What do you think?
Everyone had their own set of beliefs so it was not surprising thar their arguments are both valid.
In a common law (lore) court in the USA, whatever anybody says is true. If there are differences, the court is there to find out which truth is reality.
How we know the truth if they believe that they beliefs was true? In fact, they have different beliefs but they have different think that they say the truth even in others was not. How we can say who is the true and who is not if a person have different beliefs? How the argument work?
That is what the court does... finds the truth. Once it is adjudicated by the jury, the answer the jury gives is the final answer. But...
While a jury verdict in a common law court can't be changed, somebody can bring up a different question that is similar to the first, and essentially makes the first verdict of no effect depending on the new question ruling with a new jury.
In addition, if somebody thinks the jury members acted wrongfully (in bad faith), he can take them to court individually and get damages. But he better be right, because if he loses, his damages and fines will increase.