Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans

[oktalist]

Here we have an Escapist aggregating Lemondrop aggregating Care2 aggregating The Frisky and just why are you reading a girls' magazine anyway?

The fact that skinny jeans alone are the reason he aquitted is just dumb.

It wasn't the only reason. It was a very small item in a list of reasons. Top of the list being, no compelling evidence of guilt.

"Innocent until proven guilty," I think you must've heard of it.

So believing he is innocent makes one more mature or intelligent than if one believes he is guilty?

Thankfully, what you or I believe is of no importance whatsoever.

'The jury agreed. During the trial, they wanted to know more about "how exactly Nick took off her jeans" in order to make their decision.

'"I doubt those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration," read a juror's note.'

It seems very likely the main reason he was acquitted was because of the jeans. That is what the whole thread and article are about.

And the source is...*drumroll*... The Daily Mail and the New York Daily News!

Anyone can be selective in which parts of a story they report.

The complainant was found to have lied about other things which happened that night. And again, could offer no substantive evidence in support of her version of events. End of story. And what a paltry story it was, too.

Misleading articles like this only serve to precondition potential future jurors to be more likely to convict innocent people, and generally get people wound up about the judicial system. Newspaper owners don't like the courts because they often end up on the wrong side of them.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Yet another group of people to add to my ever growing depopulation list...Stupid jurors.

Total faith in humanity: -3x10^8

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Here we have an Escapist aggregating Lemondrop aggregating Care2 aggregating The Frisky and just why are you reading a girls' magazine anyway?

The fact that skinny jeans alone are the reason he aquitted is just dumb.

It wasn't the only reason. It was a very small item in a list of reasons. Top of the list being, no compelling evidence of guilt.

"Innocent until proven guilty," I think you must've heard of it.

So believing he is innocent makes one more mature or intelligent than if one believes he is guilty?

Thankfully, what you or I believe is of no importance whatsoever.

'The jury agreed. During the trial, they wanted to know more about "how exactly Nick took off her jeans" in order to make their decision.

'"I doubt those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration," read a juror's note.'

It seems very likely the main reason he was acquitted was because of the jeans. That is what the whole thread and article are about.

And the source is...*drumroll*... The Daily Mail and the New York Daily News!

Anyone can be selective in which parts of a story they report.

The complainant was found to have lied about other things which happened that night. And again, could offer no substantive evidence in support of her version of events. End of story. And what a paltry story it was, too.

Hey, looky here! Another objective observer not swayed by everything the intarwebz claims to be fact. It gets harder and harder to find people like you. Good job.

 

[Wardnath]

ITT: We jump to conclusions based on one side of the story.

Yet another group of people to add to my ever growing depopulation list...Stupid jurors.

Total faith in humanity: -3x10^8

wat

 

[direkiller]

"If the glove don't fit, you gotta acquit.". Or in this case "If the jeans are skinny fit, you gotta acquit" xD
The guy must have had Johnny Cochran for his lawyer.

no offense to Johnyy C but i think even a first year law student would be able to get that case overturned when the glove dint fit, and there was no boddy

EDIT OT: there has to be more to it then that. Sorry i dont trust the media to report all details only ones that seem to sell papers

 

[Starke]

...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.

Well said. You've captured my feelings on the subject succinctly.

 

[antipunt]

Blargh... I'm going to go off and pretend this type of stuff never happens.

Yup...this is pretty much what I have to do each and every time.

...
:sigh:

 

[Brad Shepard]

God i love idiots...

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I have to ask, was there no other evidence presented? Was the entire case built around these goddamn jeans?

 

[Blatherscythe]

Skinny jeans are too hard to get off, it may be hard to get them off a women who is fighting you but still that's a stupid reason to drop charges.

 

[Call Me Arizona]

That was a terrible site to use as a source, it was a blog.
I doubt that skinny jeans are the reason he was acquitted, she changed her story and that always makes juries think twice about the rest of what she said.

 

[Fire Daemon]

I have to ask, was there no other evidence presented? Was the entire case built around these goddamn jeans?

Of course not! As I and many others have said before, the jeans would have been a small part of the trial.

 

[DarkDain]

Reminds me of a case in america where a lawyer said his client was too fat too commit a crime because it involved walking up some flights of stairs in a given amount of time. It didnt work. But im sure there are plenty of fatties fat enough to make that defense work.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

That is absolutely stupid. Skinny jeans aren't hard to roll down, I know from personal experience.

 

[joshuaayt]

I have no opinion concerning the man- with no inside details I have no clue as to whether or not he is guilty.
EDIT: Actually, screw what I said in this paragraph before. I have doubts that a court of law would ever consider such a flimsy defence to win a case; we must be missing some important details here. Like more evidence, or perhaps a history.

 

[Cody211282]

You could easily get them off, what the hell were they thinking?

 

[dex-dex]

Skinny jeans aren't that much harder to get off, so my views mirror your own OP. That should not be a reason to acquit someone of rape.

i will go with the dozen of people who wear them a size too tight

but it still should not be an excuse and be aquitted

 

[Scde2]

I wear skinny jeans. Does that make me unrapeable?

 

[Hashime]

I don't know all of the details, but if she was REALLY crammed in to them I could see the defence's point. That being said he should still be charges with sexual assault, or at least regular assault.

 

[ace_of_something]

Than couldn't they get him for 3rd degree sexual assault? Attempted Rape? do these charges not exist down under? Holy crap. This is stupid.