Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Gimme A Pound · 16-11-2018 5:42pm

Every man I've spoken to about this thinks it was an utterly bizarre, disingenuous, cheap thing to do by the defence, and know that women regularly wear thongs or other types of sexy knickers just as day to day underwear, because they're not interested in spending their money on granny knickers, and the thong is also worn to eliminate the "visible panty seam" effect.

And these men are not white knights or trying to get laid - they actually do get laid anyway.

As ever, it's only on the internet that the voices buying into this craziness are apparent. And the "feminists with blue hair are protesting therefore it's only a bit of hypersensitivity" genius comes to the fore.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 16-11-2018 5:42pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

If I see someone robbing my handbag, and they deny culpability, and they aren't convicted due to lack of proof, does that mean it never happened?

If someone crashes into my car, and I have no dashcam and they drive away, does that make the damage and the bill go away?

Those are completely different cases where someone grabs something or damages something, and then runs away or drives away so that there's plausible doubt to their identity. In the majority of rape cases, the accused does not deny that he had sex with the complainant. He is more likely to deny that he had non-consensual sex with the complainant.

LLMMLL · 16-11-2018 5:43pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She appealed to the jury to take into consideration that what the complainant was wearing at the time of the encounter, and whether or not in that context, the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was reasonable, not based solely upon what the defendant was wearing at the time, but in the context of all the evidence presented during the trial. Some people who are already certain the defendant did commit rape, seem focused on the first part of what she said, and ignored the second part.

I've just looked up what she said. In the versions I've seen she never mentioned the defendant or his beliefs. She solely mentions the girls intent.

She also does.not mention any other evidence other than the way the girl was dressed.

Could you provide a fuller quote of what the barrister said where she says what you are saying she says?

mickrock · 16-11-2018 5:43pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm simply stating that the fact that he was found not guilty doesn't mean it never happened and it doesn't mean she's telling lies.

Equally, it could mean that it didn't happen and she was telling lies.

B0jangles · 16-11-2018 5:47pm

Zulu wrote: »

I suspect its not so much championing the bottom of the barrel (because that's where the comment appears to have been dragged from), but rather a resistance/push back on the very obvious:
knee-jerk outrage, without any context

pure media sensationalism

voices to censor such comments; censor anything contrary to groupthink

I'm not 100% sure what this means, but I think you're saying that the posters who are arguing that the barrister was right and justified in making the quoted remark* to the jury, are not doing so because they actually believe that it was the right thing for the barrister to do, they are doing so purely as some kind of pushback against knee-jerk outrage, sensationalism and censorship?

Is that correct?

*Edit: adding Barrister's remark:

“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,”

Lillybloom · 16-11-2018 5:49pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

I wouldn't put much stock in choice of underwear either way but there is an intent logical difference in the two scenarios:

Using thongs as evidence of intent to have sex: the question here is do women who wear thongs consistently intend to have sex. If you can find many women who wear thongs and do not intend to have sex than this would be a faulty assumption. And as this thread has shown, many women wear thongs with zero intent to have sex.

Using the absence of thongs as evidence of absence of intent to have sex: in this case the question is do women who intend to have sex consistently wear thongs. If you can find many women who intend to have sex but wear dirty unflattering underwear then this would be a faulty assumption. So you'd need a thread on the clothing choices of.women who intend to have sex to decide that, but I think most people would expect that someone who intends to have sex would put effort into their personal appearance.

So these are two completely different scenarios, not the same, and should be treated differently.

I've never claimed you can use thongs alone to conclude intent to have sex.

What I think you can use as evidence is if a woman wakes up and chooses her worst old faded pair of underwear then she is less likely to be planning to have sex during the day if she doesn't have a change of clothes.

SusieBlue · 16-11-2018 5:50pm

mickrock wrote: »

Equally, it could mean that it didn't happen and she was telling lies.

There must have been a reasonable amount of sufficient evidence to allude to the defendants guilt for the case to have been taken to court.
If there was a chance she had made the whole thing up it would never have made it before a judge.
Just as an example, the independent witness who saw the defendant with his hands around the complainants throat, would support this.

One eyed Jack · 16-11-2018 5:54pm

B0jangles wrote: »

I really don't understand why some people are championing a barrister's right to use what is essentially a myth or popular perception (wearing a thong=wants to have sex), a perception which is not based on any fact, but which is used to convince the jury, simply because that is their job.

It’s a popular perception that is based upon those people’s reality, and therefore for them it is not a myth.

