Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how does a choice of underwear undermine a girls character?

How does stepping out on your mrs make you a rapist ?

Sleeper12

PlaneSpeeking wrote:

How does stepping out on your mrs make you a rapist ?

It doesn't but it shows you as a lier & a cheater. It discredits your own sworn testimony.

Very poor judgement on his behalf

Lillybloom

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It doesn't but it shows you as a lier & a cheater. It discredits your own sworn testimony.

Very poor judgement on his behalf

Everyone on the planet has told lies, but if you want to go with that logic. Someone who is promiscuous is mote likely to have casual sex therefore it is reasonable to infer about a person's sex life.

SusieBlue

In another Cork case that was in the courts this week, a young woman asleep at a house party woke up to find her pants pulled down and a man sexually assaulting her.
She reported it straight away, and the man in question admitted his guilt & took full liability for what he had done.

His punishment? A two year suspended sentence. No jail time. For sexually assaulting and violating a sleeping woman. A slap on the wrist, basically.

Yet people here are still saying that rapes and sexual assaults are over-reported and appropriately punished. Laughable.

Link here to the court report.

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

How does stepping out on your mrs make you a rapist ?

I never suggested it did.

Sleeper12

Lillybloom wrote:

Everyone on the planet has told lies, but if you want to go with that logic. Someone who is promiscuous is mote likely to have casual sex therefore it is reasonable to infer about a person's sex life.

A man stands up in front of a hundred of his family and friends & makes sworn promises to his wife. If he can lie in front of all of his friends then he can easily lie under oath. This is what the DPP would have been pushing in court.

So much deflection on this thread. The thread is about why her thong & the barristers comment were allowed at All. This guy seems to be a complete dope but that is not what the thread is about.

Still waiting for someone to come up with a genuine answer as to why the judge allowed this

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That does not explain how the judge allowed the thong & the barristers comments. The comments suggest that wearing a thong means wanting sex. Obviously this is not true & how a judge allowed it is beyond me

TBF the more plausible reason that it is beyond you is because like all of us you know next to nothing about this case, you didn't sit through all the evidence and you are not an experienced criminal Judge. You are telling us what the Judge should have done based on a very clicky baity article with little to no detail and very selective quotes.

You are open to the possibility that there could have been good legal reason why the defense barrister wasn't reprimanded for her comments? Just because nobody on an internet forum can give you a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.

BENDYBINN

In today’s independent,Monica says she used her thong to seduce Bill.......attracted his attention and then went for hanky panky. Seems these thongs do have a purpose.

ohnonotgmail

Boggles wrote: »

TBF the more plausible reason that it is beyond you is because like all of us you know next to nothing about this case, you didn't sit through all the evidence and you are not an experienced criminal Judge. You are telling us what the Judge should have done based on a very clicky baity article with little to no detail and very selective quotes.

You are open to the possibility that there could have been good legal reason why the defense barrister wasn't reprimanded for her comments? Just because nobody on an internet forum can give you a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.

No we are basing it on the actual words used by defence counsel.

tritium

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Can you? I dont need to. We have seen what counsel said. It was said only to say to the jury "the girl was asking for it".

You don’t actually know that. What you have is one line from an extensive trial and based on that you’ve inferred every other aspect.

If you’re going to accuse a court of impropriety you absolutely do need to back it up with more than one sentence from a trial and a load of blister.

ohnonotgmail

tritium wrote: »

You don’t actually know that. What you have is one line from an extensive trial and based on that you’ve inferred every other aspect.

If you’re going to accuse a court of impropriety you absolutely do need to back it up with more than one sentence from a trial and a load of blister.

it was more than one sentence.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

SusieBlue wrote: »

In another Cork case that was in the courts this week, a young woman asleep at a house party woke up to find her pants pulled down and a man sexually assaulting her.
She reported it straight away, and the man in question admitted his guilt & took full liability for what he had done.

His punishment? A two year suspended sentence. No jail time. For sexually assaulting and violating a sleeping woman. A slap on the wrist, basically.

