Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Her comment relates directly to the defendants belief, as she was, y’know, representing the defendant.

That's the greatest leap I've ever seen. If you are defending someone not every comment you made relates to their belief.

If the barrister says "a witness saw the complainant arrive at 9pm" does she actually mean her client believes a witness saw this or that it's a fact that the witness can testify to?

So does every comment a barrister makes relate to the BELIEFS their client holds?

If not how do we distinguish between when a barrister is discussing their clients beliefs and when they're not?

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's the greatest leap I've ever seen. If you are defending someone not every comment you made relates to their belief.

If the barrister says "a witness saw the complainant arrive at 9pm" does she actually mean her client believes a witness saw this or that it's a fact that the witness can testify to?

So does every comment a barrister makes relate to the BELIEFS their client holds?

If not how do we distinguish between when a barrister is discussing their clients beliefs and when they're not?

You asked for this -

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you show a quote from the trial where the barrister mentions he underwear in relation to the defendants belief?

You got it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You asked for this -

You got it.

No I didn't. You didn't present a quote from the trial. What are you talking about?

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I didn't. You didn't present a quote from the trial. What are you talking about?

Playing dumb doesn’t suit you L.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-ayrshire-girl-who-killed-13591548

Just one reason why this sort of behavior needs to be stamped out of our court system

The case, which has sparked demonstrations and worldwide condemnation mirrors the devastating experience of Lindsay Armstrong, 17, who wept as she was told to display her thong to the jury.

She was also told to read out the slogan on the front saying: “Little Devil”.

Lindsay, from New Cumnock in Ayrshire, took her life two weeks after the trial in 2001 found her 15-year-old attacker guilty of rape.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Playing dumb doesn’t suit you L.

Ok so I'll take it from your avoidance one liners that you can't provide a quote where the barrister mentions her clients beliefs and you're making it up.

Roger Hassenforder

batgoat wrote: »

Do you get equally outraged when paedophilia cases get conducted differently to product victims.

Seems to be some genuinely warped views towards rape when people think this thong evidence is viewed as fine...

Ha! Talk about a strawman

Im not a bit outraged petal, and you've just shown your hand. People like you are unable to be rationale in these discussions, just a nember if a wholly biased, outraged mob. #ibelieveher merchants. Offer nothing only hysteria

I'd post the links, but having regard to your above nonsense, i cant be bothered. But suffice to say, I've stated my view several times, i think it was wrong to use the complainants thong in such a way.

Now let the grown ups get back to discussing what should be done in future

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ok so I'll take it from your avoidance one liners that you can't provide a quote where the barrister mentions her clients beliefs and you're making it up.

That’s not what you asked for originally at all, but you’re perfectly entitled to imagine what you like from what I said. You’re not entitled to infer what you like from what I didn’t say. I never said the barrister mentioned her clients beliefs, and that’s not what you asked for originally either. You asked for this -

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you show a quote from the trial where the barrister mentions he underwear in relation to the defendants belief?

Because you seem to be making this up.

And you know the quote I am referring to, because it is the only quote reported from the trial in question. This is the quote from the barrister which relates to the defendants belief that in the defendants mind, the encounter was consensual -

“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.”

Source: ’Counsel for man acquitted of rape suggested jurors should reflect on underwear worn by teen complainant’, Irish Examiner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not what you asked for originally at all, but you’re perfectly entitled to imagine what you like from what I said. You’re not entitled to infer what you like from what I didn’t say. I never said the barrister mentioned her clients beliefs, and that’s not what you asked for originally either. You asked for this -

And you know the quote I am referring to, because it is the only quote reported from the trial in question. This is the quote from the barrister which relates to the defendants belief that in the defendants mind, the encounter was consensual -

“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.”

Source: ’Counsel for man acquitted of rape suggested jurors should reflect on underwear worn by teen complainant’, Irish Examiner

Firstly, the two quotes you provide from me ask.for the same thing so I'm not sure how you are claiming that in one of them I'm not asking for what I originally asked for.......

The quote you are providing from the barrister does not mention their client or their beliefs at all. You are reading something into it that is not there.

super_furry

Christ, some people will really try to defend anything just so long as they get to moan about women while doing it.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Firstly, the two quotes you provide from me ask.for the same thing so I'm not sure how you are claiming that in one of them I'm not asking for what I originally asked for.......

The quote you are providing from the barrister does not mention their client or their beliefs at all. You are reading something into it that is not there.

The key difference between your two posts are the words “in relation to”. In your original post, you asked could I show a quote from the trial where the barrister mentions he underwear in relation to the defendants beliefs. In the second post you pointed out that I couldn’t provide a quote where the barrister mentions her clients beliefs.