Would you be equally happy to see a barrister claiming a male rape victim wasn't actually raped because he had an erection/climaxed as a result of what was done to him?

Plenty of people out there would find that 'evidence' very compelling - even though it is actually quite meaningless, as many rape victims experience such effects. It might help the barrister get the result they want, but it would be by grossly misleading the jury.

It wouldn’t be grossly misleading to the jury because as you pointed out yourself- it does happen. The whole reason for a trial is because the defendant maintains they are innocent. There is disagreement over whether or not what took place was consensual, or was rape. In that context, the defendant is presumed innocent, even though the complainant maintains otherwise.

Would I be happy with it? No, and I’m not championing a barristers right to use whatever they can to convince the jury that their client should be found not guilty either. I’m saying that to deny the defendant that right, is wrong.

Would you be ok with a barrister claiming that a teenage boy who was molested by his teacher must have wanted it (because everyone knows all teenage boys will have sex with anything), and therefore the offence is less severe that the jury might think?

I wouldn’t be ok with it, because I find that reasoning disgusting. However, that being said, because it is the defendants state of mind is in question, then I wouldn’t deny the defendant the opportunity to present that reasoning as a defence. I would also consider the fact that in that context, the teacher who is the defendant, is in a position of authority, and they would have been aware that consent was not present in those circumstances as the complainant has no capacity to give consent. That line of defence wouldn’t get very far as the jury would already have been made aware of this also.

Sounds pretty disgusting to me, and a long way from truth or justice.

While I can see why you’re saying it’s disgusting (and I agree with you that it is), it would be more repugnant IMO and an even longer way from truth or justice were we to deny a defendant every opportunity to defend themselves when accused of the criminal offence of rape.

One eyed Jack · 16-11-2018 6:10pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've just looked up what she said. In the versions I've seen she never mentioned the defendant or his beliefs. She solely mentions the girls intent.

She also does.not mention any other evidence other than the way the girl was dressed.

Could you provide a fuller quote of what the barrister said where she says what you are saying she says?

Taken from Bojangles post -

“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,”

She is referring to the evidence first of all, and asking does the evidence rule out alternative possibilities that would have led to the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was reasonable, based upon what the defendant was wearing. What the defendant was wearing is relevant if it is the defendants contention that they believed it indicated to the defendant in this case, that the encounter was consensual, and that belief was reasonable when taken in the context of all the evidence presented.

That is not suggesting that the complainant wasn’t raped. It is stating that the defendant should not be found guilty of rape on the basis of the evidence presented during the trial. It was a closing statement, bringing all the evidence in defence of her client together, and the comments about the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time is, well, the bow on top, so to speak.

It was dangerous for her defendants case as it may well have made the members of the jury think the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, if solely based on that evidence alone, was unreasonable.

joe40 · 16-11-2018 6:13pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

LLMMLL wrote: »

He is saying there is no context in which the barristers comments are ok.

You are saying there is some possible contexts but can't seem.to come up any when asked.

It's not his imagination that's the problem here.

It’s very simple L - it is the defendants belief which is in question as to whether or not their belief that the encounter was consensual based upon the complainants underwear is reasonable. Given that the type of underwear worn by the complainant is often worn by people when they are engaged in sexual encounters, it is not unreasonable IMO for the defendant to have believed that the encounter was consensual. There can be a million other reasons for why anyone chooses the type of underwear they do, or don’t wear, but those other reasons do not negate the context in which the complainants underwear is relevant to the defendants mindset and their reasoning in this particular case.

So by your logic if the defendant thinks there was consent, then he is innocent. Is that your point.
Regardless of what the woman (or Man, the victim could male) felt about the situation.

B0jangles · 16-11-2018 6:14pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s a popular perception that is based upon those people’s reality, and therefore for them it is not a myth.

For about the 50th time - in the specific remark under discussion, the barrister did not claim it was the defendant's belief that the alleged victim's thong meant that she wanted to have sex with him.
The barrister said “You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front,”
She presented it as something entirely separate - that the fact that she worn a thong suggested that the complainant was prepared to have sex with someone.

Nothing whatsoever about the defendant's beliefs on the night in question.

Your other examples address the same irrelevant point - the barrister's remarks were not talking about the defendant's perceptions, they were about what the wearing of a thong objectively signifies.
Which is nothing except that a person has chosen to wear it.

