The ulster rugby trial

[caprea]

Interesting that it emerged in the verdict proceedings that Olding had a charge of Vaginal rape dropped. I wonder why the state didnt keep this charge? Did this link into the compliant having inconsistencies in her initial statement?

So many unanswered questions...

Given that the IP was going to say in the witness box that no vaginal intercourse had occurred between her and Olding it would have been impossible for the PPS to prove that offence. What is more interesting is that he was arraigned on it. For that to have happened the PPS must have charged him with it once they had collated all the evidence including the IP's statement to police but then decided after he had pleaded not guilty to offer no evidence. That's a very long time to have left that charge on the books. Hard to know why that happened

Would you care to put forward a theory?

It seems to me (being just a punter) that the compliant alleged this and then backed off it..possible or issues with that theory?

[Syferus]

Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!

Isn't society terrible, not letting the Top Shaggers go back to being heroes to children (and some adults here it seems) after being implicated in a gang rape.

Guilty of saying you're a top shaggers doesn't mean you gang raped a woman! In your head possibly, but I'd say if a man winked at a girl you'd have him down as a rapist

If I thought a man raped a woman I would. Wink wink.

It must be simple living in your world of black and white.

It has been demonstrated time again that you inhabit the same black and white world as these feminazis. You have no grasp of nuance or shades of grey. I have met many people like this in life and they typically haven't had a rounded life experience. They stick herd-like to their own "type" either in the real world or online. Take off your tinfoil hat and get out an enjoy the world; stay out late, drink too much, try chatting up a few girls. You never know Syf, you might like it out there.

That you'd use the word feminazi unironically is a serious flag in and of itself. Forgive me if I take your critique with a grain of salt.

Simple question - do you think the incredibly low rate of reporting rapes and a remarkably low level of convictions stemming from those that are reported is the sign of a system that is functioning correctly?

I didn't use it unironically, I used it very pointedly knowing it would be the focus of your response. ENTIRELY predictable. You get shown up in pretty much every topic you engage in, so maybe you should leave the big topics to the grown-ups.

Did you have that response prepared so, because it doesn't bear much relationship to what was actually said?

[Tony Baloney]

For the second part of your response which you have just added, I don't think anyone on this thread would, or has, argued that the system is perfect but the defendants were tried and judged within the remit of the current system. As other posters have stated, the #ibelieveher and #suemepaddy mob have focused on the defendants rather than the system. They would be better focusing their attentions on the latter if they don't want a similar outcome in future.

[David McKeown]

Interesting that it emerged in the verdict proceedings that Olding had a charge of Vaginal rape dropped. I wonder why the state didnt keep this charge? Did this link into the compliant having inconsistencies in her initial statement?

So many unanswered questions...

Given that the IP was going to say in the witness box that no vaginal intercourse had occurred between her and Olding it would have been impossible for the PPS to prove that offence. What is more interesting is that he was arraigned on it. For that to have happened the PPS must have charged him with it once they had collated all the evidence including the IP's statement to police but then decided after he had pleaded not guilty to offer no evidence. That's a very long time to have left that charge on the books. Hard to know why that happened

Would you care to put forward a theory?

It seems to me (being just a punter) that the compliant alleged this and then backed off it..possible or issues with that theory?

No as I say it's hard to know why that happened I just find it unusual. It's possible that the complainant initially alleged vaginal rape against Olding and the PPS didn't speak to her again until after arraignment. Similarly it's possible they just left the charge in there because of what the complainant told the doctor or because Olding was questioned about the offence. Hard to know but it's unusual enough for it to have remained on the books for as long as it did.

[Syferus]

For the second part of your response which you have just added, I don't think anyone on this thread would, or has, argued that the system is perfect but the defendants were tried and judged within the remit of the current system. As other posters have stated, the #ibelieveher and #suemepaddy mob have focused on the defendants rather than the system. They would be better focusing their attentions on the latter if they don't want a similar outcome in future.

If you accept the premise, why would the problems associated with rape cases not permeate this case too? Might explain the reason that the response to the verdict was roundly negative easier than a feminazi conspiracy would..

[sid waddell]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

I think Jackson's version was actually that he didn't see McIlory enter the room or have oral sex with her but he had no reason to doubt McIlory but assuming you are correct you think two completely contradictory alternative versions to the complainants was enough to make the jury not believe the complainant?  I find that highly doubtful particularly if as we keep hearing the defendants were such bad witnesses.

All we know for sure is the Jury did not believe the complainant about what happened with McIlroy.  Anything else is speculation.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/paddy-jackson-says-he-would-have-gone-to-police-if-told-of-rape-allegation-1.3418181

Mr McIlroy's counsel asked Mr Jackson about his evidence that he never saw Mr McIlroy in the room. Mr McIlroy told police he was in the room and received oral sex from the woman while Mr Jackson was there.

