The Rugby Thread

He's never married. Pretty sure he's single as well

9fingers wrote: pre Madonna wrote: 9fingers wrote: Does Jackson have a wife/girlfriend? Trying to get my head around why he’s lying about intercourse 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. 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.

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?

Edited by Hans Moleman - 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08am

pre Madonna wrote: 9fingers wrote: pre Madonna wrote: 9fingers wrote: Does Jackson have a wife/girlfriend? Trying to get my head around why he’s lying about intercourse 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. 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. 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?

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.

alihau41 wrote: Hans Moleman wrote: The taxi drivers account again today backs up everything this girl has said so far. The lads talking in code and in hushes on the phone as he drops her off. The state of the victim in the taxi. The fact that the taxi driver could sense that something was wrong with her and she was very shook. Obviously common sense doesn't convict anyone, but imagine such a scenario happened where you were in a house party with other pals of yours. 2 of the lads were upstairs with a girl, having according to them a consensual threesome. Why would you, sitting downstairs, and having no role in the sexual action, feel at the end of the night the need to drop the girl involved in this threesome home? None of that makes sense. Only 2 logical reasons why any lad would do such a thing - to try it on with her yourself, which by all accounts he didn't. Or to comfort someone in distress, which is exactly what the taxi driver says happened. If it was a consensual threesome, would the girl be distressed straight after it taking place? I don't think so. She may regret it the following day or whatever, but she's not going to be totally shook moments after the consensual threesome took place, is she? The hushed and coded talking on the phone again only point to one thing. Why would you be so secretive chatting on the phone to friends if all was ok? Again none of this evidence or statements given are black and white. They all point one way though. As do her text messages the day after, the lads whatsapp messages to one another the day after. The fact that Jackson has lied about having intercourse with the victim according to the witness yesterday - that is absolutely damning. The physical evidence will obviously be huge, but as of now it's very hard to see how most of these lads won't be in big trouble. Jurors are only human though so I guess you never know. Btw, it surely is not normal that a rape victim has to take the stand for over a week of examination is it? Is this just because there are numerous barristers involved in the defense team? That must take some toll on that woman.     I'm not looking to support them with my response, but more to give argument to a few things you've stated.     he could have lived nearby to hers and so decided to share a taxi. he could have called her a taxi and said feck it I'm legging it as well.     speaking in coded or quietly could easily also be the fact that he felt awkward being on the phone with the victim sitting beside him.     I can't imagine lads whatsapping each other the day after saying "oh f**k, what did we do last night". their response seems to suggest, in their eyes, that it was a threesome that was more on the consensual side rather than not     8 days is a very long time to take the stand, and yea I reckon it is because there are four defendants. was very surprised when I heard that this case could last for five weeks.

The complainant's friend is being shown the same CCTV footage from Ollies nightclub that was shown to the alleged victim during her evidence.

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

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.

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