What The Heart Wants

Reassessment

Over lunch at Molly Malloy's in Reading Terminal Market, Brian, Tyler, Wendy, Diana, Aaron, and Lauren talked about the status of the trial and what they wanted to do when they started on Friday morning with the cross-examination of Greg Orlandini.

Brian: We were delivered a bit of a blow there at the end of today's session, when the judge decided to let the defense call Tyler as a witness for their side.

Diana: I didn't think they could do that.

Aaron: If I understand correctly, once Brian rested his case, any witness on his list could be called by the other side provided they had not yet testified.

Brian: That was David's logic, that since I didn't call him, he could do so since he felt that we were sandbagging him by not calling him during our portion of the trial. He argued that we could either introduce his research as evidence or call him as a rebuttal witness after he rested.

Tyler: So now I have to testify to my findings about the athletic bubble and its impact on female athletes and their decision-making about relationships.

Brian: Yes. I don't know what he is doing at the moment or how he's going to prove his case by the end.

Wendy: Is there anything you need from me or the front office?

Brian: Some critical-thinking skills, really. I am puzzled as to his strategy. He called up his top witness at the start only to have him end up looking bad and a moocher on my cross. He then put Greg on the stand I presume to get their argument back on track. It's funny, because he limited his questions to just the run-ins with the players up through Hearts United. Nothing about what happened at the airport on the 20th or any attempt to downplay it.

Lauren: Mind if I pipe in?

Brian: Go ahead, Lauren.

Lauren: After doing all the digging through legal documents and filed affidavits in the USA Gymnastics mess, I think I have a decent feel for what both sides want to do with what they present to the court both in discovery and at trial. Watching from the back of the courtroom and studying how you and David have been operating, he looks to be setting up his defense in two parts. When his attempt to link Alex to Ali and her tactics to that of Julie failed, he decided to shift over to getting the negatives out of the way by putting Greg on the stand and having him admit more or less to the charges against him from our side, but in a limited form so that they can hold down the potential payout of non-compensatory damages. With that out of the way, and with Tyler expected to be his next witness, he is probably seeking to do an end-run back at putting the players on trial by getting Tyler's testimony to set up calling other individuals "harmed" by the actions and thinking of the players.

Aaron: You might be right, Lauren. In fact, I think he is going to try and win the case now by loading up the accusations based on Tyler's research and then having Greg come back to the stand to trot out his defense of the common man shtick.

Diana: They can bring him back up?

Brian: Yes, Diana. He ended his questioning by saying he reserved the right to recall him, which means he probably will do so like Aaron mentioned.

Wendy: What does this do to our case and the ability to prevail?

Brian: Your part of it will be done after I cross-examine him tomorrow morning, if their strategy is to go after the players following that. What I need to do is question him relentlessly about the interactions he had with Hearts players, especially the stalking actions at Hearts United.

Tyler: Any plans for rebuttal witnesses after they close?

Brian: Since you're going to get called on as part of their presentation of testimony, I can't bring you back to ultimately rebut yourself. I'll have to find a way to guide you on cross to negate any points you make for their side. What is the main thrust of your research that they think will help them?

Tyler: That female athletes have deemed the "average" man undesirable as a partner so they either team up with one another or seek out male athletes who might or might not be better choices than John Q.

Brian: Is that what you believe is the case?

Tyler: It's putting the conclusion down first and then trying to build a case to match it, which is a horrible twisting of the findings. I don't say "this is what they do and this is the motivation behind it". Instead, I point at what causes them to do it, which is outside pressure to conform to some perfect standard because the people around them aren't willing to let them "be normal". It's like you said on Cowherd back in December, that female athletes are expected to be everything to everyone. My findings indicate that they attempt to do that by meeting society's expectation on the one hand and their own desires on the other through dual relationships. Cases in point: the triangle of Julie Johnston, Zach Ertz, and Christen Press, the Alex/Servando/X situation, where that X could be anyone imaginable that would yield for her stability. I'd even throw in whatever is going on with Carli Lloyd and her husband, because it doesn't seem like she even much likes him, but he provides good cover for her to do what she wants.

Brian: Turning this back to our case at hand, is there a way to rebut his argument about the women presenting an availability on one hand and a disdain for what comes calling on the other?

Tyler: Stephanie Ochs. She's been an NWSL player since its start in 2013, has played for Washington, Houston, and North Carolina and is now part of the Hearts by way of a trade following the expansion draft.

Brian: You know that she's either on the open market or with a 9-to-5er?

Tyler: Yes, because that 9-to-5er is me.

Brian: How did that happen?

Tyler filled Brian and the rest of the table in on the A-to-B path that resulted in him and Steph becoming a couple.

Tyler: It was a mixture of luck, then common interests which spurred the something more part.

Brian: She would make a compelling case against the bubble and what some of the players are accused of. I wish I hadn't burned both Ali and Steph already, because I'd like to get their relationship's development into the record.

Wendy: Any way you can call Carm as a rebuttal witness? She saw the entire thing play out going back to the Dirty 30 in Vegas in October.

Diana: You haven't put me on the stand yet, Brian, and I can attest to at least some of the inevitability of their relationship from my time with them in Washington and living with Steph there and the two of them here.

Brian: The only way I can call either of you as rebuttal witnesses is if one of their witnesses makes a claim that can be proven to be incorrect by way of fact, not opinion. As of now, Steph Ochs has facts on her side so that if Greg makes too broad a generalization, we can prove it to be wrong by way of her relationship with Tyler. Lauren, can you get a copy of the transcript of Servando and Greg's testimony-to-date?

Aaron: I'd probably have a better chance getting it since I have access to the Court of Common Pleas' document server at the law library. Lauren, can you come over tomorrow morning?

Lauren: Wendy, do you need me in court in the morning?

Wendy: Go! We can have Morgan take notes of anything that we'll need to go over after the session.

Brian: With the delay today and what looks to be at least 3 witnesses after my cross in the morning, we're going to have a couple of days to put together our rebuttal since we won't finish tomorrow. If we don't see each other at court tomorrow, Happy Hour at 13 in the Marriott.