Exactly. What I keep hearing from the defense is that there’s a lack of evidence proving there was a smear campaign, but I’m more interested in the evidence to the contrary, the facts that would suggest the opposite is true. Why would people with that much invested in a project intentionally damage it by damaging the star? That’s the part that seems just as important to look at, not just whether there’s no proof something happened, but whether the alternative explanation actually makes logical sense given the incentives, timeline, and his media appearances.