gaaboard.com

Non GAA Discussion => General discussion => Topic started by: caprea on February 01, 2018, 11:45:56 PM

Title: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 01, 2018, 11:45:56 PM
It was hijacking the rugby thread...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 12:08:30 AM
Quote
There’s two versions of what happened that night.one is consensual sex between three people,the other is the rape of a young woman by two men. I personally don’t know what happened that night,so I won’t make a judgement until all the facts are presented. What I don’t understand is how those, such as syferus, are so sure they are guilty? The text messages mean nothing, indicate no guilt whatsoever.
   I hope they serve real time if they are guilty. But what happens if they are found not guilty? You’ll have people condemning them as rapists who got away with it. Does that mean if you get accused of rape you’re automatically a rapist?let the courts do their job for Christ sake

quoting east down gael from the rugby thread.  I agree with this - dont see how anyone can say 100% it was rape based on the evidence so far.  however according to syferus for having some sense and waiting to hear all the evidence (at which point I may form the opinion they are guilty) we are just cavemen.  Ironic from someone who wants a caveman like justice system - 1 days evidence on one side of the story - I've heard enough guilty over and done with

Evidence so far from what I have read

text msgs between them on whatsapp
 doesnt make for good reading but enough to say rape - no for me

Taxi man account the girl was in hysterics
- yes that would lead you to think this was rape

Bruising/bleeding in vaginal area

- prosecution and Dr said consistent with trauma to the area but no indication if consensual - and others have said about mates who have had similar with wife so that doesnt guarantee rape for me.  Dont know if she had brusing on arms etc - not sure if that was mentioned in court.

Girl walked in but not reported in initial police interview -
 seems a bit strange that one and puts me back on the fence personally atm.

I think the girl that walked in on it will be a key witness and as someone alluded to earlier if she is either a prosecution witness or a defence witness will be a big factor (assuming she is called as a witness of course)

 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 12:12:13 AM
How much do you know about how rape victims’ recollection of events is effected by the trauma of the event, Frank? Because to pretend like her not remembering details immediately is any sort of red flag highlights a serious lack of knowledge, nevermind empathy.

And to anyone not willing to read the tea leaves, what reason do you have to believe the victim may be lying and putting herself through this ringer?

Thanks.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 12:26:36 AM
How much do you know about how rape victims’ recollection of events is effected by the trauma of the event, Frank? Because to pretend like her not remembering details immediately is any sort of red flag highlights a serious lack of knowledge, nevermind empathy.

And to anyone not willing to read the tea leaves, what reason do you have to believe the victim may be lying and putting herself through this ringer?

Thanks.

Again I’m not saying I don’t believe the girl I personally think the two lads are guilty from what I’ve read and heard so far but there are many reasons why she may have decided to take this case forward without her allegations being true.

I also don’t think the delay between it happening and her reporting it should be due any consideration by the jury.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 02, 2018, 12:29:52 AM
The girl who walked in is going to be a defence witness. It was on newstalk.

I think the physical evidence is key and saying this could be caused by consensual sex while true doesn’t quite cover what I see in the physical evidence.

I have to be quite graphic here. If a rapist was lying on a girl and had her trousers down but couldn’t penetrate because her legs were closed together he would have to open her legs forcefully, to do that the most effective way would be to knee her on the inside of the inner thigh to stun the leg and put his knee into keep her legs open. He would then have enough room to penetrate. The sex would not be smooth like normal sex because the girl would most likely be trying to force her legs shut and wouldn’t be working in tandem with rapist, instead it would be a struggle from the girl that seems very possible to cause internal injuries.

So the physical injuries of a bruise on the thigh and bleeding on the vaginal wall are to me a big red flag.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 12:35:07 AM
The idea that someone who happened to see Jackson (who if she recognised presumably she knew owned the house) having sex in a bedroom would have such a good, long and scientific look to be able to garner the nuances of was the woman consenting to the act is incredible to me. What would you do in that situation? You’d be fûcking embarrassed and want to get out of dodge as fast as possible.

Is this witness a friend of the accused? That also would severely effect how much weight anyone will put on their testimony.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on February 02, 2018, 01:37:55 AM
It's a man-laden jury and depending on how the jury react to the defences witnesses these lads could get off yet. An unfortunate situation for all involved if it goes that way.

I've heard no conclusive evidence of guilt yet. In many ways there are striking resemblances to the Evans case, intoxication, 3rd party involvement, etc. I've a lot of sympathy for Ched Evans, he was wrongly convicted of a heinous crime and carried a label that will hang around him for most of his life.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 01:41:22 AM
It's a man-laden jury and depending on how the jury react to the defences witnesses these lads could get off yet. An unfortunate situation for all involved if it goes that way.

I've heard no conclusive evidence of guilt yet. In many ways there are striking resemblances to the Evans case, intoxication, 3rd party involvement, etc. I've a lot of sympathy for Ched Evans, he was wrongly convicted of a heinous crime and carried a label that will hang around him for most of his life.

The comparisons to the Evans case end sharp enough. How many rapes don't include intoxication, by the way?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 07:00:51 AM
The idea that someone who happened to see Jackson (who if she recognised presumably she knew owned the house) having sex in a bedroom would have such a good, long and scientific look to be able to garner the nuances of was the woman consenting to the act is incredible to me. What would you do in that situation? You’d be fûcking embarrassed and want to get out of dodge as fast as possible.

Is this witness a friend of the accused? That also would severely effect how much weight anyone will put on their testimony.

The point is you know nothing about this witness testimony yet as do none of us but you have your mind made up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 07:03:27 AM
The girl who walked in is going to be a defence witness. It was on newstalk.

I think the physical evidence is key and saying this could be caused by consensual sex while true doesn’t quite cover what I see in the physical evidence.

I have to be quite graphic here. If a rapist was lying on a girl and had her trousers down but couldn’t penetrate because her legs were closed together he would have to open her legs forcefully, to do that the most effective way would be to knee her on the inside of the inner thigh to stun the leg and put his knee into keep her legs open. He would then have enough room to penetrate. The sex would not be smooth like normal sex because the girl would most likely be trying to force her legs shut and wouldn’t be working in tandem with rapist, instead it would be a struggle from the girl that seems very possible to cause internal injuries.

So the physical injuries of a bruise on the thigh and bleeding on the vaginal wall are to me a big red flag.

I didn't read anywhere about bruising on thighs etc caprea...have you got a link to where they mentioned that.  If there was bruising yo thighs or other areas of her body I would be back on the they are guilty but as I say I didn't read that in the report from case I've read.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 07:23:55 AM
The guy is a rugby player, a big lad I’d say, 15 stone? I’d say he’d bruise most people, again I’m not taking sides. (Need to put disclaimer in every time for the crusaders)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 07:28:34 AM
A threesome is more like a porn setup. I wonder will the prosecution get fantasy personal with the lads. The other thing is the consistency of the stories.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 02, 2018, 07:36:23 AM
The girl who walked in is going to be a defence witness. It was on newstalk.

I think the physical evidence is key and saying this could be caused by consensual sex while true doesn’t quite cover what I see in the physical evidence.

I have to be quite graphic here. If a rapist was lying on a girl and had her trousers down but couldn’t penetrate because her legs were closed together he would have to open her legs forcefully, to do that the most effective way would be to knee her on the inside of the inner thigh to stun the leg and put his knee into keep her legs open. He would then have enough room to penetrate. The sex would not be smooth like normal sex because the girl would most likely be trying to force her legs shut and wouldn’t be working in tandem with rapist, instead it would be a struggle from the girl that seems very possible to cause internal injuries.

So the physical injuries of a bruise on the thigh and bleeding on the vaginal wall are to me a big red flag.

I didn't read anywhere about bruising on thighs etc caprea...have you got a link to where they mentioned that.  If there was bruising yo thighs or other areas of her body I would be back on the they are guilty but as I say I didn't read that in the report from case I've read.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/it-was-like-a-merrygoround-at-a-carnival-ireland-rugby-stars-accused-of-rape-boasted-about-sex-on-whatsapp-36547048.html

She said she had bruising on thighs.....but then it says further down that medical personnel observed bruising on her genitals...so it could be from sex rather than how I originally read it as a knee etc to the inner thigh to get her legs open.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 07:38:45 AM
How much do you know about how rape victims’ recollection of events is effected by the trauma of the event, Frank? Because to pretend like her not remembering details immediately is any sort of red flag highlights a serious lack of knowledge, nevermind empathy.

And to anyone not willing to read the tea leaves, what reason do you have to believe the victim may be lying and putting herself through this ringer?

Thanks.

Again I’m not saying I don’t believe the girl I personally think the two lads are guilty from what I’ve read and heard so far but there are many reasons why she may have decided to take this case forward without her allegations being true.

I also don’t think the delay between it happening and her reporting it should be due any consideration by the jury.
I actually thought she went to the police quite promptly - everything I’ve read on this *so far* points towards a horrendous attack carried out against this girl. She went for morning after pill, referred to Rowan centre then police. How many rape victims I wonder are in the right frame of mind to march straight to the police station to go through that whole ordeal first thing the next morning? The timeline of the messages to her friends the next morning - did she just decide between 5am and 9am that she was going to fabricate a rape claim? The fact it has got to trial as well sends out a pretty bleak signal in itself that something untoward has happened. The defence witness who walked in hopefully will not be as pivotal, she was asked did she want to “join in”, not exactly the language you expect from a rapist midway through the act so I would expect there to be an argument of implied consent somewhere from the defence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 02, 2018, 07:49:50 AM
I don’t think it’s really like the ched Evans case at all to be honest.

The girl didn’t even know originally she had sex with anyone in the ched Evans case. She just woke up in a hotel room and didn’t know how she got there.

Think what happened here is more clear cut from the complainant’s point of view although not completely clear cut.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 07:51:49 AM
How much do you know about how rape victims’ recollection of events is effected by the trauma of the event, Frank? Because to pretend like her not remembering details immediately is any sort of red flag highlights a serious lack of knowledge, nevermind empathy.

And to anyone not willing to read the tea leaves, what reason do you have to believe the victim may be lying and putting herself through this ringer?

Thanks.

Again I’m not saying I don’t believe the girl I personally think the two lads are guilty from what I’ve read and heard so far but there are many reasons why she may have decided to take this case forward without her allegations being true.

I also don’t think the delay between it happening and her reporting it should be due any consideration by the jury.
I actually thought she went to the police quite promptly - everything I’ve read on this *so far* points towards a horrendous attack carried out against this girl. She went for morning after pill, referred to Rowan centre then police. How many rape victims I wonder are in the right frame of mind to march straight to the police station to go through that whole ordeal first thing the next morning? The timeline of the messages to her friends the next morning - did she just decide between 5am and 9am that she was going to fabricate a rape claim? The fact it has got to trial as well sends out a pretty bleak signal in itself that something untoward has happened. The defence witness who walked in hopefully will not be as pivotal, she was asked did she want to “join in”, not exactly the language you expect from a rapist midway through the act so I would expect there to be an argument of implied consent somewhere from the defence.

Just to clarify what I read is that she went to the Rowan centre or else the police sent her there.  And she didn't go for the morning after pill herself...she was given it in the Rowan centre which would be standard protocol for that centre as well as carrying out the Dr examination
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 08:02:14 AM
Quote
After being persuaded by friends, the woman attended the Brook Clinic in Belfast, where she was given the morning after pill and spoke to a counsellor.

She was then advised to go to the Rowan Centre - a sexual assault referral centre in Antrim, where she underwent a medical examination.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ulster-rugby-will-vouch-for-them-rape-claim-student-reluctant-to-report-jackson-and-olding-court-hears-36556399.html

Quote
She confided in two friends and after attending a rape crisis centre in Belfast, decided to go to the police.


https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/woman-allegedly-raped-rugby-stars-14228070
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 02, 2018, 08:19:54 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 08:24:02 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?

I'd don't think it's snide to wait to hear all the evidence.  And I personally haven't posted anything about how long she waited to go to the police..utterly irrelevant if she waited 2 months or went that morning.  And its stupid to just say what if was your wife daughter etc.  Of course if it was personalized you would be 100% sure of their guilt.  But the point of a jury is to take out the personal aspect of it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 08:32:54 AM
Not surprised this sort of carryon exists within Irish rugby.

What's been heard so far does not look very good at all for the defendants.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Walter Cronc on February 02, 2018, 08:44:04 AM
Back to the inbred thread bomber!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 02, 2018, 08:45:58 AM
Not surprised this sort of carryon exists within Irish rugby.

What's been heard so far does not look very good at all for the defendants.

Not sure how you can say that, but then again rationale is limited with a lot of posters in these types of threads.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 09:18:14 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?

I'd don't think it's snide to wait to hear all the evidence.  And I personally haven't posted anything about how long she waited to go to the police..utterly irrelevant if she waited 2 months or went that morning.  And its stupid to just say what if was your wife daughter etc.  Of course if it was personalized you would be 100% sure of their guilt.  But the point of a jury is to take out the personal aspect of it.
It's very easy to take sides and from reading social media I've seen the full range of stupidity and crassness from "If she was being raped why didn't she scream the house down instead of chowing down on Olding" to "I hope these rapist c***ts are raped in jail".

For me there is reasonable doubt and there they should get off based on what I've read but I'm not in court and there is a long way to go. As to Seanies comment that people don't want to see them convicted... If they are guilty then they should be convicted if they're not they shouldn't be.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 02, 2018, 09:19:53 AM
Not surprised this sort of carryon exists within Irish rugby.

What's been heard so far does not look very good at all for the defendants.

Not sure how you can say that, but then again rationale is limited with a lot of posters in these types of threads.

I would urge caution on replying to that poster. It will take this thread down a bad road.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 02, 2018, 09:31:43 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?

I'd don't think it's snide to wait to hear all the evidence.  And I personally haven't posted anything about how long she waited to go to the police..utterly irrelevant if she waited 2 months or went that morning.  And its stupid to just say what if was your wife daughter etc.  Of course if it was personalized you would be 100% sure of their guilt.  But the point of a jury is to take out the personal aspect of it.
It's very easy to take sides and from reading social media I've seen the full range of stupidity and crassness from "If she was being raped why didn't she scream the house down instead of chowing down on Olding" to "I hope these rapist c***ts are raped in jail".

For me there is reasonable doubt and there they should get off based on what I've read but I'm not in court and there is a long way to go. As to Seanies comment that people don't want to see them convicted... If they are guilty then they should be convicted if they're not they shouldn't be.

In my opinion the whole thing hinges in this girl that walked in during the middle of it, if she says it didn't look like an attack. That's the end of it all right there. She's the only 'neutral' witness. Her testimony holds the key to the whole thing.

From what we've heard so far, she's walked in and said "oh", Jackson has allegedly asked did she want to join, which she said no and walked out. When this phase is fleshed out the case will be come clearer - If she's steamed and can't remember. There will be an element of reasonable doubt as quoted post.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: shezam on February 02, 2018, 09:40:06 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?

I'd don't think it's snide to wait to hear all the evidence.  And I personally haven't posted anything about how long she waited to go to the police..utterly irrelevant if she waited 2 months or went that morning.  And its stupid to just say what if was your wife daughter etc.  Of course if it was personalized you would be 100% sure of their guilt.  But the point of a jury is to take out the personal aspect of it.
It's very easy to take sides and from reading social media I've seen the full range of stupidity and crassness from "If she was being raped why didn't she scream the house down instead of chowing down on Olding" to "I hope these rapist c***ts are raped in jail".

For me there is reasonable doubt and there they should get off based on what I've read but I'm not in court and there is a long way to go. As to Seanies comment that people don't want to see them convicted... If they are guilty then they should be convicted if they're not they shouldn't be.

In my opinion the whole thing hinges in this girl that walked in during the middle of it, if she says it didn't look like an attack. That's the end of it all right there. She's the only 'neutral' witness. Her testimony holds the key to the whole thing.

From what we've heard so far, she's walked in and said "oh", Jackson has allegedly asked did she want to join, which she said no and walked out. When this phase is fleshed out the case will be come clearer - If she's steamed and can't remember. There will be an element of reasonable doubt as quoted post.

Can you explain what an attack is supposed to look like? Plus she never seen what went on before she walked in.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 09:52:24 AM
Given the high profile cases in the UK at the minute where exonerating evidence was "missed" by the cops or wasn't handed to the defence, it is impossible to scream "guilty" or "innocent" on the basis of a few text messages.

Just let the trial play out and we'll see what emerges.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 02, 2018, 09:57:12 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?

I'd don't think it's snide to wait to hear all the evidence.  And I personally haven't posted anything about how long she waited to go to the police..utterly irrelevant if she waited 2 months or went that morning.  And its stupid to just say what if was your wife daughter etc.  Of course if it was personalized you would be 100% sure of their guilt.  But the point of a jury is to take out the personal aspect of it.
It's very easy to take sides and from reading social media I've seen the full range of stupidity and crassness from "If she was being raped why didn't she scream the house down instead of chowing down on Olding" to "I hope these rapist c***ts are raped in jail".

For me there is reasonable doubt and there they should get off based on what I've read but I'm not in court and there is a long way to go. As to Seanies comment that people don't want to see them convicted... If they are guilty then they should be convicted if they're not they shouldn't be.

In my opinion the whole thing hinges in this girl that walked in during the middle of it, if she says it didn't look like an attack. That's the end of it all right there. She's the only 'neutral' witness. Her testimony holds the key to the whole thing.

From what we've heard so far, she's walked in and said "oh", Jackson has allegedly asked did she want to join, which she said no and walked out. When this phase is fleshed out the case will be come clearer - If she's steamed and can't remember. There will be an element of reasonable doubt as quoted post.

Can you explain what an attack is supposed to look like? Plus she never seen what went on before she walked in.

It's fairly standard stuff in any trial, she'll be asked did it look to her as if there was any sign of aggression or discomfort, in her opinion did it look consensual? How long was she in the room? Did the lady in question react in any way to her being in the room? (I think I've read she covered herself up? Open to correction), if/when she covered up when you were in the room, why do you think she didn't instead ask you for help? Did the lady look in any sign of distress? Did she hear anything to signify distress before entering the room? Did she hear anything that prompted her to come up and check in on the room initially?

These are unpleasant questions, it's an unpleasant situation. I'm not saying who's right and wrong please don't think that the above is in any way defending Jackson/Olding because it's literally day 3 of a 5 week trial. There is a lot of information to come and considering the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a criminal case. This maybe key in my opinon, that's my point.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 10:06:43 AM
Given the high profile cases in the UK at the minute where exonerating evidence was "missed" by the cops or wasn't handed to the defence, it is impossible to scream "guilty" or "innocent" on the basis of a few text messages.

Just let the trial play out and we'll see what emerges.

 +1
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Captain Scarlet on February 02, 2018, 10:12:24 AM
I havent looked at the rugby thread enough but seeing as this is standalone. What are the view on Best and henderson going to the trial?
Is that not ridiculous the week of a match to be going there, even in your own time?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 10:16:05 AM
Not surprised this sort of carryon exists within Irish rugby.
Really? Rugby is conservative. It’s widely believed these boys will not play for Ulster again, even if found not guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 10:16:43 AM
Are there any solicitors on the forum?

In the discussing the case in this manner on a public forum, are many posters not being prejudicial? The papers are only presenting the facts not offering opinion for a very good reason. If any juror read this forum you could run the risk of the trail collapsing. So when some gobshite has these guys hung drawn and quartered on day 1 of a 5 week trial that person could be doing more harm than good and if they are are guilty justice might not be served.

We as a forum need to be cognitive of our reach we are not in the bubble we think we are, these are peoples lives (all in tatters and their families as well, regardless of the verdict for both the accused and the victim) we are discussing and should refrain from offering opinion until the trial reaches conclusion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 10:17:41 AM
I havent looked at the rugby thread enough but seeing as this is standalone. What are the view on Best and henderson going to the trial?
Is that not ridiculous the week of a match to be going there, even in your own time?

Shouldn't have been there IMO a few days before a massive game away to France
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: armaghniac on February 02, 2018, 10:18:51 AM
It's fairly standard stuff in any trial, she'll be asked did it look to her as if there was any sign of aggression or discomfort, in her opinion did it look consensual? How long was she in the room? Did the lady in question react in any way to her being in the room? (I think I've read she covered herself up? Open to correction), if/when she covered up when you were in the room, why do you think she didn't instead ask you for help? Did the lady look in any sign of distress? Did she hear anything to signify distress before entering the room? Did she hear anything that prompted her to come up and check in on the room initially?

These are unpleasant questions, it's an unpleasant situation. I'm not saying who's right and wrong please don't think that the above is in any way defending Jackson/Olding because it's literally day 3 of a 5 week trial. There is a lot of information to come and considering the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a criminal case. This maybe key in my opinon, that's my point.

It is very difficult to prove rape when there is a question of consensual sex, given the requirements of criminal proof.
The woman entering the room might well prove decisive.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:26:23 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: rosnarun on February 02, 2018, 10:27:10 AM
I havent looked at the rugby thread enough but seeing as this is standalone. What are the view on Best and henderson going to the trial?
Is that not ridiculous the week of a match to be going there, even in your own time?

Shouldn't have been there IMO a few days before a massive game away to France
yes because the game in france is the important thing here,

they were there to support their friend  and I don't suppose they have any more idea wheter they are guilty or innocent than any one else.
at what stage of a court case would you abandon your friends if you thought it looked bad on you?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 10:30:15 AM
Are there any solicitors on the forum?

In the discussing the case in this manner on a public forum, are many posters not being prejudicial? The papers are only presenting the facts not offering opinion for a very good reason. If any juror read this forum you could run the risk of the trail collapsing. So when some gobshite has these guys hung drawn and quartered on day 1 of a 5 week trial that person could be doing more harm than good and if they are are guilty justice might not be served.

We as a forum need to be cognitive of our reach we are not in the bubble we think we are, these are peoples lives (all in tatters and their families as well, regardless of the verdict for both the accused and the victim) we are discussing and should refrain from offering opinion until the trial reaches conclusion.
Honestly think jurors will be privy to much more information than we the general public have, and in that sense I doubt they’d be influenced by anything they read on GAAboard. In any case I’d say they’d be instructed to avoid as much as possible reading about the case, especially on such forums as this, and they will be discussing it among themselves for the next month so I’d say they’ll get their fill of it there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 02, 2018, 10:31:35 AM
What is the actual law in terms of what is deemed consensual when alcohol has been consumed. I'm not talking about if the woman is paralytic which is clear, but if the woman is "just" drunk. i.e does something she would never do when sober? I would say a lot of people on here have had a few "encounters" that would not have happened if both parties had been sober.

As far as the actual case goes it looks bad for those guys on the basis of the evidence presented so far. Obviously more to come from both sides but there will be some pretty grim testimony in court when the witnesses/accused take the stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 10:33:15 AM
Are there any solicitors on the forum?

In the discussing the case in this manner on a public forum, are many posters not being prejudicial? The papers are only presenting the facts not offering opinion for a very good reason. If any juror read this forum you could run the risk of the trail collapsing. So when some gobshite has these guys hung drawn and quartered on day 1 of a 5 week trial that person could be doing more harm than good and if they are are guilty justice might not be served.

We as a forum need to be cognitive of our reach we are not in the bubble we think we are, these are peoples lives (all in tatters and their families as well, regardless of the verdict for both the accused and the victim) we are discussing and should refrain from offering opinion until the trial reaches conclusion.
Honestly think jurors will be privy to much more information than we the general public have, and in that sense I doubt they’d be influenced by anything they read on GAAboard. In any case I’d say they’d be instructed to avoid as much as possible reading about the case, especially on such forums as this, and they will be discussing it among themselves for the next month so I’d say they’ll get their fill of it there.

That's the first thing the judge instructed the jury - (as well as telling them they are the only people who will see and hear all the evidence)

The judge also warned the jury to ignore press reports on the trial, saying it was likely that there will be "a lot of press interest", while also cautioning them not to conduct any research into individuals or anything to do with the trial.

She said: “It would be wrong and it would be in breach of your oath or affirmation if you do,"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 02, 2018, 10:34:30 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.


Nail on the head. They should have dealt with this well in advance. They're nowhere near as professional as they pretend to be.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 10:41:03 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Walter Cronc on February 02, 2018, 10:46:33 AM
Would Best/Henderson have sought permission from Schmidt to attend the trial? Or is it a case of do what you like ( within reason) on the day off?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:46:50 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 10:57:17 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.

What possible answer could he have given that wouldn't have been jumped on either way??

He sidestepped it so as to cause the least fuss which is what he should have done! Personally I don't think the lads sought permission from IRFU to go otherwise they'd have been told to stay well away I think. I don't think they did anything wrong but then you don't have to in todays world the appearance is enough.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 02, 2018, 11:01:59 AM
As much is being made of the girl who entered the room and what her testimony reveals I think Paddy may be on a sticky wicket if what the girls says is true, that she and Paddy had consensual kissing in the bedroom, Paddy tried his luck and was brushed off by the girl who proceeded to go downstairs.
It was only then when she went to leave and realised her handbag was up in the room and went to get it that Paddy tried it on the second time in what she describes as a very forceful manner.

I'm sure the prosecution will go after him on this. If she didn't consent to sex the first time, what would have made Paddy think that the second time that she had?



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 11:02:23 AM
He was asked directly whether Best had consulted with him before attending the trial and be refused to answer. It's a simple yes or no question
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: armaghniac on February 02, 2018, 11:09:54 AM
What is the actual law in terms of what is deemed consensual when alcohol has been consumed. I'm not talking about if the woman is paralytic which is clear, but if the woman is "just" drunk. i.e does something she would never do when sober? I would say a lot of people on here have had a few "encounters" that would not have happened if both parties had been sober.

There is a difference between some drink taken which reduces inhibitions and might lead someone to do something which they would not do at another time and an amount of drink taken which means that the person cannot defend themselves or articulate their wishes in the matter.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 11:13:33 AM
Not surprised this sort of carryon exists within Irish rugby.

What's been heard so far does not look very good at all for the defendants.

Not sure how you can say that, but then again rationale is limited with a lot of posters in these types of threads.

