Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Yes, because that was the entire case for the Defense. Just because it was all that was mentioned in this article doesn't mean it's the only thing the Defense talked about.

If he really did commit the crime, then they'll appeal the decision and he'll eventually be found guilty. The Burden of Proof is on the Prosecution, Innocent Until Proven Guilty, all that jazz. If he was let off, then the Prosecution didn't prove the case beyond Reasonable Doubt.

 

[Distorted Stu]

So the fact he went to rape this poor girl, and apperntly didnt succeed is just left off the hook? Its like pointing a gun at people, then not shooting, then getting away with it beause their bones were protecting their squishy insides.

Oh, and its piss easy to take Skinny Jeans off forcfully.

Nice to see that people believe everything they read on the internet. Seriously? Do you even know how a trial works?

People point at eachother, shout objection, read minds, shrink people and its hiliarious.
Ive learnt everything i know about law & order from video games & Harvery Birdman.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

...are you fucking kidding me?

This is a joke right?

That's like saying...fuck I don't even know what that's like! It's so goddamn stupid and ridiculous that I can't even think of an analogy for it.

I have to agree. The jury was obviously comprised of retards.

Didn't the judge have the authority to overrule the jury's decision?
Was he dense too?

Hi, welcome to the bandwagon, be sure not to trip over the other droolers.

 

[Grampy_bone]

Well, on the one hand, false rape accusations occur frequently, and this would not be the first time a girl went home with a guy and had sex with him only to regret it later. Time and time again I have had women request to be "taken roughly." It's a tough call for any jury, and scary for men.

On the other hand this really does sound like a variation on the "she was asking for it" defense. As they say, a jury is the only animal with 12 assholes and no brain.

My advice for women is, if you don't want to have sex with a guy, don't go back to his place. I'm not saying you deserve to be raped if you do, but the fact is it will be hard to prove. Better to avoid the situation altogether if you're unsure. Too many women allow men to lead them around and then try to shirk responsibility for it.

And for guys my advice is to videotape all your bed partners so you can prove it wasn't rape!

 

[8bitlove2a03]

There are never single factors in life. There are always mitigating factors. The media is likely reporting it like it was just the skinny jeans for pure sensationalism. So let's wait for all the documents to be released if we really care about passing judgment on the jurors, hmmm?

 

[icaritos]

It's just so hypocritical to judge the supposed victim just because the supposed attacker was acquitted. Just because there was some doubt that doesn't mean you have the right to judge the victim all some doubt means is that you don't have the right to judge the attacker. The attack still could have happened, the attack still could have been attempted, or any number of things, but I just love how it automatically becomes. "He was acquitted, so I'm going to say she was lying, and just regretted having sex with him when her boyfriend found out . lol" or "He was acquitted so I'm going to bring up how much people lie and then relate it to this case, yay!"

Not to be difficult, but the only actual information we have is the following:

Two people met.
They went and had sex.
Woman cried rape.
Jury went rofl.

All other things being equal, this gives a pretty good message that (somewhere along the line), she probably WAS lying.

And given that the jury found him innocent, I'd argue that the DUDE was most likely the victim - of the woman's unfounded (else he'd have been convicted) accusations. Potentially, she's guilty of perjury - especially if there's any truth to her changing her story during the case. That would make HER the criminal who's getting away with it - the past few months must have been hell for the dude - harrassment in anyone's book.

But I'll say it again. WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW. So why's everyone getting their panties in a twist?

Also part of her lie involved how she did not know him well, when the jury later found out he is her friends ex-boyfriend. Im not saying anything here, just giving the facts make of that what you wish.

 

[Mcface]

A man in Australia was recently acquitted of the rape charges he was faced with, because the defense said it would be impossible, or very unlikely he would be able to get the woman's skinny jeans down without her consent.

This is ridiculous. My girlfriend wears skinny jeans all the time, and I have no trouble getting them off. Granted, she isn't trying to fight me.. but regardless, it's easily possible. Skinny jeans are no tighter around the waist than a normal pair of jeans, they are just tighter around the thighs and legs. How the Jury didn't realize you only have to pull them down to a certain point before you have "access" is beyond me.

Fellow Escapists, what do you think? Are the charges being dropped on the account of "she was wearing skinny jeans" bogus? Or do you think it's a solid defense?

( http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/05/05/skinny-jeans-lead-to-acquittal-in-australian-rape-case/?icid=main|aim|dl8|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemondrop.com%2F2010%2F05%2F05%2Fskinny-jeans-lead-to-acquittal-in-australian-rape-case%2F )

what people are not understanding is that there is more to this case than beats the eye, were the hell is the evidence that she even WAS raped? were the hell is the DNA evidence? If there is no evidence that she was raped then obviously there is no reason that she should be taken seriously, and its impossible to charge the accused with rape.

There WAS DNA evidence.
The defense was however, it was with her consent. Meaning, he didn't rape her, they had sex. Their point was, the skinny jeans were too tight to take off by himself, which is just dumb. It's not about if he was guilty or not, I was just appalled that this was actually a defense tactic, and that someone on the jury actually bought into it.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Hi, welcome to the bandwagon, be sure not to trip over the other droolers.

