You Boys in Green Homepage YBIG Shop
Forum Home Forum Home : Other Forums : Whatever!
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Rugby Thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

The Rugby Thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 299300301302303 356>
Author
Message
sid waddell View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 8671
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 1:22pm
What grounds has Jackson got for suing Aodhan O'Riordain over this tweet?

Will Jackson now be suing anybody who says that they still believe the complainant?


Get the pints in
Back to Top
horsebox View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Born n bred in darndale.

Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 29159
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote horsebox Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 1:27pm
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by horsebox horsebox wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by horsebox horsebox wrote:

I'd say it was Dara Florence's evidence that exonerated the goys.


But Florence i) categorically contradicted Jackson and said that he was "100%" having vaginal sex with the complainant, as well as ii) stating that the complainant showed no signs of positive consent. 

She also said that iii) she did not think she was witnessing a rape, but she was in no position to make that call for reasons which should be obvious.

i) and ii) are facts as she saw them.  iii) is perception, not fact.

There has been some online commentary using the #ibelieveher hashtag as regards Florence's evidence. 

If you believe her, you also believe Jackson was lying and the complainant did not shows any signs of positive consent - which tallies with the complainant's story.







The medical evidence suggests that Jackson injured her vagina wall with his fingers and not his flute.


"Blunt force trauma" was the expression used by Dr. Lavery, I believe.
 
There was also bruising. 

Again, not proof of rape (can any injury be? I doubt it) but I'd say such injuries are consistent with it, or at least with sexual assault.


The medical evidence suggests she was not raped. She also 'forgot' she was sexually assaulted by Olding when she was medically examined.
     
Back to Top
greenforever View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 6343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote greenforever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 1:27pm
Originally posted by SuperDave84 SuperDave84 wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by SuperDave84 SuperDave84 wrote:

That sort of stuff is very dangerous. If these lads had been convicted, those comments could well have formed the basis of an appeal, depending on the content. More often than not, I'd guess juries either don't understand exactly what the judge said to them, or they do something they shouldn't when deliberating. The fact they only have to answer yeay or nay is what saves them.

Now if they've acquitted these lads in a way they shouldn't have done, what then? I don't know what possible outcome there can be. The verdict would have to stand but it is very, very unsatisfactory.

What chance of it being deemed a mistrial after the fact?

If the juror is now in trouble with the law, will their phone and computer be searched?

What if it turns out they had been reading online commentary on sites such as this during the trial and been influenced by that?


I think all that is very unlikely. I don't think the CPS would have the stomach for it, tbh. The juror may be made an example of by the CPS, in that she could be prosecuted, but I think that's as far is it is likely to go. Her phone may be searched but they might need a warrant for that - I'm not sure how it works in the UK.

A mistrial declaration after a trial that resulted in an acquittal would be very, very unsatisfactory. It would be quite disturbing, if I'm honest. I can't think of examples of something like this happening resulting in a not guilty verdict being quashed and it shouldn't. There has to be finality to an acquittal.

See, it is the word of one juror. If this juror says the jury did things they shouldn't have done, what then? Do the police interview the other jurors? Are the police allowed to do that? Can the other jurors say anything to the police? Would interviewing the other jurors about their deliberations be conspiracy to commit contempt of court? It is unbelievably messy - all the police should be concerned with now is whether this juror has in fact done anything wrong in revealing the nature of the deliberations. The consequences, if so, should be visited on the juror only.

While in principle i would agree with the highlighted passage, what if it turns out the jury were got to? I'm not making a suggestion they were, but I'm sure there are cases that Juries have been got at, and why we have the Special Criminal Court. 

Surely there has to be charges that could be brought if it comes out the jury ( or any jury ) deliberately acted outside the law. 
I know nothing :-)
Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 8671
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 1:33pm
Originally posted by horsebox horsebox wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by horsebox horsebox wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by horsebox horsebox wrote:

I'd say it was Dara Florence's evidence that exonerated the goys.


But Florence i) categorically contradicted Jackson and said that he was "100%" having vaginal sex with the complainant, as well as ii) stating that the complainant showed no signs of positive consent. 

She also said that iii) she did not think she was witnessing a rape, but she was in no position to make that call for reasons which should be obvious.

i) and ii) are facts as she saw them.  iii) is perception, not fact.

There has been some online commentary using the #ibelieveher hashtag as regards Florence's evidence. 

If you believe her, you also believe Jackson was lying and the complainant did not shows any signs of positive consent - which tallies with the complainant's story.







