Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Boggles wrote:

Why don't you so?

It's a rape trial. The jury says not guilty. Jury's get the verdict right & wrong in dozens of rape trials every year. I accept their verdict and don't lose sleep over it.

Boggles wrote:

But she wasn't, what's your actual point?

My point is he took huge risks that night. He is a stupid man. As George says is there no personal responsibility here? Maybe, just maybe he could have done things differently and there wouldn't be a rape case. I smell personally responsibility hiding there somewhere

Boggles wrote:

A lie you based a wild theory on, to retry him and try reverse the verdict. When that fell apart you have now moved on to try and discredit the jury.

Here is what you should do, you keep making up things that you want me to say but I didn't. Then pretend you are me and make up the answers too. This will save me replying to your nonsense comments that I never said. If you make up half you might as well make up everything

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Here is what you should do, you keep making up things that you want me to say but I didn't. Then pretend you are me and make up the answers too. This will save me replying to your nonsense comments that I never said. If you make up half you might as well make up everything

Did you or did you not say that his sworn testimony was not reliable because he cheated on his wife?

Did you then go on to say that he was found not guilty and should be left alone.

Very simple question, why don't you leave him alone?

Wild speculation based on lies is the complete opposite of leaving him alone, you do understand that right?

Boggles wrote:

Very simple question, why don't you leave him alone?

You keep bringing him up!

I repeat I have no interest in him or his verdict. Many posters have been deflecting from the real issue. Who cares about the verdict? The world's media didn't focus on Ireland because of the verdict. The real issue is the comments made by the barrister. If the man was found guilty it wouldn't change the comments made. The comments were wrong and the verdict is irrelevant to the main issue, how the Irish Court system treated a minor.

A justice system that discourages people from reporting a crime is a failed justice system.

Deflect all you want. The justice system needs to change. We changed it by creating the special criminal court because jury members & witnesses were threatened & at risk. We took away the right to be tried by a jury. We can definitely change it to ensure that minors are never treated in such a way again

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You keep bringing him up!

It's a very simple question, that you are refusing to answer.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Deflect all you want.

Indeed.

So when you said he should be left alone, what you meant based on what you have posted about him on here (wild speculation and lies) that he should be left alone but you are not going to.

Grand.

eagle eye

People seemed to be getting confused here.
The outrage isn't over the not guilty verdict. It's about what the defense barrister said.
We are talking about a jury being that they 'have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.'

Boggles wrote: »

Or isn't far more plausible that the jury heard several pieces of evidence over what I imagine what was a relative long trial and based on that evidence came to the only logical safe conclusion they could?

Yesterday your tactic was to discredit the acquitted by pedaling the fantasy that if he cheated on his fictional wife, then he broke his vows therefore what evidence he gave in the trial was not credible.

You've moved on now to try and discredit the jury, using some perceived notion about evolution the jury was made up of 12 Trump supporting flat earthers who think the undewear one wears absolves someone not just of rape but of brutal physical assault.

It's complete and utter baffling nonsense.

You are not beyond a little bit of fancy footwork yourself above. You suggest that the "jury heard several pieces of evidence" and again that it "was a relative long trial" thereby giving gravitas to their decision when in reality apart from the thong we don't know anything about what other evidence was presented to support his claims that it wasn't rape and we don't know either how long or short the trial was.

But actually I sincerely hope you are right because if the thong alone was the thing that created the reasonable doubt, I'm sure you will agree that truly would be scandalous. You would agree with that, wouldn't you ? And I still object to the SC telling the jury they should have regard to the way the girl was dressed in a thong with a lacy front because there is always a woman or girl inside that thong and she is the one he should have regard for.

eagle eye wrote: »

People seemed to be getting confused here.
The outrage isn't over the not guilty verdict.

Really?

eagle eye wrote: »

I've no idea how this convicted rapist got off this time.

Boggles wrote: »

It's a very simple question, that you are refusing to answer.

Indeed.

So when you said he should be left alone, what you meant based on what you have posted about him on here (wild speculation and lies) that he should be left alone but you are not going to.

Grand.