FunLover18 · 16-11-2018 6:16pm

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Those are completely different cases where someone grabs something or damages something, and then runs away or drives away so that there's plausible doubt to their identity. In the majority of rape cases, the accused does not deny that he had sex with the complainant. He is more likely to deny that he had non-consensual sex with the complainant.

But in certain rape trials there are instances of damage; vaginal tears, bleeding. If you're saying that a not guilty verdict means no rape took place, surely you're also saying that the accused is innocent? I would argue that a not guilty verdict means that the jury/court cannot say 100% that the sex was not consensual and therefore cannot convict but 99% certainty that a rape took place does not mean that no rape took place. Not guilty means the defendant is acquitted and they maintain their presumption of innocence but the court is not in a position to declare innocence and therefore surely cannot declare that a rape did not take place, only that it cannot declare it did take place with 100% certainty.

One eyed Jack · 16-11-2018 6:19pm

joe40 wrote: »

So by your logic if the defendant thinks there was consent, then he is innocent. Is that your point.
Regardless of what the woman (or Man, the victim could male) felt about the situation.

No that is not my logic. It is a matter for the jury to determine whether or not the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is reasonable, based upon all the evidence presented to them during the trial from both the prosecution and the defence. If the jury comes to the conclusion that the defendants belief is honest and that their belief is reasonable, then they would have to acquit the defendant who is accused of the criminal offence of rape as it is defined in Irish law. If they find that the defendants belief is honest, but do not agree that the defendants belief is reasonable, then they must find the defendant guilty of the offence of rape, as it is defined in Irish law.

tritium · 16-11-2018 6:19pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Fair trial? He pleaded guilty........

Did you read on before hitting reply or have you been taking the tapas approach to replying to this thread. The post I replied to referenced the entire thread, not just the example being discussed around there.

professore · 16-11-2018 6:21pm

This should have been the barrister mentioning the thong and the judge saying it was inadmissable and instruct the jury to disregard it. End of story.

mickrock · 16-11-2018 6:22pm

joe40 wrote: »

Does anyone know exactly what point the barrister was making, when holding up the Thong.

I cannot for the life of me think of a single possible reason it would be relevant to the case, but I don't know the details.

Maybe the complainant had earlier been asked about the type of underwear she was wearing and the description she gave was not that of a thong.

The defense could then say she wasn't being truthful and that her testimony is unreliable.

professore · 16-11-2018 6:26pm

joe40 wrote:

Does anyone know exactly what point the barrister was making, when holding up the Thong.

I cannot for the life of me think of a single possible reason it would be relevant to the case, but I don't know the details.
Maybe the complainant had earlier been asked about the type of underwear she was wearing and the description she gave was not that of a thong.

The defense could then say she wasn't being truthful and that her testimony is unreliable.

The barrister didn't hold up the thong, that was Ruth Coppinger. The barrister made a statement about her wearing a thong that I can't be arsed anymore to look up.

SusieBlue · 16-11-2018 6:26pm

professore wrote: »

This should have been the barrister mentioning the thong and the judge saying it was inadmissable and instruct the jury to disregard it. End of story.

This is how I feel too, and I think this is why there is outrage and calls for the government to review what can and can't be said by barristers with the specifics of this case in mind.

tritium · 16-11-2018 6:28pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Dying that my friend PlaneSpeeking thanked this post despite having most of us in this thread who disagree with her on ignore.

Dying that an equally predictable cadre thanked your post

ceadaoin. · 16-11-2018 6:31pm

Just gonna paste this here. This seems to be the fullest information available. Here it all is people, you can stop asking the same questions over and over now about what was said!

A 27-year-old man who denied raping a 17-year-old in county Cork wept loudly as he was found not guilty by a jury at the Central Criminal Court in Cork.

The jury of eight men and four women took one and a half hours of deliberation to reach their unanimous verdict yesterday.

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

The jury heard evidence that in the immediate aftermath of the disputed sexual incident at the centre of the case the complainant said to the accused: “You just raped me” and the defendant said, “No, we just had sex.”

After the accused man told his senior counsel Ms Elizabeth O’Connell that what happened was consensual, he was cross-examined by Tom Creed SC for the prosecution.

Commenting on the night in question, the defendant said they were kissing and he said they "felt attracted to one another on the night.”

Mr Creed said: “There is not one person who saw you kissing.” The defendant named one man who allegedly did see them kissing but this person did not give evidence in the trial.

Mr Creed asked him to describe the sexual contact.

