Not at all irrelevant. There couldn't be anything more relevant than wether a case is winnable in practise. Good luck trying to convince them that a dude that's been suicidal forever wouldn't just as well have killed himself over something else.Keith Chegwin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:51 amIrrelevant. All you'd need to prove is that this bloke wouldn't have killed himself if it weren't for the acts of Chelsea Van Valkenberg.
I wouldn't expect that case to win. We're still in the belieb wahmen era. Enough of the jury and likely the judge as well will buy into her sob story and then you're basically standing there with the argument that she should have never talked about her sexual abuse. Big waste of money and time.