Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

King of Kings

bubblypop wrote: »

The only reason underwear should be used as evidence in a rape or sexual assault trial is as forensic evidence.
That's it.
No other reason.

this is nonsense. every situation is different and sometime underwear can be important evidence beyond the forensic.

for example
more than once in my experience a lady has left the room and returned in sexy underwear or a robe revealing sexy underwear.
Had any complaint been made of course stating she came back wearing sexy gear is important. its bloody crucial.
I'm not saying it proves consent absolutely but it can add to the context and is strong circumstancial evidence.
People has been conviced of murder on circumstancial evidence alone so it is valid.

rape is probably the 2nd worst crime after murder , the comsequences for all can be brutal.
denying evidence that may be important to adhere to some doctrine is very worrying.

Its worrying that you and other (particularly that dope in the dail cant see that) and are happy to call for banning evidence.

lawred2

blue note wrote: »

I've often heard if you get a girl's clothes off and she's wearing matching underwear it's not you who decided you're having sex. That's a funny thing to say because there's truth to it. Sometimes women intend to have sex later and dress for it, or they think they might or they could and dress in case they do with sexy underwear or the like.

In a rape trial when a defence is trying to show that the sex was consensual it would make sense to me and be relevant to present any evidence that would give any weight to the argument the sex was consensual. And a girl wearing sexy underwear could add to the argument that she wanted to have sex.

Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex, or intend to and change her mind, etc. But people get utterly hysterical at the mention of underwear and start throwing around phrases like it doesn't mean she was asking to be raped and stating that what she's wearing doesn't take away her ability to decide or doesn't give any man the right to have sex with her, etc. Well no sh1t, I've never heard anyone say any of that and mean it.

But I can understand why underwear can be evidence. Now, I can appreciate an argument that it shouldn't be admissible, but if I'm going to respect the argument it would at least have to acknowledge the actual reason it is used as evidence. And acknowledge that not allowing the jury see this evidence could be the difference between them finding a man innocent or guilty.

It's only evidence if you've got your head filled such 'matching underwear = sex' notions

Roger_007

There seem to be an assumption by the Ruth Coppingers of this world, that in rape trials the defendant is always guilty but 'gets away with it' if the jury decide that he is not guilty.
In any criminal trial the jury are supposed to decide the case on the basis of the evidence. It is up to the judge to decide what can, or cannot, be introduced as evidence. Ms Coppinger seems to think that no defence should be allowed in rape trials. She also omitted to mention that the barrister involved was a woman. If it had been a male barrister she would be claiming mysogny and sexism.

professore

Hurrache wrote: »

That's the point. It was insinuated she was out looking for it because of the underwear she was wearing.

Well I'm sure the prosecution portrayed the guy as a sex crazed lunatic and exaggerated wildly anything he ever did... That's how a trial works.

If the jury are any good they will see the thong defence as grasping at straws. It would strengthen the case for the prosecution if I were on there.

blue note

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There was a report published in Northern Ireland yesterday showing that less than 2% of rape cases in Court result in successful convictions.

Why would anyone take on the huge risk of reporting a rape to the police in that environment?

Are you saying that 2% if cases that go to trial result in conviction? If so I think you've misunderstood the report. Have you a link?

Here's an article quoting conviction rates in court of 64% this year and 74% last year in rape trials in northern Ireland. People keep peddling the myth that even if it goes to trial you've still got a tiny chance of seeing him convicted. This myth is extremely unhelpful and encourages people not to come forward and report to the police.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/conviction-rates-for-rape-and-sexual-offences-in-northern-ireland-drop-37408463.html

professore

Hurrache wrote: »

So underage. You have different levels of rapeyness that you use as a yard stick?

If the girl is 15 and the guy is 16 that's a WAAAY different level than the girl 15 and the guy 35.

professore

bubblypop wrote: »

Nope.
A man carrying a condom should never be evidence in a rape trial. Neither should his choice of sexy boxers or whatever underwear he likes.
The same as a womans choice of underwear is absolutely never a factor in whether she wants to have sex or not.
Oh & FYI, if a woman does or does not want sex, I'm going to guess she does not want to be raped.

If you start making lists of what solicitors can and cannot say during a trial it will end up that they will just say "jury, you decide if he looks guilty or not." This is a total red herring and he media fell for it.