The defendant said they had gone up a lane and were lying down in a muddy area. He said that he could not get fully erect and did not think his penis went into her vagina. He said it was possible that it did but he did not think so.

Mr Creed said: “A witness saw you with your hand to her throat.” The defendant said that was not correct. He said the witness misread the situation.

The defendant denied that and said “she was not crying at any stage.”

When the complainant’s evidence that he dragged her over 30 metres to the spot where the alleged rape occurred, was put to him he said he "didn’t drag anyone anywhere.”

He said she was kind of worried about her dress getting dirty in what he described as “the moist mud”.

He said that after (a witness at the scene) asked was everything alright in a sarcastic manner he replied: "What the **** does it look like. Mind your own business."

“Then she (the complainant) was getting funny, it was like she snapped out of a buzz. She said stop and I stopped. We were going to have sex, she said stop and I stopped,” he testified.

In her closing address to the jury, Ms Elizabeth O’Connell SC told jurors they should have regard for the underwear the complainant wore on the night.

“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.”

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.

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.

“You have heard her say she did not consent. You have heard him say she did consent. The major issue you have to deal with is whether she consented to sexual intercourse. It is one way or the other. Either she did or did not. If you are satisfied she did not consent and that he knew she did not consent then you convict.

“She is quite clear she did not consent She said she never had sexual intercourse before.

“It has been alleged by the defendant there was lots of kissing going on. In terms of kissing there is not one witness in this case who can say they were kissing.”

One eyed Jack · 16-11-2018 6:31pm

B0jangles wrote: »

For about the 50th time - in the specific remark under discussion, the barrister did not claim it was the defendant's belief that the alleged victim's thong meant that she wanted to have sex with him.
The barrister said “You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front,”
She presented it as something entirely separate - that the fact that she worn a thong suggested that the complainant was prepared to have sex with someone.

Nothing whatsoever about the defendant's beliefs on the night in question.

Your other examples address the same irrelevant point - the barrister's remarks were not talking about the defendant's perceptions, they were about what the wearing of a thong objectively signifies.
Which is nothing except that a person has chosen to wear it.

You can maintain that belief for as long as you wish. You won’t manage to convince me it has any truth. It is but one of millions of reasonable assumptions that you can make about other people. I know for example that I don’t just wear underwear “because I choose to wear it”. I choose my underwear often with many specific purposes in mind depending upon the circumstances in which I predict I may find myself later on in the day, or night, as it may be. For you to tell me that it’s a myth that I choose my underwear just “because I choose to wear it”, is to my mind, an unreasonable assumption on your part. You’re just wrong. You’re making an assumption about someone who isn’t you, and you’re wrong. Your ‘myth’ is meaningless and unreasonable to me.

I make assumptions all the time too. I’m wrong too. Sometimes I’m right. I make assumptions based upon previous evidence where an idea has either worked out, or it hasn’t. “Myth”, doesn’t come into it. I base my assumptions upon whether or not the evidence I have suggests that an idea is reasonable, or unreasonable. Your evidence may present you with different beliefs to mine. This is the reason why there are 12 people on a jury, and a persons fate isn’t just decided by one person.

joe40 · 16-11-2018 6:32pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

So by your logic if the defendant thinks there was consent, then he is innocent. Is that your point.
Regardless of what the woman (or Man, the victim could male) felt about the situation.

No that is not my logic. It is a matter for the jury to determine whether or not the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is reasonable, based upon all the evidence presented to them during the trial from both the prosecution and the defence. If the jury comes to the conclusion that the defendants belief is honest and that their belief is reasonable, then they would have to acquit the defendant who is accused of the criminal offence of rape as it is defined in Irish law. If they find that the defendants belief is honest, but do not agree that the defendants belief is reasonable, then they must find the defendant guilty of the offence of rape, as it is defined in Irish law.

Ok I get your point. But that is what the protests are about, quite valid protests in my opinion. The belief that a persons underwear is any way related to consent is not "reasonable" That is the nonsense we must get away from, and if that means not allowing that as evidence that is fine by me. There are plenty of things that are inadmissible during court cases.
Ignorance cannot be a defence

LLMMLL · 16-11-2018 6:34pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Taken from Bojangles post -

“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,”

She is referring to the evidence first of all, and asking does the evidence rule out alternative possibilities that would have led to the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was reasonable, based upon what the defendant was wearing. What the defendant was wearing is relevant if it is the defendants contention that they believed it indicated to the defendant in this case, that the encounter was consensual, and that belief was reasonable when taken in the context of all the evidence presented.

