Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

mynamejeff

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He was acquitted and found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent.

lol

post a link there to some case where some one was found innocent


if you cant understand the question well then you probably shouldn't be posting that

AndrewJRenko

Venom wrote: »

So the whole innocent until proven guilty stuff those pesky legal types tend to make a big deal about is all bs?

That's the reality. The Court doesn't prove anyone innocent.

AndrewJRenko

mynamejeff wrote: »

lol

post a link there to some case where some one was found innocent


if you cant understand the question well then you probably shouldn't be posting that

Yeah, I understand the question. You seem to have misunderstood my answer.
Try again.

Venom

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's the reality. The Court doesn't prove anyone innocent.

But the seeing as a defendant is innocent unless proven guilty, why would the court need to change someone's default status under the law if found not guilty of a crime.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Humans don't evolve that fast. Yes 30 years ago but do you honestly suppose that we have rid planet of that type of thinking in 30 years? Some people still believe that the earth was created in 7 days. They believe that noah had baby dinosaurs and dinosaur eggs on the ark. Some people actually believe that the earth is flat or that man hasn't walked on the moon. Some believe everything Trump says. There is all kinds of stupid on this planet. 30 years is not long enough to suggest that these people have become extinct. Imo the stupid is increasing rather than decreasing

Again no solid examples and no proof provided. Spoofer grade A. Your only counterpoint is Trump. Pathetic really.

mynamejeff

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, I understand the question. You seem to have misunderstood my answer.
Try again.

why dont you clarify ?

do you think he is guilty or innocent ?

coz the passive aggressive thing isnt working , and not just for me

Roger Hassenforder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He was acquitted and found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent.

He walked in innocent.
He walked out innocent

eagle eye

AndrewJRenko wrote:

That's the reality. The Court doesn't prove anyone innocent.

What you are saying is correct but a person is innocent until proven guilty therefore innocent when found not guilty.

Try_harder

eagle eye wrote: »

What you are saying is correct but a person is innocent until proven guilty therefore innocent when found not guilty.

No, there is the presumption of innocence, guilt must be proven

The Bishop Basher

Try_harder wrote: »

No, there is the presumption of innocence, guilt must be proven

Which it wasn’t so the defendant was found not guilty and walks away a free man.

Are you another one claiming this man who has just been acquitted of rape is in fact guilty ?

eagle eye

Try_harder wrote:

No, there is the presumption of innocence, guilt must be proven

What is difference about that from what I said? It means exactly the same thing.

The Bishop Basher

eagle eye wrote: »

What is different about that from what I said? It means exactly the same thing.

The way you phrased it doesn’t suit the illiberal agenda of man = bad = guilty.

AndrewJRenko

mynamejeff wrote: »

why dont you clarify ?

do you think he is guilty or innocent ?

Sure, happy to clarify.

I think he's guilty as sin, based on the details reported about him being seen holding the minor by the neck and other details.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

Again no solid examples and no proof provided. Spoofer grade A. Your only counterpoint is Trump. Pathetic really.

So are you trying to say that in 30 years we have evolved enough that no one has the opinion that a girl in a short skirt get what she deserves? That no one believes that a minor wearing a thong means that she is going out for sex?


Do you have any proof or statistics to back up such a claim? Or is it the case that you don't really have anything at all?

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

So are you trying to say that in 30 years we have evolved enough that no one has the opinion that a girl in a short skirt get what she deserves? That no one believes that a minor wearing a thong means that she is going out for sex?

So what you are trying to say is 12 members of a jury unanimously found him not guilty of a brutal physical and sexual assault based on her underwear?

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

So what you are trying to say is 12 members of a jury unanimously found him not guilty of a brutal physical and sexual assault based on her underwear?

Have you a link or quote where I said that?


The jury only needs reasonable doubt. All Im saying is that it is entirely possible that the judge allowing the barrister to make the comments about the thong also allowed the jury to believe that such a thing is possible. If a judge doesn't point out that girls wear thongs without looking for sex. Girls go commando without looking for sex. The jury should not be allowed to consider that a minor wearing a thong is looking for sex. Girls as young as 13 wear thongs while not looking for sex.


