Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Letfirstserve wrote:

Do you have any basis for believing she is a victim?

Do you have any proof that she is not?

BENDYBINN

A woman is entitled to say no or stop at any stage during a sexual encounter.
The vast vast majority of men respect this. Sex is not much fun for anybody when one person isn’t in to it.

nullzero

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Do you have any proof that she is not?

There was a not guilty verdict. Therefor she is legally seen as a Complainant or plaintiff, you could potentially push to alleged victim but that's as far as it goes from a legal perspective and in keeping with that calling her a victim infers that the defendant is guilty which is libelous, but I've already explained this a number of times.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The verdict does not mean that it didn't happen. The verdict says that the DPP didn't prove the case 100 percent.

The DPP WON'T /CAN'T charge the victim because it wasn't proven in court that it didn't happen.

You do realise that it's entirely possible for the jury to totally believe that the victim didn't give consent yet have reasonable doubt as to whether the guy believes that he has consent or not.

OJ Simpson was acquited. Found not guilty. We still had dead bodies. Him being found not guilty didn't mean there weren't victims. The victims family successfully sued him in court.

You can say that he is entitled to the assumption of innocence even though he wasn't proven innocent but it also wasn't proven in the same court of law that she isn't a victim. It wasn't proven that there was no crime. DPP would charge her if this was the case

What has OJ Simpson got to do with anything in this case? I’m not sure you even understand the difference between civil and criminal proceedings.

There’s no “even if he wasn’t proven innocent” about it, the defendant in this case maintains the presumption of innocence that we all have, even if none of us were ever on trial.

It also isn’t either for the defence or the prosecution to prove one way or the other that the complainant has been the victim of rape. That’s not the purpose of a trial. Jesus before we bother our holes with consent classes, we should really be teaching people a basic grasp of civics and how our legal system functions.

A criminal trial is entirely focused on the defendant, and the complainant is only ever appearing as a witness for the States prosecution in a criminal trial, as opposed to civil proceedings where the standard of reasonable doubt doesn’t apply, but the standard is on the balance of probabilities, and the complainant is seeking compensation.

nullzero wrote:

There was a not guilty verdict. Therefor she is legally seen as a Complainant or plaintiff, you could potentially push to alleged victim but that's as far as it goes from a legal perspective and in keeping with that calling her a victim infers that the defendant is guilty which is libelous, but I've already explained this a number of times.

She was not proven wrong nor proven to be telling lies. DPP wou build a case a her if this was the case. It was not proven that a crime wasn't committed.

It's also possible that the jury believes that she didn't give consent but had reasonable doubts about whether the defendant thought he had consent or not. Rape cases are very difficult when both agree that sex took place because it becomes about consent. In such cases its very possible for both be totally truthful when saying they believe that they had consent and not given consent.

If it pleases you more, She's a victim for the way the judge allowed the barrister to make the statement if nothing else. A victim of the legal system

Sleeper12 wrote: »

She was not proven wrong nor proven to be telling lies. DPP wou build a case a her if this was the case. It was not proven that a crime wasn't committed.

It's also possible that the jury believes that she didn't give consent but had reasonable doubts about whether the defendant thought he had consent or not. Rape cases are very difficult when both agree that sex took place because it becomes about consent. In such cases its very possible for both be totally truthful when saying they believe that they had consent and not given consent.

If it pleases you more, She's a victim for the way the judge allowed the barrister to make the statement if nothing else. A victim of the legal system

A what now?

Is that the new “second-class citizen”?

Letfirstserve wrote:

I keep an open mind, I haven't stated a belief one way or the other. She could be a geniune victim, lying or a class A nutcase, my mnd is open to all possibilities, is yours?

I am open to all possibilities. I never once said that he was guilty. I have said several times that I believe that the jury did their duty to the best of their ability.

One eyed Jack wrote:

A what now?

One eyed Jack wrote:

Is that the new â€œsecond-class citizenâ€?

We will change the court system so this cant happen again. Not the verdict but the judge allowing the defence to suggest that a girl wearing a thong wants sex. The barristers comments were wrong and the judge should have corrected the comment.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The verdict does not mean that it didn't happen. The verdict says that the DPP didn't prove the case 100 percent.

The DPP WON'T /CAN'T charge the victim because it wasn't proven in court that it didn't happen.

You do realise that it's entirely possible for the jury to totally believe that the victim didn't give consent yet have reasonable doubt as to whether the guy believes that he has consent or not.

OJ Simpson was acquited. Found not guilty. We still had dead bodies. Him being found not guilty didn't mean there weren't victims. The victims family successfully sued him in court.

You can say that he is entitled to the assumption of innocence even though he wasn't proven innocent but it also wasn't proven in the same court of law that she isn't a victim. It wasn't proven that there was no crime. DPP would charge her if this was the case

The defendant was found not guilty.

You can try spin it any which way you want.

There is no victim.

