Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I did read up on it
It was in fact he said & she said or at least that's all that was reported.

You just quoted the opinion of the court reporter.

How does that negate the actual allegation?

eagle eye wrote: »

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.

Da Fuq?

What has that got to do with you stating as a fact he has a previous conviction for rape.

I think if you explain yourself on that one first it could help.

batgoat

Rennaws wrote: »

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.

Except we've pointed out a case where a woman killed herself as a result of a similar situation in a trial. My statement is based on your remark that you view a woman as the "boy who cried wolf" if there isn't a successful conviction. Even though it's notoriously difficult to get a conviction and failing to do so does not equate to lying.

I think it should be quite simple. The onus should be on the defence to prove that consent was definitively given.
Currently it seems that the system requires the plaintiff to prove they said No it should be on the defendant to prove she (or indeed he) said Yes.

Past sexual history, what was worn by whom when, defendant's beliefs or expectations etc should play no part.

"Did the person you had sex with say Yes to having sex!" That should be the question - not did they say No.

Boggles wrote:

You just quoted the opinion of the court reporter.

I quoted the prosecution too or did you miss this?

We have reasonable doubt in Ireland and I wouldn't want it any other way. Unfortunately it means that we have some guilty people walking the streets but that's better than having innocent people in jail.

The Bishop Basher

batgoat wrote: »

My statement is based on your remark that you view a woman as the "boy who cried wolf"

Jesus put the outrage and aggro away.

My comments were not in relation to the woman involved in this case.

I view a "movement" as crying wolf. The following sentence clarified that.

I'm still waiting on examples of those personal insults you accused me of..

As you sling the personal digs my way one by one..

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.

No, that may well be a point you want to make, but it’s not an opinion I share.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think it should be quite simple. The onus should be on the defence to prove that consent was definitively given.
Currently it seems that the system requires the plaintiff to prove they said No it should be on the defendant to prove she (or indeed he) said Yes.

Past sexual history, what was worn by whom when, defendant's beliefs or expectations etc should play no part.

"Did the person you had sex with say Yes to having sex!" That should be the question - not did they say No.

And that suggestion would fly in the face of every persons right to the presumption of innocence.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I quoted the prosecution too or did you miss this?

Again, nothing to with the allegation.

You keep repeating that this case was about "he said, she said".

The actual allegation was not of that nature.

It was an allegation of brutal physical and sexual assault.

It may have came down for a finish to "he said, she said".

But like I said to you previously. Why did it?

That's rhetorical by the way, obviously there is no way, you or me or anyone on here could possibly know because their is virtually no details about this case.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Past sexual history
.

I completely agree on this. Didn't stop the prosecution bringing it up and entering it as evidence though.

Boggles wrote:

That's rhetorical by the way, obviously there is no way, you or me or anyone on here could possibly know because their is virtually no details about this case.

My guess is that there were no whiteness, CCTV footage etc, to her being dragged anywhere. So taking that element away the case might have focused on what they both agreed, that a sex act took place. He had consent or no he didn't. Just a guess of course

Sleeper12 wrote: »

My guess is that there were no whiteness, CCTV footage etc, to her being dragged anywhere. So taking that element away the case might have focused on what they both agreed, that a sex act took place. He had consent or no he didn't. Just a guess of course

But the element wasn't taken away.

It was put to the defendant under cross examination by the prosecutor.

Outlaw Pete

Rennaws wrote: »

I view a "movement" as crying wolf.

Damn right it has..... multiple times at this stage and Ruth has undeniably played her part in it too:

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/1045379137291128833

The mask slipping moment for them all was when Asia Argento was accused of statutorily raping an underage boy and their reaction was either to largely ignore the allegation or laughingly ask for people to hold back and allow due process.

Not that even due process is enough for these people as they (as we are seeing on this thread) will after a not guilty verdict then just say 'Well, being found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it'.

Not that I have a problem with anyone questioning a verdict. Sure I've questioned enough myself (mostly correctly, given later acquittals) but that's not what appears to be happening here at all. People are not emphasizing that 'not-guilty doesn't equal innocent' because they feel strongly that an incorrect verdict was reached in a specific trial. They are emphasizing it purely to keep the statistical narrative in place that 1 in 40 rapes have an inappropriate punishment.

