Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

PlaneSpeeking

meeeeh wrote: »

I think it's very worrying that anyone with attitude like yours is dealing with rape accusations.

You wouldn't if you were the lad accused of raping his housemate. Believe me.

SusieBlue

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Read it. With an open mind.

I did, and I see no relevance to it.
Wearing a lace thong does not imply anyone is up for sex. It does not consent on behalf of the person.

The barrister raised the point to assassinate that girls character, as "proof" that she was easy and she was up for it, not just with the defendant, but with any man at all that night. She said that about a 17 year old.

Its totally unacceptable. That's what it boils down to.

tritium

Grayson wrote: »

But underwear isn't relevant at all.

There's two things to look at.

1) Did sex occur.
2) was it consensual.

The fact that she wore common underwear doesn't indicate either of those. Unless she took them off afterwards, signed them and said "That was great", I don't see how underwear is relevant at all. It's effectively slut shaming. It's indicating that style of dress indicates consent. It's an argument that should have no place in a court of law.

Well, let’s take a hypothetical- it’s not too far fetched, it’s substituting clothing for words in the basis of Ched Evans acquittal on appeal.

Suppose the accuser claimed she had no intention from the get go of having sex with anyone that night under any circumstances. Suppose she’s previously told a friend that she only ever wore those underwear if she intended to have casual sex. Would the underwear be relevant then?

I’m not saying that’s what happened btw, I’m simply pointing out (again) that it’s not as simple as those evil barristers calling people harlots as they parade used underwear. Evidence typically forms part of a much wider case for the defence, and in and of themselves the underwear would never be sufficient to create reasonable doubt.

astrofool

retro:electro wrote: »

You’ve a very black and white view of rape. What about the woman who goes out with every intention of having consensual sex, but ends up getting raped? Do you care about her no? Also, how do you differentiate between the two cases you have above there?

This is the complexity, what proof do you use for this case, and the case where she is lying? How do you differentiate between them so that the guilty person goes to jail when she's not lying and doesn't go to jail when she is lying? What evidence should both sides be allowed to use in this case? Please define.

I'd argue, given the conviction rates that the cases are weighted too heavily with the defendant, but I wouldn't be comfortable in limiting what evidence can be introduced to try and raise the conviction rate due to the risk of sending an innocent person to jail. Honestly, bar 24/7 audio/video monitoring, or mind reading technology, these cases will likely remain at these low conviction rates, which is awful for the victims.

meeeeh

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You wouldn't if you were the lad accused of raping his housemate. Believe me.

Actually I would because anyone who thinks that the type of clothing can indicate if one was rapped or rapped someone can't be trusted either way.

Spleerbun

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually I would because anyone who thinks that the type of clothing can indicate if one was rapped or rapped someone can't be trusted either way.

Not on its own of course. But look at titriums hypothetical example above. Do we really know all the details of the case? We don't

seamus

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

I'm not sure how things work chez Seamus, but the average man who comes home to find his girlfriend or wife waiting for him in lingerie would be able to read her intent loud and clear. To claim otherwise is just silly.

I love how you omitted the last part of my post. Because I'm guessing you're a decent guy who would agree that wearing Ann Summers gear doesn't mean that your partner is automatically consenting to sex, but it just doesn't suit your point to answer that part.

ohnonotgmail

tritium wrote: »

Well, let’s take a hypothetical- it’s not too far fetched, it’s substituting clothing for words in the basis of Ched Evans acquittal on appeal.

Suppose the accuser claimed she had no intention from the get go of having sex with anyone that night under any circumstances. Suppose she’s previously told a friend that she only ever wore those underwear if she intended to have casual sex. Would the underwear be relevant then?

I’m not saying that’s what happened btw, I’m simply pointing out (again) that it’s not as simple as those evil barristers calling people harlots as they parade used underwear. Evidence typically forms part of a much wider case for the defence, and in and of themselves the underwear would never be sufficient to create reasonable doubt.

No it wouldn't. She may have gone out with the intention of casual sex but that does not mean she gave consent to a particular individual.

