VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #12

[Warwick7]

Ha! Ha! Ha! Liar!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1532083776741842945

Whaaa? What mountain of evidence?! Was she even at the same trial?!

Her response is bordering on defamatory. She better be tread lightly.

 

[whitelilac]

I just looked up Jeff Beck. I didn't know he played with the Yardbirds.
Also, surprised to learn he is 77 years old.

 

[shotgun09]

I agree with you there. She kind of made herself radioactive for now.

Wowza!

Radioactive! She is so radioactive, now more than ever! Not only with her personal relationships...but no major Hollywood production company will consider the ramifications of "What if we hire AH?" She's proven to be untouchable...a hot mess....untrustworthy....and costly too. Too high risk, for little to no reward. Her career is done, IMO.

 

[ZoriahNZ]

So, apparently, AH may not be able to claim bankruptcy in order to get out of paying the damages she owes JD.

Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(6), a debt is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy if it arose from a willful and malicious injury.

While I don't think JD really is going to go after her for the monetary damages, he might even just ask for lawyer's fees, it appears that defamation technically comes under this definition of willful and malicious injury.

Non-Dischargeability in Bankruptcy of Certain Claims Based on Intentional Wrongdoing | Stimmel Law).

 

[Warwick7]

What cracks me up is the many lawyers on Court TV saying that AH's statement may be defamatory. She hasn't learned a thing. The girl wants the last nasty word. I agree with you, @NuttMegg

That's exactly what I was saying
She better tread softly in the future.

 

[concernedmother]

That's exactly what I was saying
She better tread softly in the future.

I don't think she's capable of doing that. I doubt she is done with him now. He needs to watch his back. Jmo.

 

[acutename]

That is for sure. If that was true someone else would of went to the ER to get checked and filed a police report. Totally unreal.

She was given a big dose of seroquel ASAP by Dr. Kipper and flown out of the country with a big guy ASAP, so I would not have been surprized if she was hazy on the details, but you all have pointed out how frequently she testified to the minutest of details.

 

[Warwick7]

I am so relieved that justice prevailed, despite so many blatantly damning things (against AH) being kept out of the trial. Thank goodness the jury saw through the lies and the manipulation.

While I am a bit disappointed that one of Waldman's statements was found as defamatory, I concede that perhaps the evidence presented didn't support that one statement about AH's friends also being part of the hoax. I think that ended up being the sticking point, because the other two statements she lost were about HER hoax. My takeaway is that the jury believe SHE alone is responsible for the false allegations, and that maybe her friends believed her stories.

I notice that some media outlets are trying to sell headlines that it was a draw. That is not the case. JD won his defamation case on ALL COUNTS. And now AH owes him $8.35 million in damages. Even though the punitive damages is capped, the jury wanted to give him $5 million, but AH? Nothing. That is very telling. It shows that she had the malice in the eyes of the jury.

Thank goodness the trial was publicly televised. Can you imagine the narratives that would have been spun with MSM as the only arbiters of "what happened".

BBM Oh my goodness thank god it was!!!

 

[Luna20]

I wonder if her counsel genuinely believed her. Perhaps they thought that she had a good chance of winning considering she won the 2 previous trials. They proved to be inferior on many points but they also had the disadvantage of representing a stealth liar.

Im not sure why they thought they could get very far without ANY proof of SA. That is standard and customary in litigation. Any ideas/thoughts on why they went forward without any?

 

[katydid23]

The Guardian weighs in:

In text messages to friends, Johnny Depp fantasized about murdering his then-wife, the actress Amber Heard. “I will her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she’s dead,” Depp wrote. In other texts, he disparaged his wife’s body in luridly misogynist terms. “Mushy pointless dangling overused floppy fish market,” he called her.

The texts became public as part of Depp’s defamation suit against Heard, now at trial in a Virginia court. Ostensibly, Depp is suing over a 2018 articlethat Heard published in the Washington Post, titled “I spoke up against sexual violence – and faced our culture’s wrath.” In the piece, the actress writes, “Two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse.” The article does not mention Depp, but his lawyers say that the piece was about him – and was defamatory. For those 11 words, Depp is seeking $50m.

