Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can, and the Judge in the case will decide whether or not the evidence is relevant in assisting the defendant in their own defence.





Yes, I would argue that they should. Because the alternative is that an innocent person is deprived of their liberty on the basis that the Judge made an error in judgement.





Yes it could, and there could be a basis for arguing that the defendant did not receive a fair trial because they were not allowed to argue that the complainants underwear was relevant to the defendants honest belief that the complainant had consented. That’s precisely why it’s allowed to be argued as it stands now.

and we are back to the start again. What part does a womans choice of underwear play in whether the defendant thought he had consent?

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and we are back to the start again. What part does a womans choice of underwear play in whether the defendant thought he had consent?

That’s surely for the defendant to answer.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s surely for the defendant to answer.

It is not enough for the defendant to say that the choice of underwear meant he thought he had consent. His justification must be reasonable to the ordinary person. Do you think that a womans choice of underwear would lead the reasonable person to conclude that they had consent?

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is not enough for the defendant to say that the choice of underwear meant he thought he had consent. His justification must be reasonable to the ordinary person. Do you think that a womans choice of underwear would lead the reasonable person to conclude that they had consent?

I agree with you that it’s not enough for the defendant to say the choice of underwear meant he thought he had consent. It would have to be considered in the context of all of the evidence presented at trial. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that a persons choice of underwear is indicative of their intentions. It depends upon the context and the circumstances. To my mind it’s reasonable to assume that a person wears sexy underwear when they intend to have sex.

TomSweeney

Hurrache wrote: »

So underage. You have different levels of rapeyness that you use as a yard stick?

As uncormfortable as it may sound, there is gradations in seriousness in these cases.


You can't deny that, it's bad, but hardly as bad as if she was 12 ? or 11 ... or 5 ... gets worse and worse.


I am not condoning a grown man being with a 15 year old, in fact I think it's creepy even if she was 18 (brains still developing - you could argue she is still not mature enough to make that decision) but we draw a legal line somewhere...

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I agree with you that it’s not enough for the defendant to say the choice of underwear meant he thought he had consent. It would have to be considered in the context of all of the evidence presented at trial. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that a persons choice of underwear is indicative of their intentions. It depends upon the context and the circumstances. To my mind it’s reasonable to assume that a person wears sexy underwear when they intend to have sex.

and intending to have sex (assuming such a conclusion can be drawn) does not mean an intention to have sex with a particular person.

PlaneSpeeking

TomSweeney wrote: »

As uncormfortable as it may sound, there is gradations in seriousness in these cases.


You can't deny that, it's bad, but hardly as bad as if she was 12 ? or 11 ... or 5 ... gets worse and worse.


I am not condoning a grown man being with a 15 year old, in fact I think it's creepy even if she was 18 (brains still developing - you could argue she is still not mature enough to make that decision) but we draw a legal line somewhere...

Two of my good mates were technically breaking the law when they got together. At the time they met the gay age of consent was 21. They've been together since one was 22 and one 19. Yet they've been together 30 years now; in a civil partnership for 13 years and married for 3.

Sleeping with a willing 17 year old is COMPLETELY different to molesting a younger teenager, or worse - a kid.

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and intending to have sex (assuming such a conclusion can be drawn) does not mean an intention to have sex with a particular person.

I'm uncomfortably reminded of the scene with the hooker in Leaving Las Vegas.

Yes, she was there to have sex, for money.

She was - in my view - still raped by the three lads.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and intending to have sex (assuming such a conclusion can be drawn) does not mean an intention to have sex with a particular person.

Well of course assumptions can be wrong, obviously. The question is whether or not it was a reasonable assumption that someone would honestly believe the sexual encounter was consensual if the person they were having sex with was wearing sexy underwear at the time. They may of course have assumed wrong, it happens, but when they’re accused of rape, then their belief as to why they believed the sexual encounter was consensual may well be predicated upon the style of underwear the complainant was wearing at the time.

Is it unreasonable to assume that people wear sexy underwear when they’re having sex? I don’t think that’s an unreasonable assumption.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The question is whether or not it was a reasonable assumption that someone would honestly believe the sexual encounter was consensual if the person they were having sex with was wearing sexy underwear at the time. They may of course have assumed wrong, it happens, but when they’re accused of rape, then their belief as to why they believed the sexual encounter was consensual may well be predicated upon the style of underwear the complainant was wearing at the time.

