The ulster rugby trial

Started by caprea, February 01, 2018, 11:45:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: Over the Bar on March 23, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

The judge is giving the first part of her charge and directions.

screenexile

Quote from: Over the Bar on March 23, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

Judge is giving them direction today . . . going over how they should make their decision important points of evidence etc.

Looks like they deliberating will start on Monday/Tuesday.

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: screenexile on March 23, 2018, 01:36:51 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on March 23, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

Judge is giving them direction today . . . going over how they should make their decision important points of evidence etc.

Looks like they deliberating will start on Monday/Tuesday.

Tuesday before deliberations. Second part of directions on Monday

Look-Up!

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 11:54:11 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 06:57:04 AM

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!

Hi Brokencrossbar. All the discussion seems to be mostly about the two lads (for fairly obvious reasons), but where do you think Harrison stands? Reading as much evidence as is available to a member of public and trying to see it through the eyes of a juror, my stance is this. As I said before I'd be leaning towards the girl's testimony being more credible but not with enough conviction to convict so I'd have to go with a not guilty verdict for the pair. Also I'd be shocked if this is not the verdict.
But I'd be very frustrated with Harrison. A lot of the texts from him were not on court record and it is my understanding that in some cases this was a court decision but for others it's because the messages simply no longer exist. He looked to be on damage limitation duty right from the off, was clearly getting legal advice from his father very early but his phone was wiped long after the seriousness of the case was apparent. I'd regards those texts as extra evidence that could be crucial in building a clearer picture in order to arrive at a just decision and to say the least I'd be very very frustrated with him.

Harrison may or may not have had messages that could have helped or hindered the investigation but the thing is they are not part of the evidence so it is really immaterial. It is a real stretch to prove perverting the course of justice I think. It is a crime of specific intent and not reckless intent like some other crimes. He had to specifically have intended to pervert the course of justice. For all anyone knows he wiped his phone of messages as there were pictures of him riding a donkey up the Jacksie. We just don't know. His da is a solicitor. The injured parties uncle is a judge and cousin a solicitor. Was she coached by her family members to do things a certain way?  Quite possibly she was.

Of course she was coached and of course they were coached to some degree. It's preparation and I wouldn't expect anything else from their legal teams and I don't buy into the "unscrupulous" defense barrister with conflict of interest with regards to monetary reward either. The prosecution operates under the same terms and they have as much conflict of interest. It would not be good for their careers if they could not win cases.
But I was talking about Harrison's case more so. I know you were joking with the bit about riding the donkey, but it's kind of what I was getting at. In a case as serious as this and with regards to evidence that might be able to shed some light on it, when asked to produce such evidence is saying "the dog ate it" really a legitimate excuse? I would have thought the law would deal with this sort of attitude very heavy handedly. How worried should he be and what are the possible punishments?

AQMP

#2554
Judge Patricia Smyth has started her direction, delayed earlier due to a technical glitch.  She tells the jury:

For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of vaginally raping the woman, they must be sure:

1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her vagina.
2. She did not consent.
3. Mr. Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting when he penetrated her.

For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of sexual assault, they must be sure that he:

1. Intentionally used his finger(s) to penetrate her vagina.
2. The penetration was sexual.
3. The complainant did not consent.
4. Paddy Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting.

For the jurors to convict Stuart Olding of oral rape, they must be sure that:

1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her mouth.
2. She did not consent.
3. He did not reasonably believe she was consenting.

For the jurors to convict Blane McIlroy of exposure (consent not an issue here), they must be sure:

1. He intentionally exposed his genitals.
2. He intended her to see them and be caused alarm or distress.

For the jurors to convict Mr. Harrison of perverting the course of justice, they must be sure:

1. On a date between June 27 2016 and July 1st 2016, Rory Harrison made a witness statement in which he lied about his dealings with the complainant or deliberately omitted information in the statement relevant to the police investigation.
2. That the lie or omission had a tendency to pervert the course of justice.
3. That Rory Harrison intended to pervert the course of justice.

Edit I forgot about the withholding information charge for RH

For the jurors to convict Rory Harrison of withholding information, they must be sure that between June 27 2016 and Oct 5th 2016

1. The offence of rape had been committed.
2. Rory Harrison knew or believed that the offence of rape had been committed.
3. He knew or believed he had info. which was likely to secure, or be of material assistance in securing, the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person of that offence AND without reasonable excuse, failed to give that info within a reasonable time to a constable.



