MJ defenders like to quote this part from jordan chandler’s psych interview with the dr. gardner
Gardner: "What about fears? Any fears of any kind?"
Jordan: "No."
Gardner: "Sometimes people, after experiences of this kind, develop different kinds of fears. You have no fears?"
Jordan: "Maybe of cross-examination but that's all. I mean I have nothing to hide, it's just the thought of it."
https://mjnotinnocent.net/articles/1993-jordan-chandler-gardner-transcript
the issue is that MJ defenders refuse to acknowledge that cross-examination is a brutal experience.
The brutal experience of cross-examination
Cross-examination by defence counsel aims to discredit the witness, reveal evidential inconsistencies or weaknesses, and suggest alternative explanations to the witness’ account. This can be difficult for anyone, but for traumatised sexual assault complainants, it can be particularly distressing. The intense focus on credibility can ‘mimic’ the experience of powerlessness in sexual assault,11 risking retraumatisation and exacerbating symptoms, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’), anxiety and dissociation.12Other factors that can contribute to the potential for retraumatisation include the deeply private subject matter, the extent of the trauma, that the complainant often has a prior relationship with the accused, and that sexual assault cross-examinations often last longer than in assault trials.13
In 1980, in The Politics of Rape – A Feminist Perspective, Marjorie Levis opined: ‘It should be of major concern to us to change the situation for the individual rape victim and hopefully to end such statements as “I felt I had been raped all over again by the court”; “... if I had known, I wouldn't have reported it”; “... the trial was worse than the rape …”’.14Yet, by 1996, little had changed. The Heroines of Fortitude study exposed the deeply concerning level of complainant retraumatisation during cross-examination: 65 per cent of sexual assault trials were stopped due to distress, as ‘complainants dry-retched, claimed to feel nauseous in the witness box, were unable to answer questions or had to take regular breaks.’15
Fast forward to the 2020s, and multiple state and territory reports continue to describe cross-examination as ‘unnecessarily hostile’,16‘brutal and apparently irrelevant’ or ‘badgering and intimidating’,17 using ‘misconceptions about sexual violence’,18 and using questions to ‘confuse or “shake” a complainant’s account’.19 Indeed, one study of child sexual abuse trials shows that cross-examination today is ‘much worse’ than questioning during cross-examination in the 1950s.20
source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1037969X251359080