The Rugby Thread |
Post Reply | Page <1 266267268269270 470> |
Author | ||||
pre Madonna
Robbie Keane I am MALDING Joined: 30 Nov 2014 Location: Trumpton Status: Offline Points: 44659 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Surely a wife or girlfriend wouldn't be too relaxed about him digitally penetrating someone either? I assume he just thought he could lie through the whole thing and get away with it.
|
||||
Roberto Baggio
Robbie Keane UNBELIEVABLE JEFF Joined: 28 Jan 2010 Status: Offline Points: 37346 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
He's never married. Pretty sure he's single as well
|
||||
9fingers
Paul McGrath Ballymun Resident #MONKEANO Joined: 30 Jan 2010 Status: Offline Points: 16144 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Of course they wouldn’t, I wasn’t trying to say they would, I just can’t understand his reasoning for saying there wasn’t intercourse. Surely his best defence would’ve been telling all who’d listen that it was consensual and never moving from that story. |
||||
pre Madonna
Robbie Keane I am MALDING Joined: 30 Nov 2014 Location: Trumpton Status: Offline Points: 44659 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I agree, it was illogical. Perhaps he was going to deny everything an then his legal team saw about the vaginal tear and said you will have to admit some form of sexual contact. I really fail to see why he didn't say there was consensual sex myself. I cannot see how these lads are not guilty?
|
||||
SimonCox
Kevin Kilbane Joined: 14 Dec 2012 Status: Offline Points: 358 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
All the witnesses so far have been prosecution witnesses. Defense witnesses will be rolled out after the prosecution has finished its case. There likely wont be very many defense witnesses. |
||||
Hans Moleman
Roy Keane Muff: That is a lie and you are a liar Joined: 09 Aug 2012 Status: Offline Points: 10199 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Can't see myself either how these lads are not guilty. Stranger things have happened though when it comes down to a jury making a call. Btw what is the story there, is it a unanimous decision on a rape charge? Or 10/11 jurors does etc.? And what's the count on the rest of the chargers?
@SimonCox, cheers for that. Was wondering, I made a balls of that while reading the reports. Edited by Hans Moleman - 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08am |
||||
"I called him an embarrassment to FIFA and to himself," .... He said 'No-one speaks to me like that'.... and I said, "well I do' and that was that."
|
||||
9fingers
Paul McGrath Ballymun Resident #MONKEANO Joined: 30 Jan 2010 Status: Offline Points: 16144 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I think they’re guilty myself, on the evidence so far anyway I also think they’ve been poorly advised & poorly represented. |
||||
SimonCox
Kevin Kilbane Joined: 14 Dec 2012 Status: Offline Points: 358 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
The lies can only be to cover up. Jackson accused of rape - Jackson denies having sex with her. McIlroy accused of exposure - McIlroy claims he had consensual sexual contact with the victim. He claims she "masturbated him". She said that's completely incorrect, that this is a rape trial and if he touched her she would say it. It makes sense that the man would say he had consensual sexual contact. Its his only defense against exposure, except maybe to say he was never in the room. The independent witnesses have talked about him being downstairs saying to them "lets have sex". He sent a whatsapp to jackson saying "any chance of a threesome." So it may seem odd that one person denies having sex with her, and the other claims he did have sexual contact with her despite her saying she didnt. But you can see why they gave those versions. |
||||
Deane
Liam Brady Joined: 17 Oct 2014 Location: Co Down Status: Offline Points: 2949 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Maybe Jacksons Ma is deeply religious and doesn't consent to sex outside of marriage and that is why he is lying
|
||||
daraghj82
Ronnie Whelan Joined: 26 Jun 2015 Location: Tipperary Status: Offline Points: 75 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
taxi drivers account may not be entirely accurate either. he would be picking up and driving home drunk girls and guys every weekend, why this particular incident stands out ? its not possible you can recall specific details of a conversation on an given night anyway
|
||||
Roberto Baggio
Robbie Keane UNBELIEVABLE JEFF Joined: 28 Jan 2010 Status: Offline Points: 37346 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
The taxi driver said that when the police contacted him a few days later "I knew straight away what it was in relation to".
|
||||
Roberto Baggio
Robbie Keane UNBELIEVABLE JEFF Joined: 28 Jan 2010 Status: Offline Points: 37346 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
The complainant's friend is being shown the same CCTV footage from Ollies nightclub that was shown to the alleged victim during her evidence.
