Cindy Gladue suffered her last indignity at murder trial

Warning: This story contains some graphic and disturbing details.

More than a week after the verdict that found Bradley Barton not guilty of Cindy Gladue's murder,many people are still shocked.

She bled to death in the bathtub ofthe hotel room of Barton because of an 11-centimetreinjury to her vagina in 2011.

Most shockinglyis not how Cindy died, although it should be. What is most horrific is that a Canadian courtallowed the most intimate part of a woman's body to be evidence in a jury trial.

• Cindy Gladue case: Not guilty verdict prompts rallies calling for appeal

As a lawyer who represents families in inquests, death investigations and victims ofcrime, I understand the need for medical evidence. I understand that dissection of awoman's pelvis region may be necessary during a post-mortem examination todetermine the cause of death so medical experts can reach conclusions on the cause ofthe injury.

What I cannot understand is why it was necessary for two medicalprofessionals to demonstrate their theories and opinions in front of the jury using thehuman remains of the victim.

Cindy Gladue was a mother. Cindy Gladue was a daughter. Cindy Gladue was a Creewoman. Cindy Gladue was a human being regardless of her profession as a sex worker.

Using hervagina as evidence dehumanizes her.Privacy interests do not end atdeath and there is nothing more private than the intimate body parts of a woman.

Court insensitivity

Many women would never allow their intimate body parts so publicly exposed, even inthe pursuit of justice. Many men would shudder at the idea of their mother's, daughters',sisters' or wives' vagina in a courtroom.

Why would a court ever allow such a displayof disrespect and degradation to occur to a victim's body?

Technology should have played asignificant role in any demonstration by expert witnesses. Instead of using other toolsand alternatives, Cindy's vagina was used as a demonstration tool.This is both offensive and re-victimizing.

With modern technology that can take any image or object and create a 3D simulation,why was it necessary to display Cindy's vagina to the jury?Using any human body partto demonstrate a difference in expert opinion is brutal enough, but it was especiallyinhuman to use the actual vagina of the victim.

Why would acourtever allow such a displayof disrespect and degradation to occur to a victim's body?- Christa Big Canoe, lawyer

The legal test for admissibility was used when deciding whether or notCindy's vagina should be real evidence in the trial. I am surprised it was not excludedbased on the integrity of the proceeding.

I believethatfourissuesshould have been given more weightwhen considering if Cindy's vagina should have been excluded as evidence.

These include:

1. The dignity of an individual, including her privacy rights.
2. What impact the use of her actual remains had on Cindy's family and their faith in thejustice system.
3. The unorthodox approach to evidence was unnecessarily given the medical expertshad other ways to demonstrate their positions.
4. The potential for vicarious trauma to those in the courtroom and the public in general.

Peace for Cindy

Cindy died four years ago. Her body is not whole in its resting place. In any othercontext this could be seen as desecration of her remains, but in this judicial process it iscalled preservation of evidence. It is simply horrific. It appears that the court did notcontemplate Cindy's dignity, death rites, or any indigenous perspective on caring for thedead.

Like others, Ihope that Cindy can be made whole and she receivesproper ceremonial death rites.- Christa Big Canoe, lawyer

Cindy's remains are still being held as evidence.I hope that they do not gettenderedor admittedas anexhibit should the Crown appeal the decision and be granted a new trial.

Like others, Ihope that Cindy can be made whole and she receivesproper ceremonial death rites.

Cindy's family was in the courtroom. The mere thought of Cindy's loss of privacy anddignity must have been heartbreaking for them. When families of victims steelthemselves and commit to witness justice for their loved one, any court process can bedifficult.

No amount of screening would have made it easier for family and friends toknow that Cindy's actual vagina was being used to demonstrate the injury. It does notmatter that the vagina was in a separate room, it was being live-streamed into thehearing.

New precedent?

I am not looking forward to a future where justice includes dehumanizing victims. I amreally hopefulthat the murder trial of Cindy Gladue is not the starting point in which wewill see theuse of intimate body parts as evidence as a normal part of the process.

Thistrial exemplifies how the Canadian legal system does not adequatelyaddress indigenous concerns and protocols; refuses to protect those we know are mostvictimized;and shows that the justice system is not resolving the sociological phenomenon ofmissing and murdered indigenous women.