Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Boggles

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

speaking of full facts, do you not think it is time you acquainted yourself with them?

Well if you have a full transcript of the case, by all means link it up.

ohnonotgmail

Boggles wrote: »

Well if you have a full transcript of the case, by all means link it up.

no the full facts of why the current case collapsed. Here is a clue:It was **** all to do with coppinger. It was entirely to do with the independent writing an article that tried to connect what coppinger said with an ongoing case and mentioned specific details of an ongoing case. You should divert your ire at the independent. what Coppinger did was entirely correct.

Boggles

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no the full facts of why the current case collapsed. Here is a clue:It was **** all to do with coppinger. It was entirely to do with the independent writing an article that tried to connect what coppinger said with an ongoing case and mentioned specific details of an ongoing case. You should divert your ire at the independent. what Coppinger did was entirely correct.

You do know it's not just my opinion.

There was no other way of reading the articles other than that they suggested that her client was guilty. Also included in the coverage was an article about the recent controversial Cork case which has received coverage in the New York Times, Time magazine, Fox News and CNN suggesting there was an unfairness to rape trials in Ireland.

The Irish Independent was using this “feeding frenzy” and suggesting the facts in the case before the court were an example of what was being alleged about rape trials, Ms Lawlor said

The Judge agreed with Ms Lawlor.

But yeah, your right. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no the full facts of why the current case collapsed. Here is a clue:It was **** all to do with coppinger. It was entirely to do with the independent writing an article that tried to connect what coppinger said with an ongoing case and mentioned specific details of an ongoing case. You should divert your ire at the independent. what Coppinger did was entirely correct.

What has it achieved at all? It wasn’t even successful in undermining the right to fair procedures, thankfully. All it did was perpetuate myths about court procedures and fester mistrust in our judicial system. I use the word ‘fester’ because it didn’t change anyone’s mind who already didn’t trust in our judicial system.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What has it achieved at all? It wasn’t even successful in undermining the right to fair procedures, thankfully. All it did was perpetuate myths about court procedures and fester mistrust in our judicial system. I use the word ‘fester’ because it didn’t change anyone’s mind who already didn’t trust in our judicial system.

It raised an important point. It hasn't changed court procedures yet, of course it hasn't. they dont change overnight.

Grayson

Boggles wrote: »

You do know it's not just my opinion.



The Judge agreed with Ms Lawlor.

But yeah, your right. :rolleyes:

Selective quoting there.The reason the article was bad was because it specifically mentioned the ongoing trial. And the judge specifically mentioned it. It's also the reason the defence barrister mentioned it.

ricero

Shame on Coppinger and the liberal social justice warriors who's dumbfounded efforts have collapsed a trial and potential justice for this alleged victim.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it’s the defendants beliefs are in question, as to whether they are an honestly held belief first of all, and secondly whether the jury considers their honestly held belief is reasonable. In that context of course the defendant should be given every opportunity defend themselves, even if their basis for their honest belief is considered unreasonable.

There's nothing to suggest that the barrister was referring to the defendant beliefs re the underwear. She never mentioned it.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It raised an important point. It hasn't changed court procedures yet, of course it hasn't. they dont change overnight.

We’ll have to agree to disagree over the importance of the point she was trying to raise, and we’ll certainly have to disagree on it’s impact. A month from now Ms. Coppinger will have to up the ante in order to make the same point again, which will again go largely ignored by the general public.

She didn’t care for the impact her pitiful stunt would have on anyone else, but if you think she raised an important point, I suppose it had a positive impact on you, and that’s all that matters.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

There's nothing to suggest that the barrister was referring to the defendant beliefs re the underwear. She never mentioned it.

There’s nothing to suggest that from your perspective. There is from mine. We’ve been over this. We disagree. I’m ok with that.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s nothing to suggest that from your perspective. There is from mine. We’ve been over this. We disagree. I’m ok with that.

Not just from my perspective. She never mentions it.