I never suggested that the barrister mentioned her clients beliefs in the first place. I suggested that her comments relate directly to her clients belief that the encounter was consensual. That is the context in which the barristers comments were made, in her capacity as counsel for the defence.

There’s no leap there because her client has always maintained that he is innocent of the charge of rape, and that’s the reason for why there was any trial in the first place - because the prosecution was convinced on the basis of the evidence that they had, that they could secure a criminal conviction for rape against the accused.

The complainant and the prosecution and however many people as likes may wish to believe for whatever their reasons, that the encounter was rape, but that’s not even the same thing as suggesting that it was the defendant who committed rape. It was the defendant who was on trial accused of committing rape, and the prosecution failed to make their case to meet the burden required by Irish law to find a defendant guilty, of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with regard to the defendants culpability for the criminal offence of rape as it is defined in Irish law.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The key difference between your two posts are the words “in relation to”. In your original post, you asked could I show a quote from the trial where the barrister mentions he underwear in relation to the defendants beliefs. In the second post you pointed out that I couldn’t provide a quote where the barrister mentions her clients beliefs.

There's no substantive difference there. The barrister never mentions her clients beliefs. So she never mentions her clients beliefs in relation to her underwear. In the second post I was giving you a bit more leeway. I thought perhaps you had seen a quote from the trial in which she indicated her defense strategy was based on his beliefs and not whether the girl actually consented.

You have been unable to provide either. Just an assumption that the defense strategy is based on his beliefs and not on whether she actually have consent. This assumption is not supported by the quote provided.

I never suggested that the barrister mentioned her clients beliefs in the first place. I suggested that her comments relate directly to her clients belief that the encounter was consensual. That is the context in which the barristers comments were made, in her capacity as counsel for the defence.

You can't assume this. Her comment only mentions the girls intent. A common defense tactic is to try and show or at least imply that the complainant wanted to have sex and therefore is more likely to have consented at the crucial moment.

Take the Belfast trial for which we have a lot more info than this trial. It was suggested that the complainant in that case was in the VIP area with the intent of getting with someone famous. It was never suggested that the rugby players mistakenly.took this as a sign of consent. The suggestion was that she consented and her actions earlier in the evening shown that she intended sex to happen.

There’s no leap there because her client has always maintained that he is innocent of the charge of rape, and that’s the reason for why there was any trial in the first place - because the prosecution was convinced on the basis of the evidence that they had, that they could secure a criminal conviction for rape against the accused.

The leap in your logic is not the above. It's that you seem to think you know what the barrister was arguing even though the one quote we have makes no mention of the line of defense you believe she was making. It's a massive leap.

The complainant and the prosecution and however many people as likes may wish to believe for whatever their reasons, that the encounter was rape, but that’s not even the same thing as suggesting that it was the defendant who committed rape. It was the defendant who was on trial accused of committing rape, and the prosecution failed to make their case to meet the burden required by Irish law to find a defendant guilty, of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with regard to the defendants culpability for the criminal offence of rape as it is defined in Irish law.

Agreed. But nobody has disputed that. I'm disputing your belief that the barrister was using the underwear as evidence of her clients beliefs. The quote does not support that interpretation.

batgoat

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ha! Talk about a strawman

Im not a bit outraged petal, and you've just shown your hand. People like you are unable to be rationale in these discussions, just a nember if a wholly biased, outraged mob. #ibelieveher merchants. Offer nothing only hysteria

I'd post the links, but having regard to your above nonsense, i cant be bothered. But suffice to say, I've stated my view several times, i think it was wrong to use the complainants thong in such a way.

Now let the grown ups get back to discussing what should be done in future

Not really, I'm referring to the fact that special protections do get put place for serious crimes of a sexual nature. It was also pointed out since a guilty verdict didn't get reached, the man has not been named so that is in itself a form of protection. So yep he does benefit from protections. You think it's grown up behaviour to refer to me as "petal"?

I've also previously referred to a case where a victim ended up killing themselves as a result of such court room treatment. I've also referred to legal scholars who favour preventing such court room treatment as it literally feeds into rather unhealthy attitudes towards rape. Do you think those legal professionals are "hysterical"? Do you think the rape crisis center are "hysterical"? False rape accusations are incredibly uncommon overall so if I'm hysterical for wanting to protect people who have been through an immense trauma, that's all good with me.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not what you asked for originally at all, but you’re perfectly entitled to imagine what you like from what I said. You’re not entitled to infer what you like from what I didn’t say.