If these people accepted that when someone walks into a court they are presumed innocent and so when they then they walk they should still be presumed such if found not guilty, that would largely disarm them given that they have historically weaponized such stats. They are pedantic about how a not guilty verdict doesn't prove innocence but yet have no problem whatsoever referring to complainants as rape victims. To call them philosophically inconsistent would be too kind.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that suggestion would fly in the face of every persons right to the presumption of innocence.

No, it wouldn't.

In many cases defendants are required to demonstrate why they could not have committed the crime they are being charged with - is their presumption of innocence gone?

The problem with how rape trials are conducted is that it is the plaintiff who seems to be required to prove they are an innocent when the fact of the matter is the number of sexual partners that have had in their lives, what underwear the chose to wear. whether or not the defendant bought them a meal are immaterial. All that should matter is if the plaintiff consented to have sexual intercourse with the defendant or not.
The best way for the defendant to prove his or her (in the case of sexual assault) is to demonstrate the plaintiff agreed to have sex as opposed to didn't disagree.

Seriously - is it really so hard to require (presumably) adults to get a Yes to sex rather than a "wasn't a No"?

Boggles wrote: »

I completely agree on this. Didn't stop the prosecution bringing it up and entering it as evidence though.

And it should be inadmissible.

Boggles wrote:

But the element wasn't taken away.

Agreed but with no evidence at all (I assumed) on the assault I can't see them dwelling on it for too long. They were curtain that a sex act took place so I'm guessing this is w they focus on.

batgoat

Pete, just to clarify I very much view Asia Argento in the same vein as Weinstein. I think most tend to... It was also pretty heavily reported but not to the same degree as Weinstein because it's lower profile.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Agreed but with no evidence at all (I assumed) on the assault I can't see them dwelling on it for too long. They were curtain that a sex act took place so I'm guessing this is w they focus on.

The time they take to dwell on it is moot. We have no idea how long it took or what evidence was presented.

If it is part of the allegation surely it would be part of what he was charged with.

The allegation we know was brought up in the trial.

Roger Hassenforder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No, it wouldn't.

In many cases defendants are required to demonstrate why they could not have committed the crime they are being charged with - is their presumption of innocence gone?

The problem with how rape trials are conducted is that it is the plaintiff who seems to be required to prove they are an innocent when the fact of the matter is the number of sexual partners that have had in their lives, what underwear the chose to wear. whether or not the defendant bought them a meal are immaterial. All that should matter is if the plaintiff consented to have sexual intercourse with the defendant or not.
The best way for the defendant to prove his or her (in the case of sexual assault) is to demonstrate the plaintiff agreed to have sex as opposed to didn't disagree.

Seriously - is it really so hard to require (presumably) adults to get a Yes to sex rather than a "wasn't a No"?

I dont think its unreasonable in this day and age, for a chap to ensure he has consent.
"You ok with this"? isnt exactly a passion killer in most circumstances.

There'll possibly be a few cases where consent wasnt freely given though.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I dont think its unreasonable in this day and age, for a chap to ensure he has consent.
"You ok with this"? isnt exactly a passion killer in most circumstances.

There'll possibly be a few cases where consent wasnt freely given though.

Or for a chapess.

Basically, regardless of gender keep your body parts to yourself unless the other person has agreed you may touch them.
No copping a feel.
No sex.
Unless they say Yes.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No, it wouldn't.

In many cases defendants are required to demonstrate why they could not have committed the crime they are being charged with - is their presumption of innocence gone?

Nobody is ever required to demonstrate why they could not have committed the crime they are charged with, it’s for the prosecution to present their evidence that the defendant who is presumed innocent, committed the crime. People here appear to be starting from the presumption that the defendant is presumed guilty and must prove their innocence. There are legitimate defences against criminal charges, and in a case where the defendant is accused of rape, it is a legitimate defence to that charge to put forward the argument that the defendant is of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual. It’s up to a jury to determine on the basis of the evidence presented, whether the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual was reasonable.

The problem with how rape trials are conducted is that it is the plaintiff who seems to be required to prove they are an innocent when the fact of the matter is the number of sexual partners that have had in their lives, what underwear the chose to wear. whether or not the defendant bought them a meal are immaterial. All that should matter is if the plaintiff consented to have sexual intercourse with the defendant or not.

