Quote:
Originally Posted by taxbuster
While I understand that each defendant is entitled to his own lawyer, and the 5 lawyers "supposedly" agreed to not re-ask questions already asked and answered...it doesn't seem like Hart's lawyer is doing that. It seems awful that all five lawyers can gang up (hmm....wonder what that might be similar to?) on her and badger the crap out of her in order to try to nail down some miniscule inconsistency. (One would hope that the Court would step in to stop this from occurring, at least for the main part.)
Showing once more why SA victims often don't press charges. There seems to be no good way in or out of this, unfortunately.
|
This is what I dislike about court watching and following a case closely like this. Many have already picked a verdict essentially. Respectfully, you are coming at this from an angle that assuredly means you believe these 5 men are rapists. The trial is meant to determine that. What if she really did ask for more men to come back to the room? What if she did tell them she wanted a wild night?
We have to cut our own moral viewpoints here. Ultimately, while potentially perverse and counter average sensibilities, engaging in consensual group sex is not illegal. The lawyers MUST ask questions to determine the nature of the consent, and whether or not their clients could have potentially believed there was consent. The only way to achieve that, save a recording of everything that happened in that room existing, is by comparing statements to determine if there are misalignments. Yes, this is a challenge to the accuser. But the rights of the accused can't just be thrown away because we dislike the story and think they're all bad. That's Trump deportation level thinking.