Yes of course.  Someone that looks like they have taken care of themselves and has clean hair and an air of confidence does seem more believable than someone that looks grubby and dishevelled.  Of course we know that is not always the case but it is just the way the mind works.

 

Slightly off topic but two girls with the same education and qualifications apply for a job.  One looks well dressed confident and professional.  One is overweight, has bad skin and hair needs a wash.

 

Who gets the job?

Clean tidy gardening clothes vs a business suit.

Clothes may make a first impression, for a trial that lasts days or weeks, there will be more important details to consider than the clothes the accused is wearing.

How come lots of people that get convicted wore suits to court? An recent example.. Stephen Gittany ( threw his girlfriend over the balcony) charged with murder. He wore flash clothes to court.

Yeah, that comparison doesn't relate at all to an accused standing in front of a judge.

A thug wearing a suit is still a thug.

A thug in a suit looks less a thug than in a green prison issue trackie.

Not to a judge lol

As a teen my mate was advised by her solicitor to dress in more mature woman clothing and to wear chicken breasts to appear older. Won't say the reasoning why but her appearance had a big impact on the case.

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

 

OP, who is Freddie Starr?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Starr

 

 

Rolf Harris breaks into song and dance in court and tells the court how he invented the wobble board.

Jake the peg of all things  :D:D

---

@freakiness wrote:

Rolf Harris breaks into song and dance in court and tells the court how he invented the wobble board.

Jake the peg of all things  :D:D

---

Apropos. It was his middle one that got him into trouble in the first place.

---

@electric*mayhem*band wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

Rolf Harris breaks into song and dance in court and tells the court how he invented the wobble board.

Jake the peg of all things  :D:D

---

Apropos. It was his middle one that got him into trouble in the first place.

---

So it seems.  Why would a court tolerate a defendant whacking on a costume and bursting into song?

It's hardly relevant.  A bit of deflection maybe.  Like "don't you know who I am. I painted for the queen".