Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Padraig Mor

seamus wrote: »

Or lack of, more likely.

Proving that something didn't happen is virtually impossible. Generally cases rest on the prosecution proving what did happen rather the defence proving that it didn't. People are generally acquitted because there's not enough convincing evidence of guilt rather than ample evidence that they're innocent.

I take your point. However, while I have not had the dubious pleasure of sitting on a jury, I would have thought a 'not enough evidence' acquittal would surely have involved a significant amount of discussion, rather than the in the door / out the door decision in this case?

FunLover18 wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that anyone was acquitted based purely on what the alleged victim was wearing, merely that introducing what the alleged victim was wearing feeds into a culture of victim blaming and is one of the reason why sexual crimes are not reported.

While I don't necessarily agree with the second half of your statement, I must admit I'm rather surprised the whole issue was brought up in the trial.

lawred2 wrote:

Ah now - you can of course be guilty and escape justice because of a lack of evidence.

While making no comment as to the Olding and Jackson - escaping justice does not mean innocent. Just means you weren't convicted.

Reference to that case is interesting when viewed alongside the current case. That case too featured wailing outrage that the woman's underwear had been 'paraded' before the jury - but all the triggered Twitterati overlooked that there was a specific reason for this - the woman had claimed she was 'covered in blood' (or similar), yet her underwear proved that this was untrue (along with a number of her other claims IIRC).

listermint

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.

You're bringing Idiocy into this.

Idiocy and law down mix well.

is this a real post or a parody one ?

lawred2

Padraig Mor wrote: »

While ignoring your obvious slur against two innocent men, reference to that case is interesting when viewed alongside the current case. That case too featured wailing outrage that the woman's underwear had been 'paraded' before the jury - but all the triggered Twitterati overlooked that there was a specific reason for this - the woman had claimed she was 'covered in blood' (or similar), yet her underwear proved that this was untrue (along with a number of her other claims IIRC).

you know what - fuk you for that

I didn't introduce them into the conversation - so I didn't want what I was saying to be viewed as a reference to their judgement in any way..

Even being explicit about it isn't enough for the likes of yourself.

Obvious slur? Gah!

SusieBlue

Roger_007 wrote: »

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.

I don't see anyone here commenting on the actual verdict, the fact that he was found not guilty is neither here nor there.

The fact of the matter is that a victims choice of underwear should never be used as evidence that a rape didn't occur. It has absolutely no relevance.

Why wasn't the defendants choice of underwear discussed and analysed? Would it be a case of him not wanting it, if he was wearing baggy boxers, but being up for it if he was wearing fitted Y fronts?

If a woman isn't up for intercourse, or indeed, doesn't want to be raped, which type of knickers are acceptable? Which kind should we be encouraging our daughters to wear, to ensure they won't be sexually assaulted?

Not that age is relevant, and again, nothing to do with the overall verdict, but this is a 17 year old child we are talking about here.
A barrister stood up in court and used the underwear choice of a 17 year old child to prove not only that she MUST have consented, but that she was up for the ride with any man in general that night.

And that is absolutely disgusting and should never be allowed happen in court again.

ohnonotgmail

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don't see anyone here commenting on the actual verdict, the fact that he was found guilty is neither here nor there.

The fact of the matter is that a victims choice of underwear should never be used as evidence that a rape didn't occur. It has absolutely no relevance.

Why wasn't the defendants choice of underwear discussed and analysed? Would it be a case of him not wanting it, if he was wearing baggy boxers, but being up for it if he was wearing fitted Y fronts?

If a woman isn't up for intercourse, or indeed, doesn't want to be raped, which type of knickers are acceptable? Which kind should we be encouraging our daughters to wear, to ensure they won't be sexually assaulted?

Not that age is relevant, and again, nothing to do with the overall verdict, but this is a 17 year old child we are talking about here.
A barrister stood up in court and used the underwear choice of a 17 year old child to prove not only that she MUST have consented, but that she was up for the ride with any man in general that night.

And that is absolutely disgusting and should never be allowed happen in court again.

For all those who say it is acceptable to bring up the womens underwear i have one question to ask:


If this is acceptable as a defence tactic do you think it is acceptable for the prosecution to say in court "The lady was wearing granny knickers on the night in question so the defendant must be guilty"?

zell12

Carry On Knickers

SusieBlue

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

For all those who say it is acceptable to bring up the womens underwear i have one question to ask:


If this is acceptable as a defence tactic do you think it is acceptable for the prosecution to say in court "The lady was wearing granny knickers on the night in question so the defendant must be guilty"?

