Messages

Have went for the Fav in the first, if it's bate, thats me done till the Grand National (thank feck) with horses

Great draw for United. City play them the weekend in between so expect a second string team for that game

Fcuk United who cares.  More importantly Liverpool have Everton away in the middle of the two legs which isn't ideal.

2nd place still up for grabs in the league as far as I am concerned. Think Utd have City/Chelsea and Arsenal still to play while Liverpool only have Chelsea from the top 6. Cue a Liverpool collapse against Watfoed, Burnley et al and drop into 5th.....

Does it really matter who finishes 2nd? Finishing in the top 4 is all the matters imo. Who finishes 2nd 3rd or 4th is irrelevant imo.

Unless its above Utd and you wet your pants 

[I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??

I'm saying anything as i wasnt there, and neither were you, i'm giving another point to this, if this case was black and white it would be over by now and verdict given..

But Dara Florence was, and she says she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the alleged victim, no mention of dry humping or fingers.  In fact the defence accepts that when he saw Florence, Jackson said "Do you want to join in?"  "Join in" to what...dry humping??

I just said that I believe her, do you also believe the girl when she said she didnt notice anyone coming in or heard the words do you want to join in? Do you also accept that there would be physical evidence of PJ having intercourse?

Is it fair to say Man City would have liked to avoid Liverpool just as much

I think everyone wanted either Roma or Sevilla

[I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??

I'm saying anything as i wasnt there, and neither were you, i'm giving another point to this, if this case was black and white it would be over by now and verdict given..

Man City it is

FFS did we have to get the favorites

Liverpool record against City is quite good so they are certainly in with a shout

I think we're behind 8-4 on Aggregate this year?

Well Liverpool will certainly give it a lash, they will attack and try and out score them from the start, they wont park the bus at City's ground and then try and take them at home, as thats way too risky (as Utd found out) so expect a 8 goal thriler over the 2 legs

Great draw for United. City play them the weekend in between so expect a second string team for that game

Fcuk United who cares.  More importantly Liverpool have Everton away in the middle of the two legs which isn't ideal.

Its your obsession "United fans won't want either team winning!" your post earlier

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

If you look at a lot of designs someone will pick out something they dont like about it and rant about it..

This is slightly different though, i dont see the it as being done on purpose though

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

[she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

What was the gist of one of McIlroy's messages "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday night.  Roasted her.  Then another on Tuesday night"  Maybe no previous, more of a "subsequent"??

Have you only had sex with the one girl?  Any of these girls come forward and say they were raped? Previous means no other convictions of lets say rape or sexual assualt or any crimes for that manner which would give a hint of a persons profile..

As for Ollies there has been talk that she tried it with the NI soccer lads and that didnt happen and she moved onto the rugby lads, she didnt just appear at their house, she must have made some advances to them surely?

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent 

Extra supplies of K.Y. Gel being prepared for Maghaberry

From your supply?

My brother in law says the jury would have made their mind up before this, generally never change

@FrankGreaney

Mr. Kelly QC tells jurors: "You decide where the truth lies. Consistencies are the hallmark of truth. Liars deviate".

What if you lie consistently?