Silentcorner wrote: » Francie, challenging yourself is beyond you...nothing I can do about it...
FrancieBrady wrote: » It had to be pointed out to you that it wasn't 'paraded' around the court in an effort to 'humiliate her'. But everyone else has to challenge themselves. :rolleyes:
Grayson wrote: » Seriously, look up belief. We're talking epistemology here. As in "How can you know that something is true", what is truth, what does it mean to know something. I've said that I believe the victim. I haven't said that I know. I'm making a very definite distinction there and I'm using very clear language to make it. This is based the limits in my knowledge. So please don't tell me what I'm thinking or what I'm saying.Mod note:Alleged victim! Buford T. Justice
Silentcorner wrote: » Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree. Like I said, I am no expert, I just think we should be locking up more rapists, that's all! And the process should be made more comfortable for the alleged victims. I don't see what benefit parading womens underwear around a public courtroom has for the defendants other than to further humiliate the victim. In this case, her deeply personal examination was recorded, which almost resulted in the video being shown in public court...I mean, I don't know if that could happen here in the Republic, if it can I would be repulsed by it...
Silentcorner wrote: » Francie....why are we even talking about the woman's underwear... I used the term paraded because the article I read at the time suggested it was, there is a different report where it was described differently....the article I read described the colour and type...so they were in view, however discretely, to people other than the judge/jury... But either way, my point still stands.... I really do not understand how that is so hard to see... Well, I do, this issue is a strong indicator how a person will perceive a woman who has made an allegation of date rape.
goz83 wrote: » I think we should be locking up all rapists. Of course we have due process and we can’t just lock up someone based solely on an allegation.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » nice assumption there at the end at Francie's expense. the underwear was used as evidence to allege a rape. evidence is usually presented to a jury. they would have also been described in evidence by the lawyers/witnesses, hence maybe the journalists description, One even described them as "lace". Did they get that close a look to feel the fabric? there's no way of knowing unless you were there, but it seems they weren't ran up a proverbial flag pole (fleg?). Although in this particular case I don't really see their relevance, or of what use to the defence it would be to "parade" them. the (oral etc) sex was not denied, just that it was consensual. they were shown however as part of the display of the entire complainant's wardrobe that night. SO's DNA was all over them.
Silentcorner wrote: » Actually that last line was not directed at Francie... So you can't tell me either why the defence chose to present her underwear to the jury either...but they were...which as you pointed out provoked deep discomfort for the woman in question... Forget about this case for a minute... Why would any defence want a jury to see the alleged victims underwear? What evidence could it possess that could clear the defendants? Why does it always happen in rape trials, or a least more often than not... Why would any person, male or female have any problem reforming this humiliating procedure? If you scratch beneath this little isolated issue, you can begin to understand why women are reluctant to even report rape/sexual assault.
Silentcorner wrote: » Actually that last line was not directed at Francie... So you can't tell me either why the defence chose to present her underwear to the jury either...but the were...which as you pointed out provoked deep discomfort for the woman in question... Forget about this case for a minute... Why would any defence want a jury to see the alleged victims underwear? What evidence could it possess that could clear the defendants? Why does it always happen in rape trials, or a least more often than not... Why would any person, male or female have any problem reforming this humiliating procedure? If you scratch beneath this little isolated issue, you can begin to understand why women are reluctant to even report rape/sexual assault.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It may be ripped, indicating force. It may have very little bloodstaining when the complainant claimed to be covered in blood. Like anything physical there that night it is evidence and it cannot be inadmissible just because somebody might be embarrassed.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » ill work backwards from from your post. maybe a woman needs to weigh her discomfort at having her underwear being shown discreetly to a jury against her desire to see her attacker face justice. they were entered as evidence by the prosecution. do you honestly think it would put someone off seeking justice? that her knickers might be shown to a jury ? In Ireland, with no public present? that said I've no issue with reforms to the process that obviate as much discomfort as possible for the defendant, but not as the risk of compromising the principles of "innocent until proven guilty". i agree with you though, unless they are used as evidence to demonstrate the presence of someone, or evidence of violence, I cant see their relevance. in fact in this case, there was no chain of custody, I dont see why the defence didnt move to "throw them out".
