With all the smoke surrounding yesterday’s hearing, it was easy to miss what becomes abundantly clear once it settles. The witnesses appeared to be fully expecting Karen to handle this civil case the same way she handled her criminal trials: speaking publicly about court proceedings, appearing on YouTube presentations, giving interviews, participating in fundraisers, and making statements on the courthouse steps. Assuming that would happen, they seemed to have an entire playbook ready: motions drafted, responses prepared, arguments waiting to be filed - all to smear and derail her defense. Then reality set in… Karen wasn’t doing any of those things, and it became increasingly apparent that she wasn’t going to. So what happens when you have built a strategy around a public narrative that never materializes, while your own litigation decisions ( avoiding depositions, withholding discovery and other procedural battles ) are about to receive greater scrutiny? You use the playbook anyway. After all, if it’s the only armor you’ve prepared, why let it go to waste? It may have seemed like an easy strategy, but as LYK so eloquently put it: “You can run, but you can’t hide.” One final thought… Who is hosting YouTube presentations that feature the best friend of a major witness in the case? Who has a fierce spokesperson posting inflammatory content on Twitter every day? Which side’s adjacent characters regularly appear on Twitter Spaces trashing the other side? Which side holds public fundraisers, discusses evidence in the case and social events centered on the witnesses? And finally, which side is repeatedly accusing the other side of pandering to the social media and the public in court filings and hearings? Becomes very clear to see what’s up.