There is precedent here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2385270/Ireland-rugby-sex-scandal--threesome-Dublin-night-out.html
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 11:14:27 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.

No Schmidt is a senior figure in the organisation that employs Henderson, Best and both the accused in a "Live" Trial. Anything he says can be misconstrued by either the defence or the prosecution, so when he says it's a legal matter he is right. If people want justice then asking Schmidt stupid questions that could lead to a collapse is not helpful and pretty stupid.

Henderson and Best were there in a private capacity which is quite frankly their business, what makes the public think they have an entitled to question people supporting their friends when their friends have not been found guilty of anything. This isn't the same as Kimmage, Cusack and Walsh supporting the pedophile Humphries after he was found guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on February 02, 2018, 11:18:17 AM
There was nothing wrong with best and Henderson attending. It’s only a problem if you’ve already condemned the accused as guilty which so many on here have done.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 02, 2018, 11:20:33 AM
What is the actual law in terms of what is deemed consensual when alcohol has been consumed. I'm not talking about if the woman is paralytic which is clear, but if the woman is "just" drunk. i.e does something she would never do when sober? I would say a lot of people on here have had a few "encounters" that would not have happened if both parties had been sober.

There is a difference between some drink taken which reduces inhibitions and might lead someone to do something which they would not do at another time and an amount of drink taken which means that the person cannot defend themselves or articulate their wishes in the matter.

I suppose thats what I'm getting at. My reading of your post is that it is pretty similar to mine, i.e. if one party is paralytic drunk its fairly clear but if someone does something they later regret because they are drunk thats different. The problem juries are going to have is that how do you define the line between the two from a legal perspective as its so subjective and dependent on individual temperament and tolerance to alcohol. I'm not implying anything into this particular case by the way, I have no idea if alcohol played a part or not, just pointing out one of the major issues as I see it in cases like this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 11:22:03 AM
There was nothing wrong with best and Henderson attending. It’s only a problem if you’ve already condemned the accused as guilty which so many on here have done.

Mickey Harte would probably agree.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 02, 2018, 11:42:54 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.

No Schmidt is a senior figure in the organisation that employs Henderson, Best and both the accused in a "Live" Trial. Anything he says can be misconstrued by either the defence or the prosecution, so when he says it's a legal matter he is right. If people want justice then asking Schmidt stupid questions that could lead to a collapse is not helpful and pretty stupid.

Henderson and Best were there in a private capacity which is quite frankly their business, what makes the public think they have an entitled to question people supporting their friends when their friends have not been found guilty of anything. This isn't the same as Kimmage, Cusack and Walsh supporting the pedophile Humphries after he was found guilty.
I actually think yous are both right.  The journalist was perfectly entitled to ask the question, such is the public interest, and Schmidt was perfectly entitled to say it was legal matter and he is not discussing it.  I think that was the right way to handle it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GJL on February 02, 2018, 11:50:52 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 02, 2018, 11:53:35 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.

No Schmidt is a senior figure in the organisation that employs Henderson, Best and both the accused in a "Live" Trial. Anything he says can be misconstrued by either the defence or the prosecution, so when he says it's a legal matter he is right. If people want justice then asking Schmidt stupid questions that could lead to a collapse is not helpful and pretty stupid.

Henderson and Best were there in a private capacity which is quite frankly their business, what makes the public think they have an entitled to question people supporting their friends when their friends have not been found guilty of anything. This isn't the same as Kimmage, Cusack and Walsh supporting the pedophile Humphries after he was found guilty.


I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. Best is the captain of the Ireland mens rugby team, the captain of Ulster, the captain of the two accused in their professional lives. In the week of a huge 6 nations game I think it shows amazingly poor judgement at best.

Schmidt was probably gagged as there's huge paranoia over trials collapsing etc. So while I think he probably could have said something I wouldn't beat him up for not doing it. What I would take issue with is (a) him and the IRFU giving permission or (b) him and the IRFU not anticipating this happening and stopping it.

This is regardless of whether you think they're guilty or not. They've been stood down from playing while this goes on, public displays of support should not be forthcoming either.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 12:03:44 PM
I don't disagree with the poor judgement but Best is not responsible in any capacity, unlike Schmidt, for the employment of Jackson and Olding, Captain is a role within a team not a senior manager or even a line-manager.

Anyway I hope justice is served in court and not on a kangaroo court.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 12:14:05 PM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

Jesus f**king wept.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 12:17:22 PM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

George Hook is back so. . .
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 12:22:49 PM
@FrankGreaney on twitter doing updates.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 12:28:02 PM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

Jesus f**king wept.

Explain.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 12:41:51 PM
Best and Henderson are colleagues and have no idea what happened. If it is rape it is criminal. Paul Kimmage spoke to Tom Humphries when the news came out and had no idea what the real story was.
The employer will typically suspend the employee during the trial and sack the employee if there is a conviction.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 12:51:52 PM
https://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/rory-best-declines-to-explain-decision-to-attend-rape-trial-of-teammates-as-irfu-media-manager-steps-in-36559919.html
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 02, 2018, 12:55:32 PM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

Jesus f**king wept.

Explain.
Its embarrassing lad.  Going back to the house, and going in to anyones room shouldn't spell danger.  This sort of thing happens every bloody night of the week the world over.  99.9% of the time it doesn't end up with some girl in hysterics.  Its called life.  Im sure they didn't have rapist tattooed on their heads.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 01:13:02 PM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

Jesus f**king wept.

Explain.
Its embarrassing lad.  Going back to the house, and going in to anyones room shouldn't spell danger.  This sort of thing happens every bloody night of the week the world over.  99.9% of the time it doesn't end up with some girl in hysterics.  Its called life.  Im sure they didn't have rapist tattooed on their heads.

Fair enough. That wouldn't have happened in my day.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 01:33:40 PM
She has said she was happy enough with a bit of kissing, which was in his room. No harm in that, you can't say she was stupid because she didn't sense she was at risk of being raped.

Girls didn't go to house parties and have a wee flirt and a kiss with boys back in your day? I find that very hard to believe.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 02, 2018, 02:00:17 PM
Embarrassing few weeks for the IRFU. First they hired Groebler in spite of a stringent anti doping policy and now the national team captain and another squad member appear a t a trial to give evidence at a trial defending the accused against rape charges. The IRFU do not come out of this period well. They batted off questions today but when the trial concludes I exepct that they will still have to answer the question of whether Best and Henderson had sought or received permission from them to appear at the trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 02:03:26 PM
Embarrassing few weeks for the IRFU. First they hired Groebler in spite of a stringent anti doping policy and now the national team captain and another squad member appear at a trial to give evidence at a trial defending the accused against rape charges. The IRFU do not come out of this period well. They batted off questions today but when the trial concludes I exepct that they will still have to answer the question of whether Best and Henderson had sought or received permission from them to appear at the trial.

That is just completely FAKE NEWS as trump would say.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 02:09:10 PM
Embarrassing few weeks for the IRFU. First they hired Groebler in spite of a stringent anti doping policy and now the national team captain and another squad member appear a t a trial to give evidence at a trial defending the accused against rape charges. The IRFU do not come out of this period well. They batted off questions today but when the trial concludes I exepct that they will still have to answer the question of whether Best and Henderson had sought or received permission from them to appear at the trial.

Yeah, it doesn't help when people f**k up the facts of the matter. They were attending court as members of the public, not as witnesses.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 02, 2018, 02:11:29 PM
Some of the nonsense being spouted on here is embarassing.

As regards Orior's comment is he not just quoting what the girl herself said in her evidence as reported in some of the papers today?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: rosnarun on February 02, 2018, 02:12:50 PM
does any one really believe that Schmidt  talking about the case could case it to collapse ? or Best for that matter
it would be a pretty handy way of getting your buddy off the hook.
lote shite being talked
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 02:19:20 PM
She has said she was happy enough with a bit of kissing, which was in his room. No harm in that, you can't say she was stupid because she didn't sense she was at risk of being raped.

Girls didn't go to house parties and have a wee flirt and a kiss with boys back in your day? I find that very hard to believe.
Boys and girls sat at opposite sides of the parochial hall.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 02:19:58 PM
does any one really believe that Schmidt  talking about the case could case it to collapse ? or Best for that matter
it would be a pretty handy way of getting your buddy off the hook.
lote shite being talked

If the Ireland Rugby Captain comes out  in a press conference and says "I went to the trial to support my friends and team mates because I believe they did not commit this crime" . . . do you no think this put a bias on the trial?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 02:20:16 PM
Schmidt answering a question about whether Best consulted him before attending court has absolutely no bearing on the case whatsoever.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 02:23:31 PM
Schmidt answering a question about whether Best consulted him before attending court has absolutely no bearing on the case whatsoever.
It is only relevant in the court of public opinion.
The IRFU is not managing the froth around this case well.It should not be a feature of the pre match interviews.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 02, 2018, 02:40:43 PM
Best and Henderson was poor judgement at best, they could have offered their support privately without attending. As public figures, they should be aware of the negative publicity it would attract, smacks of arrogance to me.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Captain Scarlet on February 02, 2018, 03:14:48 PM
I understand there will be a number of weeks until any ruling?
This will not go away and will be some craic when the English press have Rory in front of them. From that point alone as Captain he has opened his team and manager up to so much shite.
When it is all settled, one way or another then the real fun starts as Vodafone and the likes might take a dim view of what is going on. There will be numerous shitstorms that could have been avoided if they didn't go.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 03:22:38 PM
I understand there will be a number of weeks until any ruling?
This will not go away and will be some craic when the English press have Rory in front of them. From that point alone as Captain he has opened his team and manager up to so much shite.
When it is all settled, one way or another then the real fun starts as Vodafone and the likes might take a dim view of what is going on. There will be numerous shitstorms that could have been avoided if they didn't go.

I think you're over reacting. . . they won't go again I don't think and it will be a full 6 weeks until the England match. If asked the question again it will be no comment. Nothing can happen really until the verdict comes in. If the lads get off with it their attendance will fade away.

If they are guilty they can come out and say they believed their friends and wanted to offer support and are deeply sorry for any offence caused etc. etc.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 03:26:59 PM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Disgusting.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 02, 2018, 03:36:58 PM
Best and Henderson was poor judgement at best, they could have offered their support privately without attending. As public figures, they should be aware of the negative publicity it would attract, smacks of arrogance to me.

well put

pair of arrogant pricks.....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 02, 2018, 03:37:20 PM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Disgusting.

should be put off the board for that comment. yes.. disgusting
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Best and Henderson was poor judgement at best, they could have offered their support privately without attending. As public figures, they should be aware of the negative publicity it would attract, smacks of arrogance to me.

well put

pair of arrogant pricks.....
Living in a professional bubble. A long way from Mike Gibson.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on February 02, 2018, 04:18:08 PM
How is that question not relevant in a pre-match press conference? If Best had attended a brothel before the game would it be mentioned? Or if he was found to have sent lewd images to a woman? All three are different scenarios yet they all have somewhat of a moral link. I don't agree with Best being Captain anyway, but surely this is a judgement call that warrants a retort from Schmidt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: rosnarun on February 02, 2018, 04:41:45 PM
Schmidt answering a question about whether Best consulted him before attending court has absolutely no bearing on the case whatsoever.
my point is nothing Schmidt could say would have a bearing on the case unless he has something to testify before the court .
he is mnot an involved party.
he answere like that because he dies not want a court case being spoken about during his press conference and could not give a shite about the girl, olding or Jackson
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on February 02, 2018, 04:52:16 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42919523

This is nuts. They're accused, not proven guilty yet!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 04:52:27 PM
She has said she was happy enough with a bit of kissing, which was in his room. No harm in that, you can't say she was stupid because she didn't sense she was at risk of being raped.

Girls didn't go to house parties and have a wee flirt and a kiss with boys back in your day? I find that very hard to believe.
Boys and girls sat at opposite sides of the parochial hall.

Damn right.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 02, 2018, 04:56:26 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.

He said 'noticeable', which it is, given the fact that he noticed it.

I don't know where you got 'notable' out of in your next paragraph.  It looks like you made it up.  And nowhere did he even mention innocence or guilt.

As the self-appointed chief virtue signaller on here, you should at least get the terminology right before correcting other posters.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:57:54 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.

He said 'noticeable', which it is, given the fact that he noticed it.

I don't know where you got 'notable' out of in your next paragraph.  It looks like you made it up.  And nowhere did he even mention innocence or guilt.

As the self-appointed chief virtue signaller on here, you should at least get the terminology right before correcting other posters.

You've immediately outed yourself for what you are using such rancid alt-right terminology. Whoops.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 02, 2018, 05:01:05 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.

He said 'noticeable', which it is, given the fact that he noticed it.

I don't know where you got 'notable' out of in your next paragraph.  It looks like you made it up.  And nowhere did he even mention innocence or guilt.

As the self-appointed chief virtue signaller on here, you should at least get the terminology right before correcting other posters.

You've immediately outed yourself for what you are using such rancid alt-right terminology. Whoops.

Rancid? Alt-Right? Catch a grip!

Telling that you haven't amended your post yet.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 05:07:22 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

"Northern Ireland footballers Will Grigg and Kyle Lafferty were also in VIP section that night. They'd just returned from Euros after being knocked out by Wales. The woman said she didn't know them but had heard of Grigg because of the song 'WILL GRIGG'S ON FIRE'"

Arlene may be called to give musical evidence
There was a clear shortage of VIPs.  The McGourtys were at home watching DVDS and MR2 was in the Fiver Club.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:12:21 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

"Northern Ireland footballers Will Grigg and Kyle Lafferty were also in VIP section that night. They'd just returned from Euros after being knocked out by Wales. The woman said she didn't know them but had heard of Grigg because of the song 'WILL GRIGG'S ON FIRE'"

Arlene may be called to give musical evidence
There was a clear shortage of VIPs.  The McGourtys were at home watching DVDS and MR2 was in the Fiver Club.

I have serious questions about where your head is at for you to be cracking lame jokes in the context of a horrible gang rape trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 05:20:21 PM
The defense appears to be trying to hint that there was a "celebrity chaser" aspect to this girl and that she couldn't possibly have been clueless as to who these people were.

If nothing else, must be pretty bruising for the ego of some of these arseholes. I genuinely have no idea what either Olding or Will Grigg look like, wouldn't notice Lafferty unless someone pointed him out to me and would walk past Jackson on the street without batting an eyelid.

If they try to paint them as some big attractive celebrity they'll get laughed out of it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 05:23:24 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.

He said 'noticeable', which it is, given the fact that he noticed it.

I don't know where you got 'notable' out of in your next paragraph.  It looks like you made it up.  And nowhere did he even mention innocence or guilt.

As the self-appointed chief virtue signaller on here, you should at least get the terminology right before correcting other posters.

You've immediately outed yourself for what you are using such rancid alt-right terminology. Whoops.

Someone calls you out for a stupid post and you deflect and point something else out and come up with some other accusation about the poster rather than address the point they raised.  Still awaiting your response as to what mountain of evidence has convinced you 100% of their guilt a few days into a trial.  I'd be interested to see you lay it out?  You were in earlier posts already starting to question what the woman who walked in on it will say..what if she is a friend of Jackson etc.  You haven't even heard what she has to say yet ffs
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that’s a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they’re in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don’t even realise that’s what they’re doing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that’s a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they’re in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don’t even realise that’s what they’re doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 05:45:51 PM
The defense appears to be trying to hint that there was a "celebrity chaser" aspect to this girl and that she couldn't possibly have been clueless as to who these people were.

If nothing else, must be pretty bruising for the ego of some of these arseholes. I genuinely have no idea what either Olding or Will Grigg look like, wouldn't notice Lafferty unless someone pointed him out to me and would walk past Jackson on the street without batting an eyelid.

If they try to paint them as some big attractive celebrity they'll get laughed out of it
Yes but you’re not some naive 18/19 year old princess who would jump at the chance to pull an Ulster player... not saying this is the case with the alleged victim here but sadly there are girls who would throw themselves at certain people due to their perceived fame - much like jersey tuggers in GAA
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:47:10 PM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that’s a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they’re in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don’t even realise that’s what they’re doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 05:48:24 PM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that’s a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they’re in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don’t even realise that’s what they’re doing.

Lizard brain now the latest insult to anyone who has the common sense to at least wait until a bit more of the case is heard before deciding on someone's guilt.  I imagine this is what it would be like debating something with Donald trump.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:50:12 PM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that’s a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they’re in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don’t even realise that’s what they’re doing.

Look crusader, I posted what was on the news, now you can talk shite all day and that’s fine. Most sensible people will wait and see the whole side of the events and make the decision on the evidence, you’re neither a lawyer solicitor or barrister..

Now you can find what I posted from what was said on the news, just like the link screen put up. Now run along there, there must have been a granny over charged in a taxi that you could help out!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 05:58:47 PM
The defense appears to be trying to hint that there was a "celebrity chaser" aspect to this girl and that she couldn't possibly have been clueless as to who these people were.

If nothing else, must be pretty bruising for the ego of some of these arseholes. I genuinely have no idea what either Olding or Will Grigg look like, wouldn't notice Lafferty unless someone pointed him out to me and would walk past Jackson on the street without batting an eyelid.

If they try to paint them as some big attractive celebrity they'll get laughed out of it
Yes but you’re not some naive 18/19 year old princess who would jump at the chance to pull an Ulster player... not saying this is the case with the alleged victim here but sadly there are girls who would throw themselves at certain people due to their perceived fame - much like jersey tuggers in GAA

Of course there are, but without any specific evidence of it, it's easily refuted. It's Paddy Jackson living in the estate beside the BP on the Ravenhill, not David Beckham
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 06:04:15 PM
She’d need to not any evidence of knowing Ulster or Irish Rugby to not know who he is.. Facebook and twitter accounts and other social media she may have will point towards if she knows these players..

Hopefully she doesn’t have history of that info on her..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 06:08:50 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 06:09:56 PM
She’d need to not any evidence of knowing Ulster or Irish Rugby to not know who he is.. Facebook and twitter accounts and other social media she may have will point towards if she knows these players..

Hopefully she doesn’t have history of that info on her..
I don’t see why she would lie about not knowing who they were, even if she was fully aware of who they were, even if she pursued them all night, doesn’t mean she still could not have been raped.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 06:21:33 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.

:o

If you're trying to pretend that your implication wasn't that Olding's family aren't supporting his plea of innocence like Jackson's family are it's not going to wash on many people.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 06:30:46 PM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that’s a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they’re in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don’t even realise that’s what they’re doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Ask the women who fitted up all these other lads recently what they were getting out of it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 02, 2018, 06:53:27 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.

:o

If you're trying to pretend that your implication wasn't that Olding's family aren't supporting his plea of innocence like Jackson's family are it's not going to wash on many people.


Like who?  The only one I see getting worked up about it is you.  And let’s face it, you’ve retreated that far up your own uber-righteous arse that your opinions are being disregarded by most as a comedy side show.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 07:14:14 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.

:o

If you're trying to pretend that your implication wasn't that Olding's family aren't supporting his plea of innocence like Jackson's family are it's not going to wash on many people.

Calm down petal. It was an observation, don't know any of the players or their families.

Syferus, the voice of moral indignation.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 07:21:59 PM
The questioning of the 2 rugby wallas will be very interesting.
If the lady was up for it why did she leave in hysterics? Why was her interaction with the 2 gentlemen so unsatisfactory? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 07:22:33 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.

:o

If you're trying to pretend that your implication wasn't that Olding's family aren't supporting his plea of innocence like Jackson's family are it's not going to wash on many people.

Calm down petal. It was an observation, don't know any of the players or their families.

Syferus, the voice of moral indignation.

PW Nally, the voice of oh-shit-I-need-to-back-pedal.

I'm disappointed you're engaging in regressive name-calling. Always thought you were a decent poster.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 07:52:39 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.

:o

If you're trying to pretend that your implication wasn't that Olding's family aren't supporting his plea of innocence like Jackson's family are it's not going to wash on many people.

Calm down petal. It was an observation, don't know any of the players or their families.

Syferus, the voice of moral indignation.

PW Nally, the voice of oh-shit-I-need-to-back-pedal.

I'm disappointed you're engaging in regressive name-calling. Always thought you were a decent poster.
I posted the most innocuous thing possible and you drew the wrong conclusion.  No big deal just don't keep at it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 07:59:14 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.

He said 'noticeable', which it is, given the fact that he noticed it.

I don't know where you got 'notable' out of in your next paragraph.  It looks like you made it up.  And nowhere did he even mention innocence or guilt.

As the self-appointed chief virtue signaller on here, you should at least get the terminology right before correcting other posters.

He is strangely ok with Michael Noonan's role in the 'Grace' case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 08:05:45 PM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that’s a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they’re in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don’t even realise that’s what they’re doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Ask the women who fitted up all these other lads recently what they were getting out of it?

I agree... Syf showing himself up very badly here!! Why feel the need to condemn people before due process??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 08:41:56 PM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that’s a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they’re in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don’t even realise that’s what they’re doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Ask the women who fitted up all these other lads recently what they were getting out of it?

I agree... Syf showing himself up very badly here!! Why feel the need to condemn people before due process??

It’s not me who is being shown up in the least.

So this victim invented a gang rape because you’ve one case of it ocurring, Tony? You do understand that this court case is going to chase her around like a bad smell even if she’s fully vindicated by the jury, right? This is not something people decide to go through for the kicks.

So many people here seem to start from a position of disbelieving the female victim of rape or sexual assault when the more natural position should be believing the victim. Victim blaming is such a massive part of rape culture and it needs to be constantly guarded against.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 08:49:10 PM
What is this "one" case you speak of?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 08:53:45 PM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that’s a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they’re in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don’t even realise that’s what they’re doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Ask the women who fitted up all these other lads recently what they were getting out of it?

I agree... Syf showing himself up very badly here!! Why feel the need to condemn people before due process??

It’s not me who is being shown up in the least.

So this victim invented a gang rape because you’ve one case of it ocurring, Tony? You do understand that this court case is going to chase her around like a bad smell even if she’s fully vindicated by the jury, right? This is not something people decide to go through for the kicks.

So many people here seem to start from a position of disbelieving the female victim of rape or sexual assault when the more natural position should be believing the victim. Victim blaming is such a massive part of rape culture and it needs to be constantly guarded against.

What do you think of Michael Noonan's role in the Grace case?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 08:55:35 PM
It’s a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: armaghniac on February 02, 2018, 08:59:46 PM
So many people here seem to start from a position of disbelieving the female victim of rape or sexual assault when the more natural position should be believing the victim. Victim blaming is such a massive part of rape culture and it needs to be constantly guarded against.

Innocent, until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, that is the principle civilised society has adopted for such things.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 02, 2018, 09:00:13 PM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that’s a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they’re in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don’t even realise that’s what they’re doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Syferus to be honest I would agree with a lot of the conclusions and points you have made regarding this.  From the evidence that I have read I think they are guilty as sin in my opinion.  But that is all it is, an opinion.  The jurors will have far more evidence, and for you to condemn other posters on here for having a different opinion, one that is fairly moderate in that the outcome could be very different, or that they want to wait until the conclusion of the  trial before making judgement, is sanctimonious in the extreme.  I made a comment that I found another posters statement embarrassing, however it would be one that I'm sure my own mother would come out with, and I would be embarrassed if she said it in public, but she is neither rancid, disgusting or any of the plethora of other hyperbolic adjectives your throwing around here at others.  You see everything in black and white, and right and wrong. The real world is much different.  You would do well to listen to other people's opinions and even if you dont agree, atleast try to understand where they might be coming from.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 02, 2018, 09:07:11 PM
Some people remember from the news reports, the question about the woman waiting 2 days before going to the police, but they don't remember the answers given. They  will even ask here "why did she wait 2 days?" as if waiting 2 days implied something abnormal but they neglected to read and/or remember the woman's reply in court to that very question.
That's the tactic of the lawyer in asking the question, the question sticks in the head of those in the jury/members of public  who are predisposed  to doubt the woman's integrity/motivation.

Syf´s question  (What does the woman get out of this added ordeal?) was poorly answered by a poster asking another question, which has no bearing on this case. There's no evidence that the woman is concocting the allegation with malice.
The prosecution may not be able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, but that does not imply false charges or a vindictive action by the woman.
The defense team obviously have paid attention, trying to portray the woman as being an opportunist, showing the woman in a poor light, one who would be motivated by dishonest motives,  but so far the woman has stood up well to that questioning.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:10:03 PM
Unfortunately Syf has now turned this thread into more focus on him than what is actually being discussed. Him and Tony have a lot in common.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 09:11:18 PM
Unfortunately Syf has now turned this thread into more focus on him than what is actually being discussed. Him and Tony have a lot in common.
Just this thread?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 02, 2018, 11:12:23 PM
Ruins so many decent threads with the same moralising shite.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:17:01 AM
It’s a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 03, 2018, 12:20:53 AM
He’s happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that’s a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they’re in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don’t even realise that’s what they’re doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Syferus to be honest I would agree with a lot of the conclusions and points you have made regarding this.  From the evidence that I have read I think they are guilty as sin in my opinion.  But that is all it is, an opinion.  The jurors will have far more evidence, and for you to condemn other posters on here for having a different opinion, one that is fairly moderate in that the outcome could be very different, or that they want to wait until the conclusion of the  trial before making judgement, is sanctimonious in the extreme.  I made a comment that I found another posters statement embarrassing, however it would be one that I'm sure my own mother would come out with, and I would be embarrassed if she said it in public, but she is neither rancid, disgusting or any of the plethora of other hyperbolic adjectives your throwing around here at others.  You see everything in black and white, and right and wrong. The real world is much different.  You would do well to listen to other people's opinions and even if you dont agree, atleast try to understand where they might be coming from.

Would largely agree with all of that
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 03, 2018, 12:22:28 AM
It’s a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

Talk about the mother of all over reactions!! I doubt the reaction would have been half this were it not for social media.

Best and Henderson have done NOTHING wrong...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:24:18 AM
It’s a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

Talk about the mother of all over reactions!! I doubt the reaction would have been half this were it not for social media.

Best and Henderson have done NOTHING wrong...