That is not suggesting that the complainant wasn’t raped. It is stating that the defendant should not be found guilty of rape on the basis of the evidence presented during the trial. It was a closing statement, bringing all the evidence in defence of her client together, and the comments about the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time is, well, the bow on top, so to speak.

It was dangerous for her defendants case as it may well have made the members of the jury think the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, if solely based on that evidence alone, was unreasonable.

You're reading ideas into her comments that aren't there. She never once mentions the defendant or his beliefs.

You've decided in advance that this was the line of defense she was pursuing even though she never mentions it, and view her comments through that biased lens.

Again, there is zero evidence from her comments that she raised the girls choice of underwear as evidence towards her defendants state of.mind or beliefs.

tritium · 16-11-2018 6:35pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

There must have been a reasonable amount of sufficient evidence to allude to the defendants guilt for the case to have been taken to court.
If there was a chance she had made the whole thing up it would never have made it before a judge.
Just as an example, the independent witness who saw the defendant with his hands around the complainants throat, would support this.

Equally there must have been a reasonable amount of sufficient evidence to call into question the defendants guilt for a jury of 12 to unanimously arrive at a not guilty verdict.

LLMMLL · 16-11-2018 6:41pm

tritium wrote: »

Did you read on before hitting reply or have you been taking the tapas approach to replying to this thread. The post I replied to referenced the entire thread, not just the example being discussed around there.

Eh the post you replied to referred specifically to the case where the accused pleaded guilty.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 16-11-2018 6:42pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

But in certain rape trials there are instances of damage; vaginal tears, bleeding. If you're saying that a not guilty verdict means no rape took place, surely you're also saying that the accused is innocent?

Women can also experience vaginal tears during consensual sex. This is not uncommon. It is by no means proof that a complainant was raped.

I would argue that a not guilty verdict means that the jury/court cannot say 100% that the sex was not consensual and therefore cannot convict but 99% certainty that a rape took place does not mean that no rape took place.

The jury is not required to quantify their degree of certitude in such a manner, though. There are only two outcomes: guilty or not guilty. If the accused is found not guilty by a jury of his peers, then he is cleared of the charges and is not a rapist. And if he is not a rapist, there was no rape, unless it can somehow be argued that the rape was committed by someone other than the accused.

Not guilty means the defendant is acquitted and they maintain their presumption of innocence but the court is not in a position to declare innocence and therefore surely cannot declare that a rape did not take place, only that it cannot declare it did take place with 100% certainty.

If a defendant is acquitted, then, from a legal standpoint, the woman was not raped. The rape cannot be registered in official crime statistics and so on.

SusieBlue · 16-11-2018 6:44pm

tritium wrote: »

Equally there must have been a reasonable amount of sufficient evidence to call into question the defendants guilt for a jury of 12 to unanimously arrive at a not guilty verdict.

The post I replied to said literally what you just said there, my reply was to balance that. Did you even read it?

The Bishop Basher · 16-11-2018 6:45pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

He is saying there is no context in which the barristers comments are ok.

You are saying there is some possible contexts but can't seem.to come up any when asked.

It's not his imagination that's the problem here.

What are you on about ?

Maybe read the conversation properly before jumping in with both feet and getting it completely wrong.

I’m not the only poster you’ve done this to either.

The comment “tapas approach” is valid.

tritium · 16-11-2018 6:46pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No that is not my logic. It is a matter for the jury to determine whether or not the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is reasonable, based upon all the evidence presented to them during the trial from both the prosecution and the defence. If the jury comes to the conclusion that the defendants belief is honest and that their belief is reasonable, then they would have to acquit the defendant who is accused of the criminal offence of rape as it is defined in Irish law. If they find that the defendants belief is honest, but do not agree that the defendants belief is reasonable, then they must find the defendant guilty of the offence of rape, as it is defined in Irish law.

It’s worth pointing out here that this is the same standard applied to prosecution of most crimes in irish law. Mens rea and actus rea are pretty much the cornerstone of the entire legal system.

LLMMLL · 16-11-2018 6:47pm

Rennaws wrote: »

What are you on about ?

Maybe read the conversation properly before jumping in with both feet and getting it completely wrong.

I’m not the only poster you’ve done this to either.

The comment “tapas approach” is valid.

I read it fully. I stand by what I said. If you have a specific response please make it. I'd be happy to hear it.