You’re making huge leaps in assuming the style of underwear even informed a part of the defence. The comments were made at closing statement by senior counsel and weren’t phrased in a way which supposed the defendant had expressed this was the case at all. She was passing judgement on the plaintiffs underwear. She did not say “my client had every reason to believe this encounter was consensual judging by the plaintiffs underwear”.. she said “YOU will have to look at the how she was dressed. A thong with a lace front”. She was putting the onus on them to decide on behalf of the plaintiff if the underwear she had put on hours before informed consent. She was implying consent is a pre-meditated act. She was asking the jury to decide whether or not a thong with a lacy front could imply consent on behalf of the plaintiff. She never even mentioned the defendant or what he thought.

joe40

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well of course assumptions can be wrong, obviously. The question is whether or not it was a reasonable assumption that someone would honestly believe the sexual encounter was consensual if the person they were having sex with was wearing sexy underwear at the time. They may of course have assumed wrong, it happens, but when they’re accused of rape, then their belief as to why they believed the sexual encounter was consensual may well be predicated upon the style of underwear the complainant was wearing at the time.

Is it unreasonable to assume that people wear sexy underwear when they’re having sex? I don’t think that’s an unreasonable assumption.

No, not a reasonable assumption. not even close to a reasonable assumption. In fact it is a totally unreasonable assumption.

TomSweeney

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm uncomfortably reminded of the scene with the hooker in Leaving Las Vegas.

Yes, she was there to have sex, for money.

She was - in my view - still raped by the three lads.

Definetely ! horrendous scene ...

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The question is whether or not it was a reasonable assumption that someone would honestly believe the sexual encounter was consensual if the person they were having sex with was wearing sexy underwear at the time.

This statement is frankly a massive insult to the intelligence of the 99.9% of decent, respectful men who make up our society.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, I would argue that they should. Because the alternative is that an innocent person is deprived of their liberty on the basis that the Judge made an error in judgement.

How would it be an error in judgement though? That's the crux of it.

Yes it could, and there could be a basis for arguing that the defendant did not receive a fair trial because they were not allowed to argue that the complainants underwear was relevant to the defendants honest belief that the complainant had consented. That’s precisely why it’s allowed to be argued as it stands now.

Yes, it could be argued, theoretically, but just because it could be doesn't mean it would be and it certainly doesn't mean it should be.

Lines of argument are usually only allowed when they are considered plausible and reasonable.

Over on the other thread 'Who do women dress for?' (which I've have been meaning to get back to, just haven't had the time) I make the argument that provocative outer wear is always worn to influence how others see the wearer, but for the judge to allow the defense to instruct the jury that they should consider the style of the underwear which the complainant was wearing....... that's essentially saying that the court agrees that style of underwear can be inferred by someone as them having been given consent.... that's ludicrous.

I think where you're getting mixed up, Jack, is that you're confusing an accused's evidence with remarks made by the defense.

For example, I think that it would be insane to say that the accused shouldn't be allowed to give evidence on the stand saying that they felt they had received consent given that the complainant was wearing lacey underwear...... let them say what they want. But, it's much different to say a defense should be allowed to imply to a jury (which they did) that it's reasonable for someone to infer that they have received consent based on 'style of underwear'.

It simply shouldn't have been allowed and not allowing the defense to make the remark (or at least chastising them for doing so) in no way would have meant that the accused would have had an unfair trial. The only one that has an unfair trial here is the complainant given that something was suggested to the jury regarding what they should consider which they needn't have been.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it unreasonable to assume that people wear sexy underwear when they’re having sex? I don’t think that’s an unreasonable assumption.

That's not unreasonable. What's unreasonable is to assume that when people wear sexy underwear they plan on having sex.

Women wear thongs for other reasons than an intent to have sex.

People who intend to have sex will generally wear sexy underwear be that a thong or something else.

Two.entirely different assumptions. One reasonable, one not.

monkeybutter

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's not unreasonable. What's unreasonable is to assume that when people wear sexy underwear they plan on having sex.

Women wear thongs for other reasons than an intent to have sex.

People who intend to have sex will generally wear sexy underwear be that a thong or something else.

Two.entirely different assumptions. One reasonable, one not.

Do men wear sexy underwear when then intend to make love?

Are grey knickers sexy? Cause that's what women usually wear before they have sex

SusieBlue

monkeybutter wrote: »

Do men wear sexy underwear when then intend to make love?