I take it you don't have daughter(s). You might just see it a little different it you did. I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 03, 2018, 12:26:15 AM
This is taking the piss. The IRFU and Ulster did not hesitate in suspending the players upon their arrest back in June. The players are facing very serious charges but they are entitled to a fair hearing no matter how guilty they appear. People are reading too much into Best and Henderson’s (misguided) attendance at court, as if somehow they’re going to influence proceedings from the public gallery - the girl doesn’t even know any rugby players anyway. The accused are pleading innocence and are entitled to that presumption until proven otherwise.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:33:30 AM
This is taking the piss. The IRFU and Ulster did not hesitate in suspending the players upon their arrest back in June. The players are facing very serious charges but they are entitled to a fair hearing no matter how guilty they appear. People are reading too much into Best and Henderson’s (misguided) attendance at court, as if somehow they’re going to influence proceedings from the public gallery - the girl doesn’t even know any rugby players anyway. The accused are pleading innocence and are entitled to that presumption until proven otherwise.

Its far from taking the piss. Its not that long ago since rugby minded people closed ranks on a tragedy outside Annabelles night club in Dublin. At least some sort of justice was eventually distributed in that case.

There are parallels here. As far as I'm concerned far too many people don't see an issue with this. There is no way they should have been there - end of story. If you want to look at it from a pure sport perspective then you simply say that there's a game on saturday and they should have been preparing. If they wanted to support them they should have sent a txt.

The IRFU are normally such a professional well run organisation - they must be raging
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 03, 2018, 12:37:24 AM
It’s a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

Talk about the mother of all over reactions!! I doubt the reaction would have been half this were it not for social media.

Best and Henderson have done NOTHING wrong...

I take it you don't have daughter(s). You might just see it a little different it you did. I'll leave it at that.

What has that got to do with this? What if you had a son accused of this?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:44:08 AM
Frank you need to stop digging.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 03, 2018, 12:50:32 AM
This is taking the piss. The IRFU and Ulster did not hesitate in suspending the players upon their arrest back in June. The players are facing very serious charges but they are entitled to a fair hearing no matter how guilty they appear. People are reading too much into Best and Henderson’s (misguided) attendance at court, as if somehow they’re going to influence proceedings from the public gallery - the girl doesn’t even know any rugby players anyway. The accused are pleading innocence and are entitled to that presumption until proven otherwise.

Its far from taking the piss. Its not that long ago since rugby minded people closed ranks on a tragedy outside Annabelles night club in Dublin. At least some sort of justice was eventually distributed in that case.

There are parallels here. As far as I'm concerned far too many people don't see an issue with this. There is no way they should have been there - end of story. If you want to look at it from a pure sport perspective then you simply say that there's a game on saturday and they should have been preparing. If they wanted to support them they should have sent a txt.

The IRFU are normally such a professional well run organisation - they must be raging
It’s taking the piss when you say the IRFU are sending a message that they don’t believe the girl and are comparing it to something completely different
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 03, 2018, 01:53:25 AM
It’s a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

WTF is that supposed to mean?  The term "professional" in sporting terms does not infer any higher echelon of education or intelligence!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 03, 2018, 02:01:01 AM
Frank you need to stop digging.

Digging what you clown..I've said consistently I haven't made my mind up on myverdict.  I've asked you numerous times about certain points you've raised and you avoid answering.

One example...do you accept vaginal brusing/bleeding is no indication of non consensual sex.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 05:25:55 AM
It’s a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

WTF is that supposed to mean?  The term "professional" in sporting terms does not infer any higher echelon of education or intelligence!
Hanging around all day training is probably correlated with the opposite.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 03, 2018, 07:38:51 AM
The Kangaroo Court that this thread has turned into is really allowing people display their prejudices and societal insecurities.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: bennydorano on February 03, 2018, 09:52:15 AM
It's the same on every thread that raises the pulse.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 10:02:02 AM
The lady is pretty sharp. Be interesting to see if the boys have the smarts.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/it-was-like-i-wasnt-there-court-hears-police-tape-of-alleged-rugby-rape-victim-36562922.html

When she said she could not remember parts of her night out in the club, the lawyer asked her: "Do you typically forget things when you have been drinking?"

She responded: "I don't remember every single moment of a night out. Clubs are busy places.

"You don't remember blow-by-blow exactly what you did.

"When you go for a night out you are not expecting to be in court detailing every second of it."

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 03, 2018, 10:08:02 AM
Am I missing something but whats the accusation that she went out to meet celebrities?  Loads of people like Fearon do thst hanging around looking their pic took with celebrities etc. Whether she wanted to meet them or not.. so?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 03, 2018, 10:12:50 AM
The lady is pretty sharp. Be interesting to see if the boys have the smarts.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/it-was-like-i-wasnt-there-court-hears-police-tape-of-alleged-rugby-rape-victim-36562922.html

When she said she could not remember parts of her night out in the club, the lawyer asked her: "Do you typically forget things when you have been drinking?"

She responded: "I don't remember every single moment of a night out. Clubs are busy places.

"You don't remember blow-by-blow exactly what you did.

"When you go for a night out you are not expecting to be in court detailing every second of it."

Pretty sharp but also well coached.

This is a real Golden Goose. Are for the PPS. Some of the stuff floating about ‘off the record’ is shocking. There are real difficulties for the prosecution but why would a young girl put hers of through this amount of personal scrutiny if there was nothing in it. Also despite what people might think the majority, and I mean vast majority, of cases that go to trial are on the basis of a very strong chance of proving guilt. There are ‘political’ cases taken and I do believe there is an element of that here but reading behind the headlines and the glib commentary there is a real case here and I believe that the defendants are genuinely risking time in jail. There will be twists and turns but some of the evidence so far is very damning.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 03, 2018, 10:46:03 AM
It’s a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

Talk about the mother of all over reactions!! I doubt the reaction would have been half this were it not for social media.

Best and Henderson have done NOTHING wrong...

I take it you don't have daughter(s). You might just see it a little different it you did. I'll leave it at that.

Ive two daughters , your point is?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 03, 2018, 10:49:30 AM
It’s a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

I think the text between herself and her pal will damage her. It's the defence barristers job to test her evidence and that's why she's getting a roasting in the witness box
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 03, 2018, 11:45:11 AM
It’s a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

I think the text between herself and her pal will damage her. It's the defence barristers job to test her evidence and that's why she's getting a roasting in the witness box
what was the text been herself and the pal that could cause problems?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 11:49:21 AM
Avondhu Star is taking a very, shall we say, unique reading of the texts.

The woman is nailing the defence lawyer’s attempts to discredit her and more power to her for being able to withstand such a pathetic line of questioning with reasoned and sensible answers. The defence is fruitlessly looking for a reaction.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 03, 2018, 12:17:55 PM
I got whatsapps last night of Facebook pictures of the complainant. I also got screenshots of random text messages exchanged saying these claim are fabricated.

If this lady has been raped you really got to feel sick for her.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 12:20:16 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 03, 2018, 03:17:14 PM
Avondhu Star is taking a very, shall we say, unique reading of the texts.

The woman is nailing the defence lawyer’s attempts to discredit her and more power to her for being able to withstand such a pathetic line of questioning with reasoned and sensible answers. The defence is fruitlessly looking for a reaction.
The text I refer to is the one from a friend of hers which tells her to let on she didn't know they were Ulster rugby players. Why would she need to do that?
The text between the accused just shows that they had sex with her and were bragging about it
 There was no mention of a cover up of that activity
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 03, 2018, 03:23:13 PM
Am I missing something but whats the accusation that she went out to meet celebrities?  Loads of people like Fearon do thst hanging around looking their pic took with celebrities etc. Whether she wanted to meet them or not.. so?

The implication they are trying to make is she is a dumb bimbo who went out desperate to meet and have sex with celebrities. It questions her character.

I think it is shocking that the Ireland captain would appear in court to support this but in some ways im not surprised. The rugby snobs think they are a law unto themselves after all.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 03:57:09 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.
That's how your brain works.  Other people can form opinions.

It looks like she was genuinely afraid of the fact the lads were famous rugby players. A rape trial is extremely stressful. She would have to be sure of herself.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 03, 2018, 07:26:58 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.
That's how your brain works.  Other people can form opinions don't have a brain

It looks like she was genuinely afraid of the fact the lads were famous rugby players. A rape trial is extremely stressful. She would have to be sure of herself.

Fixed that for ye.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 03, 2018, 08:00:11 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.

Fair enough. Yes, a lot of us are judging on the information to date which is wrong.

Why does this case have all the evidence in public? Are all rape case information in the public domain like this one?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 03, 2018, 08:04:52 PM
I find it unfaur that the defendant's are named. Their names will be tarred irrelevant of the outcome. Surely though, if they are innocent, they will play again? Why would they not? As for believing that any claimant wouldn't put herself and her family through this if it wasn't true, well there have been enough cases where women invented stories for whatever warped reason they had, innocent until proven guilty though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 08:09:06 PM
The starting principle is that open justice is necessary in a civilised society. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. So as a general rule anything said or done in an open public court such as a crown court can be repeated. There are certain exceptions to this such as for example in this case nothing can be published that would lead either directly or indirectly to the complainant being identified.

Also I think the point I was trying to make is that we don't have all the evidence in public, we have highly condensed versions of what was said in court. Hours of speeches or question summarised down into a few passages and not always summarised well.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:01:30 PM
The lady is pretty sharp. Be interesting to see if the boys have the smarts.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/it-was-like-i-wasnt-there-court-hears-police-tape-of-alleged-rugby-rape-victim-36562922.html

When she said she could not remember parts of her night out in the club, the lawyer asked her: "Do you typically forget things when you have been drinking?"

She responded: "I don't remember every single moment of a night out. Clubs are busy places.

"You don't remember blow-by-blow exactly what you did.

"When you go for a night out you are not expecting to be in court detailing every second of it."

Pretty sharp but also well coached.

This is a real Golden Goose. Are for the PPS. Some of the stuff floating about ‘off the record’ is shocking. There are real difficulties for the prosecution but why would a young girl put hers of through this amount of personal scrutiny if there was nothing in it. Also despite what people might think the majority, and I mean vast majority, of cases that go to trial are on the basis of a very strong chance of proving guilt. There are ‘political’ cases taken and I do believe there is an element of that here but reading behind the headlines and the glib commentary there is a real case here and I believe that the defendants are genuinely risking time in jail. There will be twists and turns but some of the evidence so far is very damning.

The PPS must be fairly certain on proceeding with a case that there is at least 50% chance of a conviction and in addition to the evidence PPS can present to a jury is the calculation of how the witness will come across to the jury, how well will they stand up to a defence barrister who must not appear to be beating them down and how clear and articulate do they come across to the jury.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:26:41 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 10:10:29 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.

I was of the understanding there were at least three defence QC's. There's certainly at least three junior counsel.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on February 03, 2018, 10:29:33 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.
Joe Rice is the Ulster Rugby counsel. Winters is (ultimately) Jackson's solicitor, his first counsel on injunction (I stand to be corrected).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 10:32:00 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.

Fair enough. Yes, a lot of us are judging on the information to date which is wrong.

Why does this case have all the evidence in public? Are all rape case information in the public domain like this one?
Is it because the case is high profile ? There is a lot of interest by definition in such cases. It sells papers
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 11:17:30 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.
Joe Rice is the Ulster Rugby counsel. Winters is (ultimately) Jackson's solicitor, his first counsel on injunction (I stand to be corrected).

Would it be correct that this type of case is not usual for Kevin Winters while Joe Rice has been solicitor for a range of people from Pastor McConnell to some loyalist paramilitaries, this would not be a usual area for him?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 03, 2018, 11:28:12 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.

Not notable at all. Winters are the biggest criminal law firm in the north and Rice not fair behind them. If you want someone to draw up a secure commercial contract get a Prod firm, if you want someone to fight your corner in a criminal dog fight get a fenian firm....end of story
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 04, 2018, 11:24:06 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

not me anyway - he muttered a few lines that he had a few days to prepare (or more likely have someone prepare for him). I think what is becoming clear is that the IRFU didn't know. It will be lost now in the euphoria of Sextons heroics but it could have been so different. Imagine that kick doesn't go over - we'd be picking over a poor performance looking for answers and our esteemed captain would have been top of a lot of people's lists. I hope he bought sexton a few pints last night
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 04, 2018, 11:34:27 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

not me anyway - he muttered a few lines that he had a few days to prepare (or more likely have someone prepare for him). I think what is becoming clear is that the IRFU didn't know. It will be lost now in the euphoria of Sextons heroics but it could have been so different. Imagine that kick doesn't go over - we'd be picking over a poor performance looking for answers and our esteemed captain would have been top of a lot of people's lists. I hope he bought sexton a few pints last night

No alcohol bans in professional sport of course
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 04, 2018, 11:49:30 AM
Should Best be declaring at this stage he will be giving a good character reference ln behalf of Javkson? Also Best said he went to the trial to hear both sides, so if he gives the reference is that an inference he doesnt believe her? All abit dodgy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 12:04:18 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

What makes you think they are guilty as sin?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 04, 2018, 12:36:12 PM
The logistics of the trial of very interesting. It is quite obvious that it has been pushed to coincide with the 6N and as a result it is kept in the media. This is a very emotive trial and either side could win great leverage through the use of the media. I tend to agree that there is a wee bit of spin in Best being there this week but also I believe him in that he wanted to hear her side of the story. If you’re going to put your reputation on the line for someone you have to believe they deserve it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 04, 2018, 12:46:47 PM
Should Best be declaring at this stage he will be giving a good character reference ln behalf of Javkson? Also Best said he went to the trial to hear both sides, so if he gives the reference is that an inference he doesnt believe her? All abit dodgy.
I think he clarified the position. It all comes down to who is telling the truth. The boys or the woman. Best didn't want to distract from the match. But he could have gone on Monday...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 04, 2018, 01:00:00 PM
Should Best be declaring at this stage he will be giving a good character reference ln behalf of Javkson? Also Best said he went to the trial to hear both sides, so if he gives the reference is that an inference he doesnt believe her? All abit dodgy.
I think he clarified the position. It all comes down to who is telling the truth. The boys or the woman. Best didn't want to distract from the match. But he could have gone on Monday...

He also explained that the squad sessions ended on the previous evening and it was his day off from Ireland duties.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Estimator on February 04, 2018, 01:06:22 PM
On the barrister front, I’d suggest that its smart move by the defence. It shows that they’re all united on their version of events. There’s no conflict of interest. All singing from the same hymn sheet.
Plus if all four defendants had barristers and all four barristers questioned the girl, it could come across as bullying the witness, which could impact on the jurys view of the witness.
When it comes to cross examining the defendants, they will only be questioned by the prosecution and their own barrister, so there won’t have to face a barrage of questions from multiple barristers.
As well as that, it decreases the length of time in court.

With the statement from Rory, I’d say someone in the IRFU typed that up for him. I’d be very surprised if he was advised in any way to attend just because he was asked to provide a character reference. He’s known Paddy for a number of years, I’m sure he could easily write something without attending court.  There’s enough reporting in the media without having to show up in person
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
The longer it goes on the more tittle tattle you hear, this case will get complete messy from here on in!

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn’t follow rugby so she wouldn’t know he was anyway. From behind the screen.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:19:55 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn’t follow rugby so she wouldn’t know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn’t follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:45:52 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn’t follow rugby so she wouldn’t know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn’t follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too
She knows who Jackson is. Not sure about the others. She said she didn’t follow Ulster or Irish rugby, so how can she be intimidated by Best and Henderson if she doesn’t know who they are. Plus if she is behind a screen (not sure is she screened from entire court or just accused) she possibly won’t even see them there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 04, 2018, 02:13:31 PM
It may give her the impression its her v Ulster Rugby with those players landing in court
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 02:24:25 PM

 She said she didn’t follow Ulster or Irish rugby, so how can she be intimidated by Best and Henderson if she doesn’t know who they are. Plus if she is behind a screen (not sure is she screened from entire court or just accused) she possibly won’t even see them there.

Despite Orior branding her as stupid, I imagine she's probably able to read.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 02:36:04 PM
Don't see the big deal at all with Best attending court. Who should be in the public gallery?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on February 04, 2018, 02:44:15 PM
Did he take to the stand or just go to the trial?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn’t follow rugby so she wouldn’t know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn’t follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 04, 2018, 03:12:19 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn’t follow rugby so she wouldn’t know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn’t follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

true I lived in Belfast and knew everyone there  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 04, 2018, 03:21:02 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn’t follow rugby so she wouldn’t know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn’t follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

Bull-fûcking-shît.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LooseCannon on February 04, 2018, 03:44:29 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn’t follow rugby so she wouldn’t know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn’t follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

true I lived in Belfast and knew everyone there  ::)

I’d say that everyone knew you too!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 04:00:06 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn’t follow rugby so she wouldn’t know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn’t follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

true I lived in Belfast and knew everyone there  ::)
If you kept yourself in a world without TV newspaper and all other media its possible that you wouldnt have heard of these rugby players. So called celebrities are thin on the ground with exception of Julian Simmons and May McFetteridge. Rugby players who are pumped up on the media would of course be known to most people
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 04:01:42 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn’t follow rugby so she wouldn’t know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn’t follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

Bull-fûcking-shît.
Havent you some turf to be cutting before the E.U. closes you down?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 04:03:04 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn’t follow rugby so she wouldn’t know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn’t follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

true I lived in Belfast and knew everyone there  ::)

I’d say that everyone knew you too!
Ah leave it out. He didnt know she was only 12.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 04, 2018, 04:05:43 PM

 She said she didn’t follow Ulster or Irish rugby, so how can she be intimidated by Best and Henderson if she doesn’t know who they are. Plus if she is behind a screen (not sure is she screened from entire court or just accused) she possibly won’t even see them there.

Despite Orior branding her as stupid, I imagine she's probably able to read.

Ouch.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: hardstation on February 04, 2018, 04:06:35 PM
Never heard of Julian Wilson myself.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 04:28:44 PM
Never heard of Julian Wilson myself.
You're probably more of a May McFetteridge man
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 04:45:52 PM
Did he take to the stand or just go to the trial?
Just went to the trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 04, 2018, 04:58:53 PM
Just on the point a lot of people are making that why would she make it up?  There is plenty of cases that a person can believe they have been raped when they haven't.  Also conversely there is plenty of instances that a person can be raped and the accused believe that it wasn't rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 04, 2018, 06:10:34 PM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I’m not sure how his and Henderson’s presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can’t see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they’re guilty as sin and he’s closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

If Best's explanation holds true (and I severely doubt it) then if he doesn't appear as a character witness for Jackson and Olding now, it looks like he believes the girls version of events. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Armagh Girl on February 04, 2018, 06:31:20 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 06:52:10 PM
Any need for a Character Reference won't come into play until a conviction. In such circumstances Best and pals can have their say in an effort to influence the length of a sentence. If acquitted the former accused can ride away into the sunset. (no pun intended)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 07:23:10 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 07:32:17 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 04, 2018, 07:40:58 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

The last sentence of your reply is irrelevant. You have a canny knack of running down opinions which differ from yours.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on February 04, 2018, 07:46:25 PM
Yeahi thought that too. 4 days before the france game has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 07:58:28 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

The last sentence of your reply is irrelevant. You have a canny knack of running down opinions which differ from yours.

Maybe I'm just dismissive of people who think an alleged rape victim was stupid because she didn't spend her Friday night constantly in fear of being raped.

Nrico2006 has a bit of a history when it comes to dismissing female victims of male violence, so forgive me for not taking his outage at how Rory Best has been criticised too seriously.

Yeahi thought that too. 4 days before the france game has nothing to do with it.

The four days before the France game thing has everything to do with it as it calls into question the role of the Irish management team and senior IRFU had in Best's (and Henderson's) decision to attend.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 04, 2018, 08:22:01 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

Best coming across as a brainless ape. Some "leader" he is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on February 04, 2018, 08:26:31 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

So you've no problem with Henderson attending? He's not captain.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 04, 2018, 08:30:59 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

The last sentence of your reply is irrelevant. You have a canny knack of running down opinions which differ from yours.

And all of the Ireland squad players finished with collective training on the previous evening and were given a day off before returning on the following day in final preparation and travelling to Paris.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 08:37:39 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

So you've no problem with Henderson attending? He's not captain.

I was responding to a post that specifically referred to Best only. If you managed to read a bit further on you'd have seen me mention Henderson as well...

Good try though, better luck next time.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 08:57:46 PM
I really don't see what the big issue is. . . he hasn't come out in support of the 2 lads, he's said he's trying to listen to both sides before he makes his decision about giving a character witness should it come to that, he's gotten a day off from Ireland so can do what he pleases, the girls was behind a screen the whole time so the "witness intimidation" angle doesn't hold true either.

There are much more important things to do with this case rather than Best or Hendersons attendance!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 04, 2018, 09:23:03 PM
I really don't see what the big issue is. . . he hasn't come out in support of the 2 lads, he's said he's trying to listen to both sides before he makes his decision about giving a character witness should it come to that, he's gotten a day off from Ireland so can do what he pleases, the girls was behind a screen the whole time so the "witness intimidation" angle doesn't hold true either.

There are much more important things to do with this case rather than Best or Hendersons attendance!
I agree. It will come down to who is lying.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 10:29:35 PM
I really don't see what the big issue is. . . he hasn't come out in support of the 2 lads, he's said he's trying to listen to both sides before he makes his decision about giving a character witness should it come to that, he's gotten a day off from Ireland so can do what he pleases, the girls was behind a screen the whole time so the "witness intimidation" angle doesn't hold true either.

There are much more important things to do with this case rather than Best or Hendersons attendance!
I agree. It will come down to who is lying.

You mean who is the best liar
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 04, 2018, 11:40:09 PM
Any need for a Character Reference won't come into play until a conviction. In such circumstances Best and pals can have their say in an effort to influence the length of a sentence. If acquitted the former accused can ride away into the sunset. (no pun intended)

That's what I thought too - but doesn't that make Best's reason for going completely unbelievable?? He'll only need to give a character ref if they're guilty
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 11:43:53 PM
Any need for a Character Reference won't come into play until a conviction. In such circumstances Best and pals can have their say in an effort to influence the length of a sentence. If acquitted the former accused can ride away into the sunset. (no pun intended)

That's what I thought too - but doesn't that make Best's reason for going completely unbelievable?? He'll only need to give a character ref if they're guilty
I suppose he feels he must be seen to stand by a colleague in a time of difficulty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 01:14:32 AM
What's the reasoning for believing that only one of the seniors will cross examine the current witness?  Has that been confirmed anywhere?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:22:39 AM
I thought Best's statement was an absolute disgrace. Even worse than his bad judgement in attending in the first place. If he was so concerned about getting the truth (a) I'm sure he can get full transcripts and (b) he'll only get to offer his character reference if they're found guilty. To me he's clearly bullshitting. It seems clear he didn't mention it to the IRFU and I'd say that he knew they'd stop him if he told them.

On the issue of their attendance - fair enough the girl may not have been able to see them but I'm sure she found out they were there and I'm also sure the jury saw them there. I dare say several members of the jury recognised Best at the very least.

I've lost any respect I had for Best. Whether these lads are guilty or not it was incredibly bad judgement to attend and then the follow up mealy mouthed statement was ten times worse.

The IRFU just come across as incompetent as usual.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 05, 2018, 08:53:18 AM
Best is a hooker and a farmer. He probably doesn't know much about PR or social  media momentum. The decision to go to the court was made independently but the IRFU had to manage the blowback with a huge match in 4 days. Tony O Reilly probably could have schmoozed the press but he is no longer on the team.
AnythinG Best said would be jumped on.And the match  And the social media. A total PR nightmare.

Kevin Myers and George Hook got caught up in social media outrages and got hurt.

In the old days the IRFU could have a word with the editor of the Irish Times...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 05, 2018, 09:43:02 AM
Any need for a Character Reference won't come into play until a conviction. In such circumstances Best and pals can have their say in an effort to influence the length of a sentence. If acquitted the former accused can ride away into the sunset. (no pun intended)

That's what I thought too - but doesn't that make Best's reason for going completely unbelievable?? He'll only need to give a character ref if they're guilty
I suppose he feels he must be seen to stand by a colleague in a time of difficulty.

Is he a colleague or a friend?  If a friend you could see why he attended, a bit of the old " love the sinner not the sin" attitude. If a colleague from Ulster and Ireland then it is different.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 05, 2018, 09:50:16 AM
Talk about losing sight of the court case, Best and Henderson will have no bearing on the case.. going was probably wrong but he's given his reasons, whether you care to believe him is up to you MS.. this trial will end horribly for everyone, except of course the lawyers..

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 12:21:54 PM
Best is a hooker and a farmer. He probably doesn't know much about PR or social  media momentum. The decision to go to the court was made independently but the IRFU had to manage the blowback with a huge match in 4 days. Tony O Reilly probably could have schmoozed the press but he is no longer on the team.
AnythinG Best said would be jumped on.And the match  And the social media. A total PR nightmare.

Kevin Myers and George Hook got caught up in social media outrages and got hurt.

In the old days the IRFU could have a word with the editor of the Irish Times...


Cop yourself on seafoid! Those two got what they deserved. The fact that (sadly) many appear to share their opinions doesn't validate them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 05, 2018, 12:46:23 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

The last sentence of your reply is irrelevant. You have a canny knack of running down opinions which differ from yours.

Maybe I'm just dismissive of people who think an alleged rape victim was stupid because she didn't spend her Friday night constantly in fear of being raped.

Nrico2006 has a bit of a history when it comes to dismissing female victims of male violence, so forgive me for not taking his outage at how Rory Best has been criticised too seriously.

Yeahi thought that too. 4 days before the france game has nothing to do with it.

The four days before the France game thing has everything to do with it as it calls into question the role of the Irish management team and senior IRFU had in Best's (and Henderson's) decision to attend.

