The ulster rugby trial

Started by caprea, February 01, 2018, 11:45:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Asal Mor

Quote from: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 01, 2018, 08:15:10 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 01:18:36 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:58:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
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.
Interesting Sid, I haven't seen the juror's comments. I still think the not guilty verdicts, after the conflicting accounts of the defendants, point to them not believing the girl but if you've read her comments you might be aware of a few more things that I'm not re how the verdict was reached.

Minder

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:20 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
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

They would have been talking about the case on every break, so the deliberating would have started long before the judge gave her directions
"When it's too tough for them, it's just right for us"

caprea

The juror said on facebook that they were deliberating before all evidence was heard? Oh my. How stupid could you be? It's bad enough that they were doing that which goes against the judges distinct instructions.  From what I remember of being on a jury you are reminded each and every day not to deliberate until all evidence is heard. But then to say you deliberated on social media...holy crap.

Could that be grounds for a mistrial?

caprea

Quote from: Minder on April 01, 2018, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:20 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
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

They would have been talking about the case on every break, so the deliberating would have started long before the judge gave her directions

That's not allowed. In ireland anyway.

Asal Mor

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 01, 2018, 11:54:46 AM
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.
In keeping with the grand tradition of Irish Governments responding to whatever is on the front page of the papers, Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan is launching a review into how sensitive cases are handled here in response to the protests. Politics has to be seen to be done too.

Asal Mor

Interesting piece about a Swedish theatre director who recently committed suicide over false accusations of sex abuse and the resultant backlash against the MeToo movement in that country......
www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/high-profile-death-prompts-backlash-against-metoo-in-sweden-1.3444849%3fmode=amp

"The news of his suicide has rocked his homeland, and raised questions about the reach – and aims – of the #metoo movement in Sweden. This week a city investigation which commenced after the allegations emerged found no evidence of sexual misconduct by Fredriksson.

On the contrary, the report presented in part on Tuesday said the claims against him – particularly the abortion allegation – were misleading."

Minder

Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: Minder on April 01, 2018, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:20 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
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

They would have been talking about the case on every break, so the deliberating would have started long before the judge gave her directions

That's not allowed. In ireland anyway.

How would anyone know ? I sat on a jury before and that's what happened
"When it's too tough for them, it's just right for us"

Tony Baloney

Did you ever hear such shite. People have a brain which they use to process information. This has been the case for hundreds of thousands of years. Therefore let's not pretend that people listening to 9 weeks of a trial do not make any judgements on the information, the appearance and character of the protagonists or make up their mind and change their mind throughout that period.

brokencrossbar1

#3413
Whenever the jury are sitting in the jury whenever there are legal discussions do you honestly think they were discussing the weather? Christ sake lads it actually would be negligent in my opinion if they didn't discuss things in such a long and complicated trial. If they went to the end of the 8-9 weeks and hadnt discussed it the argument could very easily be made that they have forgotten some stuff.


Tony Baloney

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 01, 2018, 01:34:53 PM
Whenever the jury are sitting in the jury whenever there are legal discussions donyou honestlynthibknyheyre discussing the weather? Christ sake lads it actually would be negligent in my opinion if they didn't discuss things in such a long and complicated trial. I'd they went to the end of the 8-9 weeks and hadnt discusses it the argument could very easily be made that they have forgotten some stuff.
Not allowed down south.

caprea

No going to bother with arguing over what juries should or shouldn't do in people's opinions. They should follow the judge's instructions. If they don't and the forewoman said that online then we will see where it ends up.

Wrote this about the trial at https://t.co/WUg8Y2DT91

This piece is meant to be a short look at the evidence presented and how it didn't lead to a conviction. It will in particular look at the parts of the trial that seem to have been missed in the media and social media (twitter) analysis. It will also ask questions around what this case meant for rape trials in general and how they are covered in the media.

So to start with the evidence for the prosecution; undue attention was put on the whatsapp conversations between the accused and their friends on whatsapp. The main accused Paddy Jackson barely said anything on these conversations but seems to have been lumped in with the comments made by David Mcillroy (accused of exposure) whose comments on whatsapp were surely the most objectionable. Ultimately the texts on whatapp were crude but it's hard to give them much punching power in terms of evidence of a coverup or non-consensual sex.