No, not at all. I don't think the clothing or underwear choices of either party have any business being discussed in court, bar for forensic purposes.

ohnonotgmail

SusieBlue wrote: »

No, not at all. I don't think the clothing or underwear choices of either party have any business being discussed in court, bar for forensic purposes.

Ah no, i know you dont think that. Probably shouldn't have quoted your post.

King of Kings

listermint wrote: »

You're bringing Idiocy into this.

Idiocy and law down mix well.

is this a real post or a parody one ?

ok boss...... you have lost the run of yourself

sbsquarepants

doylefe wrote: »

What you wear projects your intentions. Of course it should be used in court in the defense of an innocent man.

What a ridiculously stupid thing to say!

I haven't worn underwear since I was about 12 or 13. Doesn't mean I go out every night hoping to get bummed by sailors, I just don't like underwear!

SterlingArcher

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don't see anyone here commenting on the actual verdict, the fact that he was found guilty is neither here nor there.

You said fact there, before something that was not factual.

Triceratops Ballet

What is troubling to people is not that the verdict in this case was not guilty. The verdict is largely irrelevant really. It's troubling that in 2018 a someones underwear was pointed to as evidence that they were looking to have sex and therefore that could infer an encounter was consensual. Underwear is just underwear it's the thing that sits between your genitals and your clothes, all it infers is that you want to keep your genitals from coming into direct contact with your outerwear for hygiene and possibly health reasons.

The problem with statements like this is the messages it sends to society at large:

a) that's it's ok to judge how "up for it" someone is based on what they're wearing (as I said earlier, if a straight bloke finds himself in a gay bar of a night, happens to be in his best undies with a full on Beckham look going, and finds himself back at a house party, it would not be a fair assumption that he put on his best jocks cos he was after a nice bit of c**k, and it certainly should not be considered evidence of anything.
b) That victims, who we already know can be reluctant to report rape to the Gardaí when deciding if they should come forward or not, might think well I was wearing slutty red lacy underwear maybe I was giving the wrong signals
c) That young people both boys and girls might think that people wearing underwear that could be deemed as sexy are gagging for it, or that if you're wearing underwear that could be deemed as sexy people will think you're gagging for it, so if someone takes advantage sure weren't you sending the wrong message

We live in a country where the severity of rape charges are consistently undermined by giving minimal, concurrent or suspended custodial sentences to convicted rapists and worse if they have the financial means allowing them to make financial reparations to their victim such as Anthony Lyons who admitted he raped his victim and got off any sentence by throwing 75k in her direction.

Rape is allegedly one of the most severe crimes on our statute books and yet looking at sentences that are handed down you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise. These barristers comments remind people that for all the progressive steps we've made as a society, there is still an element that thinks going after someones choice of clothing in a rape trial is not only as evidence of the victims culpability in their own assault, but that it is acceptable and will sway people. People are angry about that, why wouldn't they be?

retro:electro

Ladies please. If you’re going to be going out on the town to meet with a man at least have the common sense to wear some of your ugliest and biggest rape proof granny knickers. At least then you won’t be burdened with the blame for your own rape.
Unlikely.

Padraig Mor

lawred2 wrote: »

you know what - fuk you for that

I didn't introduce them into the conversation - so I didn't want what I was saying to be viewed as a reference to their judgement in any way..

Even being explicit about it isn't enough for the likes of yourself.

Obvious slur? Gah!

You know what? You're right. Your post seems like a slur viewed in its own right, but reads differently in the context of the post you quoted (which I glossed over). Apologies, edited.

SusieBlue

SterlingArcher wrote: »

You said fact there, before something that was not factual.

That was a typo, I meant not guilty. I'm not disputing the verdict because its irrelevant.

retro:electro

So who knew that the knickers you have on act as a measurement for how horny you are. Today mine only have a little but of lace so I guess that means I’d like only a small bit of sex please.

B0jangles

retro:electro wrote: »

So who knew that the knickers you have on act as a measurement for how horny you are. Today mine only have a little but of lace so I guess that means I’d like only a small bit of sex please.