And what's with the bizarre multi quoting

batgoat wrote: »

He was actually responding to your personal insults.

Rennaws wrote: »

Which insults ?

Any luck finding those personal insults ?

No ?

Thought so..

Sleeper12 wrote: »

We will change the court system so this cant happen again. Not the verdict but the judge allowing the defence to suggest that a girl wearing a thong wants sex. The barristers comments were wrong and the judge should have corrected the comment.

We don’t know whether or not the Judge allowed the comment or not or what instructions or directions were given to the jury before they made their deliberations, or even what questions were asked and answered during their deliberations.

I don’t think the system will be, or can be changed in such a way that it would be easier for the prosecution to secure a conviction against a defendant, or that it could be made any less traumatic than we already assume it is for the complainant. The whole objection to focusing on the underwear thing is a bit like assuming “trigger warnings” for other people - literally anything can set them off. A complainant may have no issue whatsoever with showing their underwear for the jury, discussing their previous sexual history in depth... but that smell of coffee off counsels breath appearing for the prosecution is triggering them something awful.

You see what I’m saying? Eventually we can assume all the things that cause re-traumatising for a complainant in a rape trial (be they either man, woman or child), and we still won’t get to a point where we are anywhere even near reducing the potential triggers for a traumatic episode. It simply can’t be done, and any efforts to do it are based upon a stereotype of what a victim of rape should be, and that’s why a 17 year old complainant who alleged to have been dragged 30 feet up a muddy back alley before being raped, will make for a more powerful stereotypical narrative of rape than the fact that most of the time, it happens behind closed doors in families.

I still say the barristers comments were made in the context that they were appearing as counsel for the defendant, and it was nothing more than political opportunism to take her comments out of context and use them in the way they were presented in the media and by Ms. Coppinger.

nullzero

Sleeper12 wrote: »

She was not proven wrong nor proven to be telling lies. DPP wou build a case a her if this was the case. It was not proven that a crime wasn't committed.

It's also possible that the jury believes that she didn't give consent but had reasonable doubts about whether the defendant thought he had consent or not. Rape cases are very difficult when both agree that sex took place because it becomes about consent. In such cases its very possible for both be totally truthful when saying they believe that they had consent and not given consent.

If it pleases you more, She's a victim for the way the judge allowed the barrister to make the statement if nothing else. A victim of the legal system

She's not a victim.

There is nothing further to discuss about it.

Rennaws wrote:

The defendant was found not guilty.

I agree & never said otherwise

Rennaws wrote:

You can try spin it any which way you want.

I'm not spinning anything. I totally accept the verdict.

Rennaws wrote:

There is no victim.

Hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of people from around the world who have read about this case disagree. Not with the verdict but because the barristers comments weren't stopped by the judge.

Rennaws wrote:

And what's with the bizarre multi quoting

Blame boards.ie. When using a mobile device you can only quote one paragraph at a time. I don't do it to anoy anyone. It is what it is

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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.

Then why pot the links to suicide stories? Doesn’t the defendant also deserve empathy when the process drags them through Hell?

From the little people claim to know about this case, it appears that the prosecution may have used irrelevant personal facts to portray the accused as a devil incarnate. Given that this seems utterly unrestricted, with things such as marital status being bandied about, why should the defence be subject to much greater restriction. If the peosecution did indeed go down that path it suddenly becomes much clearer why the defence May have been given some leeway to refute that.

batgoat

Looks like the state is gonna look into how rape cases are handled. Alongside a study into sexual abuse and violence. Has been welcomed by the rape crisis center and other groups.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/1117/1011540-abuse-study/

nullzero wrote:

There is nothing further to discuss about it.

OK. Stop responding then.

tritium wrote:

Then why pot the links to suicide stories? Doesnâ€™t the defendant also deserve empathy when the process drags them through Hell?

The one & only suicide story I linked to was very like the part of this case that I'm interested in. The way she was treated. She cried as her underwear were shown & she then had to read what was printed on the underwear "little devil". This is no way to treat any woman let alone a minor. The not guilty verdict is not up for descusion. It has no relevance to the story being reported worldwide. The story reported worldwide is the comments made by the barrister & the judge letting it happen.

If the judge directed the jury to ignore the comments then the journalist would have reported this.

It would be equally unjust for the same comments on clothing if 20 year old was wearing a huddy. A huddy doesn't indicate guilt, intent or anything else except that you were wearing a huddy. Totally ridiculous comments

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of people from around the world who have read about this case disagree.

This is beyond ridiculous.

What exactly have they read ?

Hundreds of thousands possibly millions of people believe in capital punishment but we don’t go and implement it because the internet thinks it’s a good idea..

