I think we are all aware of certain things from MD’s testimony.
Having been in charge of BFF for decades she has got used to having things her own way.
She is used to manipulating information to the board so that she gets her own way.
In essence she is used to using some aspects of coercive control within her position of professional authority and that she seems to be able to do that both up and down the hierarchy. (Love-bombing is evident here too).
SM has taken some of that control away and the process of ET is exposing how MD has reacted to that. I doubt her working behaviour has ever attracted scrutiny of any shape or form before.
She can’t contain her outrage that a small arts organisation, and her in particular, isn’t somehow exempt from employment law and fair practice.
She genuinely believes that having manipulated the situation to try and subvert legal process to pursue the end MC desired that she is not lying in response to NC because to her these manipulations are entirely within her authority as she sees it, further enhanced by MCs own manipulations of her.
The panel will have to perform significant gymnastics if they want to view her as a credible witness.
NC and CE are such a talent at uncovering such dastardly and underhand behaviour.