*In the cross-examination on rebuttal, Amber admitted that she wrote the op-ed because she knew that a lot of people were going to come "out of the woodwork" to testify in JD's favor. So, she contradicted herself by saying this. First, she testify that she didn't intend to hurt JD's career by writing the op-ed. Now, in cross-examination, she did accept that the purpose of the op-ed was to fuck up JD.*

@namelesscynic1616

2 жыл бұрын

She contradicted herself constantly during the trial.

@reginastraus2273

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly!

@Doppe1ganger

2 жыл бұрын

I'm for Johnny, but that's one of the dumbest interpretations. For arguments sake, let's say her statements were true, then "I know making these true statements will cause a lot of people to come out of the woodworks" and "my intend is to tell the truth, and not to hurt person x in particular" are not contradictory whatsoever. She has no control over what people do with the information she provides, it is not her responsibility, unless the information she provides is false and defames someone.

@warriorl8207

2 жыл бұрын

Why do people keep writing the same comments, we watched it.

@xRainbowCloud

2 жыл бұрын

I'm pretty sure she also said something along those lines earlier as well, but less outright and more roundabout, though I might be wrong. Either way, it's clear she not only wrote it, but intended malice along with it. She claims he won't leave her alone, but right now he's on tour with a friend of his and her and her friend are telling the world where he is, what he's doing, bittering all over the place, and that screams that it's her who can't let go. She's obsessed, and she wants to destroy him, then and now. I hope the jury could see that from the trial alone.

Amber did not merely retweet the defamatory article, she advertised and promoted it. What more would you need to establish "publication"?

@jarja1

2 жыл бұрын

Dame right!

@eagrundling8783

2 жыл бұрын

👍💯👍💯

@alxdrksoul

2 жыл бұрын

"That's why I wrote the op-ed" (said twice).

@DiegoRamirez-zc7fs

2 жыл бұрын

@@alxdrksoul I can’t understand why Camille and Ben didn’t reference that in their closing statements. Wasn’t that the crux of the case?

@tonyvelasquez6776

2 жыл бұрын

@@alxdrksoul this trial was not about whether she wrote the op-ed, not sire why people are so confused about this. The trial is about whether the claims she wrote about were true (she wins, not defamation if it's true) or false (he wins, defamation).

But, under oath Amber admitted 2 times at the end of trial last day Camille crossed examined her when Amber took the stand, she verbally said “that’s why she wrote the op-Ed about Johnny” saying that twice under oath. Contradicting herself at the beginning of the trial under oath that she did not write the op-Ed about Johnny, she just again, LIED and got caught. TEAM: Johnny

@brianrodgers409

2 жыл бұрын

Under oath doesn't mean shit to AH

It absolutely blows my mind that it's taking them this long to reach a verdict.

@justamom5520

2 жыл бұрын

it shouldn't because this is a civil trial which means it's not just a yeah or nay, that are task with deciding how much damage.

@shariworden3212

2 жыл бұрын

Also, it struck me... when the judge was reading what criteria had to be met to find for Depp, she said that there couldn't be ANY evidence that Depp was abusive. And while I definitely think Heard dished out more of it, I can't say that NOTHING Depp did wasn't at all abusive. I tried to think how I would feel if/when my own husband does stuff like he did, and yeah, it's abusive. So there might be one or two jurors who can't say that Depp was never abusive at all.

@consumersmartsrecognizingf9715

2 жыл бұрын

A verdict is serious business it cannot be rushed.

@framazz7575

2 жыл бұрын

@@shariworden3212 she's the instigator of abuse, not the victim, I was abused and I had to carefully choose every word not to make him snap. She used his pillow as a toilet, she didn't fear the consequences, she's not a victim of abuse, his abuse could be described as "self defense". He never abused previous gf, they are supporting him

@one-day-at-a-time4134

2 жыл бұрын

@@shariworden3212 The only proof of abuse is from scamber towards Johnny, your whole speech is pretty much speculation.

Not only did she claim the article in its entirety, but she proved with her own statements that she wrote it with malice.

@bernlin2000

2 жыл бұрын

What statements has she said that indicate there was malice in the op-ed? It's the question that likely will decide this case, if the jury can infer malice. I see nothing in the article to indicate any malice, so if she said something outside the op-ed that makes that clear, it would be good to know!

@vsand9798

2 жыл бұрын

@@bernlin2000 just wondering, it seems pretty clear she lied. A lie about someone isn’t malice? I mean why else would a person lie about being sexually abused during the MeTo movement if there intent wasn’t malicious? Full disclosure, I don’t know much about the law.

