Gotta love lawyers

[furball]

Originally Posted by Paisley

The def lawyer in that case was a complete and utter c*nt
So much so parliment changed the law to prevent such a thing happening again.
You dont need to be a lawyer to know that his defense strategy was to break the witness so that the case folds regardless of the "implications" I.E head fked with her to the point she decided to top herself.
The law profession isnt as honourable as you are trying to make it out.

what is it you dont understand?

The law profession is doing its job. Its job is to defend that defendant to the best of its ability within the law.

If Parliament passed a law tomorrow to ban all questioning of the victim's sexual behaviour or history, the law profession would follow that because it follows the law. I expect that many defence barristers would be a lot more comfortable knowing that they weren't expected to do their jobs as they are at present - in a rather unpleasant manner.


What is it you don't understand? The lawyer follows the law. It is the law that would have to change, not the lawyer.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by furball

If Parliament passed a law tomorrow to ban all questioning of the victim's sexual behaviour or history, the law profession would follow that because it follows the law.

I would expect so. But if Parliament passed a law saying that any evidence from a black person should be automatically disregarded then I would expect (/hope) that a good number of the law profession would resign, or at least protest the measure.

You obey the law of course, but one hopes that you obey it because (at least in part) overall you feel it is just.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You obey the law of course

furball? Na. He's a yardie.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I would expect so. But if Parliament passed a law saying that any evidence from a black person should be automatically disregarded then I would expect (/hope) that a good number of the law profession would resign, or at least protest the measure.

You obey the law of course, but one hopes that you obey it because (at least in part) overall you feel it is just.

My point was that the lawyers follow the law as opposed to the law following the lawyers. We'll ignore the common law for the sake of argument.

As for a law such as the racist one you suggest, I expect that the law profession would probably refuse to enforce it. But the Queen would have to give it royal assent first, which she's in her rights to decline to do.

[Ste]

but the queen hates those darkies as much as Skiddy...

probably.

[lokken]

I'm going to make it easy for this thread.

Solicitors do work, and time how long they are working plus expenses. They put in a lot of years of training to be able to do their work, work hard when they are actually qualified (as quite a few have billing targets, as in how many hours they have to put in) and thus should be paid accordingly, according the stature of their firm and their experience in the firm, like any other business.

They then send a 'bill' in order to get 'paid'

This 'bill' will generally be paid by the loser, however sometimes the loser won't have to pay all the costs involved, because it would be unfair due to various factors, including the behaviour of the lawyers/parties at trial and beforehand and whether the costs made should be picked up by that party. Therefore the winner sometimes (not always though) has to pay costs and this might be out of their damages. Some people have sued people successfully for a loss and felt it was worth it simply because they wanted their day in court (although that isn't really relevant here, it's just illustrative).

Solicitors cannot charge a percentage of damages as part of a 'success fee'. This is called a contingency fee and is not permitted by the solicitors code of conduct for what is called 'contentious litigation' (in your speak, this is basically 'going to court'). What they can do is charge a "conditional fee agreement" whereby on success the fee is uplifted by a % which usually fluctuates between 10-25%, although I have no precise data for this to hand. There are very strict rules on entry into these agreements to provide safeguards for the client.

As far as I'm concerned, solicitors do work, ask to get paid and then do get paid for their work like any profession and that payment/charging regime is regulated. Solicitors do get paid well but considering the difficulty in becoming one and the work required to take a case to court, why shouldn't they be well paid?

My conclusion is that the people who were making claims probably used the wrong size of firm (in that they were too expensive) and would have been better off getting a specialist firm, or using a smaller firm of solicitors who would have charged a more reasonable price and thus increased compensation for everyone. Although this is just a students view of the situation.

[Blastoderm]

Sup.

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by furball

What is it you don't understand? The lawyer follows the law. It is the law that would have to change, not the lawyer.

Im relieved that the word "ethic" doesnt stop lawyers winning against 17 year old rape victims.

If i had the same lack of morale in my job, i would now happily abuse a flaw in the signature laws in germany to pick up some decent money.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by furball

The law profession is doing its job.

That's more or less what Himmler said.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by furball

The law profession is doing its job. Its job is to defend that defendant to the best of its ability within the law.

If Parliament passed a law tomorrow to ban all questioning of the victim's sexual behaviour or history, the law profession would follow that because it follows the law. I expect that many defence barristers would be a lot more comfortable knowing that they weren't expected to do their jobs as they are at present - in a rather unpleasant manner.


