't a cover up and porky pies told by them.

[sid waddell]

From the supposed PJ lie about not using his penis

Correct, I was waiting for someone to raise this.

Where is this established as a lie? Have people read his full statement to the cops? Wouldn't his full statement need to be seen to contextualise events?

The complainant says Jackson vaginally raped her.

Dara Florence says she "100% saw sex" involving Jackson and the complainant.

Jackson denies having vaginal sex with the complainant.

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/rugby-star-paddy-jackson-denies-having-sexual-intercourse-with-woman-court-told-36598986.html

There is no "context" that can explain away an outright denial that he had vaginal sex with the complainant.

[AZOffaly]

sid, what about the doctor's statement that she told him she was raped twice, including once on her back?
This then changed to being forced to give Olding oral in her police statement, which I think will be read out today?
Finally, the witness account of Olding's hands by his side wouldn't tally with her being forced.

There seems to be inconsistencies all over the place, and the defence isn't clear yet. I know they are saying consensual, but as you said there appears to be inconsistencies there too.

It's very confusing. I don't envy the jury their job.

[screenexile]

These jurors mustn't be arsed with the case at all!!

[sid waddell]

sid, what about the doctor's statement that she told him she was raped twice, including once on her back?
This then changed to being forced to give Olding oral in her police statement, which I think will be read out today?
Finally, the witness account of Olding's hands by his side wouldn't tally with her being forced.

There seems to be inconsistencies all over the place, and the defence isn't clear yet. I know they are saying consensual, but as you said there appears to be inconsistencies there too.

It's very confusing. I don't envy the jury their job.

What the complainant said to Dr. Lavery about Olding vaginally raping her is in my view one of only two real cards the defence have to play. My understanding, although I'm open to correction on this, is that that was not part of her statement to police.

Rape victims can suffer from fragmented and imperfect memory and trauma, and the complainant's account to Dr. Lavery was only a matter of hours after the events when she would still have been in shock and likely heavily sleep-deprived.

Olding's hands are highly unlikely to have stayed still during the events and are likely to have moved several times between his side and the back of the complainant's head and likely elsewhere. Dara Florence saw what was happening for a matter of seconds so what she saw was effectively a snapshot in time of where Olding's hands were. It's easy to see how there could be confusion between the complainant's account of where Olding's hands were in that snapshot in time and Florence's. Given the complainant's account that she was effectively "frozen", Olding could easily have removed his hands for a time and the complainant's head might not have moved. Also, her turning her head away doesn't mean she wasn't still effectively frozen.

Jackson's semen not being found in the swab from her vagina, which we learned of yesterday, is also a plus for the defence, though it doesn't mean Jackson didn't insert his penis into her vagina.

This is only my personal theory, but I suspect Jackson, while he had intent, might not have had much lead in his pencil and that's why he resorted to digital penetration.

[Milltown Row2]

sid, what about the doctor's statement that she told him she was raped twice, including once on her back?
This then changed to being forced to give Olding oral in her police statement, which I think will be read out today?
Finally, the witness account of Olding's hands by his side wouldn't tally with her being forced.

There seems to be inconsistencies all over the place, and the defence isn't clear yet. I know they are saying consensual, but as you said there appears to be inconsistencies there too.

It's very confusing. I don't envy the jury their job.

What the complainant said to Dr. Lavery about Olding vaginally raping her is in my view one of only two real cards the defence have to play. My understanding, although I'm open to correction on this, is that that was not part of her statement to police.

Rape victims can suffer from fragmented and imperfect memory and trauma, and the complainant's account to Dr. Lavery was only a matter of hours after the events when she would still have been in shock and likely heavily sleep-deprived.

Olding's hands are highly unlikely to have stayed still during the events and are likely to have moved several times between his side and the back of the complainant's head and likely elsewhere. Dara Florence saw what was happening for a matter of seconds so what she saw was effectively a snapshot in time of where Olding's hands were. It's easy to see how there could be confusion between the complainant's account of where Olding's hands were in that snapshot in time and Florence's. Given the complainant's account that she was effectively "frozen", Olding could easily have removed his hands for a time and the complainant's head might not have moved. Also, her turning her head away doesn't mean she wasn't still effectively frozen.

Jackson's semen not being found in the swab from her vagina, which we learned of yesterday, is also a plus for the defence, though it doesn't mean Jackson didn't insert his penis into her vagina.

This is only my personal theory, but I suspect Jackson, while he had intent, might not have had much lead in his pencil and that's why he resorted to digital penetration.

The amount of drink taken over that period, what 7pm through to 3am at least in the morning, had there been drugs taken also? Not sure on the last one but hey the young ones nowadays!! I'd say her memory and the rugby lads memories are slightly off..

This is coming down to her word against theirs.. and is that enough to convict?

[trueblue1234]

sid, what about the doctor's statement that she told him she was raped twice, including once on her back?
This then changed to being forced to give Olding oral in her police statement, which I think will be read out today?
Finally, the witness account of Olding's hands by his side wouldn't tally with her being forced.

There seems to be inconsistencies all over the place, and the defence isn't clear yet. I know they are saying consensual, but as you said there appears to be inconsistencies there too.

It's very confusing. I don't envy the jury their job.

What the complainant said to Dr. Lavery about Olding vaginally raping her is in my view one of only two real cards the defence have to play. My understanding, although I'm open to correction on this, is that that was not part of her statement to police.

