Jackson & Olding

[hugh_woatmeigh]

I’m just baffled by anyone thinking the truth of this situation is blindingly obvious, whichever way it goes.

What part are you struggling with?

I don't see how anything non-consensual has happened. I do however see Jackson's legal team clutching at some morally questionable straws in a bid to save his career and life. The fact that it worked has rustled a few feathers and I can understand why. Still doesn't change the fact that he and Olding didn't break the law.

[Digby]

I don't see how anything non-consensual has happened.

No possibility even with a complainant willing go to the police, endure preparation for the trial, receiving social media abuse herself and within her family, and having to sit for day after day during the trial as each defence team sought to identify any discrepancy in testimony?

All we know is during a trial the threshold wasn't reached that saw a jury willing to return a guilty verdict. We can't possibly know what the various persons during the event did and/or thought they were doing. There is a presumption of innocence around the rape charge, though of course not everyone will accept that Vs some others being anything up to angry a charge was ever sought, and there are some concerns about certain patterns of behaviour beyond the claimed act of rape.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

I don't see how anything non-consensual has happened.

No possibility even with a complainant willing go to the police, endure preparation for the trial, receiving social media abuse herself and within her family, and having to sit for day after day during the trial as each defence team sought to identify any discrepancy in testimony?

All we know is during a trial the threshold wasn't reached that saw a jury willing to return a guilty verdict. We can't possibly know what the various persons during the event did and/or thought they were doing. There is a presumption of innocence around the rape charge, though of course not everyone will accept that Vs some others being anything up to angry a charge was ever sought, and there are some concerns about certain patterns of behaviour beyond the claimed act of rape.

Every little detail down to the position the 3 of them adopted screams consent. No screaming, no resistance, no shouting, no attempt to cry for help despite Neighbours and others at the house gathering being within earshot?

Her version of events has changed multiple times from what I am reading.

She's a young girl. I suspect she got a bit emotional the morning after, regretted it massively and decided she didn't want it to happen after the fact.

I don't really see the point in your first comment. I suspect it got escalated pretty quickly (too quickly) and backing out became less and less of a viable option as this progressed.

FTR I don't doubt she wishes this hasn't happened and in hindsight didn't want it to happen. Doesn't change the fact that the evidence points towards this being consensual at the time. No need to try and ruin somebody's life over a drunken mistake. A drunken mistake and rape are two very different things.

Here though. Can anyone tell me why the police contacted Ulster rugby to get hold of Jackson and Olding to pop down the station? From what I am reading that was the police's first port of call - it's not as if they couldn't get hold of them. Apparently Kiss & Cunninginham contacted the two lads and had to tell them to get down the station. I would be beyond raging if the police had done that with my employer. Do they actually have the right to do that?

The whole thing just seems to be a complete disorganised and unprofessional mess.

[Digby]

So all victims of a violent crime must scream/shout loudly in order to be recognised as a victim? That doesn't meet any mininum standard of common sense or common decency

[hugh_woatmeigh]

So all victims of a violent crime must scream/shout loudly in order to be recognised as a victim? That doesn't meet any mininum standard of common sense or common decency

Are you being deliberately dense? There were other people in the house. The slightest bit of resistance would have alerted their attention.

McIlroy's barrister made it as clear as day that the house was small enough, the gathering was as quiet enough that a single call for help or a shout would have alerted the others downstairs. A point that was not contested.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

So all victims of a violent crime must scream/shout loudly in order to be recognised as a victim? That doesn't meet any mininum standard of common sense or common decency

Are you being deliberately dense? There were other people in the house. The slightest bit of resistance would have alerted their attention.

McIlroy's barrister made it as clear as day that the house was small enough, the gathering was as quiet enough that a single call for help or a shout would have alerted the others downstairs. A point that was not contested.

Actually you're the one being dense. It is an absolutely recognised phenomenon that some victims of rape freeze, and that people suffering trauma, and potentially PTSD, won't be terribly consistent in their attempts to recall what happened. The question is only whether it's possible to exclude consent from the range of possible reasons for her behaviour.

[Digby]

So all victims of a violent crime must scream/shout loudly in order to be recognised as a victim? That doesn't meet any mininum standard of common sense or common decency

Are you being deliberately dense? There were other people in the house. The slightest bit of resistance would have alerted their attention.

McIlroy's barrister made it as clear as day that the house was small enough, the gathering was as quiet enough that a single call for help or a shout would have alerted the others downstairs. A point that was not contested.

I don't read a damn thing into the size of the house of the presence of other people into how one individual may respond. You just never know how people will respond.

