I absolutely agree with you fella, that it's dreadful to imply that. BM, or any defence lawyer, would sort of have to though, I think?
If my family member was on trial for something, and I believed they weren't guilty, (though I think LL is) I would be pissed off if the defence lawyer didn't press this point, on the basis it may upset a victim's parents. Noone would obviously want that, but it's the defences job to try to cast reasonable doubt for their client. The defence can't NOT do that, despite it upsetting others, or because it makes them look not nice.
BM would be a proper shit defence if he didn't, to be honest. It sounds like I am always defending him, but I am trying to see how I would want my daughter to be defended if she had pleaded not guilty, and if I as her mother genuinely believed her. I wouldn't give a shit if something didn't make the defence look nice (though would be gutted it upset the parents...but not as gutted as if the defence didn't question it and my daughter could go to jail as a result. Sorry! 🫣).
I totally appreciate how other fellas are seeing it differently and why they think he shouldn't pursue this line of querying though.