What is it you don't understand? The lawyer follows the law. It is the law that would have to change, not the lawyer.

Why some lawyers dont have a work ethic?

spelling

[furball]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

Im relieved that the word "ethic" doesnt stop lawyers winning against 17 year old rape victims.

If i had the same lack of morale in my job, i would now happily abuse a flaw in the signature laws in germany to pick up some decent money.

Fortunatly in England we believe in innocent until proven guilty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4713968.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/3571717.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3411451.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/3594804.stm



I suppose you don't believe in the rule of law?

[furball]

Originally Posted by Paisley

Why some lawyers dont have a work ethic?

spelling

Almost all lawyers have work ethics - you have to work bloody hard to be one.

However, I'll assume that you meant to ask

"Why don't lawyers have ethics?"



The answer, as any defence lawyer will tell you, is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to representation in court. Besides, can you imagine how bad it would be if a rapist was allowed to cross-examine his victim personally? It happened a few times here and never worked out well.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by furball

Almost all lawyers have work ethics - you have to work bloody hard to be one.

However, I'll assume that you meant to ask

"Why don't lawyers have ethics?"



The answer, as any defence lawyer will tell you, is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to representation in court. Besides, can you imagine how bad it would be if a rapist was allowed to cross-examine his victim personally? It happened a few times here and never worked out well.

so what you are basically saying is... the lawyers job is to get the result at all costs?

[lokken]

No, it means that they have to put the best argument forward for their client, infact they have a duty to do so.

There is a duty not to mislead the court so no lawyer is allowed to 'lie' to get his client 'off'.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

when we had proper mods you would have been banned for trolling and spam.

and you would have been banned for being shit, again

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I would expect so. But if Parliament passed a law saying that any evidence from a black person should be automatically disregarded then I would expect (/hope) that a good number of the law profession would resign, or at least protest the measure.

You obey the law of course, but one hopes that you obey it because (at least in part) overall you feel it is just.

if you bothered to think then you would be horrified by what you have just suggested.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Paisley

Why some lawyers dont have a work ethic?

spelling

spelling?

what about grammar and syntax?

(or meaning for that matter)

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by furball

Fortunatly in England we believe in innocent until proven guilty.

I guess thats "mostly" right - unless (currently) any kind of "terrorism" is involved but im certain there are also other examples. But i have a feeling that your definition of "proof" and mine differ.

Originally Posted by furball

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4713968.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/3571717.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3411451.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/3594804.stm

And this is the case we talk about Lindsay Armstrong. Yes i know where the link originates from but i verified most of what is written there with several newspaper articles and all facts mentioned in that summary where confirmed.

Originally Posted by furball

I suppose you don't believe in the rule of law?

I believe some rules are universal and above the law. A man-made law violating them, is void to me. I guess he can express it better then me. Basically i think there are limits for a rhetorically educated grown up person with a decent education to attack a 17 year old vulnerable girl in a try to lower the penalty for a rapist (yeah im a weakling).

Actually quite some other people* think the law is far from perfect. Defending this court process and lawyer from a 2002 case after which laws where changed also sounds a bit pointless to me.

*: read least the paragraphs before "Anti-Catholic laws"

[furball]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

I guess thats "mostly" right - unless (currently) any kind of "terrorism" is involved but im certain there are also other examples. But i have a feeling that your definition of "proof" and mine differ.

My definition of 'proof' is beyond all reasonable doubt. Helpfully it's also the criminal law's definition of proof. How convenient.


As for the terrorism laws, they're a travesty. Let's just hope you're not going to call rape an act of terrorism.

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

And this is the case we talk about Lindsay Armstrong. Yes i know where the link originates from but i verified most of what is written there with several newspaper articles and all facts mentioned in that summary where confirmed.

If you verified it with other sites then you should have linked to them. That site made my brain cry.

As for the facts of the case, blame Scotland. English law is different.

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

I believe some rules are universal and above the law. A man-made law violating them, is void to me. I guess he can express it better then me. Basically i think there are limits for a rhetorically educated grown up person with a decent education to attack a 17 year old vulnerable girl in a try to lower the penalty for a rapist (yeah im a weakling).

Then change the law. Don't blame the barrister for the job he is given to the best of his ability.