To drag us back onto a little rugby I used to (as a former 9) play with a hooker who at every scrum clean forgot to indicate he wanted the ball in at the scrum, he was a bright lad gaining a 1st and post doctorate qualifications, he spoke well (and often) on many things including the scrum, but put into the scrum he clearly wasn't in that position able to communicate with his brain focusing entirely on other things. It wasn't much of a problem given he'd respond to a tap on the shoulder prior to putting the ball in, but I did always wonder if he came under too much pressure would he remember to shout 'neck'. That we don't know how people will respond to pressure if also why you never know if a player with talent will play well at higher levels, they might mentally lose focus or worse.

So I don't mind if the point wasn't contested that the victim didn't scream for help, it's maybe not an irrelevant point, but if the victim simply says they froze then what the hell is one able to infer from that? Maybe at most you're back to the problem of a he said/she said trial

[Spiffy]

I think there is too much rehashing of the trial in all its detail in this thread. It's over, and the verdict is not guilty of rape. The issue now is whether the IRFU/Ulster have grounds to cancel the contracts of Jackson and Olding for bring the game into disrepute, based on the doings (not illegal) of that night and the aftermath. Some sections of the Irish media/population at large seem to be pushing hard for this decision. I think it unfortunate that an IRFU/Ulster review committee may be put under such public pressure which might shade the outcome, but you can't blame people for thinking what they think and talking about it.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

Craig Gilroy also subject to ‘internal review’ as a result of a WhatsApp message attributed to him which came to light during the trial. He will not play this weekend.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.inde ... 71214.html

[kk67]

Ok let's take this in stages.I read little about this case until after the verdict and even then what I have read is limited. I've avoided most of the bollocks on twitter. i am not called to the NI Bar and have never watched a case there that has involved a jury.

1. It's counsel, not council. A pet peeve.

2. Under 4 hours deliberation for a 42 day trial is extremely short, suggesting that this was not a close run thing. Fwiw the consensus at work on the very little we knew about this case was that none of us would have charged it, the test being whether a jury is more likely than not to convict. For most of us the key piece of evidence was the person who walked in and thought there was nowt untoward. bear in mind when considering the case the newspaper reports are always wrong and never report the contradictions in a complainant's evidence or any suggestion that the defence were making headway. I don't know at what level the decision was taken to prosecute but for a Prosecution Service they were onto a complete loser either way. Don't prosecute and there would always be a suspcicion that they had not done so because the suspects (well 2 of them) were famous. Prosecute, and you risk the condemnation that has come from some quarters that you were doing so on weak evidence and potentially only because they were famous.

3. Let's assume that PJ and SO were telling the truth and are accurate. If that's the case then:
a. The drunkenness is not an issue because they had finished their season and were off for at least a few weeks.
b. Everything that happened that night was entirely consensual and indeed largely at the young woman's instigation.
c. the context of the text messages is not so bad. There is no crimeAt worst it can be said that the messages taken as a whole are vulgar disrespectful and misogynist - though each person would be accountable only for their own messages, and from memory PJ says little and the worst offenders aren't the Ulster boys. It seems to me extremely unlikely that anyone (even me whose job it is to prosecute these cases) would be likely to lose their jobs over that done in their free time without expectation of publication. No barrister would be disbarred, no solicitor would be removed from the roll. A year's suspension would probably be considered a pretty harsh punishment.

3. Let's assume the worst possible set of facts consistent with a NG verdict by the jury: that would be that the young woman was not consenting but that they both did not unreasonably believe that she was.
a. It's important to note that their belief in consent was not only genuine, but not unreasonable. That they were hammered could not have been taken into consideration in the reasonableness of their belief.
b. the jury were not sure that the complainant was telling the truth. In this day and age (presumably even NI) juries convict if they think there's someone pleading not to have sex.
c. They would not only not be criminally culpable but it would be extremely difficult for the IRFU to suggest any moral blame for what occurred. In these enightened times there is nowt wrong with having a threesome between (apparently) consenting adults.
d. The text messages are marginally worse, but realistically not any more likely to land them in trouble.

4. There is absolutely zero chance of any review by the IRFU going behind the verdicts to decide whether "on the balance of probabilities" they raped her. There would be all sorts of violations of natural justice were they to attempt to do so, and short of convening a new trial which I'm guessing the complainant wouldn't be up for.

5. My guess would be that the IRFU would immediately have asked Joe if either figures in his plans. I'm assuming that Joe will be interested in both because injuries happen. They will then suggest to them that they might like to stand down for the rest of the season - Ulster are fucked anyway - but that the Union will express it as a ban for a season for bringing the Union into disrepute. They'll probably find some community thing for them to do as well, or a fine to be given to woman's rugby or something.

