**bleep** victim could have 'closed her legs', Lawyer tells Court

[grandmoon]

A young Wellington woman raped by a bouncer in an alleyway could have "closed her legs" if she didn't want sex, the man's lawyer told a jury.

Keith Jefferies was addressing the Wellington District Court in defence of George Jason Pule, who was found guilty of **bleep** the drunk 20-year-old after telling her he could help get her into a club to see her friends.

His comments were condemned after the verdict as "disgusting" and "disrespectful" by Wellington **bleep** Crisis manager Natalie Gousmett.

They come in the wake of the Roast Busters scandal, in which a group of young Auckland men boasted online of having sex with drunken girls as young as 13.

Advertisement

Jefferies told the jury that the complainant and Pule, 34, a bouncer at The Establishment bar, had walked down Courtenay Place holding hands before having consensual sex in the early hours of October 22, 2011.

He claimed the woman made a false complaint to police six days later because she regretted the sex. There was no struggle or any threats, nor was there violence, Jefferies said in his closing arguments yesterday.

"All she would have had to do was to close her legs . . . it's as simple as that," he told the jury. "Why didn't she do that? . . . The reason she didn't do that was because the sex was consensual, as easy as that."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/**bleep**-victim-could-have-closed-her-legs-lawyer-tells-court-20131114-...

[the_great_she_elephant]

T.G.S.E. you and I do not have s.e.x. with men we know for 5 minutes, but some women do.  Just because we do not, does not mean it does not happen. 

"Some" is a very vague percentage. Of course it does happen, but what I asked was 'what is the likelihood of any woman agreeing to have sex in a back alley with a stranger. Personally I'd say the odds were pretty highly stacked against it - particularly if you add the odds against  that same woman later accusing the man  of **bleep**. 

[izabsmiling]

---

@azureline** wrote:

Lawyers say many things in defence of their clients! I wonder why this is so newsworthy?

---

It highights that even those in the legal system don't know the definition of **bleep** and think very little of it as far as it being a criminal offence.

It shows why sentencing and parole for such crimes is  often dangerously lenient.

even a women going to venues where there are bouncers should they need protection and help is seen by others as taking a risk

r ape is considered by some to be the same as having sex with someone even where the verdict is guilty.

and the victim not the criminal is judged .

really encourages women (and all victims) to speak out  so that it is reduced and teaches people that as far as crimes go it isn't a big deal...be a good girl and keep your legs closed.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

The venue is apparently taking action to give their staff some extra training .That may help them with knowing that they have a duty of care at least while at work.

[cherry*135]

---

@my*mum wrote:

how come I can say **bleep** and **bleep** etc and others can't?

OK Am, you and I have different views. I believe that a responsible person should take steps to minimize the risk of harm to themselves. You don't. That's fine, but I do believe that you are being deliberately obtuse to my point.

Just as I immunize against known diseases or other health risks, just as I avail myself to preventative dental treatment and healthy life style choices, to me that is the responsible thing to do. If there is a known risk, I try to take steps to minimize my exposure to those risks. But that's just me.

bad things happen to good people, and whilst preventative action may not always acheive the desired results, it sure gives you a better chance and reduces your risk.

---

I was not being deliberately obtuse to your point.

If my car got stolen or my house got robbed, it would not have the same detrimental effect on the rest of my life as being raped would.

Same as there is no comparison with taking care of your teeth or eating a healthy diet... who is going to jump out of nowhere and assault you if you don't  do those things?

I don't even see the point in discussing/comparing burglaries, house fires, immunisations etc with  **bleep**.

[cherry*135]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:
Didn't the lawyer say he doesn't personally think like that? He said it as part of the defence for his client?

---

He shouldn't  legally be allowed to .

To suggest a rapist isn't a rapist  if the other person couldn't or didn't close their legs has no place in this day and age .

---

The fact is he is/was legally allowed to say that. That is mentioned in one of my posts. The judge allowed his comment to stand.

[cherry*135]

Lawyer defends **bleep** case argument

Updated at 4:21 pm today

A defence lawyer who said a **bleep** victim could have "closed her legs" if she didn't want to have sex says his statement has been taken out of context and does not represent his views.

Wellington lawyer Keith Jeffries made the comment during his closing address at a trial in the Wellington District Court in which a bouncer was accused of **bleep** a woman in an alleyway.

Mr Jeffries says the woman, who was drunk, had walked hand in hand with the accused man up an alley and he argued that the sex that took place was consensual.

Mr Jeffries says what he said in court was part of his client's defence - and if it had been deemed improper, the judge would have reprimanded him. He says there was no complaint from the Crown solicitor either.

A jury found Mr Jeffries' client guilty.

The manager of **bleep** Crisis in Wellington says the comment was disgusting, highly offensive and part of a **bleep** culture in New Zealand in which excuses are made for perpetrators of sexual offending.

Natalie Gousmett says the current discussion in the community about the issue of **bleep** (regarding a teenage sex ring in Auckland), is a good thing as education is the best way to change attitudes.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/227695/lawyer-defends-**bleep**-case-argument