Reply #245: Yes, but why were you so willing to believe the attacker in this

[Liquorice]

situation? You argued over and over as if it's a fact that she hit him. It is not a fact. It's not even true. Before I read the article about the witnesses, I kept saying that we didn't know if she hit him, and you kept arguing that she did. I also argued that even if she did, it was almost certainly because he got out of his car and charged after her in an aggressive way. You rejected that flat out, and insisted that she was wrong to hit him.

Why would you give this man the benefit of the doubt? He put the woman in a coma. Of course he's going to lie. When people commit crimes, they usually lie about the crime in order to escape justice. And yet, you were immediately convinced that the victim in this case hit the attacker. That has become one of the main issues in this thread for me. Why are so many here willing to automatically accept as fact the word of the man who viciously attacked this woman? There's something VERY WRONG with that.