get under their skin戳到痛处

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。听着不太好，对吧？可他们有些人…… 有些人那股自以为正义的劲，真受不了。 你找一个没先跟搭档对过故事、没想把漏洞补上的警员给我看看。 你要是在这套制度里扮演上帝，你就完了，可警察，他们忘了。 他们以为自己就是这套制度。 所以，窍门是先激怒他们。 你要是惹毛他们，他们就会防着，然后犯错， 而他们之前说过的话，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.

可在性侵案子里盘问，完全是另一回事。 性侵案子里，通常就是两边各执一词。 对，性行为发生了，可当时到底是不是双方同意的？ 这个故事，必须构成法律上的真相。 辩方不必证明她同意了。 你只要指出，他并不知道当时没有同意。 他当时以为没问题，这个想法合理吗？ 我同情那个被说成受害人的人，那个控告人，真的同情。 我看得出她们怕我会问什么。 有些男大律师还在用这种口气：「让她们看起来像骗子，让她们怀疑自己。」 我只是问得清楚、简短，仅此而已。 控告人意识不到，可实际上由我来做，她们是走运的—— 检验这个案子，而不把她们毁掉。