Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes? She can give consent, and it can be determined later that consent was vitiated.

Or it could be determined later that consent was given. In that case, does the intent to ignore consent mean the defendant committed rape?

It has of course. The jury have to weigh the credibility of the defendants evidence against that of the complaing witness. If it can be demonstrated by the defence that the complainant has a credibility issue, then that lends weight to their case that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, has more merit.

A credibility issue with the complainant would lend weight to a defendants account of the incident, not his belief regarding consent. Just as a credibility issue with a defendant lends weight to the complainants account.

What a complainant does a day later could have no impact on what the defendant believes at the time. It's physically impossible.

One eyed Jack

Mrsmum wrote: »

We are discussing rape cases after all. And yes I get it - if you don't want your undies to feature in court, don't bring the case.

We’re discussing cases where a person is accused of rape. I’m not being nit picky when I make that distinction because while the defendant is on trial for committing rape, the reason they’re on trial is because they contend that they did not commit rape. They are presumed innocent until they are found guilty. That’s not the same thing from a persons perspective who has been raped. In any event, it wouldn’t be the complainant bringing a criminal prosecution against the accused.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Or it could be determined later that consent was given. In that case, does the intent to ignore consent mean the defendant committed rape?

Any outcome would depend upon the evidence presented in each case, so while you might be certain that consent was valid and assumed I would agree with you, I don’t, because I know of cases where consent was vitiated even when the victim considered their consent was valid.

A credibility issue with the complainant would lend weight to a defendants account of the incident, not his belief regarding consent. Just as a credibility issue with a defendant lends weight to the complainants account.

What a complainant does a day later could have no impact on what the defendant believes at the time. It's physically impossible.

That would depend upon the evidence given by the complainant, and what the complainant does a day later could well support evidence given by the defendant given in their defence, supporting their belief that the encounter was consensual.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any outcome would depend upon the evidence presented in each case, so while you might be certain that consent was valid and assumed I would agree with you, I don’t, because I know of cases where consent was vitiated even when the victim considered their consent was valid.

But you do accept that there are circumstances where someone genuinely consents with no vitiating circumstances surely?

In that case, can someone who intends to have sex with that person whether theynfove consent or not commit rape?

That would depend upon the evidence given by the complainant, and what the complainant does a day later could well support evidence given by the defendant given in their defence, supporting their belief that the encounter was consensual.

It might support the defendant account, it might support his current belief that the encounter was consensual, just as it.might support a jurors belief about the encounter.

It cannot, however, say anything about his beliefs at the time, and that's what is at question.

The reason the actions of a complainant after an incident are examined is with regards to actus reus, not mens rea.

Mens rea cannot be established from what anyone other than the defendant does after the incident.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

But you do accept that there are circumstances where someone genuinely consents with no vitiating circumstances surely?

In that case, can someone who intends to have sex with that person whether theynfove consent or not commit rape?

Round in circles we go. No, I told you already I don’t accept that. Put it to me 100 different ways if you like, my answer will still be the same - no.

It might support the defendant account, it might support his current belief that the encounter was consensual, just as it.might support a jurors belief about the encounter.

It cannot, however, say anything about his beliefs at the time, and that's what is at question.

The reason the actions of a complainant after an incident are examined is with regards to actus reus, not mens rea.

Mens rea cannot be established from what anyone other than the defendant does after the incident.

It can, as it can support whether or his honest belief was reasonable.

Anyway, I think at this point the thread has run it’s course for me anyway. We’re only going round in circles at this point and there isn’t anything left to discuss from my point of view.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Round in circles we go. No, I told you already I don’t accept that. Put it to me 100 different ways if you like, my answer will still be the same - no.

I didn't realise you'd answered no. So in that case you see that the defendant intents and belifs are irrelevant. Since the complainant freely consented it doesn't matter if he intended to ignore consent. Actus reus is just as crucial as mens rea and therefore the whole trial process is not centred around the defendant beliefs.

It can, as it can support whether or his honest belief was reasonable.

Anyway, I think at this point the thread has run it’s course for me anyway. We’re only going round in circles at this point and there isn’t anything left to discuss from my point of view.

Well technically it's not about whether his honest belief is reasonable it's whether he had an honest belief though I'm sure many jurors would apply some kind of reasonableness criteria when assessing whether he had an honest belief.