The medical evidence suggests that Jackson injured her vagina wall with his fingers and not his flute.


"Blunt force trauma" was the expression used by Dr. Lavery, I believe.
 
There was also bruising. 

Again, not proof of rape (can any injury be? I doubt it) but I'd say such injuries are consistent with it, or at least with sexual assault.


The medical evidence suggests she was not raped. She also 'forgot' she was sexually assaulted by Olding when she was medically examined.

The medical evidence didn't suggest she was not raped. 

It merely doesn't prove that she was raped.

There's a big, big difference.

Even if semen had been found, it wouldn't have proved that she was raped. There is basically no medical evidence that can prove beyond doubt that a woman has been raped.

When the complainant was medically examined, she hadn't slept for 30 hours. 

I'm quite satisfied that inconsistencies in what she told Dr. Lavery were not only understandable, but likely to be expected, given the combination of trauma and lack of sleep. 


Get the pints in
Back to Top
Het-field View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 6082
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Het-field Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 1:33pm
Anybody who explicitly claims they are guilty would be open to being sued, or those who would do so by way of innuendo. The ibelieveher hashtag would be more difficult to argue as it would probably require going into the full facts of the case, and the lower standard of proof. But the not guilty verdict means that people have to be careful how far they go when claiming their guilt, when the Court has found otherwise.
Back to Top
Denis Irwin View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Stay Home & watch Lethal Weapon

Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Location: Ath Cliath
Status: Online
Points: 34974
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Denis Irwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 1:34pm


Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Anybody who explicitly claims they are guilty would be open to being sued, or those who would do so by way of innuendo. The ibelieveher hashtag would be more difficult to argue as it would probably require going into the full facts of the case, and the lower standard of proof. But the not guilty verdict means that people have to be careful how far they go when claiming their guilt, when the Court has found otherwise.




As Aodhan O'Riordan has just found out

Edited by Denis Irwin - 30 Mar 2018 at 1:35pm
Eamonn Dunphy:"I'll tell you who wrote it, Rod Liddle, he's the guy who ran away and left his wife for a young one".

Bill O'Herlihy: Ah ye can't be saying that now Eamonn
Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 8671
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 1:41pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Anybody who explicitly claims they are guilty would be open to being sued, or those who would do so by way of innuendo. The ibelieveher hashtag would be more difficult to argue as it would probably require going into the full facts of the case, and the lower standard of proof. But the not guilty verdict means that people have to be careful how far they go when claiming their guilt, when the Court has found otherwise.

Jackson has no grounds to sue over the #ibelieveher hashtag or sentiments which amount to the same. 

So what is he suing O'Riordain for? 

The sentence that reads "The smug, well-connected middle class boys win out again"? 

Seems pretty tenuous. 

I would think the complainant would have a much better case against anybody, particularly in the media, who alleges that her claims were "false", when the jury did not find that at all. 


Get the pints in
Back to Top
Denis Irwin View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Stay Home & watch Lethal Weapon

Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Location: Ath Cliath
Status: Online
Points: 34974
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Denis Irwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 1:44pm
Defamation. Whether you like it or not they were found not guilty in the eyes of the law. What you think of the case does not entitle you to make what could be construed as defamatory statements

Edited by Denis Irwin - 30 Mar 2018 at 1:44pm
Eamonn Dunphy:"I'll tell you who wrote it, Rod Liddle, he's the guy who ran away and left his wife for a young one".

Bill O'Herlihy: Ah ye can't be saying that now Eamonn
Back to Top
Het-field View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 6082
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Het-field Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 1:54pm
Defamation depends on the statement. The same applies to the complainant, and depending on the statement it may be actionable. The further the person making the statement diverges from the outcome, the more likely they are to be successfully liable in defamation. Anybody who claims guilt is liable, and it would be actionable.

Edited by Het-field - 30 Mar 2018 at 1:55pm
Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 8671
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 1:57pm
Originally posted by Denis Irwin Denis Irwin wrote:

Defamation. Whether you like it or not they were found not guilty in the eyes of the law. What you think of the case does not entitle you to make what could be construed as defamatory statements
If somebody had said after Sean Fitzpatrick was acquitted: "The smug, entitled middle class boy wins out again", I highly doubt we would have heard very much about it. 

What's the difference with this?
Get the pints in
Back to Top
greenforever View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 6343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote greenforever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 2:10pm
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by Denis Irwin Denis Irwin wrote:

Defamation. Whether you like it or not they were found not guilty in the eyes of the law. What you think of the case does not entitle you to make what could be construed as defamatory statements
If somebody had said after Sean Fitzpatrick was acquitted: "The smug, entitled middle class boy wins out again", I highly doubt we would have heard very much about it. 

