Report comment

To those who are quick to judge I was a litigant in person at the first trial. As a result the findings of fact were misplaced as I have no legal training and found the whole process overwhelming. However the appeal court made an assumption that I know the law because, as a privately educated and professionally trained person, I was able, after 7 years of support post divorce, to articulate myself well. I have learnt aspects of the law for the last 7 years but knew nothing at the time I visited Ms Lamdsberg.
Does this mean no intelligent woman can be a victim of abuse. If a woman presents herself well and holds herself together in public, is there an assumption that she is not in private turmoil, medicated and suffering depression and suicidal thoughts?
How easy to judge a book by its cover.
Might the case have had a different outcome if I were not well spoken and intelligent?