Author Topic: The ulster rugby trial  (Read 137950 times)

Avondhu star

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3465 on: April 02, 2018, 04:58:06 PM »
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? Youíre basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

FFS will uou lighten up.......Id bet 90% of fellas were thinking exactly the same thing

You can wrap yourself in sheeps wool if you were triggered by my comment

Why when Syferus is mentioned it always comes back to sheep?
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

Syferus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14438
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3466 on: April 02, 2018, 04:58:48 PM »
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? Youíre basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

And you're basically a Tony F spouting shite on every thread. At least Fearon stuck to the bishops.

The mask is slipping a bit I see.


Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? Youíre basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

FFS will uou lighten up.......Id bet 90% of fellas were thinking exactly the same thing

You can wrap yourself in sheeps wool if you were triggered by my comment

Yeah, 90% of people here definitely think that when they look at protesters. You have clearly marked yourself out as someone who is living in a world far removed from most people so youíd want to be careful when trying to talk for the common man.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2018, 05:02:37 PM by Syferus »

brokencrossbar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7847
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3467 on: April 02, 2018, 05:08:12 PM »
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. Thatís the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

Thatís as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a Ďhe said she saidí then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.

Yeah possibly otherwise they would have struggled to get itnpassed the PE stage.

Milltown Row2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17288
  • It was the Ref that did it!!
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3468 on: April 02, 2018, 05:31:18 PM »
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? Youíre basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

And you're basically a Tony F spouting shite on every thread. At least Fearon stuck to the bishops.

The mask is slipping a bit I see.


Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? Youíre basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

FFS will uou lighten up.......Id bet 90% of fellas were thinking exactly the same thing

You can wrap yourself in sheeps wool if you were triggered by my comment

Yeah, 90% of people here definitely think that when they look at protesters. You have clearly marked yourself out as someone who is living in a world far removed from most people so youíd want to be careful when trying to talk for the common man.

When the first set of protesters came here they also left a bad feeling!
Anything I post is not the view of the County Board!! Nobody died in the making of this post ;-)

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10844
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3469 on: April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM »
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. Thatís the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

Thatís as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a Ďhe said she saidí then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

David McKeown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1972
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3470 on: April 02, 2018, 10:57:05 PM »
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. Thatís the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

Thatís as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a Ďhe said she saidí then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

The complainant wasn't interviewed as such. She was making a complaint and wasn't therefore subject to the same level of questioning as the defendants. The defence made a big play on this but it wouldn't be that unusual as indicated by the above link about the Met police changing their investigatory style. The PPS wouldn't be involved at the stage the complaint is being made but usually would meet with the complainant and some other key witnesses in advance of the hearing. Either they did this and proceeded with the trial which in hindsight seems a strange decision for the reasons BCB discussed above or they didn't which would be unusual.

As for DF's evidence it's hard to understand why the PPS thought the issue of whether or not whatever was going on looked consensual wasn't going to be the focus of her evidence. From the reports we are reading that was already in her police statement.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2018, 11:03:25 PM by David McKeown »

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10844
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3471 on: April 03, 2018, 01:11:08 AM »
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. Thatís the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

Thatís as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a Ďhe said she saidí then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

The complainant  wasn't interviewed as such. She was making a complaint and wasn't therefore subject to the same level of questioning as the defendants. The defence made a big play on this but it wouldn't be that unusual as indicated by the above link about the Met police changing their investigatory style. The PPS wouldn't be involved at the stage the complaint is being made but usually would meet with the complainant and some other key witnesses in advance of the hearing. Either they did this and proceeded with the trial which in hindsight seems a strange decision for the reasons BCB discussed above or they didn't which would be unusual.

As for DF's evidence it's hard to understand why the PPS thought the issue of whether or not whatever was going on looked consensual wasn't going to be the focus of her evidence. From the reports we are reading that was already in her police statement.
I did not say the complainant was interviewed as such, I wrote the witness DF was interviewed as such.
And afaiaa,  it was admitted by the investigation team that they did not test the evidence they had  collated,  with the prosecution  --  some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence was not done.
Either it was incompetence or the consequence of cutbacks in funding of public services, or both.

David McKeown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1972
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3472 on: April 03, 2018, 08:55:04 AM »
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. Thatís the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

Thatís as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a Ďhe said she saidí then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

The complainant  wasn't interviewed as such. She was making a complaint and wasn't therefore subject to the same level of questioning as the defendants. The defence made a big play on this but it wouldn't be that unusual as indicated by the above link about the Met police changing their investigatory style. The PPS wouldn't be involved at the stage the complaint is being made but usually would meet with the complainant and some other key witnesses in advance of the hearing. Either they did this and proceeded with the trial which in hindsight seems a strange decision for the reasons BCB discussed above or they didn't which would be unusual.