@jonstone9741

2 жыл бұрын

@@bernlin2000 I copied this from an online legal guide: "In a legal sense, "actual malice" has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while knowing that it is false, or acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity."

@MrVoltimor

2 жыл бұрын

Earlier she was saying she did not write it later in the cross examination Camille did put Amber under pressure and Amber did say she she wrote it because Johnny is a powerful man.

@Sanctified57

2 жыл бұрын

@@bernlin2000 malice does not have to be proven. The simple fact in question is whether or not the accusations are false either in the headlines or the article itself. If it is determined they are false, then JD is a victim of defamation. However if AH published the article knowning it is false, then she technically had malicious intent.

if JD loses that statement in question, i've lost faith in society.

@angelarthrasher

2 жыл бұрын

you mean you did not lose faith in society when Casey Anthony walked??? Seemed clear cut to me w/ that trial but left a shocking verdict. Casey Anthony might be AH only friend after all this because they seem like one of a kind!

@rociobrixon7288

2 жыл бұрын

Elon Musk is giving a lot of money!

@joanofarc33

2 жыл бұрын

You still have faith in society?😳

@joanofarc33

2 жыл бұрын

@@angelarthrasher LOL! That’s what I was thinking😂😂

@tqlla

2 жыл бұрын

@@angelarthrasher Casey Anthony walked because they charged her with first degree, which involves intent and premeditation. Unfortunately it was more than they could prove at the time.

One thing ambers lawyers succeeded in is making you think she REtweeted it Amber TWEETED it, she made the first tweet, she published it on twitter

If she was truly sexually assaulted with a glass bottle, a broken one if I remember correctly, why would she just go to sleep immediately after? If she couldn't go to the doctor immediately, she could've gone and got checked as soon as she could. There are TONS of holes in her story plus nothing to back her up. All she has is her accusations and statements. Not to mention the way she constantly smirks and laughs in court. A real DV victim doesn't do that. The way she behaves and carries herself is not what a true DV victim would do. The answer is simple, she's a LIAR.

@MsBerries25

2 жыл бұрын

@@sammoser6281 but the point here is that amber purports to be the victim and victims don't laugh or smirk during something as traumatic as reliving your so called abuse in open court

@nae_on

2 жыл бұрын

Thank God, that I have not been SA, but if I was like that, I would've immediately either gone and treated myself medically or contacted a local hospital asap. Without any questions, this story didn't make sense AT ALL

@sarahlang2119

2 жыл бұрын

Listen to the Australia audio which makes it clear that she severed the finger and where she is clomping around in high heels

@nae_on

2 жыл бұрын

@@sammoser6281 he's probably just laughing at how absurd her stories are. At least, I would totally do that

@sarahlang2119

2 жыл бұрын

@@sammoser6281 he does so when it is a genuine human reaction. A couple of things were very funny and as a human is impossible not to laugh. Amber's reactions seem anything but genuine

I think she did indeed make the statement, she admitted she wrote the op-ed in court and whether she chose the exact wording of the headline herself or not doesn't matter as her name is in it and she helped create it, promoted it and re-published it.

@steve39701

2 жыл бұрын

Did the WP give her the opportunity to see the headline? If it did, did she object to it. Or approve it. I have written enough to know that if something I have written has a headline I disagree with, I Can just withdraw it or suggest an edit. Playing the victim always is not a defence for everything in life.

@wildheart5086

2 жыл бұрын

@@steve39701 obviously she approved and republished to her fans on her own account!

@msliza2u

2 жыл бұрын

CASE CLOSED

@ninamartinez5171

2 жыл бұрын

I just pray to God almighty for justice for Johnny Depp, because he is the real victim here. Unfortunately he didn't even know he's Amber Heard victim before the trial ? hopefully this trial will not only benefit Johnny Depp, but other Is meal victims of domestic violence and abuse ? i can't even imagine how painful this must be for Johnny Depp to have his whole life on public display 😢 nevermind having to admit he's been abused by Amber Heard ? oh my goodness gracious it's difficult enough as a woman i can't and don't want to imagine what it's like as a man to come forward ? no man would ever think of doing that if they weren't speaking the truth ? wow the doors that this trial might open up for others like Johnny Depp, who are and continue to suffer in Silence afraid to speak out?

@lesediamondamane

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, she admitted she wrote it and twitted about about it. She has full responsibility of that article.

Amber said under oath the reason why she published the OP-ed. Because of rich and powerful men like Johnny. She claimed ownership of the OP-ed.

