We have a NOTE FROM THE JURY: They want to know whether the question of whether the headline is false relates to just the headline itself or the entire article — i.e does including the headline as a statement bring in everything in the article
The judge’s answer is: it means ONLY the headline itself, which is: “Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence and faces our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” I.e Using the headline as one of the defamatory statements does not mean the whole article must be false
This indicates that the jury is taking a forensic approach to this case, not an emotional one. This is also backed up by the fact that they’ve already been deliberating for more than five hours #DeppVsHeard#DeppHeardTrial
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD 🧵: When Virginia Guiffre settled her sexual abuse lawsuit against Prince Andrew for £12 million, he forced her to agree not to speak about the allegations or the settlement until the end of the year.
That’s reportedly because the royal family really didn’t want anyone talking about these sexual abuse allegations, or the fact that Prince Andrew settled them, during her jubilee.
But that NDA can’t stop the rest of us from talking about it. So, as we enter jubilee week, here’s @OwenJones84, @DrProudman and I speaking about that lawsuit, the settlement, and what it means for survivors of sexual abuse, on Owen’s fantastic show:
“We all loved him, but especially, especially her, and she wanted to believe that the behavior wasn't going to last. The reports of violence started with a kick on a private plane, then it was shoves and the occasional punch, until finally… she described an all-out assault.”
“I know this because I went to their house. I saw the pillow with my own eyes. I saw the busted lip and the clumps of hair on the floor. I got the phone call immediately after it happened, her screaming and crying, a stoic woman reduced to sobs.”
"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."
“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