So I'm going to write about these fuckwits appeal every day I can get some information until their name suppression is lifted. In particular I just wanted to point out that my comment yesterday wasn't hyperbole. The defence are appealing against the fact that rape shield laws didn't allow them to enter evidence about the woman's sexual history. These are the sorts of witnesses they want to use:
An e-mail from one statement-maker to another described the complainant as a "slapper" and described the alleged incident as "a good fun time".Although the Crown lawyer isn't my favourite person either:
The Crown's other lawyer, Mark Zarifeh, defended remarks he had made to the jury at the end of the trial. He agreed that it would have been better if he had not said that, if the defence was to be believed, the complainant was a slut, but said it still starkly highlighted the contrast between the two sides.The reason it was a bad idea, because even if she was a 'slut' she can still refuse to have sex with people.
Defence lawyers, prosecution lawyers, and judges all believe that women can do things which mean they automatically consent to sex; they're not alone in that.