A jury thought he deserved it.

The Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial was an orgy of misogyny | Moira Donegan

The backlash to #Me Too has long been under way. But this feels like a tipping point

www.theguardian.com

That gross text was NEVER sent to her or said to her, at any time. It is not abusive or illegal to say disparaging thoughts about someone to a 3rd party. If he had sent that to her directly it could have been seen as threatening.

I have said some very awful things when venting to a 3rd party back in my dating phase of life. I don't think that is illegal or immoral.

Depp was saying these things during the time that she was sneaking other men into his penthouse in the elevator at night while he was out of town. Who doesn't disparage their wife when that is going on?

 

[Warwick7]

On the news a journalist asked “do you think people learned today that DV happens to men too”, the correspondent said “I think what people should learn from today is that you don’t lie”

Several are commenting on her being a terrible witness, she’s not credible and she is conniving. All are commenting on her lies.

She pulled all of that off while managing to be put together and without a tear on her cheek. Every outfit was strategic, including the hair. Today it seems she wanted to appear gentle and vulnerable, a break from her more masculine tailored suits.

Excellent post!!

"...do you think people learned today that DV happens to men too”, the correspondent said “I think what people should learn from today is that you don’t lie."

"terrible witness,
she’s not credible
she is conniving."

"Every outfit was strategic, including the hair."

 

[deugirtni]

Just for reference, this is the list of jury questions again (from Johnny Depp jurors given verdict sheet they must answer before verdict), along with the jury's answers (starting about 25:00 from

):

The 42-part questionnaire Depp v. Heard jurors are required to answer before delivering a verdict

SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

Mr. Depp's Claim Against Ms. Heard

This special verdict form includes each of the statements on which John C. Depp, II, bases his claim of defamation against Amber Heard. Answer the questions in accordance with the Court's instructions.

1. As to this statement appearing in the online op-ed, entitled "Amber Heard: I spoke

up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change" in the Washington

Post's online edition:

"I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change."

1(a). Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven all the elements of defamation?

ANSWER YES OR NO: YES

If you answer question 1(a) "NO," please proceed to question 2.

If you answered "YES," please answer YES or NO to the following

questions: Has Mr. Depp proven by a greater weight of the evidence that:

The statement was made or published by Ms. Heard? YES

The statement was about Mr. Depp? YES

The statement was false? YES

The statement has a defamatory implication about Mr. Depp? YES

The defamatory implication was designed and intended by Ms. Heard? YES

Due to circumstances surrounding the publication of the statement, it conveyed a defamatory implication to someone who saw it other than Mr. Depp? YES

1(b). If you answered "YES" to each subpart of question 1(a), answer the following question: do you find that Mr. Depp has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Heard acted with actual malice? YES

ANSWER YES OR NO:

2. As to this statement appearing in the op-ed entitled "A Transformative Moment For Women" in the Washington Post's print edition and the online op-ed "Amber Heard. I spoke up against sexual violence--and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change in the Washington Post's online edition:

"Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out."

2(a). Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven all the elements of defamation? YES

ANSWER YES OR NO: If you answer question 2(a) “NO," please proceed to question 3.

If you answered "YES," please answer YES or NO to the following questions: Has Mr. Depp proven by a greater weight of the evidence that:

The statement was made or published by Ms. Heard? YES

The statement was about Mr. Depp? YES

The statement was false? YES

The statement has a defamatory implication about Mr. Depp? YES

The defamatory implication was designed and intended by Ms. Heard? YES

Due to circumstances surrounding the publication of the statement, it conveyed a defamatory implication to someone who saw it other than Mr. Depp? YES

2(b). If you answered "YES" to each subpart of question 2(a), answer the following question: do you find that Mr. Depp has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Heard acted with actual malice? YES

ANSWER YES OR NO:

3. As to this statement appearing in the op-ed entitled "A Transformative Moment For Women" in the Washington Post's print edition and the online op-ed "Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change in the Washington Post's online edition:

"I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse."

