The ulster rugby trial

[Syferus]

Backward ideas like the one that a girl who takes her own clothes off is up for it? Yep, I just can't seem to let that one go.

The complainant alleges she had her trousers and underwear pulled off.

By her testimony, she had already been raped by the time she was ordered to take her top off.

Having already been raped and not having voluntarily taken any clothes off in that time, it's easy to see why she'd then comply with an order to take her top off.

True enough Sid, I hadn't read that part of her testimony or thought about the chronology (that the clothes on her bottom half were off before her top).

Not exactly surprising that you assumed the scenario that would make the rape victim look worst. Still disgusting.

[Orior]

Backward ideas like the one that a girl who takes her own clothes off is up for it? Yep, I just can't seem to let that one go.

The complainant alleges she had her trousers and underwear pulled off.

By her testimony, she had already been raped by the time she was ordered to take her top off.

Having already been raped and not having voluntarily taken any clothes off in that time, it's easy to see why she'd then comply with an order to take her top off.

True enough Sid, I hadn't read that part of her testimony or thought about the chronology (that the clothes on her bottom half were off before her top).

Not exactly surprising that you assumed the scenario that would make the rape victim look worst. Still disgusting.

Syferus, please desist from attacking people.

[magpie seanie]

The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.

[seafoid]

Rape is no longer a common law offence in Northern Ireland. It is now contained within the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 which defines Rape as:

Rape
5.—(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The point I was making was that penetration and a lack of consent does not mean it is automatically Rape. Should that be the case? Should the onus be on the perp to establish in advance that consent had been established? Those are arguments not relevant to this trial.

That definition applies solely to rape by men

[Milltown Row2]

The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.

So will you be happy either way with the result of the case?

[magpie seanie]

The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.

So will you be happy either way with the result of the case?

I'm not sure what you're getting at or why you asked that question but I don't think it's something to be happy about either way.

Seeing as you seems to wish to know my personal opinion - I think that the girl was raped. I'm actually fairly sure that happened. I think it's a close run thing as to whether they'll be convicted but I believe they should be. Usual caveats inserted as to not seeing all evidence, not seeing witnesses on the stand etc. It's just my opinion and I'm stronger on it now than I was at the outset of the trial.

[AQMP]

Juror ill. No evidence today.

[seafoid]

I was reading this again


https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/paddy-jackson-told-police-he-presumed-alleged-rape-victim-wanted-it-to-happen-court-hears-36636706.html

"Jackson was interviewed about the incident on June 30, and told police he felt it had been a "good" experience to have oral sex with the same person as Olding, the jury heard as transcripts were read to the court.

Jackson, who said he found the incident awkward to talk about, believed the woman had been flirtatious towards him, the court heard.

He told police: "I think she was flirting with me and I was pretty sure that something was going to happen between us."

He said the sexual activity happened after the complainant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, followed him to his room for a second time that night.

The pair had earlier shared a consensual kiss, but when he admitted to the alleged victim that he did not know her name they left the room and returned downstairs, he said.

He said they "just kind of picked up where we left off" when they returned to his room later, kissing and touching before she began performing oral sex on him.

Olding then came into the room and got onto the bed too and the woman performed oral sex on him, Jackson said.

At this point, Jackson began using his fingers on the woman, he said.

Asked by the officer how the woman seemed, he said: "Fine, I didn't force myself on her so I presumed it was happening and she wanted it to happen. She could have left if she wanted to, but she didn't."

He said he had seen some blood.

In the complainant's police interview, which the trial has already heard, she alleged the sexual activity had been rough and she bled.

Asked if he thought it might be hurting her, Jackson said: "If it did, I would've stopped, I definitely would've stopped."

He added: "If she didn't want to be there I would never have stopped her (leaving) or tried to keep her there. No way."

He denied penetrating her with his penis."

I just don't think it's coherent given the other evidence.

[Milltown Row2]

The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.

So will you be happy either way with the result of the case?

I'm not sure what you're getting at or why you asked that question but I don't think it's something to be happy about either way.

Seeing as you seems to wish to know my personal opinion - I think that the girl was raped. I'm actually fairly sure that happened. I think it's a close run thing as to whether they'll be convicted but I believe they should be. Usual caveats inserted as to not seeing all evidence, not seeing witnesses on the stand etc. It's just my opinion and I'm stronger on it now than I was at the outset of the trial.

So even after the stuff in bold, you're going on your gut feeling?

Happy probably wrong word to use, what i meant was that given that the jury are hearing all the evidence, seeing the witnesses and forming an opinion on that rather the stuff we've got, you'd be ok with the jury's decision?

[macdanger2]

How do the defendants claim the whole thing came to an end? Or has that been discussed?

[magpie seanie]

The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.

So will you be happy either way with the result of the case?

I'm not sure what you're getting at or why you asked that question but I don't think it's something to be happy about either way.

Seeing as you seems to wish to know my personal opinion - I think that the girl was raped. I'm actually fairly sure that happened. I think it's a close run thing as to whether they'll be convicted but I believe they should be. Usual caveats inserted as to not seeing all evidence, not seeing witnesses on the stand etc. It's just my opinion and I'm stronger on it now than I was at the outset of the trial.

So even after the stuff in bold, you're going on your gut feeling?

Happy probably wrong word to use, what i meant was that given that the jury are hearing all the evidence, seeing the witnesses and forming an opinion on that rather the stuff we've got, you'd be ok with the jury's decision?

I give up.

[stephenite]

The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.

So will you be happy either way with the result of the case?

I'm not sure what you're getting at or why you asked that question but I don't think it's something to be happy about either way.

Seeing as you seems to wish to know my personal opinion - I think that the girl was raped. I'm actually fairly sure that happened. I think it's a close run thing as to whether they'll be convicted but I believe they should be. Usual caveats inserted as to not seeing all evidence, not seeing witnesses on the stand etc. It's just my opinion and I'm stronger on it now than I was at the outset of the trial.

So even after the stuff in bold, you're going on your gut feeling?

Happy probably wrong word to use, what i meant was that given that the jury are hearing all the evidence, seeing the witnesses and forming an opinion on that rather the stuff we've got, you'd be ok with the jury's decision?

I give up.

Wisest course of action Seanie

[Orior]

How do the defendants claim the whole thing came to an end? Or has that been discussed?

Like in all good Hollywood thrillers, the credits rolled.

But your point is good. Was she in tears? Did they all have a fag?

[gallsman]

McIlroy frequently sleeps in beside Jackson because Jackson has a massive bed?

As likely a story as Jackson was only dry humping her from behind 

[Avondhu star]

Jury down to 11. 10 -1 for majority verdict