Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

ohnonotgmail · 14-12-2018 7:42pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Jackson and Olding left on the hook for their legal costs in Belfast today. Reports saying that it could be around £500,000 for Jackson and £250,000 for Olding. On top of that they also have to pay the legal costs of the BBC for their failed civil action for breach of privacy, that is a six figure sum too.

The judge didnt seem impressed with Jackson as he refused to reveal his current finaancial situation as part of his application for legal costs. Without him being transparent about his finances the judge didnt seem likely to put his legal bill back on the taxpayer. They have an appeal to the decision to come but it doesnt look good for them.

Im conflicted on this, especially as they were found not guilty. Im not sure of the free legal aid mechanisms in the north but presume they could have availed of it as part of a criminal trial? If so and they decided to go with different lawyers than the free legal aid scheme then I suppose thats a risk they took and its not worked out. But if they werent entitled to free legal aid then it seems harsh to fix them with the costs of a trial in which they were found not guilty.

Neither were entitled to free legal aid at the start of their trial. Olding became eligible half way through because he ran out of money to pay his lawyers.

AllForIt · 14-12-2018 7:51pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Neither were entitled to free legal aid at the start of their trial. Olding became eligible half way through because he ran out of money to pay his lawyers.

If that's the case and I don't doubt you then how could the judge say this:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1214/1017229-jackson-olding-court-costs/

... there is simply no evidence upon which this court could conclude that the financial circumstances of either Mr Jackson or Mr Olding have been irrevocably changed as a consequence of the prosecution for rape and that this is a relevant factor to take into account in determining the applications,"

Certainly looks like Olding ran out of cash...unless he was lying. Or is the judge taking his future earning into account which seems a bit unfair.

ohnonotgmail · 14-12-2018 8:18pm

AllForIt wrote: »

If that's the case and I don't doubt you then how could the judge say this:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1214/1017229-jackson-olding-court-costs/

Certainly looks like Olding ran out of cash...unless he was lying. Or is the judge taking his future earning into account which seems a bit unfair.

I have no idea if olding was lying. But if you look at the legal bills for both men oldings is only half of jacksons. the judge did say irrevocably so i imagine he thinks that olding can recover his financial position in time

14-12-2018 8:26pm

Judge Smyth said: "This was a complex police investigation and the prosecution was warranted, albeit the jury did not consider that the charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt....."

Mmmm an interesting statement

Richard Hillman · 14-12-2018 8:32pm

I heard the headlines on the radio earlier. One thing that got me was that the court didn't believe that their release from Ulster/Ireland contracts were directly attributed to the trial. No Matter what you believe on case, that is an outrageous statement. Paddy Jackson would 100% have an Ulster/Ireland contact right now if it were not for the case.

14-12-2018 8:34pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I heard the headlines on the radio earlier. One thing that got me was that the court didn't believe that their release from Ulster/Ireland contracts were directly attributed to the trial. No Matter what you believe on case, that is an outrageous statement. Paddy Jackson would 100% have an Ulster/Ireland contact right now if it were not for the case.

It appears that they refused to give details of how the court case affected their future finances or give details of their severance packages.

paw patrol · 14-12-2018 8:35pm

It is worrying that an innocent person can be on the hook financially for defending themselves from years in jail and a lifetime of being a pariah.
All it can take is a single accusation despite beating that and the power of the crown and you are financially on the hook.

I hope they win their appeal

c.p.w.g.w · 14-12-2018 8:41pm

Augeo wrote: »

Judge Smyth said: "This was a complex police investigation and the prosecution was warranted, albeit the jury did not consider that the charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt....."

Mmmm an interesting statement

Its funny, I know a Sargent in Dublin and he has friend in the PSNI.

According to my friend, from talking about the case with his PSNI colleague. If this happened in Ireland it would never have made it to court as it had zero chance to leading to a conviction as the evidence was no where near sufficient.

paw patrol · 14-12-2018 8:43pm

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Its funny, I know a Sargent in Dublin and he has friend in the PSNI.

