Okay, so I have been watching the raw footage of this trial that YouTube has provided (law & crime version mostly). Because I am so far behind, I am just getting to AH testifying in defamation trial part three. While I am trying to watch this footage with an open mind for both parts, I realize that my opinion holds nothing compared to the trained eye/ those who have seen everything as of yet, nor do I think that I know anything about law, because I don’t.

I like JD’s opening arguments and think that the cross examination was entertaining and makes him look innocent. As people have said in my previous posts, it would be interesting to see what the outcome may be had we heard her testimony before his.

Due to time constraints as I have been trying to catch up as fast as I can, I have been watching everything at 2X speed on YouTube and I have to admit that her explanation of EVERYTHING that she says seems fake. I have researched other articles that both agree and disagree with this argument, so this is just opinion based.

She almost NEVER dries her eyes after she cries and she moves on very quickly to the next thing that may make JD look incriminating. Watching this at 2X speed makes it easier to see this because her emotions move from sad/happy/fake at a speed that seems too quick to feel genuine, Which I know seems contradictory.

I have to admit- they both seem guilty of being abusive, addicted and crazy as of yet as far as I’ve seen. This isn’t ideal for either side of the case, but it seems like we should look at who is more guilty, or maybe call it a truce. But what the fuck do I know? I am still not all caught up. Sorry for posting this before I know all the details.

What would it mean if the judge called it even? if they both were found guilty? As I said, I have no idea about law.