What's the difference with this?


Probably Fitzpatrick has enough cop on to quit while he's ahead.

Jackson if he starts suing people he could well end up losing and he will ensure his disgraced name remains in the public eye longer.

Olding seems to have been better advised with his statement where while insisting his innocence he did say he regretted his actions on the night.
I know nothing :-)
Back to Top
Het-field View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 6082
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Het-field Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 2:10pm
Sid, its in the context of the entire statement that it can be defamatory.

Something that people can disagree can still be defamatory. I recall the Rory O'Neill interview.
Back to Top
Roberto Baggio View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
UNBELIEVABLE JEFF

Joined: 28 Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 30440
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Roberto Baggio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 2:18pm
Originally posted by greenforever greenforever wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by Denis Irwin Denis Irwin wrote:

Defamation. Whether you like it or not they were found not guilty in the eyes of the law. What you think of the case does not entitle you to make what could be construed as defamatory statements
If somebody had said after Sean Fitzpatrick was acquitted: "The smug, entitled middle class boy wins out again", I highly doubt we would have heard very much about it. 

What's the difference with this?

 
Probably Fitzpatrick has enough cop on to quit while he's ahead.

Jackson if he starts suing people he could well end up losing and he will ensure his disgraced name remains in the public eye longer.

Olding seems to have been better advised with his statement where while insisting his innocence he did say he regretted his actions on the night.
 
Was nice of Olding to apologise to the girl for any hurt caused outside the court.
 
Jackson's solicitor came across as a pompous arrogant coont
 
 
Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 8671
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 2:20pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Sid, its in the context of the entire statement that it can be defamatory.

Something that people can disagree can still be defamatory. I recall the Rory O'Neill interview.

I don't know who Rory O'Neill is so you'll have to explain that. 

I agree with greenforever that Jackson is only digging a deeper hole for himself here and that Olding has sort of defused the situation regarding himself to an extent with his statement.

At best, Jackson will be on very shaky legal ground in terms of bringing an action. 

He'll also effectively secure O'Riordain's re-election to the Dail.

But most of all, the more he digs in and brings spurious legal actions, the more he'll make himself public enemy number one. 

Sooner or later, whether he's playing for Ulster or for an English or French team, he'll likely have to play a rugby match on this island, and things could get very nasty indeed that day, especially when he has to take a place kick.

I'll put it this way, there won't be silence as there normally is.


Get the pints in
Back to Top
GB 1HughJarse View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady
Avatar

Joined: 03 Sep 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 2091
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GB 1HughJarse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 2:28pm
What did the juror actually say?
Back to Top
Roberto Baggio View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
UNBELIEVABLE JEFF

Joined: 28 Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 30440
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Roberto Baggio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 2:30pm
Sid, a few weeks ago on here you were more or less saying they were for the slammer, and that you couldn't understand how so many on the thread were saying that the lads would all walk.
Now you're biggest hope is if Jackson is ever taking a penalty kick in Ireland again there may not be silence in the crowd.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
greenforever View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 6343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote greenforever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 2:37pm
Originally posted by Roberto Baggio Roberto Baggio wrote:

Sid, a few weeks ago on here you were more or less saying they were for the slammer, and that you couldn't understand how so many on the thread were saying that the lads would all walk.
Now you're biggest hope is if Jackson is ever taking a penalty kick in Ireland again there may not be silence in the crowd.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Jackson will never play Rugby for Ulster or Ireland again.

If the IRFU were to allow his contract to be reinstated Sponsors will walk away.

Ulster Rugby rely on the IRFU for funding and even they would lose sponsors if they allowed him back.

Olding with his apology just may in a few years get to play for an Irish team but as of now they have no chance of playing here or even in the UK.
I know nothing :-)
Back to Top
Het-field View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 6082
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Het-field Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2018 at 2:38pm
Rory O'Neill is PANTI, who made statements on RTÉ about the Iona Institute which were acted upon:

The wisdom of suing is something that is between the complainant and their lawyer, but it does open up the case again, and more public scrutiny and interest. But that does not mean they are spurious. You may not like the defendants, but that doesn't mean they can't be defamed, or wouldn't win defamation actions related to the case.

Edited by Het-field - 30 Mar 2018 at 7:12pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 299300301302303 356>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.00
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.