As for DF's evidence it's hard to understand why the PPS thought the issue of whether or not whatever was going on looked consensual wasn't going to be the focus of her evidence. From the reports we are reading that was already in her police statement.
I did not say the complainant was interviewed as such, I wrote the witness DF was interviewed as such.
And afaiaa,  it was admitted by the investigation team that they did not test the evidence they had  collated,  with the prosecution  --  some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence was not done.
Either it was incompetence or the consequence of cutbacks in funding of public services, or both.

I wonder what the test was they were referring too

magpie seanie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11624
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3473 on: April 03, 2018, 10:54:40 AM »
Caprea - maybe it's time to close this thread? Very little to be gained by keeping this going I'd suggest.

screenexile

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9541
  • Up The Screen!
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3474 on: April 03, 2018, 10:59:09 AM »
So Craig Gilroy is in the dock now for a comment he made on a whatsapp group?

Whatever about not liking somebody or their misogyny I'm pretty sure you can't stop people from working just because they are a dick!!

Milltown Row2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17288
  • It was the Ref that did it!!
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3475 on: April 03, 2018, 11:16:48 AM »
So Craig Gilroy is in the dock now for a comment he made on a whatsapp group?

Whatever about not liking somebody or their misogyny I'm pretty sure you can't stop people from working just because they are a dick!!

Any sluts get bucked!!! ??
Anything I post is not the view of the County Board!! Nobody died in the making of this post ;-)

sid waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3476 on: April 03, 2018, 11:33:14 AM »
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. Thatís the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

Thatís as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a Ďhe said she saidí then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

But it's far, far harder, almost impossible, for a witness in such a situation to determine whether what they have seen is consensual or rape than to determine whether intercourse was occurring.

That is because the majority of rape victims do not "fight" or scream.

A witness cannot know what the complainant is feeling.

In such a scenario they will always revert to a presumption that what is going on is consensual.

You don't walk in on such a scenario and immediately think "rape".

Determining whether intercourse is occurring is a much simpler task.

Even the slightest non-consensual penile penetration (ie. it doesn't have to be what one would commonly imagine as penetration) is still rape, by the way.


sid waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3477 on: April 03, 2018, 11:36:03 AM »
So Craig Gilroy is in the dock now for a comment he made on a whatsapp group?

Whatever about not liking somebody or their misogyny I'm pretty sure you can't stop people from working just because they are a dick!!
Given what I read at the weekend, I'd say there's a fair chance this could end up in a lawsuit between Jackson and the IRFU.

Milltown Row2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17288
  • It was the Ref that did it!!
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3478 on: April 03, 2018, 12:09:32 PM »
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. Thatís the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

Thatís as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a Ďhe said she saidí then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

But it's far, far harder, almost impossible, for a witness in such a situation to determine whether what they have seen is consensual or rape than to determine whether intercourse was occurring.

That is because the majority of rape victims do not "fight" or scream.

A witness cannot know what the complainant is feeling.

In such a scenario they will always revert to a presumption that what is going on is consensual.

You don't walk in on such a scenario and immediately think "rape".

Determining whether intercourse is occurring is a much simpler task.

Even the slightest non-consensual penile penetration (ie. it doesn't have to be what one would commonly imagine as penetration) is still rape, by the way.

And thats why the jury decide, not you. in all the evidence they heard they came up with the not guilty of rape verdict..

Anything I post is not the view of the County Board!! Nobody died in the making of this post ;-)

sid waddell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
Re: The ulster rugby trial
« Reply #3479 on: April 03, 2018, 12:24:19 PM »
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. Thatís the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

Thatís as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a Ďhe said she saidí then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

But it's far, far harder, almost impossible, for a witness in such a situation to determine whether what they have seen is consensual or rape than to determine whether intercourse was occurring.

That is because the majority of rape victims do not "fight" or scream.

A witness cannot know what the complainant is feeling.

In such a scenario they will always revert to a presumption that what is going on is consensual.

You don't walk in on such a scenario and immediately think "rape".

Determining whether intercourse is occurring is a much simpler task.

Even the slightest non-consensual penile penetration (ie. it doesn't have to be what one would commonly imagine as penetration) is still rape, by the way.

And thats why the jury decide, not you. in all the evidence they heard they came up with the not guilty of rape verdict..

And your point is?