Search results

Of course Amber Heard cannot let it go. I'm guessing this is to force Johnny to settle. https://ew.com/celebrity/amber-heard-to-appeal-verdict-johnny-depp-defamation-case/

And she is STILL running her mouth as we speak.

Johnny says the jury gave him his life back. “And six years later, the jury gave me my life back. I am truly humbled.” “My decision to pursue this case, knowing very well the height of the legal hurdles that I would be facing and the inevitable, worldwide spectacle into my life, was only made...

I think it's because AW was wrong in how he theorized the hoax. I don't think that was defamatory with malice, but that's what the jury decided. I think that's the only reason. That his theory was wrong about the wine and calling the police twice after the first dispatch found nothing.

Camille V speaks! They are grateful to the jury, the court, and the judge and staff. BC, they were honored to assist Mr. Depp in seeing that his case was fairly considered. And they are glad so many in the public value truth and justice. it's time to look to the future! People are asking...

I wonder how long before poor Whitney is out on the streets again. AH will probably throw the BFF chain out the window as they drive.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Liar!

Should have known the Mass Media would come up with a BS spin.

We believe! We believe! We believe!

Party time! Where my Mega Pint at?

And chicken parm sounds so so good right about now.

Well, if it's like I think, they were asking if the verdict form for the statement "I spoke out against sexual violence...." is asking them to evaluate JUST the title or if the form is asking them to evaluate the WHOLE article. Am I making sense? It's very confusing, but I think they wanted to...

Oh, I get it now. The jury, when they asked that question, they were confused as to whether -- when they saw the title -- it was signifying the article as a whole. For example, when I say, "Aquaman sucks," do I mean the title sucks or the whole movie sucks. So it sounds like they were confused...

Malice is defined in the jury instructions as lying and knowing you are lying OR being so reckless, you don't care if you're lying. I think it's both on her part. She knows she's lying. When did she ever "speak out" against "sexual violence" and "face wrath" for it? What proof did she have that...

Yes, they took them question by question but they did not ever go back and put them in context with the op-ed.

VERY. FF clearly says: that in order to determine if any of the statements in the op-ed are false, you must take the statements in the context of the op-ed as a whole. So what is the op-ed, versus the op-ed as a whole? And what difference does that make if the statement IN QUESTION is the...

No. He put a motion before the court that we don't know about and the judge said she isn't ignoring him, but she's either denying it or putting it off because the jury is already deliberating.

They're asking, though, if it's false and if they should look at the op-ed as a whole or just the title. And jury instructions FF, page 15 tells them for EACH statement they must consider the op-ed as a whole, not in parts. The judge was wrong.

Page FF of the instructions tells the jurors to consider the Op-ed as a WHOLE when considering if ANY of the statements are false. I think the judge messed up. JMO. I hope the jurors see that and ask another question. I'm assuming this 2019 link is right, and they just didn't update that link...

No, they said it was jury instruction C, number 3.