Are grey knickers sexy? Cause that's what women usually wear before they have sex

A woman's choice of underwear cannot and does not consent on her behalf.

I wear thongs most days. I assure you I am not inadvertently consenting to have sex with every male I happen to come across while wearing them.
And neither is any other woman.
To suggest otherwise is insane.

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

How would it be an error in judgement though? That's the crux of it.

If the defendant considered that the complainants underwear was relevant to their defence but was not permitted to present this evidence to the jury for their consideration.

Yes, it could be argued, theoretically, but just because it could be doesn't mean it would be and it certainly doesn't mean it should be.

Lines of argument are usually only allowed when they are considered plausible and reasonable.

Seems an entirely reasonable line of argument for the defendant to make IMO.

Over on the other thread 'Who do women dress for?' (which I've have been meaning to get back to, just haven't had the time) I make the argument that provocative outer wear is always worn to influence how others see the wearer, but for the judge to allow the defense to instruct the jury that they should consider the style of the underwear which the complainant was wearing....... that's essentially saying that the court agrees that style of underwear can be inferred by someone as them having been given consent.... that's ludicrous.

I don’t agree that it’s ludicrous at all. Other examples of evidence which can be included would be whether or not the complainant was on the pill, or whether they use a sex toy. You simply can’t blanket ban specific evidence which a defendant can argue would assist in their own defence.

I think where you're getting mixed up, Jack, is that you're confusing an accused's evidence with remarks made by the defense.

For example, I think that it would be insane to say that the accused shouldn't be allowed to give evidence on the stand saying that they felt they had received consent given that the complainant was wearing lacey underwear...... let them say what they want. But, it's much different to say a defense should be allowed to imply to a jury (which they did) that it's reasonable for someone to infer that they have received consent based on 'style of underwear'.

It simply shouldn't have been allowed and not allowing the defense to make the remark (or at least chastising them for doing so) in no way would have meant that the accused would have had an unfair trial. The only one that has an unfair trial here is the complainant given that something was suggested to the jury regarding what they should consider which they needn't have been.

The complainant wasn’t on trial though, the right to a fair trial only comes into force when a person is accused of a criminal offence. It doesn’t apply to witnesses for the States prosecution against the accused.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's not unreasonable. What's unreasonable is to assume that when people wear sexy underwear they plan on having sex.

Women wear thongs for other reasons than an intent to have sex.

People who intend to have sex will generally wear sexy underwear be that a thong or something else.

Two.entirely different assumptions. One reasonable, one not.

They’re two entirely reasonable assumptions as far as I’m concerned. One may not appear to be reasonable to you, and that’s why there are 12 members on a jury as opposed to just one person deciding on the fate of the defendant.

Reviews and Books Galore

Who thinks that he is guilty of rape?

I ask as this case is a little bit strange. Very few people have complained that he was found not guilty and instead are complaining about the underwear comment. It's a little bit different to past rape trials.

Honestly, the thong comment was dumb and provably wouldn't persuade the most vehement mysognistic woman. But, its next to impossible to restrict information unilaterally in the legal system.

SusieBlue

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Who thinks that he is guilty of rape?

I ask as this case is a little bit strange. Very few people have complained that he was found not guilty and instead are complaining about the underwear comment. It's a little bit different to past rape trials.

Honestly, the thong comment was dumb and provably wouldn't persuade the most vehement mysognistic woman. But, its next to impossible to restrict information unilaterally in the legal system.

Honestly, when this thread was first started, I wasn't concerned with the verdict and was just concerned with the comments by the defense barrister.

With the details that have since been revealed about the case, it definitely alludes to the defendants guilt, at the very least he sounds like a dangerous individual who shouldn't be allowed roam around society as he pleases.

LLMMLL

monkeybutter wrote: »

Do men wear sexy underwear when then intend to make love?

Are grey knickers sexy? Cause that's what women usually wear before they have sex

Every man and woman I know we'll enough to to know their attitudes to sex put effort into their appearance if they know they're going to have sex (with a newish partner). There's no underwear for men that are considered universally sexy, but most men I know would go for fresh, clean tight branded boxer briefs if they're going on a date or a night out.

I'm not saying this is universal, just my experience. Maybe in your experience, people who intend to have sex with a newish or new partner wear any old rags.