Mr Jackson agreed with counsel he was drunk and very tired by the end of the night. He said it was possible he could have been drifting in and out of consciousness when the complainant was leaving his bedroom.

Counsel put it to Mr Jackson that his client says Mr Jackson was doing something with the woman while she performed oral sex on Mr McIlroy.

"That didn't happen," Mr Jackson said, adding: "He wasn't in the room".

He said he could think of no reason for Mr McIlroy to lie about being in the room.

------

My take is that is that the contradictory testimony of the defendants as well as the testimony of Florence created a sort of "fog of war" scenario. Ultimately the weight of having four different defendants with conflicting stories confused the hell out of the jury who basically didn't know what was what by the end of the trial and thus had to acquit on all counts.

That's quite a take Sid but they reached not guilty verdicts for all 4 defendants in four hours. Surely in the scenario you're desperately clinging to there would have been a long period of deliberation followed by a hung jury. The notion that you acquit multiple defendants because their lies are too conflicting and confusing despite having a strong belief in the complainant's evidence is insane. As David has said if they had any faith in the girl's evidence Mcillroy would have been convicted. There is zero to corroborate his story even from his fellow defendants and he came across very stongly as an arrogant bullshitter in the messages.

I'm honestly unsure if that last paragraph is a wind-up Sid as you surely can't believe it to be the case when the verdict was reached unanimously and so quickly.

I have read the comment by the foreperson of the jury who said they had been effectively deliberating for well over a week.

In terms of McIlroy, there were four relevant accounts - that of the complainant, that of McIlroy, that of Jackson and that of Harrison.

The complainant and McIlroy both said McIlroy was naked in the room though they differ on what happened while he was naked.

Jackson said about McIlroy being in the room "didn't happen" as far as he was concerned while Harrison said he didn't see McIlroy naked.

I can see how the jury thought there was reasonable doubt there.

It clearly pays when you have three defendants telling different stories.

Asymmetric warfare, courtroom style.

[caprea]

The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.

[sid waddell]

Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!

Isn't society terrible, not letting the Top Shaggers go back to being heroes to children (and some adults here it seems) after being implicated in a gang rape.

Guilty of saying you're a top shaggers doesn't mean you gang raped a woman! In your head possibly, but I'd say if a man winked at a girl you'd have him down as a rapist

If I thought a man raped a woman I would. Wink wink.

It must be simple living in your world of black and white.

It has been demonstrated time again that you inhabit the same black and white world as these feminazis. You have no grasp of nuance or shades of grey. I have met many people like this in life and they typically haven't had a rounded life experience. They stick herd-like to their own "type" either in the real world or online. Take off your tinfoil hat and get out an enjoy the world; stay out late, drink too much, try chatting up a few girls. You never know Syf, you might like it out there.

That you'd use the word feminazi unironically is a serious flag in and of itself. Forgive me if I take your critique with a grain of salt.

Simple question - do you think the incredibly low rate of reporting rapes and a remarkably low level of convictions stemming from those that are reported is the sign of a system that is functioning correctly?

I didn't use it unironically, I used it very pointedly knowing it would be the focus of your response. ENTIRELY predictable. You get shown up in pretty much every topic you engage in, so maybe you should leave the big topics to the grown-ups.

"Feminazis", "SJWs", "PC brigade", "snowflakes" etc are alt-right terms. Look up what the alt-right is.

People are more than entitled to draw inferences about the inherent biases of people who use these terms.

They add nothing to any debate and are merely an attempt to debase it and divert into rabbit holes through wumming.

[caprea]

Interesting that it emerged in the verdict proceedings that Olding had a charge of Vaginal rape dropped. I wonder why the state didnt keep this charge? Did this link into the compliant having inconsistencies in her initial statement?

So many unanswered questions...

Given that the IP was going to say in the witness box that no vaginal intercourse had occurred between her and Olding it would have been impossible for the PPS to prove that offence. What is more interesting is that he was arraigned on it. For that to have happened the PPS must have charged him with it once they had collated all the evidence including the IP's statement to police but then decided after he had pleaded not guilty to offer no evidence. That's a very long time to have left that charge on the books. Hard to know why that happened

Would you care to put forward a theory?

It seems to me (being just a punter) that the compliant alleged this and then backed off it..possible or issues with that theory?

No as I say it's hard to know why that happened I just find it unusual. It's possible that the complainant initially alleged vaginal rape against Olding and the PPS didn't speak to her again until after arraignment. Similarly it's possible they just left the charge in there because of what the complainant told the doctor or because Olding was questioned about the offence. Hard to know but it's unusual enough for it to have remained on the books for as long as it did.