Yeah, ‘seems to be required to prove their innocence’. However, the reality is that the complaining witness doesn’t have to prove anything. Counsel representing the States prosecution has to prove everything, as it is the State has taken a case against the defendant, not the complaining witness.

The best way for the defendant to prove his or her (in the case of sexual assault) is to demonstrate the plaintiff agreed to have sex as opposed to didn't disagree.

The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything either. The obligation for the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defence. The prosecution has to demonstrate that the defendant could not have been of the belief that the encounter was consensual, or that the defendant was reckless in obtaining consent, or that the defendants contention that their honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is unreasonable.

The defendant is on trial because they maintain their innocence, it’s up to the prosecution to demonstrate that the defendant had the foresight to know they would be charged with rape. That is the whole point of all of us, everyone, is entitled to the right to the presumption of innocence, it’s founded on the principles of natural justice. We don’t assume everyone is guilty of something and we just don’t know what they’re guilty of... yet. That’s generally called a witch-hunt. It’s a presumption that fuels mob justice.

Seriously - is it really so hard to require (presumably) adults to get a Yes to sex rather than a "wasn't a No"?

Yes it is, because everyone has the right to the presumption of innocence - the assumption that they aren’t guilty of committing any wrongdoing. If someone accuses a person of wrongdoing, then it should absolutely be up to that person to present evidence of any wrongdoing they claim an innocent person has done.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody is ever required to demonstrate why they could not have committed the crime they are charged with, it’s for the prosecution to present their evidence that the defendant who is presumed innocent, committed the crime. People here appear to be starting from the presumption that the defendant is presumed guilty and must prove their innocence. There are legitimate defences against criminal charges, and in a case where the defendant is accused of rape, it is a legitimate defence to that charge to put forward the argument that the defendant is of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual. It’s up to a jury to determine on the basis of the evidence presented, whether the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual was reasonable.

Yeah, ‘seems to be required to prove their innocence’. However, the reality is that the complaining witness doesn’t have to prove anything. Counsel representing the States prosecution has to prove everything, as it is the State has taken a case against the defendant, not the complaining witness.

The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything either. The obligation for the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defence. The prosecution has to demonstrate that the defendant could not have been of the belief that the encounter was consensual, or that the defendant was reckless in obtaining consent, or that the defendants contention that their honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is unreasonable.

The defendant is on trial because they maintain their innocence, it’s up to the prosecution to demonstrate that the defendant had the foresight to know they would be charged with rape. That is the whole point of all of us, everyone, is entitled to the right to the presumption of innocence, it’s founded on the principles of natural justice. We don’t assume everyone is guilty of something and we just don’t know what they’re guilty of... yet. That’s generally called a witch-hunt. It’s a presumption that fuels mob justice.

Yes it is, because everyone has the right to the presumption of innocence - the assumption that they aren’t guilty of committing any wrongdoing. If someone accuses a person of wrongdoing, then it should absolutely be up to that person to present evidence of any wrongdoing they claim an innocent person has done.

Yes - it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt - this should never grant licence to the defence to prove their client's innocence by calling into question the lifestyle or clothing of the claimant.

Yet, it is the (alleged) victim whose character is called into question.
Where the "defence" is often a thinly veiled = or outright = they were "asking for it.
Or they "led" the defendant on so "deserved" it.

Do we do this with murder trials?
And I do not mean manslaughter - I mean murder.
Does the defence employ a tactic to convince the jury the victim was "asking for it!"?

No = because it would be demonstrably unjust.

Nobody asks to be raped just as nobody asks to be murdered, yet in a rape trial the (alleged) victims life and clothes become grist for the defence's mill. This is not justice. This is a bitch-hunt.

I honestly cannot understand how anyone would want any woman to go through this.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes - it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt - this should never grant licence to the defence to prove their client's innocence by calling into question the lifestyle or clothing of the claimant.

Yet, it is the (alleged) victim whose character is called into question.
Where the "defence" is often a thinly veiled = or outright = they were "asking for it.
Or they "led" the defendant on so "deserved" it.

Do we do this with murder trials?
And I do not mean manslaughter - I mean murder.
Does the defence employ a tactic to convince the jury the victim was "asking for it!"?

No = because it would be demonstrably unjust.

Nobody asks to be raped just as nobody asks to be murdered, yet in a rape trial the (alleged) victims life and clothes become grist for the defence's mill. This is not justice. This is a bitch-hunt.