It's beside the point. My point is that even if it's a reasonable assumption that people who intend to have sex wear nice underwear, it is NOT a reasonable assumption that people who wear nice underwear intend to have sex.

professore

SusieBlue wrote: »

Honestly, when this thread was first started, I wasn't concerned with the verdict and was just concerned with the comments by the defense barrister.

With the details that have since been revealed about the case, it definitely alludes to the defendants guilt, at the very least he sounds like a dangerous individual who shouldn't be allowed roam around society as he pleases.

The problem is that the media is so untrustworthy now there could be video and voice recording of her consenting all the way through the process but the media wouldn't report it as it would ruin their juicy storyline.

On face value with the info that's in the public domain I can't see how anyone could not find the defendant guilty. Therefore I can only suppose that there is additional evidence that hasn't been reported.

Pelvis

The case has collapsed due to reporting in the media prejudicing the accused.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/newspaper-s-reporting-leads-to-collapse-of-rape-trial-1.3710889

Jesus, the Independent is some ****in rag. The alleged victim is going to have to go through another trial, if it even gets that far again.

Grayson

professore wrote: »

The problem is that the media is so untrustworthy now there could be video and voice recording of her consenting all the way through the process but the media wouldn't report it as it would ruin their juicy storyline.

On face value with the info that's in the public domain I can't see how anyone could not find the defendant guilty. Therefore I can only suppose that there is additional evidence that hasn't been reported.

The thing is that they can't report until after the trial at which point all the facts are available.

just read this though
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/newspaper-s-reporting-leads-to-collapse-of-rape-trial-1.3710889

How the hell did a newspaper allow printing of a story about an ongoing rape case.

monkeybutter

LLMMLL wrote: »

Every man and woman I know we'll enough to to know their attitudes to sex put effort into their appearance if they know they're going to have sex (with a newish partner). There's no underwear for men that are considered universally sexy, but most men I know would go for fresh, clean tight branded boxer briefs if they're going on a date or a night out.

I'm not saying this is universal, just my experience. Maybe in your experience, people who intend to have sex with a newish or new partner wear any old rags.

It's beside the point. My point is that even if it's a reasonable assumption that people who intend to have sex wear nice underwear, it is NOT a reasonable assumption that people who wear nice underwear intend to have sex.

you forgot the words new partner

I wear a clean pair of jocks every day, that's as sexy as it gets

Now you might find them sexy, there are all kinds of preverts out there

monkeybutter

Grayson wrote: »

The thing is that they can't report until after the trial at which point all the facts are available.

just read this though
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/newspaper-s-reporting-leads-to-collapse-of-rape-trial-1.3710889

How the hell did a newspaper allow printing of a story about an ongoing rape case.

the big news story of the year by column inches was the reporting about an ongoing rape case

Boggles

Pelvis wrote: »

The case has collapsed due to reporting in the media prejudicing the accused.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/newspaper-s-reporting-leads-to-collapse-of-rape-trial-1.3710889

Jesus, the Independent is some ****in rag. The alleged victim is going to have to go through another trial, if it even gets that far again.

How many fooks do you think the likes of Coppinger will give?

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If the defendant considered that the complainants underwear was relevant to their defence but was not permitted to present this evidence to the jury for their consideration.

Like I just said: the defense could present it as part of their case that the accused felt he had consent based on the complainant's style of underwear (no issue with that and I don't think anyone would) but that is a much different thing to the defense implying to the jury in their closing arguments that the complainant was up for it given that she was wearing lace underwear and that it was therefore reasonable for the accused to infer she was consenting as a result.

Seems an entirely reasonable line of argument for the defendant to make IMO.

How so?

I don’t agree that it’s ludicrous at all. Other examples of evidence which can be included would be whether or not the complainant was on the pill, or whether they use a sex toy. You simply can’t blanket ban specific evidence which a defendant can argue would assist in their own defence.

I haven't called for a blanket ban on anything. Relevancy is key and I don't see any here.

The complainant wasn’t on trial though, the right to a fair trial only comes into force when a person is accused of a criminal offence. It doesn’t apply to witnesses for the States prosecution against the accused.

Don't play silly buggers now, Jack. I never said the accused was 'on' trial. I said the trial was unfair to her and it was given that the jury were asked to consider,and pay particular attention to, something which they never should have been asked to.

Grayson

Boggles wrote: »

How many fooks do you think the likes of Coppinger will give?

lots? i don't think she wants to see a rape trial collapse.

Unless she wrote the article in the indo.

