Rules:
She has forcefully hit back at "humiliating" suggestions by the defence that she may have been drunk or pretending to be asleep during the alleged rapes, stating that she was never interested in partner-swapping or threesomes
Her piece of shit husband admitted to the crime 4 years ago. What absolute scum bag defense lawyer had the gall to try and pitch that she was aware of the ordeal? I know your jobs to defend your client, but if that's the best you have quit
If this was in the US, I'd say they're creating a permission structure to allow a raging misogynist to feel justified in voting to acquit, hoping that there's one of those on the jury. When a long shot is your best shot, you take it. At least when your job requires ignoring truth and ethics.
I'm guessing this is the case where the ex-husband drugged and then allowed men to have sex with her while she was unconscious.
Yup
I hope they tar and feather him and then bury him under the jail. I don't understand why a person would do something like that. To anyone.
I'm really scared that the "rape without intention" is going to stick around... That would be an absolutely awful precedent.