What is that supposed to mean?

I don't know, maybe you should draw some sort of conclusion from it without any context...

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

Doesn't matter if he managed to get them down. He tried and that should be enough. Shouldn't be to hard to get a pair of tight jeans of though.

that isnt the issue here

they had sex. the issue is whether or not she consented and later cried rape.

the author the op cites wasn't at the trial, we don't have a great deal of information on what else was involved, but there is some (look through the other 8 pages).

some evidence such as her changing story, her being a friend of his ex (this could be a big one and would provide a lot of insight if we knew how both sides used it), these could fe have put a shadow of doubt on his guilt and forced the jury to declare not guilty

"During the trial the woman said she had followed Mr Gonzalez to his room where he had played the drums before pushing her onto the bed, ripping off her skinny jeans and raping her.

The counsel representing Mr Gonzalez, Paul Hogan, argued that she had not been a credible or reliable witness during the trial; that she had exaggerated the level of her studies and that she had made up the story about the drum to provide a reason for going up to his room that did not include her desire to have sex." quote from http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/3658591/Man-acquitted-in-skinny-jean-rape-case-loses-appeal-for-costs

we need to see the entire transcript for this case to make a non biased opinion of this case. All we got is biased opinions from news reporters and bloggers.

 

[Kenni-chan]

I'd say yeah. I wear skinny's 90% of the time and they're a **** to get off even when I'm letting my BF pull 'em down

 

[GrinningManiac]

Was he acquitted PURELY on the jean-based point?

I highly doubt that

There was doubtlessly other eviden..ces? Evidii?

What the feck is the plural of Evidence?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Was he acquitted PURELY on the jean-based point?

I highly doubt that

There was doubtlessly other eviden..ces? Evidii?

What the feck is the plural of Evidence?

There is no plural.
Same as sheep.

 

[Superbeast]

Was he acquitted PURELY on the jean-based point?

I highly doubt that

There was doubtlessly other eviden..ces? Evidii?

What the feck is the plural of Evidence?

Just "evidence".

"Here's a piece of evidence"
"There are 9 pieces of evidence"
"The total amount of evidence for the trial"

...are you fucking kidding me?

This is a joke right?

That's like saying...fuck I don't even know what that's like! It's so goddamn stupid and ridiculous that I can't even think of an analogy for it.

I have to agree. The jury was obviously comprised of retards.

Didn't the judge have the authority to overrule the jury's decision?
Was he dense too?

See my post - 227, page 7.

Explains why complaining that the Jury/Judge are retarded is a pretty stupid move, particularly based of a single blog entry.

 

[Kaymish]

well since the jury being right is the cornerstone of any justice system yes they are right

and besides that may not be the only issue preventing them from convicting him

i was on a trial where a woman killed a 3 year old and the defence was the kid was clumsy and he did it to himself it was obvious that someone had murdered this kid but we couldn't tell weather it was the drug dealing farther or the unemployed uncle with hordes of dogs or the mother we had to sort the truth from a pack of half lies and easily explained away/reinterpreted forensic evidence

you cant know what the jury was thinking and what other evidence was there and without that you cant tell weather the jury discovered the truth or not and there 12 of them listening to the whole detail and examining it for days on end because it was their job they were right no matter what you think

 

[Daystar Clarion]

well since the jury being right is the cornerstone of any justice system yes they are right

and besides that may not be the only issue preventing them from convicting him

i was on a trial where a woman killed a 3 year old and the defence was the kid was clumsy and he did it to himself it was obvious that someone had murdered this kid but we couldn't tell weather it was the drug dealing farther or the unemployed uncle with hordes of dogs or the mother we had to sort the truth from a pack of half lies and easily explained away/reinterpreted forensic evidence

you cant know what the jury was thinking and what other evidence was there and without that you cant tell weather the jury discovered the truth or not and there 12 of them listening to the whole detail and examining it for days on end because it was their job they were right no matter what you think

Exactly, people are treating this jury as if they had sat in court for 20 minutes and then decided on one piece of evidence. These things take days, even weeks to come to a conclusion. It isn't something done lightly.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Hi, welcome to the bandwagon, be sure not to trip over the other droolers.

What is that supposed to mean?

I don't know, maybe you should draw some sort of conclusion from it without any context...

I was not looking for context. I am not familiar with the expression "welcome to the bandwagon" and the word "drooler".

BTW I never expressed an opinion in regards to him being guilty or not. My comment was strictly aimed at the fact they used a pair of tight jeans as evidence that provedbeyond any reasonable doubt that the man was innocent.

Frankly, the article does NOT offer much information about the case as a whole...my point is this:

If the jury's decision was primarily based on the fact the girl was wearing tight jeans and ignored other evidence in favor of that fact, then the whole thing is a joke.
If on the other hand there were NOT enough evidence presented by the prosecutor to prove the girl was in fact a victim of violence and rape (medical records, bruises, marks, scars, skin tissue under nails, teared clothes, etc) then the man was rightly found NOT guilty.

I hope that clears things up.

Indeed, just making sure that you don't get your burdens of proof mixed up. The prosecution have to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Not innocence.