Yet people here are still saying that rapes and sexual assaults are over-reported and appropriately punished. Laughable.

Link here to the court report.

As you noted, he admitted the offense in court, and took full liability for what we had done, and the woman was happy with that. Quoting from the article: "it was acknowledged by the victim in her statement that she was entirely vindicated by his public acknowledgement of being 100% responsible for sexually assaulting her."

So, this young man admitted he was in the wrong, she stated that she was "entirely vindicated" by his public acknowledgement of guilt, he was given a suspended sentence ... and you want what, exactly? How should he have been "appropriately punished"?

PlaneSpeeking

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

As you noted, he admitted the offense in court, and took full liability for what we had done, and the woman was happy with that. Quoting from the article: "it was acknowledged by the victim in her statement that she was entirely vindicated by his public acknowledgement of being 100% responsible for sexually assaulting her."

So, this young man admitted he was in the wrong, she stated that she was "entirely vindicated" by his public acknowledgement of guilt, he was given a suspended sentence ... and you want what, exactly? How should he have been "appropriately punished"?

He's a man, I think you can probably guess what they want....!

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No we are basing it on the actual words used by defence counsel.

Can you link to the defense's entire closing statement so that we can see her remarks about the underwear in context?

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That does not explain how the judge allowed the thong & the barristers comments. The comments suggest that wearing a thong means wanting sex. Obviously this is not true & how a judge allowed it is beyond me

Actually it really does. If the prosecution case is that the accuser were a vestal virgin and hence would never have consented to sex with anyone in any circumstance then any evidence that shows otherwise would be valid to dispute that narriative. We’re the thong used in isolation here that would likely fail, however we don’t actually know what else was presented.

The thong in itself wouldn’t be enough to cast reasonable doubt on that position. However as part of a much wider block of evidence it may in total create that doubt. A jury of 12 ordinary people had the opportunity to consider all the evidence presented. It’s ludicrous to suggest that they didn’t have the cop on to afford this appropriate weight and context while we denizens of the internet clearly know better.

If the prosecution did indeed try to paint a flawed picture then it’s not just permissible but obligated on a defence to challenge that

Boggles

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No we are basing it on the actual words used by defence counsel.

That's my actual point.

No context, no background, no detail.

One and a half maybe 2 sentences from a 2nd hand source.

Does that trump an experienced criminal trial Judge who actually presided over the case?

No of course not.

Bigbagofcans

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

He's a man, I think you can probably guess what they want....!

What sort of an answer is that?

Maybe people want proper sentences so like you know it deters people?

PlaneSpeeking

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

What sort of an answer is that?

Maybe people want proper sentences so like you know it deters people?

Have you read the actual case report ?

There were 4 pissed people in bed together and he copped a feel.

When he realised his mistake he owned up.

You think what a ten stretch would be enough ?

ohnonotgmail

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Can you link to the defense's entire closing statement so that we can see her remarks about the underwear in context?

The full closing statement has not been reported. this is what has been reported.

“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.”

Because we all know that girls who wear thongs with lace fronts are asking for it.

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Have you read the actual case report ?

There were 4 pissed people in bed together and he copped a feel.

When he realised his mistake he owned up.

You think what a ten stretch would be enough ?

You mean he realised he was wrong when she woke up and told him to stop? How gallant of him.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Maybe people want proper sentences so like you know it deters people?

What would be a "proper sentence" for someone who, under the influence of drink and/or drugs, fingered a sleeping girl after a house party, fully regretted it, and pled guilty in court?

Bigbagofcans

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Have you read the actual case report ?

There were 4 pissed people in bed together and he copped a feel.

When he realised his mistake he owned up.

You think what a ten stretch would be enough ?

Is that how you describe sexual assault?

By the way your comments about women blaming men are unfair.

SusieBlue

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

As you noted, he admitted the offense in court, and took full liability for what we had done, and the woman was happy with that. Quoting from the article: "it was acknowledged by the victim in her statement that she was entirely vindicated by his public acknowledgement of being 100% responsible for sexually assaulting her."

