Thongs = Consent

It's unfair to imply he was found not guilty just because of that comment unless you were present in the jury room. I think judges should point out to the jury to disregard the comments like that but you can't blame barrister for trying on behalf of their client.

Neyite wrote: »

Out of interest, are there any guidelines with regard to remarks made by either side during closing arguments - I know that during the witness testimony things stated can get struck from the record or the judge can direct a jury to disregard a statement/ get counsel to rephrase, but is there any such restrictions for the closing arguments?

What would those guidelines suggest in the like of a murder case?
Defence have to defend.

Neyite wrote: »

If the comment had no bearing on the outcome of the trial, why would the barrister even suggest it?

Were you in the jury room to know that was what influenced decision? I don't like the comment, I don't agree with the comment but neither I think it is fair to conclude about someone's guilt or innocence on the basis of fairly limited reporting (I haven't seen victim's statement or many other details of closing statements).

Neyite wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/counsel-for-man-acquitted-of-rape-suggested-jurors-should-reflect-on-underwear-worn-by-teen-complainant-883613.html?utm_source=iosapp&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=sharebutton

“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.”

Counsel for the defence, Ms Elizabeth O’Connell SC, said this.

Not sure how that was even allowed in the closing remarks to be honest. I thought we had moved away from implying that women's outfits made men all uncontrollably rapey but I didn't realise that according to some we merely sidestepped to it meaning that if our underwear is a certain shape or fabric, we are automatically consenting to sexual contact - wanted or not - from any man in the vicinity.

I'm rather worried about my sensible M&S granny pants now considering they have a lace front to them and they are...black.

The judge can still order the jury to disregard the remarks even in closing arguments if they aren’t considered relevant to the case, related to the evidence already presented, are intended to mislead the members of the jury, or are considered unreasonable. They have a fair bit of leeway in what is or isn’t considered reasonable in those circumstances because it’s the defendant is on trial, not the witnesses, and the defendant has a right to a fair trial, whereas the witnesses have no such right because they aren’t on trial accused of a criminal offence.

It’s kind of like arguing that the prosecution shouldn’t be allowed to present their case because it assumes an innocent person is guilty. The defendant always has the right to the presumption of innocence in a court of law unless they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. Of course the prosecution would have to present their case even when the implication is that an innocent person may be found guilty of a criminal offence.

It still doesn’t matter what you’re wearing if you’re ever the victim of rape, but that’s a completely different context to whether or not what you were wearing is relevant as regards the evidence presented in a Court of Law.

Shelga wrote: »

Disgusting closing comments. Even worse that they were from a female barrister

I don’t think they would sound any less disgusting or worse coming from a man either. I understand what you mean, but the point I’m making is that whether they’re a man or a woman, they’re a barrister first and foremost and they are duty bound by their profession to act in the best interests of their client and defending their client to the best of their ability. Painting the witnesses for the prosecution in a bad light in these kinds of cases is par for the course unfortunately, from the witnesses perspective at least. I don’t feel that witnesses are ever sufficiently prepared for this inevitability. It’s a risky strategy as it can play either way with the jury - the fact that the barrister made the comment may in some jurors minds paint the barrister as a scumbag and on that basis motivate them to find the defendant guilty, evidence be damned. Jurys are after all ordinary menbers of the public like all of us here with our own prejudices and biases which undoubtedly influence our attitudes towards, and our perceptions of, other people.

B0jangles wrote: »

But surely barristers have a responsibility to the wider community as well to not promulgate dangerous myths about how a woman's clothing is a reliable guide to whether or not she is likely to have sex?

Imagine if they were still going around claiming that alleged victims were clearly promiscuous because they had dyed their hair blonde/gone to a bar alone/went out walking without a chaperone. That's a world we're trying to get away from, not head back in to.

Barristers have no responsibility towards the wider community for anything. Their only responsibility is to act in the best interests of their client and defend their client to the best of their ability. I’m not sure where you ever got the impression that those kinds of arguments aren’t still common in these kinds of cases. The article in Neyite’s opening post only mentions that the barrister made the remarks, it doesn’t say anything about whether or not the judge ordered the jury to disregard the remarks. The point I’m making is that it’s just as common for a judge to order the jury to disregard remarks like that, but the cats out of the bag at that stage and like I said - remarks like that can go either way in influencing the members of the jury.