As someone who doesn’t frequent Facebook, Instagram or Twitter, this brave new mob ruled world is becoming a scary place

batgoat wrote: »

Looks like the state is gonna look into how rape cases are handled. Alongside a study into sexual abuse and violence. Has been welcomed by the rape crisis center and other groups.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/1117/1011540-abuse-study/

That’s not the State looking into anything. It’s Charlie Flanagan making election promises at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis, and Regina Doherty making election promises about school dinners in DEIS schools and when you click through to the next link, the headline on the article is Leo commenting that the focus of the Government isn’t on elections, it’s on Brexit.

It’s political posturing, plain and simple. Reams and reams of reports regarding sexual violence are submitted to Ministerial departments every month! They have no shortage of reports to act on. They simply choose not to, and then when an opportunity like this presents itself, politicians make hay of it to cover up for the fact that really they want to do fcukall.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

That's a nice tidy way of viewing things but far from the truth.

The trials are not only defendant focussed but are equally if not more complainant focussed. And not just in terms of how the defendant perceived the complainant, but also how the complainant acted in situations the defendant had no knowledge of.

For instance there was a case about two years ago in which the complainant sent a jokey text message unrelated to the sexual encounter to her friend the next day. The implication being that she wasn't acting like someone who had been raped.

Now under your assertion that the "whole trial process" is centred on the defendants beliefs how would this evidence be relevant? He has no knowledge of it and it took place after the encounter so couldn't impact his belief about consent.

The defense strategy in the Belfast trial could be summed up as "her behaviour earlier in the night shows she wanted sex with a famous sportsperson. She not only consented but instigated the threesome. She was embarrassed at being seen by another woman so concocted a rape story to cover herself". The defense legal team did not suggest that any of the defendants witnessed her putting her hand on a football players knee, they suggested that her putting her hand on the football players knee showed she was out to bag a famous sportsperson that night.

Your assertion that the whole trial process centred around what the defendant believes is clearly false.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The one & only suicide story I linked to was very like the part of this case that I'm interested in. The way she was treated. She cried as her underwear were shown & she then had to read what was printed on the underwear "little devil". This is no way to treat any woman let alone a minor. The not guilty verdict is not up for descusion. It has no relevance to the story being reported worldwide. The story reported worldwide is the comments made by the barrister & the judge letting it happen.

If the judge directed the jury to ignore the comments then the journalist would have reported this.

It would be equally unjust for the same comments on clothing if 20 year old was wearing a huddy. A huddy doesn't indicate guilt, intent or anything else except that you were wearing a huddy. Totally ridiculous comments

How do you know this?

It’s far more likely that they wouldn’t, as facts don’t sell newspapers and generate click bait.

Rennaws wrote:

What exactly have they read ?

They have read exactly what you & I have read. The ridiculous comments by the barrister suggesting that a girl wearing a thong is going out looking for sex.

Google the case & you will see it reported worldwide from news outlets like CNN (fake news you cry) & BBC to name just two out of dozens & dozens

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your assertion that the whole trial process centred around what the defendant believes is clearly false.

I’ll ask you one question - who is on trial accused of committing a criminal offence?

One eyed Jack wrote:

Itâ€™s far more likely that they wouldnâ€™t, as facts donâ€™t sell newspapers and generate click bait.

It is highly unlikely & you know it. A newspaper & reporter deliberately miss reporting what was said in court. Court where they have a record of every sneeze & cough. A reporter won't get away with that.

Not a hope in hell. Try again

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It is highly unlikely & you know it. A newspaper & reporter deliberately miss reporting what was said in court. Court where they have a record of every sneeze & cough. A reporter won't get away with that.

Not a hope in hell. Try again

I don’t know that, I’ve just told you I know the opposite to be true. Newspapers aren’t obligated to report anything they don’t want to, and their editors can choose from details they are permitted to report, the details of any case that they do report on. That’s why you’ll see a very different perspective on cases and how they are reported in the Daily Mail, or the BBC (well, how they used to be reported in the BBC at least before they too went all clickbait).

Court reports and records are not the same as what’s published in a rag I wouldn’t wipe my arse with.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll ask you one question - who is on trial accused of committing a criminal offence?

The defendant.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They have read exactly what you & I have read.

So they know sweet fluck all about the case then.

Thought so..

One eyed Jack wrote:

Court reports and records are not the same as whatâ€™s published in a rag I wouldnâ€™t wipe my arse with.

That maybe so and yet no one has denied what was said. No one. Not the DPP. Not the defense. Not anyone in the court at the time. Its all a huge conspiracy with dozens of people involved ensuring that we get fake news. I bet you are a Trump fan.

Rennaws wrote:

So they know sweet fluck all about the case then.

They know as much as you. They know that wearing a thong does not mean that you are out looking for sex. They know that it was wrong for the barrister to make the comments that she made. Good old Leo doesn't believe that a thong equals sex.

You have got to love boards.ie. People will defend the indefensible. We even had posters trying to defend the defendant by using words like pedophile & under age sex when no one was suggesting that these were true. Sometimes saying nothing is the best approach