"Ms Heard has no right to tell the world that Mr Depp physically and sexually assaulted when that isn't true... That isn't protected speech."
"Ms Heard made up claims of abuse, and then she gave a performance where she passionately repeated those claims of abuse, on the stand in front of you."
"Either Ms Heard was raped by a bottle, or she's the kind of person who would get on the stand and lie about being rape. And if she lied about that, what wouldn't she lie about?"
“Think about the message Mr Depp and his legal team are sending to Ms Heard and, by extension, all victims of domestic abuse: If you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen. If you did take pictures, they’re fake.”
“If you didn’t tell your friends, you weren’t injured. If you did tell your friends, they were part of the hoax.”
“If you didn't seek medical treatment, you weren't injured. If you did seek medical treatment, you're crazy… if you finally decide that enough is enough, you've had enough of the fear, enough of the pain and you have to leave to save yourself, you're a gold digger”
Amber Heard returned to the stand. Her lawyers asked her how this trial has affected her, and tbh it was heartbreaking. I know people are saying that they don’t find her emotion credible but personally I don’t see that; I see a very distressed person.
AH was asked about the mockery and harassment she has received from JD fans. She says she gets “thousands” of death threats.
“People want to put my baby in the microwave, and they tell me so.” She also talked about being harassed by JD fans outside the courthouse.
I'm seeing a lot of people say that because Heard mentioned on the stand that the op-ed was about Depp's power, that this is an admission that the op-ed is about him and is enough to prove malice, and therefore he wins. That's not right. An explainer:
I see this mistake a lot so I think it's important to clarify how the law works here. Malice on its own is not enough to prove defamation; it's a secondary question for the jury. The first question is whether or not the statements in the op-ed were "false".
So, first the jury has to decide if the statements were false. If they are not convinced that the statements were false, malice and intent do not factor into the question AT ALL. Substantially true statements cannot be defamatory even if made with the world's most evil intentions
Wow. Absolutely huge day yesterday. I’ll do my best to summarise. #DeppHeardTrial
JD returned to the stand. I thought this was going to be very narrow in scope, just confirming that he didn’t know about the Waldman statements – in the end it was anything but. As before, JD was (for the most part) a very personable witness. He’s friendly, polite, makes jokes
He was asked what it was like listening to AH’s testimony and allegations during this trial. He replied: “Insane. Horrible. Ridiculous, humiliating, ludicrous, painful, savage, unimaginably brutal, cruel and all false. All false.”
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.
Me again, your friendly neighbourhood legal correspondent, with another little thread about some of the legal issues in the #DeppHeardTrial:
Depp has alleged defamation “per se”, which means that the statements are presumed to be defamatory, without requiring them to be put in context/use of external facts. Defamation per se applies to implications that are particularly serious, i.e. the commission of a crime.
It means the plaintiff, Depp, does not have to prove that the allegations were harmful in order to win – they are presumed to be harmful, because of their severity.