Okay so faced with a he said/he said situation, and the testimony of both Patrick and Nadolsky is evidence, Nadolsky was found more credible. Little things like this are why:
View attachment 3153479
When asked a question that doesn't really reflect well on his case, he still honestly and quickly answers it.
Rick slithers and fidgets and tries to slime his way out of things, claims a text message says something, then reads it off and it completely doesn't, and literally interrupts Nadolsky during his own testimony, prompting the judge to tell him to knock it off. Wow.
So is the judge going to believe? The guy who honestly answers questions, or the guy who is devious, truculent, and unreliable?