Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

The Bishop Basher

SusieBlue wrote: »

It showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute for the assault.

If that was the case, there wouldn't have been a trial.

ohnonotgmail

tritium wrote: »

Saying that it was a rape trial and saying that the thong had anything to do with being raped are two entirely different things.

The defence s position was that there was no rape. Why then would they connect a thong to a rape? They connected a thong to consensual sex, they made no connection to rape, actually quite the (important) opposite.

and what exactly is the connection between the wearing of a thong and consenting to sex?

SusieBlue

Rennaws wrote: »

If that was the case, there wouldn't have been a trial.

There must have been a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest guilt to say the case even made it to court in the first place.
There just wasn't enough to prosecute.

Lillybloom

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and what exactly is the connection between the wearing of a thong and consenting to sex?

It depends on the specifics of the case.

What is the connection between the placement of a spoon on a table and a murder?

professore

Peter Denham wrote: »

I know very little about this case, only the headline really. Was the verdict outrageous given whatever evidence was presented in court?

Nobody knows except the people involved. There is no info other than wild hearsay. Posters have said all sorts of things about the defendant, including that he was married, and that he said he couldn't get hard etc etc but haven't provided any links to back it up, so I would take it with a huge grain of salt.

tritium

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and what exactly is the connection between the wearing of a thong and consenting to sex?

Have we come full circle at this point?

Can’t you just read the extensive commentary in the many pages up to now?

Is repetition somehow gone to make you open to a change of view?

I mean, I and others have repeatedly detailed how the thong is one element of a wider defence case and evidence set. How by itself it would be far short of reasonable doubt. How many small pieces of innocuous evidence may in the round tell a much more compelling tale. How the absence Of detailed trial transcripts mean none of us know the rest of the evidence presented in conjunction. One poster who seemed familiar with the case even detailed why the approach was taken, and likely permitted, in response to the prosecution strategy employed.

joe40

Rennaws wrote: »

If that was the case, there wouldn't have been a trial.

So are you saying every court case is a foregone conclusion.
A not guilty verdict means there wasn't enough evidence to convince a jury to prosecute.
The fact a case is taken by the DPP means that in their opinion there is a case to answer, not automatic guilt.
The presumption of Innocence is their anyway.

tritium

SusieBlue wrote: »

There must have been a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest guilt to say the case even made it to court in the first place.
There just wasn't enough to prosecute.

It was prosecuted- that’s what the trial was

The verdict was not guilty, I.e. there was no conviction

ohnonotgmail

tritium wrote: »

Have we come full circle at this point?

Can’t you just read the extensive commentary in the many pages up to now?

Is repetition somehow gone to make you open to a change of view?

I mean, I and others have repeatedly detailed how the thong is one element of a wider defence case and evidence set. How by itself it would be far short of reasonable doubt. How many small pieces of innocuous evidence may in the round tell a much more compelling tale. How the absence Of detailed trial transcripts mean none of us know the rest of the evidence presented in conjunction. One poster who seemed familiar with the case even detailed why the approach was taken, and likely permitted, in response to the prosecution strategy employed.

I was kinda hoping that somebody might actually have found an answer. I'm optimistic that way.

upthepoll

Cisco or Disco

SusieBlue

professore wrote: »

Nobody knows except the people involved. There is no info other than wild hearsay. Posters have said all sorts of things about the defendant, including that he was married, and that he said he couldn't get hard etc etc but haven't provided any links to back it up, so I would take it with a huge grain of salt.

This was in the court report, link here.

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.

hatrickpatrick

BENDYBINN wrote: »

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.

But once again, if you want sex on a particular night, does that mean you automatically consent to sex with any random person? Even if someone wore clothing which did explicitly say "I want to get the ride", that individual still has the right to choose who they ride, which to my mind is the central issue being missed in this thread.

Going out wanting to hook up with someone is not synonymous with going out and wanting to hook up with anyone. Just because someone wants sex, doesn't mean they don't have the right to say "I'm not into this person so I'm not riding him or her". This isn't rocket science FFS. This is the primary reason such arguments in court are total BS - the intention at the start of a night to bring someone home and ride them does not equate with consent to sex with any person in any context. You still get to decide which particular person you want to hook up with, and reject others.