Paddy Jackson's barrister puts it to the witness that the complainant was determined to go to an afters party after Ollies nightclub and that she simply "gave up on her" and left the club to go home. She says that's a bit strong. The witness is asked about the text she received from the complainant the following morning which alleged she had been raped and was followed by five upside down smiley face emojis. She's asked about those emojis and she says they're used "when something goes wrong" The witness is reminded of a text exchange she had with the complainant 12 days before the alleged rapes. They discussed rape in general. She text:
"If I ever get raped, I'm never going to the police" Mr. Kelly QC asked why she wouldn't go to police and she said:
"Because of what's happening in this room. It's daunting, quite horrible and you get blamed. It's a distressing process". Under cross-examination, the complainant's friend tells the court:
"I assumed she was telling the truth. She wouldn't lie to me" Witness is asked if complainant mentioned being "petrified" that what she was "engaged in or subjected to" would be on social media during the course of their text exchanges over June 28/29 2016. She said:
"I don't think so" She is also asked if there was any mention of her being forced to give oral sex during those text exchanges. The court hears there was no mention of it in her statement to police and she accepts it was her understanding that her friend had been "vaginally raped" by two men. When she drove to her friend's house to take her to the rape crisis centre, she said her friend immediately hugged her and started to cry. She said she didn't even know how to respond because she had never been like that with her. She said she's known her since she was 12 and she has seen her through some sad things but she said she usually keeps her composure |
||||
daraghj82
Ronnie Whelan Joined: 26 Jun 2015 Location: Tipperary Status: Offline Points: 75 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
fair enough so
|
||||
SuperDave84
Robbie Keane ooh Thomas, how could you do this to me! Joined: 26 Aug 2011 Location: Far Fungannon Status: Offline Points: 21384 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I don't think Jackson's barrister cross-examined the complainant on the basis that they didn't have sex. I think it is accepted at this stage that he did have sex. I don't recall the cross-examination being that he didn't have sex. He may have lied about to police, but there are many possible reasons for that, besides rape, as has been pointed out... he may give evidence and accept that he had sex, and even that he now knows she wasn't consenting. But we shall see.
Anyway, on the basic point, the prosecution has to prove three things to prove a rape charge: 1) that the complainant and the accused had penetrative sex; 2) that the complainant was not, in fact, consenting to that sex; and 3) (this being the important part in this case) a) that the accused actually knew or believed the complainant was not consenting and had or continued to have sex nonetheless OR b) even if the accused believed that the complainant was consenting throughout, that that belief was not reasonable in the objective circumstances of the case. I think it is possible in this case that the prosecution will prove that she was raped (i.e. that 1 and 2 applied) but not, necessarily, prove either part of three; it seems it may come down to the second part. Even if these lads are acquitted, it does not mean that she was not actually raped by them, just that the prosecution have not proved their mental state surrounding the issue of consent. With murder / manslaughter etc, it is similar, but the different words help. For instance, it can be proved that an accused person killed a victim, but it might not be murder (if, for example, it is manslaughter, or even self-defence). It can be the case that a victim is raped, but it might not be sufficient for the accused to be convicted. If there were different words for the act and the offence it would help - for instance, in murder, there is the killing (i.e. the act of killing) and then the murder (i.e. killing, with the added element of unlawful intent to cause death or serious injury). For rape, there aren't separate words for the act (i.e., intercourse without consent of the victim) and the offence (i.e., intercourse without the consent of the victim, with the added element that the perpetrator knows or ought to know of the lack of consent). Anyway, we'll see when we get past the prosecution evidence what is happening. Edited by SuperDave84 - 15 Feb 2018 at 1:04pm |
||||
|
||||
MC Hammered
Jack Charlton Joined: 05 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 6874 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
SD, a query on point 3 above; If a defendant believes that the sex is consensual then it's not rape?
|
||||
El Puto Amo
|
||||
SuperDave84
Robbie Keane ooh Thomas, how could you do this to me! Joined: 26 Aug 2011 Location: Far Fungannon Status: Offline Points: 21384 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
If that belief is objectively reasonable, it should be an acquittal.
The jury will have to be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant's belief was not objectively reasonable. |
||||
|
||||
randyrandolph
500 Club la la la Joined: 09 May 2016 Status: Offline Points: 685 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
SD, how long would you "expect" a trial of this nature to last for?
when i did jury service most seemed to be within 2 weeks...
|
||||
SuperDave84
Robbie Keane ooh Thomas, how could you do this to me! Joined: 26 Aug 2011 Location: Far Fungannon Status: Offline Points: 21384 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
They said five weeks at the start.
This is unusual, given the number of defendants. More defendants equals a longer trial, just about every time. Edited by SuperDave84 - 15 Feb 2018 at 1:32pm |
||||
|
||||
Post Reply | Page <1 266267268269270 470> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |