SusieBlue wrote: » If I see someone robbing my handbag, and they deny culpability, and they aren't convicted due to lack of proof, does that mean it never happened? If someone crashes into my car, and I have no dashcam and they drive away, does that make the damage and the bill go away?
One eyed Jack wrote: » She appealed to the jury to take into consideration that what the complainant was wearing at the time of the encounter, and whether or not in that context, the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was reasonable, not based solely upon what the defendant was wearing at the time, but in the context of all the evidence presented during the trial. Some people who are already certain the defendant did commit rape, seem focused on the first part of what she said, and ignored the second part.
SusieBlue wrote: » I'm simply stating that the fact that he was found not guilty doesn't mean it never happened and it doesn't mean she's telling lies.
Zulu wrote: » I suspect its not so much championing the bottom of the barrel (because that's where the comment appears to have been dragged from), but rather a resistance/push back on the very obvious:knee-jerk outrage, without any context pure media sensationalism voices to censor such comments; censor anything contrary to groupthink
“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front,”
LLMMLL wrote: » I wouldn't put much stock in choice of underwear either way but there is an intent logical difference in the two scenarios: Using thongs as evidence of intent to have sex: the question here is do women who wear thongs consistently intend to have sex. If you can find many women who wear thongs and do not intend to have sex than this would be a faulty assumption. And as this thread has shown, many women wear thongs with zero intent to have sex. Using the absence of thongs as evidence of absence of intent to have sex: in this case the question is do women who intend to have sex consistently wear thongs. If you can find many women who intend to have sex but wear dirty unflattering underwear then this would be a faulty assumption. So you'd need a thread on the clothing choices of.women who intend to have sex to decide that, but I think most people would expect that someone who intends to have sex would put effort into their personal appearance. So these are two completely different scenarios, not the same, and should be treated differently.
mickrock wrote: » Equally, it could mean that it didn't happen and she was telling lies.
B0jangles wrote: » I really don't understand why some people are championing a barrister's right to use what is essentially a myth or popular perception (wearing a thong=wants to have sex), a perception which is not based on any fact, but which is used to convince the jury, simply because that is their job.
Would you be equally happy to see a barrister claiming a male rape victim wasn't actually raped because he had an erection/climaxed as a result of what was done to him? Plenty of people out there would find that 'evidence' very compelling - even though it is actually quite meaningless, as many rape victims experience such effects. It might help the barrister get the result they want, but it would be by grossly misleading the jury.
Would you be ok with a barrister claiming that a teenage boy who was molested by his teacher must have wanted it (because everyone knows all teenage boys will have sex with anything), and therefore the offence is less severe that the jury might think?
Sounds pretty disgusting to me, and a long way from truth or justice.
LLMMLL wrote: » I've just looked up what she said. In the versions I've seen she never mentioned the defendant or his beliefs. She solely mentions the girls intent. She also does.not mention any other evidence other than the way the girl was dressed. Could you provide a fuller quote of what the barrister said where she says what you are saying she says?
One eyed Jack wrote: » LLMMLL wrote: » He is saying there is no context in which the barristers comments are ok.You are saying there is some possible contexts but can't seem.to come up any when asked. It's not his imagination that's the problem here. It’s very simple L - it is the defendants belief which is in question as to whether or not their belief that the encounter was consensual based upon the complainants underwear is reasonable. Given that the type of underwear worn by the complainant is often worn by people when they are engaged in sexual encounters, it is not unreasonable IMO for the defendant to have believed that the encounter was consensual. There can be a million other reasons for why anyone chooses the type of underwear they do, or don’t wear, but those other reasons do not negate the context in which the complainants underwear is relevant to the defendants mindset and their reasoning in this particular case.
LLMMLL wrote: » He is saying there is no context in which the barristers comments are ok.You are saying there is some possible contexts but can't seem.to come up any when asked. It's not his imagination that's the problem here.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It’s a popular perception that is based upon those people’s reality, and therefore for them it is not a myth.