Wise up. Players can do what they want in their spare time, Best going to a trial has no impact on a rubgy match four days later. First time i heard that im dismissive of violence towards females, not that i give a rats ass what you or anyone else thinks.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: angermanagement on February 05, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account
 
@FrankGreaney
 31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on February 05, 2018, 12:56:19 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account
 
@FrankGreaney
 31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel

That is going to throw the cat among the pigeons of those clamouring all over this at the weekend. I wonder will there be many retractions from some of the stuff spouted. I doubt it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 05, 2018, 01:08:52 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account
 
@FrankGreaney
 31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel

That is going to throw the cat among the pigeons of those clamouring all over this at the weekend. I wonder will there be many retractions from some of the stuff spouted. I doubt it.

And there was me almost convinced that they only attended to hear both sides of the story and support a friend! He was there on the defenses request to either intimidate the accuser or effect the jury. If IRFU had any moral substance they'd get rid.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 05, 2018, 01:21:15 PM
Best is a hooker and a farmer. He probably doesn't know much about PR or social  media momentum. The decision to go to the court was made independently but the IRFU had to manage the blowback with a huge match in 4 days. Tony O Reilly probably could have schmoozed the press but he is no longer on the team.
AnythinG Best said would be jumped on.And the match  And the social media. A total PR nightmare.

Kevin Myers and George Hook got caught up in social media outrages and got hurt.

In the old days the IRFU could have a word with the editor of the Irish Times...


Cop yourself on seafoid! Those two got what they deserved. The fact that (sadly) many appear to share their opinions doesn't validate them.
Myers may be insufferable but he did not deserve to lose his job .He was always pro Israel but the mob wanted a vicrim. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 01:47:02 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account
 
@FrankGreaney
 31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel


That is going to throw the cat among the pigeons of those clamouring all over this at the weekend. I wonder will there be many retractions from some of the stuff spouted. I doubt it.

I think you need to re-read what that tweet says.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 05, 2018, 02:37:07 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account
 
@FrankGreaney
 31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel

I think you need to re-read what that tweet says.

That is going to throw the cat among the pigeons of those clamouring all over this at the weekend. I wonder will there be many retractions from some of the stuff spouted. I doubt it.

So the judge corroborates what Best said in his statement . . . why is there more outrage about this again this morning?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:02:36 PM
I thought Best's statement was an absolute disgrace. Even worse than his bad judgement in attending in the first place. If he was so concerned about getting the truth (a) I'm sure he can get full transcripts and (b) he'll only get to offer his character reference if they're found guilty. To me he's clearly bullshitting. It seems clear he didn't mention it to the IRFU and I'd say that he knew they'd stop him if he told them.

On the issue of their attendance - fair enough the girl may not have been able to see them but I'm sure she found out they were there and I'm also sure the jury saw them there. I dare say several members of the jury recognised Best at the very least.

I've lost any respect I had for Best. Whether these lads are guilty or not it was incredibly bad judgement to attend and then the follow up mealy mouthed statement was ten times worse.

The IRFU just come across as incompetent as usual.

From BBC:

Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."


Well? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:10:19 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account
 
@FrankGreaney
 31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel


That is going to throw the cat among the pigeons of those clamouring all over this at the weekend. I wonder will there be many retractions from some of the stuff spouted. I doubt it.

I think you need to re-read what that tweet says.

And I think you need to retract all of the nonsense you have posted about Rory Best.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 03:10:42 PM
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.

OK legal eagles..."directed by senor counsel".  Does this mean "compelled" or "advised".   

Edit: I presume the senior counsel referred to here is the defence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 03:11:26 PM
I thought Best's statement was an absolute disgrace. Even worse than his bad judgement in attending in the first place. If he was so concerned about getting the truth (a) I'm sure he can get full transcripts and (b) he'll only get to offer his character reference if they're found guilty. To me he's clearly bullshitting. It seems clear he didn't mention it to the IRFU and I'd say that he knew they'd stop him if he told them.

On the issue of their attendance - fair enough the girl may not have been able to see them but I'm sure she found out they were there and I'm also sure the jury saw them there. I dare say several members of the jury recognised Best at the very least.

I've lost any respect I had for Best. Whether these lads are guilty or not it was incredibly bad judgement to attend and then the follow up mealy mouthed statement was ten times worse.

The IRFU just come across as incompetent as usual.

From BBC:

Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."


Well?


If the judge has to direct the jury about his attendance it kind of backs up what I was saying.

I cannot understand why he would have been directed to attend though. That's something I need to be convinced of a legitimate reason for. And if he was so directed - why not inform the IRFU?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:12:26 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

From BBC:
Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."

Any chance you might like to retract your second post on the Board?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 03:16:51 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

From BBC:
Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."

Any chance you might like to retract your second post on the Board?


What's your game? Are you going to go back the whole way through the thread and challenge everyone? I think you're reading this a little funnily if you think it makes everything ok. Armagh girl has nothing to retract....a perfectly reasonable position.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:19:40 PM
I thought Best's statement was an absolute disgrace. Even worse than his bad judgement in attending in the first place. If he was so concerned about getting the truth (a) I'm sure he can get full transcripts and (b) he'll only get to offer his character reference if they're found guilty. To me he's clearly bullshitting. It seems clear he didn't mention it to the IRFU and I'd say that he knew they'd stop him if he told them.

On the issue of their attendance - fair enough the girl may not have been able to see them but I'm sure she found out they were there and I'm also sure the jury saw them there. I dare say several members of the jury recognised Best at the very least.

I've lost any respect I had for Best. Whether these lads are guilty or not it was incredibly bad judgement to attend and then the follow up mealy mouthed statement was ten times worse.

The IRFU just come across as incompetent as usual.

From BBC:

Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."


Well?


If the judge has to direct the jury about his attendance it kind of backs up what I was saying.

I cannot understand why he would have been directed to attend though. That's something I need to be convinced of a legitimate reason for. And if he was so directed - why not inform the IRFU?

At an absolute minimum, it means that there can be no vindication for the character assassination of Rory Best as witnessed by the hysteria on social media and on this thread.  It was on the day off for the whole Ireland squad.

Keep wriggling.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:22:44 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

From BBC:
Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."

Any chance you might like to retract your second post on the Board?


What's your game? Are you going to go back the whole way through the thread and challenge everyone? I think you're reading this a little funnily if you think it makes everything ok. Armagh girl has nothing to retract....a perfectly reasonable position.

Just highlighting a few of the many of those who jumped in feet first to criticise and attack the judgement and character of Rory Best.  It highlights the hysterical reaction that social media engenders, the lack of evidence such hysteria is built on and the damage it can do to individuals.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 03:34:40 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 05, 2018, 03:35:53 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

From BBC:
Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."

Any chance you might like to retract your second post on the Board?


What's your game? Are you going to go back the whole way through the thread and challenge everyone? I think you're reading this a little funnily if you think it makes everything ok. Armagh girl has nothing to retract....a perfectly reasonable position.

Just highlighting a few of the many of those who jumped in feet first to criticise and attack the judgement and character of Rory Best.  It highlights the hysterical reaction that social media engenders, the lack of evidence such hysteria is built on and the damage it can do to individuals.

I'm not sure exactly how this vindicates Best from anything. I think we can presume that he was directed to attend the trial by senior counsel for the defendent. Now I'm no legal expert but I'd be reasonably sure that doesn't mean that he was duty bound to attend. And if he was 'directed' to attend, exatly what was his modus operandi? It looks very much like he (and Henderson) allowed himself to be used as a weapon/tactic for the defence to make a statement that they have friends in high places. Silent intimidation of the girl and a statement to the jury if you like. The optics of the whole appearance were very poor and Best made a crass misjudgement at best (pardon the pun).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 03:39:55 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 03:45:12 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

"virtue signaller", "mainstream media"

You guys do realise that you may as well tatoo I-am-totally-biased-against-the-woman on your foreheads when you use alt-right buzz words like that? Anyone who knows the history of the terms knows very well the sort of mindset that is attached to those who use them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 05, 2018, 03:50:35 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

"virtue signaller", "mainstream media"

You guys do realise that you may as well tatoo I-am-totally-biased-against-the-woman on your foreheads when you use alt-right buzz words like that? Anyone who knows the history of the terms knows very well the sort of mindset that is attached to those who use them.
You are thick
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 03:51:29 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

From BBC:
Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."

Any chance you might like to retract your second post on the Board?


What's your game? Are you going to go back the whole way through the thread and challenge everyone? I think you're reading this a little funnily if you think it makes everything ok. Armagh girl has nothing to retract....a perfectly reasonable position.

Just highlighting a few of the many of those who jumped in feet first to criticise and attack the judgement and character of Rory Best.  It highlights the hysterical reaction that social media engenders, the lack of evidence such hysteria is built on and the damage it can do to individuals.

I'm not sure exactly how this vindicates Best from anything. I think we can presume that he was directed to attend the trial by senior counsel for the defendent. Now I'm no legal expert but I'd be reasonably sure that doesn't mean that he was duty bound to attend. And if he was 'directed' to attend, exatly what was his modus operandi? It looks very much like he (and Henderson) allowed himself to be used as a weapon/tactic for the defence to make a statement that they have friends in high places. Silent intimidation of the girl and a statement to the jury if you like. The optics of the whole appearance were very poor and Best made a crass misjudgement at best (pardon the pun).


Absolutely right and correct. And there are some unsavoury conclusions that could be reasonably be drawn on top of that. If anything the latest news makes things look worse for me.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 05, 2018, 03:53:24 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 05, 2018, 03:57:53 PM
Who claimed he was a rape apologist?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 05, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
People should really stop commenting on "Live Cases" based on condensed reporting. You just end up looking stupid. I still by my prejudicial comments.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 05, 2018, 04:03:24 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!

So he is asked to attend the court so he might form an opinion on the character of the accused in case he has to give a statement on it.

Here is the key question - Why would Counsel ask Best and Henderson to attend?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 05, 2018, 04:06:15 PM
‘Directed by senior counsel’- in other words this was a tactic by the defence to influence things, no shadow of a doubt about that. Unless Best has no back bone he can make up his own mind what to do. He did not have to attend. He is not giving evidence and had no part of the substantive part of the case. He did not have to attend. He did so of his own volition and could have said to the SC that he was unsure if he should attend. HE DID NOT HAVE TO ATTEND. As someone whose has worked these types of trials it’s all about causing any flicker of doubt in the juries mind. The fact the judge had to comment on it is extraordinary and perhaps was a direct request from the jury. Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:07:43 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!

So he is asked to attend the court so he might form an opinion on the character of the accused in case he has to give a statement on it.

Here is the key question - Why would Counsel ask Best and Henderson to attend?


No legitimate reason has been mentioned so no wonder people are speculating. I know what I think.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:08:35 PM
‘Directed by senior counsel’- in other words this was a tactic by the defence to influence things, no shadow of a doubt about that. Unless Best has no back bone he can make up his own mind what to do. He did not have to attend. He is not giving evidence and had no part of the substantive part of the case. He did not have to attend. He did so of his own volition and could have said to the SC that he was unit sure if he should attend. HE DID NOT HAVE TO ATTEND. As someone whose has worked these types of trials it’s all about causing any flicker of doubt in the juries mind. The fact the judge had to comment on it is extraordinary and perhaps was a direct request from the jury. Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds.


Well said.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 05, 2018, 04:08:48 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!
How can you hear both sides in one day?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 04:13:14 PM
Maybe he meant hear from both sides of his head. The idea the defence lawyers have any interest in their character witness hearing from the victim is so laughable only a very simple person couldn’t see the gapping hole that exposes it as a lame excuse.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:16:08 PM
Maybe he meant hear from both sides of his head. The idea the defence lawyers have any interest in their character witness hearing from the victim is so laughable only a very simple person couldn’t see the gapping hole that exposes it as a lame excuse.


There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 05, 2018, 04:16:15 PM
So why didnt Best state this instead of having to wait for the judge to explain it, or why didnt the "directing" SC explain it and save the furore.


has henderson the same justification
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 04:23:16 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!

In that case it will be interesting to see if he attends should Jackson and/or Olding take the stand.  I never said he was a rape apologist.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 05, 2018, 04:29:23 PM
‘Directed by senior counsel’- in other words this was a tactic by the defence to influence things, no shadow of a doubt about that. Unless Best has no back bone he can make up his own mind what to do. He did not have to attend. He is not giving evidence and had no part of the substantive part of the case. He did not have to attend. He did so of his own volition and could have said to the SC that he was unit sure if he should attend. HE DID NOT HAVE TO ATTEND. As someone whose has worked these types of trials it’s all about causing any flicker of doubt in the juries mind. The fact the judge had to comment on it is extraordinary and perhaps was a direct request from the jury. Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds.


Well said.

Exactly. A cynical attempt to influence the jury in a rape trial and the Ireland Rugby captain obliges.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 05, 2018, 04:31:42 PM
Jesus, there is more attention on Best and Henderson than there is on the actual case... if this was a move by the defence to draw attention away. then good move, its worked by the looks of things..

As all the muppets are more concerned (at the minute) on what Best did or should have done or not done!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 05, 2018, 04:33:27 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 04:39:50 PM
He doesn't need to guess what the motives of a defence counsel are, Dinny, it's in their name. Defence.

You're either saying he's braindead stupid or he knew full well he was being used as a tool to portray the image the defence counsel wanted of their clients. Pick your poison because it's one or the other.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 05, 2018, 04:45:15 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

so are you saying farmers are stupid ???????
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 05, 2018, 04:46:46 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

Maybe someone will correct me but I can't believe that he didn't have a choice whether to attend. Surely the directive from senior counsel isn't a compulsory one?



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 04:49:01 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

"Farmer rugby player"??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 05, 2018, 04:50:02 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

so are you saying farmers are stupid ???????

I don't even know what the relevance of his occupation has to the argument but Rory Best is not a stupid fellow and I can't imagine that he would not have been well aware of the consequences of his decision to attend in terms of the statement that it sent. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 05, 2018, 04:51:10 PM
whats the relevance of Bests priveleged background ??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 05, 2018, 04:51:57 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

not that long ago Rory Best was in an eating place in Lurgan. Plenty of people recognised him
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 05:06:27 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

not that long ago Rory Best was in an eating place in Lurgan. Plenty of people recognised him

He can't be that clever, so!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 05:08:45 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 05:10:15 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.

Oh, Jesus. Come on. Do you need it written in blood on the courtroom wall or something?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 05, 2018, 05:13:20 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

not that long ago Rory Best was in an eating place in Lurgan. Plenty of people recognised him

He can't be that clever, so!

Oi. Lurgan is full of great eateries
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 05, 2018, 05:17:10 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.

Of course we are assuming but why on earth would the prosecution direct Rory Best and Henderson to attend the trial?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 05:26:42 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.

From the Irish Times report:

At the outset of Monday’s hearing there was legal discussion of media reporting of how Mr Best attended the trial last Wednesday.  The court was told Mr Best attended the hearing because he was instructed to be present by lawyers involved in the case. The matter was raised by lawyers for the defence.  It was agreed that this fact should be reported by the press.

It doesn't say it directly, but I think this infers he was "instructed" to attend by the defence?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 05, 2018, 06:09:52 PM
If he was there on the instruction of the defence why did the explanation only come out on Monday, 5 days later? Why was it brought up in the rugby presser?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 06:10:20 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.

From the Irish Times report:

At the outset of Monday’s hearing there was legal discussion of media reporting of how Mr Best attended the trial last Wednesday.  The court was told Mr Best attended the hearing because he was instructed to be present by lawyers involved in the case. The matter was raised by lawyers for the defence.  It was agreed that this fact should be reported by the press.

It doesn't say it directly, but I think this infers he was "instructed" to attend by the defence?

That suggests the opposite to me but regardless it still not clear if it was one of the defence seniors which one. I again go back to my earlier point that I am always reluctant to believe press reports of cases given previous experience
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 05, 2018, 07:07:23 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.

From the Irish Times report:

At the outset of Monday’s hearing there was legal discussion of media reporting of how Mr Best attended the trial last Wednesday.  The court was told Mr Best attended the hearing because he was instructed to be present by lawyers involved in the case. The matter was raised by lawyers for the defence.  It was agreed that this fact should be reported by the press.

It doesn't say it directly, but I think this infers he was "instructed" to attend by the defence?

That suggests the opposite to me but regardless it still not clear if it was one of the defence seniors which one. I again go back to my earlier point that I am always reluctant to believe press reports of cases given previous experience

Just refer to Judge Dredd, or Syferus as he’s know here!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 07:09:46 PM
If he was there on the instruction of the defence why did the explanation only come out on Monday, 5 days later? Why was it brought up in the rugby presser?

Because the judge felt the need to address it, either because of a query by a juror or by her own volition. Try to keep up, Sea.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 05, 2018, 08:29:21 PM
The reasoning that they was going because he was asked to give a character reference is patently bullsh*t for two reasons - firstly, a character reference is prohibited from mentioning the case at hand (it's already been decided by the jury at that time) and secondly, are they really going to garner enough information by attending one day of a 5 week trial to change their opinion of a guy they've known pretty well for 5+ years?

As I said previously, they were at best foolish & misguided in attending and I find it hard to believe they didn't realise that this would cause a storm.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 05, 2018, 09:13:04 PM
When do Best and Henderson get sentenced? Was there not a couple of other fellas involved at one stage?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: square_ball on February 05, 2018, 09:23:39 PM
When do Best and Henderson get sentenced? Was there not a couple of other fellas involved at one stage?

They’re going to let them get the 6 nations out of the road first and then I believe there is a public stoning at city hall planned for 18th March #stillmycaptain
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 05, 2018, 10:40:28 PM
Can we get a full attendance sheet of all those who have been so far? Be interested to see who else should get attacked. You can go to a trial if you want, just out of interest. Or you could go if a friend is accused of something, for a bit of support etc. On another note, wonder if the defence have evidence that the girl is a rugby follower and knows who Jackson is?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 05, 2018, 11:20:33 PM
Clare Byrne was discussing how a similar rape case in Ireland would have been a private trial. The fact that it's a high profile case for nvolving sports stars has led to far too much discussion in the public domain and it's easy to see where the girl is coming from when fearing that she was going up against Ulster rugby from the outset.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:03:13 AM
From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". It seems it will be key if one side can get the jury to believe their version of why the girl returned to the room. After that you're trying to prove consent or lack of it on the basis of body language. The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?

I don't think the argument that she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine is necessarily true either. Feelings of humiliation and regret could lead to a false accusation.
The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's perfectly logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered and not reported but the details in the public domain are way too thin at this stage for anyone other than narrow-minded gobshites to have made up their minds.

The texts and WhatsApp messages prove nothing other than that they are arsèholes.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers". I don’t think either argument would stand up in court though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 06, 2018, 12:22:22 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers". I don’t think either argument would stand up in court though.

This logic only works if you somehow think they are both capable of rape and yet not capable of being callous animals. Pure nonsense.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:33:47 AM
You could say the messages make them callous animals regardless but if they had any fear of police involvement they wouldn't have been sending messages like that. It seemingly never crossed their minds that the police would get involved.

It's nonsensical in relation to the case but no more so than your argument that she wouldn't go through with it if she hadn't been raped ( I can't remember if it was you that posted it but I assume it was).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 06, 2018, 01:18:50 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".
No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:37:07 AM
I would love to know what rugby people like Neil Francis think about the story. I was reading Paul Kimmage's article about Tom Humphries a while ago. It went out of control even though on the surface everything looked normal. At the end nobody supported him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 07:24:13 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: DuffleKing on February 06, 2018, 07:30:55 AM
We haven’t a full picture as I’m going on the court reportings but my view at the moment based on the detail I know is that I would struggle to convict.

The juror have heard the girl directly give evidence, which would be key for me, but to end these lads lives as they know them I would need convincing around a few things:

Why did she go back upstairs into Jackson’s bedroom?
Was there really resistance to this coupling?
The text messaging around this time suggests that something beyond the initial coupling may have been discussed before Olding arrived on the scene.
Knowing modern societal norms now, this is not a ridiculous scenario.
She seems to have been just sitting around when defendant 3 arrived and decided that was too much.

I say all of this as someone who knows and despises ‘Ulster Rugby’ and the culture around their players at first hand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TyroneOnlooker on February 06, 2018, 08:05:12 AM
Reading through this thread would put years on you! It's amazing the number of legal experts that read this board as well.

A few things I would note;
1.I don't think any contributors have been sitting in the court room each day so we're only going on the newspaper reports which obviously won't be the full story. But I fail to see how anyone could firm to a firm conclusion either way at this point. The prosecution case made the alleged perpetrators look bad. The defence will now try and put doubt on that story and make the alleged victim look bad. This is a serious matter affecting peoples lives. Wait to the end before making judgements about people.
2.I have seen photos which apparently show the victim involved. Who knows if they are real or not. Either way, whatever way a girl is dresses DOES NOT indicate she is fair game or somehow brought this on herself. Crazy attitude to take.
3.Best and Henderson - advised/directed by senior counsel to attend. Unless I'm mistaken, barristers do not have any power to compel anyone to go to court so this can be construed as the defendant's barristers asked them to attend and they duly agreed. You could look at this two ways. Firstly, a move by the defence to create the media hysteria we've seen, take attention away from Jackson etc and secondly, it also seems like common sense. You're considering providing a character witness for someone accused of rape. Would you not want to hear both sides of the story, get a sense for the thing before you do that? I know i would.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 08:10:51 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".
No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.
You're misinterpreting me there Sid - Maybe I could have worded it better.

My point is that one could argue that the lads wouldn't have sent those messages if they thought the police might come knocking. It's not a factual argument but I was making it to highlight the pointlessness of the "she wouldn't go through with it unless she was genuine" argument, when there are verifiable examples of cases where girls have seen false claims through to the bitter end, usually through feelings of regret and humiliation, regardless of how harrowing the process is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 06, 2018, 08:31:58 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.
I thought I read that she said something like "no not him as well" when Olding walked in??  Open to correction though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 08:43:12 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nicola-anderson-consent-at-the-heart-of-testimony-as-alleged-victim-gives-evidence-36571998.html
"
At its heart lay the crucial issue of consent - had it ever existed in the contact between Irish international Paddy Jackson and the young woman at the centre of these rape claims?

Brendan Kelly, Mr Jackson's barrister, suggested that it had.

She had been "fixated" on the rugby player, had been "desperate" to attend his party and had been "staring at him" all night, and followed him into the kitchen several times, he put it to her.

At times throughout the day, the young woman became emotional as she insisted that she had never consented to what she claims occurred that night.

So why not ring your friends and tell them to come?" he queried.

"I didn't think it was appropriate because it wasn't my house," she replied.

"So there was nothing wrong with the party," Mr Kelly stated."

Kelly was on a bit of a shaky scraw
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 06, 2018, 08:49:11 AM
This thread is definitely Lord of the Flies territory and we all know who Jack, leader of the hunters is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 06, 2018, 09:04:59 AM
A couple of longstanding Board elders are absolutely embarrassing themselves on this thread.

On the reporting so far, the girl appears to be handling herself pretty well under examination.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 06, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".
No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.
You're misinterpreting me there Sid - Maybe I could have worded it better.

My point is that one could argue that the lads wouldn't have sent those messages if they thought the police might come knocking. It's not a factual argument but I was making it to highlight the pointlessness of the "she wouldn't go through with it unless she was genuine" argument, when there are verifiable examples of cases where girls have seen false claims through to the bitter end, usually through feelings of regret and humiliation, regardless of how harrowing the process is.

they could have thought the girl would never go to the police or that their "stardom" would keep them safe?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 09:30:42 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".
No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.
You're misinterpreting me there Sid - Maybe I could have worded it better.

My point is that one could argue that the lads wouldn't have sent those messages if they thought the police might come knocking. It's not a factual argument but I was making it to highlight the pointlessness of the "she wouldn't go through with it unless she was genuine" argument, when there are verifiable examples of cases where girls have seen false claims through to the bitter end, usually through feelings of regret and humiliation, regardless of how harrowing the process is.

they could have thought the girl would never go to the police or that their "stardom" would keep them safe?
Absolutely possible. That’s why it's a pointless argument. Just as "why would she put herself through all this unless she was raped?" is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Walter Cronc on February 06, 2018, 09:46:59 AM
Lesson learned lads! :o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 06, 2018, 11:37:49 AM
Haven’t been following this too closely but as an observation from from the newspaper reports she seems to come across as very articulate and intelligent. Definitely doesn’t seem to fit the stereotype for the “footballer chasing wag wannabe “ that the UK tabloids love.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 11:41:04 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.


BUT as I said in another post, Jackson and the girl had consentually kissed in the bedroom, Paddy went to take it further and was rebuked by the girl who then went downstairs. She put on her shoes, about to leave, but realising she's left her bag in the bedroom went up to get it with Jackson following her and forcing herself upon her.

This is obviously her version of events, but Paddy may be caught out if the first part is true and she did knock him back and leave the room. What made Paddy think she'd changed her mind????
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 06, 2018, 11:49:16 AM
Who knows what really happen, by all accounts they had been drinking from early and into the wee hours. She has said herself that things are a bit hazy. When you drink that much you do lose some recollection of events..

Now lets see who bites first..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:06:06 PM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.


BUT as I said in another post, Jackson and the girl had consentually kissed in the bedroom, Paddy went to take it further and was rebuked by the girl who then went downstairs. She put on her shoes, about to leave, but realising she's left her bag in the bedroom went up to get it with Jackson following her and forcing herself upon her.

This is obviously her version of events, but Paddy may be caught out if the first part is true and she did knock him back and leave the room. What made Paddy think she'd changed her mind????
Fair point Johnny but even if Jackson knew she was planning to leave(and I'm not sure it's clear that he did) and was just coming back for her bag, he might have chanced his arm at trying to carry on the kissing and it could have gone from there. Did she do anything, verbal or non-verbal, to show she didn't want to? Did she just freeze and do and say nothing (in which case it's still rape)? If I was a juror I'd want to hear more detail. And if she did freeze I'd like to know what was different from the first time when she told him no.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:49:44 PM
 :) I'm not sure that walking in on a couple having consensual sex  and joining in is a "legitimate threesome". I'll bow to your experience on that one Tony.

