Thread by @LuciaOC_

A thread on yesterday’s rebuttal witnesses in the #DeppHeardTrial.

Interestingly, most of rebuttal so far has been focused on the specific question of calculating damages for Heard’s counterclaim. So, a quick note about damages.

For claims that are defamation per se, which both the claim and one of the counterclaims are, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove that the statements were damaging. So, they don’t have to call witnesses to say, for eg, what an ordinary reader would think of an abuser or a liar.

That's because the allegations are so serious that they are damaging on their face. BUT the jury does still have to decide the *amount* of damages, so they have to be presented with evidence about how to calculate how much to award to either party.

Richard Marks, an entertainment lawyer and dealmaker, was called to rebut Kathryn Arnold’s testimony about the damage done by the Waldman statements. He testified that Arnold “calls herself an expert but she’s not… she doesn’t have the day to day knowledge.”

Marks said that Arnold’s calculations about the potential deals that Heard missed out on were not based on proper or correct evidence from the perspective of a day to day dealmaker. Her figures “don’t hold up under scrutiny by someone who makes deals.”

I think this was effective bc it did seem to me that Arnold’s testimony was great on the big picture but less good on the technical stuff, which is *key* to damages, so I think it was smart for Depp to call someone who works on these kinds of deals to talk about the details.

Walter Hamada, the executive producer for the movie "Aquaman", was called to rebut testimony saying that Heard’s role in Aquaman 2 was potentially “pared down” due to the Waldman statements.

He testified that her smaller role in Aquaman 2 never changed, and that she was always more of a background character. He also said there were discussions about recasting Heard due to an "issue of chemistry" with Momoa.

Again, he actually produced the film, so a good witness imo

Doug Bania, a social media and internet analytics expert was called to rebut testimony about the link between the Waldman statements and the explosion of negative social media comments about Heard, including the hashtags #JusticeForJohnnyDepp, #AmberTurd and #AmberHeardIsALiar

He said that 35% of the tweets presented by Heard's expert actually happened before the Waldman statements were published by the Mail, and that only 2% of the tweets occurred just after the Waldman statements. He says this undermines the argument of correlation by timing.

Tbh I think this was quite an effective rebuttal as causation is *very* hard to prove in the damages element of defamation, and I wasn’t sure that Ron Schnell’s analysis quite got there. (Equally I'm not sure that Depp has proved causation re: the op-ed)

There was also a discussion about whether the hashtags actually used words from the Waldman statements, which is true. None of the actual words used, however this feels weak to me as Waldman said she was running an "abuse hoax", which seems closely aligned with #AmberHeardIsALiar

Dr. Richard Shaw (so many Richards in this case omg), a forensic psychiatrist for team Depp, testified that Dr. Spiegel's opinion was "unreliable," saying that he didn’t conduct sufficient analysis of Depp to arrive at his conclusions.

He said Spiegel broke the Goldwater Rule by analyzing a public figure that he has not met in person. Again, it’s very normal for experts to review documents rather the patient before giving evidence, plus Spiegel explained that this doesn't apply bc he analyzed private documents.

So as someone who covers the courts day in, day out, this didn't really land with me, but it might be a very different story for the jury.

That being said, Spiegel evidence overall was not very convincing so I think it's smart to bring someone up to rebut him. Also, he did make sweeping statements about Depp needing admiration etc, which he didn't seem able to back up.

Dr. David A. Kulber, a Cedars Sinai surgeon who treated Depp's severed fingertip, was also called. This doctor actually treated Depp’s hand, so that’s a big plus for him. He testified about the type of injury he observed, the surgery he performed and the type of cast he put on.

He was called to testify that Depp couldn’t have hit Heard multiple times while the hand was injured, as testified to by Heard’s sister. Kulber said he could have hit someone, but it likely would have damaged the cast, and he doesn’t recall any damage to the cast.

He also testified that Depp couldn’t have formed a fist with the cast on

On cross, he was asked if Depp could have used his other hand to hit someone or something, to which he answered yes.

He testified at one point that these hashtags have "nothing to do" with the Waldman statements in terms of content. That seems a stretch, given that the hashtag calls Heard a liar and the statements also call her a liar. The allegation is exactly the same.

Alright, let’s talk about the innkeeper from Hicksville, Morgan Knight, who was called to rebut testimony about the damage Heard and Depp caused while they stayed there, and to testify that he heard Depp and Heard have a verbal argument in which Heard was being very aggressive.

He testified that Depp was “cowering” and “seemed kind of afraid." He said that he overheard a verbal argument in which she was yelling at him/being aggressive. He also testified that the only damage done to the property was a broken wall sconce.

This contradicts what Heard said. She said that Depp “began smashing things... picked up something on the table & threw it right into the glass cabinet” and he "took his rage out" on the room. She said “he hit, with his hand, a wall sconce” - that part was corroborated by Knight

So, this would be hugely important testimony – there’s obviously a discrepancy about the damage – but it’s tainted by what’s happening on social media. Knight tweeted at an “internet journalist” who is hugely pro-Depp and who has been directly fed information by Waldman.