People are getting all swivel-eyed about this, especially women, about how the lawyer presented her case, but if I was accused of rape I'd want every tool available to be used.
The barrister is doing her job - what do you, who think it is wrong, suggest she do?
The guy is innocent of any wrongdoing, until it is proved otherwise.
The man is entitled to a defence - how his defence lawyer chooses to defend him is utterly irrelevent.....and if I was accused I would want the weight of my barristers experience to help me.
THIS is the sort of 'evidence' for want of a better word that in the 20th century should be automatically inadmissable Deskdiary. It's not about the barrister doing her job, of course she should it's about this manner of behaviour being deemed judicially acceptable.
I presume, then, that you'd be happy for the choice of underwear of your wife/daughter/grandaughter to be used in the defence of a man accused of raping them?
Indeed Dave @ 20.46....it's a warped man who would be happy for his daughter or granddaughter to have to hold up her underwear in court so a man can have the best defence.
If it judicially acceptable - then it is acceptable.
It is isn't my "wife/daughter/grandaughter" so that is a pointless argument - a waste of keystrokes and, frankly, a weak and pathetic point you are failing to make.
If the guy is guilty then I hope he serves an incredibly long sentence. However, until (and if) that point is reached, he is entitled to a robust defence.
It is NO sort of innocent verdict when the route to reaching that is tainting the victim and playing to whatever prejudices the jury might have. If my partner was only found innocent of rape because his defence team had managed to character assassinate his victim I wouldn't be around for very long. That's an empty and hollow victory for any man.
No not at all, but insisting that his alleged victim display her underwear to prove she was a loose woman / up for it / ***/ slapper/ gagging for it / out to get laid / asking for it etc etc etc (take your pick they are all equally vile) has NO place in a man establishing his innocence.
there is also an implication here that she did not consent and it WAS rape......because the argument seems to have been that she consented by the underwear she had on.......