6. I'm not absolutely sure but i think that in NI you still get your legal costs back from central funds if you are acquitted. it's chnaged in England but I don't think it had effect in NI.

Good post, Euge'.

I've never understood this desire among sportsmen to 'share' a woman. Always sounded a bit revolting to me.
Blydi internet porn convincing dickheads that they need to experience a threesome before they die.
I had a threesome at Uni',....but mine was a tad different.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

And hi all. Apparently being a single parent limits one's ability to talk bullshit about rugby, but I thought you might like such insight as I could give on this one.

[Donny osmond]

And hi all. Apparently being a single parent limits one's ability to talk bullshit about rugby, but I thought you might like such insight as I could give on this one.

Good to have you back, as and when you can

[Peat]

Craig Gilroy also subject to ‘internal review’ as a result of a WhatsApp message attributed to him which came to light during the trial. He will not play this weekend.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.inde ... 71214.html

I'll be relieved if it only goes that far tbh. Maybe I'm over cynical.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

I don't think many of the others are able to use a smart phone.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Ffs, what is wrong with people.

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/sport/rug ... r-14494406

[SerjeantWildgoose]

Dear God! I can assure you neither of those lads is Sparky/Uncle Bob - even the PJ impersonator would need to put on a couple of stone to come close.

People are twats, Eugene. Just twats, is all.

[Digby]

In fairness it's nothing on the charming folk of Drogheda United or Laois GAA, though I suppose I hadn't heard of Drogheda United or Laois GAA prior to this last week so they've raised their profile somewhat.

[BBD]

From The Irish Times today

Paddy Jackson has said he is ashamed the woman who accused him of rape left his home distressed and has apologised for betraying the values of his family.
Jackson (26) and his Ireland and Ulster teammate Stuart Olding (25) were unanimously acquitted in Belfast Crown Court last week of raping the same woman at a party at Jackson’s south Belfast home in June 2016. Jackson was also found not guilty of sexual assault.
He told the Press Association he would always regret the events of the night in question.
“I am ashamed that a young woman who was a visitor to my home left in a distressed state,” he said.
“This was never my intention and I will always regret the events of that evening.”
The flyhalf, capped by Ireland 25 times, apologised unreservedly for engaging in “degrading and offensive” Whatsapp conversations about the incident.

Jackson also said public criticism of his behaviour was “fully justified” and he expressed determination to return to the values and principles that guided his upbringing, in particular the importance of respect.
Jackson and Olding have both expressed a desire to return to rugby action.
They remain relieved of their duties pending the outcome of a review into their conduct by Ulster Rugby and the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU).
That exercise is focusing on a series of sexually explicit messages sent by the players and their friends in the wake of the incident.
Jackson said: “I am also truly sorry for engaging in a Whatsapp group chat which was degrading and offensive and I apologise unreservedly for this.
“The criticism of my behaviour is fully justified and I know I have betrayed the values of my family and those of the wider public.
“Following the trial I have taken time to reflect with my family on the values that were such an integral part of my upbringing, the most important of which is respect.

“My departure from these values has caused understandable public anger and I am resolutely committed to returning to those principles.”
In the wake of his acquittal, Olding also expressed regret for his involvement in the incident.
Two other men were unanimously acquitted of lesser charges related to the high profile case.
Blane McIlroy (26) was acquitted of exposure while Rory Harrison (25) was found not guilty of perverting the course of justice and withholding information.







Dont think theres much more he could have said, though I dare say some will claim its too little too late

[Digby]

Dont think theres much more he could have said, though I dare say some will claim its too little too late

The behaviour on the night seems much more the thing than what he says now. It seems almost irrelevant rather than too little.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

Dont think theres much more he could have said, though I dare say some will claim its too little too late

He didn't say a word of that though. All expertly written and prepared by his legal team.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I suspect written by the IRFU's legal team. Looks like the first step to the sort of resolution I suggested that there would be: an acknowledgement of our behaviour followed by a ban most of which has already been served but which allows them to begin training with a view to the RWC next year.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Dear God! I can assure you neither of those lads is Sparky/Uncle Bob - even the PJ impersonator would need to put on a couple of stone to come close.

People are twats, Eugene. Just twats, is all.

I've been dealing with one on the URSC Facebook page who's been slagging off everyone who gives a view other than that they've done nothing wrong, but when I pointed this out (and thoroughly annihilated his "argument") said he wasn't prepared to speak to me in a thread on a post which is him accusing someone of running scared. You honestly couldn't make it up.

[kk67]

People are twats, Eugene. Just twats, is all.

They are bonkers.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

I stand corrected.

They are twats and bonkers.

[BBD]

Pious,Twats, & Bonkers

Solicitors to the Glitterati