Author Topic: The ulster rugby trial  (Read 159383 times)

Orchard park

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #660 on: February 13, 2018, 03:28:23 PM »
I'm still not sure to be honest but is Jackson not saying they didn't have penetrative sex and this witness is saying she saw him thrusting into her?

as i read the reports also

AZOffaly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24790
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #661 on: February 13, 2018, 03:29:03 PM »
Sorry haranguerer. I'm just going by what I saw in the paper. Where is the reporting of the third girl's testimony? Usually the independent are all over this.

haranguerer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #662 on: February 13, 2018, 03:31:07 PM »
 ;D

Sorry - its confusing aright. Frank Greaney on twitter has live updates. Being twitter theres not much detail, but headline points from each testimony

https://twitter.com/FrankGreaney?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

AZOffaly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24790
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #663 on: February 13, 2018, 03:33:06 PM »
That doesn't read well for the girl.

David McKeown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #664 on: February 13, 2018, 03:35:35 PM »
I'm not suggesting the reporting is incorrect in this case I'm simply suggesting that from personal experience I've run cases in the past that have been unrecognisable to me when I have read the reports. That is human nature when journalists try to condense lengthy questions, answers and snippets into a few hundred words at most. The emphasise, context and meaning can often be skewed

The prime example of that may well be what's happened today and this thread. It was my understanding that the defence had a female witness who was to be called who had been in the room, now from reading these comments there seems to be multiple female witnesses called and no one seems to be sure which ones which and what evidence each have given and whether either of these witnesses were the ones referred to by the defence last week. There's also talk that Jackson's evidence has been contradicted even though it hasn't been given yet. Again I go back to my earlier point I think we are foolhardy making up our minds on information presented like this.

AZOffaly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24790
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #665 on: February 13, 2018, 03:38:36 PM »
David, that twitter feed that haranguerer passed on is a lot clearer than the independent, as it's chronological.

Basically 3 witnesses called.

1 Saw or heard nothing as she was downstairs, and only found out about 'threesome' when she rang friend next day
2 Saw nothing, but was with friend upstairs. Friend looked in room and said I've seen a threesome.
3. Actual eyewitness in the room, who says she 100% did not think it was rape, or that the girl was in distress. 

AQMP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #666 on: February 13, 2018, 03:39:24 PM »
David, does digital penetration or penetration with an object without consent not count as rape too??

magpie seanie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11738
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #667 on: February 13, 2018, 03:43:11 PM »
That doesn't read well for the girl.


I know what you're saying but it is completely consistent with her evidence. Also confirms she wasn't that drunk. It contradicts PJ about anything happening or method of penetration.

AQMP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #668 on: February 13, 2018, 03:43:54 PM »
Another issue, Rory Harrison has been charged with perverting the course of justice.  I wonder what the evidence for this is??

brokencrossbar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7905
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #669 on: February 13, 2018, 03:45:27 PM »
David, does digital penetration or penetration with an object without consent not count as rape too??

My understanding of that is that this is seen as an aggravated sexual assault....an assault by penetration. There has to be penile penetration for rape.

Syferus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15321
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #670 on: February 13, 2018, 03:46:16 PM »
It doesnít read well for the girl? The witness has blown the doors off Jacksonís claims about digital penetration, and said the victim wasnít terribly drunk.

Those are much more concrete things than the nuances of what looks like a rape and what is a rape. I think our collective iamge of rape is coloured by film, this idea of crying, kicking and screaming and lashing out. Itís done in movies so the emotions are bold and clear for the viewer to understand. Itís a film-making technique. Reactions in real life are much different and that spectrum is quite massive.

The absence of consent is all that is needed for it to be rape and guess what, the victim didnít give her consent.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 03:49:30 PM by Syferus »

gallsman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7150
  • Retired
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #671 on: February 13, 2018, 03:47:23 PM »
3. Actual eyewitness in the room, who says she 100% did not think it was rape, or that the girl was in distress.

She did, however, say that she saw Jackson on his knees "thrusting into" into the complainant. This directly contradicts Jackson's claim that he didn't have sex with her.

As Jim said above, this is far more relevant that her stating that, at the time, she didn't believe she had witnessed a rape.
"Never mind your why. Why ain't in your repetoire no more n***a"

AZOffaly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24790
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #672 on: February 13, 2018, 03:51:10 PM »
It doesnít read well for the girl? The witness has blown the doors off Jacksonís claims about digital penetration, and said the victim wasnít terribly drunk.

Those are much more concrete things than the nuances of what looks like a rape and what is a rape. I think our collection idea of rape is colour by film, this idea of crying, kicking and screaming and lashing out. Itís done in movies so the emotions are bold and clear for the viewer to understand. Reactions in real life are much different and that spectrum is quite massive.

The absence of consent is all that is needed for it to be rape and guess what, the victim didnít give her consent.

Perhaps. But it doesn't look well for the girl. If this witness is credible, and the prosecution doesn't cast doubt on her, then the jury is going to be asking itself "How could a woman see this scene, and think it was consensual, if it was rape? ". The doubt has to be there.

I think Paddy Jackson is coming out of this like an absolute shithead, but I don't know he's going to get done for rape.

Avondhu star

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #673 on: February 13, 2018, 03:54:01 PM »
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.

ďIf you donít read the newspaper, youíre not informed. If you read the newspaper, youíre mis-informed.Ē

Lads, this isnít Soviet Russia and the court case is being reported by multiple outlets with little to no discrepancies that Iím aware of. This idea of news reports being untrustworthy has leaked into this thread a few times with a bunch of head-nodding like the above greeting it, yet the salient point of the reporting being quite accurate seems to not be made as vociferously. I wonder why?

Looks like the witness was a total damp squib for the folks hoping it would get the frat boys off the hook - what will the next thing they latch onto be? Not looking good for them..

Why do you say that Syf? I haven't seen anything? The person refuting Paddy Jackson is the alleged victim, so I'd expect her to do so. The other witness I've seen said that she didn't see into the room, but her friend did and said 'I've seen a threesome'. Sure isn't that what they are saying?

Was any of them saying
" Oh suits you. Suits you Sir"
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

gallsman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7150
  • Retired
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #674 on: February 13, 2018, 03:56:42 PM »
It doesnít read well for the girl? The witness has blown the doors off Jacksonís claims about digital penetration, and said the victim wasnít terribly drunk.

Those are much more concrete things than the nuances of what looks like a rape and what is a rape. I think our collection idea of rape is colour by film, this idea of crying, kicking and screaming and lashing out. Itís done in movies so the emotions are bold and clear for the viewer to understand. Reactions in real life are much different and that spectrum is quite massive.

The absence of consent is all that is needed for it to be rape and guess what, the victim didnít give her consent.

Perhaps. But it doesn't look well for the girl. If this witness is credible, and the prosecution doesn't cast doubt on her, then the jury is going to be asking itself "How could a woman see this scene, and think it was consensual, if it was rape? ". The doubt has to be there.

I think Paddy Jackson is coming out of this like an absolute shithead, but I don't know he's going to get done for rape.

Because from the beginning she has said she was frozen with fear. Witness walked into room and was, by the sounds of it, there's momentarily.
"Never mind your why. Why ain't in your repetoire no more n***a"