The point you are missing everyine is: She KNEW her client was guilty she could have advised him to plead guilty, or proved him innocent which she couldn't do. So for one upmanship she turned a little girl of 12 into a willing participant, humiliating her and rejoicing when she 'won' her guilty clients freedom, destroyed a childs life! You serioulsy think this woman is fit to claim she is for womens rights? like seriously? AND we can't be sure about her coverups of her husbands 'womanising'. I certainly question that. She doesn't care who she tramples on as lomng as she gets things done her way!
I think it might be worthwhile re-reading JP's comment on this.
Everyone in a democratic judicial system has a right to a fair trial.
Without a fair and adequate defence, we'd be back to the Middle Ages.
From what I've been able to find, she didn't KNOW (in the sense of having clear proof) that he was guilty as charged. She SUSPECTED that he was.
She said that he denied it. (Some people do falsely accuse others of crimes that they hadn't, in fact, committed, either because it never happened, or because the victim was mistaken in the identity of the perp.)
In view of his denial, and despite her suspicions, the only recourse open was to pursue the line of defence that he was innocent, and that means questioning whether the girl's account was beyond doubt.
The other line of defence was to have a second opinion on the underpants. If the result of a second opinion requested by the defence was that whatever had been found clearly corroborated the result found by the prosecution's analysis, then the defence lawyer can present the results to the client and go from there. As in "Anything you want to tell me about this?"
If the defence results had shown that the defendant couldn't have been the person in question, then the prosecution fails, obviously, and the prosecution would need to keep searching for a different perp, or indeed question whether the alleged victim had been telling the truth.
The other option, if the perp finally admits that he / she was indeed guilty, is to admit to the crime committed, but present potentially mitigating circumstances: diminished responsibility at the time of the events, proof of heartfelt remorse, abusive childhood, or whatever.
One of the problems in this case is that the forensic lab (whose service had been requested by the prosecution)had discarded / thrown away / couldn't find the crucial part of the underpants that could have been retested for a second opinion.