In answer to your question, no one knows why they found a 27 year old man who had a 17 year old by her throat not guilty. I don't know & you don't know but it is entirely possible that the barristers comments could have swayed the jury enough for reasonable doubt.




Obviously girls wear thongs without looking for sex. They will now make changes to how rape cases are heard in future cases it will be unlikely that a barrister can make these comments & go unchallenged by the judge

The Bishop Basher

Boggles wrote: »

So what you are trying to say is 12 members of a jury unanimously found him not guilty of a brutal physical and sexual assault based on her underwear?

As soon as you hear or see “so what you’re trying to say is” you know you’re dealing with an illiberal.

It’s never what you actually said and it’s a hopeless tactic, think Cathy Newman interview, but they just keep doing it over and over again.

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In answer to your question, no one knows why they found a 27 year old man who had a 17 year old by her throat not guilty. I don't know & you don't know but it is entirely possible that the barristers comments could have swayed the jury enough for reasonable doubt.

Or isn't far more plausible that the jury heard several pieces of evidence over what I imagine what was a relative long trial and based on that evidence came to the only logical safe conclusion they could?

Yesterday your tactic was to discredit the acquitted by pedaling the fantasy that if he cheated on his fictional wife, then he broke his vows therefore what evidence he gave in the trial was not credible.

You've moved on now to try and discredit the jury, using some perceived notion about evolution the jury was made up of 12 Trump supporting flat earthers who think the undewear one wears absolves someone not just of rape but of brutal physical assault.

It's complete and utter baffling nonsense.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

Or isn't far more plausible that the jury heard several pieces of evidence over what I imagine what was a relative long trial and based on that evidence came to the only logical safe conclusion they could?

Yesterday your tactic was to discredit the acquitted by pedaling the fantasy that if he cheated on his fictional wife, then he broke his vows therefore what evidence he gave in the trial was not credible.

You've moved on now to try and discredit the jury, using some perceived notion about evolution the jury was made up of 12 Trump supporting flat earthers who think the undewear one wears absolves someone not just of rape but of brutal physical assault.

It's complete and utter baffling nonsense.

None of the above is true. Earlier posters stated he had a wife. One claimed to have genuine knowledge of the case. I don't believe I could discredit him anymore than he has done himself. He is an utter idiot. He took huge risks. This girl could have turned out to have been 14 or 15 for all he knew. He left himself wide open. He is actually a very lucky man. A 27 year old should have more sense



Someone tried to suggest that in the last 30 years we have gotten rid of some people believing that a girl in a short skirt is asking for trouble or a girl in a thong is out for sex in the same was St Patrick got rid of the snakes. This is not true obviously.


I could care less about the verdict as I have repeated several times. The man was found not guilty & should be left alone.



My point is the comments the barrister made. It's agreed by the vast majority of sane people that wearing a thong does not mean that you are looking for sex. Even Our great leader Leo says so. If its true that a girl wearing a thong doesn't mean that she wants sex then it follows that a barrister shouldn't imply otherwise in a rape trial involving a minor. This was reported worldwide how this minor was treated in court.



Things will change & soon

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

None of the above is true. Earlier posters stated he had a wife.

A lie you based a wild theory on, to retry him and try reverse the verdict. When that fell apart you have now moved on to try and discredit the jury.

It's up to you to fact check your own self publications.

The internet is not written in pencil.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This girl could have turned out to have been 14 or 15 for all he knew.

But she wasn't, what's your actual point?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I could care less about the verdict as I have repeated several times. The man was found not guilty & should be left alone.

Why don't you so?

Simple_Simone

seamus wrote: »

So if I run up to your man with a crunching tackle and slam him to the ground, he can't complain, right?

After all, he's wearing a rugby jersey therefore he is open to playing a game of rugby anywhere, any time. Right?

So who crunched your tackle, Seamus?

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote:

Why don't you so?

It's a rape trial. The jury says not guilty. Jury's get the verdict right & wrong in dozens of rape trials every year. I accept their verdict and don't lose sleep over it.

Boggles wrote:

But she wasn't, what's your actual point?