James Brown

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What has it achieved at all? It wasn’t even successful in undermining the right to fair procedures, thankfully. All it did was perpetuate myths about court procedures and fester mistrust in our judicial system. I use the word ‘fester’ because it didn’t change anyone’s mind who already didn’t trust in our judicial system.

It called out the idea that the type of underwear a person wears should not be used as a defense or to infer consent. And quite rightly. Any judge who considers such a thing should be struck off. It's similar to 'ah she was wearing a short skirt'. Disgusting.

ricero wrote: »

Shame on Coppinger and the liberal social justice warriors who's dumbfounded efforts have collapsed a trial and potential justice for this alleged victim.

What nonsense. The Indo went overboard on a salacious story. End of story. Or is the Indo a champion for Ruth Coppinger all of a sudden?

One eyed Jack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It called out the idea that the type of underwear a person wears should not be used as a defense or to infer consent. And quite rightly. Any judge who considers such a thing should be struck off. It's similar to 'ah she was wearing a short skirt'. Disgusting.

But sure if that’s what forms the basis of the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, the Judge in any case isn’t left with much of a choice but to allow it as a defense. You appear to be unable to distinguish between consensual sex, and rape. Nobody has argued that what a person is wearing is any justification whatsoever for anyone to commit rape.

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But sure if that’s what forms the basis of the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, the Judge in any case isn’t left with much of a choice but to allow it as a defense. You appear to be unable to distinguish between consensual sex, and rape. Nobody has argued that what a person is wearing is any justification whatsoever for anyone to commit rape.

Fair is fair, if the defense is allowed to use her knickers as proof she was up for it, the victim should be allowed to use this mans previous convictions as proof he is a violent individual with a propensity for attacking people.

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

Fair is fair, if the defense is allowed to use her knickers as proof she was up for it, the victim should be allowed to use this mans previous convictions as proof he is a violent individual with a propensity for attacking people.

Fairness only applies to the defendant, doesn’t apply to the complainant, and it wouldn’t be the complainant making any arguments in any case. It would be the Prosecution would need to be raising that matter, and they can, and it would be at the discretion of the Judge whether or not to allow it -


Evidence of Patrick Nevin's Tinder use allowed in rape case because of 'similar modus operandi'


All of that being said, we don’t know what the jury was made aware of with regards to the defendant in this particular case. I’m certainly not interested in digging for more dirt to speculate on an innocent persons private life. There’s plenty enough of that going on in AH at the moment.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not any different given defence counsel was representing the accused.

It very much is different. There are rules on what a solicitor can say to a jury in a closing argument. Just because it's the view of the accused does not mean a solicitor can instruct a jury based on those beliefs.

For example let's say someone is on trial for stealing a car and in their defense they say well the keys were just sitting on the owner's hallway table and so they thought they wouldn't mind someone taking it. That's much different to a solicitor getting up instructing a jury to consider them innocent of a theft as a result of that belief. They'd be laughed at, which is why we'd maybe only hear such an argument being made when someone pleads guilty, in the hope of leniency.

That someone plead not-guilty to rape and style of underwear was used as part of their evidence that they had inferred consent is laughable. One can only hope there was much more evidence in the accused's favour than just that.

I see it as relevant as to whether or not it was the basis for the defendants honest belief that that the encounter was consensual.

Well, the defense's argument appears to be that the complaint must have been up for sex for someone that night as she wore lace underwear but that's irrelevant (unless she gave contradictory evidence) as even if she was on her way to a gangbang and had worn 'gangbang me' underwear, that's of no relevance to whether or not she consented to have sex with this man.

I wasn’t playing silly buggers at all. I’m being straight up with you. The trial isn’t about the complainant, they’re only ever appearing in a criminal trial as a witness for the States prosecution. The jury were asked to consider evidence which the defence counsel considered relevant to the defendants defence. There’s no such thing as a trial being unfair on the complainant in that context. A jury if it is to make an informed decision as to the defendants guilt, should at least be presented with evidence which may assist the defendant in their defence, as unreasonable as that may be to anyone who isn’t the defendant.