It's not the absolute quantity of lace that matters, that would be a dangerous mistake to make - it's all about the ratio of lace to other materials - so granny pants with a wide lace edge are safe, but a thong with even a couple of inches of edging is extremely risky.


The responsible thing to do is for the law society to publish something like the log tables you used to use in school so Irish women can check their underwear's ratio of surface area to trimmings and see if it matches up with their planned sexual behaviour.

retro:electro

Roger_007 wrote: »

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.

Nobody is disputing that certain items of clothing have to be submitted as evidence. Underwear is usually examined forensically along with every other item of clothing the victim was wearing. What is wrong is the suggestion that a certain item of clothing, by way of design, implies something on behalf of the sexual intent of the woman. It simply does not. To say that is similar to saying women in thongs don’t get raped but women in full briefs do. There is nothing suggestible or compromising by choosing what kind of knickers you decide to put on before you leave the house. They serve the same basic function and support as men’s boxers. You can have every intention of getting the ride on a night out and still end up getting raped.

Grayson

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

What is troubling to people is not that the verdict in this case was not guilty. The verdict is largely irrelevant really. It's troubling that in 2018 a someones underwear was pointed to as evidence that they were looking to have sex and therefore that could infer an encounter was consensual. Underwear is just underwear it's the thing that sits between your genitals and your clothes, all it infers is that you want to keep your genitals from coming into direct contact with your outerwear for hygiene and possibly health reasons.

To be fair, the verdict would be disturbing if the argument that swayed the jury was the underwear one.

Not that we have anyway of knowing. We haven't seen the whole trial and we don't know what went through the jurys heads. But if there's any chance that the jury made their decision based on that, then the decision is tainted. Which is another reason why those arguments should never be made in the first place.

Grayson

Roger_007 wrote: »

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.

Well that's a load of bollox. What world are you living in where you can actually believe that? Has she ever said anything that even vaguely implies that? Or are you just making sh1t up. Seriously, point out a single thing that she's ever said that even vaguely implies that defendants in rape trials shouldn't be allowed a defense.
She's said it's wrong to bring up type of underwear as evidence that a woman wants to have sex and therefore couldn't have been raped. It's the same as saying that a woman wore a short skirt so she wanted to have sex and therefore couldn't be raped. It's a fcuking stupid argument that has absolutely no foundation and should never have been allowed.

That is not that same as saying that a rape defendant should have no defense.

I'm wearing TMNT underknickerdrawers. It's good to know that if I'm unlucky enough to be assaulted today that I can point out that my underwear was actually saying I just want to watch cartoons.

Even if a woman is wearing a thong with I WANT SEX TONIGHT written on it, it absolutely doesn't mean that she was open to any sex from anyone and therefore can't be raped.

SterlingArcher

retro:electro wrote: »

Nobody is disputing that certain items of clothing have to be submitted as evidence. Underwear is usually examined forensically along with every other item of clothing the victim was wearing. What is wrong is the suggestion that a certain item of clothing, by way of design, implies something on behalf of the sexual intent of the woman. It simply does not. To say that is similar to saying women in thongs don’t get raped but women in full briefs do. There is nothing suggestible or compromising by choosing what kind of knickers you decide to put on before you leave the house. They serve the same basic function and support as men’s boxers. You can have every intention of getting the ride on a night out and still end up getting raped.

This case I disagree with the use of clothing. But


Say you have another false accusation of rape. The woman has crotchless panties, stockings suspenders and a carrying a whip. She is claiming rape. The guy is claiming they had both consented to meet up for sex at the hotel. You think the clothing should have no bearing at all here in a case helping to even decide if sex was considered.

While wildly dissimilar to this case, again, which I disagree with the using of the underware. Would it not have a knock on affect? Cannot use the clothing as evidence end of.

You now say this is ok to use( in even an ugly defence) but this is not. Where do you draw that line now.

JP Liz V1

retro:electro wrote: »

So who knew that the knickers you have on act as a measurement for how horny you are. Today mine only have a little but of lace so I guess that means I’d like only a small bit of sex please.

What happens if you go commando

ohnonotgmail

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Ah ok so you are not disputing that this woman has succeeded in ruining this guys life. Regardless of him being found innocent. Trivial I know.