3(a). Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven all the elements of defamation? YES

ANSWER YES OR NO: If you answer question 3(a) "NO," please proceed to question 4.

If you answered "YES," please answer YES or NO to the following questions: Has Mr. Depp proven by a greater weight of the evidence that:

The statement was made or published by Ms. Heard? YES

The statement was about Mr. Depp? YES

The statement was false? YES

The statement has a defamatory implication about Mr. Depp? YES

The defamatory implication was designed and intended by Ms. Heard? YES

Due to circumstances surrounding the publication of the statement, it conveyed a defamatory implication to someone who saw it other than Mr. Depp? YES

3(b). If you answered "YES" to each subpart of question 3(a), answer the following question: do you find that Mr. Depp has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Heard acted with actual malice? YES

ANSWER YES OR NO:

Complete Questions 4-5 ONLY if you answered YES to all of questions 1, 2, or 3.

4. As against Amber Heard, state the amount of compensatory damages, if any, you believe John C. Depp, II has proven, by a greater weight of the evidence, that he is entitled to recover:

We, the Jury, award compensatory damages in the amount of $10 MILLION DOLLARS

As against Amber Heard state the amount of punitive damages, if any, to which you find John C. Depp, II is entitled to recover:

We, the Jury, award punitive damages in the amount of $5 MILLION DOLLARS


SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

Ms. Heard's Claim Against Mr. Depp

This special verdict form includes each of the statements on which Amber Heard bases her claim of defamation against John C. Depp, II. Answer the questions in accordance with the Court's instructions.

1. As to this statement appearing in the April 8, 2020 online edition of The Daily Mail:

"Amber Heard and her friends in the media use fake sexual violence allegations as both a sword and shield, depending on their needs. They have selected some of her sexual violence hoax 'facts as the sword, inflicting them on the public and Mr. Depp."

1(a). Do you find that Ms. Heard has proven all the elements of defamation? NO

ANSWER YES OR NO: If you answer question 1(a) "NO," please proceed to question 2.

If you answered "YES," please answer YES or NO to the following questions: Has Ms. Heard proven by a greater weight of the evidence that:

Mr. Waldman, while acting as an agent for Mr. Depp, made or published the statement?

The statement was about Ms. Heard?

The statement was seen by someone other than Ms. Heard?

The statement was false?

1(b). If you answered "YES" to each subpart of question 1(a), answer the following question: do you find that Ms. Heard has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the statement by Mr. Waldman was made with actual malice?

ANSWER YES OR NO:

2. As to this statement appearing in the April 27, 2020 online edition of The Daily Mail:

“Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops but the first attempt didn't do the trick. The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911."

2(a). Do you find that Ms. Heard has proven all the elements of defamation? YES

ANSWER YES OR NO: If you answer question 2(a) "NO," please proceed to question 2.

If you answered "YES," please answer YES or NO to the following questions: Has Ms. Heard proven by a greater weight of the evidence that:

Mr. Waldman, while acting as an agent for Mr. Depp, made or published the statement? YES

The statement was about Ms. Heard? YES

The statement was seen by someone other than Ms. Heard? YES

The statement was false? YES

2(b). If you answered "YES" to each subpart of question 2(a), answer the following question: do you find that Ms. Heard has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the statement by Mr. Waldman was made with actual malice? YES

ANSWER YES OR NO:

3. As to this statement appearing in the April 27, 2020 online edition of The Daily Mail:

"We have reached the beginning of the end of Ms. Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp."

3(a). Do you find that Ms. Heard has proven all the elements of defamation? NO

ANSWER YES OR NO: If you answer question 3(a) “NO," please proceed to question 4.

If you answered "YES," please answer YES or NO to the following questions: Has Ms. Heard proven by a greater weight of the evidence that:

Mr. Waldman, while acting as an agent for Mr. Depp, made or published the statement?

The statement was about Ms. Heard?

The statement was seen by someone other than Ms. Heard?

The statement was false?

3(b). If you answered "YES" to each subpart of question 3(a), answer the following question: do you find that Ms. Heard has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the statement by Mr. Waldman was made with actual malice?