So, this young man admitted he was in the wrong, she stated that she was "entirely vindicated" by his public acknowledgement of guilt, he was given a suspended sentence ... and you want what, exactly? How should he have been "appropriately punished"?

I think a suspended sentence is an absolute joke of a punishment for sexually assaulting someone.
I absolutely think someone who admits to doing it, or is found guilty of it, should be given a prison sentence.

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You mean he realised he was wrong when she woke up and told him to stop? How gallant of him.

Exactly yes.

You don't think getting into bed with three other absolutely locked is a good idea surely ?

SusieBlue

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Have you read the actual case report ?

There were 4 pissed people in bed together and he copped a feel.

When he realised his mistake he owned up.

You think what a ten stretch would be enough ?

And you are exactly what the problem is.
Would you consider it to be a "copped feel" if you awoke to find some random mans hands inside you?
Seriously?

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The full closing statement has not been reported. this is what has been reported.

Ah, okay. So you have access to just three sentences of the defense counsel's statement, and don't know anything about the context or her overall argument?

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Exactly yes.

You don't think getting into bed with three other absolutely locked is a good idea surely ?

ah so she is at fault for getting drunk. It is always the womans fault with you. I wonder how far he would have gone if she had not woken up.

PlaneSpeeking

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Is that how you describe sexual assault?

By the way your comments about women blaming men are unfair.

"In your opinion" you mean ?

How I describe an alleged sexual assault depends on the incident.

The Bishop Basher

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The full closing statement has not been reported. this is what has been reported.

So where are you getting the context from ?

ohnonotgmail

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Ah, okay. So you have access to just three sentences of the defense counsel's statement, and don't know anything about the context or her overall argument?

Only somebody who was in court knows everything that was said. We do only have those three sentences to go on. They are enough.

Bigbagofcans

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"In your opinion" you mean ?

How I describe an alleged sexual assault depends on the incident.

If someone doesn't consent then it's assault.

ohnonotgmail

Rennaws wrote: »

So where are you getting the context from ?

what context makes the fact that her knickers had a lace front relevant?

PlaneSpeeking

SusieBlue wrote: »

And you are exactly what the problem is.
Would you consider it to be a "copped feel" if you awoke to find some random mans hands inside you?
Seriously?

I wouldn't be stupid enough to get into bed with three other people when pissed and then cry rape.

Seriously.

Now you're going on ignore as I really don't need the sanctions that would be forthcoming for any reply to the one sides views held.

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It doesn't but it shows you as a lier & a cheater. It discredits your own sworn testimony.

Very poor judgement on his behalf

Only if you claim never to cheat on your partner. You actually have zero evidence he lied to anyone about that, or indeed about his relationship with his wife.

SusieBlue

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I wouldn't be stupid enough to get into bed with three other people when pissed and then cry rape.

Seriously.

Now you're going on ignore as I really don't need the sanctions that would be forthcoming for any reply to the one sides views held.

You might as well just say she asked for it and she deserved it, because that's what you really mean.

tritium

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No we are basing it on the actual words used by defence counsel.

You’re actually basing it on a selective subset of words used

PlaneSpeeking

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

If someone doesn't consent then it's assault.

And yet when I told of my student who was groped by a girl who later made a false accusation of rape against him, her unwanted sexual assault was basically laughed at; dismissed or in one case ignored completely.

The Bishop Basher

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what context makes the fact that her knickers had a lace front relevant?

I don’t know without understanding the context in which it was presented.

Did you attend the trial ?

ohnonotgmail

Rennaws wrote: »

I don’t know without understanding the context in which it was presented.

Did you attend the trial ?

use your imagination. What possible context could make that relevant?

tritium

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

What sort of an answer is that?

Maybe people want proper sentences so like you know it deters people?

And yet it’s been demonstrated here already that the average sentence for rape is 10 years. What exactly is a proper sentence if that’s not?

retro:electro

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I wouldn't be stupid enough to get into bed with three other people when pissed and then cry rape.

Stupid girl really for thinking people had the common sense to keep their hands to themselves. Do you ever get tired of posting such absolutely disgusting fcuking tripe? Your posts are a disgrace to this site.