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » Those are completely different cases where someone grabs something or damages something, and then runs away or drives away so that there's plausible doubt to their identity. In the majority of rape cases, the accused does not deny that he had sex with the complainant. He is more likely to deny that he had non-consensual sex with the complainant.
joe40 wrote: » So by your logic if the defendant thinks there was consent, then he is innocent. Is that your point. Regardless of what the woman (or Man, the victim could male) felt about the situation.
LLMMLL wrote: » Fair trial? He pleaded guilty........
joe40 wrote: » Does anyone know exactly what point the barrister was making, when holding up the Thong. I cannot for the life of me think of a single possible reason it would be relevant to the case, but I don't know the details.
joe40 wrote: Does anyone know exactly what point the barrister was making, when holding up the Thong. I cannot for the life of me think of a single possible reason it would be relevant to the case, but I don't know the details. Maybe the complainant had earlier been asked about the type of underwear she was wearing and the description she gave was not that of a thong. The defense could then say she wasn't being truthful and that her testimony is unreliable.
professore wrote: » This should have been the barrister mentioning the thong and the judge saying it was inadmissable and instruct the jury to disregard it. End of story.
retro:electro wrote: » Dying that my friend PlaneSpeeking thanked this post despite having most of us in this thread who disagree with her on ignore.
A 27-year-old man who denied raping a 17-year-old in county Cork wept loudly as he was found not guilty by a jury at the Central Criminal Court in Cork. The jury of eight men and four women took one and a half hours of deliberation to reach their unanimous verdict yesterday. Ms Justice Carmel Stewart thanked the jury in a case dominated by the issue of consent The jury heard evidence that in the immediate aftermath of the disputed sexual incident at the centre of the case the complainant said to the accused: “You just raped me” and the defendant said, “No, we just had sex.” After the accused man told his senior counsel Ms Elizabeth O’Connell that what happened was consensual, he was cross-examined by Tom Creed SC for the prosecution. Commenting on the night in question, the defendant said they were kissing and he said they "felt attracted to one another on the night.” Mr Creed said: “There is not one person who saw you kissing.” The defendant named one man who allegedly did see them kissing but this person did not give evidence in the trial. Mr Creed asked him to describe the sexual contact. The defendant said they had gone up a lane and were lying down in a muddy area. He said that he could not get fully erect and did not think his penis went into her vagina. He said it was possible that it did but he did not think so. Mr Creed said: “A witness saw you with your hand to her throat.” The defendant said that was not correct. He said the witness misread the situation. The defendant denied that and said “she was not crying at any stage.” When the complainant’s evidence that he dragged her over 30 metres to the spot where the alleged rape occurred, was put to him he said he "didn’t drag anyone anywhere.” He said she was kind of worried about her dress getting dirty in what he described as “the moist mud”. He said that after (a witness at the scene) asked was everything alright in a sarcastic manner he replied: "What the **** does it look like. Mind your own business." “Then she (the complainant) was getting funny, it was like she snapped out of a buzz. She said stop and I stopped. We were going to have sex, she said stop and I stopped,” he testified. In her closing address to the jury, Ms Elizabeth O’Connell SC told jurors they should have regard for the underwear the complainant wore on the night. “Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.” Ms O’Connell suggested the complainant was, on the night, open to the possibility of being with someone and that the person she became attracted to ended up being the defendant. Mr Creed SC for the prosecution said to the jury: “You decide if there was sexual intercourse between them. You decide if there was consent. “You have heard her say she did not consent. You have heard him say she did consent. The major issue you have to deal with is whether she consented to sexual intercourse. It is one way or the other. Either she did or did not. If you are satisfied she did not consent and that he knew she did not consent then you convict. “She is quite clear she did not consent She said she never had sexual intercourse before. “It has been alleged by the defendant there was lots of kissing going on. In terms of kissing there is not one witness in this case who can say they were kissing.”