Lol. But a man is entitled to infer what he likes from the underwear a woman wears. Not only that but can "reasonably" use it as a defence. This thread has gone beyond ridiculous.

tritium

batgoat wrote: »

You said that the majority of women want to have sex if they're wearing a thong.... So yep that's pretty ignorant and using choice of clothing in a rape trial is a disgrace.

Would using the accuseds marital status also be a disgrace?

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-ayrshire-girl-who-killed-13591548

Just one reason why this sort of behavior needs to be stamped out of our court system

Horrific what happened to her.

But the mother has absolutely no right to besmirch the Jury in this case when she hasn't one bit of detail about it other than a quote without context.

It's the problem with whipped up hysteria based on click bait articles.

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-ayrshire-girl-who-killed-13591548

Just one reason why this sort of behavior needs to be stamped out of our court system

Should I post an equally emotive link to a story about a young man who killed himself after being falsely accused of rape to justify why the right to a full and fair defence is appropriate? There’s a few of them out there

After all, since we seem to be dealing in emotion rather than facts that’s just as compelling

LLMMLL wrote: »

There's no substantive difference there. The barrister never mentions her clients beliefs. So she never mentions her clients beliefs in relation to her underwear. In the second post I was giving you a bit more leeway. I thought perhaps you had seen a quote from the trial in which she indicated her defense strategy was based on his beliefs and not whether the girl actually consented.

...

I'm disputing your belief that the barrister was using the underwear as evidence of her clients beliefs. The quote does not support that interpretation.

The whole trial process, not just the defence strategy, is based upon the defendants belief, and what the defendant believed, and what the defendant believes, because it is the defendant is on trial, and the purpose of a trial is to allow a jury to determine whether or not first of all that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual is honest, and second of all whether or not the defendants honest belief was reasonable, under the specific circumstances and conditions presented in this particular case. The specific circumstances and conditions will be different in every single case because they are based upon the evidence provided by an investigation in each and every individual case.

It’s not just my belief that the barrister was using the complainants underwear as evidence of the defendants honest belief. It’s a fact, that that’s precisely what she was doing, to demonstrate that under the circumstances and conditions presented by the evidence in this particular case, the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was reasonable.

Her closing argument relates directly to the mindset of the defendant, not the complainant, and she is making the case to the jury that in those specific circumstances and conditions, the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual is reasonable. The complainants underwear was IMO a key piece of evidence in determining the mindset of the defendant, and whether or not the defendant could have been of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual, and whether or not the defendants honest belief was reasonable in the specific circumstances and conditions presented by the evidence in this particular case. The jury reached the same conclusion as the defendants initial not guilty plea, in finding the defendant not guilty.

tritium wrote:

Should I post an equally emotive link to a story about a young man who killed himself after being falsely accused of rape to justify why the right to a full and fair defence is appropriate?

Who was falsely accused?

The DPP felt it was a genuine case. The DPP won't charge the victim because the result of the case does NOT legally mean that they were false claims. The result just means that the jury had reasonable doubt.

The DPP didn't prove their case bey reasonable doubt but no one proved that the claims were false.

The jury in the OJ Simpson case had reasonable doubt.

Boggles wrote:

But the mother has absolutely no right to besmirch the Jury in this case when she hasn't one bit of detail about it other than a quote without context.

I agree with you here. I don't have an issue with the result. Nor do I question the jury. They did the job to the best of their abilities. I have major issues with the barristers comments in this case. Obviously the girls underwear says absolutely nothing about wanting or not wanting sex. Comments like that have no place in the court room.

neonsofa wrote: »

Lol. But a man is entitled to infer what he likes from the underwear a woman wears. Not only that but can "reasonably" use it as a defence. This thread has gone beyond ridiculous.

He’s entitled to infer it, but whether or not he’s entitled to act upon that inference is dependent upon the context of the circumstances which he is presented with.

LM is of course entitled to infer what they like from what I didn’t say, but when they act to publish their thoughts as opinions, then certainly I’m entitled to point out they don’t have a right to do that, in the same way as anyone can point out that because they’re wearing a thong does not mean they’re interested in engaging in any sexual encounter when someone acts on what they infer to suggest that the other person is of the same mindset as they are.

They can use it as a defence in law, but that’s a different context of course, because in that context, the defendant is accused of committing rape. Imagining someone is interested in a sexual encounter for any infinite number of reasons is not unlawful. Acting on those thoughts though, just might be. It depends upon the circumstances and the context.

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Who was falsely accused?

The DPP felt it was a genuine case. The DPP won't charge the victim because the result of the case does NOT legally mean that they were false claims. The result just means that the jury had reasonable doubt.

The DPP didn't prove their case bey reasonable doubt but no one proved that the claims were false.

The jury in the OJ Simpson case had reasonable doubt.