From what I've heard so far I would consider Jackson as having a better case for being exonerated than the others.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 06, 2018, 01:12:58 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Maybe it's that easy access to online porn, and not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:13:31 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:22:46 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Maybe it's that easy access to online porn, and not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/oct/21/lucy-kirkwood-nsfw-pornography-play-interview

"Boys are being force-fed this very plastic sexuality on a mass scale. It is not something they have found for themselves in a way. There is no discovery. The internet says, you know, 'The rest of your life you will find enormous boobs out there.' The question is how do you kind of reboot. "
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on February 06, 2018, 01:43:27 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.

I mustn't be watching rugby close enough
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 02:11:31 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.
Wrong thread to be laughing at but that rolling maul line had me in tears.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 06, 2018, 02:12:37 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.

For the guy whining about capitalism and fighting for the small man you seem to think lame Tony Feron-esque jokes in a rape trial thread are a-ok. Wow.

Not surprised Asal Mor found it hillarious.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: WT4E on February 06, 2018, 02:14:42 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Best post I've read in a while!   :D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 02:30:01 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.

For the guy whining about capitalism and fighting for the small man you seem to think lame Tony Feron-esque jokes in a rape trial thread are a-ok. Wow.

Not surprised Asal Mor found it hillarious.
I,  on the other hand,  am stunned that you used it as an opportunity to jump up on your high horse and pontificate.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 06, 2018, 02:31:25 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.

For the guy whining about capitalism and fighting for the small man you seem to think lame Tony Feron-esque jokes in a rape trial thread are a-ok. Wow.

Not surprised Asal Mor found it hillarious.
I,  on the other hand,  am stunned that you used it as an opportunity to jump up on your high horse and pontificate.

Yawn.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 02:44:02 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.

For the guy whining about capitalism and fighting for the small man you seem to think lame Tony Feron-esque jokes in a rape trial thread are a-ok. Wow.

Not surprised Asal Mor found it hillarious.
I,  on the other hand,  am stunned that you used it as an opportunity to jump up on your high horse and pontificate.
It's par for the course
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 02:46:47 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?
Well exactly.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 04:34:28 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Maybe it's that easy access to online porn, and not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/oct/21/lucy-kirkwood-nsfw-pornography-play-interview

"Boys are being force-fed this very plastic sexuality on a mass scale. It is not something they have found for themselves in a way. There is no discovery. The internet says, you know, 'The rest of your life you will find enormous boobs out there.' The question is how do you kind of reboot. "

Pammy Anderson of all people was making this point a while back on some talk show or other.

young males with access to free porn have a skewed sense of what is normal it seems.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 06, 2018, 05:49:19 PM
How many posters to this thread in their mid twenties or younger?

Most I would venture are late thirties and much older.  It is a generational values problem that faces the jury as most are probably older and even much older than the defendants and the plaintiff.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 07:03:05 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Maybe it's that easy access to online porn, and not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Maybe it's that easy access to online porn, and not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/oct/21/lucy-kirkwood-nsfw-pornography-play-interview

"Boys are being force-fed this very plastic sexuality on a mass scale. It is not something they have found for themselves in a way. There is no discovery. The internet says, you know, 'The rest of your life you will find enormous boobs out there.' The question is how do you kind of reboot. "

Pammy Anderson of all people was making this point a while back on some talk show or other.

young males with access to free porn have a skewed sense of what is normal it seems.
I Wonder if the prosecution will cover the porn angle

 https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/28/boy-seen-porn-lying-online-pornography-sexting-teenage
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tyssam5 on February 07, 2018, 06:23:38 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.


BUT as I said in another post, Jackson and the girl had consentually kissed in the bedroom, Paddy went to take it further and was rebuked by the girl who then went downstairs. She put on her shoes, about to leave, but realising she's left her bag in the bedroom went up to get it with Jackson following her and forcing herself upon her.

This is obviously her version of events, but Paddy may be caught out if the first part is true and she did knock him back and leave the room. What made Paddy think she'd changed her mind????

On the other hand Jackson takes no for an answer the first time and she leaves the room - so he could argue if he was intent on rape or not taking no for an answer why would he not have done it the first time?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was, as Rois has said it would be uncomfortable and uneasy, and you'd leave..

The problem from her is convincing a jury (mainly males) that she didnt leave and according to her it was because she had to go upstairs to get a bag, then he came in, raped her, then another man came in and raped her also, while not making a noise, a cry for help, even not have any scratch marks on either person, plus the girl that came in also witnessed a sex act but no rape, I'm basing the last part on that fact that its the defence that has brought her in as a witness!

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 07, 2018, 09:17:15 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Cant speak for all guys but personally if Im told no once then I leave it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:18:05 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Cant speak for all guys but personally if Im told no once then I leave it

Unless its the wife!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 09:29:01 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Margaret Atwood’s line: “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.” 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 07, 2018, 09:43:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Margaret Atwood’s line: “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.”

Very true.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 07, 2018, 09:46:53 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was, as Rois has said it would be uncomfortable and uneasy, and you'd leave..

The problem from her is convincing a jury (mainly males) that she didnt leave and according to her it was because she had to go upstairs to get a bag, then he came in, raped her, then another man came in and raped her also, while not making a noise, a cry for help, even not have any scratch marks on either person, plus the girl that came in also witnessed a sex act but no rape, I'm basing the last part on that fact that its the defence that has brought her in as a witness!

Yeah, it's the alleged numbness that I can't understand. Because I've never been there. She never shouted nor screamed. She took off her own top and gave oral to Olding, but says both weren't consensual but she was too numb to object. But she did regain composure and walked out when Swinging Mick III came out and there was absolutely no question of any attempt to restrain her. 

It is understandable that rugby players can potentially be very intimidating if they have you in a compromising situation. But I would question if they knew what they were doing was even illegal. My view, at this stage, is they didn't really cop that, and that one scream would have ended it there and then. Not that ignorance or stupidity excuses wrongdoing.

There's been talk about all the adult content available on the internet. But its even "normal" TV that scenes like the above are on. From Entourage to Game of Thrones.  Or Ballers, where practically every episode has good looking girls looking to do all sorts with guys just because they're sportstars. Sure the lads even have their own international teammates who I'm sure have told stories in the lockerroom with a very similar tone to the text messages in the case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 10:37:28 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Cant speak for all guys but personally if Im told no once then I leave it

Ah yeah. You're fûcking perfect
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 07, 2018, 10:46:53 AM
There's been talk about all the adult content available on the internet

I have no comment on trial itself until we see how it pans out.

But I think that all of us should be tuned into above issue though.  We have a generation of kids growing up on hardcore stuff from the internet.  This isn't akin to anything I knew in my youth (skin mags and blue movies as they were referred to back then).  Also kids are seeing the porn first and gaining sexual experience after.   Expectation are being set by this stuff which both pressurising and confusing kids.

I spoke about this with some German colleagues at work.  I was asking about these "safe zones" in German cities for New Years.  I expected to hear about immigrants and culture clashes.  However they said that these "safe zones" are common now at rock concerts and beer festivals.  They said young German men expect the type of stuff we are hearing about in the current court case and lack an understanding about boundaries.

I don't think you can stop kids looking at this stuff but teenagers need to be educated about the difference between fantasy and reality.  I think it's important to have teenagers associate sex with intimacy and respect but maybe that's a battle that is already lost.

/Jim.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 07, 2018, 11:05:54 AM
There's been talk about all the adult content available on the internet

I have no comment on trial itself until we see how it pans out.

But I think that all of us should be tuned into above issue though.  We have a generation of kids growing up on hardcore stuff from the internet.  This isn't akin to anything I knew in my youth (skin mags and blue movies as they were referred to back then).  Also kids are seeing the porn first and gaining sexual experience after.   Expectation are being set by this stuff which both pressurising and confusing kids.

I spoke about this with some German colleagues at work.  I was asking about these "safe zones" in German cities for New Years.  I expected to hear about immigrants and culture clashes.  However they said that these "safe zones" are common now at rock concerts and beer festivals.  They said young German men expect the type of stuff we are hearing about in the current court case and lack an understanding about boundaries.

I don't think you can stop kids looking at this stuff but teenagers need to be educated about the difference between fantasy and reality.  I think it's important to have teenagers associate sex with intimacy and respect but maybe that's a battle that is already lost.

/Jim.

Good point but kids should be taught these things at home.
I think most young people know the difference between consent and rape
It’s when intoxication enters the fray that lot of these boundaries get fuzzy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 07, 2018, 11:08:23 AM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 07, 2018, 11:13:34 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Cant speak for all guys but personally if Im told no once then I leave it

Ah yeah. You're fûcking perfect

far far from it mate
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 11:19:11 AM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 07, 2018, 11:38:00 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Wouldn't be the way I would go personally but a statement like the above doesn't surprise me at all.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 11:56:58 AM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
In England pants mean underwear. In the South  pants mean trousers.
What does pants mean in NI ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 12:00:06 PM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
In England pants mean underwear. In the South  pants mean trousers.
What does pants mean in NI ?

Knickers I'd assume
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 07, 2018, 12:01:48 PM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
In England pants mean underwear. In the South  pants mean trousers.
What does pants mean in NI ?
It generally means crap.  As in "Some of Seafoids posts are interesting, others are complete pants"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:02:28 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:10:14 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.


Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 07, 2018, 12:12:46 PM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
In England pants mean underwear. In the South  pants mean trousers.
What does pants mean in NI ?

Knickers I'd assume

Nope;

From the Bel Tel;

"As I recall I left the room alone as soon as he started to undo my trousers."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 12:14:16 PM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
In England pants mean underwear. In the South  pants mean trousers.
What does pants mean in NI ?

Knickers I'd assume
And what do Shinners call trousers? Bríste ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 07, 2018, 12:25:27 PM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was, as Rois has said it would be uncomfortable and uneasy, and you'd leave..

The problem from her is convincing a jury (mainly males) that she didnt leave and according to her it was because she had to go upstairs to get a bag, then he came in, raped her, then another man came in and raped her also, while not making a noise, a cry for help, even not have any scratch marks on either person, plus the girl that came in also witnessed a sex act but no rape, I'm basing the last part on that fact that its the defence that has brought her in as a witness!

Yeah, it's the alleged numbness that I can't understand. Because I've never been there. She never shouted nor screamed. She took off her own top and gave oral to Olding, but says both weren't consensual but she was too numb to object. But she did regain composure and walked out when Swinging Mick III came out and there was absolutely no question of any attempt to restrain her. 

It is understandable that rugby players can potentially be very intimidating if they have you in a compromising situation. But I would question if they knew what they were doing was even illegal. My view, at this stage, is they didn't really cop that, and that one scream would have ended it there and then. Not that ignorance or stupidity excuses wrongdoing.

There's been talk about all the adult content available on the internet. But its even "normal" TV that scenes like the above are on. From Entourage to Game of Thrones.  Or Ballers, where practically every episode has good looking girls looking to do all sorts with guys just because they're sportstars. Sure the lads even have their own international teammates who I'm sure have told stories in the lockerroom with a very similar tone to the text messages in the case.

Where did you get this from?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 07, 2018, 12:35:12 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.


Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)
Presumption of innocence, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But the medical evidence and the third party evidence all still to come.

The weight that some people placed on the opening statement by the prosecution lawyer is mind blowing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 12:36:17 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.


Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)

What poster has come on and said they are definitely not guilty???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:37:25 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.


Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)

What poster has come on and said they are definitely not guilty???


The same number as those who've said they're definitely guilty I'd guess. A very small number if any.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 07, 2018, 12:38:16 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.


Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)
Presumption of innocence, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But the medical evidence and the third party evidence all still to come.

The weight that some people placed on the opening statement by the prosecution lawyer is mind blowing.

I work with a few ones here who had them hung by 1700 on day one.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 12:39:11 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.


Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)

What poster has come on and said they are definitely not guilty???


The same number as those who've said they're definitely guilty I'd guess.

Well go on and stick up a quote of someone saying they are definitely not guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:56:06 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.


Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)

What poster has come on and said they are definitely not guilty???


The same number as those who've said they're definitely guilty I'd guess.

Well go on and stick up a quote of someone saying they are definitely not guilty.

Yes my original post should have applied to those saying they are not guilty either.  However I don't think.I have read any poster say they are not guilty.  I have read posters saying they are guilty though.  Open to correction if you can find where someone has said they are not guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 01:07:19 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.


Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)

What poster has come on and said they are definitely not guilty???


The same number as those who've said they're definitely guilty I'd guess.

Well go on and stick up a quote of someone saying they are definitely not guilty.

Yes my original post should have applied to those saying they are not guilty either.  However I don't think.I have read any poster say they are not guilty.  I have read posters saying they are guilty though.  Open to correction if you can find where someone has said they are not guilty.

There were certainly more than a few posters pronouncing their certain guilt after day 1, and not only that but calling other posters, who suggested listening to all the evidence before deciding guilt or innocence might be the sensible thing to do, rape apologists, amongst other things.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 01:19:04 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 01:21:01 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

2h

Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding rape trial resumes with judge repeating her warning to the jurors to just try the case on the evidence they see and hear in court and to completely ignore media reports, the internet , social media and Syferus

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 07, 2018, 01:22:16 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

2h

Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding rape trial resumes with judge repeating her warning to the jurors to just try the case on the evidence they see and hear in court and to completely ignore media reports, the internet , social media and Syferus
;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 01:37:02 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.

is there any posters who said not guilty? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 07, 2018, 01:38:31 PM
What this rape trial has done is to shine a light on our own weaknesses - we want to judge on the flimsy evidence provided here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 01:39:54 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.

Your hat Seanie, not only were many posters saying lock them up now they were labelling anyone who didn't agree as crusaders, victim blamers and rape apologists.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 07, 2018, 01:44:32 PM
That's youse told off - 'fireside lawyers'   :D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 01:46:30 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.

Your hat Seanie, not only were many posters saying lock them up now they were labelling anyone who didn't agree as crusaders, victim blamers and rape apologists.

If you don’t think you can call out rape culture based on your opinion you’ve missed the point entirely.

This is not a court of law. You should do well to remember that next time you produce a pointless critique.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 01:55:05 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.

Your hat Seanie, not only were many posters saying lock them up now they were labelling anyone who didn't agree as crusaders, victim blamers and rape apologists.


I'm afraid you are mistaken. I'm open to correction though so go on a produce this big volume of posts that I must have forgotten or didn't read. Exaggeration is the new norm it seems.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 07, 2018, 01:59:32 PM
Seanie has Syferus on ignore.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 02:31:25 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.

Your hat Seanie, not only were many posters saying lock them up now they were labelling anyone who didn't agree as crusaders, victim blamers and rape apologists.


I'm afraid you are mistaken. I'm open to correction though so go on a produce this big volume of posts that I must have forgotten or didn't read. Exaggeration is the new norm it seems.

A couple of posts ago you were asked to produce the posters who said they were not guilty and failed to do so. This discussion started on the rugby thread and there are quite a few posters on there who hung, drew and quartered the accused based on the prosecution's opening statement on day 1 of the trial. you will have no bother finding them if you want to have a look.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There’s cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say “I don’t really believe the rape victim”. So they think they’re doing a good job obfuscating what’s in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after ‘stars’ or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they’re approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 07, 2018, 03:03:07 PM
Syfarus, are you at Laganside court? Or Roscommon somewhere?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 03:05:13 PM
There’s cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say “I don’t really believe the rape victim”. So they think they’re doing a good job obfuscating what’s in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after ‘stars’ or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they’re approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

Now you know what is someone else's heart - you really are the almighty one
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 07, 2018, 03:05:26 PM
There’s cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say “I don’t really believe the rape victim”. So they think they’re doing a good job obfuscating what’s in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after ‘stars’ or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they’re approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

How does one preach to a cave. Your bad grammar on this post combined with an unprecedented condecent approach detracts the reader away from the subject matter. A bit less pretence and a bit more tone and context that befits the general users normal reading standard might achieve more empathy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 03:06:09 PM
Syfarus, are you at Laganside court? Or Roscommon somewhere?

He may have been in the room on the night in question he knows so much about the case
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 07, 2018, 03:11:54 PM
Syfarus, are you at Laganside court? Or Roscommon somewhere?

He may have been in the room on the night in question he knows so much about the case

All I derived from his post was he’s a bit of a smart ass. His geographical location or knowledge of the subject wouldn’t have a bearing on his rants
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 03:15:37 PM
There’s cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say “I don’t really believe the rape victim”. So they think they’re doing a good job obfuscating what’s in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after ‘stars’ or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they’re approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

How does one preach to a cave. Your bad grammar on this post combined with an unprecedented condecent approach detracts the reader away from the subject matter. A bit less pretence and a bit more tone and context that befits the general users normal reading standard might achieve more empathy.

You seem to assume I have any intention or desire to look for empathy from the sorts of people I was commenting on there. Weird.

You either get the parameters that define rape culture or you don’t and try to pretend this is a normal court case. You can’t make someone see who doesn’t want to see.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 03:16:59 PM
Syfarus, are you at Laganside court? Or Roscommon somewhere?

He may have been in the room on the night in question he knows so much about the case

All I derived from his post was he’s a bit of a smart ass. His geographical location or knowledge of the subject wouldn’t have a bearing on his rants

read some of his other posts on it from the rugby thread.  Continually labels people who want to wait until the end of the trial before they make up their mind as caveman.  Most of the time challenged on a valid point deflects and or doesn't refer back to it.   as narcisstic as an individual as you could ever interact with.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 07, 2018, 03:36:02 PM
Syfarus, are you at Laganside court? Or Roscommon somewhere?

He may have been in the room on the night in question he knows so much about the case

All I derived from his post was he’s a bit of a smart ass. His geographical location or knowledge of the subject wouldn’t have a bearing on his rants

read some of his other posts on it from the rugby thread.  Continually labels people who want to wait until the end of the trial before they make up their mind as caveman.  Most of the time challenged on a valid point deflects and or doesn't refer back to it.   as narcisstic as an individual as you could ever interact with.

Gonna switch to my own words here.
You got that dude Sussed Frank
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 07, 2018, 03:48:18 PM
There’s cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say “I don’t really believe the rape victim”. So they think they’re doing a good job obfuscating what’s in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after ‘stars’ or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they’re approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: fearbrags on February 07, 2018, 03:51:29 PM
"""Most of the time challenged on a valid point deflects and or doesn't refer back to it.   as narcisstic as an individual as you could ever interact with"""
That Sounds Like Donald Trump  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 03:57:18 PM
There’s cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say “I don’t really believe the rape victim”. So they think they’re doing a good job obfuscating what’s in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after ‘stars’ or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they’re approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

If the victim prevails she will have shown an incredible amount of bravery and struck a massive blow against those who think they are above being prosecuted for sexual assault. After what happened to her that would be very much a win.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 07, 2018, 04:07:37 PM
And what will happen if the players prevail?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 04:16:22 PM
And what will happen if the players prevail?

Justice will again have not been served in a rape trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: fearbrags on February 07, 2018, 04:22:39 PM

""Justice will again have not been served in a rape trial.""

Why have a trail at all ?? Just Get Judge Syferus to read a few newspapers  and Give his verdict ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 07, 2018, 04:31:32 PM
There’s cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say “I don’t really believe the rape victim”. So they think they’re doing a good job obfuscating what’s in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after ‘stars’ or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they’re approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

Where is this being reported?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: red hander on February 07, 2018, 04:58:33 PM
There’s cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say “I don’t really believe the rape victim”. So they think they’re doing a good job obfuscating what’s in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after ‘stars’ or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they’re approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

Bit Freudian considering the circumstances...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 05:04:41 PM

""Justice will again have not been served in a rape trial.""

Why have a trail at all ?? Just Get Judge Syferus to read a few newspapers  and Give his verdict ;)
+1 a much fairer system, though he'd hate having that level of moral authority over everyone.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Fionntamhnach on February 07, 2018, 05:19:05 PM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.
It's been a common trope in flims and TV for decades about how the man always gets his woman. Family Guy did one of their cutaways to highlight it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djpMef3hdCA

"50 no's and a yes means yes"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 07, 2018, 06:24:19 PM
Or he's saving that question for the accused as their version of the answer will look better...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 06:26:22 PM
Or he's saving that question for the accused as their version of the answer will look better...

That’s literally another way of saying the same thing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 06:59:03 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 07:51:46 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

I suppose then she’d have said same thing when the other girl walked in?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 07:54:39 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

Sounds like the woman is making a holy show of the defence case. Good to see.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:14:29 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 08:22:38 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 08:29:33 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:31:21 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.

Sooo.... Is that a No?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 08:39:48 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

Sounds like the woman is making a holy show of the defence case. Good to see.

She’s been very good with her responses, smart girl, medical degree I heard (could be bullshit! ) . has remembered a serious amount of stuff for admitting being very hazy with the amount of booze taken. Not
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 07, 2018, 09:19:28 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.
Very interesting  that you offer a critique on the quality of the cross examination after she came back into the room ::)

Afaiu the defense team do realise the essence of courtroom strategy in a defense against  charges of rape and are desperately trying to establish that consent was given to one and all in that room. The whole focus so far on events after  she came into the room  is about consent.
You tell us, what is more important for the defense team than to first establish a level of acceptable consent from the morsels of the evidence? Isn't consent 99% of the case?
In a nutshell, rape is sex without consent and also you can only give consent if you know (within reason) what is about to transpire.
So far the woman is a compelling witness.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 07, 2018, 09:31:58 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It’s what is deemed reasonable
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on February 07, 2018, 09:39:06 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.
Even the defence request / instruction for Rory Best to attend Court was poorly thought through. Here we have a girl who stated she had been afraid to come forward initially because she would be up against all of Ulster Rigby. Then the defence instruct the players to attend court, making her fear look justified.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 09:41:15 PM
They thought it it would play to the jury that Irish rugby was behind the rapists but it totally backfired.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 09:53:18 PM
It will be interesting to see if Jackson and Olding do testify. Is it not unusual in criminal trials for the accused to take the stand (genuinely don't know but seem to remember hearing in murder cases it's seen as a kind of desperate measure)?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 10:21:10 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.

Sooo.... Is that a No?
If a new version of events is raised it will be during her cross examination. Prosecution will be able to examine her to dispute this new version.
It's a No
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 10:23:21 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It’s what is deemed reasonable
Beyond reasonable doubt not beyond all reasonable doubt. There is a big difference.
If the jury has a doubt about any particular piece of evidence the accused must get the benefit of that doubt
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 10:25:15 PM
It will be interesting to see if Jackson and Olding do testify. Is it not unusual in criminal trials for the accused to take the stand (genuinely don't know but seem to remember hearing in murder cases it's seen as a kind of desperate measure)?
It can be a gamble depending on the weight of evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 07, 2018, 10:43:28 PM
And what will happen if the players prevail?

Justice will again have not been served in a rape trial.

Anyone who comes out with a statement like this without having even heard one side of the story is clearly a buffoon whose mindset would put him in a similar bracket to Tony Fearon and the local paedo hunting brigade. All opinions emanating from said buffoon should be given due credence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 11:34:12 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.

Sooo.... Is that a No?
If a new version of events is raised it will be during her cross examination. Prosecution will be able to examine her to dispute this new version.
It's a No

Sorry my bad

I'll rephrase...

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events introduced by subsequent witnesses that arises after they have finished their testimony?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:28:12 AM
In the opening statement by the prosecution QC, it is stated that the complainant alleges vaginal sex occurred while Jackson maintains it did not.

Is DNA evidence likely to be introduced by the prosecution, I wonder?

I'm still struggling to see any inconsistencies in the complainant's story as reported by media.

Olding's claim that he merely went to "crash out" in Jackson's bedroom seems very unconvincing to me.

Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:33:51 AM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It’s what is deemed reasonable
I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is: was it beyond reasonable doubt that Jackson and Olding were reckless as to whether they believed they had consent?

Believing you had consent does not equal not guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: stew on February 08, 2018, 02:00:40 AM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It’s what is deemed reasonable
I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is: was it beyond reasonable doubt that Jackson and Olding were reckless as to whether they believed they had consent?

Believing you had consent does not equal not guilty.

Sid what the f**k would you know about the burden of proof? funny, I dont remember the burden of proof being mentioned on a thread were you gleefully threw the entire presidential staff under the bus for two ex wives claiming their ex husband, a staffer, abused them physically.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 08:32:09 AM
There’s cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say “I don’t really believe the rape victim”. So they think they’re doing a good job obfuscating what’s in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after ‘stars’ or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they’re approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

If the victim prevails she will have shown an incredible amount of bravery and struck a massive blow against those who think they are above being prosecuted for sexual assault. After what happened to her that would be very much a win.

You and others are playing with fire here. I saw that one group is sending her 3 roses every day for the duration of the trial. It got them a lot of likes and retweets.

If these players are found not to have raped this girl, then she is going to be in a very bad place mentally. She is under a lot of pressure, and that has been increased a hundred fold by the likes of you holding this case up as some sort of moral battle. As far as I'm aware, this girl didn't nominate herself to be a champion of any of the various degrees of movements which have waded in behind her - it seems to me most people championing her are using her as much as Jackson and Olding did.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 08, 2018, 09:19:31 AM
There’s cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say “I don’t really believe the rape victim”. So they think they’re doing a good job obfuscating what’s in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after ‘stars’ or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they’re approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

If the victim prevails she will have shown an incredible amount of bravery and struck a massive blow against those who think they are above being prosecuted for sexual assault. After what happened to her that would be very much a win.

You and others are playing with fire here. I saw that one group is sending her 3 roses every day for the duration of the trial. It got them a lot of likes and retweets.

If these players are found not to have raped this girl, then she is going to be in a very bad place mentally. She is under a lot of pressure, and that has been increased a hundred fold by the likes of you holding this case up as some sort of moral battle. As far as I'm aware, this girl didn't nominate herself to be a champion of any of the various degrees of movements which have waded in behind her - it seems to me most people championing her are using her as much as Jackson and Olding did.