RabbleRouser2k

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There was a report published in Northern Ireland yesterday showing that less than 2% of rape cases in Court result in successful convictions.

Why would anyone take on the huge risk of reporting a rape to the police in that environment?

The problem with those statistics is that one can look at them and say '2 percent of legit rape cases see a conviction'.
Those statistics ignore cases where it was proven to be a false claim, or where neither party could legit say no consent was given.
Even in cases of male on male rape, when one can prove the victim was straight, it still doesn't mean a case will see court, or that there will be a conviction.

The stats for other crimes, such as burglaries or thefts, aren't much better-somewhere in the region of 7 percent. And in those cases, one can possibly hold up stolen property and say 'they took that from me'. Not so with rape.

seenitall

So. When my daughter is older and starts going out, should I as a conscientious mother, be telling her: "And remember to wear those ugly knickers I got you! God forbid something bad happens, you know it would be your own fault..."?

Can you even hear yourselves, defending this medieval carry on? Disgraceful stuff.

titan18

You shouldn't limit what a defense can use as evidence. It's up to the jury to decide whether to agree with it or not, not the lynch mob.

Triceratops Ballet

limnam wrote:

I'm sure there's the odd day the aul brdget jones go on and ye can't find the match.

If all your underwear is black with lace it will match every day!

boardise wrote:

People ( especially men ! ) wearing 'sexy u/wear' might represent more an aspiration rather an intention to have sex.

What about a straight bloke in a gay bar, if he's wearing his best undies what does that mean? You know in this world where underwear sends messages. Worse still what if he also has a condom in his wallet?

King of Kings

seenitall wrote: »

So. When my daughter is older and starts going out, should I as a conscientious mother, be telling her: "And remember to wear those ugly knickers I got you! God forbid something bad happens, you know it would be your own fault..."?

Can you even hear yourselves, defending this medieval carry on? Disgraceful stuff.

you bringing emotion into this and emotion and the law dont mix well.

How would you feel if you son was facing an accusation and was barred from using evidence in his defence. you'd probably feel angry and rightly so.
Did you think of that in your post above?

it should be about balance for all not just one side.

Triceratops Ballet

King of Kings wrote:

How would you feel if you son was facing an accusation and was barred from using evidence in his defence. you'd probably feel angry and rightly so. Did you think of that in your post above?

What is is evidence of?

If its forensic evidence fair game, if not what exactly can underwear prove?

lawred2

King of Kings wrote: »

you bringing emotion into this and emotion and the law dont mix well.

How would you feel if you son was facing an accusation and was barred from using evidence in his defence. you'd probably feel angry and rightly so.
Did you think of that in your post above?

it should be about balance for all not just one side.

Sure isn't that exactly what the defense counsel did? The waving of underwear was to appeal to the juror's emotional side. It wasn't evidence of a forensic nature.

So emotion and adversarial court rooms do indeed mix all the time.

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

What is is evidence of?

If its forensic evidence fair game, if not what exactly can underwear prove?

It's not evidence, it's a plea to the emotions of the jury. This is common in trials and as we can see by the hysterical reactions to this incident it clearly works. For every outraged person there is a corresponding auld one "disgusted" at the brazen hussy wearing that underwear. And probably the jury was full of auld biddies. Since working people have no time for jury duty.

Funnily enough the coverage of this trial is all about the underwear - no mention of any other evidence whatsoever. Maybe there was a weight of other evidence proving the defendants innocence? We'll never know because of the stupid coverage of the trial.

And Ruth Coppinger went off on a rant about feminism after showing the knickers - proving once again it was purely a political football for her.

seenitall

King of Kings wrote: »

you bringing emotion into this and emotion and the law dont mix well.

How would you feel if you son was facing an accusation and was barred from using evidence in his defence. you'd probably feel angry and rightly so.
Did you think of that in your post above?

it should be about balance for all not just one side.

Ugh

If my son was in a position of having been accused of rape, the last thing I would be interested in is what kind of knickers the girl was wearing.

And no, this isn't about emotion, although full marks on condescension. The authorities of the state, including the judiciary, have a responsibility to the public not to nurture and feed victim-blaming crap like this in society, by firstly ensuring it is not being promoted in the court of law, of all places.

