I watched every minute of the trial and not once did the plaintiff lawyer implied intention wrong doing. What's the reason behind this?
What these lawyer did would be like proving a person stole a car, kidnapped a woman, beat her, raped her, put the murder weapon in the killer's hand, put them at the time and place, having the pic of the killer stabbing the woman, then having the defendant admit all of that to be true, but only to say "its really odd" the lady was murder in closing, and all that when the only thing the judge cares about is if murder was intentional or not.
What was the reason behind this legal tactic? Did they simply try to introduce evidence because everyone knew it would go to appeal?
The first time I saw this word ‘intent’ widely used was when Comey cleared Killary of any wrongdoing. It is one of those things the left have illegally invented as a get out of jail free card. If I was going 90mph down the interstate and got stopped the trooper wouldn’t let me off because I didn’t intend to speed. I would still get that ticket! There is the law for the little people and there are the loopholes for the other people.