Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

1…2930323435…61

Comments

  • #932
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,115 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Snipp wrote: »
    You're missing my point. Should the prosecutor be limited on what he/she can say? You are forgetting that the accused is still innocent at this point. Being accused of wanting sex for wearing a thong is distressing I'm sure, but accusing an innocent man of raping a young girl is equally distressing.


    Both sides in a case are already limited in what they can say. It is not a free for all. The girls choice of underwear is not relevant to whether she was raped.


  • #933
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/honest-belief-defence-should-no-longer-be-allowed-in-rape-cases-1.3590124

    I was about to be shocked at this - it effectively says women should be believed that they were raped but men can not be believed they had consensual sex.

    Then I read the author, Zappone. A very dangerous woman indeed.


  • #934
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Well there was a minor and an adult. The adult showed poor judgement at best

    She’s not a minor in this context, she’s legally able to consent. Given they were together in an environment where the accused was unable to get erect, it seems reasonable drink was involved. If I pointed out that she was legally to young to be out drinking to be in a position to meet that man, or it was poor judgement on her part you’d rightly tell me it’s never the victims fault. Why then does his extraneous circumstances matter a damn?


  • #935
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Snipp wrote: »
    You're missing my point. Should the prosecutor be limited on what he/she can say? You are forgetting that the accused is still innocent at this point. Being accused of wanting sex for wearing a thong is distressing I'm sure, but accusing an innocent man of raping a young girl is equally distressing.


    I'm not missing any point. Prosecutor or defense barrister can't just say anything they want. It has to be rellivent to the case The judge can ask "where are you going with this" & then allow or refuse. For the judge to allow suggests that he/she also has the view that a teenagers knickers is proof of intent for sex. This is clearly wrong. It's this type of nonsense we are trying to remove from the court room. A judge with this type of belief has no p[lace in a rape trial.


  • #936
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tritium wrote: »
    She’s not a minor in this context, she’s legally able to consent. Given they were together in an environment where the accused was unable to get erect, it seems reasonable drink was involved. If I pointed out that she was legally to young to be out drinking to be in a position to meet that man, or it was poor judgement on her part you’d rightly tell me it’s never the victims fault. Why then does his extraneous circumstances matter a damn?


    I didn't say she was too young for sex. I said that she is a minor & she is. she is not an adult. He is an adult. He showed poor judgement at best. Did he check her birth cert? She easily could have been 2 years younger & he'd be in a whole mess of trouble. He left himself open to a lot of risks. Very, very poor judgment for a 27 year old


  • Advertisement
  • #937
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I didn't say she was too young for sex. I said that she is a minor & she is. she is not an adult. He is an adult. He showed poor judgement at best. Did he check her birth cert? She easily could have been 2 years younger & he'd be in a whole mess of trouble. He left himself open to a lot of risks. Very, very poor judgment for a 27 year old

    First off, she's not a minor in the sense of consent - she's 17.

    Also - and you have to consider these questions - did she say she was 17 ? Could he reasonable think she was older ?

    We're forever being told women mature quicker than men, is there much really both mentally and emotionally between a 17 year old woman and a 27 year old man ?

    Agreed btw, if he knew she was 17 and as has been suggested he was married then he's morally dodgy but that does not make him a rapist.


  • #938
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    batgoat wrote: »
    Evidence can get dismissed as irrelevant and can be prevented from being used. It's pretty normal to do such things during trials.

    And yet they didn’t in this trial!

    Could it be that the court, being aware of the fuller context of the evidence, could see an evidentiary element that neither we or ms Coppinger can?


  • #939
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    First off, she's not a minor in the sense of consent - she's 17.

    Also - and you have to consider these questions - did she say she was 17 ? Could he reasonable think she was older ?

    We're forever being told women mature quicker than men, is there much really both mentally and emotionally between a 17 year old woman and a 27 year old man ?

    Agreed btw, if he knew she was 17 and as has been suggested he was married then he's morally dodgy but that does not make him a rapist.




    You quoted me saying that she wasn't too young for sex yet you still started with
    First off, she's not a minor in the sense of consent - she's 17.


    She is a minor. Not an adult. He is an adult. Some girls as young as 13 will claim to be 17 or older. He showed very poor judgment meeting this girl


    BTW I never said that he was a rapist. The outcome of the case isn't what is being discussed on this thread , it's the use of her underwear as proof or to imply that she wanted sex.


