meeeeh wrote: » I think it's very worrying that anyone with attitude like yours is dealing with rape accusations.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Read it. With an open mind.
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.
retro:electro wrote: » You’ve a very black and white view of rape. What about the woman who goes out with every intention of having consensual sex, but ends up getting raped? Do you care about her no? Also, how do you differentiate between the two cases you have above there?
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » You wouldn't if you were the lad accused of raping his housemate. Believe me.
meeeeh wrote: » Actually I would because anyone who thinks that the type of clothing can indicate if one was rapped or rapped someone can't be trusted either way.
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » I'm not sure how things work chez Seamus, but the average man who comes home to find his girlfriend or wife waiting for him in lingerie would be able to read her intent loud and clear. To claim otherwise is just silly.
tritium wrote: » Well, let’s take a hypothetical- it’s not too far fetched, it’s substituting clothing for words in the basis of Ched Evans acquittal on appeal. Suppose the accuser claimed she had no intention from the get go of having sex with anyone that night under any circumstances. Suppose she’s previously told a friend that she only ever wore those underwear if she intended to have casual sex. Would the underwear be relevant then? I’m not saying that’s what happened btw, I’m simply pointing out (again) that it’s not as simple as those evil barristers calling people harlots as they parade used underwear. Evidence typically forms part of a much wider case for the defence, and in and of themselves the underwear would never be sufficient to create reasonable doubt.
Lackey wrote: » Absolutely evidence etc BUT it should never be used to judge whether the accuser was 'up for it' or not.
Standman wrote: » I'd agree with that, generally speaking. However, defense and prosecution barristers do similar things all the time in trials. For example, in this very same trial the prosecuting barrister mentioned that the young woman he was representing had never had sex before. Why would he mention this? If you've never had sex before, does that imply that you wouldn't have consented? It's the other side of the coin. I don't know if there's a more specific term for it, but to me it's a kind of weak circumstantial evidence. Now obviously, empathising with the woman in this case, it must have been horrible for her to go through and it's completely understandable why this has upset so many people. But I just can't see how this can be changed. Do we ban this kind of "weak circumstantial evidence" altogether?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » we should ban irrelevant evidence which is what the choice of underwear is.
seenitall wrote: » Really? Give me some examples? When did a barrister utter that only men commit domestic violence, or that only women can be good parents? Cos yes, that would be very wrong, too. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. I would not be in favour of anything that promotes inequality or injustice or a medieval bias in the public sphere.
retro:electro wrote: » Your posts have no empathy, ever, and have a remarkable lack of seeing nuance and finer detail in case to case.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » And FYI, the only reason I dealt with the case was that everyone else were of the mind that because the housemate had said she was raped, therefore she was. An independent person had to be brought in for him as no one would stand for him. I would. She said she'd never shown any sexual interest to him whatsoever, none: "I don't even like him". Guards got the CCTV of her hanging all over him whilst he tried to walk home, grabbing bits of him below the waist and basically the entire act (was in the secure car park of their residence).
SterlingArcher wrote: » Show all the context in this case that it was used in.
retro:electro wrote: »
ohnonotgmail wrote: » No it wouldn't. She may have gone out with the intention of casual sex but that does not mean she gave consent to a particular individual.
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » So if the complainant was sending the accused provocative text messages throughout the day, met him dressed in sexy clothes and underwear, went back to his place, got drunk with him, kissed him, etc., her claim that she was raped will inevitably be questioned from multiple angles so as to create that reasonable doubt. If it can be shown that she met him with the full intent of having sex, her claim will inevitably be seen as less credible than that of another victim who was jumped on her way home and raped at knifepoint.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » I know there are posters who will never accept this argument, but there is a vast difference between these two scenarios: Where a woman (or indeed man) is forced to have sex by someone they never had any notions of having sex with; who they gave no indication they even considered it and outright said they did not want to have sex - this is clearly rape and no amount of waving their clothing round can ever justify that. The perpetrators are lower than scum. However, where a woman (again, or man) who goes out intending to have sex with the person they are meeting (or meet subsequently that night and intend to have sex) then does so freely and keenly, regrets it or does not remember consenting due to alcohol or drugs and lies about their initial intentions then that's not rape. In that case whatever the defence uses to break this story is fair game in my opinion.
tritium wrote: » Except that’s not the point being made, is it? One valid aspect of reasonable doubt is where the credibility of a key witness is in doubt. An inconsistency like I described would certainly begin to call credibility into question.
Grayson wrote: » That's a specific scenario where someone mentions the specific underwear and the intentions beforehand. It could be anything really. It could have been earrings that someone only wears when they're on the pull. In which case you would be able to point out that the specific item, underwear earrings etc, and point out a specific intent associated with that item. In that case you are displaying the relevance of the specific underwear. Which is why I said only relevant evidence should be allowed. Now that doesn't mean that they consent to sex with a particular person, but it does imply a desire to have sex. However without that specific intent being demonstrated, pointing out what underwear they are wearing doesn't imply anything. It's just underwear.
retro:electro wrote: » That’s totally different though because that’s a running narrative that provides context before the alleged rape. Obviously that would be admissible. That is completely different to assigning sexual consent to the victim’s underwear because she happened to go for the frilly pink ones that morning. That tells me nothing about the turn of events that happened later on when the rape occurred.
tritium wrote: » I agree, however without the full evidence presented in the case in question you can’t simply reduce this case to an assumption that the defence just pulled out some knickers to paint the accuser as asking for it. That’s a huge step of logic. Unfortunately Ruth Coppinger doesn’t really seem to care about nuance or detail.
SterlingArcher wrote: » Guy texts girl hey, I'm going tk wear my black leather pants with your gonna get it on them next time we meet up, he tells her she can take them off with her teeth. They meet it goes south for what ever reason, ends up in court. You think when the text is read out as evidence, that whether or not the guy wore that underware has no bearing in the case whatsoever. Or can you dismiss it as clothing choice is irrelevant.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » It has absolutely no relevance. A promise does not constitute consent at a later date. The woman has every right to withdraw consent at any time. "Aww but you promised" doesnt wash.
vonlars wrote: » That's exactly what they did though. "You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » I'm assuming the defense barrister didn't just stand up, wave the knickers around, and say "Look at what she was wearing!"