That comment seemed unprofessional.

There was a long debate here about the Belfast rape case and the verdict. There was a table in one of the threads (I can't find it) which outlined the several different steps or grey areas between guilty beyond reasonable doubt and not guilty. Apparently a rapist would have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt to be convicted. However there are several grey areas in between "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" and "not guilty". I am not a legal professional, perhaps a solicitor could provide a link to that table.

It is horrific to think that a barrister, a supposedly educated woman, would make a remark in court about a teenager's lacy thong. Many young girls and women wear skimpy underwear for the fun of it and not because they want to have sex. I presume this woman doesn't have daughters.

As EB says, my feeling on this is that the comment itself is contextual, but we don't have the context. The closest thing I can find (from the examiner) is;
"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."

Reading between the lines it sounds like part of the prosecution's case was that the victim gave a statement claiming she was just out for a bit of drinking and dancing, wasn't interested in hooking up with anyone, and wasn't at all interested in the defendant (hence the argument over whether they were kissing or not).

In that case, the defence's call to look at what she was wearing, is not so much to say that "she was gamey and up for it", but rather to discredit her claim that she wasn't open to meeting anyone that night. Discrediting the other side's witnesses is generally the primary goal of any barrister, even if it comes across as callous.

That said, to suggest that any person going out wouldn't put on nice, clean clothes unless they were hoping for a bit of rough-and-tumble, seems like a ridiculous argument which hoped to appeal to outdated sentiment. "I'm not interested in hooking up tonight, so I'm going to go to this fancy club in my hoodie and granny pants." Said no woman, ever.

It's completely plausible that this girl put on her "good" knickers because that's what you do when you're going out. And she never once thought, "Hopefully someone gets to see these".

Dial Hard wrote: »

I'd say it's more than plausible, it's extremely likely. I'm sitting in work in a lacy thong that nobody is going to see, other than my dog if she decides to bust into room while I'm getting changed later. My choice of underwear says absolutely nothing other than that I like thongs.

The comment made in the trial is deeply disturbing to me and I can't think of any further context that would make it any less so, tbh.

Completely agree with this. If I'm going out, whether it be to work or a pub, and I'm wearing a nice outfit, I don't then go and stick on a sports bra and my worn out granny pants, I wear nice undergarments too. It doesn't mean I'm going to be showing them to my colleagues or those I am drinking with, it is purely because I like wearing nice things and I don't like putting together an outfit and then not being put together with the rest of my attire, regardless of who will see it. I'd imagine many women are the same. God forbid we wear something nice to feel good in ourselves, nope has to be about men.

Also, not sure why they deem a thong as a particularly... sex related garment, I find them most comfortable so even my comfort underwear are penneys best cotton thongs with lace trim :pac:

seamus wrote: »

That said, to suggest that any person going out wouldn't put on nice, clean clothes unless they were hoping for a bit of rough-and-tumble, seems like a ridiculous argument which hoped to appeal to outdated sentiment. "I'm not interested in hooking up tonight, so I'm going to go to this fancy club in my hoodie and granny pants." Said no woman, ever.

While I completely disagree with the barristers remarks, one of the reasons it was brought up at all is the contra truth to your statement. Had she been wearing a hoodie and granny pants, then it's something the prosecution would have used to indicate she wasn't looking for a hook up, ergo, with the opposite scenario, the defence would be negligent not to highlight this.

Similarly, if a man was assaulted, and had a condom in his pocket, that would be used in a similar manner (and we can blame society that women are judged on what they wear more than men are).

