Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
2m
Judge:
You must guard against speculation and prejudice
It is easy to be outraged when allegations of sexual assualt are made, and it is easy to be sympathetic to a young woman who has shown distress at having to recall the night that is in question in this trial
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
3m
Any person who has been raped will have undergone trauma and it is impossible to predict how the individual will react in the following days , there is no classic reaction, some people resisit/freeze
You must not assume that she is telling the truth because she showed distress
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
2m
Judge:
The morals of any person involved in this trial are completely irrelevant in this trial.
You must not jump to the conclusion that a criminal offence has been committed because you don’t agree with the sexual behaviour
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
29s
Judge: (on the whatsapp)
Even if a man holds a derogatory opinion of women that does not mean an intention to have non-consensual sex
Men may use expressions that are common parlance between themselves but that might not reflect what they actually think
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
2m
Judge:
Bear in mind that communications between friends have to be seen in that context, WhatsApps are likely to be misconstrued, information conveyed by text is likely to be less complete than that in a formal statement to an authority.
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
39s
Judge is now explaining the burden of proof:
None of the defendants have to prove their innocence.
The prosecution must prove guilt, and you must be firmly convinced or sure of guilt to return that verdict.
But you do not need to be certain, the law does not require that.
Isn’t the word ‘certain’ a synonym for ‘convinced’?
The judge just ruined most of the case being made here by sid and Katie o Shea and the rest of the goons 
I think it implies you need to be sure but you don’t need to be 100% - as nobody can ever be 100% in this type of case. Beyond reasonable doubt - not all doubt. Judge giving very clear and fair instructions here - it’s quite interesting.
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
10m
Judge: There are 6 counts on the inditement, and you must make 6 decisions.
Do not assume that your decision has to be the same in respect of all or some of the defendants or the counts.
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
7m
Judge is going to explain what the prosecution has to prove and what the law means.
On the count of rape, Jackson’s charge, the prosecution has to prove three things:
…2) that she did not consent
Not looking good for Jackson
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
4m
Judge: There is no consent, when a woman is so overcome by fear, where she lacks any capacity to give consent, where she is submitting to what takes place.
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
5m
Judge: The prosecution does not have to prove that the woman resisted physically, that she said that she did not consent, or that she was overcome by fear.
Judge says that in relation to the kissing in Jackson’s bedroom the jury’s conclusions as to the issue of the kissing upstairs and how it stopped is important, as to whether Jackson could later believe consent was given…
Interesting - I didn’t think about this point too much.
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
5m
Judge: In deciding whether she consented or submitted, you should apply your common sense and knowledge of life to all of the relevant facts, including what happened earlier in the night.
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
4m
Judge: If you are sure that Jackson did not believe and did not reasonably believe that she was consenting, you must ind him guilty
If on the other hand you find that Jackson genuinely believed that she consented, then you must go on to decide whether his belief was reasonable
Rosanna Cooney
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
3m
…and you must find him not guilty.
Judge says that in relation to the kissing in Jackson’s bedroom the jury’s conclusions as tot the issue of the kissing upstairs and how it stopped is important, as to whether Jackson could later believe consent was given.
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
3m
Judge: the law is that when you are considering whether you are sure that Jackson did not reasonably believe that the woman was consenting to penetration you must take no account of the fact that he was drunk.