The Rugby Thread

My mistake. I thought I read she was behind a screen and therefore no-one could see her.

randyrandolph wrote: sid waddell wrote: SimonCox wrote: Yes she is dealing ever so well with this Mr. Kelly QC.  He has introduced this stuff about her being attracted to northern ireland footballers etc, Im told that this is all fodder for the prosecution, they'll say that the complainant has been further disparaged by all these allegations.  But, I guess, the defence have decided that is a ploy worth taking, cos the evidence is heavily stacked against them  Now obviously a defence is entitled to take whatever line they want in questioning the woman and attempting to damage her credibility in the eyes of jury. And obviously the jury should give their verdict based on the evidence. However, given the current climate, with the #metoo movement and all that, I think the "slapper defence" line being taken by Mr. Kelly may not play well with the jury.  agreed. i too think this woman is coming across well from what i've read. the whatsapp messages are very damming and the fact that she left the house crying and harrison had to get her in a cab with her and calm her down doesn't paint a great picture. i wouldnt be surprised if these boys go down. the woman who walked past (or looked in) the room is a strange one and will perhaps be key.

Paddy Jackson said to the taxi driver “I’m Paddy Jackson” when the taxi driver told him his taxi was booked for someone else. What a plonker.
The taxi driver is a bigger clown for actually then telling Jackson to get in.

randyrandolph wrote: sid waddell wrote: SimonCox wrote: Yes she is dealing ever so well with this Mr. Kelly QC.  He has introduced this stuff about her being attracted to northern ireland footballers etc, Im told that this is all fodder for the prosecution, they'll say that the complainant has been further disparaged by all these allegations.  But, I guess, the defence have decided that is a ploy worth taking, cos the evidence is heavily stacked against them  Now obviously a defence is entitled to take whatever line they want in questioning the woman and attempting to damage her credibility in the eyes of jury. And obviously the jury should give their verdict based on the evidence. However, given the current climate, with the #metoo movement and all that, I think the "slapper defence" line being taken by Mr. Kelly may not play well with the jury.  agreed. i too think this woman is coming across well from what i've read. the whatsapp messages are very damming and the fact that she left the house crying and harrison had to get her in a cab with her and calm her down doesn't paint a great picture. i wouldnt be surprised if these boys go down. the woman who walked past (or looked in) the room is a strange one and will perhaps be key.

They're not really, though.

Even if you agree she didn't consent, the question is was it clear, from all the circumstances, to the accused, that she wasn't consenting at the time.

They're very different questions.

Roberto Baggio wrote: Bob Hoskins wrote: Jaysus, that's easily the worst thing I've heard about this trial  Really? They just make Jackson an arrogant bastard, not a rapist

Jaysus Baggio

horsebox wrote: Why is she giving evidence from behind a screen?

Because she is a munter

DUBLIN DOC wrote: horsebox wrote: Why is she giving evidence from behind a screen? Because she is a munter

greenforever wrote: Baldrick wrote: Most trials of this nature in the republic of Ireland are not held in public so we wouldn't know the defendant or the alleged victim. Obviously it's a different legal system in Belfast. Are you sure that the defendant has anonymity here? It is wrong that the defendant's are publicly identified before a verdict, and it's IMO disgraceful that this or any rape trial allows the public to attend.  Yes, allow the media attend and report but where there is significant penalties for publishing any information that could identify either party prior to a verdict, and only to allow the guilty party to be identified when found guilty. I still believe in this case from reading the reports that the lads are guilty.

There's no harm in identifying defendants at all. It happens in every other case, including kiddy porn and murder. It is there to protect victims, not perpetrators. If a defendant is acquitted, they have the publicity of that, and the public is entitled to know if they are convicted. Nor is there any harm in allowing the public to attend, if a complainant has waived their right of anonymity, or if it can be protected. Now in the North, they seem to have a system that allows that, but they don't here. The only time defendants here are given anonymity is if it would identify the complainant - if it is a random attack or something like this (where there is no personal link between the defendant and the complainant), it would be public knowledge. Say, for example, this had happened after a match in Dublin, there would probably be equal publicity, because the fact the perpetrator is Paddy Jackson doesn't make it public knowledge who the victim is. In cases where the victim knows the perpetrator (as in, for more than that evening), that's where there is anonymity.

There's little merit to protecting the right of an accused prior to verdict. The role of the jury doesn't change either way and it doesn't affect them.

The victim says she can't even be sure it was olding that she gave oral sex to.....surely that's him off the hook????plus the defence asked her if she motioned toward the person that she gave oral sex too....she said that she can't remember.i guessing that there defence lies in that if she moved her head toward this persons cock that it was consensual???im not so sure about the whatsapp messages...there's nothing there that any other gang of lads would send after they got there hole...out of four blokes,if something like this had happened,I'm sure one of them would of whatsapp ex the group that "she ran out of the house crying" or "jasus lads that was a bit out of order last night with that skank"