[QUOTE=One eyed

How exactly? I’m asking genuinely for you to explain how you make the link between questions regarding evidence presented in a Court of Law, and your own assertion that it somehow perpetuates this myth? They’re two completely different contexts. Already in this thread there have been a number of posts attempting to disassociate styles of underwear from anything remotely sexual as though this is an unreasonable association. However, given how common the association actually is I would say the concerted attempts to disassociate underwear from anything remotely sexual are unreasonable, particularly when they are presented in a completely different context which has nothing to do with the evidence presented in a criminal trial.[/QUOTE]

Underwear can be sexy, it can be worn with intention of having sex but that doesn't mean that every person wearing sexy underwear wants to have sex. It's a logical fallacy and used only to insinuate something that can't be proven with the type of underwear. You can argue probability but when I was in my 20's thongs were worn by everyone in my age group. Does that mean we all wanted to have sex all the time? And there is real problem with trying to create the impression about alleged victim's morals by their clothing. It can be even worse, there was a famous Italian rape case that went to supreme court:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denim_Day

I don't blame the barrister because their duty is to defendant but judges should be able to caution them and dismiss arguments that are based on innuendo.

meeeeh wrote: »

Underwear can be sexy, it can be worn with intention of having sex but that doesn't mean that every person wearing sexy underwear wants to have sex. It's a logical fallacy and used only to insinuate something that can't be proven with the type of underwear. You can argue probability but when I was in my 20's thongs were worn by everyone in my age group. Does that mean we all wanted to have sex all the time? And there is real problem with trying to create the impression about alleged victim's morals by their clothing. It can be even worse, there was a famous Italian rape case that went to supreme court:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denim_Day

I don't blame the barrister because their duty is to defendant but judges should be able to caution them and dismiss arguments that are based on innuendo.

I wouldn’t argue probability because even if every woman on the planet were to opine that they too wear a thong, their choice of underwear for themselves would have no bearing on the context in which the evidence is presented in a criminal trial where a rape is alleged to have taken place, and the defendant maintains that they are innocent. The idea of calling any line of questioning in a Court of Law ‘victim blaming’ implies that the alleged victim shouldn’t be questioned, as every question implies partial responsibility for their allegedly being raped by the defendant.

Even alternative perspectives of any alleged rape presented to the jury would be regarded as innuendo because they imply that the complainant has credibility issues, and to do that is again ‘victim blaming’. The logical conclusion of any such argument is that the accused is automatically guilty, as no questioning of the alleged victim is allowed, because every question will imply that the alleged victim is partially responsible. That should never be how any justice system functions, because while it may be a noble endeavour to seek justice for the victim, it’s just as important in the interests of justice that the defendant is given the opportunity to defend themselves against accusations made against them lest we convict people of crimes they didn’t commit.

I agree there’s a real problem with trying to create an impression about an alleged victims morals by their clothing, but the real problem is actually caused by consideration of the allegation that they are a victim of rape. If they weren’t a victim of rape, then their clothing wouldn’t matter, as it wouldn’t be relevant because they’re not claiming they were the victim of rape. That’s why we had all the posters here posting about their underwear, and not one single post of their experience of rape. Immediately the idea seems to have been to attempt to disassociate any association between a persons choice of underwear and consensual sexual activities. I can only surmise that the attempt was made on the basis that if someone claims they were raped, they were raped and there should be no trial, the accused should be sentenced automatically.

There are buckets of myths about rape and victims of rape and criminal trials and court procedures that people summarily ignore because of their own biases, prejudices, beliefs and attitudes about all these things, and we even witnessed in this thread people who have no issue with putting a woman on trial by social media when she doesn’t fit their morals, yet they’ll be the same people who will give it welly about how the alleged victims are put on trial. It’s fcuking odd, I have to be honest, and I’m acutely aware that this is the Ladies Lounge and I have to restrict myself to giving my opinion within that context, but the way some people like Ciara Kelly doing what I would see as the equivalent of what George Hook did (and by equivalent I mean their opinions were a complete crock, devoid of any thought for anyone but themselves), it just demonstrates to me at least how for some people it isn’t about victims of rape, it isn’t about dispelling myths about rape, it isn’t about women’s rights or women’s welfare... it’s entirely about themselves and what they would do if they ever had the power to do it.