I fail to see how what a complainant did after a crime can say anything about what a defendant believed prior to or during that crime, unless the defendant can see into the future..... "Oh I honestly believed I had consent because my crystal ball told me that she'd send her friend a jokey text the day after"...... Doesn't really hold up.

AndrewJRenko

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

He was acquited, found not guilty, therefore he is innocent.

He was acquitted and found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent.

Venom

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He was acquitted and found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent.

So the whole innocent until proven guilty stuff those pesky legal types tend to make a big deal about is all bs?

eagle eye

AndrewJRenko wrote:

He was acquitted and found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent.

Yeah but unfortunately he walks out of there an innocent man as far as this case is concerned.

I heard about this case while I was driving to work. As a dog walker. Wearing jeans that are too big for me, an old jumper I inherited from a friend, covered in dog slobber and mud, and underneath wearing a thong with a lace front.

So I was obviously intending to meet a man while walking dogs and have a bit of sex. Any man at all. The underpants I took out of my knicker drawer in the morning clearly shows my intent.

mynamejeff

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He was acquitted and found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent.

lol

post a link there to some case where some one was found innocent


if you cant understand the question well then you probably shouldn't be posting that

AndrewJRenko

Venom wrote: »

So the whole innocent until proven guilty stuff those pesky legal types tend to make a big deal about is all bs?

That's the reality. The Court doesn't prove anyone innocent.

AndrewJRenko

mynamejeff wrote: »

lol

post a link there to some case where some one was found innocent


if you cant understand the question well then you probably shouldn't be posting that

Yeah, I understand the question. You seem to have misunderstood my answer.
Try again.

Venom

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's the reality. The Court doesn't prove anyone innocent.

But the seeing as a defendant is innocent unless proven guilty, why would the court need to change someone's default status under the law if found not guilty of a crime.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Humans don't evolve that fast. Yes 30 years ago but do you honestly suppose that we have rid planet of that type of thinking in 30 years? Some people still believe that the earth was created in 7 days. They believe that noah had baby dinosaurs and dinosaur eggs on the ark. Some people actually believe that the earth is flat or that man hasn't walked on the moon. Some believe everything Trump says. There is all kinds of stupid on this planet. 30 years is not long enough to suggest that these people have become extinct. Imo the stupid is increasing rather than decreasing

Again no solid examples and no proof provided. Spoofer grade A. Your only counterpoint is Trump. Pathetic really.

mynamejeff

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, I understand the question. You seem to have misunderstood my answer.
Try again.

why dont you clarify ?

do you think he is guilty or innocent ?

coz the passive aggressive thing isnt working , and not just for me

Roger Hassenforder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He was acquitted and found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent.

He walked in innocent.
He walked out innocent

eagle eye

AndrewJRenko wrote:

That's the reality. The Court doesn't prove anyone innocent.

What you are saying is correct but a person is innocent until proven guilty therefore innocent when found not guilty.

Try_harder

eagle eye wrote: »

What you are saying is correct but a person is innocent until proven guilty therefore innocent when found not guilty.

No, there is the presumption of innocence, guilt must be proven

The Bishop Basher

Try_harder wrote: »

No, there is the presumption of innocence, guilt must be proven

Which it wasn’t so the defendant was found not guilty and walks away a free man.

Are you another one claiming this man who has just been acquitted of rape is in fact guilty ?

eagle eye

Try_harder wrote:

No, there is the presumption of innocence, guilt must be proven

What is difference about that from what I said? It means exactly the same thing.

The Bishop Basher

eagle eye wrote: »

What is different about that from what I said? It means exactly the same thing.

The way you phrased it doesn’t suit the illiberal agenda of man = bad = guilty.

AndrewJRenko

mynamejeff wrote: »

why dont you clarify ?

do you think he is guilty or innocent ?

Sure, happy to clarify.

I think he's guilty as sin, based on the details reported about him being seen holding the minor by the neck and other details.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

Again no solid examples and no proof provided. Spoofer grade A. Your only counterpoint is Trump. Pathetic really.

So are you trying to say that in 30 years we have evolved enough that no one has the opinion that a girl in a short skirt get what she deserves? That no one believes that a minor wearing a thong means that she is going out for sex?


Do you have any proof or statistics to back up such a claim? Or is it the case that you don't really have anything at all?