He should be left alone because posters trying to defend him were using terms like underage sex & pedophile & this obviously wasn't true. Another poster stated that he had been charged with rape before. I also challenged that. I actually flagged the post for a mod to look at but it's still there. I have actually stuck up for him at times. Many posters said that he was married & was "caught Stepping out on his wife". If that were true I'd have to excuse myself from the jury mid trial because I think cheating on your wife or husband is a scumbag thing to do. I'm my opinion it makes you a liar & a cheat of the worst kind & I would not be able to believe their word over the girl who wasn't proven to be of such low character. If the man was cheating with a minor he would not get a fair trial with me on the jury. It was pointed out to me that it wasn't reported in the news that he was married & he may not be married so I stopped there & then commenting about him cheating on his wife.

He should be left alone. When one poster sticks up for him someone else points out that he had his hand around her throat. In most cases people sticking up for him are doing him more harm than good. The thread isn't about his guilt or lack of so why keep bringing him up. The thread & the worlds media attention has nothing to do with him at all. The issue is the justice system & how it failed this girl & how it fails other girls

FACT 6: Rape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

FACT 7: Sexual violence does not only happen to an unfortunate few, Irish research has found that one in five adult women and one in ten adult men experienced sexual violence (The SAVI Report, Prof. Hannah McGee et al, Royal College of Surgeons, Liffey Press, 2002).

https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html

A justice system that discourages the reporting of crime is a failed justice The Irish justice system fails rape victims FACT!

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

Yes really. You keep trying to make it about the verdict yet posters repeatedly keep telling you that they respect the jurys verdict. It's all about how the girl in this & other cases are let down by our justice system

Mrsmum wrote: »

there is always a woman or girl inside that thong and she is the one he should have regard for.

I think you mean she should have regard for

Mrsmum wrote: »

You suggest that the "jury heard several pieces of evidence" and again that it "was a relative long trial" thereby giving gravitas

A more than reasonable assumption, I'm sure you would agree?

Boggles wrote: »

A more than reasonable assumption, I'm sure you would agree?

I would disagree there. A trial with no whiteness? A trial where both agree that sex took place? A trial that boils down to consent? He said & she said? I would suggest that it was a shorter trail

batgoat

Rennaws wrote: »

I think you mean she should have regard for

It's coming across that you have a pretty nasty attitude towards women..

Boggles wrote: »

A more than reasonable assumption, I'm sure you would agree?

Ah but assumptions are very dangerous things - see assumptions about thongs.

Rennaws wrote: »

I think you mean she should have regard for

I'm not sure what this means. Please explain so I can see if I worded my statement incorrectly based on your point perhaps.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Ah but assumptions are very dangerous things - see assumptions about thongs.

So for all the lies and wild speculation on this thread.

You pull me up on the assumption that a criminal trial of this nature would have more than one piece of evidence?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I would disagree there. A trial with no whiteness? A trial where both agree that sex took place? A trial that boils down to consent? He said & she said? I would suggest that it was a shorter trail

The allegation was of a very serious physical and sexual assault. Not "he said, she said".

There is very little detail about this case, but I suggest you go and read what is known.

Boggles wrote: »

So for all the lies and wild speculation on this thread.

You pull me up on the assumption that a criminal trial of this nature would have more than one piece of evidence?

I'm only pulling you up because you are pulling other people other people up on their reasonings. You can't be telling them to stick to the actual facts out there when you don't strictly do that yourself and instead assume what to you are reasonable assumptions. What is it they say about assume making an ass of u and me. What's good for the goose etc.

Personally I quite like to hear peoples thoughts around this case as it shows how they come to their pov.

tmh106

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...the victims underwear...

Surely, the whole point is that their underwear is not evidence, irrespective of what style it is, and the reason so many people, myself include, are so appalled by this is that the defence tried to introduce something that is clearly not evidence as evidence - and succeeded.

Boggles wrote: »

The allegation was of a very serious physical and sexual assault. Not "he said, she said".

There is very little detail about this case, but I suggest you go and read what is known.

I did read up on it

Ms Justice Carmel Stewart thanked the jury in a case dominated by the issue of consent.

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.