Outlaw Pete

lawred2 wrote: »

The waving of underwear was to appeal to the juror's emotional side.

In this particular case I believe the underwear were just referenced.

The judge should have instructed the jury to ignore the solicitor.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if an appeal for a mistrial is lodged.

WinnyThePoo

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I am referencing Ruth's behaviour at the time of the Belfast rape trial to show that fairness is not always top priority for her when it comes rape trials.

Didn't you continue to defend that English footballer, Adam Johnson (the one who groomed and fingered a child, and then went on to claim that he wished he'd raped her), even after he was found guilty? Pretty sure fairness has never been anywhere close to the top of your priorities, tbh.

Tom humphries grooming was downplayed by the outlaw aswell

professore

seenitall wrote: »

Ugh

If my son was in a position of having been accused of rape, the last thing I would be interested in is what kind of knickers the girl was wearing.

And no, this isn't about emotion, although full marks on condescension. The authorities of the state, including the judiciary, have a responsibility to the public not to nurture and feed victim-blaming crap like this in society, by firstly ensuring it is not being promoted in the court of law, of all places.

Why stop there? All sorts of stereotypes are promoted in courts when defending and prosecuting. Like only men commit domestic violence. Only women can be good parents, people from "good families" can't be criminals etc.

I really think its going down a bad path if you start restricting what barristers can say in a trial.

whiskeyman

What the defending barrister said was appalling, but it also highlights another key issue - that of the jury.
She wouldn't make such a comment unless she knew it would impact their decision.
We may think we've moved on from our past and are a modern thinking nation, but clearly not everyone is.

sbsquarepants

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

She has an extremely valid point - a person alleging rape should not be judged by their choice of underwear, and especially a thong which is fairly common place for girls/ladies these days

She has a perfectly valid point.

If that was my daughter, that barrister would have gotten herself an almighty kick in the fanny on the steps outside the court.

She should be absolutely ashamed of herself.

seenitall

professore wrote: »

Why stop there? All sorts of stereotypes are promoted in courts. Like only men commit domestic violence. Only women can be good parents etc.

I really think its going down a bad path if you start restricting what barristers can say in a trial.

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.

professore

whiskeyman wrote: »

What the defending barrister said was appalling, but it also highlights another key issue - that of the jury.
She wouldn't make such a comment unless she knew it would impact their decision.
We may think we've moved on from our past and are a modern thinking nation, but clearly not everyone is.

As I said before the jury was probably full of retired conservative catholics, as no one else has time to attend a trial. This was the defence playing to that audience.

Dakota Dan

Samuel Zealous Stereoscope wrote: »

It was ln the news, and I'll be honest, I was waiting to see who would open a thread to get a cheap dig or laugh over what is ultimately a serious issue.

Does she think nobody knows what a thong looks like? Someone said it was a thong that Mary Harney left behind 😀

professore

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Does she think nobody knows what a thong looks like? Someone said it was a thong that Mary Harney left behind 😀

She actually said "a pair of thongs"

sbsquarepants

professore wrote: »

She actually said "a pair of thongs"

Mary needed one for each leg:D

blue note

professore wrote: »

It's not evidence, it's a plea to the emotions of the jury. This is common in trials and as we can see by the hysterical reactions to this incident it clearly works. For every outraged person there is a corresponding auld one "disgusted" at the brazen hussy wearing that underwear.

Where have you seen the reactions of people thinking she was a brazen hussy for wearing that underwear? I've heard people say that othersother have had this reaction, but I haven't actually seen anyone react like that myself. Any link to someone saying anything like that?

professore

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.

Just look at the coverage of the Tina Cahill case - all of it is about how violent he allegedly was, yet she already had a criminal record for attacking him.

Like it or not there is a medieval bias in the court system because the jurors tend to be medieval.

Outlaw Pete

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Tom humphries grooming was downplayed by the outlaw aswell

Because I didn't think he should be hung like the rest of you? Ha.

Look, at the end of the day, the courts agreed with me and like I said at the time:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

2 and half years sounds about right. Was ludicrous to be suggesting he should get 25 years or anything like it.

This trip down memory lane with a few of you has been lovely.

What's next, the Ched Evans case? Oh wait, best not, he was acquitted like I said he would be and all :P

Hector Savage

ah jaysus, probably ****ing skid marks on it and all ...