I agree. But I'm just saying... that's how it's meant to be - that's how a fair trial is supposed to work. I'm amazed his previous convictions have been revealed. I read something somewhere about this once (can't remember the exact details) but it seems that previous stuff is allowed if both sides agree to reveal it and if it demonstrates 'bad character'. I can't imagine why his defence would allow it, unless their intention is to hammer home the point that he's 'just' a petty thief who likes to shock women with his masturbating activities, rather than a murderous rapist.