It was in fact he said & she said or at least that's all that was reported.

No mention of medical witnesses or anything like that. I assume that some Gardai were there as they would have taken both statements but there honestly doesn't seem to be too much to this case from what was reported. There is nothing to suggest that it was a lengthy trial in any paper

tmh106 wrote: »

Surely, the whole point is that their underwear is not evidence, irrespective of what style it is, and the reason so many people, myself include, are so appalled by this is that the defence tried to introduce something that is clearly not evidence as evidence - and succeeded.

I 100 percent agree. They could be evidence if there was DNA or tears but can never be evidence of consent or intention of sex. It's genuinely shocking that the judge allowed this.

There are a lot of question need answering on this subject.

eagle eye

Boggles wrote:

Really?

Well I have an idea. The jury being advised to consider that she was wearing a thong helped him. The fact that the judge has to give the jury warnings during his charge helped him too as it leads to confusion for some jurors.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I'm not sure what this means. Please explain so I can see if I worded my statement incorrectly based on your point perhaps.

You referred to the SC in this case as he. The SC was a woman.

batgoat wrote: »

It's coming across that you have a pretty nasty attitude towards women..

Well I’m surrounded by women here at home with a wife and 2 daughters. The last 2 people I hired were women and I work in a very male dominated workforce.

You know absolutely nothing about me and certainly not enough to fling judgements like that around.

I have zero regard for third wave feminsm if that’s what your picking up and you would be correct I have zero regard for anything that even remotely whiffs of it.

Not because I’m against equality but because I vehemently believe in it.

batgoat

Rennaws wrote: »

You referred to the SC in this case as he. The SC was a woman.

Well I’m surrounded by women here at home with a wife and 2 daughters. The last 2 people I hired were women and I work in a very male dominated workforce.

You know absolutely nothing about me and certainly not enough to fling judgements like that around.

I have zero regard for third wave feminsm if that’s what your picking up and you would be correct I have zero regard for anything that even remotely whiffs of it.

Not because I’m against equality but because I vehemently believe in it.

It's third wave feminism to say a woman wearing a thong isn't asking for sex? It really isn't, fair few conservative posters in this thread who are outraged by what occurred as well...

batgoat wrote: »

It's third wave feminism to say a woman wearing a thong isn't asking for sex? It really isn't, fair few conservative posters in this thread who are outraged by what occurred as well...

Maybe it’s an element of the boy who cried wolf..

It’s difficult to keep up with all these feminist causes they just keep coming so thick and fast..

I don’t know why the judge allowed the jury consider that as evidence but I refer to the judge as the legal expert and as with any other case where I have an issue with the outcome I accept that I wasn’t there, I don’t have the facts and so I’m not really in a position to comment too much much less go running off hysterically screaming and shouting for laws to be changed.

It’s madness..

batgoat

Rennaws wrote: »

Maybe it’s an element of the boy who cried wolf..

It’s difficult to keep up with all these feminist causes they just keep coming so thick and fast..

I don’t know why the judge allowed the jury consider that as evidence but I refer to the judge as the legal expert and as with any other case where I have an issue with the outcome I accept that I wasn’t there, I don’t have the facts and so I’m not really in a position to comment too much much less go running off hysterically screaming and shouting for laws to be changed.

It’s madness..

Crying wolf... Yep you've definitely gotten a pretty warped attitude going on regardless of how many women you hire. It also looks like that this could very well lead to change. Our government is looking into it, legal scholars are backing changes on this front.

Rennaws wrote: »

You referred to the SC in this case as he. The SC was a woman.

No I wasn't speaking about the SC. The thong was used as a suggestion of consent in this case and in my opinion it is never consent to any man. The wearer of the thong is what he should achieve his consent from so the thong itself is irrelevant.

batgoat wrote: »

Crying wolf... Yep you've definitely gotten a pretty warped attitude going on regardless of how many women you hire. It also looks like that this could very well lead to change. Our government is looking into it, legal scholars are backing changes on this front.

Warped attitude now is it ?

You just can't help getting personal can you..

Yes we are now ruled by twitter..

I don't see that as a good thing.