Cross-examination of complainants in rape trials.

political analyst

The following article was published in November of 2018.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-ayrshire-girl-who-killed-13591548

The mum of a rape victim who killed herself after a court case in which she was forced to hold up her underwear has backed protests over a similar scandal in Ireland.

This week, women shared pictures of their underwear on social media with the hashtag #ThisIsNotConsent after a 17-year-old girl’s “thong with a lace front" was cited as part of the defence against her allegation of rape.

The case, which has sparked demonstrations and worldwide condemnation mirrors the devastating experience of Lindsay Armstrong, 17, who wept as she was told to display her thong to the jury.

She was also told to read out the slogan on the front saying: “Little Devil”.

Lindsay, from New Cumnock in Ayrshire, took her life two weeks after the trial in 2001 found her 15-year-old attacker guilty of rape.

The mum of a rape victim who killed herself after a court case in which she was forced to hold up her underwear has backed protests over a similar scandal in Ireland.

This week, women shared pictures of their underwear on social media with the hashtag #ThisIsNotConsent after a 17-year-old girl’s “thong with a lace front" was cited as part of the defence against her allegation of rape.

The case, which has sparked demonstrations and worldwide condemnation mirrors the devastating experience of Lindsay Armstrong, 17, who wept as she was told to display her thong to the jury.

She was also told to read out the slogan on the front saying: “Little Devil”.

Lindsay, from New Cumnock in Ayrshire, took her life two weeks after the trial in 2001 found her 15-year-old attacker guilty of rape.
[/QUOTE]

Unsurprisingly, the rapist's mother and sister told disgusting lies about the victim - as can be seen in this article from 2005.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/she-deserved-to-die-1559731

Whatever about the 2018 case in Ireland, I'm puzzled that a defence lawyer for a teenage boy charged with the rape of a teenage girl would regard that disgusting line of questioning as credible because the victim in the Scottish case had no contact with the rapist before the rape took place and so the rapist could not have known what underwear she was wearing before he attacked her.

Furthermore, obviously, when the girl decides not to have sex with the boy, the boy must respect her decision.

Did the lawyer in the Scottish case really believe that a jury would regard the issue of the victim's underwear as relevant?

At the end of the day, no jury will believe that a girl from a good family would agree to have sex with a boy from a family that has a history of anti-social behaviour.


PS: I chose this forum rather than Legal Discussion because of the OP's relevance to victims of sexual crimes.

Gregor Samsa

It's the job of a defence lawyer to defend their client by any legal means. Any little thing or combination of things to sow the seed of "reasonable doubt".

It's the job of the judge to determine whether their defense is legal.

It's the job of politicians to make the laws that the judges rely on.

It's the job of the electorate to vote in the politicians who make the laws that they want.

It's not pretty, it may not seem "right", but it's the system we have, and the only way to change it is in reverse order of the way I described it above.

I would most certainly be horrified and furious if my daughter was forced to do such a thing in the witness box. I don't know how lawyers that do such things live with themselves, even if it is part of how the system works.

political analyst wrote: »

At the end of the day, no jury will believe that a girl from a good family would agree to have sex with a boy from a family that has a history of anti-social behaviour.

I'm not sure why you make that assumption. Not commenting on this particular case, but in general when talking about consensual relationships, all kinds of people have relationships with all kinds of people.

osarusan

political analyst wrote: »

At the end of the day, no jury will believe that a girl from a good family would agree to have sex with a boy from a family that has a history of anti-social behaviour.

What a load of nonsense.

Imagine that as a defence. "Members of the jury, the girl comes from a good family, and the boy comes from a bad family, therefore consensual sex is not a possibility, ergo, it must have been nonconsensual. I rest my case."

political analyst

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I'm not sure why you make that assumption. Not commenting on this particular case, but in general when talking about consensual relationships, all kinds of people have relationships with all kinds of people.

osarusan wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

Imagine that as a defence. "Members of the jury, the girl comes from a good family, and the boy comes from a bad family, therefore consensual sex is not a possibility, ergo, it must have been nonconsensual. I rest my case."

In the Scottish case, it was as if the victim (who was known as the complainant until the defendant was found guilty) was on trial.

The victim was a virgin. Before she was raped, she had undergone an operation because of scoliosis. Therefore, she was unable to push the attacker off her.

Therefore, the idea that she would agree to have sex with a thug is absurd.

Gregor Samsa

political analyst wrote: »

Therefore, the idea that she would agree to have sex with a thug is absurd.

People do absurd things all the time, especially when it comes to sex.

Furthermore, that's as ridiculous a thing to say as "The idea that he would rape a woman that ugly/old/disabled is is absurd" - ugly, old and disabled people do unfortunately get raped. Fortunately, we don't judge the merits or otherwise of a rape allegation on the "absurdity" of the interaction between the two people.

Just to be clear, I'm 100% not doubting her or casting any aspersions on her - just responding to the line of reasoning in the OP and subsequent posts.

bobbyy gee

if sex has taken place and there are no injuries it's up to defence to cast the woman or girl as loose or had agreed to the sex.rape happens to men as well. a few of woman have lied about rape so you have to look at all the evidence

clothing is a big part of the evidence

political analyst

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

People do absurd things all the time, especially when it comes to sex.

Furthermore, that's as ridiculous a thing to say as "The idea that he would rape a woman that ugly/old/disabled is is absurd" - ugly, old and disabled people do unfortunately get raped. Fortunately, we don't judge the merits or otherwise of a rape allegation on the "absurdity" of the interaction between the two people.

Just to be clear, I'm 100% not doubting her or casting any aspersions on her - just responding to the line of reasoning in the OP and subsequent posts.

