Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You might feel that you have addressed it earlier you have only posted nonsense.

There is still a victim because no one has proved her wrong. To acquit someone only says that there is not enough proof to prosecute.

That’s not what it says at all. The prosecution felt there was enough evidence in this case for them to believe the case could proceed to trial and they could secure a conviction against the accused.

As always I'm not talking about recent cases but I haven't seen any girl found guilty of telling lies or a conviction pending. There state of can't prove the victim wrong in a case no more can they pr reasonable doubt against a man.

How someone can find that a case proves that the man is innocent and the girl not innocent is beyond my. If the girl lies would she not be in court?

I don’t know where you get your information, but you’d be wrong making that assumption -


Woman avoids jail after being found guilty of false rape claim


And that’s just one of many recent cases (and only the cases which have been published in the media) in which the State made their case that a woman was lying about being the victim of rape. How were they able to prove it? Same way they are able to prove any allegation of a criminal offence against a defendant - with evidence.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that the VICTIM is not telling the truth. She is still the victim. A not guilty verdict for the man does not mean that the victim is untruthful. If it did she would be prosecuted.

Agreed, beyond reasonable doubt says nothing about anything other than the evidential threshold. It is not rigidly defined but lies somewhere between "more likely than not" and "absolutely certain". Where exactly it lies in a particular case depends on the individual jury and individual jurors.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It is totally wrong to assume that the victim is guilty just because there was reasonable doubt

It’s even more wrong to assume the acquitted is guilty having been found not guilty by a jury of their peers.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Yes two totally different trials. Unless the victim in a case has been prosecuted proving the she has been lying is on an equal footing as the defendant being found not guilty, reasonable doubt.

Both have been through the court proceedings and neither has been found guilty. It is totally wrong to assume that the victim is guilty just because there was reasonable doubt

They’re not on the same footing at all. In the case where someone is accused of rape that goes to trial, that has a lot more in the way of legal implications for the defendant than claims that the victim is lying have for the victim, because the victim is not on trial at all.

Both have been through the court proceedings, but only the defendant was on trial, and was found not guilty. His accuser was never on trial so I don’t know what point you’re trying to make by saying neither has been found guilty as though they were both on trial.

There’s no assuming the victim is guilty of anything because the victim was never on trial, and anyone can make whatever assumptions they like about either the victim or the accused. If you’re pointing out that it’s wrong to make assumptions about one, then it’s equally wrong to make assumptions about the other, and yet not once have you pointed out that it is wrong for anyone to assume that what happened was rape when they talk about the victim.

There was a thread on here not so long ago about a social media blogger who had given her account of her rape, and there was plenty of the same people here assuming that in this case the girl was raped, whereas the social media blogger was ridiculed and it was suggested that her “false claims” made it harder for the “real” victims.

The point I’m making is that people are going to believe what they want about who they want, and reasonable doubt just doesn’t come into it on a personal level. Our judicial system has no such luxury and must be objective rather than subjective, so when we talk about justice in the context of the law - it must be applied to both the accused, and the accuser. Otherwise what you’re talking about in the context of “justice for the victim” isn’t justice, it’s favouritism of individuals based upon furthering your own beliefs.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

No that's not true. A jury can feel 95 percent guilt but under Irish law must acquit. 5 percent is reasonable doubt. 95 percent of guilt & they cannot convict.

Many jury members worldwide have expressed their frustration at not being allowed to convict someone that most likely committed a crime but there was 5 percent doubt.

Again I have to question where you get your information, because the above is utter nonsense.

The victim is still the victim until the dpp proves otherwise

The purpose of a trial is not to prove that the victim is lying. The alleged victim is still the alleged victim. There’s no additions or qualifiers to that which would guarantee any certainty whatsoever that a person who claims they were raped, were actually raped. For it to be guaranteed, the person who raped them would have to admit they raped them, and if they do that, then there is no need for a trial.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

No that's not true. A jury can feel 95 percent guilt but under Irish law must acquit. 5 percent is reasonable doubt. 95 percent of guilt & they cannot convict.

Many jury members worldwide have expressed their frustration at not being allowed to convict someone that most likely committed a crime but there was 5 percent doubt.

The victim is still the victim until the dpp proves otherwise

A different jurisdiction but similar legal system http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/1999/11/Publication_76_159_PP37Vol2.pdf page 54

However, many jurors said that they, and the jury as a whole, were uncertain
what “beyond reasonable doubt” meant. They generally thought in terms of
percentages, and debated and disagreed with each other about the percentage
certainty required for “beyond reasonable doubt”, variously interpreting it as
100 per cent, 95 per cent, 75 per cent, and even 50 per cent. Occasionally this
produced profound misunderstandings about the standard of proof.

