Reread the bolded part, and explain how I have defended her. I've have just described the law to the best of my knowledge. I do not have a proper command of the facts or the arguments presented to offer any judgment, and have repeatedly said so... kind of feels like to Depp's supporters anything less than "hang the bitch" qualifies as defending her. I have close to zero interest in the actual dispute, I'm just interested as an (almost) lawyer.

In a defamation suit, you would focus on specific statements. To my knowledge none of the statements that were found to be defamatory mentioned sexual abuse. The claims of sexual abuse were more vague as to the time period they applied to, which I'm guessing is why they were not alleged to be defamatory in the lawsuit.

(1) “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” (2) “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.” (3) “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.

Those are the statements found to be defamatory. I'd say it should be easy to establish actual malice if she got caught lying, even if she indeed felt she was a victim of abuse. Has "he/she believed his/her own lies" ever been a viable defence? Well maybe if she provided a psychologigal evaluation by doctors that she's out of touch with reality. 

I stand corrected then, the first statement specifically says sexual violence. Still a bit of wiggle room there, but much more concrete than "domestic abuse". The second one, I dunno. She became a figure representing abuse, whether she actually was abused or not. And, she may have seen how men accused of abuse were protected, even if they did not actually commit abuse. 

Again, actual malice is a specific legal term. It does not mean malicious as we would use it in ordinary life, it means that the person knew it was a lie or stated it with reckless disregard of its truth. If it can be proved she believed what she was saying, then the case would have been dismissed, regardless of whether she said it to hurt Depp. This is the argument Alex Jones is using in all of his lawsuits. You are allowed to say truthful statements, or statements that are true to you, to hurt someone who is a public figure. Defamation is an intentional tort which requires a particular state of mind, in the case of a public figure, to intentionally lie. If that was true to her, she lacked the state of mind, and could not be held liable. If Johnny Depp was a random person though, she could have been found liable either way. The standard is different for public figures.

Either the jury wasn't convinced that she believed it, or Heard did not want her lawyers to argue that she was not actually abused as we would commonly understand it. There may have been some arguments that could have worked but would have been more damaging to her overall than the actual verdict. They chose to have her maintain she was actually abused, which may have been economically the best decision but not the strongest legal argument.

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.

If she used her lawyer and doctor to state she is mentally impaired that would be digging her career even further. If it was a homicide case perhaps one would claim it to avoid jail, but for a "paltry sum" of money don't think she would think of claiming that she was so out of touch with reality that she believed all that was true (she physically abuses JD but believes she is the victim of it, thinks was rapped without being, etc). JD Doctor claimed she had mental issues to which her Doctor claimed otherwise so it would be quite hard to go and reverse that by herself. Plus she committed perjury in several instances in her deposition (with consecutive contradictory claims in sequence) so would be hard to say she is sane and believed all that to be true. If you truly believe Trump is a rapist and genocide writing OP after OP while being famous as well would serve as defense?

As far as I know mentally disabled people have different sentence and let`s say in a case like this wouldn't be found guilty of defamation not because they believe it is true, but because they are incapable of properly understanding the consequences of their acts which isn't the case of Amber.

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. 

I'm not her publicist, I don't know or care what kind of defense would best serve her career.

If you truly believed that Trump was a rapist and... a genocide? Then yes, that would generally be a defense, although that deals with objective facts, so it would be a more difficult thing to prove, although I don't know that Trump isn't a rapist, or why he is relevant here. I could say that Biden once stuck his dick in my Honey Bunches of Oats if I believed it, and he couldn't do shit to me if I could prove my belief. That's why I would have argued over whether the statements were objective or subjective, if I was representing Heard and she would allow me. Dunno if it would have worked.

Nobody has EVER been found guilty of defamation. Because it's not a crime. They are found liable. And that is an important difference. In criminal cases, not being able to understand the consequences OR not being able to appreciate something is wrong can both be valid defenses depending on the crime. And sometimes insanity is not a defense at all. But, again, that is criminal law, not civil law. In intentional torts mental capacity is NOT a defense, except in certain cases, defamation against a public figure being one of them. That's cause of the first amendment which is not usually applicable to torts.

You can talk about what you feel about Amber Heard and Johnny Depp all you want, but in terms of the legal aspect, you should not be commenting.

Edit: I'm pretty sure I'm not going to called to an ethics committee for this, but nothing I said in this or any other post should be taken to constitute legal advice of any kind or to establish any client attorney relationship. Please do not write articles about Joe Biden sticking his penis in your cereal without consulting a licensed attorney.

There is an abyss between watching 100h of trial and not even looking testimony, summaries, etc.

Please explain to us how she could be sane and believe truly believe she was physically and sexually assaulted by JD to the point there would be no malice on her part to do the exposition on public OP (while at the same time not denouncing to police?).

Phisical and Sexual abuse are objective facts not opinions or impressions.

Amber wasn't able to prove any evidence under the court that she was right or could believe she was right. And that is why I brought a Trump (which could be anyone else), if you have zero proof and say you believe because you believe then you whole claim contradicts itself.

As I said in another discussion, if her opinion piece was that she was unhappy in marriage and felt harmed or that JD mistreated her, all which are subjective JD wouldn't had faced any of this harship nor would there be ground for a defamation claim as would all be subjective. But when she claimed sexual and physical abuse that made him into a monster and which would need physical evidence which she totally failed to present.

On your edit, I hope no one is insane to the point of going to the board to complain about you giving your opinion on the case.

So... we all have a common understanding of what abuse is, and nobody has ever believed themselves to be a victim of abuse when others would disagree? O_o...

"I don't know whether or not the jury came to the right conclusion."

"You're defending Amber Heard."

"No... I said I don't know what the right conclusion was."

"You're saying both sides were wrong and nobody should lose."

"No, I'm saying I don't know what the right conclusion was."

"So explain to me why you think Amber heard should have won."

I genuinely don't know to say at this point. Are you doing an Abbott and Costello bit? I'm not going to defend a point I never made. I'll just repeat.

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.