At this stage she is only an alleged victim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: mackers on February 08, 2018, 09:58:00 AM
Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.
I was listening to Matt Cooper yesterday evening and the guy reporting on it was fairly graphic.  You could nearly here Cooper shifting about in the seat.  It left it very clear in my head the exact position everybody had when these acts were being carried out.  I was glad none of the children were in the car with me.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 08, 2018, 10:10:49 AM
Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.
I was listening to Matt Cooper yesterday evening and the guy reporting on it was fairly graphic.  You could nearly here Cooper shifting about in the seat.  It left it very clear in my head the exact position everybody had when these acts were being carried out.  I was glad none of the children were in the car with me.
I assume the defendants and the alleged victim's version of events will differ, so which one are you very clear on?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: mackers on February 08, 2018, 10:13:59 AM
The one that the reporter spoke about......OK "alleged" positions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 08, 2018, 10:28:29 AM
The one that the reporter spoke about......OK "alleged" positions.
Sorry, I thought you were taking for granted that one version of events as being fact.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 11:06:21 AM
Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.
I was listening to Matt Cooper yesterday evening and the guy reporting on it was fairly graphic.  You could nearly here Cooper shifting about in the seat.  It left it very clear in my head the exact position everybody had when these acts were being carried out.  I was glad none of the children were in the car with me.

What do you mean by interesting?? Surely that would be par for the course? Do you think there is an agenda at work for some reason?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 11:24:47 AM
Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.
I was listening to Matt Cooper yesterday evening and the guy reporting on it was fairly graphic.  You could nearly here Cooper shifting about in the seat.  It left it very clear in my head the exact position everybody had when these acts were being carried out.  I was glad none of the children were in the car with me.

What do you mean by interesting?? Surely that would be par for the course? Do you think there is an agenda at work for some reason?


I hope Rory is getting detailed transcripts or has a live video link to help him with both sides of the story.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 11:43:20 AM
I'm not sure how anyone could be certain on this case.

It seems the lads are at the least guilty of being d**kheads and that automatically makes people like Syf there assume they did it.

A lot of people I've spoken to about it seems to be siding with the lads. Her text messages seem very contrived, I'd love to hear the opinion of a psychologist which explains how those texts fit in with the behavior of others in the same situation
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 08, 2018, 11:51:57 AM
I'm not sure how anyone could be certain on this case.

It seems the lads are at the least guilty of being d**kheads and that automatically makes people like Syf there assume they did it.

A lot of people I've spoken to about it seems to be siding with the lads. Her text messages seem very contrived, I'd love to hear the opinion of a psychologist which explains how those texts fit in with the behavior of others in the same situation
The sequence of events in the immediate aftermath of the alleged attacks would suggest to me that if she *is* lying, she has went to extraordinary lengths to take three men to court on the back of it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 11:54:53 AM
I agree with that - they behaved atrociously, but that doesn't mean they raped her. There are an awful lot of holes and inconsistencies in her story.

Also, said in those texts she was raped by 3 men, didn't she?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:01:49 PM
In fairness she said "two and a third guy tried to get involved"

Her texts just seemed very calm, I'd like to see if thats normal. I'd presume rape victims follow relatively similar patterns and again I'd assume either you clam up and say nothing or you're hysterical.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 12:02:54 PM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:03:51 PM
I'm not sure how anyone could be certain on this case.

It seems the lads are at the least guilty of being d**kheads and that automatically makes people like Syf there assume they did it.

A lot of people I've spoken to about it seems to be siding with the lads. Her text messages seem very contrived, I'd love to hear the opinion of a psychologist which explains how those texts fit in with the behavior of others in the same situation
The sequence of events in the immediate aftermath of the alleged attacks would suggest to me that if she *is* lying, she has went to extraordinary lengths to take three men to court on the back of it.

What do you mean?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:04:01 PM
I agree with that - they behaved atrociously, but that doesn't mean they raped her. There are an awful lot of holes and inconsistencies in her story.

Also, said in those texts she was raped by 3 men, didn't she?
Such as?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 08, 2018, 12:06:23 PM
I agree with that - they behaved atrociously, but that doesn't mean they raped her. There are an awful lot of holes and inconsistencies in her story.

Also, said in those texts she was raped by 3 men, didn't she?
Such as?

Said she only puts tan on if shes expecting sex? so she had no tan on but there was tan all over the clothes she was wearing.

those rugby lads must have been tanning themselves!! I think that was the jist of what was reported
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:06:33 PM
In fairness she said "two and a third guy tried to get involved"

Her texts just seemed very calm, I'd like to see if thats normal. I'd presume rape victims follow relatively similar patterns and again I'd assume either you clam up and say nothing or you're hysterical.

No, she said 'just got raped by three f**king ulster rugby scum' in the ones i saw. Maybe elaborated in further messages, but that was one of them.

''In a text message to a friend the following day, the woman said she had been “raped by three Ulster f*****g rugby scum.”''
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/there-spit-roasting-going-on-11941837
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:08:31 PM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 08, 2018, 12:11:51 PM
I agree with that - they behaved atrociously, but that doesn't mean they raped her. There are an awful lot of holes and inconsistencies in her story.

Also, said in those texts she was raped by 3 men, didn't she?
Such as?

Said she only puts tan on if shes expecting sex? so she had no tan on but there was tan all over the clothes she was wearing.

those rugby lads must have been tanning themselves!! I think that was the jist of what was reported

That's not correct MR2 she said she had no tan on her legs and hadn't shaven. She was wearing a top that was showing her belly and so only tanned whatever was uncovered.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 08, 2018, 12:13:17 PM
Fireside lawyers said the judge  :D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 08, 2018, 12:20:23 PM
In fairness she said "two and a third guy tried to get involved"

Her texts just seemed very calm, I'd like to see if thats normal. I'd presume rape victims follow relatively similar patterns and again I'd assume either you clam up and say nothing or you're hysterical.

No, she said 'just got raped by three f**king ulster rugby scum' in the ones i saw. Maybe elaborated in further messages, but that was one of them.

''In a text message to a friend the following day, the woman said she had been “raped by three Ulster f*****g rugby scum.”''
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/there-spit-roasting-going-on-11941837

That was her text, the day after the event. Her story to the police, the basis of the charge, was that the third lad, McIlroy came into the room with his dick out.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 08, 2018, 12:20:45 PM
I said that was the jist of what i got, I didnt say legs, upper body neck arms, probably a bit on her feet that was showing...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 08, 2018, 12:21:41 PM
Fireside lawyers said the judge  :D

Exactly. While this is the most high profile and ‘juicy’ part of the case....woman giving evidence and being dissected by defence counsel...it’s possibly not even the most crucial. I’m not saying it isn’t but in a case of he said she said the circumstantial evidence is normally the key. Medical evidence, 3rd party statements, forensics etc. Both sides will play on the weaker sides of the others ‘emotional’ evidence and build up the strong parts of their own. If Jackson et al get into the box it could be very very telling. I would presume that in the police station they pushed the whole idea of consent in the interviews. We only know the potiential holes in the complainants case. There may be a raft of holes in their stories and even if they have been coached together as witnesses lies beget lies and ignorant they are not telling the truth they are not as smart as the man asking them the questions and they can be very easily caught out. This is far from clear cut and the whole question of when does the ‘no consent’ kick in will be the key. As soon as she says no anything thereafter is a crime
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:23:10 PM
I agree with that - they behaved atrociously, but that doesn't mean they raped her. There are an awful lot of holes and inconsistencies in her story.

Also, said in those texts she was raped by 3 men, didn't she?
Such as?

The positions she talks about being in, face down, forced down on bed, but looked PJ in the eyes to say 'no, not him as well'. 'Froze' initially so didn't react, but then would appear to have been compliant in moving about going by how the story continues. Could obviously still be raped, compliance makes sense if under threat, but does there appear to have been the real threat or fear of violence there? If so, had it disappeared when she 'finally found her fight' and told the third she wasn't having sex with him? Which he accepted, but she did't feel that the others would have accepted that to that point? Girl enters room, she turns head away rather than plea for help or demonstrate it was unwilling. How she talks about the sex occurring now doesn't tally at all with her statement to the rowan crisis centre, and differs in quite major specific detail. Her statement in court to explain the various discrepancies was 'I think you are underestimating the state of shock you go into when you've been raped." If shock makes you not just forget details but actually invent contradictory details I'm not sure how anyone could ever be convicted of anything.

Also said that she hadn't liked the third (mcilroy) from the start of the night, seems to me that most likely story was consensual with paddy, and with Olding,but reservations as perhaps realised she was being used, then lost it when mcilroy tried to join in, regretted whole incident, which was exacerbated by McIlroy and perhaps the others giving her abuse, which put her into hysterics, and in retrospect believed a crime had been committed.

So there you go, guess I'm a rape apologist  ::)

 

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:24:53 PM
In fairness she said "two and a third guy tried to get involved"

Her texts just seemed very calm, I'd like to see if thats normal. I'd presume rape victims follow relatively similar patterns and again I'd assume either you clam up and say nothing or you're hysterical.

No, she said 'just got raped by three f**king ulster rugby scum' in the ones i saw. Maybe elaborated in further messages, but that was one of them.

''In a text message to a friend the following day, the woman said she had been “raped by three Ulster f*****g rugby scum.”''
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/there-spit-roasting-going-on-11941837

That was her text, the day after the event. Her story to the police, the basis of the charge, was that the third lad, McIlroy came into the room with his dick out.

Yes - this was about the texts, not her statements. It was the text I referred to initially which I thought M4S was correcting
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 08, 2018, 12:27:47 PM
Fireside lawyers said the judge  :D

Exactly. While this is the most high profile and ‘juicy’ part of the case....woman giving evidence and being dissected by defence counsel...it’s possibly not even the most crucial. I’m not saying it isn’t but in a case of he said she said the circumstantial evidence is normally the key. Medical evidence, 3rd party statements, forensics etc. Both sides will play on the weaker sides of the others ‘emotional’ evidence and build up the strong parts of their own. If Jackson et al get into the box it could be very very telling. I would presume that in the police station they pushed the whole idea of consent in the interviews. We only know the potiential holes in the complainants case. There may be a raft of holes in their stories and even if they have been coached together as witnesses lies beget lies and ignorant they are not telling the truth they are not as smart as the man asking them the questions and they can be very easily caught out. This is far from clear cut and the whole question of when does the ‘no consent’ kick in will be the key. As soon as she says no anything thereafter is a crime

It dosent look good for them, and I asked the question to my brother in law, who is a lawyer, from what he has seen so far and in his experience, he thinks the lads will get off!

I'm not conviced, but hey what would i know, being a fireside lawyer
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 08, 2018, 12:31:23 PM
What is obvious is rape victims (not saying her or not as I dont know) are put through hell in court.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:35:17 PM
As are all victims, and indeed innocent defendants.

They should really look at keeping these cases behind closed doors. Whatever the outcome, the likelihood is all their lives have been ruined
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 08, 2018, 12:36:54 PM
What is obvious is rape victims (not saying her or not as I dont know) are put through hell in court.

Horrific by the sounds of it, takes a lot of support from family and the help centre's and of course the police
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 08, 2018, 12:55:39 PM
Did the lawyer for Olding tell the court yesterday that his client's version of events is that he entered the room and the alleged victime was straddling Jackon and beckoning him (Olding) to join them?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 08, 2018, 01:00:55 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 08, 2018, 01:07:43 PM
As are all victims, and indeed innocent defendants.

They should really look at keeping these cases behind closed doors. Whatever the outcome, the likelihood is all their lives have been ruined

But then, some people of both gender, need a reminder of the possible consequences of their actions during a night out.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 08, 2018, 01:14:02 PM
As are all victims, and indeed innocent defendants.

They should really look at keeping these cases behind closed doors. Whatever the outcome, the likelihood is all their lives have been ruined

Not true. Not all victims are cross examined. If someone walked up behind you on the street and kicked the crap out of you its unlikely you would get interrogated to try and imply you were getting a consensual kicking. Rape Victims almost always are interrogated and it puts quite a lot of them off going to court in the first place.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 08, 2018, 01:38:23 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.

The testimony of that lady will be vital to the whole case, if she says it didn't look consensual or vice versa then it'll be very hard to prove what happened - i.e. reasonable doubt in legal terms. However everyone who was in that house bar the lady in question has yet to speak. So much more to come. I think Rory Harrison (who fella who left the girl home) will also be critical - the lady in question has gone on record to say he was civil to her, what he says about the events leading up to it all will have a massive bearing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 01:46:50 PM
As are all victims, and indeed innocent defendants.

They should really look at keeping these cases behind closed doors. Whatever the outcome, the likelihood is all their lives have been ruined

Not true. Not all victims are cross examined. If someone walked up behind you on the street and kicked the crap out of you its unlikely you would get interrogated to try and imply you were getting a consensual kicking. Rape Victims almost always are interrogated and it puts quite a lot of them off going to court in the first place.

That's true I definitely exaggerated there. But I guess the point was there are many cases that could be said for, its not exclusive to rape cases.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 08, 2018, 01:46:58 PM
As are all victims, and indeed innocent defendants.

They should really look at keeping these cases behind closed doors. Whatever the outcome, the likelihood is all their lives have been ruined

Not true. Not all victims are cross examined. If someone walked up behind you on the street and kicked the crap out of you its unlikely you would get interrogated to try and imply you were getting a consensual kicking. Rape Victims almost always are interrogated and it puts quite a lot of them off going to court in the first place.
Are you saying that they shouldnt be cross examined and their allegation accepted as fact?
That would really suit the "All men are b**tards" crew
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 08, 2018, 01:48:06 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.

The testimony of that lady will be vital to the whole case, if she says it didn't look consensual or vice versa then it'll be very hard to prove what happened - i.e. reasonable doubt in legal terms. However everyone who was in that house bar the lady in question has yet to speak. So much more to come. I think Rory Harrison (who fella who left the girl home) will also be critical - the lady in question has gone on record to say he was civil to her, what he says about the events leading up to it all will have a massive bearing.

He's already said she was in hysterics in the whatsapp group messaging, so if she is crying wolf she did it pretty quickly after the event.....
It will be interesting both his, the Taxi drivers and those downstairs when she did leave as to her demeanour when doing so.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 08, 2018, 01:53:23 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.

The testimony of that lady will be vital to the whole case, if she says it didn't look consensual or vice versa then it'll be very hard to prove what happened - i.e. reasonable doubt in legal terms. However everyone who was in that house bar the lady in question has yet to speak. So much more to come. I think Rory Harrison (who fella who left the girl home) will also be critical - the lady in question has gone on record to say he was civil to her, what he says about the events leading up to it all will have a massive bearing.

He's already said she was in hysterics in the whatsapp group messaging, so if she is crying wolf she did it pretty quickly after the event.....
It will be interesting both his, the Taxi drivers and those downstairs when she did leave as to her demeanour when doing so.

could she be that calculating?

I don't know what to think. Everytime I hear something I change my thinking so Im just gonna wait until the result comes out and hope that justice is done
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 08, 2018, 01:55:12 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.

The testimony of that lady will be vital to the whole case, if she says it didn't look consensual or vice versa then it'll be very hard to prove what happened - i.e. reasonable doubt in legal terms. However everyone who was in that house bar the lady in question has yet to speak. So much more to come. I think Rory Harrison (who fella who left the girl home) will also be critical - the lady in question has gone on record to say he was civil to her, what he says about the events leading up to it all will have a massive bearing.

He's already said she was in hysterics in the whatsapp group messaging, so if she is crying wolf she did it pretty quickly after the event.....
It will be interesting both his, the Taxi drivers and those downstairs when she did leave as to her demeanour when doing so.

I'm assuming he'll back up his buddies on this, both the defence and prosecution will be very interested to his views on the behavior of everyone involved in the hours prior, that could be critical - the lady has already said she was drunk and can't remember everything about the night which isn't great for her case to be honest.

Hysterics at being video'd on a mobile or hysterics at a vile crime though, this is the question the case now hinges on. The girl who came into the room holds the key.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 01:56:50 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.

The testimony of that lady will be vital to the whole case, if she says it didn't look consensual or vice versa then it'll be very hard to prove what happened - i.e. reasonable doubt in legal terms. However everyone who was in that house bar the lady in question has yet to speak. So much more to come. I think Rory Harrison (who fella who left the girl home) will also be critical - the lady in question has gone on record to say he was civil to her, what he says about the events leading up to it all will have a massive bearing.

He's already said she was in hysterics in the whatsapp group messaging, so if she is crying wolf she did it pretty quickly after the event.....
It will be interesting both his, the Taxi drivers and those downstairs when she did leave as to her demeanour when doing so.

Being in hysterics doesn't mean you were raped ffs.

Another lad she says she didn't like tried to join in, she turned him down and he gave her abuse. That would put plenty of women into hysterics, especially when add in a sexual encounter she is beginning to regret. Means nothing in context of whether there was a rape or not.

Its clear these guys were pricks, but that doesn't mean they raped her.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on February 08, 2018, 01:58:00 PM
Saw a Twitter poll online "Did Paddy Jackson rape yer 1?"

Extensive media coverage of trials really brings out the idiots.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 01:59:09 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn’t do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Can you fathom any scenario given the course of events in which they might be innocent Syf?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 02:06:43 PM
It is a real eye opener to see some of what I thought were sensible individuals on this board indulging in the wildest of speculation and promulgating theories based upon zero evidence and pronouncing guilt or innocence when in possession of very few facts. Sad. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 02:09:03 PM
Can you fathom any scenario given the course of events in which they might be innocent Syf?

If the evidence pointed to innocence I would happily say so. It does not.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 08, 2018, 02:10:57 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn’t do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.

Again pre-empting what she is going to say before she even takes the stand.  Did you carry out one yourself on the night in question?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 02:11:54 PM
It is a real eye opener to see some of what I thought were sensible individuals on this board indulging in the wildest of speculation and promulgating theories based upon zero evidence and pronouncing guilt or innocence when in possession of very few facts. Sad.
Says more about you if you'd consider Sfy sensible
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 08, 2018, 02:12:17 PM
Can you fathom any scenario given the course of events in which they might be innocent Syf?

If the evidence pointed to innocence I would happily say so. It does not.

Can you list out the cast iron guilty evidence you have read 2nd hand in a paper or some other media outlet so far?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 02:15:08 PM
Can you fathom any scenario given the course of events in which they might be innocent Syf?

If the evidence pointed to innocence I would happily say so. It does not.

That's a ludicrous answer to a straightforward honest question.

But seeing as its all you've got, can I ask what evidence points to guilt?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 08, 2018, 02:29:05 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn’t do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.
Ironically, the only reason anyone on the board would be hoping they'd get off is you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 08, 2018, 02:32:48 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn’t do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.

She doesn't need to have performed a forensic analysis of the room though, she simply needs to state whether what she saw looked consensual or not.

As for her texts, has she stated she knew nothing about Rugby?  Why then would she identify the accused as 'Ulster Rugby scum'?  If she knew nothing about Rugby why would she not just specify that she was attacked by 3 scumbags, instead of specifying that they were members of a certain sports team?  Why was this important and if she hadn't a clue about Rugby etc why did she mention this specifically?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 08, 2018, 02:38:22 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn’t do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.

She doesn't need to have performed a forensic analysis of the room though, she simply needs to state whether what she saw looked consensual or not.

As for her texts, has she stated she knew nothing about Rugby?  Why then would she identify the accused as 'Ulster Rugby scum'?  If she knew nothing about Rugby why would she not just specify that she was attacked by 3 scumbags, instead of specifying that they were members of a certain sports team?  Why was this important and if she hadn't a clue about Rugby etc why did she mention this specifically?

it could have been mentioned at the party they were rugby players. They may have told her themselves
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 02:39:28 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn’t do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.

She doesn't need to have performed a forensic analysis of the room though, she simply needs to state whether what she saw looked consensual or not.

As for her texts, has she stated she knew nothing about Rugby?  Why then would she identify the accused as 'Ulster Rugby scum'?  If she knew nothing about Rugby why would she not just specify that she was attacked by 3 scumbags, instead of specifying that they were members of a certain sports team?  Why was this important and if she hadn't a clue about Rugby etc why did she mention this specifically?

it could have been mentioned at the party they were rugby players. They may have told her themselves


I dare say someone might have mentioned it! Mother of God!  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:42:02 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn’t do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.

She doesn't need to have performed a forensic analysis of the room though, she simply needs to state whether what she saw looked consensual or not.

As for her texts, has she stated she knew nothing about Rugby?  Why then would she identify the accused as 'Ulster Rugby scum'?  If she knew nothing about Rugby why would she not just specify that she was attacked by 3 scumbags, instead of specifying that they were members of a certain sports team?  Why was this important and if she hadn't a clue about Rugby etc why did she mention this specifically?
She knew who Jackson was from meeting him when she was working in a bar as part of a drinks promotion in 2015.

Obviously given that she had gone back to the party at Jackson's house she would have very quickly found out that the others were rugby players even if she wasn't a follower of the sport.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on February 08, 2018, 02:45:14 PM
Can you fathom any scenario given the course of events in which they might be innocent Syf?

If the evidence pointed to innocence I would happily say so. It does not.

Truth is you are going on wild speculation, rumour and innuendo from a trial that is not complete yet. You are pontificating on something which you have no knowledge of, like most other on here. The exception is that you are believing in the stuff that you are posting, with some kind of devine complex.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 08, 2018, 03:08:27 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

Happy to be corrected with examples but I don't recall anyone say they are 100% innocent - most posts I have read either people suggest waiting until the end of the trial before coming up with a final opinion of your own or they are just disputing some of the evidence which others think convinces them of their guilt and most people all in agreement that even if innocent their behaviour on the night and messages were not good.  Even at the end of the trial if you are still convinced of guilty or innocent that is fine - however, you have to accept the juries verdict (not going to start mentioning appeals, etc) because the jury is the only people who see and hear ALL the Evidence.  I would suggest most people online is reading media reports about it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 03:12:36 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn’t do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.
Ironically, the only reason anyone on the board would be hoping they'd get off is you.

Don’t lie, Asal Mor.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on February 08, 2018, 03:13:18 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I am neither for or against any side in this trial, what ever the verdict is the verdict is. My issue is with either side especially Syf pontificating on something which they no little or nothing about, as if it is total fact.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 08, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven’t made up my mind and won’t pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won’t find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trueblue1234 on February 08, 2018, 04:25:55 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven’t made up my mind and won’t pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won’t find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 04:28:39 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I was rounding on any of the clowns who were pronouncing judgement, regardless of what side they came down on...you know the people who were sure the defendants were guilty after the prosecution's opening statement on day 1...or were certain they were innocent after the alleged victim was cross-examined.

Was not of course including Syferus in the 'what I thought were sensible individuals' though  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 04:32:01 PM
There's an obvious solution if Syferus is pissing ye off so much.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 08, 2018, 04:55:23 PM
Based on the performance of the lady and the flakiness of some of the questions it is possible to come to a view

Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

Rory Harrison's barrister tells woman his client formed the view she was staring at Paddy Jackson at one point during the party. She accepts her memory is "hazy", so he asks if his client could be right. She says: "he could well be right about that but he's sitting in the dock
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 08, 2018, 05:12:21 PM
There's an obvious solution if Syferus is pissing ye off so much.

Off course there is the ignore button but do you not believe a poster who comes out with statements like if found innocent justice won't have been served.  Innocent until proven guilty is a cliche should be challenged.  Any time he is challenged on simple questions either deflects or doesn't answer.  Or resorts to name calling such as cavemen.  He is a trump like character.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 08, 2018, 05:13:06 PM
Based on the performance of the lady and the flakiness of some of the questions it is possible to come to a view

Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

Rory Harrison's barrister tells woman his client formed the view she was staring at Paddy Jackson at one point during the party. She accepts her memory is "hazy", so he asks if his client could be right. She says: "he could well be right about that but he's sitting in the dock
"hazy"
"could be right"

Not exactly beyond reasonable doubt is it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 05:47:00 PM
Based on the performance of the lady and the flakiness of some of the questions it is possible to come to a view

Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

Rory Harrison's barrister tells woman his client formed the view she was staring at Paddy Jackson at one point during the party. She accepts her memory is "hazy", so he asks if his client could be right. She says: "he could well be right about that but he's sitting in the dock
"hazy"
"could be right"

Not exactly beyond reasonable doubt is it?

Err ladeen, she’s talking about looking at someone at a party, not being raped. This suggestion comes from a man whose texts prove he was trying to keep a lid on the victim after the fact. Note what he is charged with also. Some of ye are really getting desperate now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Fionntamhnach on February 08, 2018, 06:32:35 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven’t made up my mind and won’t pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won’t find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.

I'm a little reluctant to take this thread off-topic more than it already has, but as it is...

...I have been messing about on the interwebs since around 1999 when I was first exposed to it as a naive, wild-eyed teen and ever since then I've participated on quite a lot of forums, message boards, chatrooms, newsgroups etc. right up to this day. And in my experience I don't think I've ever came across a poster/member/individual of any forum etc. that I have been on, or even in the off-line world, that displays a more blatant, stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than the poster on this board who goes under the handle of Syferus. It is f*cking painful to read most of his/her posts, even though I have him/her on ignore they are inevitably quoted by others in response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

And back on-topic, the trial has only really just begun, I'll wait until all evidence has been presented before I even being to start forming an opinion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 08, 2018, 07:34:08 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven’t made up my mind and won’t pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won’t find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.

I'm a little reluctant to take this thread off-topic more than it already has, but as it is...

...I have been messing about on the interwebs since around 1999 when I was first exposed to it as a naive, wild-eyed teen and ever since then I've participated on quite a lot of forums, message boards, chatrooms, newsgroups etc. right up to this day. And in my experience I don't think I've ever came across a poster/member/individual of any forum etc. that I have been on, or even in the off-line world, that displays a more blatant, stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than the poster on this board who goes under the handle of Syferus. It is f*cking painful to read most of his/her posts, even though I have him/her on ignore they are inevitably quoted by others in response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

And back on-topic, the trial has only really just begun, I'll wait until all evidence has been presented before I even being to start forming an opinion.