I believe that a person is "innocent until proven guilty", and that the rule of law must come before anything else. You don't make clear what the "man-made law" is, so I really can't answer you on that.

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

Actually quite some other people* think the law is far from perfect. Defending this court process and lawyer from a 2002 case after which laws where changed also sounds a bit pointless to me.

*: read least the paragraphs before "Anti-Catholic laws"

I don't really see the point of that Catholic website. If it has a point you'd like to raise, feel free to.

Now, let's move onto your other link (from a right-wing newspaper) about the rebalancing of Human Rights, which have become dastardly inconvenient for the Government.

Those nine Afghan hijackers would have been dead within a few months if they had returned to Afghanistan. Putting them on a plane back to their home country would have been akin to a death sentence. Do you believe in the death penalty? Let's hope you do, because if you're putting them on a plane back to Afghanistan you may as well be wearing the black cap.

Next, our good friend Anthony Rice.

I suppose you don't believe that prisoners should have representation in their legal cases?

From what I can tell, there were a number of cock-ups by the Prison Service and the Parole Board. Don't blame basic human rights for one man's evil acts.



Since you probably don't know what these human rights are, you can find them here. Have a read. Are people entitled to them or not? Should everyone be entitled to the rights, or should we create different classes of people? If we do, we'd better mark them to make the rest of society aware. Something like this should do.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

i think there are limits for a rhetorically educated grown up person with a decent education to attack a 17 year old vulnerable girl in a try to lower the penalty for a rapist (yeah im a weakling).

he wasn't a rapist at that point in time.

he was an innocent defendent and thus was entitled to be defended (i don't care about the specifics in that case).

You seem to have an inability to understand innocent until proven guilty.

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by furball

Then change the law. Don't blame the barrister for the job he is given to the best of his ability.

I believe that a person is "innocent until proven guilty", and that the rule of law must come before anything else.

No point in further argueing - you think what happened and how the barrister/lawyer acted was perfectly fine and i seriously disagree.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

No point in further argueing - you think what happened and how the barrister/lawyer acted was perfectly fine and i seriously disagree.

You think I like it? No, I don't.

However, I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty and that they have a right to representation in court.


The nature of their representation is an entirely different question. I believe that their representative should defend the defendant (who is presumed innocent, remember) to the best of their ability. That includes cross-examining witnesses. If the alleged victim takes the stand then they may be cross-examined by the defence.

One of the key questions in rape is whether or not the 'victim' consented or not. If they did not, was the defendant's belief in their consent reasonable or not?

Unfortunatly one of the key factors affecting these two questions is the alleged victim's sexual nature, which can be evidenced by their sexual history. This is why barristers question some victims on this where it may be relevant to the case. The nature of this questioning is not pretty, I'll grant you that. As I already said, I don't like it. However, if you have principles then you can't just waive them as soon as you feel uncomfortable upholding them.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Paisley

The def lawyer in that case was a complete and utter c*nt
So much so parliment changed the law to prevent such a thing happening again.
You dont need to be a lawyer to know that his defense strategy was to break the witness so that the case folds regardless of the "implications" I.E head fked with her to the point she decided to top herself.
what is it you dont understand?

There isnt enough information given in that article to decide whether the defence was crossing the line, and if you think there is, youre reading things into it that arent there.


For instance

"When the defence got Lindsay Armstrong to hold up her knickers in court, there was a message there that people who wear knickers, or thongs with the words ‘Little Devil’ on them, are somehow less worthy.

There are contexts in which asking the alleged victim to 'hold up her underwear' would be wrong (if it were part of a strategy designed to "break her down", or if they were suggesting people who wore certain types of underwear were provoking rape), but there are other contexts in which it could be acceptable and important (for instance, if they were trying to prove that the girl went out looking for sex, this sort of thing might be relevant).

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

There isnt enough information given in that article to decide whether the defence was crossing the line, and if you think there is, youre reading things into it that arent there.


For instance
There are contexts in which asking the alleged victim to 'hold up her underwear' would be wrong (if it were part of a strategy designed to "break her down", or if they were suggesting people who wore certain types of underwear were provoking rape), but there are other contexts in which it could be acceptable and important (for instance, if they were trying to prove that the girl went out looking for sex, this sort of thing might be relevant).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2384143.stm

Last thing I will say in the matter...
And what was the second reason why the lassie had to hold up her knickers for?

