The ulster rugby trial

[seafoid]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac. 

[Milltown Row2]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent 

[gallsman]

I wouldn't claim to be impartial at this point as it looks to me like a case of regret not rape and I hope they are cleared.

Why are you not impartial?

[johnnycool]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

[AQMP]

I'm intrigued by the number of people who point to the fact that the complainant removed her own top means that she consented to what she says happened next.

Things have certainly changed since my heyday.

[AQMP]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

What was the gist of one of McIlroy's messages "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday night.  Roasted her.  Then another on Tuesday night"  Maybe no previous, more of a "subsequent"??

[Milltown Row2]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

What was the gist of one of McIlroy's messages "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday night.  Roasted her.  Then another on Tuesday night"  Maybe no previous, more of a "subsequent"??

Have you only had sex with the one girl?  Any of these girls come forward and say they were raped? Previous means no other convictions of lets say rape or sexual assualt or any crimes for that manner which would give a hint of a persons profile..

As for Ollies there has been talk that she tried it with the NI soccer lads and that didnt happen and she moved onto the rugby lads, she didnt just appear at their house, she must have made some advances to them surely?

[AQMP]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

What was the gist of one of McIlroy's messages "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday night.  Roasted her.  Then another on Tuesday night"  Maybe no previous, more of a "subsequent"??

Have you only had sex with the one girl?  Any of these girls come forward and say they were raped? Previous means no other convictions of lets say rape or sexual assualt or any crimes for that manner which would give a hint of a persons profile..

As for Ollies there has been talk that she tried it with the NI soccer lads and that didnt happen and she moved onto the rugby lads, she didnt just appear at their house, she must have made some advances to them surely?

It's interesting how you move from fact i.e. no previous convictions, to hearsay i.e. there has been talk, in almost the same breath.

[trailer]

The one question we haven't got an answer to, is why did this girl leave her friends and go back to Jackson's house with 3 other girls she vaguely knew. What was she doing there?

[HiMucker]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

What was the gist of one of McIlroy's messages "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday night.  Roasted her.  Then another on Tuesday night"  Maybe no previous, more of a "subsequent"??

Have you only had sex with the one girl?  Any of these girls come forward and say they were raped? Previous means no other convictions of lets say rape or sexual assualt or any crimes for that manner which would give a hint of a persons profile..

As for Ollies there has been talk that she tried it with the NI soccer lads and that didnt happen and she moved onto the rugby lads, she didnt just appear at their house, she must have made some advances to them surely?

Really?  Maybe they made advances to her and asked her back?  I wonder why you came to the conclusion it must have been her that came on to them?

[AQMP]

If this board is representative of society as a whole then I'd bet my house on a hung jury!

[seafoid]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

[johnnycool]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

What was the gist of one of McIlroy's messages "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday night.  Roasted her.  Then another on Tuesday night"  Maybe no previous, more of a "subsequent"??

Have you only had sex with the one girl?  Any of these girls come forward and say they were raped? Previous means no other convictions of lets say rape or sexual assualt or any crimes for that manner which would give a hint of a persons profile..

As for Ollies there has been talk that she tried it with the NI soccer lads and that didnt happen and she moved onto the rugby lads, she didnt just appear at their house, she must have made some advances to them surely?

Just my childhood sweetheart 

Have me and my mates gangbanged a girl and went out the following night for a bit more, no and no.

Is that legal "previous", probably not, but it does give an insight into their thought processes and mentality and the disposability they viewed their conquests, what was it McIlroy texted about loving loose Belfast slappers?

Does that automatically make them rapists? No IMO.

On your second point I still can't understand why the prosecution didn't go after Jackson when the complainant claimed that she and Jackson consensually kissed, Paddy wanted more and she rejected him. She went to leave and had to go back upstairs to Paddys bedroom for her bag when the incident occurred.

Maybe there was no corroborating evidence to support her claims, who knows.

Us armchair ironsides are just going to have to wait on the professionals doing their jobs.

[Keyser soze]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

[seafoid]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.