Silly buggers. Of course a trial where someone is hoping for justice can be conducted in a manner which is unfair to them.

James Brown

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But sure if that’s what forms the basis of the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, the Judge in any case isn’t left with much of a choice but to allow it as a defense. You appear to be unable to distinguish between consensual sex, and rape. Nobody has argued that what a person is wearing is any justification whatsoever for anyone to commit rape.

You're twisting there chief.
Re-read my comment. Type of underwear worn. It can be the defendants belief but based on proof. A style of garment is not consent and should not be taken into consideration. I believe that was Coppingers point.

Samuel Vimes

So now the baying mob have so overstepped the mark in their commentary that a judge has had declare a mistrial due media comment.

Hope the baying mob are happy
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/1126/1013461-rape-trial-collapse/

nice_guy80

Well done Ruth.

Publicity stunt in the dail has backfired

Assetbacked

Irresponsible legal advisors to the Indo - emotions are high on these things but people really need to cop on and not prejudice due process. Now a trial has collapsed because of pure hysteria which taints the legitimacy of any campaign. The complainant, if a legitimate victim, is suffering further because of this.

The Bishop Basher

It was only a matter of time..

Left alone long enough the left will eat themselves..

Assetbacked

Rennaws wrote: »

It was only a matter of time..

Left alone long enough the left will eat themselves..

It's not left wing to feel aggrieved at the treatment of complainants in rape cases and look for a dialogue on whether the concerns are legitimate.

James Brown

Samuel Vimes wrote: »

So now the baying mob have so overstepped the mark in their commentary that a judge has had declare a mistrial due media comment.

Hope the baying mob are happy
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/1126/1013461-rape-trial-collapse/

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Well done Ruth.

Publicity stunt in the dail has backfired

Calling out a disgusting nonsense that type of clothing infers consent? We need more of it so.
This was 100% on the Indo. The Judge even said so. ffs...

The Bishop Basher

Assetbacked wrote: »

It's not left wing to feel aggrieved at the treatment of complainants in rape cases and look for a dialogue on whether the concerns are legitimate.

I respectfully disagree.

Feeling aggrieved is very much the preserve of the left..

But call them what you want..

They’re the screechy whiny bunch. Usually women. Always on about some cause and generally hate men. They’re incredibly annoying and seem to permeate every aspect of our society..

Left, Illiberal, liberal, whatever..

Still the same crew screeching at the rest of us and trying to influence our thoughts, words and actions..

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It very much is different. There are rules on what a solicitor can say to a jury in a closing argument. Just because it's the view of the accused does not mean a solicitor can instruct a jury based on those beliefs.

...

That someone plead not-guilty to rape and style of underwear was used as part of their evidence that they had inferred consent is laughable. One can only hope there was much more evidence in the accused's favour than just that.

I personally don’t think there’s anything laughable about a persons defence counsel defending their client to the best of their ability. I have no doubt the barrister in this case is familiar with court procedures, even if the media and politicians pretend they aren’t.

Well, the defense's argument appears to be that the complaint must have been up for sex for someone that night as she wore lace underwear but that's irrelevant (unless she gave contradictory evidence) as even if she was on her way to a gangbang and had worn 'gangbang me' underwear, that's of no relevance to whether or not she consented to have sex with this man.

Ok, to you it’s irrelevant. I get that. To the defendant, it isn’t irrelevant, to the defendants counsel, it isn’t irrelevant, and defendants counsel didn’t think it was irrelevant to the jury in making their deliberations regarding that particular point in the context of all the evidence they had been presented with during the trial.

Silly buggers. Of course a trial where someone is hoping for justice can be conducted in a manner which is unfair to them.

No, I don’t agree that it is a case of silly beggars because if trials were conducted with the idea that they were about the complainant getting justice, then it would be entirely unfair on the defendant. The purpose of any criminal trial isn’t to get justice for the complainant, it’s to allow the defendant who is accused of a criminal offence, a fair hearing.