You're no fun
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Fionntamhnach on February 08, 2018, 08:08:22 PM
You're no fun

Guilty.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 08:20:02 PM
There's an obvious solution if Syferus is pissing ye off so much.
Yes i know there is....which is why I keep imploring him to stop talking nonsense. And thanks for the support!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Aaron Boone on February 08, 2018, 08:27:09 PM
At least we have moved on from Rory Best.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Clov on February 08, 2018, 10:54:12 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven’t made up my mind and won’t pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won’t find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.

I'm a little reluctant to take this thread off-topic more than it already has, but as it is...

...I have been messing about on the interwebs since around 1999 when I was first exposed to it as a naive, wild-eyed teen and ever since then I've participated on quite a lot of forums, message boards, chatrooms, newsgroups etc. right up to this day. And in my experience I don't think I've ever came across a poster/member/individual of any forum etc. that I have been on, or even in the off-line world, that displays a more blatant, stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than the poster on this board who goes under the handle of Syferus. It is f*cking painful to read most of his/her posts, even though I have him/her on ignore they are inevitably quoted by others in response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

And back on-topic, the trial has only really just begun, I'll wait until all evidence has been presented before I even being to start forming an opinion.

As Charles Bukowski put it "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."
This thread epitomises that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 11:13:32 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven’t made up my mind and won’t pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won’t find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.

I'm a little reluctant to take this thread off-topic more than it already has, but as it is...

...I have been messing about on the interwebs since around 1999 when I was first exposed to it as a naive, wild-eyed teen and ever since then I've participated on quite a lot of forums, message boards, chatrooms, newsgroups etc. right up to this day. And in my experience I don't think I've ever came across a poster/member/individual of any forum etc. that I have been on, or even in the off-line world, that displays a more blatant, stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than the poster on this board who goes under the handle of Syferus. It is f*cking painful to read most of his/her posts, even though I have him/her on ignore they are inevitably quoted by others in response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

And back on-topic, the trial has only really just begun, I'll wait until all evidence has been presented before I even being to start forming an opinion.

As Charles Bukowski put it "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."
This thread epitomises that.

Says it all
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Over the Bar on February 08, 2018, 11:20:25 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven’t made up my mind and won’t pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won’t find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.

I'm a little reluctant to take this thread off-topic more than it already has, but as it is...

...I have been messing about on the interwebs since around 1999 when I was first exposed to it as a naive, wild-eyed teen and ever since then I've participated on quite a lot of forums, message boards, chatrooms, newsgroups etc. right up to this day. And in my experience I don't think I've ever came across a poster/member/individual of any forum etc. that I have been on, or even in the off-line world, that displays a more blatant, stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than the poster on this board who goes under the handle of Syferus. It is f*cking painful to read most of his/her posts, even though I have him/her on ignore they are inevitably quoted by others in response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

And back on-topic, the trial has only really just begun, I'll wait until all evidence has been presented before I even being to start forming an opinion.

As Charles Bukowski put it "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."
This thread epitomises that.

Says it all

Empty vessels.....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 09, 2018, 01:40:24 AM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.
I should avoid this thread but before I do,

Broadly speaking people do NOT react the same.
Yes there are 5 well land marked stages of grief that people generally pass through, however one person may linger in a shocked state far longer than someone else. One person may get stuck forever and not get to the stage of acceptance, another may linger long in anger or despair before moving on.
Like wise with Rape Trauma Syndrome, broadly speaking people do not react the same.
The evidence of the demeanor of the woman during that night and subsequent days does not contradict her claim that she was raped. Her demeanor during all that period can be perceived as being entirely consistent with a rape trauma experience.

Going by the defense's line of questioning so far and their focus on consent, I'd say the case will probably come down to,
did she give consent at the time AND can the defendants prove beyond reasonable doubt that she gave consent?
Did she give clear consent to all the sexual activity that was inflicted upon her that night?
Did she say no at any time?
If she didn't say no, why not? was she incapacitated? threatened? did she feel intimidated?












Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 09:37:03 AM
At least we have moved on from Rory Best.


I think everyone now realises what that was. The alleged victim is still giving evidence and he hasn't appeared since. How will he possibly make up his mind?????? Such rubbish.

A disgraceful episode.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 09, 2018, 09:39:33 AM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.
I should avoid this thread but before I do,

Broadly speaking people do NOT react the same.
Yes there are 5 well land marked stages of grief that people generally pass through, however one person may linger in a shocked state far longer than someone else. One person may get stuck forever and not get to the stage of acceptance, another may linger long in anger or despair before moving on.
Like wise with Rape Trauma Syndrome, broadly speaking people do not react the same.
The evidence of the demeanor of the woman during that night and subsequent days does not contradict her claim that she was raped. Her demeanor during all that period can be perceived as being entirely consistent with a rape trauma experience.

Going by the defense's line of questioning so far and their focus on consent, I'd say the case will probably come down to,
did she give consent at the time AND can the defendants prove beyond reasonable doubt that she gave consent?
Did she give clear consent to all the sexual activity that was inflicted upon her that night?
Did she say no at any time?
If she didn't say no, why not? was she incapacitated? threatened? did she feel intimidated?

100 % right MS...you should have avoided the thread....what a load of waffle!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 10:15:16 AM
At least we have moved on from Rory Best.


I think everyone now realises what that was. The alleged victim is still giving evidence and he hasn't appeared since. How will he possibly make up his mind?????? Such rubbish.

A disgraceful episode.

He's mentioned that all he needs to do to get a proper view on things is to read this thread, that way he'll have made his mind up!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on February 09, 2018, 10:17:46 AM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.
I should avoid this thread but before I do,

Broadly speaking people do NOT react the same.
Yes there are 5 well land marked stages of grief that people generally pass through, however one person may linger in a shocked state far longer than someone else. One person may get stuck forever and not get to the stage of acceptance, another may linger long in anger or despair before moving on.
Like wise with Rape Trauma Syndrome, broadly speaking people do not react the same.
The evidence of the demeanor of the woman during that night and subsequent days does not contradict her claim that she was raped. Her demeanor during all that period can be perceived as being entirely consistent with a rape trauma experience.

Going by the defense's line of questioning so far and their focus on consent, I'd say the case will probably come down to,
did she give consent at the time AND can the defendants prove beyond reasonable doubt that she gave consent?
Did she give clear consent to all the sexual activity that was inflicted upon her that night?
Did she say no at any time?
If she didn't say no, why not? was she incapacitated? threatened? did she feel intimidated?
You say people broadly don't act the same and then go onto explain that people do broadly act the same but there are times that people deviate from this.

Going back to my original point, people in stressful situations tend to act in a similar manner. I would like to know if this ladies behavior is consistent with other rape victims. That is with the caveat that some peoples reactions are outside the norm, so non-consistency doesn't necessarily prove she wasn't raped but consistency could go a long way to helping her
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 09, 2018, 10:43:44 AM
This thread has gotten to the stage now where any comment is getting jumped upon. Despite Syferus's opinion to the contrary nobody on here has any idea what happened. The Judge/Jury will have access to significantly more evidence that you see through the court reports.

One observation I find strange is the comments about fear of being filmed when the other girl walked in. Totally understand that position obviously for a young woman but it did strike me as something that would be more likely to go through your head if you were involved in consensual activity that you did nt want getting out.  If it was not consensual I would have thought that wouldn't be the first thing you think off. And before anyone starts calling me a rape apologist etc, its just an observation,  I accept I have no idea what would be going through someone's mind in either situation and I have no idea whether these guys are guilty or not. As has been said above, the testimony from the other girl will be fairly key.

As an aside it is however a sad indictment of the mobile  phone camera generation that this is something that clearly does happen, i.e. someone walking into a bedroom and photographing you. Mobile phone cameras were thankfully not on the go when I was a student but the constant photo-taking on nights out by the "younger generation" is a pet hate of mine.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 09, 2018, 10:53:58 AM
In the absence of forensic evidence in its widest sense, a jury will make decisions based on perceptions and for all of us (as witnessed in this thread and others) perceptions quickly become our realities.  So, the defence and the prosecution will both work on the perceptions of the jury to try to manipulate the realities of the jurors before they make up their minds.

This trial is relatively unique for N.Ireland as it involves the behaviour of young middle class people from a relatively compact area of Belfast. 

On the other hand, the jury will more than likely have a greater socio-economic and geographic spread than those being questioned by the barristers on both sides and will be well aware of the backgrounds of those before them.

To date, the plaintiff, after five days in the witness stand, has come across as relatively composed, very articulate, quite combative with the barristers and, as far as media reports indicate, has withstood the ordeal well while giving a very good account of herself despite the obvious humiliation provided by her situation and the detail involved. 

Will the jury go home for the weekend thinking well of her and if so how much will that affect their perceptions of the defendants? 

Her testimony is on the record and will be tested in detail in the coming weeks.

The trail is scheduled for another three weeks and the effect on the jury of the defendant's time as a witness can only diminish over this time as only the prosecution barrister can stand up for her as the defendants make their cases and try to unpick the jurors' perceptions of the plaintiff.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 09, 2018, 11:32:59 AM
At least we have moved on from Rory Best.


I think everyone now realises what that was. The alleged victim is still giving evidence and he hasn't appeared since. How will he possibly make up his mind?????? Such rubbish.

A disgraceful episode.

David Walsh and Donal Og Cusack took a massive amount of flak for writing character references for Tom Humphries.

But they weren't trying to influence whether he was guilty or not.

If Best appears as a character witness, he will only be appearing in an attempt to persuade the jury that the defendants are not guilty.

That's his right, but it sits very uneasily and the optics of it will be dreadful if it happens.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 09, 2018, 11:46:36 AM
At least we have moved on from Rory Best.


I think everyone now realises what that was. The alleged victim is still giving evidence and he hasn't appeared since. How will he possibly make up his mind?????? Such rubbish.

A disgraceful episode.

David Walsh and Donal Og Cusack took a massive amount of flak for writing character references for Tom Humphries.

But they weren't trying to influence whether he was guilty or not.

If Best appears as a character witness, he will only be appearing in an attempt to persuade the jury that the defendants are not guilty.

That's his right, but it sits very uneasily and the optics of it will be dreadful if it happens.

And given the defence case and (undisputed?) Whatsapps that the guys were sending round the next day, he would be at best giving character references for f**king morons and at worst for rapists.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 12:35:44 PM
At least we have moved on from Rory Best.


I think everyone now realises what that was. The alleged victim is still giving evidence and he hasn't appeared since. How will he possibly make up his mind?????? Such rubbish.

A disgraceful episode.
Maybe he has decided not to give character references?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:38:21 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:49:15 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?


Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 12:52:54 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?


Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they’re not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 09, 2018, 12:57:01 PM
That's not legally right. There are limited circumstances when character witnesses can be called to speak to the good character of a witness. I am not saying that is happening in this case but it's not right that character witnesses only appearing at sentencing. They can albeit rarely appear as witnesses at trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:58:00 PM
That's not legally right. There are limited circumstances when character witnesses can be called to speak to the good character of a witness. I am not saying that is happening in this case but it's not right that character witnesses only appearing at sentencing. They can albeit rarely appear as witnesses at trial.

Good character of a witness David? As in corroborating this witness testimony because he's a good guy? Or as character witness for accused?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:59:05 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?


Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they’re not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel


The judge obviously felt it was noteworthy and issued instruction to the jury. It wasn't to intimidate the witness, it was sending a message to the jury.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 01:00:28 PM
That's not legally right. There are limited circumstances when character witnesses can be called to speak to the good character of a witness. I am not saying that is happening in this case but it's not right that character witnesses only appearing at sentencing. They can albeit rarely appear as witnesses at trial.


I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification. I'd like to know what the circumstances would be and if it's likely in this case. Thanks.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 01:04:24 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?


Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they’re not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel


The judge obviously felt it was noteworthy and issued instruction to the jury. It wasn't to intimidate the witness, it was sending a message to the jury.
Nothing to do with the social media backlash aimed at Best I’m sure.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 01:09:04 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?

If and its a huge IF! If these lads are not convicted and the jury say's, based on the evidence that it was "consensual sexual activity", then they have carried out a sexual act in agreement with a girl... It's called a threesome and I'm sure there are a lot of single guys and girls out there that have been in that position (no pun), it happens, its not dirty and the texts afterwards are just that, lads and girls laughing their heads of at something they agreed two..

As far as Best is concerned, he has only heard it from Olding and Jackson, two lads that he has known for a long time and he's taken their word that it was all above board, plus asked by layers to be there.

These lads would be more privy to that sort of situation than many on this board, while it sounds more like a porn movie, this is probably happening more often to minor celbs than the Joe Bloggs from Andytown..

I'm not buying the lads text messages at all as being anything other than bragging about having sex, there are millions of these texts going about on a daily bases, if you raped someone why would you brag about it?

So Best will probably sit this one out, as the ones that have him hung drawn and quartered already believe the lads are guilty, regardless of the findings, if they are found guilty then a character ref will be asked no doubt, whether Best or the rest do that god knows..

Hopefully something will come out of this, making our kids more aware of their actions can lead to defining moments in their lives and alter a straight forward night out into a nightmare future for the career's...

when will the prosecution rest their case? or what happens? my fireside law degree dosent know
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 09, 2018, 01:11:55 PM
i see the jury visited Jackson's house today. How does that work? Has the house been effectively locked up since this allegedly took place?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 01:13:42 PM
i see the jury visited Jackson's house today. How does that work? Has the house been effectively locked up since this allegedly took place?

It's not forensics they're looking at. I'm sure it's to give them a chance to get their bearings and visualise stuff. When someone says I went up stairs and the bedroom was on the left or whatever, they can picture the scene a lot better. It might also be used to show how someone may, or may not, see something from outside the room if the door was opened for example.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 09, 2018, 01:17:59 PM
That's not legally right. There are limited circumstances when character witnesses can be called to speak to the good character of a witness. I am not saying that is happening in this case but it's not right that character witnesses only appearing at sentencing. They can albeit rarely appear as witnesses at trial.

Good character of a witness David? As in corroborating this witness testimony because he's a good guy? Or as character witness for accused?

Any defendant of previous good character is entitled to a good character direction from the Judge ie the jury are entitled to be told that a defendant has no record and that the jury may consider this as making it more unlikely that they committed the offence alleged. It's been that long since I've seen a witness called that I can't remember the rules for doing so off the top of my head.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 09, 2018, 01:20:51 PM
i see the jury visited Jackson's house today. How does that work? Has the house been effectively locked up since this allegedly took place?

It gives them a chance to see the house, visualize what's happened and gather a better perception of the events. The big details in this case are to come - I think the 'sound' of the house will become quite important. It's already been stated it wasn't a 'party', by that I take it the music was low to muted and I've a fair idea that all involved as witnesses in this case will be asked to describe what, if any noises they heard coming from upstairs. I had written before in here that the young lady in question who came into the middle of the whole thing, will be asked especially to describe if what she heard (if she can remember) before she entered the room sounded like, as in, did it appear to be a struggle or was there any noises to indicate what was happening behind the door / indeed, was it noise that prompted her to even go up to the room in the first place / why?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 09, 2018, 01:53:07 PM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.
I should avoid this thread but before I do,

Broadly speaking people do NOT react the same.
Yes there are 5 well land marked stages of grief that people generally pass through, however one person may linger in a shocked state far longer than someone else. One person may get stuck forever and not get to the stage of acceptance, another may linger long in anger or despair before moving on.
Like wise with Rape Trauma Syndrome, broadly speaking people do not react the same.
The evidence of the demeanor of the woman during that night and subsequent days does not contradict her claim that she was raped. Her demeanor during all that period can be perceived as being entirely consistent with a rape trauma experience.

Going by the defense's line of questioning so far and their focus on consent, I'd say the case will probably come down to,
did she give consent at the time AND can the defendants prove beyond reasonable doubt that she gave consent?
Did she give clear consent to all the sexual activity that was inflicted upon her that night?
Did she say no at any time?
If she didn't say no, why not? was she incapacitated? threatened? did she feel intimidated?

So what you have concluded  is that in a rape case the presence or absence of consent is the deciding factor?
How many years  in Harvard Law School did it take for you to be able to come to that conclusion?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 02:00:49 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?


Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they’re not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel


The judge obviously felt it was noteworthy and issued instruction to the jury. It wasn't to intimidate the witness, it was sending a message to the jury.
Nothing to do with the social media backlash aimed at Best I’m sure.


The judge KNOWS the jury saw Best in the gallery. This was caused by Best's attendance.

The judge does NOT KNOW if the jury have seen a "backlash aimed at Best" on social media. Again though, this was caused by Best.

Can't see where the sympathy for Best is coming from.

This is a separate issue to belief of whether the accuses are guilty or not.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 02:34:02 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?


Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they’re not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel


The judge obviously felt it was noteworthy and issued instruction to the jury. It wasn't to intimidate the witness, it was sending a message to the jury.
Nothing to do with the social media backlash aimed at Best I’m sure.


The judge KNOWS the jury saw Best in the gallery. This was caused by Best's attendance.

The judge does NOT KNOW if the jury have seen a "backlash aimed at Best" on social media. Again though, this was caused by Best.

Can't see where the sympathy for Best is coming from.

This is a separate issue to belief of whether the accuses are guilty or not.

So if they are not guilty MS, and it was just young ones having sex, and afterwards sent text messages bragging about the night before, sent between the lads (normal stuff nowadays) will you then back Best?

Or have you the lads guilty already in this short space of time with the evidence only half given out? Fireside lawyer much? or just a moral crusader on "top shaggers"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 03:04:56 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?


Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they’re not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel


The judge obviously felt it was noteworthy and issued instruction to the jury. It wasn't to intimidate the witness, it was sending a message to the jury.
Nothing to do with the social media backlash aimed at Best I’m sure.


The judge KNOWS the jury saw Best in the gallery. This was caused by Best's attendance.

The judge does NOT KNOW if the jury have seen a "backlash aimed at Best" on social media. Again though, this was caused by Best.

Can't see where the sympathy for Best is coming from.

This is a separate issue to belief of whether the accuses are guilty or not.

So if they are not guilty MS, and it was just young ones having sex, and afterwards sent text messages bragging about the night before, sent between the lads (normal stuff nowadays) will you then back Best?

Or have you the lads guilty already in this short space of time with the evidence only half given out? Fireside lawyer much? or just a moral crusader on "top shaggers"


I thought I couldn't have been clearer but I'll try again.

Regardless of how the trial ends up I think Best (especially) was very wrong to attend. It displayed poor judgement at best and I personally think he allowed himself to be used by the defence. All they're trying to do is create any doubt.....it's their job. Best might be a decent fella and most people say he is but this was a misjudgement. Especially when you come out with a c**k and bull story afterwards which is clearly false. Best is a tremendous player and as I've said supposed to be a very decent guy. He let himself down here in my view.

If you want my opinion on the trial here it is. I'm not sure what happened. I'm only guessing like everyone else. I hope it becomes clearer as the trial unfolds. I'm no prude and I'd be fairly aware of what goes on these days. Little would surprise me. I had a strong leaning early on I'll admit but I'm trying to keep an open mind now. I also now realise that if all the evidence is not being reported in the media I need to be a bit more cautious about forming my opinions. Can I be truly sure - probably not. Lets hope the jury can be when it's all over.

One other point to clarify though - text messages sent between the lads might be normal stuff nowadays but that doesn't make it right. They read quite poorly to me and seem a little sad and juvenile. Not a crime of course but a tad pathetic.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 09, 2018, 03:45:34 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

or why did the girl lie in the Oliver Mears case?

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 09, 2018, 03:47:51 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 09, 2018, 03:49:05 PM
Why exactly would she lie?
Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's on trial for rape and will end up in clink if convicted??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:49:43 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he’s trying to deny what he’s charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she’d put herself through this trial in the first place.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 03:51:52 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places


No, it's poor judgement full stop. It was going to create a sh1t storm, as such a recognisable figure he was being used by the defence to send a message to the jury plus the pure rubbish explanation.......it was very poor judgement.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 09, 2018, 03:56:50 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!
A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:59:42 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!
A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.

I can’t beleive I have to say it, but being a decent person and being a rapist are mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 09, 2018, 04:03:20 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Mind bending stuff here.

The prosecution legal team have definitely missed a trick in not employing this strategy.  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 04:30:03 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he’s trying to deny what he’s charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she’d put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 09, 2018, 04:40:52 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Mind bending stuff here.

The prosecution legal team have definitely missed a trick in not employing this strategy.  ::)
;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 04:46:36 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he’s trying to deny what he’s charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she’d put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you’ve got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old “let’s see what happens” spiel. Well, it doesn’t look like that’s what you’re doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it’s the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 09, 2018, 04:47:43 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he’s trying to deny what he’s charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she’d put herself through this trial in the first place.
You keeping following this line even though there are many cases (in the last few months!) of men who had been falsely accused of rape. It happens and as the complainant is granted lifelong anonymity it is the man who suffers. Look up Liam Allan, Solomon Makele, Connor Fitzgerald etc and you're only scratching the surface.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 09, 2018, 04:50:33 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!
A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.

I can’t beleive I have to say it, but being a decent person and being a rapist are mutually exclusive.
And if he is guilty and he denies it to the end without any remorse he will get a longer sentence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 04:52:27 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!
A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.

I can’t beleive I have to say it, but being a decent person and being a rapist are mutually exclusive.
And if he is guilty and he denies it to the end without any remorse he will get a longer sentence.

Most rapists rely on how hard rape cases are to try when they decide how to plea. The punishment for being found guilty and having denied it should be more than it currently is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 09, 2018, 05:08:51 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places


No, it's poor judgement full stop. It was going to create a sh1t storm, as such a recognisable figure he was being used by the defence to send a message to the jury plus the pure rubbish explanation.......it was very poor judgement.

Yeah, extremely poor judgement regardless of the outcome of the trial
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 09, 2018, 05:29:30 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he’s trying to deny what he’s charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she’d put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you’ve got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old “let’s see what happens” spiel. Well, it doesn’t look like that’s what you’re doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it’s the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

Brilliant! ;D ;D ;D

You do realise that the fact that there's a trial going on at all insinuates that the alleged victim may be lying!

Your reputation for making a show of yourself on this board precedes you but, hats off, this is some of your best work.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 05:30:17 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he’s trying to deny what he’s charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she’d put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you’ve got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old “let’s see what happens” spiel. Well, it doesn’t look like that’s what you’re doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it’s the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

Hmm? I’ve been called out? You numpty where have I personally laid blame? You on the other hand have been caught out with examples and have yet to respond to it! saying it’s the exception rather than the rule just shows you up even more!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 09, 2018, 05:38:54 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he’s trying to deny what he’s charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she’d put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you’ve got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old “let’s see what happens” spiel. Well, it doesn’t look like that’s what you’re doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it’s the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

Hmm? I’ve been called out? You numpty where have I personally laid blame? You on the other hand have been caught out with examples and have yet to respond to it! saying it’s the exception rather than the rule just shows you up even more!

I think he must have used the ignore function on me...lol.  when challenged showed up to be a clown on numerous occasions.  I daresay if they are convicted guilty his first thoughts won't be off the girl but it will be straight on here to pontificate about being right.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 09, 2018, 05:43:48 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he’s trying to deny what he’s charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she’d put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you’ve got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old “let’s see what happens” spiel. Well, it doesn’t look like that’s what you’re doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it’s the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

So certain sayings like the one you quoted above you are happy to stand over but the old innocent until proven guilty is just a cliche.  Your more confused than a blind lesbian at a fish market.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 09, 2018, 05:49:52 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he’s trying to deny what he’s charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she’d put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you’ve got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old “let’s see what happens” spiel. Well, it doesn’t look like that’s what you’re doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it’s the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

So certain sayings like the one you quoted above you are happy to stand over but the old innocent until proven guilty is just a cliche.  Your more confused than a blind lesbian at a fish market.
I take it that you are not chairwoman of the local feminist collective
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on February 09, 2018, 07:49:01 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.



I haven’t made up my mind and won’t pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won’t find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

+1. Easily the most condescending half wit on the board.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 10, 2018, 02:19:52 AM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.
I should avoid this thread but before I do,

Broadly speaking people do NOT react the same.
Yes there are 5 well land marked stages of grief that people generally pass through, however one person may linger in a shocked state far longer than someone else. One person may get stuck forever and not get to the stage of acceptance, another may linger long in anger or despair before moving on.
Like wise with Rape Trauma Syndrome, broadly speaking people do not react the same.
The evidence of the demeanor of the woman during that night and subsequent days does not contradict her claim that she was raped. Her demeanor during all that period can be perceived as being entirely consistent with a rape trauma experience.

Going by the defense's line of questioning so far and their focus on consent, I'd say the case will probably come down to,
did she give consent at the time AND can the defendants prove beyond reasonable doubt that she gave consent?
Did she give clear consent to all the sexual activity that was inflicted upon her that night?
Did she say no at any time?
If she didn't say no, why not? was she incapacitated? threatened? did she feel intimidated?
You say people broadly don't act the same and then go onto explain that people do broadly act the same but there are times that people deviate from this.
I don't.

Quote
Going back to my original point, people in stressful situations tend to act in a similar manner. I would like to know if this ladies behavior is consistent with other rape victims. That is with the caveat that some peoples reactions are outside the norm, so non-consistency doesn't necessarily prove she wasn't raped but consistency could go a long way to helping her
Do the research. My reply is consistent with research.
People act differently in post trauma situations and this woman's behaviour is consistent with a possible post rape trauma.
Her behavior may not be consistent with what your perception is, but that's  another debate.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 10, 2018, 09:59:37 AM
Some rubbish spouted in this thread. The decision to convict is still very much in the balance but I suspect that so far there is not enough hard evidence to convict either Jackson or Olding but that is not to say that they are not guilty. Either way, both the accused and in particular the alleged victim will have come through a harrowing experience and will have to bear the scars for a long time.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 10, 2018, 11:11:47 AM
Some rubbish spouted in this thread. The decision to convict is still very much in the balance but I suspect that so far there is not enough hard evidence to convict either Jackson or Olding but that is not to say that they are not guilty. Either way, both the accused and in particular the alleged victim will have come through a harrowing experience and will have to bear the scars for a long time.
From what I've read so far I believe the girl but I also think, as someone said earlier on the thread, that the men didn't realise they'd done anything illegal. Ignorance is no defence but if the girl who walked in proves to be a convincing witness and says it looked consensual, I don't see how a jury can convict beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when the girl herself has admitted to being hazy about some of the details.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 10, 2018, 11:41:49 AM
Some rubbish spouted in this thread. The decision to convict is still very much in the balance but I suspect that so far there is not enough hard evidence to convict either Jackson or Olding but that is not to say that they are not guilty. Either way, both the accused and in particular the alleged victim will have come through a harrowing experience and will have to bear the scars for a long time.
From what I've read so far I believe the girl but I also think, as someone said earlier on the thread, that the men didn't realise they'd done anything illegal. Ignorance is no defence but if the girl who walked in proves to be a convincing witness and says it looked consensual, I don't see how a jury can convict beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when the girl herself has admitted to being hazy about some of the details.