"Reasonable doubt" is not quantified and depending on the juror and jury could be significantly less than 95% certain and still return a guilty verdict.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can infer what you like. Whether it’s reasonable or not would be a matter for the jury to decide how it relates to the defendant and whether or not the defendants contention that their belief that consent was present is reasonable or unreasonable. If the jury decides that the defendants contention that they believed the encounter was consensual, and that there was a reasonable basis for that belief, then they would take that into consideration in determining whether or not the defendant could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think what you and many others on this thread is ignoring is the fact that there is plenty of evidence not presented to the jury already for various reasons such as being more prejudicial than probative.

What most people in the thread who are arguing against the use of underwear as evidence of intent are saying is that the underwear had no evidentiary value of sexual intent. Therefore it should not be presented.

I think it a bit of a bland obvious statement to say that in a situation where something is presented as evidence to a jury the jury will assess and include that evidence.in their decision.making process. We all know that.

Key point is whether or not the individual members of the jury were of the opinion that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was reasonable.

The key point is whether the barrister should have been allowed use this argument in their closing remarks. Given that a.huge number of women wear this type of.underwear as their everyday underwear, it has zero evidentiary value as to intent to have sex.

Legal arguments aren’t based upon absolute logic btw, they’re based upon an interpretation of the evidence gathered in an investigation - reasoning, to draw any conclusions about anything based upon the evidence. If any piece of evidence is excluded because it is deemed to be irrelevant, that immediately calls into question whether or not the defendant will receive a fair trial which they have the right to by law. Exclusion of evidence which could have assisted the defendant in their own defence at the original trial is one of the most common reasons why verdicts in the original trial are overturned on appeal.

Completely agree. However, this does not mean that exclusion of evidence is automatically unfair to the defendant. It happens all the time. Sometimes it benefits the defendant. Sometimes it harms the defendant. But assuming that any piece of evidence that could be used (fairly or unfairly) to aid the acquittal of the defendant should be allowed to be used or else his verdict might be overturned is nonsense.

LLMMLL wrote: »

The key point is whether the barrister should have been allowed use this argument in their closing remarks. Given that a.huge number of women wear this type of.underwear as their everyday underwear, it has zero evidentiary value as to intent to have sex.

Given that a huge number of women (and a smaller number of men) wear this type of underwear when engaging in sexual intercourse, it has plenty of evidentiary value in providing for the reasonable assumption that someone is interested in engaging in sexual intercourse at some point.

It has never been an indication that someone wishes to be raped at some point. That would be an unreasonable assumption, IMO.

Completely agree. However, this does not mean that exclusion of evidence is automatically unfair to the defendant. It happens all the time. Sometimes it benefits the defendant. Sometimes it harms the defendant. But assuming that any piece of evidence that could be used (fairly or unfairly) to aid the acquittal of the defendant should be allowed to be used or else his verdict might be overturned is nonsense.

I didn’t say the exclusion of evidence is automatically unfair to the defendant. I said that it could result in the defendant not receiving a fair trial. It’s not nonsense to suggest that, and I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with the rules around disclosure of evidence before you claim that it’s nonsense that it could lead to a conviction being overturned on appeal.

The idea is that the defendant is entitled to any evidence which the prosecution has, which the defendant maintains will assist in their own defence -


In a criminal trial the prosecution is obliged to disclose to the defence, in advance of the trial, all relevant evidence which it has. If you are charged with a criminal offence, you have the right to be provided with the evidence the prosecution intends using at your trial, as well as the evidence which it has but does not intend to use, if that evidence could assist your defence.

This duty to disclose is based on natural and constitutional justice, case law and statutory principles. However, the duty differs between summary prosecutions, which are tried in the District Court before a judge without a jury, and prosecutions on indictment, which are tried before a judge and jury in the Circuit Court or the Central Criminal Court.

Disclosure of evidence in criminal trials


It’s not for the prosecution to determine what is or isn’t relevant to the defendants assistance in their own defence. It’s the job of the prosecution to present their case against the defendant to the jury, and just because they don’t regard a piece of evidence as relevant to their case against the defendant, doesn’t mean the defendant cannot use whatever evidence they feel is relevant to assist in their own defence.

In many cases, arguments for the defence are illogical, unreasonable, and indeed the stuff of nonsense, but that is for the jury to determine whether the arguments presented by both sides have any merit in their deliberations as to whether or not the defendant should be found guilty. The idea is to give the defendant every opportunity to defend themselves against the charge of rape when they maintain they are innocent, because we do not wish to have a judicial system where the burden of proof for the prosecution is so low that defendants are simply given no chance to defend themselves.

Who knew Ruth Coppingers thong could hold anyone's interest this long.