PlaneSpeeking

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually I would because anyone who thinks that the type of clothing can indicate if one was rapped or rapped someone can't be trusted either way.

And once again, the point is missed.

At no point did I say the knickers gave an indication that she was not raped. I explained at length (pointlessly here) why in THIS CASE I could see why the item was allowed.

And FYI, the only reason I dealt with the case was that everyone else were of the mind that because the housemate had said she was raped, therefore she was. An independent person had to be brought in for him as no one would stand for him. I would.

She said she'd never shown any sexual interest to him whatsoever, none: "I don't even like him". Guards got the CCTV of her hanging all over him whilst he tried to walk home, grabbing bits of him below the waist and basically the entire act (was in the secure car park of their residence).

All he was guilty of was thinking a pretty girl was interested in him. Turned out she was making a point she could get anyone.

This is not typical. far from it - but it does happen and that lad has a guilty sign on him as far as many colleagues are concerned.

Standman

Lackey wrote: »

Absolutely
evidence etc

BUT it should never be used to judge whether the accuser was 'up for it' or not.

I'd agree with that, generally speaking.

However, defense and prosecution barristers do similar things all the time in trials. For example, in this very same trial the prosecuting barrister mentioned that the young woman he was representing had never had sex before. Why would he mention this? If you've never had sex before, does that imply that you wouldn't have consented? It's the other side of the coin. I don't know if there's a more specific term for it, but to me it's a kind of weak circumstantial evidence.

Now obviously, empathising with the woman in this case, it must have been horrible for her to go through and it's completely understandable why this has upset so many people. But I just can't see how this can be changed.

Do we ban this kind of "weak circumstantial evidence" altogether?

ohnonotgmail

Standman wrote: »

I'd agree with that, generally speaking.

However, defense and prosecution barristers do similar things all the time in trials. For example, in this very same trial the prosecuting barrister mentioned that the young woman he was representing had never had sex before. Why would he mention this? If you've never had sex before, does that imply that you wouldn't have consented? It's the other side of the coin. I don't know if there's a more specific term for it, but to me it's a kind of weak circumstantial evidence.

Now obviously, empathising with the woman in this case, it must have been horrible for her to go through and it's completely understandable why this has upset so many people. But I just can't see how this can be changed.

Do we ban this kind of "weak circumstantial evidence" altogether?

we should ban irrelevant evidence which is what the choice of underwear is.

SterlingArcher

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we should ban irrelevant evidence which is what the choice of underwear is.

Show all the context in this case that it was used in.

FishOnABike

seenitall wrote: »

Really? Give me some examples? When did a barrister utter that only men commit domestic violence, or that only women can be good parents? Cos yes, that would be very wrong, too. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. I would not be in favour of anything that promotes inequality or injustice or a medieval bias in the public sphere.

Reporting restrictions on family law cases make it difficult for anyone to give examples. However I am aware of male domestic violence victims being treated less favourably by the courts. In one instance a male domestic violence victim being forced out of the family home by his abuser and being told by their barrister that men don't win and the court possibly took the view that he would be out of the family home anyway and may as well go now as later, this while leaving the abuser in the family home caring for young children whom she had also emotionally and physically abused.

While one, or more, anecdotes do nit make facts research such as Dr. Roisín O'Shea's into Judicial Separation and Divorce show there are clear differences between different judges in such matters. Consistent differences which some might view as being inconsistent with the fair administration of justice.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

retro:electro wrote: »

Your posts have no empathy, ever, and have a remarkable lack of seeing nuance and finer detail in case to case.

When it comes to rape cases, nuance and finer detail go both ways. Certainly, there are women who go on a date, intending to have sex, and end up being raped. There are also men who go on a date, have sex with someone they believe to be consenting, and wind up accused of rape. Regardless, it is the responsibility of the court to take all pertinent circumstances into account.

