Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans

[Superbeast]

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 this clears things up.

In that case we agree.

My point was all the people yelling "LOL-fail, shoot them all!" over a single. blogger. post. on the matter, which is a very sensationalist website that is extremely likely to cut out other facts (of the acquittal) in order to generate hits and silly threads like these.

Although the jeans alone *could* be enough to generate "reasonable doubt", if they contradicted the complainant's accounts enough (i.e. she said they were torn and that he was licking them - and there's not a scratch nor any saliva traces on them [sub]this is an example, not what happened, folks. Just clarifying[/sub]) which is somewhat less stupid, wouldn't you say?

But in all likelihood (which my previous post went into) there is a lot more deciding information and the jeans were either an off-hand comment from a single juror, or were a small factor in a far larger deliberation. Just hasn't been mentioned to stir shit up.

 

[tjarne]

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 have put a shadow of doubt on his guilt and forced the jury to declare not guilty

Your'e absolutely right. My point is that not being able to pull the pants down doesn't absolve you. i didn't read it all, maybe I should. I only answered the question.

 

[oktalist]

Seriously, this thread is still alive? A very bad reflection on the Escapist readership's average IQ. Shame.

This kind of trumped-up contrivance of a non-story not only damages the moral authority of the rule of law as a whole but also does damage to those who are truly campaigning for women's rights based on actual real facts.

Well, well done to those who continue to point out that the article is highly misleading and misrepresentative and intended to be read by thickos who would believe the headline "UFO spotted over Swansea" unconditionally and without question and without reading the actual article that goes with the headline.

What is that supposed to mean?

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

That reply is full of win.

My comment was strictly aimed at the fact they used a pair of tight jeans as evidence that proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the man was innocent.

They didn't. The point of a trial is not to prove beyond any reasonable doubt a person's innocence. That would be "guilty until proven innocent" which is patently absurd (and, incidentally, a Daily Mail columnist's wet dream). [small]EDIT: (sort of) ninja'd. And anyway, even if the case had hung on the jeans evidence, we are talking about a specific pair of jeans, not just skinny jeans in general, and if they had been more important to the case then they would have been investigated in more detail, perhaps been presented to the court, maybe with someone of the same figure as the complainant wearing them to see how easy they are to get off, and this would not create a legal precedent of any kind covering skinny jeans in general. That would be the right thing to do if the decision to convict or acquit had been a very marginal one, to ensure jailing the maximum number of rapists and the minimum number of innocent people. But it was not a marginal decision, because the prosecution's case collapsed due to having crap evidence, so all that is academic.[/small]

Frankly, the article does NOT offer much information about the case as a whole

Well done for spotting THAT.

If the jury's decision was primarily based on the fact the girl was wearing tight jeans

OF COURSE it wasn't!

 

[Krion_Vark]

Really Australia. This is why you guys die of a nuclear winter in End of Ze World.

Nice to see how a blog giving a very bare-bones summary of one aspect of a trial is enough to get you to judge an entire country. Do you really want us Aussies to go through your countries dirty laundry and bring up all the retarded court decisions you guys have made?

I actually brought up two stupid decisions by the American Court System. Or are you oblivious to what "If the glove don't fit you must acquit, and the Twinkie defense are?"

Also I read it not on that blog but on a different site and it actually brought up other countries that the skinny jeans defense didn't stand.

 

[Plazmatic]

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.

... were? were is your source? I didn't see anything that pointed out that there was DNA evidence. If there really is then you should have stated your source. If you get a source I will concede that you are correct, this is ridiculous, other wise it makes sense.

 

[TheProfessor134]

Lolol wat. Just, wat? x.x.

First I read about a grandmother wanting to have a kid with her grandson, now I read this.
I have no words.



Wat.

 

[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.

... were? were is your source? I didn't see anything that pointed out that there was DNA evidence. If there really is then you should have stated your source. If you get a source I will concede that you are correct, this is ridiculous, other wise it makes sense.

I'm too lazy. someone linked an Australian news paper article above that should confirm it.

 

[Low Key]

... were? were is your source? I didn't see anything that pointed out that there was DNA evidence. If there really is then you should have stated your source. If you get a source I will concede that you are correct, this is ridiculous, other wise it makes sense.

As skeptical as I am about this case being decided by a pair of jeans, yes there is DNA evidence because the two clearly had sex. The question at this point is "was it consensual"? Given the context clues, I'd say it was consensual until the day after when the woman regretted having sex with the guy, but that's my opinion.