My point is he took huge risks that night. He is a stupid man. As George says is there no personal responsibility here? Maybe, just maybe he could have done things differently and there wouldn't be a rape case. I smell personally responsibility hiding there somewhere

Boggles wrote:

A lie you based a wild theory on, to retry him and try reverse the verdict. When that fell apart you have now moved on to try and discredit the jury.

Here is what you should do, you keep making up things that you want me to say but I didn't. Then pretend you are me and make up the answers too. This will save me replying to your nonsense comments that I never said. If you make up half you might as well make up everything

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Here is what you should do, you keep making up things that you want me to say but I didn't. Then pretend you are me and make up the answers too. This will save me replying to your nonsense comments that I never said. If you make up half you might as well make up everything

Did you or did you not say that his sworn testimony was not reliable because he cheated on his wife?

Did you then go on to say that he was found not guilty and should be left alone.

Very simple question, why don't you leave him alone?

Wild speculation based on lies is the complete opposite of leaving him alone, you do understand that right?

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote:

Very simple question, why don't you leave him alone?

You keep bringing him up!

I repeat I have no interest in him or his verdict. Many posters have been deflecting from the real issue. Who cares about the verdict? The world's media didn't focus on Ireland because of the verdict. The real issue is the comments made by the barrister. If the man was found guilty it wouldn't change the comments made. The comments were wrong and the verdict is irrelevant to the main issue, how the Irish Court system treated a minor.

A justice system that discourages people from reporting a crime is a failed justice system.

Deflect all you want. The justice system needs to change. We changed it by creating the special criminal court because jury members & witnesses were threatened & at risk. We took away the right to be tried by a jury. We can definitely change it to ensure that minors are never treated in such a way again

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You keep bringing him up!

It's a very simple question, that you are refusing to answer.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Deflect all you want.

Indeed.

So when you said he should be left alone, what you meant based on what you have posted about him on here (wild speculation and lies) that he should be left alone but you are not going to.

Grand.

eagle eye

People seemed to be getting confused here.
The outrage isn't over the not guilty verdict. It's about what the defense barrister said.
We are talking about a jury being that they 'have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.'

Mrsmum

Boggles wrote: »

Or isn't far more plausible that the jury heard several pieces of evidence over what I imagine what was a relative long trial and based on that evidence came to the only logical safe conclusion they could?

Yesterday your tactic was to discredit the acquitted by pedaling the fantasy that if he cheated on his fictional wife, then he broke his vows therefore what evidence he gave in the trial was not credible.

You've moved on now to try and discredit the jury, using some perceived notion about evolution the jury was made up of 12 Trump supporting flat earthers who think the undewear one wears absolves someone not just of rape but of brutal physical assault.

It's complete and utter baffling nonsense.

You are not beyond a little bit of fancy footwork yourself above. You suggest that the "jury heard several pieces of evidence" and again that it "was a relative long trial" thereby giving gravitas to their decision when in reality apart from the thong we don't know anything about what other evidence was presented to support his claims that it wasn't rape and we don't know either how long or short the trial was.

But actually I sincerely hope you are right because if the thong alone was the thing that created the reasonable doubt, I'm sure you will agree that truly would be scandalous. You would agree with that, wouldn't you ? And I still object to the SC telling the jury they should have regard to the way the girl was dressed in a thong with a lacy front because there is always a woman or girl inside that thong and she is the one he should have regard for.

Boggles

eagle eye wrote: »

People seemed to be getting confused here.
The outrage isn't over the not guilty verdict.

Really?

eagle eye wrote: »

I've no idea how this convicted rapist got off this time.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

It's a very simple question, that you are refusing to answer.



Indeed.

So when you said he should be left alone, what you meant based on what you have posted about him on here (wild speculation and lies) that he should be left alone but you are not going to.

Grand.

He should be left alone because posters trying to defend him were using terms like underage sex & pedophile & this obviously wasn't true. Another poster stated that he had been charged with rape before. I also challenged that. I actually flagged the post for a mod to look at but it's still there. I have actually stuck up for him at times. Many posters said that he was married & was "caught Stepping out on his wife". If that were true I'd have to excuse myself from the jury mid trial because I think cheating on your wife or husband is a scumbag thing to do. I'm my opinion it makes you a liar & a cheat of the worst kind & I would not be able to believe their word over the girl who wasn't proven to be of such low character. If the man was cheating with a minor he would not get a fair trial with me on the jury. It was pointed out to me that it wasn't reported in the news that he was married & he may not be married so I stopped there & then commenting about him cheating on his wife.



