The film is not so much about World War II history as it is purely about British law, how they think logically, identify and adjudicate. The heroine is a writer, researcher, and Jewish, and she is inevitably very emotional in this matter. She feels that questioning the matter itself is inexcusable, and her lawyer, apparently professionally, told her one thing, emotional useless in court, The more emotional , the more vulnerable to attack, it's harder to prove a thing is true than to prove that a thing isn't true, so they didn't argue that the massacre was true In this case, they attacked the plaintiff's flaws, pointing out that he intentionally distorted some facts he knew for his own benefit. The highlight is the judge's sentence at the back, what if he really thinks so, the implication is that you can say that he has a bad mind, but you can't seem to say that he did it on purpose. Haha, I feel that these people are really very specific in their view of the problem. To form a chain, it must be reasonable, and to distinguish clear motivation and cause and effect, what a clear brain circuit is needed to become a lawyer in the UK! Of course, the final judgment still requires human judgment. The judge considers which situation is more likely to a greater extent. It is true that there is no absolute fact without absolute evidence, but we still have to make judgments.
View more about Denial reviews
