SusieBlue wrote: » I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you, whatsapp messages have zero relevance in this case.
tritium wrote: » Except this thread (and Coppingers point) isn’t about one case, where the court applied it’s rules appropriately, it’s about what should be generally permissible in evidence in rape trials. So tell me, what do you think should be classed as permissible evidence for prosecution and defence in such trials?
retro:electro wrote: » But what could the design of your knicker de jour imply about the sexual intentions of the girl in question? Really? No one disputes that items of clothing have to be submitted for evidence, but when you go down the road of saying someone’s knickers implied not only intent, but consent .. that’s when it becomes very dangerous and damaging to every single person who tries to prosecute a rape.
astrofool wrote: » What you seem to be arguing is that there is no meaning at all to what underwear someone chooses, despite the fact that different underwear styles are specifically marketed for different intents, the fact that there's a billion dollar industry built on top of this is now irrelevant.
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » The underwear alone doesn't prove anything. But the fact that there are a bazillion articles online on the theme of "What Kind Of Underwear Do You Wear On A Date?" (Glamour magazine) suggests that yes, a woman does pay attention to her choice of underwear when she intends to have sex. So it can't be assumed to be entirely irrelevant, either. If the defense's case rests on showing that the alleged victim was behaving in a manner consistent with inviting sexual contact, and that the accused genuinely believed that the girl invited and wanted intercourse, then numerous factors -- including her choice of clothing -- could be relevant in bolstering that case.
retro:electro wrote: » So people who go on dates and intend on having consensual sex don’t get raped?
Grayson wrote: » Boasting about sex would indicate that intercourse actually occurred although it wouldn't indicate the legality
. Whatsapp messages may indicate the defendants attitude towards women.They may even be used by the defense.
I realise you're trying to get this away from the case at hand and over to the belfast case, they are two separate cases. The bolded bit is a slippery slope argument. For what's wrong with that type of argument, I refer you back a page or two to the link I put up about slippery slope arguments. None of what you posted addresses the fact that whether someone wears a thong is not an indication that they consented to sex. Likewise for example wearing a short skirt is not an indication that someone consented to sex.
If there's any other evidence that shows that someone consented then it should be presented to the court. But choice of underwear doesn't prove it or even bolster any other evidence unless it's directly refereed to elsewhere.
titan18 wrote: » You shouldn't limit what a defense can use as evidence. It's up to the jury to decide whether to agree with it or not, not the lynch mob.
SusieBlue wrote: » I have yet to see one convincing argument for how an inanimate item of clothing can not only imply but actually GIVE sexual consent on behalf of the living citizen actually wearing it. Not one.
Grab All Association wrote: » I’m fairly certain it was other evidence taken into consideration by the jury that found this girl not believable. None of us were there. We are talking about a man that was acquitted of a very serious crime. Isn’t he entitled to sympathy/justice?
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » Of course they do. However, there's a lot more room for reasonable doubt in a he said/she said scenario. A defense barrister's job in such a case is to create reasonable doubt so as to ensure that her client is found not guilty. That's what this barrister did.
blue note wrote: » I haven't even seen anyone suggest that it does. What people are saying is that it can give weight to the argument that she intended to, or was open to having sex. And intending to have sex would give weight to the argument that she later consented, but obviously doesn't prove that she did on it's own. Not even close. Can you point to anyone saying that wearing a thong gives consent? I'd be interested to see that quote.
seamus wrote: » The Dail can pass legislation about what can and cannot be presented as evidence in defence of a charge.
retro:electro wrote: » The fact that your underwear could be the cause of even a smidgen of doubt is what’s depressing.
tritium wrote: » And given consensual sex isn’t rape that would have zero evidential value unless the claim was no sex happened Which in itself says nothing about whether a crime was committed. Someone being crude about sexual partners doesn’t make them more likely a rapist any more than someone having an adventurous sex history makes them less likely to be a truthful rape victim Im afraid you either misunderstand or misrepresent my motives here. I completely agree with your last point. However the focus of Coppingers actions is very much on what can’t be used by a defence without extending the same courtesy to what’s allowed for a prosecution. My point is where do you want to draw the bar to be fair to both parties. If it’s reasonable to disallow defence use of evidence as to elements outside the immediate event then the same is true for the prosecution. At its limit any case would reduce to he said/ she said and medical evidence occasionally. Do you think that will improve the workings of justice? I agree, however that assumes that the courts don’t already consider this in what they allow in a given case. which as I understand they largely do. Far too many commentators seem to want to run with Coppingers tack that knickers are being whipped out in cases up and down the country as some sort of harlot-o meter when the reality is there are far more complex reasons for why a case may result in an acquittal.
Grayson wrote: » But underwear isn't relevant at all. There's two things to look at. 1) Did sex occur. 2) was it consensual. The fact that she wore common underwear doesn't indicate either of those. Unless she took them off afterwards, signed them and said "That was great", I don't see how underwear is relevant at all. It's effectively slut shaming. It's indicating that style of dress indicates consent. It's an argument that should have no place in a court of law.
Simple_Simone wrote: » So presumably you reckon that the wearer of this item of clothing is lying?
Simple_Simone wrote: » So presumably you reckon that the wearer of this item of clothing is lying?https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/products/110881489/views/1,width=650,height=650,appearanceId=1,version=1524725084.jpg
Grab All Association wrote: » . Why was a 15 year old wearing underwear that’s marketed to adults?
seamus wrote: » You think wearing that shirt would prove that they want to have sex? Mixed messages, perhaps, but only someone who had extreme difficulty with communication would assume that t-shirt automatically means the wearer is looking for sex. Look at it from another perspective. Does that t-shirt carry exactly the same message on all of these people: - A slim 18 year old woman - A fat 60 year old woman - A porn star - Chris Pratt - Donald Trump - A 21 year old athletic man No, it doesn't. Because language is far more nuanced than the literal meaning of the words.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