 

[luckshot]

... were? were is your source? I didn't see anything that pointed out that there was DNA evidence. If there really is then you should have stated your source. If you get a source I will concede that you are correct, this is ridiculous, other wise it makes sense.

As skeptical as I am about this case being decided by a pair of jeans, yes there is DNA evidence because the two clearly had sex. The question at this point is "was it consensual"? Given the context clues, I'd say it was consensual until the day after when the woman regretted having sex with the guy, but that's my opinion.

that'd probably be when his ex talked her all pissed off

 

[Orekoya]

This was a pointless waste of time to read this thread. Unless you are among the jury or staff of the courtroom, your opinions are meaningless. That's all I have to offer you.

Voted 'I don't have an opinion on the case.'

 

[Danpascooch]

OK - you may find it a little crazy, but what if he was actually telling the truth and he didn't rape her? There are plenty of fucked-up women out there too (not as many as men admittedly, but still).

The law works on the basis of proving something "beyond reasonable doubt", if the prosecution can't do that, then tough.

He was found innocent by a jury of his peers and his life wasn't ruined by a (possibly) wrongful rape conviction. As far as I'm concerned, he's innocent.

EDIT: The idea of skinny jeans being a reason to let somebody off a rape charge may seem silly to you but if it convinced a jury that this man was innocent (in combination with other evidence) then that is fair and final. Just because she could remove her jeans without difficulty doesn't mean he could. -snip- removed an incorrect point here. -snip-

As for the article itself, it reeks of self-involved, entirely subjective whining.
As for "As she so astutely put it, ''Any piece of clothing can be removed with force.''" - get a fucking brain; In this case, this not only implies that he had the ability to deliver the requisite force to remove them in the first place, but that he had the additional strength to restrain a scared and panicking woman whilst doing so. Neither argument is raised in the article to any sufficient level.

In short, on a case by case basis THERE IS ALWAYS room for evidence that in other scenarios may seem ridiculous; unless you were there or have the full court transcripts then you are in a far inferior position to decide than the jury: Fact.

She calls "bullshit" on the jury's verdict - I call "bullshit" on her feeble attempts at journalism.

N.B. I'm not saying the man in question appears to be entirely innocent of all forms of harassment (unless of course she is making it ALL up), but if the jury has decided he is innocent of rape, then he is, to all intents and purposes, innocent of rape.

I agree that if the jeans were part of a greater tapestry of evidence showing his innocence it's fine, but not as a standalone "You have to be innocent because of this" thing.

 

[Sorbs]

I don't understand what the debate is about. The majority of people have decided he is guilty whilst knowing only one part of the case.

As for why the jury asked "how exactly Nick took off her jeans", this question was asked because the defendants lawyer brought the topic up in the case. Of course the jury should be asking questions into this.

The fact is he wasn't aquited purely on this reason. There were other factors, and it was decided that she was a consetting party, at the time of intercourse, and so he was found not guilty. She may have been absolutely drunk and decided in the morning that she regretted it. Or she may honestly have had no memory of the situation, even though at the time she agreed to it.

And the article that lemon drop is referencing from, is a blog on a women's rights website. Hardly a perfect journalistic review of the case.

So to sum up, I basically think that as soon as you call someone a rapist, most of the public will agree and the stigma will stick, which is unfortunate.

 

[Requx]

This is what happens when you ship a whole bunch of criminals and a pair of skinny jeans to a country....crazy juries

 

[Marv21]

Ummmmmmm.....how tight were these said Jeans?....as he describes them they would cut circulation off to legs and maybe even be attached on the molecular level to her legs if he is as tight as he describes them.

 

[4484448444844484]

wtf.

that is all.

 

[WorldCritic]

You're kidding, are they seriously that stupid?

 

[Fire Daemon]

I'm too lazy. someone linked an Australian news paper article above that should confirm it.

I posted two links back on page 2, I don't know if that is what you are talking about but I haven't seen any other Australian news paper articles linked.

Anyway, as far as I know there was no DNA evidence (CSI much) but there was evidence of trauma, which I believe means bruising. That bruising could have happened from consensual sex so I could understand if a jury is skeptical in accepting it as proof of rape.

Even if there was DNA evidence found that wouldn't prove anything. The trial was more focused on whether the sex was consensual or not, not whether sex did or did not occur.