According to my friend, from talking about the case with his PSNI colleague. If this happened in Ireland it would never have made it to court as it had zero chance to leading to a conviction as the evidence was no where near sufficient.

of course, the jury were back in record time with a verdict,

judge only saying this cos otherwise she is the dope that presided over the whole charade in the first place

James Brown · 14-12-2018 9:02pm

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Its funny, I know a Sargent in Dublin and he has friend in the PSNI.

According to my friend, from talking about the case with his PSNI colleague. If this happened in Ireland it would never have made it to court as it had zero chance to leading to a conviction as the evidence was no where near sufficient.

So you've got nothing that would stand up outside of a pub discussion.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I heard the headlines on the radio earlier. One thing that got me was that the court didn't believe that their release from Ulster/Ireland contracts were directly attributed to the trial. No Matter what you believe on case, that is an outrageous statement. Paddy Jackson would 100% have an Ulster/Ireland contact right now if it were not for the case.

True but because of their chatter on Whatsapp wasn't it, Not the presumption of guilt?

facehugger99 · 14-12-2018 9:16pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I heard the headlines on the radio earlier. One thing that got me was that the court didn't believe that their release from Ulster/Ireland contracts were directly attributed to the trial. No Matter what you believe on case, that is an outrageous statement. Paddy Jackson would 100% have an Ulster/Ireland contact right now if it were not for the case.

Their contracts were terminated due to their behavior and rightly so.

up for anything · 14-12-2018 9:33pm

Augeo wrote: »

Judge Smyth said: "This was a complex police investigation and the prosecution was warranted, albeit the jury did not consider that the charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt....."

Mmmm an interesting statement

That caught my interest too. It sounds like she thought they were guilty.

14-12-2018 9:39pm

Well an eyewitness claimed she saw penetrative sex.....there was a lady claiming she was raped.....Jackson's defence was he digitally penetrated her..... no sex no rape ...... murky enough really

BENDYBINN · 14-12-2018 10:23pm

They were found not guilty.......

ProfessorPlum · 14-12-2018 10:46pm

Augeo wrote: »

Well an eyewitness claimed she saw penetrative sex.....there was a lady claiming she was raped.....Jackson's defence was he digitally penetrated her..... no sex no rape ...... murky enough really

Think you might want to rethink that statement.......

(Non consensual digital penetration is rape, so not murky at all)

Faugheen · 15-12-2018 1:10pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I heard the headlines on the radio earlier. One thing that got me was that the court didn't believe that their release from Ulster/Ireland contracts were directly attributed to the trial. No Matter what you believe on case, that is an outrageous statement. Paddy Jackson would 100% have an Ulster/Ireland contact right now if it were not for the case.

True, but then Judge Smyth also said that there was legit reasons for prosecution (or something along those lines).

He also refused to provide a statement for how the case has affected his finances and his current earnings. Between his severance package and his earner in France, I'd say he's doing fine.

He also chose to hire expensive lawyers, nobody else. I'm surprised people are surprised that he lost this.

DavidLyons_ · 15-12-2018 2:41pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

Their contracts were terminated due to their behavior and rightly so.

And what behavior was that?

Jackson’s single and only contribution to the WhatsApp group was the comment, “there was a lot of spit roasting going on”. His ONLY contribution! He lost his career for that and being prosecuted and subsequently ACQUITTED for alleged rape.

God help us if any of the #IBelieveHer morons ever find their way onto a jury.

Roger Hassenforder · 15-12-2018 2:55pm

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

And what behavior was that?

Jackson’s single and only contribution to the WhatsApp group was the comment, “there was a lot of spit roasting going on”. His ONLY contribution! He lost his career for that and being prosecuted and subsequently ACQUITTED for alleged rape.

God help us if any of the #IBelieveHer morons ever find their way onto a jury.

Heres Craig Gilroy who said far worse being retweeted by UR. PJ thrown under the bus.

https://twitter.com/cgilroy14/status/1073688250605334533?s=19

Lucy8080 · 15-12-2018 2:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It appears that they refused to give details of how the court case affected their future finances or give details of their severance packages.

Their future financial prospects are definitely reduced since this case. I don't think any observer could argue against that fact.

The refusal to reveal their severance packages? Would that possibly be tied up with disclosure agreements?

I haven't read up on this ,so a bit of speculation on my part.

facehugger99 · 15-12-2018 2:59pm

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

And what behavior was that?

