Author Topic: The ulster rugby trial  (Read 178664 times)

David McKeown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2048
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2070 on: March 13, 2018, 03:09:12 PM »
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that itís alleged exposure. Harrisonís is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding Iím withholding information relating to their Ďcrimesí.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but thereís a strong possibility
Why would McIlroy be convicted of exposure and not Olding of rape and Jackson of at least sexual assault?

The woman alleges that the sexual contact with Jackson and Olding was not consensual. Jackson and Olding allege it was consensual.

The woman alleges that McIlroy exposing himself was uninvited on her part. McIlroy alleges it was invited.

It basically all comes down to to the same questions of whether consent was given or not, or whether there was reasonable belief in consent, across all three of these defendants.

I think it's completely different. The jury would be perfectly entitled to conclude the following. We believe the injured party. There was penetration from both Jackson and Olding, she didn't consent to it. However when we look at all the circumstances we can't be convinced that Jackson and Olding didn't reasonably believe she was consenting. We also believe that no penetration occurred with McIlroy however in all the circumstances we don't believe he had a reasonable belief she was consenting to him exposing himself.

In such a scenario Jackson and Olding would be not guilty and McIlroy would be guilty. I still have no idea what the substance of the charges are against Harrison.

Hound

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5054
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2071 on: March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM »
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

brokencrossbar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8055
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2072 on: March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM »
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think

Owen Brannigan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1512
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2073 on: March 13, 2018, 03:30:25 PM »
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think

And teachers.

angermanagement

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2074 on: March 13, 2018, 03:35:35 PM »
Doctors, nurses, pharmacists etc.

If your self employed or own your own business your accountant can write a letter to the court stating your business wouldn't survive while you were on jury service you can get an exemption.

Hound

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5054
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2075 on: March 13, 2018, 03:44:27 PM »
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased

Syferus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15758
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2076 on: March 13, 2018, 03:53:00 PM »
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children


I had heard plenty by the time I decided they were probably guilty.

tintin25

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2077 on: March 13, 2018, 03:57:37 PM »
I alluded to it previously, but could say Olding be acquitted due to lack of evidence and Jackson be found guilty? (Based on what an earlier witness saw in the room and given he has denied penetrating?).

Anyone?

mackers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1419
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2078 on: March 13, 2018, 03:59:02 PM »
I wouldn't be saying that a jury with more men would necessarily more likely to let them off either. I was on a jury in a sexual abuse case in Newry courthouse. I reckoned the accused was guilty and there were six women on the jury. I was sure that the 6 women would definitely find the accused guilty.  When we got down to the deliberations the six women reckoned that he was innocent.  I was amazed.  We had a hung jury and the case ended up in Belfast at a higher court where the guy was found guilty.
Keep your pecker hard and your powder dry and the world will turn.

brokencrossbar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8055
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2079 on: March 13, 2018, 03:59:37 PM »
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased

You can challenge with cause. You used to be able to challenge without cause, a peremptory challenge it was known as but it actually  has been abolished in Northern Ireland but funnily enough is still in place in the Republic. Itís is not US tv stuff. I had just forgotten about it as I havenít been involved in criminal work for a number of years. 

macdanger2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2080 on: March 13, 2018, 04:13:53 PM »
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased

Quite the opposite in fact, every selection is 50/50 but the previous selection has no influence on the current outcome. It's like flipping a coin. So any given makeup (12/0, 9/3, 6/6, 0/12) has an equal chance of occurring

Clov

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2081 on: March 13, 2018, 04:17:01 PM »
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased

Actually it isn't. The probability of getting a 9:3 split, or one more extreme, is 14.6%. In other words approximately 1 in 7 juries drawn from a population in which there are equal numbers of men and women will have a 9:3, or 10:2 or 11:1 or 12:0 split in one direction or the other.
"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit"

AQMP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3401
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2082 on: March 13, 2018, 04:17:21 PM »
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that itís alleged exposure. Harrisonís is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding Iím withholding information relating to their Ďcrimesí.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but thereís a strong possibility
Why would McIlroy be convicted of exposure and not Olding of rape and Jackson of at least sexual assault?

The woman alleges that the sexual contact with Jackson and Olding was not consensual. Jackson and Olding allege it was consensual.

The woman alleges that McIlroy exposing himself was uninvited on her part. McIlroy alleges it was invited.

It basically all comes down to to the same questions of whether consent was given or not, or whether there was reasonable belief in consent, across all three of these defendants.

I think it's completely different. The jury would be perfectly entitled to conclude the following. We believe the injured party. There was penetration from both Jackson and Olding, she didn't consent to it. However when we look at all the circumstances we can't be convinced that Jackson and Olding didn't reasonably believe she was consenting. We also believe that no penetration occurred with McIlroy however in all the circumstances we don't believe he had a reasonable belief she was consenting to him exposing himself.

In such a scenario Jackson and Olding would be not guilty and McIlroy would be guilty. I still have no idea what the substance of the charges are against Harrison.

I bow to your superior knowledge and experience here David, but in human nature terms I see it slightly differently.  If the jury believe the complainant then I think all four are for the high jump. On the night in question these guys wouldn't have known consent or non consent if it had bit them in the arse.

David McKeown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2048
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2083 on: March 13, 2018, 04:40:46 PM »
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that itís alleged exposure. Harrisonís is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding Iím withholding information relating to their Ďcrimesí.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but thereís a strong possibility
Why would McIlroy be convicted of exposure and not Olding of rape and Jackson of at least sexual assault?

The woman alleges that the sexual contact with Jackson and Olding was not consensual. Jackson and Olding allege it was consensual.

The woman alleges that McIlroy exposing himself was uninvited on her part. McIlroy alleges it was invited.

It basically all comes down to to the same questions of whether consent was given or not, or whether there was reasonable belief in consent, across all three of these defendants.

I think it's completely different. The jury would be perfectly entitled to conclude the following. We believe the injured party. There was penetration from both Jackson and Olding, she didn't consent to it. However when we look at all the circumstances we can't be convinced that Jackson and Olding didn't reasonably believe she was consenting. We also believe that no penetration occurred with McIlroy however in all the circumstances we don't believe he had a reasonable belief she was consenting to him exposing himself.

In such a scenario Jackson and Olding would be not guilty and McIlroy would be guilty. I still have no idea what the substance of the charges are against Harrison.

I bow to your superior knowledge and experience here David, but in human nature terms I see it slightly differently.  If the jury believe the complainant then I think all four are for the high jump. On the night in question these guys wouldn't have known consent or non consent if it had bit them in the arse.

You could well be right. I gave up jury guessing years ago. I could understand not guilty for PJ and SO but guilty for McIlroy. I can't see a situation where PJ and SO are convicted but McIlroy acquitted. I don't know how that would be possible. That's not to say I think those are the likely verdicts just I can't see a situation where convictions for PJ and SO but an acquittal for McIlroy would be deemed a safe verdict.

As to juries in general they are selected at random from people on the electoral registrar. Some people such as teachers nurses, self employed etc can be excused at the discretion of the judge. From there about 15 will be selected randomly and can only be challenged with cause. The first 12 will form the jury and the others may replace them before the trial starts if someone reason one of the original jurors is unsuitable. (For example knows a witness or can attend for entire duration of the trial.) 9/3 split is far from unheard of.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 07:42:13 PM by David McKeown »

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21916
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #2084 on: March 13, 2018, 05:27:08 PM »
The 3 top shaggers were all extremely drunk.

They remind me of a song by Arab Strap

"How am I supposed to walk you home 
When you're at least fifty feet ahead? 
'Cause you walked off in a huff 
And I'm that pissed I can't remember what it was I said"

https://youtu.be/wX4WRlsl6fo

A lot of their replies were post fact or on how they would have behaved if they were as they imagine themselves while sober  and there was no coherence between the 3 .
Those biscuits are for the visitors