Thanks for all the tweets and updates today. One question that I have is probably for Alioop. I have limited experience with courts (very grateful for that), so
I may just be naive. My understanding is that everyone needs to speak the truth in court. Of course the jury will need to decide whether defendants and witnesses are speaking the truth or not and of course unfortunately lies will sometimes be told under oath. The extension of this understanding would be that a defense barrister would need to only present what he knows to be truth too. Of course if his or her client has told them a lie they will still present that assuming that it is true. That makes sense to me. Unless told otherwise the defense barrister at least outwardly believes their client. Of course inwardly there is always the chance that they have a different personal opinion. What I find to be confusing is when evidence is presented to the jury as fact when it seems to be already proven that it is not. I know the job of the defense barrister is to create doubt, but it can't be ethical to misrepresent things to the jury. Examples where this seemed to be happening today with the defense summary were when he suggested that Alison could have been shifted to the spot she was found in through tidal movements where I thought that all of the reports indicated that she was in the position she was found in very soon after her death. Another example was when he said that Alison could have jumped, but this seems to be in contrast to her body being found under the bridge with no broken bones. Of course I have not sat in the court and heard all the evidence and I am not an expert. In the interests of justice shouldn't known truthful facts be left as known truthful facts. It seems unfair and unethical to create confusion about these type of facts for the jury. I can understand creating doubt about things like who put the phone on the charger at 1:48am, whether the blood in the back of the Captiva was the result of Alison being transported to Kholo in the car or not, and even how she died. I also thought that there was evidence that she didn't drown and so I wondered why that come up again too. My other question is about how people speak of a victim in a court case. In the very limited court cases I have supported people through and therefore witnessed, the legal people always gave me the idea that alleged victim's need to be spoken to and about in respectful and non condemnatory ways, even if a defendant believed that an alleged victim was lying and had character flaws. In this case Alison is a true victim. There is no question about whether or not she has experienced an injustice, nor is there a question about whether she is telling the truth or not, as she lost her life and can't "speak" to defend herself. Again, I am not in the courtroom, and have only followed the case from afar, but the impression I got was that at times Alison was portrayed very negatively...... yet she is the victim. This confused me as to why this was allowed, as it seemed (from a distance) in some ways to be disrespectful. Alioop, can you please explain. It might be that I live in a different part of Australia and there are different rules and expectations about how defense teams speak about victims. I don't know. These are just my observations and questions from a distance as we wait for justice for this beautiful lady and her family.