I honestly cannot understand how anyone would want any woman to go through this.

Why are you making the point that nobody asks to be raped? Who ever said they do? That is not what is in question in any trial where the defendant is accused of committing rape.

The point is that the defendant is accused of committing rape. You’re arguing as though it has already been established that the defendant has committed rape. If it has been established already that the defendant committed rape, there would be no need for a trial.

The Bishop Basher

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I honestly cannot understand how anyone would want any woman to go through this.

Nobody wants a women to go through this but it’s an adversarial situation in a court of law.. it’s not going to be kittens and rainbows for either party and you can’t trample over the rights of the accused in your rush to defend the rights of the accuser who enjoys the privaledge of anonymity and can walk away regardless when it’s all over and done with.

The accused meanwhile has everything to lose and if I was ever in the situation myself I’d instruct my legal people to use whatever means necessary to get me off and free so I could at least attempt to rebuild my life.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why are you making the point that nobody asks to be raped? Who ever said they do? That is not what is in question in any trial where the defendant is accused of committing rape.

The point is that the defendant is accused of committing rape. You’re arguing as though it has already been established that the defendant has committed rape. If it has been established already that the defendant committed rape, there would be no need for a trial.

Seriously?
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the "gagging for it" defence hasn't been used?
That there hasn't been instances when the (alleged) victim wasn't characterised as "up for it" or "asking for it" - unless the (alleged) victim has given consent it is rape and yes - defence lawyers can do do state they were asking or it. In fact - that is often the entire case for the defence.

You may not like it - but this will change because women have had enough.
You may try to dismiss it as "feminism" or such other kneejerking but that is the reality.

Women. have. had. enough.

Now good day to you Jack. I have no wish to continuing discussing this with a person who argues that it is fair and just in a rape trial for the (alleged) victim's character and clothing to be called into question in the way it so often is.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do we do this with murder trials?
And I do not mean manslaughter - I mean murder.
Does the defence employ a tactic to convince the jury the victim was "asking for it!"?

No = because it would be demonstrably unjust.

Well yeah, it happens all the time in murder trials, it is happening right now in a pretty high profile one.

It's called self defense.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously?
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the "gagging for it" defence hasn't been used?
That there hasn't been instances when the (alleged) victim wasn't characterised as "up for it" or "asking for it" - unless the (alleged) victim has given consent it is rape and yes - defence lawyers can do do state they were asking or it. In fact - that is often the entire case for the defence.

“It” of course, referring to sex, not rape.

It is the defendants contention that the encounter was consensual, that it was not rape, that they did not commit rape, and they are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing until such a time as they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the wrongdoing of which they are accused.

You may not like it - but this will change because women have had enough.
You may try to dismiss it as "feminism" or such other kneejerking but that is the reality.

Women. have. had. enough.

Sorry? It’s not a question of whether I like it or not, it’s a question of whether or not our judicial system functions as it should, and in my opinion it does. It will stay the same as it is now whether the accuser is a man, woman or child, because I don’t believe anyone should have the right to accuse people of any wrongdoing and for that person to suffer consequences based solely upon the word of their accuser. That is not justice, that is tyranny, which would lead to anarchy.

I don’t dismiss it btw as feminism because your ideas to me are not feminism, they are a poor attempt coming from an authoritarian dictatorship mindset, and as soon as you disagree with anyone higher up the chain of command than you are - under the bus you go, as has been demonstrated by some women when they feel they get a sniff of power over other people - they are no different to the men they criticise.

Now good day to you Jack. I have no wish to continuing discussing this with a person who argues that it is fair and just in a rape trial for the (alleged) victim's character and clothing to be called into question in the way it so often is.

Good day to you too.

Mrsmum

Rennaws wrote: »

Nobody wants a women to go through this but it’s an adversarial situation in a court of law.. it’s not going to be kittens and rainbows for either party and you can’t trample over the rights of the accused in your rush to defend the rights of the accuser who enjoys the privaledge of anonymity and can walk away regardless when it’s all over and done with.

The accused meanwhile has everything to lose and if I was ever in the situation myself I’d instruct my legal people to use whatever means necessary to get me off and free so I could at least attempt to rebuild my life.

Isn't the accused also anonymous ? If he doesn't walk away afterwards that obviously because he's been found guilty.