Jackson’s single and only contribution to the WhatsApp group was the comment, “there was a lot of spit roasting going on”. His ONLY contribution! He lost his career for that and being prosecuted and subsequently ACQUITTED for alleged rape.

God help us if any of the #IBelieveHer morons ever find their way onto a jury.

He lost his career because a drunk, hysterical and bleeding teenager left Gentleman Paady’s gaff in the middle of the night. Not that Paddy was too concerned about how she was getting home. Paddy laughed about it the next day with his mates and made sure they all got their stories straight.

The difficulties faced by women in securing a rape verdict are bourne out by the shockingly low prosecution and conviction rates.

All in all, I’m delighted to see Paddy lose his career, his cash and his future earning potential.

He got away lightly imo.

Lucy8080 · 15-12-2018 3:12pm

"All in all, I’m delighted to see Paddy lose his career, his cash and his future earning potential." - Facehugger99."

He was found not guilty by a jury.

You say he has lost career ,cash and future earning potential.

Seems straight forward as a case for legal aid.

mad muffin · 15-12-2018 3:13pm

BENDYBINN wrote: »

They were found not guilty.......

Criminally not guilty. But in the court of public opinion they are fücking scum.

Lucy8080 · 15-12-2018 3:16pm

mad muffin wrote: »

Criminally not guilty. But in the court of public opinion they are fücking scum.

How many members of the public witnessed this event?

mad muffin · 15-12-2018 3:19pm

Lucy8080 wrote: »

How many members of the public witnessed this event?

I’m sure if they did they wouldn’t have stood idly by.

salmocab · 15-12-2018 3:19pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

He lost his career because a drunk, hysterical and bleeding teenager left Gentleman Paady’s gaff in the middle of the night. Not that Paddy was too concerned about how she was getting home. Paddy laughed about it the next day with his mates and made sure they all got their stories straight.

The difficulties faced by women in securing a rape verdict are bourne out by the shockingly low prosecution and conviction rates.

All in all, I’m delighted to see Paddy lose his career, his cash and his future earning potential.

He got away lightly imo.

He certainly didn’t make sure they got their stories straight as no two stories from anyone that night was the same, including the girl and the witnesses.

Lucy8080 · 15-12-2018 3:23pm

mad muffin wrote: »

I’m sure if they did they wouldn’t have stood idly by.

Two words.

Dara Florence.

One more.

"witness".

Roger Hassenforder · 15-12-2018 4:00pm

mad muffin wrote: »

I’m sure if they did they wouldn’t have stood idly by.

They surely wouldnt just close the door on a serious sexual assault...

AudreyHepburn · 15-12-2018 4:45pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

He lost his career because a drunk, hysterical and bleeding teenager left Gentleman Paady’s gaff in the middle of the night. Not that Paddy was too concerned about how she was getting home. Paddy laughed about it the next day with his mates and made sure they all got their stories straight.

The difficulties faced by women in securing a rape verdict are bourne out by the shockingly low prosecution and conviction rates.

All in all, I’m delighted to see Paddy lose his career, his cash and his future earning potential.

He got away lightly imo.

You do realize that they were found not guilty? There was no rape, no sexual assault, no victim.

The texts were a bit unsavory yes but they aren’t grounds for ruining a man’s life or jumping to conclusions about how he thinks about women. We cannot and should not try to police peoples private conversations.

As regards the woman involved - tears and blood do not equal rape and to suggest otherwise is at best naive.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 15-12-2018 4:50pm

mad muffin wrote: »

Criminally not guilty. But in the court of public opinion they are fücking scum.

You don’t own the realm of public opinion to speak for it.
They all had their day in court; acquitted.
Referring to someone as scum when you weren’t there; that’s a lot closer to scum.

jm08 · 15-12-2018 11:42pm

munstermagic11 wrote: »

You don’t own the realm of public opinion to speak for it.
They all had their day in court; acquitted.
Referring to someone as scum when you weren’t there; that’s a lot closer to scum.

Nearly 7 in 10 people think the IRFU was right to sack Jackson and Olding

https://www.thejournal.ie/jackson-olding-poll-3961719-Apr2018/

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments