DonFerrari said:
You wanted to push that if she believed she was telling the truth (which well no one would really be able to prove since the evidence all show she was lying) then she should be awarded a victory in the case. That is pretty much defending that even if she is wrong she is right, or that even if JD was the victim of abuse and defamation he should lose. Asking her to be held accountable is a lot less than "hang the bitch", but you are more similar to some people that say "both were wrong so none should lose" while doing nothing to remedy the wrongs that she done. You are interested as an almost lawyer but don't hear the testimony, evidences and anything else? What type of interest is that? To just say whatever? Yes the sexual assault claim wasn't included in the claims from JD lawyers, but I do remember it being mentioned. Anyway on the regards to physical abuse (instead of only mental abuse that could be more of a perception claim) do you think believing to be right is enough to say it wasn't a lie or defamation? And on malice from what I understand it have more to do with she having intention of harming JD with it than to believe it was the truth or not. |
Yes, if she believed she was telling the truth as to those statements the case should have been dismissed. Even if Johnny Depp was the victim of abuse and defamation, then he should lose, especially since this wasn't an abuse trial. That is not defending her actions, that is stating what the law is. Do you have a legal source to indicate that I'm wrong? If you have a problem with it you could talk to Justice Brennan about it, I didn't make the fucking rules.
I guess I have to repeat myself again.
I haven't heard the testimony, and honestly don't really care that much, so I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not.
Is that clear now? How did you get from that to "both sides are wrong so none should lose"? This is why I made that comment, because no matter how clearly or how many times I say something I get "OH SO YOU SUPPORT AMBER HEARD HUH?!"
As for my interest, yes, I'm interested enough to comment, but not interested enough to watch 100 hours of testimony. Did everyone in this topic make watching the trial their full time job over the past couple of weeks? Did you? That's why I'm not saying who was actually right or wrong, just what the relevant laws are. But I assure you, I am far more knowledgeable about defamation law than you are, so if one of us is not qualified to speak here, it's not me. And, in all of law school, I have never been asked to read over testimony, because that is generally only relevant to one case, not the law in general.
If you think actual malice has more to do with harming Depp than it does with whether the statements were knowingly false or not, then I'm sorry, you're just wrong. I'm not going to argue about it, because there's nothing I could say beyond that. I've explained the concept multiple times. Legal terms don't always have the meaning they do in everyday life. Go look at the five or so times I explained it, or google it. NY Times v Sullivan. Go read the case.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 02 June 2022