After all no women look to go out to get raped?
No excuse for a guy to do it, no matter how provoking it is.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Paisley

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2384143.stm

Last thing I will say in the matter...
And what was the second reason why the lassie had to hold up her knickers for?

After all no women look to go out to get raped?
No excuse for a guy to do it, no matter how provoking it is.

Paisely, you're still assuming that a defendant is guilty.


This is a gross error. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, whether it's Saddam Hussein or Ian Huntley.

It's rarer with the advent of DNA testing to find defendants claiming that they did not have sex with the victim. Most rape cases now center around the consent issue.

From the guy's point of view, he may not have believed he was raping her. She may have been leading him on and from his point of view, making her intentions very clear. It is up to a jury to decide whether or not that belief was reasonable. We put the matter before a trial, as opposed to just throwing the man in prison.


Suppose you're out in a club one night, you're single and there's this gorgeous girl who's getting very close and friendly with you. She keeps stroking your arm and eventually drops a hint that you might want to buy her a drink. You think "ok!" and head off to the bar. You bring her a double malibu and coke back, just as she asked for, and the two of you chat all night long. At one stage you head to the dancefloor and it gets distinctly grindy. Little Paisley got in on the action too, and she seemed to love him pressing against her. Finally the club closes and she asks you to walk her home.

You two stroll back to hers, stopping along the way for a quick snogging session. When you get there she points out that no-one else is in and that the two of you could probably do anything you wanted. Oh, and by the way, she's on the Pill. Little Paisley notices this and has a quick word with Big Paisley, telling him to "get in my son".

It starts to get hot and heavy in an upstairs bedroom. She likes Little Paisley just as much as you do! You eventually have sex, during which she's pretty quiet (but you guess she's just not a screamer). After the deed you roll over and pass out. You didn't have a pint of water, you silly boy. The hangover's going to be a bitch.

The next morning you realise you have to head off to school/college/uni/work. She's still fast asleep so you leave her a note with your number asking her to text you.




A few days later, you're a bit upset that she hasn't been in touch. But you've been rejected before, you'll get over it. But then there's a knock at the door. It's the police.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by furball

A few days later, you're a bit upset that she hasn't been in touch. But you've been rejected before, you'll get over it. But then there's a knock at the door. It's the police.

Ah, 15. I thought she was 36!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by furball

Paisely, you're still assuming that a defendant is guilty.

I think the point is that even if she consented / she made the whole thing up, making her lift up the underwear is kind of strange behaviour. Couldn't someone else have done it? What added benefit did the court gain form her doing it? Obviously this is one example that the media I have selected without providing the additional context, but in isolation it does seem rather odd.

Even if I did get caught up in the hypothetical situation you outlined and was on trial for rape I certainly wouldn't want anyone being humiliated for my benefit, especially if they're a potentially psyhologically vulnerable young girl. (And if I've slept with them, that's almost certainly the case).

[furball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think the point is that even if she consented / she made the whole thing up, making her lift up the underwear is kind of strange behaviour. Couldn't someone else have done it? What added benefit did the court gain form her doing it? Obviously this is one example that the media I have selected without providing the additional context, but in isolation it does seem rather odd.

Even if I did get caught up in the hypothetical situation you outlined and was on trial for rape I certainly wouldn't want anyone being humiliated for my benefit, especially if they're a potentially psyhologically vulnerable young girl. (And if I've slept with them, that's almost certainly the case).

I can't explain the lifting up of the underwear. I suppose it was in an attempt to 'break' the victim as a witness, or at least discredit her in front of the jury. I think it's pretty despicable, to be honest.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I certainly wouldn't want anyone being humiliated for my benefit, especially if they're a potentially psyhologically vulnerable young girl.

Oh really?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Oh really?

Well unless I'm the one doing it, or some other girl who is involved in some complex heirarchical structure I've devised for the purpose of this particular fantasy.

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by Paisley

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2384143.stm

Last thing I will say in the matter...
And what was the second reason why the lassie had to hold up her knickers for?

After all no women look to go out to get raped?
No excuse for a guy to do it, no matter how provoking it is.

