The DUP thread

[quit yo jibbajabba]

This isn't looking good is it? Longer it goes on etc.....

Glad to be wrong

*You know what I mean, for those determined to find offence in any word slightly misplaced

There was no word misplaced. Anyone with half a brain knew what you meant. I was worrying the same the longer it went. Might have even been yourself that posted it before, he was a bad hoor for the putting them through a trial. The evidence seemed incredibly damning.

Cheers Mucker. Times you wonder why you bother as there's people hanging round to pick holes in anything

He was a sick boyo listening to the evidence we were able to hear. Good day for the victims

[marty34]

Pity the two women were put through that ordeal. Fair play to them for their bravery.

[David McKeown]

This isn't looking good is it? Longer it goes on etc.....

Glad to be wrong

*You know what I mean, for those determined to find offence in any word slightly misplaced

There was no word misplaced. Anyone with half a brain knew what you meant. I was worrying the same the longer it went. Might have even been yourself that posted it before, he was a bad hoor for the putting them through a trial. The evidence seemed incredibly damning.

The problem is we did hear 75% of the evidence and two and a half days is a long time for deliberation on a case that was charged in half a day.  So its impossible to really know how damning the evidence was.  Certainly enough for a conviction but clearly also something to give food for thought

[Walter Cronc]

What prison time you looking at here?

[HiMucker]

This isn't looking good is it? Longer it goes on etc.....

Glad to be wrong

*You know what I mean, for those determined to find offence in any word slightly misplaced

There was no word misplaced. Anyone with half a brain knew what you meant. I was worrying the same the longer it went. Might have even been yourself that posted it before, he was a bad hoor for the putting them through a trial. The evidence seemed incredibly damning.

The problem is we did hear 75% of the evidence and two and a half days is a long time for deliberation on a case that was charged in half a day.  So its impossible to really know how damning the evidence was.  Certainly enough for a conviction but clearly also something to give food for thought

Is it possible the length of deliberation was over charges against the wife?

[Baile Brigín 2]

What prison time you looking at here?

Potentially life. Usually between 7 and 20.

[David McKeown]

JEFFREY FOUND GUILTY

The wife guilty on 5 counts as well

No she wasnt she was found to have done the acts thats not the same thing

David I get that its two different things legally speaking, but is not the same thing in the eyes of the public? And would that not be the correct way for joe bloggs to look at it?

It certainly not the correct way to look at it.  A finding on the facts basically means that there is sufficient evidence to find someone guilty if they didn't provide any alternative evidence.  So Eleanor Donaldsons lawyers wouldnt have been able to present anything to the jury so the finding is effectively having heard one side we think the person could be guilty.

[marty34]

This isn't looking good is it? Longer it goes on etc.....

Glad to be wrong

*You know what I mean, for those determined to find offence in any word slightly misplaced

There was no word misplaced. Anyone with half a brain knew what you meant. I was worrying the same the longer it went. Might have even been yourself that posted it before, he was a bad hoor for the putting them through a trial. The evidence seemed incredibly damning.

The problem is we did hear 75% of the evidence and two and a half days is a long time for deliberation on a case that was charged in half a day.  So its impossible to really know how damning the evidence was.  Certainly enough for a conviction but clearly also something to give food for thought

David, you see the jury? Are they just picked randomly - like 12 random people from anywhere in the north?

And they obviously would all know Donaldson from politics and in the media etc.?

And are they 'assessed' in any way?

[johnnycool]

JEFFREY FOUND GUILTY

The wife guilty on 5 counts as well

No she wasnt she was found to have done the acts thats not the same thing

David I get that its two different things legally speaking, but is not the same thing in the eyes of the public? And would that not be the correct way for joe bloggs to look at it?

It certainly not the correct way to look at it.  A finding on the facts basically means that there is sufficient evidence to find someone guilty if they didn't provide any alternative evidence.  So Eleanor Donaldsons lawyers wouldnt have been able to present anything to the jury so the finding is effectively having heard one side we think the person could be guilty.

Is she looking at a stay in a secure hospital?

[quit yo jibbajabba]

David gonna be busy on here for a day or two 😄

I too have questions 😄

[David McKeown]

What prison time you looking at here?

Potentially life. Usually between 7 and 20.

I would not have thought so.  Historic sexual offending sentencing is very complex.  The court has to look at how modern society views the seriousness of the offence and try and fit that within the sentencing framework that existed at the time of the offence.

I dont know enough about the specifics of the offending to suggest a penalty but the range would be far more narrow

[David McKeown]

This isn't looking good is it? Longer it goes on etc.....

Glad to be wrong

*You know what I mean, for those determined to find offence in any word slightly misplaced

There was no word misplaced. Anyone with half a brain knew what you meant. I was worrying the same the longer it went. Might have even been yourself that posted it before, he was a bad hoor for the putting them through a trial. The evidence seemed incredibly damning.

The problem is we did hear 75% of the evidence and two and a half days is a long time for deliberation on a case that was charged in half a day.  So its impossible to really know how damning the evidence was.  Certainly enough for a conviction but clearly also something to give food for thought

Is it possible the length of deliberation was over charges against the wife?

Might have been but ordinarily a jury would be asked at each stage had they returned verdicts against either of the defendants.  So its impossible to know

[DaleCooper]

JEFFREY FOUND GUILTY

The wife guilty on 5 counts as well

No she wasnt she was found to have done the acts thats not the same thing

You are right to be precise. Was being hasty seeing the news.

BBC report


"His wife, Lady Eleanor Donaldson, who faced five charges including four related to aiding and abetting, found to have done the acts"

"Former Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson found guilty of all 18 sex abuse charges, including rape"

Good for politics here. Had to deal with a cynical relative recently who insisted he would walk due to politics.

[David McKeown]

This isn't looking good is it? Longer it goes on etc.....

Glad to be wrong

*You know what I mean, for those determined to find offence in any word slightly misplaced

There was no word misplaced. Anyone with half a brain knew what you meant. I was worrying the same the longer it went. Might have even been yourself that posted it before, he was a bad hoor for the putting them through a trial. The evidence seemed incredibly damning.

The problem is we did hear 75% of the evidence and two and a half days is a long time for deliberation on a case that was charged in half a day.  So its impossible to really know how damning the evidence was.  Certainly enough for a conviction but clearly also something to give food for thought

David, you see the jury? Are they just picked randomly - like 12 random people from anywhere in the north?

And they obviously would all know Donaldson from politics and in the media etc.?

And are they 'assessed' in any way?

Its a jury of your peers and they could only be challenged for cause.  So it would have been a pool selected from the electoral register in the area.  Then jurors would be picked randomly and would be asked if they knew any of those involved in the case.  Once 12 were found that didnt know the parties personally and were available to set for 3/4 weeks the Jury would have been selected

[David McKeown]

JEFFREY FOUND GUILTY

The wife guilty on 5 counts as well

No she wasnt she was found to have done the acts thats not the same thing

David I get that its two different things legally speaking, but is not the same thing in the eyes of the public? And would that not be the correct way for joe bloggs to look at it?

It certainly not the correct way to look at it.  A finding on the facts basically means that there is sufficient evidence to find someone guilty if they didn't provide any alternative evidence.  So Eleanor Donaldsons lawyers wouldnt have been able to present anything to the jury so the finding is effectively having heard one side we think the person could be guilty.

Is she looking at a stay in a secure hospital?

If the other conditions are met then yes