The Herald reports:
The GP of a Kāpiti councillor standing trial for indecent assault has been asked to measure the length of the accused’s penis with a wooden ruler.
In open court? 🙂
Earlier in proceedings, the complainant rejected what she felt pressing into her could have been a wallet, phone or insulin kit, rather than male genitalia.
She said what she felt was about four or five inches.
Under cross examination defence lawyer Mike Antunovic asked Cammack to measure the length of Scott’s penis in a separate room. That measurement is suppressed.
He also asked another witness to measure Scott’s wallet which was about four and a half inches long.
This seems a novel defence strategy. Basically it appears to be “That wasn’t my penis, that was a wallet” pressed against you.
Now the complainant has said it was around four to five inches long which is the size of the wallet. But for this defence strategy to work, you need the penis to be not that size. So are they hoping the penis is much larger than five inches or much smaller than four inches?
Also doesn’t the umm circumstances count? I imagine it is highly unlikely your penis will be aroused when being measured by a GP in a secluded court room. But it may have been at the morning tea.
There will be a lot for the jury to ponder!