Outlaw Pete

SusieBlue wrote: »

Please back up that claim with proof.
No one is suggesting that - no one at all.
No one is suggesting all rape accusers be believed on principle.

Yeah, no one at all.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/980158258773192704?s=09

SusieBlue

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, no one at all.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/980158258773192704?s=09

PlaneSpeaking said people on this thread, that's what I was clearly referring to. Nice try at deflection, though.

joe40

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and what exactly is the connection between the wearing of a thong and consenting to sex?

None whatsoever. There is no context, scenario or situation where the wearing of a particular type of underwear would be any kind of proof or evidence that sex was consensual or otherwise.
It is about as relevant as the type of Perfume someone was wearing. End of story folks.

That doesn't take away from the need for a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is a mainstay of our legal system and is not under threat.

Lillybloom

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But once again, if you want sex on a particular night, does that mean you automatically consent to sex with any random person? Even if someone wore clothing which did explicitly say "I want to get the ride", that individual still has the right to choose who they ride, which to my mind is the central issue being missed in this thread.

Going out wanting to hook up with someone is not synonymous with going out and wanting to hook up with anyone. Just because someone wants sex, doesn't mean they don't have the right to say "I'm not into this person so I'm not riding him or her". This isn't rocket science FFS. This is the primary reason such arguments in court are total BS - the intention at the start of a night to bring someone home and ride them does not equate with consent to sex with any person in any context. You still get to decide which particular person you want to hook up with, and reject others.

You seem to be missing the point that underwear could be used for reasons other than concluding intent to have sex.

retro:electro

BENDYBINN wrote: »

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.

And that’s Monica’s business if that’s what she wanted to do. That principle doesn’t apply to every other person who decides to wear a thong. Just because they happen to be worn during sexy time doesn’t mean by wearing one you are inviting sexy time. Personally they’d be the last choice of underwear I’d put on to seduce anyone because I do not find them sexy. One person’s personal preference is not a universal truth.

Bannasidhe

retro:electro wrote: »

You’re the one who is conflating the two terms and implying that it means he has sex with someone underage. You’d want to be careful there. Very litigious people reading apparently.

It's funny how the poster you are responding to is hairsplitting when he has been complaining about me hairsplitting.

ohnonotgmail

joe40 wrote: »

None whatsoever. There is no context, scenario or situation where the wearing of a particular type of underwear would be any kind of proof or evidence that sex was consensual or otherwise.
It is about as relevant as the type of Perfume someone was wearing. End of story folks.

Well i'm glad somebody agrees

joe40 wrote: »

That doesn't take away from the need for a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is a mainstay of our legal system and is not under threat.

It certainly doesn't. And i think not being allowed to include such irrelevant information into evidence will not prejudice that.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Could you please explain in very specific terms what the hell wearing a thong for sexual or any purpose has to do with being raped?

It has nothing to do with being raped. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying throughout this thread. Someone who is raped has no responsibility whatsoever for their being raped, no matter what they were wearing or doing or behaving or anything else. The responsibility for their being raped is entirely on the person who raped them. Is that clear enough for you?


@Susie, about that other case in Cork, the article you linked to suggests that he was sentenced to two years, and that it was suspended. It doesn’t say how long the sentence was suspended for, so I have to assume it was indefinitely. This means if he is convicted of an offence at any point in the future, he would immediately serve the two years in prison, plus any jail time imposed by the Judge for the new conviction. A criminal conviction for sexual assault is by no means “a slap on the wrist”. It will have a negative effect on his career prospects and his life generally and at the end of the article it suggests that he was suicidal after what he had done. The fact that he acknowledged what he had done and plead guilty, saving everyone involved a lengthy trial, would have been a mitigating factor in sentencing.

LLMMLL

Lillybloom wrote: »

It coule help convict the defendant, if the defendant claims his victim intended to have sex with him when she woke up thst morning the cho8ce of underwear could invalidate his claim if she chose old unflattering underwear.

Often to weigh up probabilities lots of little details need to be conaidered to form a picture, each of which alone are fairly irrelevant.

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.

One eyed Jack

joe40 wrote: »

None whatsoever. There is no context, scenario or situation where the wearing of a particular type of underwear would be any kind of proof or evidence that sex was consensual or otherwise. It is about as relevant as the type of Perfume someone was wearing. End of story folks.

That doesn't take away from the need for a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is a mainstay of our legal system and is not under threat.

No that is not the end of the story, it’s not even the beginning. It is the defendant who is on trial and it is the defendants mindset is what is in question here, and whether or not the defendants belief that the sex was consensual is reasonable or not. If the defendant suggests that their belief that the encounter is consensual is based upon the type of underwear the complainant wore, then it is for the members of the jury to take that into consideration in their deliberations along with all the rest of the evidence presented at trial, in order to determine whether or not the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, is reasonable.

The points people are making about their own choice of underwear, or suggesting that they believe a persons underwear is irrelevant in the context of whether or not they are indicating they are interested in having sex is only relevant in the context of whether or not the defendants belief was reasonable. According to how they think, the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual is unreasonable. The jury in this case however, after hearing all the evidence presented, unanimously came to a different conclusion.

tritium

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But once again, if you want sex on a particular night, does that mean you automatically consent to sex with any random person? Even if someone wore clothing which did explicitly say "I want to get the ride", that individual still has the right to choose who they ride, which to my mind is the central issue being missed in this thread.

Going out wanting to hook up with someone is not synonymous with going out and wanting to hook up with anyone. Just because someone wants sex, doesn't mean they don't have the right to say "I'm not into this person so I'm not riding him or her". This isn't rocket science FFS. This is the primary reason such arguments in court are total BS - the intention at the start of a night to bring someone home and ride them does not equate with consent to sex with any person in any context. You still get to decide which particular person you want to hook up with, and reject others.

No one has claimed that though. However if the prosecution has claimed, as one poster has indicated, that the accuser was absolutely not looking for sex of anyone, then showing they actually did want to hook up with someone would seem relevant. Certainly the credibility of the prosecution case diminishes in that case

Whether they wanted to hook up with the accused is a separate question.

SusieBlue

Its interesting that many see it pertinent that she was wearing a lacy thong as evidence that it was consensual, or at least relevant to the situation, but disregard the fact that she was 10 years younger, a virgin, lying in a muddy alleyway and seen by an independent witness being held by the throat by the defendant as evidence that it was NOT consensual.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

SusieBlue wrote: »

Completely incorrect, please see excellent post by PP which sums it up better than I would have.

No, I'm afraid you're the one who is incorrect.

If the accused has been found not guilty, the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape happened. So, from a legal standpoint, we don't have a rape or a victim. We have a complainant who alleged that she was raped, but an accused who was acquitted by a jury of his peers. The legal recognition of a rape is contingent on the alleged rapist being found guilty -- and in this case, that did not happen.

LLMMLL

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.

Cry rape??? He pleaded guilty....... This is a new low.

I guess the victims statement that his admission ofmguilt had 100% vindicated was wrong. There are still some insane people who think she cried rape.

nullzero

neonsofa wrote: »

Jumping down your neck?

I made an observation, in response to a comment you made telling someone what they "should have" done. I explained that sometimes it's easier said than done, despite knowing in theory that it is the correct thing to do (for the reasons you outline above), in practice, when you're in shock and traumatised, it's not that black and white.

Hardly jumping down your throat so chill out.

Do you really think your post was civil?
Go back and read it.

SusieBlue

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

No, I'm afraid you're the one who is incorrect.

If the accused has been found not guilty, the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape happened. So, from a legal standpoint, we don't have a rape or a victim. We have a complainant who alleged that she was raped, but an accused who was acquitted by a jury of his peers. The legal recognition of a rape is contingent on the alleged rapist being found guilty -- and in this case, that did not happen.

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?

professore

SusieBlue wrote: »

Its interesting that many see it pertinent that she was wearing a lacy thong as evidence that it was consensual, or at least relevant to the situation, but disregard the fact that she was 10 years younger, a virgin, lying in a muddy alleyway and seen by an independent witness being held by the throat by the defendant as evidence that it was NOT consensual.