JupiterKid · 16-11-2018 6:50pm

I don't normally like Coppinger but she's dead right in this case to highlight the issue of defence barrrisers using the clothes or underwear a woman is wearing as an excuse for rape.

That defence barrister should be ashamed of herself.:mad:

One eyed Jack · 16-11-2018 6:51pm

joe40 wrote: »

Ok I get your point. But that is what the protests are about, quite valid protests in my opinion. The belief that a persons underwear is any way related to consent is not "reasonable" That is the nonsense we must get away from, and if that means not allowing that as evidence that is fine by me. There are plenty of things that are inadmissible during court cases.
Ignorance cannot be a defence

Sorry but I’m fine exactly where I am as to me it is not nonsense. It’s nonsense to you - grand. I would never suggest that a persons underwear alone is related to consent. In the context of a person who is on trial accused of committing rape, then it is their beliefs which are relevant, and it is whether or not their belief in that specific context when they are on trial accused of rape, is relevant in that specific context. Outside of that context, there is nothing unreasonable in assuming that the underwear a person wears is of relevant consideration with regard to whether or not they were intending or not to have sex.

Nobody is suggesting that anyone puts on specific underwear with the intention of being raped. That is the myth that’s being inserted here where it doesn’t belong, as there is a disagreement at trial as to whether or not the encounter was consensual. Only one poster to the best of my knowledge has claimed that no rape took place, and that was not in question at trial. The question for the jury was whether or not the defendant was guilty of committing rape.

You’re absolutely right that ignorance (of the law, btw) is not a defence, but there are plenty of posters here are banking on people’s ignorance to suggest that because they believe the complainant was raped, it was wrong for the defendant to use what she was wearing at the time as a defence for their honest belief, and present that to the jury for consideration that it was a reasonable belief on the part of the defendant, in the context of all the evidence they were presented with throughout the trial of the defendant.

Jack Moore · 16-11-2018 7:05pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You do know that everyone under the age of 18 is a minor. Don't confuse this fact with the age of consent. A minor means someone under the age of 18. It has nothing to do with sex. You are a minor under 18 & become an adult when you turn 18.

This girl was a minor. Not under the age of consent but a minor all the same

That’s not a thing

joe40 · 16-11-2018 7:07pm

Thanks to ceadaoin for posting the information from the trial. I wasn't aware of the details. It is worse than I thought. The idea that a young womans underwear bears any indication of whether or not she wants to have sex is ludicrous. Even if she did want to have sex with someone that night why would a potential attacker "reasonably assume" she wanted sex with him, based on her underwear. Granted maybe not in isolation, but the idea should not be entertained.
I Normally like to see both sides in an argument, but that barrister is vile for propagating those myths.
In response to a previous poster nobody said her undewear indicated she wanted to be raped. The myth is that her underwear indicatedin any way her intention to have sex wit a particular individual.
Never thought I would ever say this but fair play to Ruth Coppinger

neonsofa · 16-11-2018 7:08pm

But even if you believe that a thong indicates intent to have sex, and it's somehow reasonable for a man to infer consent from this, it doesn't mean she still has intent hours after she put them on. Nor that they were put on to "consent" to him specifically. Nor does it negate the fact that even if she went out wearing everything possible to get this specific man's attention with every intention of having sex with him that she could still say no or change her mind since choosing her underwear. So it really is completely irrelevant that she was wearing a thong because even if you want to argue that it implies consent, at what point is she allowed change her mind? Does she have to take off the underwear when she decides she is no longer interested? Surely that could be "reasonably believed" to be consent- removing underwear? Should she carry two pairs in case she needs to revoke this implied consent? It's absolutely ridiculous.

eagle eye · 16-11-2018 7:10pm

If a defense barrister is allowed to even suggest that the clothes worn by the alleged victim means something then the jury is being asked to consider something the shouldn't I think. Also if you are allowing this to be said to the jury then the previous criminal of the accused should also be given to the jury to balance things. In this instance the criminal record of the accused would have led to an immediate guilty verdict.

Sleeper12 · 16-11-2018 7:13pm

You are making this up

Please explain. Anyone under 18 is a minor. Over 18 is an adult under 18 is a minor. This is fact

joe40 · 16-11-2018 7:17pm

I was always vehemently opposed to consent classes, but if a some men think a womans underwear is to some extent indicating consent for sex... Well maybe I'm wrong and many men need that education

Boggles · 16-11-2018 7:18pm

joe40 wrote: »

Thanks to ceadaoin for posting the information from the trial. I wasn't aware of the details.

