Quote:
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
True, but if she won't testify, they have no case.
|
If the prosecution and the court had not (a) inadvertently released closed-door hearing transcripts, (b) mistakenly released a sealed order that included the name of the accuser, (c) mistakenly sent to the news media a 206-page transcript dealing with the accuser's past sexual history, and (d) forgotten to redact the accuser's name from publicly released documents, then maybe they wouldn't have shot their own case in the foot. If they hadn't lost motions which would permit the defendant to rely on the "she's a slut so she had it coming" defense, then maybe they would have had a stronger case. The physical evidence testimony was slated to be turned into an OJ-esque circus of duelling criminalists, each arguing over the head of the jurors. So that made the prosecution more reliant on her direct testimony, and the defense more reliant on impeaching her credibility by making her out to be a whore. Judging by the comments here, they seem to have already had some success poisoning the public mood.
In the end, we now learn that guilt or innocence is not about evidence. And we are back to what I said before: The lesson for future rapists who can afford good lawyers is you get a free pass with any woman you can portray as a slut. I hope all your mothers, sisters, daughters and neices are pure-as-the-driven-snow virginal princesses, so that if they get raped, they don't have to worry about being victimized again in the witness box.