I agree with you based on this information, but where are you getting this information from? Even assuming this is all 100% accurate, how do we know she was a virgin? Was there some sort of medical examination? For me the fact of her being a virgin or not is also irrelevant BTW. In fact I would say this is even more inappropriate than discussing her choice of underwear in court. Being inappropriate is not a crime however, that's for the judge to decide.

If I was on a jury and presented with this evidence, then I would beyond reasonable doubt say the defendant was guilty - thongs or not. However I have yet to see any reports with info stated as above.

Where are you getting this information from?

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

Its interesting that many see it pertinent that she was wearing a lacy thong as evidence that it was consensual, or at least relevant to the situation, but disregard the fact that she was 10 years younger, a virgin, lying in a muddy alleyway and seen by an independent witness being held by the throat by the defendant as evidence that it was NOT consensual.

I didn’t see anyone disregarding any of the evidence you present above? You’re arguing something different now that wasn’t suggested by anyone. The jury may well have taken all of the evidence above into consideration in their deliberations in determining the the defendants guilt as to whether or not he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offence of rape as it is defined in Irish law.

You’re focusing on the complainant above, I thought we weren’t doing that?

LLMMLL

Rennaws wrote: »

Is your context based on imagination as well ?

Or did you attend the trial ?

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.

SusieBlue

professore wrote: »

I agree with you based on this information, but where are you getting this information from? Even assuming this is all 100% accurate, how do we know she was a virgin? Was there some sort of medical examination? For me the fact of her being a virgin or not is also irrelevant BTW. In fact I would say this is even more inappropriate than discussing her choice of underwear in court. Being inappropriate is not a crime however, that's for the judge to decide.

If I was on a jury and presented with this evidence, then I would beyond reasonable doubt say the defendant was guilty - thongs or not. However I have yet to see any reports with info stated as above.

Where are you getting this information from?

I'm not saying its relevant, I just find it interesting that there are people here insisting to the hilt that the thong is relevant to consent, yet they don't seem all that interested in the aspects of the case that would would indicate there wasn't consent.

All the relevant info I mentioned is in the link I quoted earlier, with the exception of the part about her virginity, which I read elsewhere. I'll find a link for that now.

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

LLMMLL

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Greater than 0 days is the prevailing answer.

You're being deliberately nitpicky. It's clear you want her to name a specific number so you can jump all over that number.

You're.ignorijg the fact that it's a common thing to say "a.custodial sentence should be imposed" or "this crime warrants a custodial sentence" without specifying a number. I've seen this said by legal professionals, judges etc. There is no contradiction there.

The poster is being perfectly consistent saying she believes a custodial sentence should be imposed without specifying a particular sentence.

It just doesn't suit your agenda.

One eyed Jack

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.

LLMMLL

tritium wrote: »

Ah yeah, this ****e. If you don’t agree with us you’re just a misogynist. Was wondering when we’d get to this.

Seriously, this isn’t a personal echo chamber in spite of the tendency on this thread for one side to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalalala to anything that doesn’t fit their world view of oppression.

Whether you like it or not, we have a system that doesn’t just go around lynching the accused on the back of an accusation. Whatever the changes we want in the legal system, removing the right of a defendant to a fair trial isn’t one of them. Especially on the back of whipped up outrage based on a trial that few seem to know all the details about.

If we hang on long enough I’m sure “rape culture” will make an appearance.

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

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

You're being deliberately nitpicky. It's clear you want her to name a specific number so you can jump all over that number.

You're.ignorijg the fact that it's a common thing to say "a.custodial sentence should be imposed" or "this crime warrants a custodial sentence" without specifying a number. I've seen this said by legal professionals, judges etc. There is no contradiction there.

The poster is being perfectly consistent saying she believes a custodial sentence should be imposed without specifying a particular sentence.

It just doesn't suit your agenda.

A custodial sentence was imposed in that particular case, of two years, and the article says it was suspended, but doesn’t say for how long.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

The barrister never mentioned his beliefs. She discussed the girls intent.

There is zero evidence that the judge allowed this based on a defense.of the defendants beliefs.

In fact it seems highly unlikely that the judge was thinking along those lines of the barrister didn't even make the argument.