He should be left alone. When one poster sticks up for him someone else points out that he had his hand around her throat. In most cases people sticking up for him are doing him more harm than good. The thread isn't about his guilt or lack of so why keep bringing him up. The thread & the worlds media attention has nothing to do with him at all. The issue is the justice system & how it failed this girl & how it fails other girls

FACT 6: Rape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

FACT 7: Sexual violence does not only happen to an unfortunate few, Irish research has found that one in five adult women and one in ten adult men experienced sexual violence (The SAVI Report, Prof. Hannah McGee et al, Royal College of Surgeons, Liffey Press, 2002).

https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html


A justice system that discourages the reporting of crime is a failed justice The Irish justice system fails rape victims FACT!

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

Yes really. You keep trying to make it about the verdict yet posters repeatedly keep telling you that they respect the jurys verdict. It's all about how the girl in this & other cases are let down by our justice system

The Bishop Basher

Mrsmum wrote: »

there is always a woman or girl inside that thong and she is the one he should have regard for.

I think you mean she should have regard for

Boggles

Mrsmum wrote: »

You suggest that the "jury heard several pieces of evidence" and again that it "was a relative long trial" thereby giving gravitas

A more than reasonable assumption, I'm sure you would agree?

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

A more than reasonable assumption, I'm sure you would agree?

I would disagree there. A trial with no whiteness? A trial where both agree that sex took place? A trial that boils down to consent? He said & she said? I would suggest that it was a shorter trail

batgoat

Rennaws wrote: »

I think you mean she should have regard for

It's coming across that you have a pretty nasty attitude towards women..

Mrsmum

Boggles wrote: »

A more than reasonable assumption, I'm sure you would agree?

Ah but assumptions are very dangerous things - see assumptions about thongs.

Mrsmum

Rennaws wrote: »

I think you mean she should have regard for

I'm not sure what this means. Please explain so I can see if I worded my statement incorrectly based on your point perhaps.

Boggles

Mrsmum wrote: »

Ah but assumptions are very dangerous things - see assumptions about thongs.

So for all the lies and wild speculation on this thread.

You pull me up on the assumption that a criminal trial of this nature would have more than one piece of evidence?

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I would disagree there. A trial with no whiteness? A trial where both agree that sex took place? A trial that boils down to consent? He said & she said? I would suggest that it was a shorter trail

The allegation was of a very serious physical and sexual assault. Not "he said, she said".

There is very little detail about this case, but I suggest you go and read what is known.

Mrsmum

Boggles wrote: »

So for all the lies and wild speculation on this thread.

You pull me up on the assumption that a criminal trial of this nature would have more than one piece of evidence?

I'm only pulling you up because you are pulling other people other people up on their reasonings. You can't be telling them to stick to the actual facts out there when you don't strictly do that yourself and instead assume what to you are reasonable assumptions. What is it they say about assume making an ass of u and me. What's good for the goose etc.

Personally I quite like to hear peoples thoughts around this case as it shows how they come to their pov.

tmh106

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...the victims underwear...

Surely, the whole point is that their underwear is not evidence, irrespective of what style it is, and the reason so many people, myself include, are so appalled by this is that the defence tried to introduce something that is clearly not evidence as evidence - and succeeded.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

The allegation was of a very serious physical and sexual assault. Not "he said, she said".

There is very little detail about this case, but I suggest you go and read what is known.

I did read up on it

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

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.

It was in fact he said & she said or at least that's all that was reported.


No mention of medical witnesses or anything like that. I assume that some Gardai were there as they would have taken both statements but there honestly doesn't seem to be too much to this case from what was reported. There is nothing to suggest that it was a lengthy trial in any paper

Sleeper12

tmh106 wrote: »

Surely, the whole point is that their underwear is not evidence, irrespective of what style it is, and the reason so many people, myself include, are so appalled by this is that the defence tried to introduce something that is clearly not evidence as evidence - and succeeded.