You still aren't TBF.

Nobody on here is.

James Brown · 16-11-2018 7:19pm

It's not a question of if the girl said yes or no it's the point that the type of underwear worn played any role at all. If she was wearing none would he have thrown out the case?

B0jangles · 16-11-2018 7:21pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can maintain that belief for as long as you wish. You won’t manage to convince me it has any truth. It is but one of millions of reasonable assumptions that you can make about other people. I know for example that I don’t just wear underwear “because I choose to wear it”. I choose my underwear often with many specific purposes in mind depending upon the circumstances in which I predict I may find myself later on in the day, or night, as it may be. For you to tell me that it’s a myth that I choose my underwear just “because I choose to wear it”, is to my mind, an unreasonable assumption on your part. You’re just wrong. You’re making an assumption about someone who isn’t you, and you’re wrong. Your ‘myth’ is meaningless and unreasonable to me.

I make assumptions all the time too. I’m wrong too. Sometimes I’m right. I make assumptions based upon previous evidence where an idea has either worked out, or it hasn’t. “Myth”, doesn’t come into it. I base my assumptions upon whether or not the evidence I have suggests that an idea is reasonable, or unreasonable. Your evidence may present you with different beliefs to mine. This is the reason why there are 12 people on a jury, and a persons fate isn’t just decided by one person.

I was talking about what the wearing of a thong 'objectively signifies'. I say it objectively signifies nothing except that a person is wearing a thong, because the reasons for wearing it are 99% personal and private to the wearer. Unless the wearer tells us why they chose to put it on, its significance can only be established by guesswork.

How you feel about your underwear is entirely your business, you are entitled to believe what you want. Your mistake is thinking that your personal beliefs are automatically valid or relevant for anyone else.

The Bishop Basher · 16-11-2018 7:21pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

I read it fully. I stand by what I said. If you have a specific response please make it. I'd be happy to hear it.

Response to what ? I still have no idea what you're on about..

retro:electro · 16-11-2018 7:23pm

joe40 wrote: »

I was always vehemently opposed to consent classes, but if a some men think a womans underwear is to some extent indicating consent for sex... Well maybe I'm wrong and many men need that education

Tbf, I think most men (bar a few weirdos on here) are decent minded folk and would never infer such a thing.
The barristers comment was dangerous two fold.
1) like you say, are men going to start assuming women’s knickers act as a measurement for randyness? And
2) in the unfortunate event a women gets raped, rattled with self doubt/loathing/guilt/fear/nerves as you already are, will she now have to consider that the defendant’s barrister will hold her knickers up to the jury in such a degrading way to try and convince them she had pre-meditated plans to get the ride?

I totally feel for the 17 year old in this case. I’m sure she just wanted to get on with life with dignity and privacy and now thanks to this turd brain of a barrister, I’m sure she has been made identifiable to some people and everything from the knickers she had on that night up for debate.

Jack Moore · 16-11-2018 7:26pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You are making this up

Please explain. Anyone under 18 is a minor. Over 18 is an adult under 18 is a minor. This is fact

You are talking about the age of majority
Sex with a minor is when the minor has not reached the age of majority for sex
It is 17

Boggles · 16-11-2018 7:27pm

retro:electro wrote: »

I totally feel for the 17 year old in this case. I’m sure she just wanted to get on with life with dignity and privacy and now thanks to this turd brain of a barrister, I’m sure she has been made identifiable to some people and everything from the knickers she had on that night up for debate.

Do you feel for the defendant?

retro:electro · 16-11-2018 7:32pm

Boggles wrote: »

Do you feel for the defendant?

For cheating on his wife with a 17 year old down a muddy alley while he had his hands on her throat?

Nope.

Dakota Dan · 16-11-2018 7:36pm

joe40 wrote: »

I was always vehemently opposed to consent classes, but if a some men think a womans underwear is to some extent indicating consent for sex... Well maybe I'm wrong and many men need that education

How did he get to see her underwear? Lots more to this story than what the media put out.

Boggles · 16-11-2018 7:37pm

retro:electro wrote: »

For cheating on his wife with a 17 year old down a muddy alley while he had his hands on her throat?

Nope.

You know there has been absolutely no proof presented on here that he was married, it came from one poster, there was also a claim it wasn't his first time been accused of rape. Again no proof.

