Runa216 said:
I terms of legality, it's not ridiculous at all. In defamation cases malicious intent is integral. Being wrong is not the same as being malicious; if she genuinely believed herself she lacks the malicious intent behind defamation. That's just how law works, it's always more complicated than you think it is. Lawyers get paid ridiculous sums of money for a reason. |
No it's quite ridiculous as it doesn't hold up to the case in question. If the assertion is that you can't prove malice "because she believes her own lies" it doesn't hold up to the evidence presented in case. You can impeach a witness to show they are being knowingly deceptive. The best example of this is the 2016 Deposition from the UK case in which Amber lies about tipping of TMZ. She literally catches herself telling the truth in that video. So she is being knowingly deceptive. She does not believe her lies are the truth. Moreover her testimony in the VA case often contradicts her previous testimonies under oath. It's why the cross examination of Amber by Camille Vasquez was so devastating to her case. She would ask Amber a question, then show that Amber was lying with her very own words. That was the universal moment in which I saw the various lawyers live streaming the case switch from "Johnny doesn't stand a chance of winning" to "Johnny is going to win his case."
I'm no lawyer. That said, when I can watch several lawyers make an assertion. I'll defer to their wisdom. Particularly when one of the lawyers is practicing attorney in VA. I'll take his word on the matter over a poster on the VGChartz that seems to have a contrarian take on the issue for the sake of being contrarian.