    Thread has been running several days & no one has posted any realistic reason why her thong along with the barristers comments had any relevance to the case or why the judge allowed it in the first place


  • #940
    Snipp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭Snipp


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I'm not missing any point. Prosecutor or defense barrister can't just say anything they want. It has to be rellivent to the case The judge can ask "where are you going with this" & then allow or refuse. For the judge to allow suggests that he/she also has the view that a teenagers knickers is proof of intent for sex. This is clearly wrong. It's this type of nonsense we are trying to remove from the court room. A judge with this type of belief has no p[lace in a rape trial.

    A judge is highly trained in applying objective reasoning, not his beliefs.


  • #941
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,115 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Snipp wrote: »
    A judge is highly trained in applying objective reasoning, not his beliefs.


    Not every decision made by a judge is correct. The judges decision to allow it was incorrect. Her choice of underwear was irrelevant.


  • Advertisement
  • #942
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I didn't say she was too young for sex. I said that she is a minor & she is. she is not an adult. He is an adult. He showed poor judgement at best. Did he check her birth cert? She easily could have been 2 years younger & he'd be in a whole mess of trouble. He left himself open to a lot of risks. Very, very poor judgment for a 27 year old

    More victim blaming. Are actually ever going to answer the question?


  • #943
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Snipp wrote: »
    A judge is highly trained in applying objective reasoning, not his beliefs.




    Now you might say this but I do remember judges in the 80s & even into the 90s giving suspended sentences to some rapists & then going on to comment on how the girl was dressed as if this was a mitigating factor. Judges aren't perfect. It's not known how many judges are members of secret religious sects. Then we had a judge a few years back with child porn on his PC.


    There is now a push for women to be treated better in court & to ensure that a thong will be evidence for DNA but not to suggest that she wanted sex


  • #944
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tritium wrote: »
    More victim blaming. Are actually ever going to answer the question?




    What question???


  • #945
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    You quoted me saying that she wasn't too young for sex yet you still started with


    She is a minor. Not an adult. He is an adult. Some girls as young as 13 will claim to be 17 or older. He showed very poor judgment meeting this girl


    BTW I never said that he was a rapist. The outcome of the case isn't what is being discussed on this thread , it's the use of her underwear as proof or to imply that she wanted sex.

    I genuinely hate the double standard shown in threads like these. There’s a slew of posters who start with: “ you can’t start look at the victims other choices, that’s victim blaming” and by degrees descend into “look at what a shot the accused is in other aspects of his life, sure what did he expect to happen”. It’s nauseating
    Thread has been running several days & no one has posted any realistic reason why her thong along with the barristers comments had any relevance to the case or why the judge allowed it in the first place

    Actually at least one poster with knowledge of the case has previously suggested it was because the prosecution had painted a whiter than white picture of the accuser and this was part of the case to undermine that. I guess you missed that.


  • #946
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    What question???

    What the hell does the unrelated personal details have to do with the case? Why are you engaging in victim blaming?


  • #947
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tritium wrote: »
    I genuinely hate the double standard shown in threads like these. There’s a slew of posters who start with: “ you can’t start look at the victims other choices, that’s victim blaming” and by degrees descend into “look at what a shot the accused is in other aspects of his life, sure what did he expect to happen”. It’s nauseating



    Actually at least one poster with knowledge of the case has previously suggested it was because the prosecution had painted a whiter than white picture of the accuser and this was part of the case to undermine that. I guess you missed that.




    That does not explain how the judge allowed the thong & the barristers comments. The comments suggest that wearing a thong means wanting sex. Obviously this is not true & how a judge allowed it is beyond me


  • #948
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,115 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    tritium wrote: »
    I genuinely hate the double standard shown in threads like these. There’s a slew of posters who start with: “ you can’t start look at the victims other choices, that’s victim blaming” and by degrees descend into “look at what a shot the accused is in other aspects of his life, sure what did he expect to happen”. It’s nauseating



    Actually at least one poster with knowledge of the case has previously suggested it was because the prosecution had painted a whiter than white picture of the accuser and this was part of the case to undermine that. I guess you missed that.


    how does a choice of underwear undermine a girls character?


  • #949
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Not every decision made by a judge is correct. The judges decision to allow it was incorrect. Her choice of underwear was irrelevant.

    Can you provide the full context, based on the transcript of the trial, as to why the case the defence made les to this component of evidence being inappropriate?


