47
‘Degrading’: why did a US fighter pilot avoid British trial after strangling a woman in England?
(www.theguardian.com)
There are too many snippets that are ridiculous, you should really read the article, but here are a few:
The jury – who heard the case in April this year at RAF Lakenheath, the largest US base in Britain – was a panel of eight air force officers.
All were stationed on the same base as Wulfson. All were men.
The panel’s president, equivalent to a jury foreman, was the chief of the squadron that maintains the jets flown by Wulfson. Another panel member had been acquitted of sexual offences at a court martial several years earlier.
…
In his opening statement, [defense attorney] Bilecki confidently asserted: “This is a play for money,” saying his client had been “set up for money”. Steele repeatedly denied this. She said she had applied to the scheme – and had still not received a decision – to cover loss of wages arising from difficulties going back to work after the assault.
The prosecution described Bilecki’s theory as absurd. By his closing submissions, he seemed less confident in this aspect of his case. “Do I know if she’s doing this for money? I don’t know,” he said.
…
Due to specific requirements under US law, the intimate images and report detailing the forensic examination of Steele’s vagina shortly after the alleged assault were not admissible as evidence.