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?
I wonder if it's the old tactic where if it's discounted initially the general public will discount it on the basis of this ruling without checking for themselves. It's like when Biden claimed the economy was growing by millions rather than thousands but later back tracked but people continue to believe the initial incorrect reported information.