ANSWER YES OR NO:

Complete Questions 4-5 ONLY if you answered YES to all of questions 1, 2, or 3.

As against John C. Depp, II, state the amount of compensatory damages, if any, you believe Amber Heard has proven, by a greater weight of the evidence, that she is entitled to recover:

We, the Jury, award compensatory damages in the amount of $2 MILLION DOLLARS

As against John C. Depp, II, state the amount of punitive damages, if any, you to which you find Amber Heard is entitled to recover:

We, the Jury, award punitive damages in the amount of $ZERO DOLLARS



_________________________

DATE

____________________________________

SIGNATURE OF FOREPERSON

_______________________________________

PRINTED NAME OF FOREPERSON

 

[Warwick7]

I don't think she's capable of doing that. I doubt she is done with him now. He needs to watch his back. Jmo.

You know, I just stared at your comment. Just stared and stared...because you are so right.
:0(

 

[Luna20]

The TMZ guy is going to be live tonight.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1532154176503005185

 

[khaki]

I am so relieved that justice prevailed, despite so many blatantly damning things (against AH) being kept out of the trial. Thank goodness the jury saw through the lies and the manipulation.

While I am a bit disappointed that one of Waldman's statements was found as defamatory, I concede that perhaps the evidence presented didn't support that one statement about AH's friends also being part of the hoax. I think that ended up being the sticking point, because the other two statements she lost were about HER hoax. My takeaway is that the jury believe SHE alone is responsible for the false allegations, and that maybe her friends believed her stories.

I notice that some media outlets are trying to sell headlines that it was a draw. That is not the case. JD won his defamation case on ALL COUNTS. And now AH owes him $8.35 million in damages. Even though the punitive damages is capped, the jury wanted to give him $5 million, but AH? Nothing. That is very telling. It shows that she had the malice in the eyes of the jury.

Thank goodness the trial was publicly televised. Can you imagine the narratives that would have been spun with MSM as the only arbiters of "what happened".

Love your posts throughout this case! The BBM in your post above raises a great point that has been running along with the case itself, and many have mentioned it on this thread. MSM needs to wtfluck up! Thank god it was televised. As divided as MSM says the USA is, (not sure I agree), this case proved that what US citizens want and unite around is the truth.

DV is horrific. Although he was the hollywood crush of my youth, I was fully prepared to be disgusted by Johnny if what AH claimed was proven true, and I would want him to face the consequences.

our country's pledge of allegiance ends with the best line......liberty and justice for all.......love and peace to Johnny ......and I truly wish for AH the professional help she desperately needs

 

[Luna20]

That gross text was NEVER sent to her or said to her, at any time. It is not abusive or illegal to say disparaging thoughts about someone to a 3rd party. If he had sent that to her directly it could have been seen as threatening.

I have said some very awful things when venting to a 3rd party back in my dating phase of life. I don't think that is illegal or immoral.

Depp was saying these things during the time that she was sneaking other men into his penthouse in the elevator at night while he was out of town. Who doesn't disparage their wife when that is going on?

Yes, those text were not incoming on her phone. After that she refused to turn over her phone.

 

[Leve]

She wore the same dress today that she did getting the TRO. I think she thought she had this won.

 

[acutename]

Did she write this in advance? Too quick after the verdict. I think EB knew they'd lose, and had this written

likely they drafted two statements- one for either verdict

 

[Kiranerys]

So, apparently, AH may not be able to claim bankruptcy in order to get out of paying the damages she owes JD.



While I don't think JD really is going to go after her for the monetary damages, he might even just ask for lawyer's fees, it appears that defamation technically comes under this definition of willful and malicious injury.

Non-Dischargeability in Bankruptcy of Certain Claims Based on Intentional Wrongdoing | Stimmel Law).

I honestly wouldn't be at all suprised for him to say he doesn't want her money.
He got what he came for,his good name and his life back.
I don't think he would want to cause any hardship for her daughter.
I'm not sure if he can refuse to collect or indeed just waive any claim legally though?

 

[Warwick7]

The TMZ guy is going to be live tonight.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1532154176503005185

Ohhhh this oughta be good.