There is absolutely no difference between that unsubstantiated rubbish and someone coming on here suggesting the girl has had multiple sexual partners and this isn't her first time alleging rape. It's equally as disgusting and absolutely pointless.

Would you agree?

Lillybloom · 16-11-2018 7:40pm

neonsofa wrote: »

But even if you believe that a thong indicates intent to have sex, and it's somehow reasonable for a man to infer consent from this, it doesn't mean she still has intent hours after she put them on. Nor that they were put on to "consent" to him specifically. Nor does it negate the fact that even if she went out wearing everything possible to get this specific man's attention with every intention of having sex with him that she could still say no or change her mind since choosing her underwear. So it really is completely irrelevant that she was wearing a thong because even if you want to argue that it implies consent, at what point is she allowed change her mind? Does she have to take off the underwear when she decides she is no longer interested? Surely that could be "reasonably believed" to be consent- removing underwear? Should she carry two pairs in case she needs to revoke this implied consent? It's absolutely ridiculous.

You don't know that it's not relevant that she was wearing a thong.

For example, in a murder case it could be relevant whether there was two pints of milk in the fridge or one or it might not be. It depends on the context.

The tiniest details can be relevant, if that is beyond your imagination then watch a few episodes of Columbo

One eyed Jack · 16-11-2018 7:42pm

neonsofa wrote: »

But even if you believe that a thong indicates intent to have sex, and it's somehow reasonable for a man to infer consent from this, it doesn't mean she still has intent hours after she put them on. Nor that they were put on to "consent" to him specifically. Nor does it negate the fact that even if she went out wearing everything possible to get this specific man's attention with every intention of having sex with him that she could still say no or change her mind since choosing her underwear. So it really is completely irrelevant that she was wearing a thong because even if you want to argue that it implies consent, at what point is she allowed change her mind? Does she have to take off the underwear when she decides she is no longer interested? Surely that could be "reasonably believed" to be consent- removing underwear? Should she carry two pairs in case she needs to revoke this implied consent? It's absolutely ridiculous.

You’re missing the point of a trial where it is the defendants mindset is in question, not the complainant, as the complainant is not on trial. What I mean by that is that what’s relevant is what the defendant believes, not the complainant. The complainant is only ever appearing as a witness to give evidence in the States prosecution against the defendant.

I remember one case (and I’m not sure I’m going to find it now) where the complainant, a Brazilian national, was left feeling rather confused when the defendant was found guilty, that she did not receive compensation, as that’s how that’s how things are done in Brazil, and for her it was a reasonable assumption that she would receive compensation. Anyone who is familiar with how our judicial system works, would have made her aware that’s not how it works here. It must never have come up because the complainant may not have mentioned it to anyone and assumed that’s how things are done here too. I don’t think she was prepared properly to give evidence, nor was she prepared properly for any outcome. She was allowed to make assumptions because she was none the wiser, and nobody else appeared to be any the wiser about her assumptions either, let alone corrected her on them. The point being that she didn’t consider it relevant to mention that’s how things are done in Brazil, or people didn’t consider that she wasn’t familiar with the Irish judicial system. They all made what they thought were reasonable assumptions, which if anyone had thought of it at the time to check, could have been cleared up very quickly.

In this particular case, the defendant was of the opinion that the encounter was consensual. The complainant was not. That’s why there ended up being a trial, because the defendant maintained they were innocent, and the prosecution assumed they had a good case against the defendant that they could secure a conviction. They assumed wrong. In this particular case, it wouldn’t matter when the complainant put on her underwear or the style of underwear it was or anything else. If the defendant had a thing for Bridget Jones pants and the complainant had been wearing Bridget Jones pants, then the defence would have presented that as the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual. If the defendant was aware that the complainant had a thing for erotic asphyxiation, you can be absolutely guaranteed they would want that introduced into evidence in their defence.

The whole point is that it’s not just the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time is relevant to the defendants case, it could literally be anything that the defendant considers relevant which would have indicated to them that the encounter was consensual. When you talk about what you put on doesn’t indicate anything subsequent about you, that’s really neither here nor there, as the point is that in this case, we are talking specifically about a specific case, in hindsight. We don’t know for a fact that the complainant has been raped. The whole “what a victim of rape was wearing at the time is irrelevant” is true in a completely different context. It is spoken of in the context where we know for a fact, that someone is the victim of rape. That wasn’t the case here, and that’s why the defendant was on trial.

EDIT: This is the case I was referring to -

Victim impact statements ‘used to influence judges’

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Comments