  • #950
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,115 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    tritium wrote: »
    Can you provide the full context, based on the transcript of the trial, as to why the case the defence made les to this component of evidence being inappropriate?


    Can you? I dont need to. We have seen what counsel said. It was said only to say to the jury "the girl was asking for it".


  • #951
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tritium wrote: »
    What the hell does the unrelated personal details have to do with the case? Why are you engaging in victim blaming?




    I think you are confusing me with someone else. I haven't blamed any victim. The closest I came was to say that the man used poor judgment. This is a fact & is not blaming him in any way. I am 50. I love children. I don't talk to strange children unless my wife is with me. This is the sensible thing to do. I would never leave myself open to be accused of anything like that


  • Advertisement
  • #952
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    how does a choice of underwear undermine a girls character?

    How does stepping out on your mrs make you a rapist ?


  • #953
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PlaneSpeeking wrote:
    How does stepping out on your mrs make you a rapist ?


    It doesn't but it shows you as a lier & a cheater. It discredits your own sworn testimony.

    Very poor judgement on his behalf


  • #954
    Lillybloom
    Site Banned Posts: 75 ✭✭Lillybloom


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    It doesn't but it shows you as a lier & a cheater. It discredits your own sworn testimony.

    Very poor judgement on his behalf

    Everyone on the planet has told lies, but if you want to go with that logic. Someone who is promiscuous is mote likely to have casual sex therefore it is reasonable to infer about a person's sex life.


  • #955
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    In another Cork case that was in the courts this week, a young woman asleep at a house party woke up to find her pants pulled down and a man sexually assaulting her.
    She reported it straight away, and the man in question admitted his guilt & took full liability for what he had done.

    His punishment? A two year suspended sentence. No jail time. For sexually assaulting and violating a sleeping woman. A slap on the wrist, basically.

    Yet people here are still saying that rapes and sexual assaults are over-reported and appropriately punished. Laughable.

    Link here to the court report.


  • #956
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,115 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    How does stepping out on your mrs make you a rapist ?


    I never suggested it did.


  • #957
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Lillybloom wrote:
    Everyone on the planet has told lies, but if you want to go with that logic. Someone who is promiscuous is mote likely to have casual sex therefore it is reasonable to infer about a person's sex life.


    A man stands up in front of a hundred of his family and friends & makes sworn promises to his wife. If he can lie in front of all of his friends then he can easily lie under oath. This is what the DPP would have been pushing in court.

    So much deflection on this thread. The thread is about why her thong & the barristers comment were allowed at All. This guy seems to be a complete dope but that is not what the thread is about.

    Still waiting for someone to come up with a genuine answer as to why the judge allowed this


  • #958
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,920 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    That does not explain how the judge allowed the thong & the barristers comments. The comments suggest that wearing a thong means wanting sex. Obviously this is not true & how a judge allowed it is beyond me

    TBF the more plausible reason that it is beyond you is because like all of us you know next to nothing about this case, you didn't sit through all the evidence and you are not an experienced criminal Judge. You are telling us what the Judge should have done based on a very clicky baity article with little to no detail and very selective quotes.

    You are open to the possibility that there could have been good legal reason why the defense barrister wasn't reprimanded for her comments? Just because nobody on an internet forum can give you a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.


  • #959
    BENDYBINN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,956 ✭✭✭BENDYBINN


    In today’s independent,Monica says she used her thong to seduce Bill.......attracted his attention and then went for hanky panky. Seems these thongs do have a purpose.


  • #960
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,115 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Boggles wrote: »
    TBF the more plausible reason that it is beyond you is because like all of us you know next to nothing about this case, you didn't sit through all the evidence and you are not an experienced criminal Judge. You are telling us what the Judge should have done based on a very clicky baity article with little to no detail and very selective quotes.

    You are open to the possibility that there could have been good legal reason why the defense barrister wasn't reprimanded for her comments? Just because nobody on an internet forum can give you a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.


    No we are basing it on the actual words used by defence counsel.


  • Advertisement
  • #961
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Can you? I dont need to. We have seen what counsel said. It was said only to say to the jury "the girl was asking for it".

    You don’t actually know that. What you have is one line from an extensive trial and based on that you’ve inferred every other aspect.

    If you’re going to accuse a court of impropriety you absolutely do need to back it up with more than one sentence from a trial and a load of blister.


Advertisement