This isn't about the rape of a woman who is unattractive or elderly or disabled.

In the Scottish case, the defendant's advocate argued that the complainant consented to sex and thus, by default, was accusing her of defiling his client, who was under 16 at the time of his crime. The advocate tried to discredit the complainant on the basis that she said his client "ripped" her underwear off her. After she took her own life, her mother said she didn't literally mean that her underwear was "ripped" off her.

political analyst

bobbyy gee wrote: »

if sex has taken place and there are no injuries it's up to defence to cast the woman or girl as loose or had agreed to the sex.rape happens to men as well. a few of woman have lied about rape so you have to look at all the evidence

clothing is a big part of the evidence

In the Scottish case, the defendant couldn't have known what underwear she was wearing before he attacked her. So why should the underwear have been shown in open court?

The defendant's advocate argued that the complainant consented to sex and thus, by default, was accusing her of defiling his client, who was under 16 at the time of his crime. The advocate tried to discredit the complainant on the basis that she said his client "ripped" her underwear off her. After she took her own life, her mother said she didn't literally mean that her underwear was "ripped" off her.

Eric Cartman

osarusan wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

Imagine that as a defence. "Members of the jury, the girl comes from a good family, and the boy comes from a bad family, therefore consensual sex is not a possibility, ergo, it must have been nonconsensual. I rest my case."

well tbh , the premise of another famous rape trial was that a girl from a good family wouldn't possibly consensually involve herself in a threesome with 2 lads.

Theres a hell of a lot of people who have been put away because jurors believe women are very innocent and not sexually adventurous.

Gregor Samsa

political analyst wrote: »

This isn't about the rape of a woman who is unattractive or elderly or disabled.

As I’ve said twice very clearly already, I’m not commenting on this case at all. I’m merely refuting your statement:

“At the end of the day, no jury will believe that a girl from a good family would agree to have sex with a boy from a family that has a history of anti-social behaviour.”

Which is absolute, unmitigated nonsense no matter what way you slice it.

political analyst

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

As I’ve said twice very clearly already, I’m not commenting on this case at all. I’m merely refuting your statement:

“At the end of the day, no jury will believe that a girl from a good family would agree to have sex with a boy from a family that has a history of anti-social behaviour.”

Which is absolute, unmitigated nonsense no matter what way you slice it.

I know rape is about power, not sex. The issue of whether or not a girl from a decent family (of any class background, for that matter) would agree to have sex with a reprobate is separate. Why not comment on the Scottish case?

Grab All Association

This case is been referenced again on Twitter, but wasn’t this debunked?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/underwear-was-not-held-up-during-trial-1.4328638

Quantum Erasure

Grab All Association wrote: »

This case is been referenced again on Twitter, but wasn’t this debunked?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/underwear-was-not-held-up-during-trial-1.4328638

Where, by who?

Mike Murdock

Grab All Association wrote: »

This case is been referenced again on Twitter, but wasn’t this debunked?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/underwear-was-not-held-up-during-trial-1.4328638

The claim that underwear was held up appeared to originate in a British newspaper on foot of comments made by former TD Ruth Coppinger, who was the only person to actually hold up any underwear, doing so in the Dáil on November 13th, 2018.

Coppinger....:rolleyes:

Thread denouement getting less traction than it deserves
If that's true, which it appears to be, its a remarkable revelation.

Eric Cartman

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Thread denouement getting less traction than it deserves
If that's true, which it appears to be, its a remarkable revelation.

so basically the entire premise of this is a Lie by ruth coppinger , I wish I could say I was shocked.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

so basically the entire premise of this is a Lie by ruth coppinger , I wish I could say I was shocked.

And what its done for discourse on rape trials.

Arguing the process needs to be changed to make it less harrowing on complainants (it probably does), using lies about real criminal trials is not the way to do it though.

osarusan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

so basically the entire premise of this is a Lie by ruth coppinger , I wish I could say I was shocked.

Coppinger didn't tell any lies, she held up the thong in the Dail while highlighting that the issue of the woman's underwear had been raised as a defence in court. She didn't say it had been displayed in court.

It was Noeline Blackwell, CEO of the Rape Crisis centre, who misrepresented that as 'who can forget the image of a lawyer holding up a young woman’s underwear in court, implying that wearing particular underclothes implied that she was asking for sex?'

Eric Cartman

osarusan wrote: »

Coppinger didn't tell any lies, she held up the thong in the Dail while highlighting that the issue of the woman's underwear had been raised as a defence in court. She didn't say it has been displayed in court.

It was Noeline Blackwell, CEO of the Rape Crisis centre, who misrepresented that as 'who can forget the image of a lawyer holding up a young woman’s underwear in court, implying that wearing particular underclothes implied that she was asking for sex?'

Except up until now, thats what me and every other person in this thread thought , Ruth never bothered to clear it up because it suited her.

TheValeyard

Mike Murdock wrote: »

Coppinger....:rolleyes:

Timing of thread is interesting. Think she's holding a protest today at the Spire.

osarusan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Except up until now, thats what me and every other person in this thread thought

Not me, I knew what she had said and not said from the start.


You not managing to understand what I was able to understand is somehow Coppinger's fault though, I see.

Grab All Association

Again today on Twitter this case was cited and the underwear held up as fact.

Quantum Erasure

Grab All Association wrote: »

Again today on Twitter this case was cited and the underwear held up as fact.

A lot happens on twitter

biko

Mike Murdock wrote: »

TD Ruth Coppinger, who was the only person to actually hold up any underwear

I saw it so now you have to too




and I am in total agreement that it shouldn't matter what you wear.
A woman should be able to walk around naked and not be at fault if she is raped.