Rape - how important is your underwear


Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
12,155
She absolutely has to defend her client. There's no question of that.

Whether she should have used that particular point about the underwear is what the thread is about.
No she shouldn't have. It's probably the most absurd vile so called piece of evidence I've ever heard of. My jaw dropped when I read it. Unbelievable. She should be dragged through the media and made to account.
 

RodShaft

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
9,620
Enough reasonable doubt was generated that a not guilty verdict was returned.

Juries don't find people innocent.
No. They find them not guilty and the presumption of innocence continues.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
4,603
It's yet another thread on this forum which has flushed out some very disgusting attitudes - those of DE being prominent.
 

Sarellano

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2018
Messages
18
No, but it implies that she's a slut and therefore asking for it and sure you can't blame a bloke for raping a slut who was asking for it (even, apparently, if she's made it clear that she in fact doesn't want it).
It only implies that to people with a poor view of others as you ably demonstrate in your lurid rant. Either way, Its for the prosecution to tell the jury that Mother Theresa was innocently picking daisies in the fields at the time. Thats the adversarial system. The assumptions on this thread are breathtaking.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,069
Maybe she changed her mind when she was in the alleyway, maybe he seemed really cool inside in the club, but weird and creepy outside? Maybe a bit rapey even? Someone who wants to hurt a woman rather than just have sex with her?
To me the reference to the thong was in very poor taste. Since it was an under garment it does not fall into the traditional 'asking for it' category which I thought was no longer acceptable in courtrooms. But this one was slightly different in that instead of notionally sending out the 'I'm available' signal it was instead suggested as an indication of the disposition of the complainant herself to find someone to have sex with-anyone will do by implication- a ridiculous and offensive proposition which amounted to a handy way to call her a slut and which diminishes the court by its being allowed to stand

On another issue -it was suggested earlier in the thread that going to bed with some one was not necessarily an agreement to have sex. While this might be correct in a technical kind of way I believe that in reality this is not the case. I believe that if you go to bed with some one you are agreeing to have sex with them and it is entirely reasonable that people in a jury or anywhere else make that assumption. Now as against this -is it possible to be raped by the person that you've agreed to go to bed with-sure of course it is but this involves saying no when you've already said yes and usually the no is a verbal denial of permission which instantly disappears into the ether while you've already said yes in a manner which generally can't be denied afterwards so that any jury has virtually no choice except to find the case not proven and in this case it seems that the doubt about the complainant having been dragged into the muddy lane seems to have led to a similar conclusion. In other words the thinking seems to be that if she went into the lane with him voluntarily the sex was likely to have been consensual. Anyway -isn't it great that we don't know any names involved.
 

twokidsmanybruises

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
6,896
To me the reference to the thong was in very poor taste. Since it was an under garment it does not fall into the traditional 'asking for it' category which I thought was no longer acceptable in courtrooms. But this one was slightly different in that instead of notionally sending out the 'I'm available' signal it was instead suggested as an indication of the disposition of the complainant herself to find someone to have sex with-anyone will do by implication- a ridiculous and offensive proposition which amounted to a handy way to call her a slut and which diminishes the court by its being allowed to stand