Rape victims can suffer from fragmented and imperfect memory and trauma, and the complainant's account to Dr. Lavery was only a matter of hours after the events when she would still have been in shock and likely heavily sleep-deprived.

Olding's hands are highly unlikely to have stayed still during the events and are likely to have moved several times between his side and the back of the complainant's head and likely elsewhere. Dara Florence saw what was happening for a matter of seconds so what she saw was effectively a snapshot in time of where Olding's hands were. It's easy to see how there could be confusion between the complainant's account of where Olding's hands were in that snapshot in time and Florence's. Given the complainant's account that she was effectively "frozen", Olding could easily have removed his hands for a time and the complainant's head might not have moved. Also, her turning her head away doesn't mean she wasn't still effectively frozen.

Jackson's semen not being found in the swab from her vagina, which we learned of yesterday, is also a plus for the defence, though it doesn't mean Jackson didn't insert his penis into her vagina.

This is only my personal theory, but I suspect Jackson, while he had intent, might not have had much lead in his pencil and that's why he resorted to digital penetration.

But in this paragraph are you not leading the complainants version of events. And when I say that I mean, your version is very possible. But on the evidence it certainly doesn't come across as beyond reasonable doubt that this was what happened. 

[Minder]

Juror unwell, no evidence today. Stand down lads

[Taylor]

sid, what about the doctor's statement that she told him she was raped twice, including once on her back?
This then changed to being forced to give Olding oral in her police statement, which I think will be read out today?
Finally, the witness account of Olding's hands by his side wouldn't tally with her being forced.

There seems to be inconsistencies all over the place, and the defence isn't clear yet. I know they are saying consensual, but as you said there appears to be inconsistencies there too.

It's very confusing. I don't envy the jury their job.

What the complainant said to Dr. Lavery about Olding vaginally raping her is in my view one of only two real cards the defence have to play. My understanding, although I'm open to correction on this, is that that was not part of her statement to police.

Rape victims can suffer from fragmented and imperfect memory and trauma, and the complainant's account to Dr. Lavery was only a matter of hours after the events when she would still have been in shock and likely heavily sleep-deprived.

Olding's hands are highly unlikely to have stayed still during the events and are likely to have moved several times between his side and the back of the complainant's head and likely elsewhere. Dara Florence saw what was happening for a matter of seconds so what she saw was effectively a snapshot in time of where Olding's hands were. It's easy to see how there could be confusion between the complainant's account of where Olding's hands were in that snapshot in time and Florence's. Given the complainant's account that she was effectively "frozen", Olding could easily have removed his hands for a time and the complainant's head might not have moved. Also, her turning her head away doesn't mean she wasn't still effectively frozen.

Jackson's semen not being found in the swab from her vagina, which we learned of yesterday, is also a plus for the defence, though it doesn't mean Jackson didn't insert his penis into her vagina.

This is only my personal theory, but I suspect Jackson, while he had intent, might not have had much lead in his pencil and that's why he resorted to digital penetration.

The amount of drink taken over that period, what 7pm through to 3am at least in the morning, had there been drugs taken also? Not sure on the last one but hey the young ones nowadays!! I'd say her memory and the rugby lads memories are slightly off..

This is coming down to her word against theirs.. and is that enough to convict?

I think it was mentioned by the IP that there was no drugs consumed although unsure if any of the involved were tested

[David McKeown]

I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change

the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.

How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

Unless of course you believe the expert evidence of the rebuttal witness who suggested that in their vast experience there's no way it could have been. These 4 may be guilty they may be not guilty or they may be innocent but it never ceases to amaze me how people can read tweets about hours of evidence and know what's fact and what's opinion and completely ignore or spin anything that doesn't suit that narrative. It's happened continually throughout the reporting of this trial from all sides. From the supposed PJ lie about not using his penis, to what the witness who entered the room saw, to this and everything in between. No wonder the criminal justice system is pilloried when people have minds made up without considering all the evidence and will then be the first to criticise jurors who have considered it all.

It was not "expert evidence". It was the evidence of an expert who didn't examine the complainant, which is a different thing altogether. She also didn't say "there's no way it could have been" in relation to the wound still bleeding 14 hours later.

She basically asked a question about the source of the blood and that was it.

What she was in a position to be able to do as an expert was to confirm that the behaviour of the complainant during the chain of events was perfectly normal for a woman suffering a rape ordeal.

Dr. Lavery was the one who performed the forensic examination. He was clear that the blood was not menstrual. And he was the only independent witness with the authority to make that call.

Forensic evidence to date when the blood stains appeared on the complainant's trousers and underwear tallies with the complainant's description of events. She was not bleeding before the chain of events in Jackson's bedroom.

By definition evidence given by an expert is expert evidence.  Again I haven't been at the trial but one the tweets I read (subject to my usual caveats about how foolish that is) suggested the rebuttal evidence was that having considered the medical notes and the video of the examination  it would be almost impossible to believe that the blood found was coming from a laceration in the vaginal wall that had existed for 14 hours and if it had have been you would have expected the first doctor to have been highly concerned about stopping it and that therefore it was likely menstrual. I think the defence expert is perfectly entitled to make that assertion given her experience. It's up to the jury what weight they put on that.

The point I'm making is that given I wasn't in court I don't know which of the two versions I would put more weight at this stage and don't understand how people on all sides can have made decisions on these issues from a few line summary and can therefore ignore anything that runs contrary to that.

[Milltown Row2]

Juror unwell, no evidence today. Stand down lads

I'm sure he's away home to get some insight on the case from the Board!

[AZOffaly]

The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.