I could be wrong here but this is a criminal case and they can’t do anything about it until after the verdict c.c @artfoley
You could file the suit and then adjourn it but it could be used against the complainant. But criminal trial stops statute of limitations so you can file after verdict.
2 Likes
This is not a fog of war, asymmetric warfare type arena. It’s a criminal trial in which the credibility of the witnesses is crucial.
The prosecution has won that battle easily.
The fog of war approach only undermines the defence and makes them all look like liars, which they obviously are.
3 Likes
But it is.
It explicitly contradicts the version of a sober, independent witness who has corroborated the complainant’s version of events. It looks very, very bad for him on that front, his two buddies have also contradicted his version of events but the independent witness has backed the girls account of the positions of the men and what they were doing.
Then they have another guy up who is covering for Jackson and looks very guilty of attempting to distort the authorities with a coverup story.
It doesn’t look good and that’s a big problem.
3 Likes
Have you ever considered boiling your head?
7 Likes
So I’m half right?
1 Like
Ah no I mean then.
If I was innocent I would not want to spend a fucking penny
1 Like
It’s already boiled mate.
I doubt if there are more than two neurons connected. The two that have been stuck saying the same thing repeatedly.
4 Likes
But in increasingly tedious ways
The truth doesn’t change, something a spoofer like you finds a bit too complex to comprehend.
So tell us the “truth” of what happened in this case then. Based on your extensive knowledge of sexual encounters obviously.
Seriously, go and boil your head. Now
Inconsistencies in all their accounts. Clearly all after drinking and putting best foot forward
Police also cannot explain their actions
———
The woman was also questioned about comments she made to one of the defendants in the aftermath of the attack, in which she is claimed to have said “this does not happen to a girl like me”.
Mr Kelly asked: “What doesn’t happen to a girl like you? “Rape, as far as we know, can happen to any girl.” The woman replied: “Yes, it can and it happened to me.”
The lawyer further suggested: “What might not happen to girls like you is that you are witnessed in group sexual activity?”
——///
Frank O’Donoghue QC, Mr Olding’s defence barrister, put it to the police officer: “Was it not apparent there were significant inconsistencies between what the complainant said to the Rowan and what she was telling the police?”
“Yes there were,” the officer replied.
——-
When he was asked about details the complainant gave regarding Mr Olding’s part in the sex attack, the Detective Constable said she was interviewed two days after the alleged incident
When asked about the mechanics of the sex attack, and how Mr Olding’s penis came to be in her mouth, she told police, “I am not entirely sure to be honest.” When she was again asked in the same interview about this, she said: “There was no conversation. I didn’t have a choice. I am really sure my head was forced down.”
——///
The officer said she had “no explanation” as to why she made no note of when she was told there was a potential eyewitness to the alleged rape.
Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are accused of raping the same woman in Mr Jackson’s house, in the early hours of 28 June 2016.
The alleged victim told police another woman came into the bedroom briefly.
In court on Thursday, the senior investigating officer was asked why she made no record in 110 pages of notes about when she was first told about the existence of a potential eyewitness.
“I have no explanation as to why it’s not included,” she said.
———-
2 Likes
Not really interested in looking like you.
1 Like
To be honest Kevin, I’d say even if found not guilty, everyone is better off just walking away
Big saucepan. Now!
But Jackson is very adamant he did not do something the witness 100% saw him do.
Is that your nickname?