Silentcorner wrote: » The woman in this case was deeply uncomfortable with this part of the cross examination...she blushed profusely....a reaction that would be very common in alleged victims...IF that alleged victim was already traumatised by the original incident, this is going to do further harm.... I suspect, and only suspect mind, that if the underwear fit into the defenses narrative, they will get them in front of the jury, and by extension the court. If she was represented by her own counsel, she would have a better chance of dismissing the relevance...I would imagine...I may not be right on that.
Silentcorner wrote: » Where did anyone suggest that??
VinLieger wrote: » That poll is a farce setup by angry clueless people, its first iteration was demanding that the IRFU and Ulster rugby review the contracts of all 4 of the men involved in the case, which is hilarious considering 2 of them do not have a contract with either the IRFU or Ulster Rugby. It was setup demanding the IRFU and Ulster Rugby review the players conduct a full day after AFTER the IRFU and Ulster Rugby had already announced that's exactly what they were going to do. The people involved with the poll evidently didn't really care or were aware of the real facts and just wanted to stamp and scream in anger
jm08 wrote: » At the time, I got the impression that it was shown to the jury to suggest to the jury that anyone wearing such underwear was 'looking for it.'
Silentcorner wrote: » Jesus Christ.....does anyone actually read posts here... I did not say that underwear should be inadmissible anywhere. The little change (of how/when and to whom underwear should be presented in court) would make the very difficult process of a cross examination just a bit easier for a woman who is alleging she was raped. If we, as a society, cannot even consider extending this little courtesy to a women then it does reveal a fairly backward attitude...
FrancieBrady wrote: » The problem is what it is for the entire trial - the presence of the public - and the marketing of what goes on in trials to the general public by the media. This is what lead to the misunderstanding of 'parading'. Other than that I cannot see it as fair and democratic to interfere with evidence or to restrict it's use on the basis that it might be 'embarrassing'.
Silentcorner wrote: » I was able to read reports at the time, that her underwear was on view...I don't really understand how discretion can be used...I mean, if the jury were not given a close look at the underwear then what did the defence wish to achieve?? I am not objecting to use of evidence... The woman blushed profusely, as would any woman in the same position...does it not then make sense to change it?
erica74 wrote: What do people think about the proposal to lift reporting restrictions? The trial judge is hearing an application today in relation to this.
Tell me how wrote: » I think it's a bad idea. It will only prolong focus on all the individuals involved in this who need to try to get past this and move on with their lives. Also, there is another case being prosecuted at the moment with the intimate details of the alleged crime being again, reported on news bulletins. Again, I think this is salacious and entirely unnecessary with respect to the trial being held. I think News outlets are being excessively descriptive in their reporting of such cases, which I can only surmise is in order to attract listeners. Frank Greaneys bulletins on Newstalk relating the trial in Belfast were way over the top, proceeded with a warning 1.3 seconds before his report started.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Have to defend Greaney here (while agreeing that there should have been no reporting at all) I thought his reporting was comprehensive, factual and avoided sensationalising events.
sydthebeat wrote: » Why are we even debating how a trial is run in a different jurisdiction?? We have absolutely no power to impact change. We may as well be debating how trials run in Afghanistan. In our country this trial would have been run a lot differently, but again the outraged masses don't understand this. One point that seems to be lost on people is that its quite possible to have a case where a man believes a woman has consented, but the woman believes she has been raped. This is not rape, if it can be shown a man had reasonable belief the woman had consented.
FrancieBrady wrote: Have to defend Greaney here (while agreeing that there should have been no reporting at all) I thought his reporting was comprehensive, factual and avoided sensationalising events.
Tell me how wrote: » I'm not sure we needed to hear that one of the guys was naked and was holding his penis, which was erect when asking her to have sex or that another one started to penetrate her with his finger while she performed oral sex and so on. Could that not have been described as sexual activity? We, the radio listeners were not the jury and I don't think anyone benefited from that level of reporting. His style and "reporting" of events in the courtroom were fine, I felt there wasn't a need for the level of detail which was delivered.