You are discussing two different things. I don't think Furball is protecting rapists, he's just protecting everybodys right to a free and unbiased lawyer. And that includes rapists, terrorists and whatnot of so called "monster" crimes. I don't like rapists, I don't like them at all, but that does not mean that they should not get a decent defence. And I agree, there is no excuse for raping, no matter how much you've been "provoked", are drunk, teased or whatever during the night, if you stick your dick in its on your watch. But does that mean that false accusations never happen? Or that the evidence always is sufficient?
Rape cases are the worst ones, as victims seldom report them at once. They usually shower, destroying evidence, and most of them are never even reported or told to others. BUT, sad as that is, we can't throw out basic rights just beacause we don't like the crime. If we do that, what types of criminals are next on the monster list? And how many will go to jail for nothing?

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by furball

I can't explain the lifting up of the underwear. I suppose it was in an attempt to 'break' the victim as a witness, or at least discredit her in front of the jury.

Thats what i thought too. AFAIK there are two things you "shouldnt" do in cases like this.

a) "suggest" that the victim really secretly wanted it to happen and provoked it so its really their own fault. Stuff like (repeatedly) asking the victim to raise panties which have "Little devil" written on them is just that. Asking about their previous sexlife* or citing statistics that teens of their age or social background** are really just promiscuous sluts are other ways.

b) keep nagging (or just hinting at it) the victim if at some point of the intercourse they where excited or even enjoyed it a bit. From what i have read this can happen as the body simply reacts to stimulation at some point.

Both things can more or less easily send a victim on a guilt trip which means they point the anger/hate about what happened against themselves. Severe eating disorders, cutting or suicide attempts are some of the possible results of that and it can mess up a person for life (or kill them).

So it seems the barrister/lawyer tried a rather desperate attempt to discredit the "victim" but i cant help but to think his "case" was pretty weak when i read the statistics in other articles (linked by the original one) and see that the offender in this case got 4 (+3) years jail at the end. And just as you rightfully argued that the offender wasnt a convicted "rapist" during the case, the victim wasnt a convicted liar either and the defence should keep that in mind when they treat them during a case.

My argument in this thread wasnt in any way that a supposed "offender/rapist" has no right to be defended - but about how it was done and that you and yahwe seemed to acknowledge this because "it was not against the law".

The suicide as a result of this case probably/likely wasnt the barrister/lawyers "fault", but he certainly added to it and beeing a well educated man he knowingly accepted that IMHO. If he didnt know it, he should have gotten some basic info about handling cases like rape when under-age people are involved in advance.

Anyway we already went too far into guessing during this thread without seeing the actual protocol and even if different news articles seem to support something, i guess we all know how they can be wrong because they rely on the same source or simply want to spice up an article.

*: i dont say that they cant ask a victim about their previous sexlife, but it depends a lot on how it is done.

**: i know at least one case where a court ruled that a victims social background lessened the severity of the crime (rape) against her.

ps: the rapist (now i can use the term as he was convicted) was released after 2 years. So he left prison beeing younger than his victim was when she died.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

Thats what i thought too. AFAIK there are two things you "shouldnt" do in cases like this.

a) "suggest" that the victim really secretly wanted it to happen and provoked it so its really their own fault. Stuff like (repeatedly) asking the victim to raise panties which have "Little devil" written on them is just that. Asking about their previous sexlife* or citing statistics that teens of their age or social background** are really just promiscuous sluts are other ways.

Well the fact the 'victim' was suggestive would imply consent to sex was given and asking about their previous sexlife and previous sexual activity would also be relevant as to whether there was true consent. It's for the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that consent was never given. The defence just raises these doubts. As long as they do not provoke the witness or demeanour them excessively, the line of questioning is permissible and if it stepped over the line, any competent judge would intervene. One might find it bizarre that the judge allowed it, but presumably the whole point would be to ask whether the witness owned several other similar items of underwear and whether she wore them regularly to similar events and then link it into any promiscuity as it forms the argument that she was out looking for sex. In a rape case, that's an important case to make for the defendant.

A defence lawyer just does his job, discrediting prosecution witnesses and putting them on the back foot is part of it. The prosecution lawyers still have the opportunity to re examine the witness on the issues the defence discussed and bring them back up on an even keel.

b) keep nagging (or just hinting at it) the victim if at some point of the intercourse they where excited or even enjoyed it a bit. From what i have read this can happen as the body simply reacts to stimulation at some point.

There are two issues to address here, without explicit knowledge of the facts:

1) The prosecution who would no doubt have some experience in prosecuting rape cases would obviously know this and point it out to the jury.