A defense barrister will strive to create reasonable doubt and keep his client out of jail. So if the complainant was sending the accused provocative text messages throughout the day, met him dressed in sexy clothes and underwear, went back to his place, got drunk with him, kissed him, etc., her claim that she was raped will inevitably be questioned from multiple angles so as to create that reasonable doubt. If it can be shown that she met him with the full intent of having sex, her claim will inevitably be seen as less credible than that of another victim who was jumped on her way home and raped at knifepoint. That's just inevitable.

retro:electro

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And FYI, the only reason I dealt with the case was that everyone else were of the mind that because the housemate had said she was raped, therefore she was. An independent person had to be brought in for him as no one would stand for him. I would.

She said she'd never shown any sexual interest to him whatsoever, none: "I don't even like him". Guards got the CCTV of her hanging all over him whilst he tried to walk home, grabbing bits of him below the waist and basically the entire act (was in the secure car park of their residence).

ohnonotgmail

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Show all the context in this case that it was used in.

I have no idea of the context it was used in. Regardless of whatever context you think justifies it a womans choice of underwear has no bearing on whether she gave consent to sex. That is the question that a rape trial asks. Only evidence that has a bearing on that is relevant. Her choice of underwear has no bearing on whether she gave consent.

Grayson

tritium wrote: »

Well, let’s take a hypothetical- it’s not too far fetched, it’s substituting clothing for words in the basis of Ched Evans acquittal on appeal.

Suppose the accuser claimed she had no intention from the get go of having sex with anyone that night under any circumstances. Suppose she’s previously told a friend that she only ever wore those underwear if she intended to have casual sex. Would the underwear be relevant then?

I’m not saying that’s what happened btw, I’m simply pointing out (again) that it’s not as simple as those evil barristers calling people harlots as they parade used underwear. Evidence typically forms part of a much wider case for the defence, and in and of themselves the underwear would never be sufficient to create reasonable doubt.

That's a specific scenario where someone mentions the specific underwear and the intentions beforehand. It could be anything really. It could have been earrings that someone only wears when they're on the pull. In which case you would be able to point out that the specific item, underwear earrings etc, and point out a specific intent associated with that item. In that case you are displaying the relevance of the specific underwear. Which is why I said only relevant evidence should be allowed.

Now that doesn't mean that they consent to sex with a particular person, but it does imply a desire to have sex.

However without that specific intent being demonstrated, pointing out what underwear they are wearing doesn't imply anything. It's just underwear.

PlaneSpeeking

retro:electro wrote: »

Glad you find a false accusation on a teenager thousands of miles from home such fodder for your amusement.

I genuinely pity you.

tritium

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No it wouldn't. She may have gone out with the intention of casual sex but that does not mean she gave consent to a particular individual.

Except that’s not the point being made, is it? One valid aspect of reasonable doubt is where the credibility of a key witness is in doubt. An inconsistency like I described would certainly begin to call credibility into question.

retro:electro

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

So if the complainant was sending the accused provocative text messages throughout the day, met him dressed in sexy clothes and underwear, went back to his place, got drunk with him, kissed him, etc., her claim that she was raped will inevitably be questioned from multiple angles so as to create that reasonable doubt. If it can be shown that she met him with the full intent of having sex, her claim will inevitably be seen as less credible than that of another victim who was jumped on her way home and raped at knifepoint.

That’s totally different though because that’s a running narrative that provides context before the alleged rape. Obviously that would be admissible.

That is completely different to assigning sexual consent to the victim’s underwear because she happened to go for the frilly pink ones that morning. That tells me nothing about the turn of events that happened later on when the rape occurred.

FunLover18

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I know there are posters who will never accept this argument, but there is a vast difference between these two scenarios:

Where a woman (or indeed man) is forced to have sex by someone they never had any notions of having sex with; who they gave no indication they even considered it and outright said they did not want to have sex - this is clearly rape and no amount of waving their clothing round can ever justify that. The perpetrators are lower than scum.

However, where a woman (again, or man) who goes out intending to have sex with the person they are meeting (or meet subsequently that night and intend to have sex) then does so freely and keenly, regrets it or does not remember consenting due to alcohol or drugs and lies about their initial intentions then that's not rape. In that case whatever the defence uses to break this story is fair game in my opinion.

