Author Topic: The ulster rugby trial  (Read 44027 times)

David McKeown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1762
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #630 on: February 13, 2018, 01:46:11 PM »
... 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.

... silence would indeed raise serious questions about whether they have something to hide ...

Not giving information at an interview is good advice ...

This does not mean I believe they are innocent Syferus and others who do think they are guilty..

NEVER talk to the police
I've no doubt that going no comment is the best course of action for anyone accused of anything under the current system.

I would strongly disagree. The right to silence has been greatly eroded over recent years and the level of inference that can be properly drawn has increased dramatically. There are plenty of times when no comment is still the best option but there's at least as many if not more when it is not.

GetOverTheBar

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #631 on: February 13, 2018, 02:04:44 PM »
I see Jackson story is he didn't have penetrative sex with the girl and just used his hand - surely this would be easy to prove if the normal procedures where followed when she reported rape in the next few days?

Presumably the argument is, the internal injuries as previously reported and discussed - they are easier caused to a finger/nail than what we all originally thought.

Strange twist today, I had assumed there was no question in Jackson having sexual intercourse....I am told some of the other ladies in the house that night are also up - I think we'll get some more clarity later.

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19314
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #632 on: February 13, 2018, 02:17:18 PM »
McIlroy's lawyer said his client was fully clothed when hevwent intl to the room. The lady says he was buck naked. I wonder if anyone else saw him so we can get a definitive answer.
"you can try and intimidate us, but f**k youse, we're going to win an All-Ireland anyway"

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19314
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #633 on: February 13, 2018, 02:25:21 PM »
Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney



1h

Witness tells court she didn't know complainant before party. She said she had a brief conversation with her. She said she thought she was "quite nice" and "didn't think she was quite drunk"



Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney



1h

She said she didn't get a view into the room but her friend turned to her after closing the door a few seconds after opening it and said "Oh my God, I've seen a threesome"





Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney



3h

Under re-examination, woman refutes Paddy Jackson's version of events. He denies ever having sexual intercourse with her. He says the height of what he did was "digitally penetrate" her while she was performing oral sex on Stuart Olding. She says: "that's incorrect"

Hmmn
"you can try and intimidate us, but f**k youse, we're going to win an All-Ireland anyway"

Link

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #634 on: February 13, 2018, 02:25:55 PM »
I see Jackson story is he didn't have penetrative sex with the girl and just used his hand - surely this would be easy to prove if the normal procedures where followed when she reported rape in the next few days?

Did i miss something?

I thought the report today was that he denied that anything happened when speaking to a 3rd girl who was interviewed today. i.e. not the accuser or the woman who opened the door to the room.

Asal Mor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #635 on: February 13, 2018, 02:30:08 PM »
[
I've no doubt that going no comment is the best course of action for anyone accused of anything under the current system.

I would strongly disagree. The right to silence has been greatly eroded over recent years and the level of inference that can be properly drawn has increased dramatically. There are plenty of times when no comment is still the best option but there's at least as many if not more when it is not.
I made a sweeping statement that was pretty dumb.

I think silence should be viewed as suspicious in this case if it turns out that the men went no comment.

Syferus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13559
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #636 on: February 13, 2018, 02:38:36 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..
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 02:50:37 PM by Syferus »

Hardy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14628
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #637 on: February 13, 2018, 02:44:11 PM »
... 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.

... silence would indeed raise serious questions about whether they have something to hide ...

Not giving information at an interview is good advice ...

This does not mean I believe they are innocent Syferus and others who do think they are guilty..

NEVER talk to the police

Bullshit comment.
So if the police arrest you and question regarding a crime at a certain location and time you say nothing. Despite the fact that you were in a location 100 miles away at the time and there are witnesses and CCTV to support your story.
You deserve to be kept in custody for that type of stupidity

Watch the video and repeat that comment.

People mistakenly believe the role of the prosecutor is to secure justice. It is not. It is to secure convictions. People can be falsely convicted in circumstances similar to those you describe. For example.

And, by the way, why not try to be a little less uncouth in your contributions here?
I studied deeply in the philosophies and religions, but cheerfulness kept breaking through - L.Cohen

Asal Mor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #638 on: February 13, 2018, 02:49:24 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.

gallsman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
  • Retired
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #639 on: February 13, 2018, 03:00:07 PM »
Is anyone else uncomfortable reading the grilling that girl is getting today? I know the defence have to ask questions but it seems a very aggressive line today. I dont know how people work as barristers, dont think I could prey on a poor unfortunate person like they do. Smacks of deperation to me from the defence as the risk the girl now getting sympathy for the attack from jurors.

That was the prosecuting barrister who's on her side!!

This is a common mistake - the prosecution is not "on her side". It's the state that is prosecuting them. The prosecution barristers will rake get over the coals as much as the defense ones of it helps them secure the conviction.
"Never mind your why. Why ain't in your repetoire no more n***a"

AZOffaly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24009
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #640 on: February 13, 2018, 03:03:51 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?

WT4E

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1126
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #641 on: February 13, 2018, 03:06:23 PM »
Looks like the case has took a major twist.

I said I wouldn't make up my mind until the end but starting to form an opinion now!!!!

AZOffaly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24009
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #642 on: February 13, 2018, 03:08:02 PM »
Looks like the case has took a major twist.

I said I wouldn't make up my mind until the end but starting to form an opinion now!!!!

?? What am I missing? All I see is a girl saying she didn't feel threatened, she didn't see in to the room, but her friend said in a jokey fashion I've seen a threesome.

Is there something else?

spuds

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1269
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #643 on: February 13, 2018, 03:09:10 PM »
I see Jackson story is he didn't have penetrative sex with the girl and just used his hand - surely this would be easy to prove if the normal procedures where followed when she reported rape in the next few days?

Was it Jackson who said they were "top shaggers"?
"As I get older I notice the years less and the seasons more."
 John Hubbard

WT4E

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1126
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #644 on: February 13, 2018, 03:10:24 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?