2) The question therefore is when did the 'victim' begin to enjoy this sexual intercourse - from the outset, or by 'natural' means?

Both things can more or less easily send a victim on a guilt trip which means they point the anger/hate about what happened against themselves. Severe eating disorders, cutting or suicide attempts are some of the possible results of that and it can mess up a person for life (or kill them).

Any competent prosecution lawyer will have given the witness a fair idea of what the defence will throw at them in these kind of cases and while it won't be as much as coaching, any witness will be pretty well prepared. Considering a victim will have been brave enough to take the event and relive it in all its alleged gruesomeness at trial, I'd say cross examination by a defence lawyer is just part of the whole horrible experience for a victim. It's just part of the picture.

So it seems the barrister/lawyer tried a rather desperate attempt to discredit the "victim" but i cant help but to think his "case" was pretty weak when i read the statistics in other articles (linked by the original one) and see that the offender in this case got 4 (+3) years jail at the end. And just as you rightfully argued that the offender wasnt a convicted "rapist" during the case, the victim wasnt a convicted liar either and the defence should keep that in mind when they treat them during a case.

Rule 1.03, Law Society Code of Conduct [2004] (not yet in force, but replicates old provisions)

You must treat the interests of clients as paramount.

This means if it's within the court rules, a solicitor must do pretty much as much as possible to help their client. If that means a tough cross examination, so be it. We wouldn't want it any other way for other crimes and while rape is a very 'personal' offence and some consideration must be given to that, there's only so far you can go.

My argument in this thread wasnt in any way that a supposed "offender/rapist" has no right to be defended - but about how it was done and that you and yahwe seemed to acknowledge this because "it was not against the law".

While the law acknowledges the welfare of victims, the primary concern of the criminal law is to deal with cases justly, in that finding the truth is paramount. The procedures reflect that. There are lines that solicitors are not allowed to cross and judges make sure they do not cross them, especially considering they are aware of the needs of the victim as they are people of considerable experience (that's not to say there aren't some idiots in the judiciary).

The suicide as a result of this case probably/likely wasnt the barrister/lawyers "fault", but he certainly added to it and beeing a well educated man he knowingly accepted that IMHO. If he didnt know it, he should have gotten some basic info about handling cases like rape when under-age people are involved in advance.

A rape trial is a traumatic experience. But there is no way of avoiding it for justice to be done. There needs to be a lot more support for victims before and after the trial. A solicitor/barrister just does his job, within the court rules, as that's the only way to enable justice to be done - to give a quarter would simply not represent the best argument that could be given and where liberty is at stake, this is even more pressing.

Anyway we already went too far into guessing during this thread without seeing the actual protocol and even if different news articles seem to support something, i guess we all know how they can be wrong because they rely on the same source or simply want to spice up an article.

So you lay into the legal profession without knowledge of the protocol/facts when quite frankly, you just see a tragic situation and point at the law as being to blame. No one wants situations like this but they are a tragic consequence of crime and punishment.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by furball

I can't explain the lifting up of the underwear. I suppose it was in an attempt to 'break' the victim as a witness, or at least discredit her in front of the jury. I think it's pretty despicable, to be honest.

So much for last word...

This has been my point of this thread.
As some people seem to think I am assuming the defendant guilty till proven innocent. I wasnt focusing on the defendant but more

THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENCE LAWYER.

Thank you

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Paisley

So much for last word...

This has been my point of this thread.
As some people seem to think I am assuming the defendant guilty till proven innocent. I wasnt focusing on the defendant but more

THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENCE LAWYER.

Thank you

i am just surprised that you seem to know the case better than said defence 'lawyer' did

[dda]

What is the matter with British lawyers? Each of these ignorant bastards or their families were allowed to make off with 7.13? The lawyers do all of the work. All plaintiffs do is sit there and die or be injured.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

i am just surprised that you seem to know the case better than said defence 'lawyer' did

I never said I did
I just seem to know how to spot a c*nt *coughs*

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by dda

What is the matter with British lawyers? Each of these ignorant bastards or their families were allowed to make off with 7.13? The lawyers do all of the work. All plaintiffs do is sit there and die or be injured.

the "prosecution rests its case"
at last an honest lawyer

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Paisley

I never said I did
I just seem to know how to spot a c*nt *coughs*

life is actually more complicated than the media makes it seem.