On another issue -it was suggested earlier in the thread that going to bed with some one was not necessarily an agreement to have sex. While this might be correct in a technical kind of way I believe that in reality this is not the case. I believe that if you go to bed with some one you are agreeing to have sex with them and it is entirely reasonable that people in a jury or anywhere else make that assumption. Now as against this -is it possible to be raped by the person that you've agreed to go to bed with-sure of course it is but this involves saying no when you've already said yes and usually the no is a verbal denial of permission which instantly disappears into the ether while you've already said yes in a manner which generally can't be denied afterwards so that any jury has virtually no choice except to find the case not proven and in this case it seems that the doubt about the complainant having been dragged into the muddy lane seems to have led to a similar conclusion. In other words the thinking seems to be that if she went into the lane with him voluntarily the sex was likely to have been consensual. Anyway -isn't it great that we don't know any names involved.
Reading the link in the OP, the reference to the girl"s underwear seems, like you say, ridiculous and offensive, but also completely unnecessary. Yes, she willingly went down the lane with him, but she revoked her consent by saying "no". The issue, as far as I can get from the information given, is that the boy claims that he did stop when she said "no", but the girl claims that he didn't. So it's a "he says/she says" situation and there is no objective third party who can provide evidence to support one side or the other. Clothing choices had absolutely nothing to do with it, so there wasn't a need for his lawyer to bring it into the case in the first place.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
6,717
They do. That's what it means when you return a not guilty verdict. Because if there is not enough evidence to convict you, then you must be considered innocent in all public fora. Your suggestion otherwise is unfair and irresponsible.
And that seems to increasingly be a problem, certainly in the Anglosphere, where people found not guilty in sex offence prosecutions are not presumed innocent as happens in other acquittals, We witnessed an outbreak of mass hysteria on the streets of Dublin earlier this year following one trial which resulted in acquittals, and for the life of me I cannot understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they could have had a greater insight into that trial than the actual jury, who reached a verdict so quickly as to indicate that they were in little doubt about the correctness of the verdict.
It was all the weirder as it resulted from a prosecution brought in Belfast, which, in other circumstances it would have received as much attention if it had been tried in Belgrade, given the usual indifference towards anything that happens north of the Carrickdale Hotel.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,566
And that seems to increasingly be a problem, certainly in the Anglosphere, where people found not guilty in sex offence prosecutions are not presumed innocent as happens in other acquittals, We witnessed an outbreak of mass hysteria on the streets of Dublin earlier this year following one trial which resulted in acquittals, and for the life of me I cannot understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they could have had a greater insight into that trial than the actual jury, who reached a verdict so quickly as to indicate that they were in little doubt about the correctness of the verdict.
It was all the weirder as it resulted from a prosecution brought in Belfast, which, in other circumstances it would have received as much attention if it had been tried in Belgrade, given the usual indifference towards anything that happens north of the Carrickdale Hotel.
Mass hysteria? When was that?
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
12,155
And that seems to increasingly be a problem, certainly in the Anglosphere, where people found not guilty in sex offence prosecutions are not presumed innocent as happens in other acquittals, We witnessed an outbreak of mass hysteria on the streets of Dublin earlier this year following one trial which resulted in acquittals, and for the life of me I cannot understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they could have had a greater insight into that trial than the actual jury, who reached a verdict so quickly as to indicate that they were in little doubt about the correctness of the verdict.
It was all the weirder as it resulted from a prosecution brought in Belfast, which, in other circumstances it would have received as much attention if it had been tried in Belgrade, given the usual indifference towards anything that happens north of the Carrickdale Hotel.
The spin is 'Not Guilty' does not equate to innocent, forgetting completely that the presumption is innocent to start with therefore not guilty means innocent.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,977
She was absolutely right to bring it up. Her job is to defend the client and that evidence could point towards at the very least an intention to ride. That is relevant and material. Grow up. The man was acquitted and that should be the end of it, but instead we get the usual bunch of feminist nutjobs trying to gerrymander a fair process. If the jury decides something is relevant then it is relevant.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,480
A unanimous verdict of a jury including 4 women is pretty clear. Though the underwear thing is pretty outrageous, it doesn't necessarily mean that the jury paid much heed to it. One hopes that the prosecuting counsel rebutted the point anyway. The whole scene sounded so tawdry though (on a muddy lane ffs)

I think the age difference is a more significant factor. If she were a year younger then all it would have needed was proof that penetration occurred and he'd have been guilty of a sex crime.

Yet some people want the age of consent reduced even further....!
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,522
Apparently wearing lacy underwear means that you are looking for sex:

Counsel for man acquitted of rape suggested jurors should reflect on underwear worn by teen complainant | Irish Examiner


So ladies, if you ever get raped because you're dressed up, don't bother going to court if you wore lacy undergarments as it will be used against you.

Nice underwear is a sign of being sexual available apparently.

"Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”
Incredible comments. She should have been reprimanded by the judge for such idiotic comments. How does she sleep at night?
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,522
This is getting into George Hook territory.

The concept of contributory negligence should be taken into account. I am entitled to walk on the road without being run over, but if I suddenly run across the M50 and get hit, well, I have contributed somewhat to my predicament.

Thus if a young woman is dressed in a manner clearly designed to be provocative, and ends up having a problem, then there is a degree of contributory negligence there. It doesnt condone or excuse rape etc, but if you deliberately put yourself in harms way, dont be surprised if you get harmed.

That all said, I cant quite reconcile the "lacy thong" argument. Unless she was wearing no skirt or trousers what relevance does the lacy thong have? If theyve got that far where he can inpsect her lacy thong then its a bit late to be shouting stop.
Jesus wept. The M50 is a place for cars, so unless a driver deliberately runs you over, there is no crime.

What a woman wears is no excuse for raping her. It is not a justification. She is not being reckless. She is not being negligent.

If a man can't control himself when he sees a woman in a state of undress, he should take the voluntary decision to lock himself in his house or cut his **** off.
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
12,155
She was absolutely right to bring it up. Her job is to defend the client and that evidence could point towards at the very least an intention to ride. That is relevant and material. Grow up. The man was acquitted and that should be the end of it, but instead we get the usual bunch of feminist nutjobs trying to gerrymander a fair process. If the jury decides something is relevant then it is relevant.
How does this piece of evidence point to an intention to ride?
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,522
She was absolutely right to bring it up. Her job is to defend the client and that evidence could point towards at the very least an intention to ride. That is relevant and material. Grow up. The man was acquitted and that should be the end of it, but instead we get the usual bunch of feminist nutjobs trying to gerrymander a fair process. If the jury decides something is relevant then it is relevant.
Your wife might have gone out with a fancy slicer on, with the intention of sending you a picture of them pushed to one side with a couple of fingers up her royal canal, to keep you ticking over while you rubbed a couple off at home.

But instead some bastard got a hold of her and raped her before she could do as she intended.
 

MsDaisyC

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Messages
3,673
How does this piece of evidence point to an intention to ride?
Teenage girl wears fashionable underwear that reduces chance of VPL = gaggin' for it. Did you not listen to the defending barrister.

I wonder what the barrister would have said if the teenage girl decided to not wear underwear to avoid VPL completely?
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
34,936
It only implies that to people with a poor view of others as you ably demonstrate in your lurid rant. Either way, Its for the prosecution to tell the jury that Mother Theresa was innocently picking daisies in the fields at the time. Thats the adversarial system. The assumptions on this thread are breathtaking.

Whatever.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
6,717
Mass hysteria? When was that?
What was the #Ibelieveher stuff all about? The protest march? The O'Riordan guy making an utter tit out of himself by defaming the men who were exonerated? How on earth could those people be so arrogant as to think they knew better than the jury?
People should be protesting about the numerous false convictions in the court system rather than the other way around. And how could those people be so arrogant as to presume to have a better insight into the verdict than a fairly assembled jury? It was a mass display of idiocy, and absolutely pointless because it wasn't going to change anything anyway.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,127
There is no excuse for rape. But equally people should takemeasures to reduce the chances of becoming a victim. I do think dress is a relevant issue. There are a lot of young women that walk around town at night like they are professional strippers. I have no interest in women as I am LGBT, but I think when you dress like that, you are clearly looking to hook up with a man (or in a minority cases with a woman). Now that doesnt justify rape, but it does perhaps explain why some men may get the wrong idea.

At the same time, I think that unless the underwear is being worne without anything over it, how that looks is not necessarily something that should matter to a judge.
Can you clarify what you think is suitable clothing for us women to wear going out at night?
Can you clarify which items of clothing give men the idea that you are looking to be raped?
Can you clarify what wrong idea do men get from your clothing as regards rape?
Can you clarify how underwear matters if there is nothing being worn over it as regards rape?
 
Top