Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 43 (click to see context) from:
** Assuming the case somehow went to court, Jesus' existence would be legally irrelevant. Meaning that even if they were accepted as experts on the historicity of Jesus (see below), there would be no basis for calling J. Warner Wallace or Lee Strobel to testify.
to:
** Assuming the case somehow went to court, Jesus' existence would be legally irrelevant. Meaning that even if they were accepted as experts on the historicity of The question at issue is not whether Jesus (see below), there would did or didn't exist, but whether Grace broke the law by making reference to him. A case could be no basis for calling J. Warner Wallace or Lee Strobel made that it's relevant because proving Jesus existed is a way to testify.show that Grace was merely making a historical reference and not a religious one, but this isn't strictly necessary, as the facts of the case should already show that.
Added DiffLines:
*** Her SurpriseWitness scene also suggests that she wasn't originally on the list of witnesses for the defense, even though she definitely would have been because she was a key witness to Grace's conduct in the classroom.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 58 (click to see context) :
* IdiotBall: A dramatic turning point in the case comes when Brooke is forced to admit on the stand that Grace spoke to her outside of class about her faith. Tom calls Grace out for not telling him about this, but as her lawyer, he should have asked her whether anything like that had ever happened.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* IdiotBall: A dramatic turning point in the case comes when Brooke is forced to admit on the stand that Grace spoke to her outside of class about her faith. Tom calls Grace out for not telling him about this, but as her lawyer, he should have asked her whether anything like that had ever happened.
