get under their skin戳到痛處

I know, I know. Sounds bad, right? But some of them... Some of them can be so friggin' self-righteous. Show me an officer who hasn't run their story past their partner, trying to close the gaps. If you try to play God in this system, you are damned, but the police, they forget. They think they are the system. So, the trick is to get under their skin. If you aggravate them, they get defensive and they make mistakes, and you can discredit anything they have said before.

我知道，我知道。聽著不太好，對吧？可他們有些人…… 有些人那股自以為正義的勁，真受不了。 你找一個沒先跟搭檔對過故事、沒想把漏洞補上的警員給我看看。 你要是在這套制度裡扮演上帝，你就完了，可警察，他們忘了。 他們以為自己就是這套制度。 所以，竅門是先激怒他們。 你要是惹毛他們，他們就會防著，然後犯錯， 而他們之前說過的話，你都能拆掉。

But cross-examination in a sexual assault case, it is a completely different thing. In sexual assault cases, it's usually just one person's word against the other. Yes, the sex act happened, but was it consensual or not? The story, it has to make legal truth. The defence doesn't have to prove she did consent. You just have to point out he did not know there was no consent. Was it reasonable for him to think it was OK? I feel for the alleged victim, the complainant, I really do. I can tell they're scared of what I might ask them. Some of the male barristers, they still use this tone, 'Make them look like liars, doubt themselves.' I am clear and concise, nothing more. A complainant doesn't realise it, but they are actually lucky it's me doing this – testing the case, without destroying them.

可在性侵案子裡盤問，完全是另一回事。 性侵案子裡，通常就是兩邊各執一詞。 對，性行為發生了，可當時到底是不是雙方同意的？ 這個故事，必須構成法律上的真相。 辯方不必證明她同意了。 你只要指出，他並不知道當時沒有同意。 他當時以為沒問題，這個想法合理嗎？ 我同情那個被說成受害人的人，那個控告人，真的同情。 我看得出她們怕我會問什麼。 有些男大律師還在用這種口氣：「讓她們看起來像騙子，讓她們懷疑自己。」 我只是問得清楚、簡短，僅此而已。 控告人意識不到，可實際上由我來做，她們是走運的—— 檢驗這個案子，而不把她們毀掉。