@ConorGallaghe_r
now
More
Olding says he didn’t leave bedroom immediately because the complainant turned, looked at him and held out her hand (he demonstrates the gesture)
Counsel: this is not withstanding she was also performing oral sex on her friend
Olding: I don’t remember seeing oral sex
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet Like Direct message
Show this thread
Conor Gallagher
@ConorGallaghe_r
4m4 minutes ago
More
Olding is being given transcripts of his police interviews. He is asked about his answer telling police Jackson and the woman “were just kissing” when he walked in (Jackson has said she was performing oral sex on him at this point)
Considering both parties here can’t be right… either one lying, or both are lying…I’m going to go with what the Independent witness and the complainant say was happening - Jackson was penetrating her from behind.
A bit of grandstanding from the qc. There’s not much chance of the members of a threesome,
or a twosome twosome putting together a blow by blow or stroke by stroke account of any drunken engagement
He’s moving the jury away from any notion of force being used and instead concentrating on the issue of consent.
Making fools of the defendants isn’t difficult but it won’t be that effective either once the case moves on a little.
So far he has ignored the complainant’s version of how she started performing oral on olding, mainly because of the weakness in this aspect of her statement and the probable interference by the psni in relation to this.
There’s very little to say about this cross examination, but hedworth seems to promise more in the afternoon.
what amusing is how one side would state one thing and it would be completely refuted by the other and now the same argument made by one side is exactly the argument they were disagreeing with a couple of weeks back. not only is this going round and round, but fucking upside down and everyone using the very same argument on the very same point to get completely different views.
It’s fascinating to watch. As you said there has been nothing new in weeks, yet both claiming victory once something has been repeated in court for the 3rd time.
Yes, but the pretend lawyers go the extra mile to signify expertise and knowledge by referencing a precedent case (Crowley-Delargy 1995?) or by including Latin terminology (mea culpa?).
We should organize a proper debate system here - 3 v 3 - 1 from team A gets to post and only 1 from team B gets to reply, once we’ve gone a full round - A member from team B can lead off - either continuing from previous round or introducing new topic.
