The Rugby Thread

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Hans Moleman wrote:

 horsebox wrote:

https://twitter.com/FrankGreaney?lang=en

Good summary here - no doubt in my mind that these lads are going to walk.

It seems after the last couple of days evidence, that there is a lot of sentiment on here that these lads will walk. Reading through what was said, it's clear that the defense have done everything in their power to keep blurring the lines of what has gone on, as was always going to be their way. At the same time, almost everything the victim has said happened hasn't in any way been discredited. She has been rock solid in her account of the details. As a matter of fact the female witnesses today have nailed how credible the victims accounts were. The witness accounts also show that Jackson has blatantly and consistently lied to police and also the court in his statements, when he said he never had sexual intercourse with the girl. 

Key points from today

- Witness says she saw the victim on her knees, with Jackson penetrating her from behind. This is exactly the account the victim has given. It also blows every shred of credibility any statement Jackson makes out of the water. Jackson saying he only ever digitally penetrated her. Why would he possibly lie about this?

- The witness who crashed on the couch, asked Jackson about this 'threesome' the following morning. Again Jackson said nothing happened. Why did Jackson lie to her?

- In terms of Olding, again the victims account holds up perfectly. Olding claims that the woman was straddling Paddy Jackson and invited him in to give him oral sex. The witness account of the victim on her knees is exactly as the witness has said all along, with trousers around her knees making it impossible to straddle anyone. 

- The witness says she saw the victim turn her head away. Again this is exactly what the victim said happened when the witness walked in. 

- The defense has done a good job blurring the lines by asking a witness if Jackson or Olding were holding the victims head. A really good job of blurring the lies by asking the witness if the victim looked frozen with fear, and the witness responding no. This is great defense, but it's incredibly flimsy. They are basically getting a witness, standing at a door for a minute, to psychologically analyse what is going on in another girls head, and try and state it as some sort of fact! As if any of the above things would definitively mean that the victim was not being raped when the witness walked in. All these instances show is that the victims account is exactly as she always said it was. 

Talking purely hypothetically, if the witness had walked in and Jackson had said 'you wanna join in' as he did and the witness said no, and the victim said something like 'come on, join in, you'll love it,'. Or if the witness walked in and they stopped for a moment, and the victim moved over and took the iniative and mounted Jackson or Olding in front of her. Such instances as these would be clearly indicating that a consensual threesome was occurring. None of that actually happened though. Nothing even close to that happened, by either the witness accounts or the victim accounts of events. 

The prosecuting barrister did a good job cross examining imo, simply asking the witness if she saw any signs of the victim positively consenting. The witness said no. Huge amount of blurring of lines going on by the defense, it really is there only option it seems and it may well work.

TLDR - Jackson is shown up to have lied to the police after court after the witness statements today. His credibility is absolutely shot. The witness account of events does not contradict a single thing the victim has said all along about the events that took place.
A disastrous day for the defence. You really would wonder what reports some people are reading and their ability to comprehend testimony. 

It's pretty clear who's telling the truth and who's lying here.