Judges do give juries directions and instructions in cases all the time btw, but the journalists reporting on this particular case appear to have focused solely on one particular statement that they knew would generate controversy. It’s still disgusting to have implied it, but if I were facing the prospect of a criminal conviction and sentence of up to 10 years in prison for a crime I did not commit, I might be likely to feel very differently about it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I agree there’s a real problem with trying to create an impression about an alleged victims morals by their clothing, but the real problem is actually caused by consideration of the allegation that they are a victim of rape. If they weren’t a victim of rape, then their clothing wouldn’t matter, as it wouldn’t be relevant because they’re not claiming they were the victim of rape. That’s why we had all the posters here posting about their underwear, and not one single post of their experience of rape. Immediately the idea seems to have been to attempt to disassociate any association between a persons choice of underwear and consensual sexual activities. I can only surmise that the attempt was made on the basis that if someone claims they were raped, they were raped and there should be no trial, the accused should be sentenced automatically.

There are buckets of myths about rape and victims of rape and criminal trials and court procedures that people summarily ignore because of their own biases, prejudices, beliefs and attitudes about all these things, and we even witnessed in this thread people who have no issue with putting a woman on trial by social media when she doesn’t fit their morals, yet they’ll be the same people who will give it welly about how the alleged victims are put on trial. It’s fcuking odd, I have to be honest, and I’m acutely aware that this is the Ladies Lounge and I have to restrict myself to giving my opinion within that context, but the way some people like Ciara Kelly doing what I would see as the equivalent of what George Hook did (and by equivalent I mean their opinions were a complete crock, devoid of any thought for anyone but themselves), it just demonstrates to me at least how for some people it isn’t about victims of rape, it isn’t about dispelling myths about rape, it isn’t about women’s rights or women’s welfare... it’s entirely about themselves and what they would do if they ever had the power to do it.

.

That's actually insulting. I actually have a bit of experience that you are looking for. I was blonde when I visited Turkey for the first time. I visited it another two times as brunette and my experience was completely different. First time I was grabbed, pulled into the shops, it got so bad I couldn't actually walk around the Grand Bazar. Someone also tried to rape me in the hostel. I never reported it but it was clear assumptions were made about me and my look. Prettier friend of mine who was not peroxide blonde was left alone. I was considered easy. People have assumptions about others seeing what they wear, how they wear it, how they look and barrister will abuse that. Nobody is asking to sentence someone without fair trial, all me and I suspect many women want is that our clothing choices aren't used as proof of our actions. Nobody would flash man's boxers with skid marks in court claiming they clearly had no intention to have sex or rape because their underwear is in such a state. All we ask is a bit of respect for alleged rape victims and not judge their intentions or character by underwear we wear. Use the underwear for forensic evidence not for evidence of their character.

You are doing exactly the same as solicitor yesterday on C. Kelly and dragging in physical evidence hat nobody objects to into discussion just to muddy the water.

B0jangles wrote: »

I've read the bolded paragraph three times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say - no exaggeration, it's just word salad.

Ok I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Ridiculous comment. I wear thongs when I’m lounging about like a sloth because I hate VPL. It’s not an open invitation to shove your penis in me. Silly girl should have had the foresight to have worn her rape proof full knicker briefs.
Just when you think you cannot be personally scrutinised, examined and judged any more in order to blame you for your own rape. Not even the knickers you have on are safe.

B0jangles wrote: »

I've read the bolded paragraph three times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say - no exaggeration, it's just word salad.

It’s very simple- outside of a criminal trial is one thing. Inside of a Courtroom is a different thing entirely, and this idea that we can’t infer things about a person from the way they were dressed or are dressed is nonsense.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would certainly be fair to claim that in court if you were giving evidence that I had raped you when I’m absolutely certain I hadn’t.

‘Do you think it would be ok to claim I raped you if we had sex?’ is the equivalent of your loaded question. I don’t need an answer.

So win by any means. Btw it was solicitor who claimed what accusers intention was and unless they were present at the time then they couldn't be absolutely certain someone didn't do it. In fact if there was absolute certainty the case wouldn't ecen make it to the court because rape is very hard to prove even when there is anything but absolute certainty.