Peter Denham

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Doesn't a guilty plea render a trial unnecessary?

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A custodial sentence was imposed in that particular case, of two years, and the article says it was suspended, but doesn’t say for how long.

I'm sure the poster being nitpicked would be happy with that sentence if it wasn't suspended.

My point still stands. There is no contradiction with criticising a sentence that does not result in jail time. Anyone criticising this does not have to name an exact period that the guilty party has to spend in jail.

retro:electro

tritium wrote: »

Seriously, this isn’t a personal echo chamber in spite of the tendency on this thread for one side to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalalala to anything that doesn’t fit their world view

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

LLMMLL

Peter Denham wrote: »

Doesn't a guilty plea render a trial unnecessary?

Exactly, so it's bizarre that some.posters are accusing others of trying to damage a persons right to a fair trial.

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm not saying its relevant, I just find it interesting that there are people here insisting to the hilt that the thong is relevant to consent, yet they don't seem all that interested in the aspects of the case that would would indicate there wasn't consent.

All the relevant info I mentioned is in the link I quoted earlier, with the exception of the part about her virginity, which I read elsewhere. I'll find a link for that now.

The reason for this whole thread is because some people object to the fact that the defence used a description of the complainants underwear in their defence. It is those people who insist to the hilt that a complainants underwear is irrelevant. In this particular case, in any case, it is the defendants mindset which is in question, and whether or not their belief that the encounter was consensual, is reasonable. In that context, the defence in this case was arguing that the complainants underwear was relevant as it suggests the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, is reasonable, in the context of the defendants mindset, in this particular case.

neonsofa

nullzero wrote: »

Do you really think your post was civil?
Go back and read it.

I have no idea why you're being so defensive but if you've an issue then don't engage with me or else report the post you've an issue with. I simply pointed out that what you were telling someone they "should" have done isn't always that easy.

LLMMLL

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve with all this semantic hair-splitting.

In the context of a court case, someone who professes herself "entirely vindicated" can be presumed to be satisfied with the outcome.

Eh no.

Say I was accused of.murder of a family member and I said someone else did it.

Say at the beginning I wasn't believed and lost family and friends over it.

Say through the court process the person I said did it was.found guilty.

Would my satisfaction with my vindication mean I'd be happy for this person to avoid jail?

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

The barrister never mentioned his beliefs. She discussed the girls intent.

There is zero evidence that the judge allowed this based on a defense.of the defendants beliefs.

In fact it seems highly unlikely that the judge was thinking along those lines of the barrister didn't even make the argument.

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.

professore

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm not saying its relevant, I just find it interesting that there are people here insisting to the hilt that the thong is relevant to consent, yet they don't seem all that interested in the aspects of the case that would would indicate there wasn't consent.

All the relevant info I mentioned is in the link I quoted earlier, with the exception of the part about her virginity, which I read elsewhere. I'll find a link for that now.

Thanks for that source. Based on that I would definitely convict the defendant - I would stamp my feet up and down and hang the jury if necessary. In fact this is the real news, not the thong. The thong is a complete red herring.

I can't understand on that evidence how the guy got off. Jury intimidation perhaps?

B0jangles

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.

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.

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?

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

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, no one at all.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/980158258773192704?s=09

That's not automatic belief. There were many details of that trial on which to base belief.

One being that one of the accused gave a.crazily identical story.to another, making it clear that they had gotten together afterwards to get their stories straight.

The banner above refers to believing one particular woman in one particular case.

Sleeper12

One eyed Jack wrote:

The reason for this whole thread is because some people object to the fact that the defence used a description of the complainants underwear in their defence. It is those people who insist to the hilt that a complainants underwear is irrelevant. In this particular case, in any case, it is the defendants mindset which is in question, and whether or not their belief that the encounter was consensual, is reasonable. In that context, the defence in this case was arguing that the complainants underwear was relevant as it suggests the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, is reasonable, in the context of the defendants mindset, in this particular case.

It's more than that.

The barrister implied that a woman wearing a thong is looking for sex. This is wrong and the judge sho not have allowed it.

Do you believe that a woman wearing a thong is looking for sex?

Zulu

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 ...

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