I would tend to agree to that simply on what is being reported however, things like the physical damage on her may be the very crucial evidence. If there is clear physical damage to the girl, which I believe there is, and it is fairly contemporaneous then this is unbiased evidence of forceable sex. It won’t take a big jump for that to be construed as non consensual
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 10, 2018, 12:17:37 PM
I’ve said before about implied consent and I think this was the case with the Ched Evans trial where his friend wasn’t guilty of rape but he was. Might have something similar here, PJ might argue that he believed he had consent as defence, not sure how Olding would go about it though. I’m inclined to believe the girl is telling the truth with what she says, the sequence of events to me suggest that she fully believed she had been raped right from the offset and there is next to no chance that  this is some sort of fabrication to hide promiscuous behaviour.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 10, 2018, 02:27:50 PM
Some rubbish spouted in this thread. The decision to convict is still very much in the balance but I suspect that so far there is not enough hard evidence to convict either Jackson or Olding but that is not to say that they are not guilty. Either way, both the accused and in particular the alleged victim will have come through a harrowing experience and will have to bear the scars for a long time,
Jackson and Olding havent said anything yet but will they be credible? Will they be consistent?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 10, 2018, 04:06:22 PM
Jackson and Olding havent said anything yet but will they be credible? Will they be consistent?

This is a trial about the behaviour of some middle class young people from affluent Belfast.  Both plaintiff and defendants have had privileged education. 

The plaintiff has shown herself to be resilient, articulate and combative, will the defendants do the same?  I believe they will be very well prepped and try to show themselves to be 'modest' and ashamed of their behaviour but startled that they have been accused of anything illegal. 

The plaintiff withstood the battery of four barristers for a week while the defendants have the luxury of just one person scrutinising each of them in detail. 

Expect excruciating details of sexual activity to be drawn from the main defendants.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 10, 2018, 04:17:24 PM
Both plaintiff and defendants have had privileged education. 

Pffft. Olding went to BRA.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 10, 2018, 04:57:02 PM
Both plaintiff and defendants have had privileged education. 

Pffft. Olding went to BRA.
Had it not been removed by the time he arrived on the scene?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:44:42 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That’s cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you’re suggesting they do.

Guess what - we’re not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2018, 05:46:37 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

Nope save time and money and ask Syferus
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 05:57:23 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2018, 06:08:27 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I’d imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who’s 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you’re drunk and up for some wild stuff
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:10:56 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I’d imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who’s 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you’re drunk and up for some wild stuff

Christ.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 06:23:16 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That’s cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you’re suggesting they do.

Guess what - we’re not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:33:32 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That’s cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you’re suggesting they do.

Guess what - we’re not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying “I beleive the victim” and “I believe the accused”.. well, I’m being charitable if I say they’re misguided.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 10, 2018, 06:37:16 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That’s cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you’re suggesting they do.

Guess what - we’re not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying “I beleive the victim” and “I believe the accused”.. well, I’m being charitable if I say they’re misguided.

Until the verdict is delivered there is equivalence between both statements.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:45:18 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That’s cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you’re suggesting they do.

Guess what - we’re not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying “I beleive the victim” and “I believe the accused”.. well, I’m being charitable if I say they’re misguided.

Until the verdict is delivered there is equivalence between both statements.

And someone again tries to gloss over the context of rape trials and rape victims, instead comfortable to pretend this case can be looked at independent of the environment it originated from.

Rape is not a crime that comes without massive baggage and that seems to leave a lot of people here in a very uncomfortable position.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: thebar on February 10, 2018, 06:54:55 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That’s cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you’re suggesting they do.

Guess what - we’re not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying “I beleive the victim” and “I believe the accused”.. well, I’m being charitable if I say they’re misguided.

Until the verdict is delivered there is equivalence between both statements.

And someone again tries to gloss over the context of rape trials and rape victims, instead comfortable to pretend this case can be looked at independent of the environment it originated from.

Rape is not a crime that comes without massive baggage and that seems to leave a lot of people here in a very uncomfortable position.

How come?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: michaelg on February 10, 2018, 07:04:30 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That’s cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you’re suggesting they do.

Guess what - we’re not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying “I beleive the victim” and “I believe the accused”.. well, I’m being charitable if I say they’re misguided.

Until the verdict is delivered there is equivalence between both statements.

And someone again tries to gloss over the context of rape trials and rape victims, instead comfortable to pretend this case can be looked at independent of the environment it originated from.

Rape is not a crime that comes without massive baggage and that seems to leave a lot of people here in a very uncomfortable position.
The girl in the court case is alleging rape at present.  Until such times that the rugby players are convicted, she is not a rape victim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 07:08:54 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That’s cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you’re suggesting they do.

Guess what - we’re not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying “I beleive the victim” and “I believe the accused”.. well, I’m being charitable if I say they’re misguided.

Until the verdict is delivered there is equivalence between both statements.

And someone again tries to gloss over the context of rape trials and rape victims, instead comfortable to pretend this case can be looked at independent of the environment it originated from.

Rape is not a crime that comes without massive baggage and that seems to leave a lot of people here in a very uncomfortable position.
The girl in the court case is alleging rape at present.  Until such times that the rugby players are convicted, she is not a rape victim.

..hence the ‘believe’ part of the flag.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 07:16:07 PM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 10, 2018, 07:18:28 PM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers

Or how about a flag with ‘Syferous believes her’
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 07:39:52 PM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers

Or how about a flag with ‘Syferous believes her’

  :D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 10:46:45 PM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers

Or how about a flag with ‘Syferous believes her’
Or "Syferus is a gobshite" That would be popular
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 10, 2018, 11:37:32 PM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers

Or how about a flag with ‘Syferous believes her’
Or "Syferus is a gobshite" That would be popular

Where can I pick one of those up
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 12, 2018, 10:54:31 AM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers

Or how about a flag with ‘Syferous believes her’
Or "Syferus is a gobshite" That would be popular

Where can I pick one of those up

They're sold out.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 12, 2018, 11:38:51 AM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I’d imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who’s 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you’re drunk and up for some wild stuff

Pardon??!?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 12, 2018, 12:46:51 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I’d imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who’s 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you’re drunk and up for some wild stuff

Pardon??!?!

Vaginal bruising and cuts rarely happens from unforced sex, if ever.  There are certain things happen in a woman’s body when it is non consensual which contributes to the causing of the bruising.  Call a spade a spade I’m 17 stone and ain’t ever happened before that I’m aware off. May be a bit graphic but I genuinely believe that the medical evidence will be the key piece that will convict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 01:31:39 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I’d imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who’s 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you’re drunk and up for some wild stuff

Pardon??!?!

Vaginal bruising and cuts rarely happens from unforced sex, if ever.  There are certain things happen in a woman’s body when it is non consensual which contributes to the causing of the bruising.  Call a spade a spade I’m 17 stone and ain’t ever happened before that I’m aware off. May be a bit graphic but I genuinely believe that the medical evidence will be the key piece that will convict.

fat fecker  ;)

I did say I'd imagine it would.. I'm no Vaginal expert (never thought I'd put that in a post) so I'll go with your judgement/experience on it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 12, 2018, 01:40:03 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I’d imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who’s 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you’re drunk and up for some wild stuff

Pardon??!?!

Vaginal bruising and cuts rarely happens from unforced sex, if ever.  There are certain things happen in a woman’s body when it is non consensual which contributes to the causing of the bruising.  Call a spade a spade I’m 17 stone and ain’t ever happened before that I’m aware off. May be a bit graphic but I genuinely believe that the medical evidence will be the key piece that will convict.

fat fecker  ;)

I did say I'd imagine it would.. I'm no Vaginal expert (never thought I'd put that in a post) so I'll go with your judgement/experience on it

Big boned 😂
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 12, 2018, 01:53:21 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I’d imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who’s 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you’re drunk and up for some wild stuff

Pardon??!?!

Vaginal bruising and cuts rarely happens from unforced sex, if ever.  There are certain things happen in a woman’s body when it is non consensual which contributes to the causing of the bruising.  Call a spade a spade I’m 17 stone and ain’t ever happened before that I’m aware off. May be a bit graphic but I genuinely believe that the medical evidence will be the key piece that will convict.

fat fecker  ;)

I did say I'd imagine it would.. I'm no Vaginal expert (never thought I'd put that in a post) so I'll go with your judgement/experience on it

Big boned 😂

Must be big boned in the wrong areas  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 12, 2018, 04:51:29 PM
McIlroy represented by Arthur Harvey I see. His version of events is that McIlroy entered the room fully clothed, she was naked on the bed with Jackson. No sign of Olding in the room. Mcilroy lay on the bed and kissed her, she masturbated him and briefly performed oral on him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 04:52:37 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 05:41:32 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.
MR busy on the PMs I'd say!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 05:51:46 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.

You’re some joke of a man. Obsessed with how the woman looks or dresses. Why? Rape is rape is rape. Get that simple fact through your head and you might understand why the woman had so much support against people like you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 06:18:06 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.

You’re some joke of a man. Obsessed with how the woman looks or dresses. Why? Rape is rape is rape. Get that simple fact through your head and you might understand why the woman had so much support against people like you.

Jesus lad wind your neck in!! They are fake no doubt but like a proper fish you collect the bait!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 12, 2018, 07:23:26 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.

You’re some joke of a man. Obsessed with how the woman looks or dresses. Why? Rape is rape is rape. Get that simple fact through your head and you might understand why the woman had so much support against people like you.

Hey fucksticks, An allegation has been made against people
 They are entitled to defend themselves
 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on February 12, 2018, 08:23:03 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.

You're like a gossiping aul woman
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 08:40:04 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.

You're like a gossiping aul woman

Unless you’ve been on the moon, someone else has already said on this thread about photos. He’s about 17 stone and supports Liverpool. I’ll leave that with you
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on February 12, 2018, 08:45:19 PM
You'll have to point me out the post where someone who is "17 stone and supports Liverpool" said anything about her photos

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 08:49:48 PM
You'll have to point me out the post where someone who is "17 stone and supports Liverpool" said anything about her photos

Look for it yourself, it’s already been posted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on February 12, 2018, 08:56:19 PM
Nah - you're ok - you can do it for me - the only person I see referencing photos of the accuser is yourself.

Funny how you were guessing her weight as well  ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 12, 2018, 09:28:05 PM
@FrankGreaney

6m

Blane McIlroy's barrister puts his client's version of events to the woman. He says he was fully dressed when he first came into the room and that she was naked on the bed with Paddy Jackson. He said there was no sign of Stuart Olding in the room

.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 09:53:20 PM
Her testimony seems a lot less convincing today.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 12, 2018, 10:45:03 PM
Her testimony seems a lot less convincing today.

How? Her story hasn't changed at all.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 12, 2018, 10:48:48 PM
Her testimony seems a lot less convincing today.
Harvey sounds a much better barrister than the previous ones who were questioning the girl and has really gone on the attack.

You'd have to say there's something seriously wrong with a system that allows an alleged victim to be publicly grilled and accused for 7 days and counting. For all the furore and wailing about the Evans case (a special case because the girl had no recollection) by various women's rights groups, this case is a much more horrific example and deterrent to others to come forward.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: red hander on February 12, 2018, 10:56:35 PM
Her testimony seems a lot less convincing today.
Harvey sounds a much better barrister than the previous ones who were questioning the girl and has really gone on the attack.

You'd have to say there's something seriously wrong with a system that allows an alleged victim to be publicly grilled and accused for 7 days and counting. For all the furore and wailing about the Evans case (a special case because the girl had no recollection) by various women's rights groups, this case is a much more horrific example and deterrent to others to come forward.

This will depend on the verdict, IMO. It's high stakes for both sides so both sides are gonna go all out
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 12, 2018, 11:31:58 PM
Her testimony seems a lot less convincing today.

How? Her story hasn't changed at all.
Precisely. And the prosecution are playing a dangerous game here. By alleging that the complainant was "intoxicated" they are seriously undermining their clients' claims to have have had a reasonable belief that there was consent.

Today, was the prosecution QC alleging that the words "at least use a condom" amounts to consent?

Because it doesn't.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 11:34:47 PM
Is it any wonder most instances of rape go unreported? This is a broken system.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 11:42:25 PM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 11:54:43 PM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you’re acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman’s underwear be paraded around a court room amid a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

Surely to fûck there should be a time limit on cross examination, because what is currently happening is simply an attempt akin to filibustering in politics where the aim is to wear down the victim and get a reaction that makes her look bad. That is not justice.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 11:57:21 PM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you’re acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman’s underwear be paraded around a court room asks a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.
LOL what a clown. I honestly don't think you live in the real world. It's called a defence for a reason - do you expect them to hold out their hands and ask for the cuffs to be applied?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 12:02:05 AM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you’re acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman’s underwear be paraded around a court room asks a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.
LOL what a clown. I honestly don't think you live in the real world. It's called a defence for a reason - do you expect them to hold out their hands and ask for the cuffs to be applied?!

A defence where all there is insinuations and attempts to feed into the worst side of humans (highlighted in this thread alone, nevermind in court) to assume the woman was ‘up for it’ is not justice or a defence in any shape or form. Once the woman says no it becomes rape, no matter what did or didn’t happen before. It is that simple.

Anyone who isn’t looking at this trying to jump through hoops looking for reasons to get the defendants off can see this is a brutal, broken system.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 13, 2018, 12:08:30 AM
It's dog eat dog when you're looking down the barrel of 8-10 years in the slammer. The defence team are getting paid handsomely to sow the seeds of reasonable doubt. You seem to think an accusation of rape is enough to send people to jail.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on February 13, 2018, 12:16:47 AM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you’re acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman’s underwear be paraded around a court room amid a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

Surely to fûck there should be a time limit on cross examination, because what is currently happening is simply an attempt akin to filibuster in politics where the aim is to wear down the victim and get a reaction that makes her look bad. That is not justice.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.

I have to say I agree with Syferus on this. The sooner the better the case moves onto the physical evidence and the communication afterwards between the accused. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 07:16:36 AM
The system is a disgrace.

Anyway, regarding the rest of the case..........

If the police did their jobs properly and the men are lying there should be plenty of inconsistencies between what they said at the time of questioning and what they are saying in court, unless they all refused to say anything when initially questioned. Given how casual they sounded in the WhatsApp messages, they hardly had their stories straight at that stage. If they gave the same version of events that they are giving in court and if each defendant's version was consistent with the other that would lead me to believe they are telling the truth. If they were inconsistent or refused to respond to initial questioning I'd be thinking they were guilty but will we even find this out? From what I've read the prosecution can't call the defendants to give evidence, which seems totally wrong when you see what the girl has been subjected to?

Maybe someone with a knowledge of the  legal system could explain what we'll find out in relation to each defendant's version of events when initially arrested and questioned.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 13, 2018, 07:40:01 AM
Court cases are adversarial. That is how they work.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on February 13, 2018, 07:47:20 AM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

Now far from being on shferus's side but in what world where someone reports rape and has to have their underwear paraded in front of a public court is there not something seriously wrong?

Yes those boys deserve a fair trial but so does she.

The perception of women is still very flawed... Man sleeps with many women and he's a hero. Woman does this and is a tr**p.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 08:01:39 AM
I’m not going to relate to this case, as no matter what I say I’ve defended the rugby players every time in Syferus’s eyes! For the record if you look at any of my posts I haven’t, I’ve consistently said if they are guilty they should be put away for the maximum time!

Now if someone accuses you of doing something surely you have the right to defend yourself? Is it then not up to the accuser to prove that that person did it? And also up to to the defence to prove innocents?
Physical, witnesss, and DNA evidence will prove most cases nowadays...

One persons word over another is different altogether I’d assume.. this is what the problem is in most rape cases I think..

Some posters need to wise up and except that the judicial system is there for a reason, put in place by people who have actually thought it out logically, it may be flawed in some people’s eyes but that’s it!

As for defendants not talking at interviews, standard practice.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 13, 2018, 08:55:10 AM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you’re acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman’s underwear be paraded around a court room asks a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.
LOL what a clown. I honestly don't think you live in the real world. It's called a defence for a reason - do you expect them to hold out their hands and ask for the cuffs to be applied?!

I don't know what the answer is, as people have the right to defend themselves.  However, there is no doubt that the reports on this trial and of the treatment of this woman would make any potential complainant think twice about following through on a complaint.

/Jim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 13, 2018, 09:42:38 AM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you’re acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman’s underwear be paraded around a court room asks a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.
LOL what a clown. I honestly don't think you live in the real world. It's called a defence for a reason - do you expect them to hold out their hands and ask for the cuffs to be applied?!

I don't know what the answer is, as people have the right to defend themselves.  However, there is no doubt that the reports on this trial and of the treatment of this woman would make any potential complainant think twice about following through on a complaint.

/Jim.

a minimum of 7 days cross examination of a complainant wont encourage many victims forward again
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 13, 2018, 09:46:05 AM
Maybe because there is more than one individual accused it seems a lot more traumatic for the alleged victim having to answer to 3 or 4 different QCs. From what I have read so far the girl has been remarkable
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 13, 2018, 09:59:59 AM
Maybe because there is more than one individual accused it seems a lot more traumatic for the alleged victim having to answer to 3 or 4 different QCs. From what I have read so far the girl has been remarkable

Yes, that seems to be the case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:10:43 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can’t be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 10:27:45 AM
BC, do you think they are labouring the 'drunk' and hazy stuff, making the girl continually say she wasn't out of it, so that they can present some sort of evidence that implies consent later on. They'd not have to worry about drunk consent is no consent then.

She is being treated horrifically though, I don't know why anyone would report a rape to the police if this is how they are treated at trial. If I was her father, I think I'd be more inclined to visit these lads privately than put her through this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 10:34:06 AM
BC, do you think they are labouring the 'drunk' and hazy stuff, making the girl continually say she wasn't out of it, so that they can present some sort of evidence that implies consent later on. They'd not have to worry about drunk consent is no consent then.

She is being treated horrifically though, I don't know why anyone would report a rape to the police if this is how they are treated at trial. If I was her father, I think I'd be more inclined to visit these lads privately than put her through this.

Assuming they are guilty?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 13, 2018, 10:44:52 AM
You have to emphasise with both parties to proceedings reach their conclusion. The Girl is going through a serious ordeal but so are the accused if they are innocent. Professional Careers in taters and reputations tainted for life. Rape victims are fully briefed and prepared for what lies in front of them and the function of cross examination is to establish the truth which is what the innocent party wants anyway.  I must say this whole thing is got an OJ Simpson feel to it, the big media presence, the “did they do it or is she a rugger groupie” kinda theme.
I think things are getting a bit out of hand on here when the girls private parts are coming into the debate. That’s my 2 cents 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:47:14 AM
BC, do you think they are labouring the 'drunk' and hazy stuff, making the girl continually say she wasn't out of it, so that they can present some sort of evidence that implies consent later on. They'd not have to worry about drunk consent is no consent then.

She is being treated horrifically though, I don't know why anyone would report a rape to the police if this is how they are treated at trial. If I was her father, I think I'd be more inclined to visit these lads privately than put her through this.

They will only have anecdotal evidence I would imagine that she was drunk. She would not have been submitted to a blood test at the time and in any event she went to the doctors a good bitbafter the incident so it would all be circumstantial. They are simply trying to paint a picture of a drunk, flirty girl who gave as good as she got and was a very willing participant, if not the instigator of it all. Classic defence tactics. If she is telling the truth, which I personally think she is, then she would not have had many inconsistencies, which she hasn’t. The defence are pushing her to try to get her crack and open a door to a major inconsistency. Hasn’t happened and she has tonbe admires for that and this is why my gut feeling is that she is telling the truth.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 10:50:21 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can’t be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!
BC is it therefore possible that the defendants could have given totally different explanations to police when interviewed, to the versions their barristers are now quoting when questioning the girl and this will not come to light unless they take the stand?

It seems most unfair to me that the defendants can choose whether or not to take the stand and if they don't it renders key evidence inadmissible, if I'm understanding it correctly. What is the legal reasoning for this?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 13, 2018, 10:56:24 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can’t be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!

The defence will make an application to stop this going to the jury on the basis of irregularities in evidence, alcohol etc. But if that doesnt succeed we will see the accused in the witness box giving their version. They will be well prepared for this
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 10:59:26 AM
She's back in the witness box today, her eighth day. Being re-examine by prosecution.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 11:05:01 AM
BC, do you think they are labouring the 'drunk' and hazy stuff, making the girl continually say she wasn't out of it, so that they can present some sort of evidence that implies consent later on. They'd not have to worry about drunk consent is no consent then.

She is being treated horrifically though, I don't know why anyone would report a rape to the police if this is how they are treated at trial. If I was her father, I think I'd be more inclined to visit these lads privately than put her through this.

Assuming they are guilty?

That's the worry. If you know that a rape trial involves 7 days of humiliating testimony, cross examination and stress and upset for the victim, it must be tempting to spare yourself that.

If you know that an attack has happened, and you feel the justice system is not protecting and caring for you or your daughter, you must be tempted to do something else.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:08:01 AM
Very true AZ. It's been a 2 week advertisement for vigilante justice so far.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 11:16:54 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can’t be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!
BC is it therefore possible that the defendants could have given totally different explanations to police when interviewed, to the versions their barristers are now quoting when questioning the girl and this will not come to light unless they take the stand?

It seems most unfair to me that the defendants can choose whether or not to take the stand and if they don't it renders key evidence inadmissible, if I'm understanding it correctly. What is the legal reasoning for this?

Possible but highly unlikely. They would have done one of two things in the policie station. They would have had a no comment interview with maybe a short preprepared statement along the lines of ‘i fully deny all charges etc etc and am exercising my right to silence’ or they went into detail about their side of events and painted a picture of a willing party girl who consented to what happened. It’s hard to tell what may have happened but I would err on the side of the first course of action given the Solicitors involved as the worst that can happen is inferences can be drawn from silence but if you have denied the charge then it’s up to the prosecution to prove it.

The legal reasoning is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. You are presumed to be innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove otherwise. Its an adversarial system and it’s their responsibility to prove you guilty not your responsibility to prove your innocence. Given the level of miscarriages of Justice over the years through false confessions etc it amazes me that people actually would push for people to be put in a position where they can self incriminate themselves. This is not a fact finding mission unfortunately, this is justice and seeing that justice is done. Justice works on the presumption of innocence and while that is the bedrock of the legal system a defendant will never be compelled to give evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on February 13, 2018, 11:26:39 AM
Very true AZ. It's been a 2 week advertisement for vigilante justice so far.

The paedo hunters will be branching out if they read this
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:30:20 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can’t be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!
BC is it therefore possible that the defendants could have given totally different explanations to police when interviewed, to the versions their barristers are now quoting when questioning the girl and this will not come to light unless they take the stand?

It seems most unfair to me that the defendants can choose whether or not to take the stand and if they don't it renders key evidence inadmissible, if I'm understanding it correctly. What is the legal reasoning for this?

Possible but highly unlikely. They would have done one of two things in the policie station. They would have had a no comment interview with maybe a short preprepared statement along the lines of ‘i fully deny all charges etc etc and am exercising my right to silence’ or they went into detail about their side of events and painted a picture of a willing party girl who consented to what happened. It’s hard to tell what may have happened but I would err on the side of the first course of action given the Solicitors involved as the worst that can happen is inferences can be drawn from silence but if you have denied the charge then it’s up to the prosecution to prove it.

The legal reasoning is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. You are presumed to be innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove otherwise. Its an adversarial system and it’s their responsibility to prove you guilty not your responsibility to prove your innocence. Given the level of miscarriages of Justice over the years through false confessions etc it amazes me that people actually would push for people to be put in a position where they can self incriminate themselves. This is not a fact finding mission unfortunately, this is justice and seeing that justice is done. Justice works on the presumption of innocence and while that is the bedrock of the legal system a defendant will never be compelled to give evidence.
Like most on here I'm an ignoramus when it comes to the nuances of the justice system but it would seem to me that a video recorded interview taken at the point of initial arrest where defendants are expected to answer questions about the case openly and honestly(and where silence would indeed raise serious questions about whether they have something to hide) doesn't lend itself to miscarriages of justice like the old signed confessions used to. The girl has been open and consistent from the start. If the lads were telling the truth there should be no need for silence until they have a chance to confer and get their story straight.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:34:43 AM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 11:57:22 AM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.

I think that is the legal system in a nutshell.  By virtue of the fact that we have an adversarial system, and defence tactics resolve around trying to plant reasonable doubt, it leads to a lot of smoke screens, confusion and obfuscation in a bid to make the jury think something doesn't sit well with them. Prosecution try to remove all that and get them to focus on the clear evidence they believe.

I think that system, barring cases where there is very clear forensic or visual evidence, leads to this sort of trial, and it must be very frustrating to be caught up in it.

Look at the OJ Simpson trial for example. Brought to its knees because the defence managed to make it about race and Mark Furman.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Denn Forever on February 13, 2018, 12:04:05 PM
Ireland's Chet evans?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 12:08:09 PM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.

Should just raise the Chewbacca Defence

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 12:09:00 PM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.

Not giving information at an interview is good advice, their recollection of the night will be hazy due to being drunk, so the smart thing would be to collect your thoughts on the matter and then give a more accurate response to the questions.

They must have shit themselves when the police came to question them... the girl has also been coached on how to answer the qu