@monkeybutter. If you're referring to the Belfast case there are two things to consider. Firstly it was outside of our jurisdiction. I assume there's different rules there. Secondly, nearly everything I saw was after the trial was finished.

Remember in Ireland there's generally a ban on a lot of reporting when a case is ongoing. It's even the reason boards don't allow threads about them until after a trial has finished.
That's why I can't believe an editor allowed that article to be published. They should definitely be aware of this.

Boggles

Grayson wrote: »

lots? i don't think she wants to see a rape trial collapse.

She is responsible for it collapsing.

Grayson

Boggles wrote: »

She is responsible for it collapsing.

How? From what I can tell the article mentioned a different case to the one Coppinger was talking about.

monkeybutter

Grayson wrote: »

lots? i don't think she wants to see a rape trial collapse.

Unless she wrote the article in the indo.

@monkeybutter. If you're referring to the Belfast case there are two things to consider. Firstly it was outside of our jurisdiction. I assume there's different rules there. Secondly, nearly everything I saw was after the trial was finished.

Remember in Ireland there's generally a ban on a lot of reporting when a case is ongoing. It's even the reason boards don't allow threads about them until after a trial has finished.
That's why I can't believe an editor allowed that article to be published. They should definitely be aware of this.

The difference is the defendants could be named, and were juicy targets

if the only thing you saw was after the trial had ended, then you live under some sort of rock

People report on ongoing trails all the time, people were tweeting live from murder trials and reporting on it later that day

get back under your rock

Boggles

Grayson wrote: »

How? From what I can tell the article mentioned a different case to the one Coppinger was talking about.

There was no other way of reading the articles other than that they suggested that her client was guilty. Also included in the coverage was an article about the recent controversial Cork case which has received coverage in the New York Times, Time magazine, Fox News and CNN suggesting there was an unfairness to rape trials in Ireland.

The Irish Independent was using this “feeding frenzy” and suggesting the facts in the case before the court were an example of what was being alleged about rape trials, Ms Lawlor said

Ruth and her stunt is directly responsible for that "feeding frenzy".

Grayson

Boggles wrote: »

Ruth and her stunt is directly responsible for that "feeding frenzy".

No she's not. She never mentioned the ongoing case. It's not her fault someone else did.

Boggles

Grayson wrote: »

No she's not. She never mentioned the ongoing case. It's not her fault someone else did.

Of course it is.

When you have an elected official whipping up a frenzy and using the privilege of the Dáil to perform cheap publicity stunts it emboldens rags like the Indo to become even more dribbling than they are.

She is directly responsible.

Flanagan and Leo have a few questions to answer too.

ohnonotgmail

Boggles wrote: »

Of course it is.

When you have an elected official whipping up a frenzy and using the privilege of the Dáil to perform cheap publicity stunts it emboldens rags like the Indo to become even more dribbling than they are.

You mean she raised a valid point as to the conduct of rape trials.

Boggles

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You mean she raised a valid point as to the conduct of rape trials.

She can raise all the valid points she wants, as long as they are based on the full facts of an issue.

Ranting and Raving whilst swinging a pair of knickers around Dáil Eireann based on a click bait article from the Examiner whips up frenzy, the tangible real effect of is a rape trial collapses.

ohnonotgmail

Boggles wrote: »

She can raise all the valid points she wants, as long as they are based on the full facts of an issue.

Ranting and Raving whilst swinging a pair of knickers around Dáil Eireann based on a click bait article from the Examiner whips up frenzy, the tangible real effect of is a rape trial collapses.

speaking of full facts, do you not think it is time you acquainted yourself with them?

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Like I just said: the defense could present it as part of their case that the accused felt he had consent based on the complainant's style of underwear (no issue with that and I don't think anyone would) but that is a much different thing to the defense implying to the jury in their closing arguments that the complainant was up for it given that she was wearing lace underwear and that it was therefore reasonable for the accused to infer she was consenting as a result.

It’s not any different given defence counsel was representing the accused.

How so?

Because it’s the defendants beliefs are in question, as to whether they are an honestly held belief first of all, and secondly whether the jury considers their honestly held belief is reasonable. In that context of course the defendant should be given every opportunity defend themselves, even if their basis for their honest belief is considered unreasonable.

I haven't called for a blanket ban on anything. Relevancy is key and I don't see any here.

I see it as relevant as to whether or not it was the basis for the defendants honest belief that that the encounter was consensual.

