. I had never seen my Dad angry and I don't believe I ever did more than once again,the second time was my doing too 
.
I agree with this, I was watching testimony from a YouTube trial lawyer a couple days ago, and he said frankly, that no lawyer would choose this dramatic and high a bar for their client to clear without the client was insisting upon it, client clearly thinking they had some kind of real slam dunk genius case-winning ideas in their back pocket… I forget what quieter technicality-type defense route he said he would have chosen in the shoes of EB, but it wasn’t this, IMO, YMMV.
I think there is only so much you can do with a client like AH. I think her attorney has done a reasonable job of putting out some potentially damaging info. In the end however, I think that the damage will rest largely, or at least equally, with AH.
I am following the summaries of the trial but stopped watching it b/c I found it so vulgar. JD looks appropriately uncomfortable and embarrassed by all this, but AH seems to be relishing the limelight, no matter how disgusting the subject matter is.
Someone on CourtTV did say that civil attorneys are not known for having much trial experience, clients tending to settle before the trial stage; and that some in fact have zero, in which case Brown Rudnick definitely wins the competition because they are a huge multinational law firm with experts in everything to rely upon; and to some extent EB almost has to be heavily outclassed.
Yes, this is a sad, hot-mess. I hesitate to post here because I truthfully am still neutral. I know my position goes against the general consensus and I fear my fellow WS members will toss rotten tomatoes my way for not yet placing all blame on AH.
Hi Chelly, No tomatoes from me. I always like to hear everyone's opinion, even if different than mine. I admire your courage too because it is obvious most on this thread support JD, including me. I believe Johnny is Zero percent responsible the same way I believe Travis Alexander was Zero percent responsible. Both men are/were not perfect, but both men became tanlged with very dangerous women.
I agree. Her lawyers are trying to set up the premise that she's a domestic violence sufferer because of Emotional and Verbal abuse. They keep saying there are 'different' kinds of abuse. I guess that's in case the jury doesn't believe DV or SA, but I would discard emotional and verbal before I even get to her DV or SA claims simply because she wouldn't let Johnny walk away from an argument. If you don't let someone walk away, then you can't be all hurt and abused if they start talking emotionally "abusively" to you. I'd even reason that it's false imprisonment not to let JD walk away from an argument.
When I think about what to fault JD for, I take his name and replace it with "she." Because if he was a female, no one would hold him responsible for not finding a way out. No one would find him responsible for not seeing the red flags. No one would fault him for believing his abuser could change or he could handle it. No one would fault him for suffering in silence.
