Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
2m
Judge: you have to be sure that the prosecution has proved each element of the offence before you can find Jackson guilty.
This is a powerful closing address from the defence counsel.
4 Likes
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
1m
On count 2 the judge says the prosecution must prove 4 things:
- Jackson intentionally used his fingers to penetrate her vagina, the slightest penetration is sufficient.
- the penetration was sexual
- she did not consent
- he did not reasonably believe that she was consenting
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
28s
On count 3 the judge says the prosectution must prove 3 things:
1)olding used his penis to penetrate her ,mouth
2)she did not consent
3)Olding did not reasonably believe she was consenting
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
50s
Judge says Olding and jackson must be considered separately and the jury’s decision does not have to be the same in respect of them both,
Judge says you have to be sure the prosecution has proved each element of the offence before you can find Olding guilty.
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
21s
Count 4- is a count of exposure and relates to Blane McIIroy. The prosecution must prove 2 things:
1)McIIroy intentionally exposed his genitals
2)he intended the woman to see them and be caused alarm or distress
You’re being ironic?
Huh? He’s destroyed the prosecutions case.
3 Likes
This is the judge’s direction to the jury
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
7s
Judge: Blane McIIroy denies that he entered the bedroom naked or that he intended for the woman to see his genitals.
He says he was fully clothed when he entered the bedroom and that she invited him to stay and perform oral sex.
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
3s
Judge: If you are not sure that McIIroy did intentionally expose his genitals then that is the end of the matter and you should find him not guilty.
If on the other hand you are sure that he did so then you must go on and consider whether he had the requisite intent.
deary me
1 Like
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
2s
Judge: In determining whether you are sure that Blane McIIroy intended to cause her alarm, the fact that he had been consuming alcohol is a factor which you must take into account unlike the situation when you are considering reasonable belief in consent to sexual activity.
@RosannaCooney
·
40s
Judge: but the mere fact that McIIroy’s mind was affected by drink so that he acted in a way which he would not have done had he been sober is not a defence provided you are sure that the necessary intention was there
A drunken intent is never the less an intent
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
13s
Judge: you should have regard to all of the evidence including that relating to drink, draw such conclusions as you think proper from the eviencea nd on that basis ask yourselves are you sure hat he intentionally exposed his genitals with the intent of causing her alarm.
Rosanna Cooney
@RosannaCooney
·
46s
Judge:
If you are sure then you must find him guilty
If you are not sure then you must find him not guilty
The jury has broken for a 30 minute lunch and will return to hear counts 5 and 6 relating to Rory Harrison. She says these counts are quite complex.
after reviewing all the evidence I have come to a conclusion - Unlike @caoimhaoin & @TheUlteriorMotive who had a pre determined verdict before any evidence was put forward my opinion is based on what I have heard hear. To date I haven’t been able to get a reason from these two posters why it means so much to then that these lads get off
2 Likes
What verdict have you arrived at?
Id prefer not to say
1 Like
Fair enough