Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Dana ([info]dana) wrote in [info]unfunnybusiness,
@ 2009-08-05 16:39:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:oh for god's sake

stripper acquitted of rape
I read about this when it went to court a few days ago, and I was wondering what the result was going to be.

Anyway, basically it's about a female stripper, who is accused of raping the best man at a buck's night party.  It's not something you see everyday, and I was a bit undecided on how to think about this.   Certainly made me think about my assumptions. 

The former stripper acquitted today of raping the best man at a buck's night now looks forward to her life returning to normal.

Speaking exclusively to The Age, Linda Naggs said her life had been put ‘‘on hold’’ by the investigation and the trial.

‘‘But at the end of the day, I did not do it and the verdict came out positive,’’ Ms Naggs said after the jury took about 90 minutes to find her not guilty.

The mother of four told The Age: ‘‘Life will just come back to normal for my children and I’’.

‘‘I would like to thank the jury for their excellent work and I appreciate them so much for believing in me,’’ she said.

‘‘My legal team of solicitor James Dowsley and barrister Paul Higham have supported me right through it.

‘‘I’d also like to thank my boyfriend Andy and my children who have been through a lot and who have supported me.’’

Linda Maree Naggs, 40, pleaded not guilty to violating the man's anus during a naked XXX-rated show in a house in Mornington on September 24, 2007.

A jury of six men and six women took one hour and 50 minutes to clear her of the charge.

Ms Naggs, a working mother and professional dancer of 13 years of Rosebud West, cried and dabbed her eyes when she heard the verdict.

The County Court jury had been asked to decide the crucial issue of deliberate penetration against the suggestion of possible "accidental rape".

During the trial, the jury was directed to approach their task free of sympathy, emotion or bias and to put views of strippers and buck's nights "out of your mind".

Prosecutor Kieran Gilligan had told the jury they had to be satisfied there was penetration, if even slight, that it was deliberate, without consent and that Linda Maree Ms Naggs, 40, knew the man was not consenting.

But Ms Naggs' barrister, Paul Higham, asked the jury to have "in the back of your mind" issues of male sexuality and pride, fear, ego and peer group pressure.

He said if there was penetration it was accidental and he asked what led the man to "place himself in proximity to the dildo", which he described as "arguably statuesque".

Mr Gilligan told the jury that the man had replaced the groom and another volunteer who were reluctant to continue their involvement with Ms Naggs. He said after she did a lap dance, rubbed her breasts in his face and used the dildo on herself, he asked her: "Be gentle. Don't do it too hard."

"No worries," Mr Gilligan said Ms Naggs replied.

When the man, who was on all fours and naked from the knees up, asked her not to go near his anus, she allegedly said: "Not a problem. Relax. It's only fun. I won't go there."

But Mr Gilligan said that soon after Ms Naggs applied cream or lubricant to his buttocks, he felt a sharp pain, a thrust and the dildo "go right into his anal passage".

He said the man was hurt and shocked and after Ms Naggs allegedly told him not to worry because "only you and I know", he said: "What the f--- did you do that for, you stupid bitch."

Mr Gilligan said the man complained to police later that day while a medical examination showed a small abrasion below his anal verge "most likely caused by blunt trauma".

Mr Higham submitted that if there was penetration it was accidental so "this is a case, if you like, of accidental rape".

The court heard that the man was on all fours, with his pants around his ankles, when Naggs poured cream on his back and on the pink, strap-on dildo and made thrusting motions.

The man, who said he had been an unwilling participant in Ms Naggs' show, had told the court he scuffled with Ms Naggs and told her to leave after the incident.

"She said it was just a joke, just a joke," he said.

Witnesses told the court that as Ms Naggs was leaving the house she repeatedly said "sorry", and one said Ms Naggs claimed "it was an accident".

They told of seeing the best man looking like he was in pain and "squinting" during the stripper's act.

The next day, the best man said he "didn't feel very well, I didn't feel right". He was "very, very uncomfortable" and told friends about the incident.

The man said he organised the night's entertainment, hiring two strippers from the Simply Irresistible agency.

Under questioning from defence barrister Paul Higham, he agreed that the agency representative he spoke to told him that he was booking a show entitled "Anal".

The man said he was no longer friends with the groom after he made comments about the stripper incident at the wedding.