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

So are you trying to say that in 30 years we have evolved enough that no one has the opinion that a girl in a short skirt get what she deserves? That no one believes that a minor wearing a thong means that she is going out for sex?

So what you are trying to say is 12 members of a jury unanimously found him not guilty of a brutal physical and sexual assault based on her underwear?

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

So what you are trying to say is 12 members of a jury unanimously found him not guilty of a brutal physical and sexual assault based on her underwear?

Have you a link or quote where I said that?


The jury only needs reasonable doubt. All Im saying is that it is entirely possible that the judge allowing the barrister to make the comments about the thong also allowed the jury to believe that such a thing is possible. If a judge doesn't point out that girls wear thongs without looking for sex. Girls go commando without looking for sex. The jury should not be allowed to consider that a minor wearing a thong is looking for sex. Girls as young as 13 wear thongs while not looking for sex.


In answer to your question, no one knows why they found a 27 year old man who had a 17 year old by her throat not guilty. I don't know & you don't know but it is entirely possible that the barristers comments could have swayed the jury enough for reasonable doubt.




Obviously girls wear thongs without looking for sex. They will now make changes to how rape cases are heard in future cases it will be unlikely that a barrister can make these comments & go unchallenged by the judge

The Bishop Basher

Boggles wrote: »

So what you are trying to say is 12 members of a jury unanimously found him not guilty of a brutal physical and sexual assault based on her underwear?

As soon as you hear or see “so what you’re trying to say is” you know you’re dealing with an illiberal.

It’s never what you actually said and it’s a hopeless tactic, think Cathy Newman interview, but they just keep doing it over and over again.

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In answer to your question, no one knows why they found a 27 year old man who had a 17 year old by her throat not guilty. I don't know & you don't know but it is entirely possible that the barristers comments could have swayed the jury enough for reasonable doubt.

Or isn't far more plausible that the jury heard several pieces of evidence over what I imagine what was a relative long trial and based on that evidence came to the only logical safe conclusion they could?

Yesterday your tactic was to discredit the acquitted by pedaling the fantasy that if he cheated on his fictional wife, then he broke his vows therefore what evidence he gave in the trial was not credible.

You've moved on now to try and discredit the jury, using some perceived notion about evolution the jury was made up of 12 Trump supporting flat earthers who think the undewear one wears absolves someone not just of rape but of brutal physical assault.

It's complete and utter baffling nonsense.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

Or isn't far more plausible that the jury heard several pieces of evidence over what I imagine what was a relative long trial and based on that evidence came to the only logical safe conclusion they could?

Yesterday your tactic was to discredit the acquitted by pedaling the fantasy that if he cheated on his fictional wife, then he broke his vows therefore what evidence he gave in the trial was not credible.

You've moved on now to try and discredit the jury, using some perceived notion about evolution the jury was made up of 12 Trump supporting flat earthers who think the undewear one wears absolves someone not just of rape but of brutal physical assault.

It's complete and utter baffling nonsense.

None of the above is true. Earlier posters stated he had a wife. One claimed to have genuine knowledge of the case. I don't believe I could discredit him anymore than he has done himself. He is an utter idiot. He took huge risks. This girl could have turned out to have been 14 or 15 for all he knew. He left himself wide open. He is actually a very lucky man. A 27 year old should have more sense



Someone tried to suggest that in the last 30 years we have gotten rid of some people believing that a girl in a short skirt is asking for trouble or a girl in a thong is out for sex in the same was St Patrick got rid of the snakes. This is not true obviously.


I could care less about the verdict as I have repeated several times. The man was found not guilty & should be left alone.



My point is the comments the barrister made. It's agreed by the vast majority of sane people that wearing a thong does not mean that you are looking for sex. Even Our great leader Leo says so. If its true that a girl wearing a thong doesn't mean that she wants sex then it follows that a barrister shouldn't imply otherwise in a rape trial involving a minor. This was reported worldwide how this minor was treated in court.



Things will change & soon

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

None of the above is true. Earlier posters stated he had a wife.

A lie you based a wild theory on, to retry him and try reverse the verdict. When that fell apart you have now moved on to try and discredit the jury.

It's up to you to fact check your own self publications.

The internet is not written in pencil.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This girl could have turned out to have been 14 or 15 for all he knew.

But she wasn't, what's your actual point?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I could care less about the verdict as I have repeated several times. The man was found not guilty & should be left alone.

Why don't you so?