if ryan doesn't exist, she lied to the tribunal last week in saying he does. if he does exist, she lied to it today in claiming he doesn't.
she's literally told the tribunal both things; one of them is false.
it's clear to me that he does exist. but, from this tribunal's perspective, that's almost trivial.
so, what does the judge do, then, when the defendant is clearly of no credibility, at all, whatsoever? what's the point, when she's demonstrated that she'll lie in the most easily discernible and flatly sociopathic means possible?
if i was the judge, that would be game over - she might think that was smart, but it ought to be instantly fatal. one way or the other, that's a straight-faced lie to the tribunal.