I never said there was a false accusation in this case, don’t put words in my mouth. Only two people know the truth in this case and even they may not agree.

What I did clearly imply in response we to the posts about suicide, was that suicide is also a clear concern for the accused facing the trauma of a rape trial, and the protection of an innocent defendant through a full and comprehensive defence can’t be compromised because of considering the effect of the trauma on only one group

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He’s entitled to infer it, but whether or not he’s entitled to act upon that inference is dependent upon the context of the circumstances which he is presented with.

LM is of course entitled to infer what they like from what I didn’t say, but when they act to publish their thoughts as opinions, then certainly I’m entitled to point out they don’t have a right to do that, in the same way as anyone can point out that because they’re wearing a thong does not mean they’re interested in engaging in any sexual encounter when someone acts on what they infer to suggest that the other person is of the same mindset as they are.

They can use it as a defence in law, but that’s a different context of course, because in that context, the defendant is accused of committing rape. Imagining someone is interested in a sexual encounter for any infinite number of reasons is not unlawful. Acting on those thoughts though, just might be. It depends upon the circumstances and the context.

And that is exactly why a man can think whatever the hell he likes about a woman's clothes and undergarments but should he act out of what he "infers" from them, it should never be used as a defence.

I just found it interesting to see how it was fine when a man inferred something from a woman's underwear and acted on it but it's not fine for a poster to do the same to you.

tritium wrote:

What I did clearly imply in response we to the posts about suicide, was that suicide is also a clear concern for the accused facing the trauma of a rape trial, and the protection of an innocent defendant through a full and comprehensive deence canâ€™t be compromised because of the effect of the trauma on only one group

It's not the effect of the trauma on a group. I do feel sorry for the girls when their underwear is passed around courts but this isn't even the issue

What the barrister implied in this case is totally wrong. Because a girl wears a thong doesn't mean that she wants or doesn't want sex. A girl wearing a thong only means that she is wearing a thong. A thong isn't a sex toy. It's a piece of clothing nothing mo & nothing less. The judge let her make these comments leaving the jury to think it's OK to judge her on her choice of knickers.

Roger Hassenforder

batgoat wrote: »

Not really, I'm referring to the fact that special protections do get put place for serious crimes of a sexual nature. It was also pointed out since a guilty verdict didn't get reached, the man has not been named so that is in itself a form of protection. So yep he does benefit from protections. You think it's grown up behaviour to refer to me as "petal"?

I've also previously referred to a case where a victim ended up killing themselves as a result of such court room treatment. I've also referred to legal scholars who favour preventing such court room treatment as it literally feeds into rather unhealthy attitudes towards rape. Do you think those legal professionals are "hysterical"? Do you think the rape crisis center are "hysterical"? False rape accusations are incredibly uncommon overall so if I'm hysterical for wanting to protect people who have been through an immense trauma, that's all good with me.

Jeez.
Its just a mass of strawman and whataboutery, with Cathy Newmaisms

I'll give you a simple exampke of what could be done:
Court appointed legal counsel/advocate for a complainant, and their interests rather than relying on the state counsel.

What can you suggest other rhan hysterics?

The Bishop Basher

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The DPP won't charge the victim because the result of the case does NOT legally mean that they were false claims.

The trial is over.

The verdict was unanimous and swift.

Not Guilty.

What victim ?

neonsofa wrote: »

And that is exactly why a man can think whatever the hell he likes about a woman's clothes and undergarments but should he act out of what he "infers" from them, it should never be used as a defence.

I just found it interesting to see how it was fine when a man inferred something from a woman's underwear and acted on it but it's not fine for a poster to do the same to you.

One isn’t unlawful, the other potentially is.

That’s not particularly interesting when they’re two completely different circumstances and contexts. That’s why Boards lawyers get their knickers in a bunch when a poster posts something potentially defamatory about anyone they know has the resources to seek legal recourse, and they couldn’t give a shìt if a poster points out that they’d give Ms. Coppinger one on the basis that she qualifies for the ‘Unusual people you fancy’ thread.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One isn’t unlawful, the other potentially is.

That’s not particularly interesting when they’re two completely different circumstances and contexts. That’s why Boards lawyers get their knickers in a bunch when a poster posts something potentially defamatory about anyone they know has the resources to seek legal recourse, and they couldn’t give a shìt if a poster points out that they’d give Ms. Coppinger one on the basis that she qualifies for the ‘Unusual people you fancy’ thread.

What even.....?

I found it interesting, you don't, you continue doing you.

neonsofa wrote: »

What even.....?

I found it interesting, you don't, you continue doing you.

At least I don’t have to ask for permission :pac: