You guys realise all AH has to do is demonstrate probability that he was abusive to her at least ONCE?
It's not a trial to prove who was the biggest victim of their toxic relationship... and if any of you have ever been a partner of an insidious drunk, you will know that in their mind they can do no wrong and are incapable of violence BECAUSE THEY ARE DRUNK, COKED OUT at the time... the whole point of abusing substances is to numb, dissociate, which includes avoiding recollection and responsibility.
AH describes JD as a monster in this state, even Johnny's sister AND children were begging him to be sober and off the coke, likely because he is un-recognisable, like most people are in the same state.
His argument is that he has abused substances so much in his life that "sober Johnny" and "cooked Johnny" are one and the same... this is an addict in denial; I've lived this exact relationship; they are both culpable, they are both incapable of self-reflection.
I think Johnny randomly disappearing on her probably set off her abandonment issues, giving her a sense of entitlement to punish him... neither of them are right, both toxic, both in denial.
But will Johnny win? No... the London trial was precedent, there was enough to sway the jury that abuse occurred on his side; this is no different. All she has to do is a paint a picture of the likelihood of abuse either emotional or physical, and she has.
That old fool JD likes to f*ck himself up to the point where he is no-longer lucid.
People forget he abandoned his family of 14 years and probably upped his drug abuse more than ever, more than previous partners ever witnessed.
And by the age of 50+ regardless of tolerance, the brain damage has set in, alcohol dementia, coke incensed brain-fry and opiate dissociation no-longer works, so harder and more extremes are required to get the same effect.
Seriously, unless you're a recovered addict you will never know how far an addict will go to get the devil to take over like he used to (alter, monster), especially when the devil requires more and more debauchery for his gift of "checking out."
Frankly I think JD is a victim of his ego and the age old, entitled, middle-aged male syndrome; he fell for a seductress siren half his age (*YAWN*) and was incoherent for most of it, incited and bullied into a toxic interplay that the said incubus used to fuel a victim narrative. This still makes her an abuse victim, manipulation or not, it happened, toxic abuse happened both ways. She will win... she only has to show it happened once.
It was a perfect storm. Johnny is trying to prove he played no part in the interplay. This is such a lie and won't stand up.
The court of public opinion is different, JD wins here, but the lawsuit, no.
criminalbrief.com
