Man acquitted of rape, because woman was wearing "skinny jeans"

[LuckyDan]

I don't understand why anyone would rape in Australia, we have the easiest women on the planet.

Shit, a colorful pair of flip flops can get you laid in Perth.

Australian man: Fancy a ****, honey?
Australian Woman: I do now, you sweet talkin' bastard!

 

[JW Frogen]

They don't call us 'the lucky country' for no reason.

 

[LuckyDan]

They don't call us 'the lucky country' for no reason.

Tell me. I got that joke from Elle McPherson. (Who's boobs I've seen, btw.)

 

[JW Frogen]

Tell me. I got that joke from Elle McPherson. (Who's boobs I've seen, btw.)

More details on the boobs.

 

[LuckyDan]

Tell me. I got that joke from Elle McPherson. (Who's boobs I've seen, btw.)

More details on the boobs.

She's quite tall, of course. Willowy. Lovely breasts, I'd say 36C with a slighlty heavy downward cast, but widely cleaved, wiith smallish brown nipples. Charming.

 

[manifold]

The issue and the reason they had a trial is not because she is accused of doing something that could send her away for the rest of her life. It is because he has been accused by her of rape, and the only proof that he actually raped her is her word. That means there is no proof.

Then what's with all this skinny jeans nonsense?

If there is really no evidence sufficient to convict this guy of rape, why any need to bring her jeans into the deliberation? I honestly do not know one single thing about this case beyond the jeans defense. I mean shit, that's why it's any story at all. Otherwise it's just another rape case. And I'm saying that regardless of the amount of real evidence against this guy, the jeans defense is total bullshit.

53% of the population is more equal than the 47% who get dragged into court on unverifiable he-said/she-said here-say allegations and often spend decades in prison because they aren't Kennedys who can afford to prove themselves innocent.

And what does that have to do with the skinny jeans defense?

 

[xotoxi]

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"

 

[manifold]

It seems to me that many of the posts have little to do with this story specifically, and instead echo the very legitimate gripe that the presumption of innocence doesn't extend to rape cases. That is, when a woman accuses a man of rape, he is presumed to be guilty and must prove his innocence, rather than the accuser proving his guilt. This is an unfortunate reality. But again, the fact that the accuser wore skinny jeans does not prove any damn thing, either way. Is there honestly anyone here that thinks it does?

 

[editec]

It seems to me that many of the posts have little to do with this story specifically, and instead echo the very legitimate gripe that the presumption of innocence doesn't extend to rape cases. That is, when a woman accuses a man of rape, he is presumed to be guilty and must prove his innocence, rather than the accuser proving his guilt. This is an unfortunate reality. But again, the fact that the accuser wore skinny jeans does not prove any damn thing, either way. Is there honestly anyone here that thinks it does?

I don't think that's the way it works, unless the perp is black, the victim white and the case is tried in certain part of this nation.

Hereabouts, the state must first prove that sexual intercourse happened, and also that it was non concentual.

Now I do not doubt that men go to prison for rape unjustly.

Hell, people go to prison for all sorts of crimes they did not commit.

But I think you're wildly overstating the problem.


Leastwise, I hope so.

 

[Modbert]

It seems to me that many of the posts have little to do with this story specifically, and instead echo the very legitimate gripe that the presumption of innocence doesn't extend to rape cases. That is, when a woman accuses a man of rape, he is presumed to be guilty and must prove his innocence, rather than the accuser proving his guilt. This is an unfortunate reality. But again, the fact that the accuser wore skinny jeans does not prove any damn thing, either way. Is there honestly anyone here that thinks it does?

I agree Mani. I think the whole idea of presumed guilt and then having to prove your innocence instead of vice versa is an unfortunate reality to say the least.

 

[manifold]

It seems to me that many of the posts have little to do with this story specifically, and instead echo the very legitimate gripe that the presumption of innocence doesn't extend to rape cases. That is, when a woman accuses a man of rape, he is presumed to be guilty and must prove his innocence, rather than the accuser proving his guilt. This is an unfortunate reality. But again, the fact that the accuser wore skinny jeans does not prove any damn thing, either way. Is there honestly anyone here that thinks it does?

I don't think that's the way it works, unless the perp is black, the victim white and the case is tried in certain part of this nation.

Hereabouts, the state must first prove that sexual intercourse happened, and also that it was non concentual.

Now I do not doubt that men go to prison for rape unjustly.

Hell, people go to prison for all sorts of crimes they did not commit.

But I think you're wildly overstating the problem.


Leastwise, I hope so.

I don't think it's a huge problem, as you seem to have inferred. I'm simply saying that when a woman accuses a man of rape, it's human nature to want to believe her. And even given this reality, I'd still surmise that more rapists go free than wrongly accused go to prison. Way more in fact.

 

[KissMy]

Seems rather spurious to me.

Like a would be rapist couldn't just threaten to beat the shit out of his victim if she doesn't let him pull off her pants.

I guess if the woman opts to be raped, rather than beaten and raped, she consented.

If you are going to claim rape, you should have some bruises to show you at least resisted. She got drunk, went home with the guy & then up to his bedroom. Now she sobers up & claims rape. I need a little more proof than a drunk persons word.

Rape is rape asshole. You don't need bruises to prove it.

I never said rape is not rape dumb ass. I said you need more proof than the word of a drunk woman who willingly went to a strange guys bedroom. Because people LIE especially drunken hoes. This is why we are presumed innocent until proven guilty & we are judged by a jury of our peers.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If you are going to claim rape, you should have some bruises to show you at least resisted. She got drunk, went home with the guy & then up to his bedroom. Now she sobers up & claims rape. I need a little more proof than a drunk persons word.

Rape is rape asshole. You don't need bruises to prove it.

I never said rape is not rape dumb ass. I said you need more proof than the word of a drunk woman who willingly went to a strange guys bedroom. Because people LIE especially drunken hoes. This is why we are presumed innocent until proven guilty & we are judged by a jury of our peers.

Why do you assume the victim was drunk in this case?