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

Aaron Boone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2153
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #690 on: February 13, 2018, 06:06:33 PM »
This could be a 100-pager.

sid waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1562
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #691 on: February 13, 2018, 06:12:55 PM »
Most of what is reported are direct transcripts of what was said which wouldn't seem to leave much room for inaccuracy or interpretation though obviously we're not told every word that was said either.

I thought the underwear being shown to the court was under-reported. I only saw it on Frank Greaney's twitter feed. Can't see any justification for it. Humiliating and irrelevant , assuming it's true of course.

It seems we're all just seeing snippets, and everyone is joining the dots in their own manner. From what I saw one of the barristers was making the case that the bleeding was prior to the events in the house, and also that contrary to a claim the girl had made earlier that she wasn't wearing fake tan, there was fake tan on her clothes, this was the relevance of her clothes being shown.
I don't think this has been addressed yet.

The complainant never said she wasn't wearing fake tan, just that she was only wearing fake tan on the parts of her body that would have been visible during the night out.

Gabriel_Hurl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7458
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #692 on: February 13, 2018, 06:15:59 PM »
This could be a 100-pager.

Should be a zero-pager to be fair.

The biggest GAA message board in the North having a 50-page thread on an ongoing rape court case - with people making all sorts of accusations and suggestions.

haranguerer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #693 on: February 13, 2018, 06:20:06 PM »
Most of what is reported are direct transcripts of what was said which wouldn't seem to leave much room for inaccuracy or interpretation though obviously we're not told every word that was said either.

I thought the underwear being shown to the court was under-reported. I only saw it on Frank Greaney's twitter feed. Can't see any justification for it. Humiliating and irrelevant , assuming it's true of course.

It seems we're all just seeing snippets, and everyone is joining the dots in their own manner. From what I saw one of the barristers was making the case that the bleeding was prior to the events in the house, and also that contrary to a claim the girl had made earlier that she wasn't wearing fake tan, there was fake tan on her clothes, this was the relevance of her clothes being shown.
I don't think this has been addressed yet.

The complainant never said she wasn't wearing fake tan, just that she was only wearing fake tan on the parts of her body that would have been visible during the night out.

‘Mr Kelly also quizzed her why there was spray tan on much of her clothes if she had only tanned the bottoms of her legs.

The complainant responded: “My top had a slit in it and I’d tanned the bits that were on show. That included my lower back as well. The point is I had not tanned my whole body. It was patchy and it looks ridiculous unless you have your clothes on.”’

Cheers sid - I wasnt trying to mislead it was a response to the relevance of her clothes. Like much of the trial there are two separate accounts.

sid waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1562
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #694 on: February 13, 2018, 06:33:27 PM »
Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she “100% saw sex” between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to “sex” they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson’s bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 06:35:59 PM by sid waddell »

Wildweasel74

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3944
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #695 on: February 13, 2018, 06:53:41 PM »
Think this thread reaching the point of closing! Its no real benefit to a thread on a Gaa discussion board to be honest

Syferus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15321
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #696 on: February 13, 2018, 06:54:15 PM »
The witness was supposed to be the clincher for the rape deniers. She’s done much more damage to the case the defence had made than the idea that a rape took place.

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21194
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #697 on: February 13, 2018, 07:04:23 PM »
Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she “100% saw sex” between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to “sex” they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson’s bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.
I think so too.
The witness was probably thinking omg it's a threesome rather than WTF it might be rape
Those biscuits are for the visitors

Orior

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9737
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #698 on: February 13, 2018, 07:06:17 PM »
Was the female witness a friend of the plaintiff? She didn't do her any favours.
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians

Syferus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15321
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #699 on: February 13, 2018, 07:08:04 PM »
Was the female witness a friend of the plaintiff? She didn't do her any favours.

No surprise with that strange take from you.

tonto1888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #700 on: February 13, 2018, 07:10:45 PM »
Think this thread reaching the point of closing! Its no real benefit to a thread on a Gaa discussion board to be honest

The same can be said for many threads in this section

Orior

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9737
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #701 on: February 13, 2018, 07:53:47 PM »
Was the female witness a friend of the plaintiff? She didn't do her any favours.

No surprise with that strange take from you.

Indeed. And there's a quare stretch in the evenings.
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians

Milltown Row2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17821
  • It was the Ref that did it!!
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #702 on: February 13, 2018, 08:08:06 PM »
So the defence brought someone in as witness to “help” their case? Strange
Anything I post is not the view of the County Board!! Nobody died in the making of this post ;-)

Orior

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9737
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #703 on: February 13, 2018, 08:21:58 PM »
So the defence brought someone in as witness to “help” their case? Strange

My mistake. I thought the girls were all friends.
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians

macdanger2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #704 on: February 13, 2018, 09:09:41 PM »
https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-hears-paddy-12019038
The barrister continued: “It is Mr Jackson’s case that he never had sexual intercourse with you on that night. He says he digitally penetrated you while you were having oral sex with Mr Olding. Did he have sex with you?”

Think that answers it then? Being mr Jackson’s *case* means it’s must have been mentioned already in court - his police testimony doesn’t necessarily form part of his case? So just wasn’t reported...

A purely legal question - is this sort of commentary from the defense lawyer not hearsay? It seems like a way of getting the defence story into the record without the defendant having to take the stand (where they'd obviously be subject to cross-examination)

Edit: according to the piece on RTÉ, it was the prosecution who introduced this. Presumably then from a statement PJ made?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 09:41:30 PM by macdanger2 »