professore wrote: » 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.
professore wrote: » 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.
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.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » If the woman in question had said "I was wearing grey, saggy boxers, and had zero intention of getting laid" - the defence can (and should) use whatever legaly obtained evidence they can to disprove that.
professore wrote: » 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.
Padraig Mor wrote: » This is a very important point. For all the outrage, it seems to have been widely missed that the jury returned a unanimous verdict in an hour and a half - they were hardly in the room before they were back out again! Suggests to me that there was plenty of other - convincing but unreported - evidence in the case.
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.
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. .
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Please NEVER sit on a jury, ever. "Well he's clearly guilty but sadly we have no choice but to let the rapist go as there's no proof he's guilty". Jesus wept.
ceegee wrote: » I'd rather not have you on a jury, if innocent until proven guilty seems like an outlandish concept to you
williestroker1 wrote: » Could she not have brought up what is a very serious issue without holding up her knickers. The usual grandstanding from Coppinger.
King of Kings wrote: » that maybe you which i find really weird tbh cos a normal parent would what their child to have the best defence possible. maybe we have different views of parenthood.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » 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.
seamus wrote: » Right back at you. "Even though there's no evidence, clearly he's guilty, so let's send this guy to jail". Jesus wept, you belong back in the middle ages :rolleyes: As much as it would hurt me, I would want to know the truth. If my child is guilty and I know they're guilty, then I cannot in good conscience create the "best defence" in order to get them off. The victim is someone else's child and deserves equal respect. I would certainly look at the range of options available to us to try and drive for the best possible outcome, but the best possible honest outcome. Throwing money at the case to secure a not guilty plea when I know they committed the crime, is not an honest outcome.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » For the love of God - THAT WAS SARCASM! That was me putting words int he mouths of those who spout the crap heard doing the Jackson/Olding trial - and since "well, they were found not guilty but it doesn't make them innocent".YES IT DOES! There are points you think you might have to explain and ones you don't. Clearly I misjudged the audience.
lawred2 wrote: » Ah now - you can of course be guilty and escape justice because of a lack of evidence.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » I give up.
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.
wexie wrote: » I think you're all getting a bit confused over the difference between 'innocent in the eyes of the law' and 'actually, didn't commit the crime they were charged with'.
lawred2 wrote: » I'm not
seamus wrote: » As much as it would hurt me, I would want to know the truth. If my child is guilty and I know they're guilty, then I cannot in good conscience create the "best defence" in order to get them off. The victim is someone else's child and deserves equal respect. I understand parents who take this route, like the parents in the Annabelle's case, but I cannot respect them.
King of Kings wrote: » Even if your child was guilty , you'd hardly want them thrown to the wolves defenceless either....a normal person would want them to have the best defence. the best defence doesnt rule out punishment....merely they get to argue their case... having their day in court would be the common terms.....anything less is disowning your child... which isnt for me and sounds like a unnatural concept.
King of Kings wrote: » Even if your child was guilty , you'd hardly want them thrown to the wolves defenceless either....a normal person would want them to have the best defence.
blue note wrote: » 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.
doylefe wrote: » What you wear projects your intentions. Of course it should be used in court in the defense of an innocent man.
suicide_circus wrote: » when defending yourself against allegations in court, everything is fair game.
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.
professore wrote: » 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.