That sounds shabby if they just left a charge in there that was eliminated extremely early in the investigation.

[Milltown Row2]

The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.

I'd say they would have talked about the case in general throughout the 8.5 weeks, deliberating after case finished was simple then,  i'd imagine

[sid waddell]

The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.

The foreperson flagrantly disobeyed the specific orders of the judge to not discuss the case on the internet within hours of the verdict. That's why they are now under investigation.

It strongly appears that the foreperson is an idiot.

I would say it's short odds that they were doing their own "research" during the trial, which again, would have been against the specific orders of the judge.

[David McKeown]

To give my two cents worth on this idea that the system is to blame for the under reporting of sexual crime I disagree. The system already allows significant additional safeguards for victims of sexual offences. For example. Lifetime annonimity and reporting restrictions, automatic use of special measures, admissibility of first complaint evidence. More stringent rules on the admission of bad character. A complete ban on cross examination of the complainant by the accused personally to name but a few. It's difficult for me to see what more could be done and it's patently wrong and dangerous to suggest that the system does nothing to cater for victims.

I know a lot has been made about the complainants underwear being shown in court but that would only have been possible had the judge been content that it was necessary and proportionate in order to explain a relevant piece of evidence. Not having been in the trial I don't know what relevance it had but I trust the judge and the lawyers that this had some relevance.

Similarly much has been made of how the complainant has been pilloried by the media. Again to me this isn't a flaw with the system this is a flaw with media reporting.

Finally the suggestion has been made that the defendants should receive annoniminty unless convicted. A couple of issues arise here. One for justice to be done the starting principle is it not only has to be done but it also has to be seen to be done. Two I remember when I studied criminology in 04/05 we discussed this at great length and there was significant data to suggest that naming the accused before conviction acted as a significant deterrent to other would be rapists. This coupled with the fact that the public should be able to distinguish between someone acquitted and someone convicted of a sexual offence played a significant role in the decision to allow defendants to continue to be named. So whilst I can understand consternation of the system I think it has been unfairly demeaned in the aftermath of the trial. 

Meant to add in cases where reporting restrictions are not automatic it is not unusual for the press to oppose any reporting restriction imposed on the basis that it is not in the public interest.

All of these things must be balanced against each other in a fair criminal justice system.

[Milltown Row2]

The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.

The foreperson flagrantly disobeyed the specific orders of the judge to not discuss the case on the internet within hours of the verdict. That's why they are now under investigation.

It strongly appears that the foreperson is an idiot.

I would say it's short odds that they were doing their own "research" during the trial, which again, would have been against the specific orders of the judge.

The foreperson spoke about what was put on his fb page. Have you a link to the text?

[sid waddell]

The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.

The foreperson flagrantly disobeyed the specific orders of the judge to not discuss the case on the internet within hours of the verdict. That's why they are now under investigation.

It strongly appears that the foreperson is an idiot.

I would say it's short odds that they were doing their own "research" during the trial, which again, would have been against the specific orders of the judge.

The foreperson spoke about what was put on his fb page. Have you a link to the text?

The foreperson is a she, not a he.

I don't have a link to the text because i) I didn't save the screenshots I read and ii) that would be going against the judge's specific instructions, anyway.

They were posted on Broadsheet.ie the evening of the verdict before being removed and screenshots were put up on boards.ie, again before being removed.

[brokencrossbar1]

Top stuff David. The funny thing is there is an awful lot of ire coming from southern based 'protesters ' who are missing the whole point that there's a difference between the two jurisdictions in terms of the whole anonymity issue. While it may seem preferable that there is anonymity in some people's minds I completely agree with you that justice must be seen to be done. Imagine this scenario. The defendants in this case were anonymous. The result went as it did and they were found not guilty. I have no doubt that their names would have been leaked and then you'd have an even bigger furore than there is now in terms of people accusing the system of being stacked in favour of the 'privileged'. Look at how 'anonymous ' the complainant is?  Her name and connections have been well known from early on in the trial and repeated to me regularly. In the event of the defendants being anonymous it would be all over Twitter and Facebook. What this could lead to is situations where the defendants quite rightly make the case that there is an abuse of process and the amount of appeals or mistrials would increase and the conviction rate would probably decrease.

As far as the vaginal rape charge against Olding I reckon that he was charged and the PPS didn't speak to her until after the PE and therefore left it on the books as to remove it would show a weakness. It is reflective i believe of a poorly processed case on behalf of the police and the PPS and also one that they were not confident in from the very outset. There literally was no corroboration to the complainants allegation of sexual contact apart from the Dara Florence fleeting look where she actually states that she saw a threesome and that it actually seemed consensual. That was flawed eveidnce in itself but couple with the rest of the inconsistencies in the sequence of events then it obvious why the jury found the way they did.