I 100 percent agree. They could be evidence if there was DNA or tears but can never be evidence of consent or intention of sex. It's genuinely shocking that the judge allowed this.


There are a lot of question need answering on this subject.

eagle eye

Boggles wrote:

Really?

Well I have an idea. The jury being advised to consider that she was wearing a thong helped him. The fact that the judge has to give the jury warnings during his charge helped him too as it leads to confusion for some jurors.

The Bishop Basher

Mrsmum wrote: »

I'm not sure what this means. Please explain so I can see if I worded my statement incorrectly based on your point perhaps.

You referred to the SC in this case as he. The SC was a woman.

batgoat wrote: »

It's coming across that you have a pretty nasty attitude towards women..

Well I’m surrounded by women here at home with a wife and 2 daughters. The last 2 people I hired were women and I work in a very male dominated workforce.

You know absolutely nothing about me and certainly not enough to fling judgements like that around.

I have zero regard for third wave feminsm if that’s what your picking up and you would be correct I have zero regard for anything that even remotely whiffs of it.

Not because I’m against equality but because I vehemently believe in it.

batgoat

Rennaws wrote: »

You referred to the SC in this case as he. The SC was a woman.



Well I’m surrounded by women here at home with a wife and 2 daughters. The last 2 people I hired were women and I work in a very male dominated workforce.

You know absolutely nothing about me and certainly not enough to fling judgements like that around.

I have zero regard for third wave feminsm if that’s what your picking up and you would be correct I have zero regard for anything that even remotely whiffs of it.

Not because I’m against equality but because I vehemently believe in it.

It's third wave feminism to say a woman wearing a thong isn't asking for sex? It really isn't, fair few conservative posters in this thread who are outraged by what occurred as well...

The Bishop Basher

batgoat wrote: »

It's third wave feminism to say a woman wearing a thong isn't asking for sex? It really isn't, fair few conservative posters in this thread who are outraged by what occurred as well...

Maybe it’s an element of the boy who cried wolf..

It’s difficult to keep up with all these feminist causes they just keep coming so thick and fast..

I don’t know why the judge allowed the jury consider that as evidence but I refer to the judge as the legal expert and as with any other case where I have an issue with the outcome I accept that I wasn’t there, I don’t have the facts and so I’m not really in a position to comment too much much less go running off hysterically screaming and shouting for laws to be changed.

It’s madness..

batgoat

Rennaws wrote: »

Maybe it’s an element of the boy who cried wolf..

It’s difficult to keep up with all these feminist causes they just keep coming so thick and fast..

I don’t know why the judge allowed the jury consider that as evidence but I refer to the judge as the legal expert and as with any other case where I have an issue with the outcome I accept that I wasn’t there, I don’t have the facts and so I’m not really in a position to comment too much much less go running off hysterically screaming and shouting for laws to be changed.

It’s madness..

Crying wolf... Yep you've definitely gotten a pretty warped attitude going on regardless of how many women you hire. It also looks like that this could very well lead to change. Our government is looking into it, legal scholars are backing changes on this front.

Mrsmum

Rennaws wrote: »

You referred to the SC in this case as he. The SC was a woman.

No I wasn't speaking about the SC. The thong was used as a suggestion of consent in this case and in my opinion it is never consent to any man. The wearer of the thong is what he should achieve his consent from so the thong itself is irrelevant.

The Bishop Basher

batgoat wrote: »

Crying wolf... Yep you've definitely gotten a pretty warped attitude going on regardless of how many women you hire. It also looks like that this could very well lead to change. Our government is looking into it, legal scholars are backing changes on this front.

Warped attitude now is it ?

You just can't help getting personal can you..

Yes we are now ruled by twitter..

I don't see that as a good thing.

Boggles

Mrsmum wrote: »

You can't be telling them to stick to the actual facts

I haven't told anyone to stick to actual facts, unless they were making up their own.

But I have asked for evidence of people claiming facts.

i.e He was married and has a previous rape conviction.

I said it was a reasonable assumption that the trial had more than one piece of evidence, reasonable assumption is not stating a fact.

What exactly are you struggling with?

Do you think a criminal trial of this nature would only have one piece of evidence, or would it be reasonable to infer or assume that it may have more?