Source


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]dana
2009-08-06 07:13 am UTC (link)
Well, it's just my speculation, I know as much as anyone else who reads the article does.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]eilan
2009-08-06 09:55 am UTC (link)
My point is that even in your case A, the penetration would have occurred. And I think were the roles reversed, that would definitely be called rape.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]dana
2009-08-06 10:31 am UTC (link)
That *might* be where issues of consent come into play as someone else mentioned in this thread. And then perhaps, it comes down to his word versus her word. I did mention issues of pride and ego, if this guy had been coerced into this by his mates, peer pressure etc. Honestly, I have read three articles on this, and they were a bit contradiction on whether they had been conclusive evidence of penetration, and whether the defence had used consent as an issue. The one above is the most sensationalist of the three, the ABC has an article which is probably the least, but it's very bare bones and doesn't have much detail.

I am on the fence with this, squarely. I know I'm all her POV in this thread, but I'm being a bit deliberately devil's advocate, I'd be doing the same if it was going the other way. I'm a bit surprised, considering she was acquitted and there were witnesses (what did those witnesses say to make the jury think she was innocent, how did they present?). Usually rape cases don´t get so many witnesses. I would have thought it would be an open and shut case with their testimony.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]also_not_a_pipe
2009-08-06 10:22 pm UTC (link)
I know I'm all her POV in this thread, but I'm being a bit deliberately devil's advocate, I'd be doing the same if it was going the other way.

In which case you'd still be just as obnoxious and offensive.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kelmendi
2009-08-06 11:59 pm UTC (link)
This. Acting like an asshole rape apologist does not magically become okay if you were only doing it for the lols. It just makes you a troll as well as a jackass.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]dana
2009-08-07 01:13 am UTC (link)
I really don't care what you think. I will apologise if I think I'm in the wrong. But I don't think I'm being a rape-apologist just because I'm not sure if this was rape or not. Saying 'This confuses me' doesn't make me a rape apologist.

I was interested in this case because it brought up questions of gender assumptions, and I was trying to explore that. But I'm not going to engage in personal insults.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kelmendi
2009-08-07 01:48 am UTC (link)
No, saying 'This confuses you' doesn't make you a rape apologist. Saying that the victim was possibly? probably? lying about what happened due to male pride and ego, and saying (I'm having trouble paraphrasing, so I'll just quote)

Another thing that I thought, the woman is 40 and she's done this for a while, perhaps she's done this 100s of times, and had no complaints, so she was surprised with this guy's reaction after the fact (perhaps other guys felt the same way as him before, but didn't say anything because of the same ego thing), so maybe she had no idea, especially with an act with that theme.

really kinda does. Especially the second one.

And I'm sorry, but discussing an upsetting, inflammatory issue and then later claiming to be playing devil's advocate is an asshole move. If it's what you're actually doing, say so at the beginning, before dozens of people have engaged in good faith with what you said. Waiting until the next day to tell people that you don't actually believe what you were saying, it was just an intellectual exercise, or a social experiment, or some other such bull is a betrayal of basic standards of communication.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]dana
2009-08-07 01:57 am UTC (link)
Saying that the victim was possibly? probably? lying about what happened due to male pride and ego, and saying (I'm having trouble paraphrasing, so I'll just quote)

Yes? And probably the accused was also lying as well. Either of them could be lying. Which part of 'confused' do you not understand. I'm on the fence here. I can't decide who was in the right, or who was in the wrong, so because almost 95% of everyone here is taking his side, I'm trying to bring up points that came to my head on her side.

And I'm not going to engage in pointless name calling with you. You disagree with what I say, fine. I will debate you on the subject, but I won't engage you with insults, and as far as I can see, you aren't interested in doing anything other then judging me and making assumptions about me which are wrong. And I know this place here fosters a culture of outraged emotions, and I accepted that going into here, which is why I decided LONG ago not to care if people disagree with me, or make assumptions about my character based on things I say. My ego isn't that fragile. If I'm wrong, if I make a mistake I will apologise. But that doesn't mean I'm going to crumple and apologise because everyone is yelling at me in outrage because I actually dare to not agree with them 100%

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kelmendi
2009-08-07 02:03 am UTC (link)
All I can judge you on is what you write. And if what you write isn't an honest portrayal of what you believe then no, my assumptions about you won't be accurate. That's one of the reasons that you should either only make arguments you believe, or tell people up front that you're just arguing something for the hell of it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dana
2009-08-07 12:57 am UTC (link)
I enjoy debating sometimes. I do however, try my best not to engage in personal insults.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]also_not_a_pipe
2009-08-07 03:11 am UTC (link)
All right, I'll clarify. What you'd be doing would still be just as obnoxious and offensive.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map