Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,
this is an open and shut case.
In fact, I would go as far as saying that this whole matter should have been resolved before we had to involve you fine folks. Now the defense has claimed this is all frivolous and vexatious but I fervently disagree and so does my client.
We all know we need to disregard such comments as "Amazing... The pictures say it all" and "We purchased this as a Halloween costume for our cat. Even though he would only wear it for a short time, it was so cute we had to give it 5 stars. See picture of our cutie."
These are inflammatory and only presented from the point of the view of the defense.
Clearly, there is another viewpoint to taken into consideration here. Did Fluffy McStuffins want to be put into a fracture paperplate mane purchased online to amuse his human counterpart? I think we all know the answer is no.
All we really have to do is remember the post that matters. The one that truly explains why humans don't always have the best interest of Fluffy McStuffins in mind.
Posted on December 4th, 2018... we present evidence exhibit B, a review post on KittyPuppyRUs, that reads "Another drunken purchase that came as a surprise in the mail. Love when I treat my future self like this, what a delight! Out of my three cats only one would keep it on long enough to catch a photo. Jada was less than thrilled to say the least, leading to an abrupt ending on a satisfying moment. I'll give it a month before I break this out again to avoid any trauma."
Another drunken purchase indeed. Purchased I might add by defendent after opening her second bottle of wine.
The defense doesn't deny that this post was in direct review of "appliance" that was put on my client. The defense doesn't ignore the fact that the purchase was hideous and was not in my clients best interests. The defense can only admit their client is definitely the guilty party here.
And that ladies and gentlemen is why we are here today.
To find Helen guilty of
"Another drunken purchase."