So my focus is on "devil in the detail" stuff;

The compliant gave a statement indicating the incident started when Jackson pulled down her jeans. When it finished the compliant said she put her underwear in her pocket. That means the underwear and trousers came all the way off her legs. I would like to know therefore during the incident was she wearing shoes? If she was how were the shoes removed (they had to be for her to be able to put her underwear in her pocket). Did she remove them or did Jackson? If the compliant removed them it is a signal, a big signal, towards consent and puts her story that she froze under significant stress.
Another thing that was left unanswered for me during the trial is how Jackson always alleged he never had vaginal sex with the woman. If he was lying about this did he know already the DNA test on the woman had shown no sperm sample from Jackson? If he didn't know none of his sperm was found and was lying he took a huge risk as his story would be immediately sunk if he had had sex with the girl and his sperm was found but lied about it. Another unanswered question from the evidence presented and ultimately something that strengthens the testimony of Jackson as his story ultimately checked out.

Another issue that didn't seem to come out until the verdicts were read out was that the jury had to be directed to find Stuart Olding not guilty of vaginal rape. This was just a box ticking exercise as the state never pursued this charge as prosecutable. This is .... strange. Why did the state not pursue this charge or why did they change it at all? I'm almost sure from reading up on the case that it was established very early that the compliant only alleged oral rape by Olding. Was it just extremely sloppy work from the judiciary that this charge actually came before the court. Is this what Jackson's lawyer meant when he alluded to the compliant's inconsistencies. Again it's a weird aspect of the case that will probably go unanswered.

Moving on from the trial to looking at the protests in Dublin and Belfast it is hard to say if the protests are directed at the verdict, the way the trial was ran or a general perception of toxic masculinity that needs to be addressed in society. The protests are set to continue and it will be interesting to say how they develop for at the moment they seem to lack focus beyond slogans where a meaningful change to the justice system or legislation is to be demanded.

Also interesting has been the media attention on the case which has been incessant. However the hard questions don't seem to get asked as it would be labeled as victim blaming. However if the defence solicitor is prepared to ask why the compliant didn't "scream the house down" then you have to accept that he wouldn't use this tactic if he didn't feel it would reverberate with the jury. Similarly as a man who has never experienced a sexual assault and the affect it has on your state of mind I don't fully follow why you would freeze as someone was touching in a non-violent way with which you were not comfortable. Would you not say something or do something? I think this question has to be confronted by those that know as those that don't like me don't completely understand it and it was been used by the defence as a legal argument so it simply has to be addressed.

The conclusion to this is my own view on the case as a whole. Early on when I heard the opening statements I believed the defendants were in serious trouble but about a month into the trial it became fairly clear to me that Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was not a realistic outcome. When Dara Florence took to the stand to say she had witnessed "a threesome" which she was invited to join, it was already a reasonable doubt. Before she had taken the stand, it had emerged that the two medical experts conflicted on whether the blood was menstrual or from the wound on the vaginal wall. Finally to bring a rape charge against Jackson where there was no physical evidence of vaginal intercourse was surely a major red flag to the jury of a reasonable doubt. Given these three reasonable doubts to the prosecution it does seem worthy to ask if this case should have been proceeded with. The jury's short deliberation time was also noteworthy.

Finally I still am not convinced about how satisfactory this case's outcomes are. Why would a woman alledge rape if she wasn't? The prosecution told a story that she was worried about pictures or video being taken but there was no evidence to support this as something that even entered her head. Had she a boyfriend and needed to "cry rape" to avoid him discovering infidelity? Again no evidence of this was presented in court. Why did McIlroy alledge he received oral sex from the compliant when she said this didn't happen. Was it a cover-story mixup? On and on the questions come and who knows if there will ever be answers.

Avondhu star

Quote from: Minder on April 01, 2018, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:20 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
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

They would have been talking about the case on every break, so the deliberating would have started long before the judge gave her directions
It would be incorrect to deliberate as to guilty or not guilty until all the evidence is heard but certainly I could see jurors discussing the standard of each witness
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 01:46:44 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 01, 2018, 01:34:53 PM
Whenever the jury are sitting in the jury whenever there are legal discussions donyou honestlynthibknyheyre discussing the weather? Christ sake lads it actually would be negligent in my opinion if they didn't discuss things in such a long and complicated trial. I'd they went to the end of the 8-9 weeks and hadnt discusses it the argument could very easily be made that they have forgotten some stuff.
Not allowed down south.

It's not allowed but common sense is such that they will discuss it. Even just clarifying things that happened. Maybe not deliberating on the guilt but certainly forming opinions.

David McKeown

Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

caprea

Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.