So quite straightforward for the jury then ???

trailer

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 01:49:16 PM
Judge Patricia Smyth has started her direction, delayed earlier due to a technical glitch.  She tells the jury:

For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of vaginally raping the woman, they must be sure:

1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her vagina
2. She did not consent
3. Mr. Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting when he penetrated her.

For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of sexual assault, they must be sure that he:

1. Intentionally used his finger(s) to penetrate her vagina
2. The penetration was sexual
3. The complainant did not consent
4. Paddy Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting

For the jurors to convict Stuart Olding of oral rape, they must be sure that:

1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her mouth
2. She did not consent
3. He did not reasonably believe she was consenting

For the jurors to convict Blane McIlroy of exposure (consent not an issue here), they must be sure:

1. He intentionally exposed his genitals
2. He intended her to see them and be caused alarm or distress

For the jurors to convict Mr. Harrison of perverting the course of justice, they must be sure:

1. On a date between June 27 2016 and July 1st 2016, Rory Harrison made a witness statement in which he lied about his dealings with the complainant or deliberately omitted information in the statement relevant to the police investigation.
2. That the lie or omission had a tendency to pervert the course of justice.
3. That Rory Harrison intended to pervert the course of justice.

So quite straightforward for the jury then???

He could be in bother here. He admits exposing them (got a BJ). Jackson said he didn't. Of all of the accused he in my mind is most likely to be convicted.

AQMP

Harry & Meaghan in Belfast today.  Possible late character witness??

AQMP

On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.

johnnycool

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:01:59 PM
Harry & Meaghan in Belfast today.  Possible late character witness??

Meaghan is going to give all the Barristers a run down on how to do their jobs. She works for a law firm, Pearson Specter Litt.

Look-Up!

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:10:56 PM
On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.

That seems incredible to me. So basically if an accused gets off because of insufficient evidence, the person who destroys possible evidence is not guilty of a crime, because the accused was not convicted (because of insufficient evidence).

Note: I was talking in general and not necessarily specifically about this case

Milltown Row2

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:10:56 PM
On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.

That seems incredible to me. So basically if an accused gets off because of insufficient evidence, the person who destroys possible evidence is not guilty of a crime, because the accused was not convicted (because of insufficient evidence).

Note: I was talking in general and not necessarily specifically about this case

Allegedly destroryed evidence in a supposed crime
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

yellowcard

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:10:56 PM
On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.

That seems incredible to me. So basically if an accused gets off because of insufficient evidence, the person who destroys possible evidence is not guilty of a crime, because the accused was not convicted (because of insufficient evidence).

Note: I was talking in general and not necessarily specifically about this case

Does seem a bit bizarre alright. I actually thought Harrison was in trouble but if Olding and Jackson are acquitted then so must he.

Mayo4Sam

Mr. Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting when he penetrated her.

I think this is the key part, it seems to me that both sides could believe their story, that she believes she was raped while the lads believe she consented.
Its interesting to see that if that is the case they are innocent
Excuse me for talking while you're trying to interrupt me

Hound

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:10:56 PM
On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.

That seems incredible to me. So basically if an accused gets off because of insufficient evidence, the person who destroys possible evidence is not guilty of a crime, because the accused was not convicted (because of insufficient evidence).

Note: I was talking in general and not necessarily specifically about this case

I see what you mean, but maybe that's why he has two charges against him (number 5 and 6). If the lads are not guilty, then Harrison must be not guilty of Charge 6, but he can still be guilty of Charge 5

Charge 5: Perverting the course of justice:

The prosecution must prove 3 things beyond reasonable doubt:
1) on a date between 27/06/16 and 1/07/16 Rory Harrison made a witness statement in which he lied about his dealings with the woman or deliberately omitted information in the statement relevant to the police
2) the lie or omission had a tendency to pervert the course of justice
3) that Rory Harrison intended to pervert the court of justice

Charge 6: Withholding information about a crime he knew or believe had been committed (so for this one, it seems that no crime means no charge to answer)

Keyser soze

Quote from: johnnycool on March 23, 2018, 02:26:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:01:59 PM
Harry & Meaghan in Belfast today.  Possible late character witness??

Meaghan is going to give all the Barristers a run down on how to do their jobs. She works for a law firm, Pearson Specter Litt.

I think that is outrageous, sure she hasn't been in court for the whole proceedings and is probably only following the same bits n bobs as the rest of us. Also she us surely only qualified as a lawyer in the US whuch has completely different laws and procedures than in this wee country.

🎣