One eyed Jack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're twisting there chief.
Re-read my comment. Type of underwear worn. It can be the defendants belief but based on proof. A style of garment is not consent and should not be taken into consideration. I believe that was Coppingers point.

I know it was Ms. Coppingers point, and it’s a point that nobody made. That’s where the twisting began. I don’t know what you mean that it can be the defendants belief but based on proof. Nobody is suggesting that ‘a style of garment’ as you so reductively put it is indicative of consent. The barrister was making the argument that it was reasonable to conclude from the way the complainant was dressed, that she intended to have sex, and that the defendant whom she ended up having sex with, their belief that the sexual encounter was consensual is entirely reasonable on that basis. Of course in those circumstances what the complainant was wearing has to be taken into consideration as it goes to whether or not the defendants belief was honest, and whether or not it was reasonable.

I take it you disagree that it was reasonable, grand.

Assetbacked

Rennaws wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

Feeling aggrieved is very much the preserve of the left..

But call them what you want..

They’re the screechy whiny bunch. Usually women. Always on about some cause and generally hate men. They’re incredibly annoying and seem to permeate every aspect of our society..

Left, Illiberal, liberal, whatever..

Still the same crew screeching at the rest of us and trying to influence our thoughts, words and actions..

You sound like you're aggrieved by what you perceive as the left. Are you the left therefore?

Additionally, do you prefer to be more subtly influenced?

22michael44

Rennaws wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

Feeling aggrieved is very much the preserve of the left..

But call them what you want..

They’re the screechy whiny bunch. Usually women. Always on about some cause and generally hate men. They’re incredibly annoying and seem to permeate every aspect of our society..

Left, Illiberal, liberal, whatever..

Still the same crew screeching at the rest of us and trying to influence our thoughts, words and actions..

OK, so the 'Right' are never aggrieved about anything, i take it? talking absolute nonsense m8, go for a walk.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I personally don’t think there’s anything laughable about a persons defence counsel defending their client to the best of their ability. I have no doubt the barrister in this case is familiar with court procedures, even if the media and politicians pretend they aren’t.

You're just posting soundbytes now. We're all aware she's familiar with court procedures, Jack.

....the defendants counsel didn’t think it was irrelevant to the jury in making their deliberations regarding that particular point in the context of all the evidence they had been presented with during the trial.

Well, from what we have read (and remember, your opinion so far has been on the evidence presented) the fact the girl wore lace underwear on the night was irrelevant and you haven't remotely provided anything to counter that view.

No, I don’t agree that it is a case of silly beggars because if trials were conducted with the idea that they were about the complainant getting justice, then it would be entirely unfair on the defendant. The purpose of any criminal trial isn’t to get justice for the complainant, it’s to allow the defendant who is accused of a criminal offence, a fair hearing.

You're wrong.........

Firstly, you can be fair to both the accused and the complainant at the same time (they are not mutually exclusive) and all trials are conducted with that objective. Secondly, many retrials are have been carried out when it's felt that has not occurred, in the cases of both defendant and alleged victim.

Here's one such case where a priest from Wicklow was being tried for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl and the judge felt that a line of questioning line was not correct and that to proceed would be unfair on her.

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, the defense's argument appears to be that the complaint must have been up for sex for someone that night as she wore lace underwear but that's irrelevant (unless she gave contradictory evidence) as even if she was on her way to a gangbang and had worn 'gangbang me' underwear, that's of no relevance to whether or not she consented to have sex with this man.

Yes that is clearly what the defense barrister was trying to imply.

It doesn't really make sense that she raised the underwear as relating to the defendants beliefs about consent because one would assume that for the underwear to be relevant to his beliefs he'd have to have seen them, which would mean having her skirt or jeans off anyway which would imply that they're already on the way to having sex before they could affect his beliefs.

It's clear that the barrister raised the underwear as (faulty) evidence of intent of the complainant to have sex, not as evidence of the beliefs of the defendant about the complainants consent.