Because as we all know the jury is told going in that the case is either a straightforward rape trial or a trial to determine whether the woman was just having regrets or not.

ohnonotgmail

tritium wrote: »

Except that’s not the point being made, is it? One valid aspect of reasonable doubt is where the credibility of a key witness is in doubt. An inconsistency like I described would certainly begin to call credibility into question.

sweet suffering jesus but this thread is painful.

tritium

Grayson wrote: »

That's a specific scenario where someone mentions the specific underwear and the intentions beforehand. It could be anything really. It could have been earrings that someone only wears when they're on the pull. In which case you would be able to point out that the specific item, underwear earrings etc, and point out a specific intent associated with that item. In that case you are displaying the relevance of the specific underwear. Which is why I said only relevant evidence should be allowed.

Now that doesn't mean that they consent to sex with a particular person, but it does imply a desire to have sex.

However without that specific intent being demonstrated, pointing out what underwear they are wearing doesn't imply anything. It's just underwear.

I agree, however without the full evidence presented in the case in question you can’t simply reduce this case to an assumption that the defence just pulled out some knickers to paint the accuser as asking for it. That’s a huge step of logic.

Unfortunately Ruth Coppinger doesn’t really seem to care about nuance or detail.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

retro:electro wrote: »

That’s totally different though because that’s a running narrative that provides context before the alleged rape. Obviously that would be admissible.

That is completely different to assigning sexual consent to the victim’s underwear because she happened to go for the frilly pink ones that morning. That tells me nothing about the turn of events that happened later on when the rape occurred.

I'm assuming the defense barrister didn't just stand up, wave the knickers around, and say "Look at what she was wearing!" I don't have the full transcript of the barrister's closing statement, and I don't believe anyone else on this thread does either, but I would assume that the underwear was exhibited as part of an overall narrative about what the defense claims happened that night. I would assume that plenty of other evidence was presented as well, from both sides.

I don't think anyone is "assigning sexual consent to underwear." But if the defense wishes to present an overall narrative that (for instance) shows the complainant acting and dressing in a provocative or flirtatious way towards the accused, in a manner that may have reasonably led him to believe that she wanted sex, then her choice of underwear is somewhat relevant to the defense's goal of creating reasonable doubt.

SterlingArcher

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we should ban irrelevant evidence which is what the choice of underwear is.

Guy texts girl hey, I'm going tk wear my black leather pants with your gonna get it on them next time we meet up, he tells her she can take them off with her teeth.

They meet it goes south for what ever reason, ends up in court.

You think when the text is read out as evidence, that whether or not the guy wore that underware has no bearing in the case whatsoever. In trying to convict this guy.

Or can you dismiss it as clothing choice is irrelevant.

Again what was the context in this case.

vonlars

tritium wrote: »

I agree, however without the full evidence presented in the case in question you can’t simply reduce this case to an assumption that the defence just pulled out some knickers to paint the accuser as asking for it. That’s a huge step of logic.

Unfortunately Ruth Coppinger doesn’t really seem to care about nuance or detail.

That's exactly what they did though. "You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

ohnonotgmail

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Guy texts girl hey, I'm going tk wear my black leather pants with your gonna get it on them next time we meet up, he tells her she can take them off with her teeth.

They meet it goes south for what ever reason, ends up in court.

You think when the text is read out as evidence, that whether or not the guy wore that underware has no bearing in the case whatsoever.

Or can you dismiss it as clothing choice is irrelevant.

It has absolutely no relevance. A promise does not constitute consent at a later date. The woman has every right to withdraw consent at any time. "Aww but you promised" doesnt wash.

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It has absolutely no relevance. A promise does not constitute consent at a later date. The woman has every right to withdraw consent at any time. "Aww but you promised" doesnt wash.

Consent at any time - like withdrawing it the next morning ? A week later ? A month ?

There are advocates for that. And they are idiots.

PlaneSpeeking

vonlars wrote: »

That's exactly what they did though. "You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

Selective quoting to make one's point is highly suspect.

retro:electro

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

I'm assuming the defense barrister didn't just stand up, wave the knickers around, and say "Look at what she was wearing!"

Verbatim quote in her closing statement:


“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”