Bigbagofcans

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I wouldn't be stupid enough to get into bed with three other people when pissed and then cry rape.

Seriously.

Now you're going on ignore as I really don't need the sanctions that would be forthcoming for any reply to the one sides views held.

Your attitude towards women and assaults is worrying.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

SusieBlue wrote: »

I think a suspended sentence is an absolute joke of a punishment for sexually assaulting someone.
I absolutely think someone who admits to doing it, or is found guilty of it, should be given a prison sentence.

Why, exactly?

In July, a man who "launched a vicious and sustained assault on his girlfriend which included banging her head off the floor and walls and kicking her in the head," was given a suspended sentence.

There are many other individuals being given suspended sentences in Ireland for crimes that are arguably far more serious than inserting two fingers in a sleeping girl's vagina.

So why should this man have gone automatically to prison?

tritium

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

use your imagination. What possible context could make that relevant?

Thankfully court cases aren’t tried on imagination, they’re tried on evidence, with oversight to ensure the evidence is relevant and appropriate in its context to the case

vonlars

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I wouldn't be stupid enough to get into bed with three other people when pissed and then cry rape.

Seriously.

Now you're going on ignore as I really don't need the sanctions that would be forthcoming for any reply to the one sides views held.

That’s not what happened though. She got into bed locked, then was sexually assaulted, then cried sexual assault. You missed a pretty big step in that sequence of events it seems.

ohnonotgmail

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Why, exactly?

In July, a man who "launched a vicious and sustained assault on his girlfriend which included banging her head off the floor and walls and kicking her in the head," was given a suspended sentence.

There are many other individuals being given suspended sentences in Ireland for crimes that are arguably far more serious than inserting two fingers in a sleeping girl's vagina.

So why should this man have gone automatically to prison?

Do you think a suspended sentence was appropriate in that case? I don't. I think some sort of custodial sentence was appropriate.

ohnonotgmail

tritium wrote: »

Thankfully court cases aren’t tried on imagination, they’re tried on evidence, with oversight to ensure the evidence is relevant and appropriate in its context to the case

You keep saying that there must have been some of context that made that relevant. Tellingly you cannot come up with what that context might possibly be. Somebody else, it might have been you, said that if counsel were wrong the judge would have done something. Because we all know that judges in this country never make mistakes.

SusieBlue

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Why, exactly?

In July, a man who "launched a vicious and sustained assault on his girlfriend which included banging her head off the floor and walls and kicking her in the head," was given a suspended sentence.

There are many other individuals being given suspended sentences in Ireland for crimes that are arguably far more serious than inserting two fingers in a sleeping girl's vagina.

So why should this man have gone automatically to prison?

Tougher sentencing is absolutely needed across the board, but seeing as the topic of this thread is sexual assault, I was focusing on those.

As for the bolded, that really isn't your place to say. You can't categorically say that getting the cr*p beaten out of you is more serious than waking up to find a random man has his fingers up you.
Try telling the victim of such a crime that it isn't that serious. Its a very serious matter to them.

If you violate a persons bodily integrity I believe a custodial sentence should be imposed. Its a very serious crime and the sentence should reflect that.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote:

TBF the more plausible reason that it is beyond you is because like all of us you know next to nothing about this case, you didn't sit through all the evidence and you are not an experienced criminal Judge. You are telling us what the Judge should have done based on a very clicky baity article with little to no detail and very selective quotes.

Boggles wrote:

You are open to the possibility that there could have been good legal reason why the defense barrister wasn't reprimanded for her comments? Just because nobody on an internet forum can give you a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Her comments were misleading and false. The judge should have stopped her.

I don't care if it came out in court that the 17 year old ate thongs for breakfast. Nothing said in court can explain why a judge allowed the barrister to imply that wearing a thong means that a woman wants sex. It is a false claim & should not have been allowed

The Bishop Basher

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

use your imagination. What possible context could make that relevant?

So the context your using is your imagination.

Grand so..

Just wanted to clear that up..