This case I disagree with the use of clothing. But


Say you have another false accusation of rape. The woman has crotchless panties, stockings suspenders and a carrying a whip. She is claiming rape. The guy is claiming they had both consented to meet up for sex at the hotel. You think the clothing should have no bearing at all here in a case helping to even decide if sex was considered.

While wildly dissimilar to this case, again, which I disagree with the using of the underware. Would it not have a knock on affect? Cannot use the clothing as evidence end of.

You now say this is ok to use( in even an ugly defence) but this is not. Where do you draw that line now.

you draw the line at what is relevant. Wearing an article of clothing, any article even crotchless knickers, does not imply consent. It does not imply that the lady was "asking for it".

seamus

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I take your point. However, while I have not had the dubious pleasure of sitting on a jury, I would have thought a 'not enough evidence' acquittal would surely have involved a significant amount of discussion, rather than the in the door / out the door decision in this case?

90 minutes is quick, but not that quick.

The jury will have been given directions by the judge on what really needs to have been proven or shown in order to satisfy a guilty verdict, and reminded them of the importance of the "reasonable doubt" element.

In the case of rape, a guilty verdict is rather specific in that you need to prove that the defendant acted knowingly or recklessly without the consent of the victim. Which, if you sit back and think about it, is quite a high bar.

It is assumed, that the defendant had an "honestly held belief" that the complainant was consenting. It is up to the prosecution to prove that such a belief did not exist, or could not have existed.

So it is not up to the jury to decide whether the defendant honestly believed consent existed. But rather to decide whether the prosecution reasonably proved that such a belief could not have existed.

It's subtle, but doesn't necessarily need hours of deliberation, even if you've had days of evidence.

wexie

Candie wrote: »

I'm wearing TMNT underknickerdrawers. It's good to know that if I'm unlucky enough to be assaulted today that I can point out that my underwear was actually saying I just want to watch cartoons.

I think the equivalent in your case would be a barrister suggesting that whatever violence you were subjected to was clearly your own fault. You're wearing underwear that indicates you were premeditating violence and idolize known violent trouble makers with a penchant for pizza and kicking ass.

It's really very bizarre to suggest anything from this girls choice of underwear.
What if she hadn't been wearing any? What would that have been indicative of?

I certainly don't agree with the calls for banning underwear from being evidence, especially in rape cases I can envision many scenarios where they may be considered genuine valuable evidence. But attributing any kind of premeditation to something as innocuous as a thong (these weren't a crotchless number or arseless chaps!!) can have served only one purpose and that is to smear the victims reputation.

retro:electro

SterlingArcher wrote: »

This case I disagree with the use of clothing. But


Say you have another false accusation of rape. The woman has crotchless panties, stockings suspenders and a carrying a whip. She is claiming rape. The guy is claiming they had both consented to meet up for sex at the hotel. You think the clothing should have no bearing at all here in a case helping to even decide if sex was considered.

While wildly dissimilar to this case, again, which I disagree with the using of the underware. Would it not have a knock on affect? Cannot use the clothing as evidence end of.

You now say this is ok to use( in even an ugly defence) but this is not. Where do you draw that line now.

The verdict of the case is irrelevant to me. It’s the principle (or rather lack there of) of the matter I’m concerned with. False accusation or not, using the woman’s underwear as a barometer for how up for she was is ****ing gross and sets a dangerous precedent. It says absolutely nothing about whether a rape occurred or not. It tells me absolutely nothing about the victim only what size she is.
In the scenario you have mentioned above, knowing what knickers she had on or if she had a whip or other sexual paraphernalia is still grossly irrelevant because

you can meet someone for consensual sex and still end up getting raped.

AndrewJRenko

blue note wrote: »

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

No misunderstanding

Less than 2%

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/north-s-justice-system-failing-sexual-violence-victims-report-finds-1.3696246

Grayson

Candie wrote: »

I'm wearing TMNT underknickerdrawers. It's good to know that if I'm unlucky enough to be assaulted today that I can point out that my underwear was actually saying I just want to watch cartoons.

Even if a woman is wearing a thong with I WANT SEX TONIGHT written on it, it absolutely doesn't mean that she was open to any sex from anyone and therefore can't be raped.

You're in Ireland, they're Hero Turtles here

retro:electro

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

What happens if you go commando

Clearly asking for multiple penises to be rubbed all over you