Re the Op-Ed, even ignoring her admitting on stand it's why she wrote it, her mentioning two years ago is significant as that directly points to JD.
All this BS about did she republish it with her tweet & link. Of course she did! The title was visible plus she added her comments so her argument about not seeing/writing that is crap as she had ample time to a) get it changed or b) put in a disclaimer or c) not retweet.
But that title would grab headlines around the world & help her play the victim while helping her rake in $$$ & hurting the one person she was targeting, JD. Did she do it with malice? Yes. Her lies are malice.
If memory serves me right (as I didn't follow the London trial) it was only here in Virginia that she came up with the sexual violence claim?
A claim that was so vicious & vile without one tiny shred of evidence to back it up. What it did do was give further insight into her twisted mindset.
Sadly, JD will always carry this to a degree, even if he wins this case. If he does, he'll have won in the court of public opinion & even more importantly got his voice heard which is a HUGE Win & hopefully his career will pick up again. But there will always be those who will remember her evil claim & believe her simply because she's a woman & of course no woman would ever make up something so horrendous & no matter there is NO evidence.
I can't understand how anyone can still support/defend her after everything we have seen during this trial.
In the end it will come down to the evidence which should dictate who the jury feels is more credible. I hope that will be Johnny. It should be.
The evidence is huge in his favour but there's an awful lot of boxes needing to be ticked & it needs to be unanimous.