Don't play silly buggers now, Jack. I never said the accused was 'on' trial. I said the trial was unfair to her and it was given that the jury were asked to consider,and pay particular attention to, something which they never should have been asked to.

I wasn’t playing silly buggers at all. I’m being straight up with you. The trial isn’t about the complainant, they’re only ever appearing in a criminal trial as a witness for the States prosecution. The jury were asked to consider evidence which the defence counsel considered relevant to the defendants defence. There’s no such thing as a trial being unfair on the complainant in that context. A jury if it is to make an informed decision as to the defendants guilt, should at least be presented with evidence which may assist the defendant in their defence, as unreasonable as that may be to anyone who isn’t the defendant.

Boggles

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

speaking of full facts, do you not think it is time you acquainted yourself with them?

Well if you have a full transcript of the case, by all means link it up.

ohnonotgmail

Boggles wrote: »

Well if you have a full transcript of the case, by all means link it up.

no the full facts of why the current case collapsed. Here is a clue:It was **** all to do with coppinger. It was entirely to do with the independent writing an article that tried to connect what coppinger said with an ongoing case and mentioned specific details of an ongoing case. You should divert your ire at the independent. what Coppinger did was entirely correct.

Boggles

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no the full facts of why the current case collapsed. Here is a clue:It was **** all to do with coppinger. It was entirely to do with the independent writing an article that tried to connect what coppinger said with an ongoing case and mentioned specific details of an ongoing case. You should divert your ire at the independent. what Coppinger did was entirely correct.

You do know it's not just my opinion.

There was no other way of reading the articles other than that they suggested that her client was guilty. Also included in the coverage was an article about the recent controversial Cork case which has received coverage in the New York Times, Time magazine, Fox News and CNN suggesting there was an unfairness to rape trials in Ireland.

The Irish Independent was using this “feeding frenzy” and suggesting the facts in the case before the court were an example of what was being alleged about rape trials, Ms Lawlor said

The Judge agreed with Ms Lawlor.

But yeah, your right. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no the full facts of why the current case collapsed. Here is a clue:It was **** all to do with coppinger. It was entirely to do with the independent writing an article that tried to connect what coppinger said with an ongoing case and mentioned specific details of an ongoing case. You should divert your ire at the independent. what Coppinger did was entirely correct.

What has it achieved at all? It wasn’t even successful in undermining the right to fair procedures, thankfully. All it did was perpetuate myths about court procedures and fester mistrust in our judicial system. I use the word ‘fester’ because it didn’t change anyone’s mind who already didn’t trust in our judicial system.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What has it achieved at all? It wasn’t even successful in undermining the right to fair procedures, thankfully. All it did was perpetuate myths about court procedures and fester mistrust in our judicial system. I use the word ‘fester’ because it didn’t change anyone’s mind who already didn’t trust in our judicial system.

It raised an important point. It hasn't changed court procedures yet, of course it hasn't. they dont change overnight.

Grayson

Boggles wrote: »

You do know it's not just my opinion.



The Judge agreed with Ms Lawlor.

But yeah, your right. :rolleyes:

Selective quoting there.The reason the article was bad was because it specifically mentioned the ongoing trial. And the judge specifically mentioned it. It's also the reason the defence barrister mentioned it.

ricero

Shame on Coppinger and the liberal social justice warriors who's dumbfounded efforts have collapsed a trial and potential justice for this alleged victim.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it’s the defendants beliefs are in question, as to whether they are an honestly held belief first of all, and secondly whether the jury considers their honestly held belief is reasonable. In that context of course the defendant should be given every opportunity defend themselves, even if their basis for their honest belief is considered unreasonable.

There's nothing to suggest that the barrister was referring to the defendant beliefs re the underwear. She never mentioned it.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It raised an important point. It hasn't changed court procedures yet, of course it hasn't. they dont change overnight.

We’ll have to agree to disagree over the importance of the point she was trying to raise, and we’ll certainly have to disagree on it’s impact. A month from now Ms. Coppinger will have to up the ante in order to make the same point again, which will again go largely ignored by the general public.

She didn’t care for the impact her pitiful stunt would have on anyone else, but if you think she raised an important point, I suppose it had a positive impact on you, and that’s all that matters.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

There's nothing to suggest that the barrister was referring to the defendant beliefs re the underwear. She never mentioned it.

There’s nothing to suggest that from your perspective. There is from mine. We’ve been over this. We disagree. I’m ok with that.