MIT Garments Record Physical Abuse

I abhor physical violence as much as anyone else, but the notion of anyone having to buy special (and likely very costly) clothing to ascertain if violence has taken place seems a but over-the-top, and perhaps counterproductive. Why not spend time on methods for detecting subtle bruising of the skin? How common is it that reports of physical violence are not to be believed without corroborative support from the skin, and what changes when the assessment of the skin is replaced by sensory garments? Yes, victims are photographed to support their claims, but one can be assaulted or battered without having any mark be left behind. If the victim of violence is not to be believed, how is it that the garment is to believed? One could make the garment show any kind of contact one desired, correct? If the garment is not built into all types of clothing by all manufacturers, is it only paranoiacs (perhaps justifiably paranoid) who will opt for the garment? How will a jury treat evidence from a paranoid person with a closet full of sensory garments? If it's an additional sensory layer of clothing, then how does it not offer some physical protection? Will real bruises be less noticeable if the garment is being worn? I'm sorry, it seems like too much of a feel-good concept to me that cheapens the real damage that physical violence has on people, both physically and psychologically. Meh.