The second day of this Crown Court rape trial plunges straight back into cross-examination. The defence sets out to problematise, not the complainant’s credibility, but her reliability—dealing with the evidential difficulties posed by her level of intoxication, memory fragmentation, confabulation and contamination.
We see how defence advocacy works in practice: how these issues are probed, how ‘false memories’ are argued, how evidence like CCTV footage and cell-site data does not speak for itself, and the inferences juries may be asked to draw in cases where a complainant can’t remember.
This episode examines the messy and emotive reality of rape trials and the sometimes uncomfortable tension between fairness to the accused and compassion for the complainant.
","author_name":"Dr Candida Saunders "}