B0jangles wrote: » For about the 50th time - in the specific remark under discussion, the barrister did not claim it was the defendant's belief that the alleged victim's thong meant that she wanted to have sex with him. The barrister said “You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front,” She presented it as something entirely separate - that the fact that she worn a thong suggested that the complainant was prepared to have sex with someone. Nothing whatsoever about the defendant's beliefs on the night in question. Your other examples address the same irrelevant point - the barrister's remarks were not talking about the defendant's perceptions, they were about what the wearing of a thong objectively signifies.Which is nothing except that a person has chosen to wear it.
One eyed Jack wrote: » joe40 wrote: » So by your logic if the defendant thinks there was consent, then he is innocent. Is that your point. Regardless of what the woman (or Man, the victim could male) felt about the situation. No that is not my logic. It is a matter for the jury to determine whether or not the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is reasonable, based upon all the evidence presented to them during the trial from both the prosecution and the defence. If the jury comes to the conclusion that the defendants belief is honest and that their belief is reasonable, then they would have to acquit the defendant who is accused of the criminal offence of rape as it is defined in Irish law. If they find that the defendants belief is honest, but do not agree that the defendants belief is reasonable, then they must find the defendant guilty of the offence of rape, as it is defined in Irish law.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Taken from Bojangles post - “Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front,” She is referring to the evidence first of all, and asking does the evidence rule out alternative possibilities that would have led to the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was reasonable, based upon what the defendant was wearing. What the defendant was wearing is relevant if it is the defendants contention that they believed it indicated to the defendant in this case, that the encounter was consensual, and that belief was reasonable when taken in the context of all the evidence presented. That is not suggesting that the complainant wasn’t raped. It is stating that the defendant should not be found guilty of rape on the basis of the evidence presented during the trial. It was a closing statement, bringing all the evidence in defence of her client together, and the comments about the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time is, well, the bow on top, so to speak. It was dangerous for her defendants case as it may well have made the members of the jury think the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, if solely based on that evidence alone, was unreasonable.
SusieBlue wrote: » There must have been a reasonable amount of sufficient evidence to allude to the defendants guilt for the case to have been taken to court. If there was a chance she had made the whole thing up it would never have made it before a judge. Just as an example, the independent witness who saw the defendant with his hands around the complainants throat, would support this.
tritium wrote: » Did you read on before hitting reply or have you been taking the tapas approach to replying to this thread. The post I replied to referenced the entire thread, not just the example being discussed around there.
FunLover18 wrote: » But in certain rape trials there are instances of damage; vaginal tears, bleeding. If you're saying that a not guilty verdict means no rape took place, surely you're also saying that the accused is innocent?
I would argue that a not guilty verdict means that the jury/court cannot say 100% that the sex was not consensual and therefore cannot convict but 99% certainty that a rape took place does not mean that no rape took place.
Not guilty means the defendant is acquitted and they maintain their presumption of innocence but the court is not in a position to declare innocence and therefore surely cannot declare that a rape did not take place, only that it cannot declare it did take place with 100% certainty.
tritium wrote: » Equally there must have been a reasonable amount of sufficient evidence to call into question the defendants guilt for a jury of 12 to unanimously arrive at a not guilty verdict.
LLMMLL wrote: » He is saying there is no context in which the barristers comments are ok. You are saying there is some possible contexts but can't seem.to come up any when asked. It's not his imagination that's the problem here.
One eyed Jack wrote: » No that is not my logic. It is a matter for the jury to determine whether or not the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is reasonable, based upon all the evidence presented to them during the trial from both the prosecution and the defence. If the jury comes to the conclusion that the defendants belief is honest and that their belief is reasonable, then they would have to acquit the defendant who is accused of the criminal offence of rape as it is defined in Irish law. If they find that the defendants belief is honest, but do not agree that the defendants belief is reasonable, then they must find the defendant guilty of the offence of rape, as it is defined in Irish law.
Rennaws wrote: » What are you on about ? Maybe read the conversation properly before jumping in with both feet and getting it completely wrong. I’m not the only poster you’ve done this to either. The comment “tapas approach” is valid.