@mandym9249

2 жыл бұрын

She sure did! She slipped up a few times and it was written all over her face! You can see why she was really sacked from aqua man…. Her time on the stand has been a shitstorm of over acting. She is not a very good actress… and she is not a good person…. Just saying…

@ronryanbibat3398

2 жыл бұрын

I hope the jury will review the VIdeo of her cross examination and make it their legal basis as an evidence to her false claims

@philsurtees

2 жыл бұрын

@Anthony M You can't talk to these people. They carry on as though they know Heard and Depp personally, and have some skin in the game. As far as I can tell, none of them have actually bothered to read the op-ed, because it has nothing to do with Depp, and he even admitted on the stand that what Heard wrote was valid. Ironically - based on what the jury has asked - it now looks like she might lose, but only because of a headline she didn't even write! That will be strangely poetic in a way, and kind of a fitting end to this slow motion train crash I suppose...

@verresmilliterres

2 жыл бұрын

@@philsurtees Any skin in the game ?, lol. The fact that they do have the texts between the ACLU and her lawyers at that time admitting to intentionally circumvent the gag order and implicate Johnny Depp was plenty for everyone. The fact that she knew and had it published anyway was her undoing, in part. The rest of her undoing was when she said under oath the reason why "she" published the OP-ed was because of rich and powerful men like Johnny Depp. I paraphrased, but, that was the meaning, intent, and she specifically used his name. And yes, after following this case since its beginning, I do feel as though I know Johnny and her a whole lot more than I had. After listening to several hours of audio as well.

Amber begins her tweet with “Today I published this op-ed…” I think it’s pretty obvious she takes ownership of it. If she had an issue with the headline, she’d ask the Washington Post to change it. But regards to how the jury is thinking, there’s no way to say for sure.

@philsurtees

2 жыл бұрын

It is VERY clear from their questions what the jury are thinking, because the only part of the op-ed that was false - or, rather, hasn't been proven - is the headline, and they are trying to determine if the headline should be considered on its own, or whether the article has to be considered as a whole. If it was the whole article then Depp would lose, obviously, but as they have been instructed to consider the headline on its own, now they will consider whether she published it, and based on what they've asked it seems as though they think she did when she retweeted it. Evidently, Heard is going to lose because of a headline she didn't actually write...

You are the first lawyer to actually explain what the legal jargon is with this question and why it’s important to the jury. Thank you for your video!

It's really frustrating when the justice system puts a higher weight on technicalities over substance. Both the op-ed contents and the headline are false. Why should someone get away with writing a defamatory op-ed just because she didn't publish the contents? Writers write and publishers publish. It wouldn't be published if nobody wrote it.

@TenTenJ

2 жыл бұрын

But she tweeted it, right? So that’s publishing, isn’t it?

@tonyvelasquez6776

2 жыл бұрын

A tweet is a publication. Camille missed that during cross

@a_numbers_girl7025

2 жыл бұрын

I believe at some point, AH admitted to writing the op-Ed, but not the headline.

@ghosthunter0950

2 жыл бұрын

@@a_numbers_girl7025 can confirm. And she obviously republished it along with the headline.

@lisbethdelcarmenmedicapitt5979

2 жыл бұрын

@@TenTenJ exactly

Well in her testimony she reiterated every one of these claims more than once and stressed multiple times that she wrote the op-ed. For me it's a no-brainer.

@katrinamoran1209

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, but I think it only matters what she said in the op-ed, and its impact, not what she said in defense of it during the trial.

@moneymike2682

2 жыл бұрын

@@katrinamoran1209 everything matters ms moran

@genevievekelly4998

2 жыл бұрын

I absolutely agree!!

@ghosthunter0950

2 жыл бұрын

@@katrinamoran1209 I think he meant it's a no brainer that she published/wrote it since she literally said so multiple times.

@durgadevi7814

2 жыл бұрын

Two of jury members were fired for already making up their mind about Johnny depp , even when the trial is going on .... So they have to act like they are considering every point and act dumb like it's hard to keep their jobs as if they are going through everything without knowing how to make up their mind ....they have to be professional actors.

No person who’s been a victim of (or claims to be a victim of) sexual violence should be able to go to the press, name that person and ‘sell’ their story without any formal complaint and proper police investigation of that crime. Nor should the media publish without proper investigation- otherwise it’s just slander.

@thebean2476

2 жыл бұрын

You clearly have no idea how hard it is to convict people of sexual crimes. If the police even believe you in the first place.

@johndoe5061

2 жыл бұрын

100 percent Deborah!

@lorischeer8674

2 жыл бұрын

I agree

AH: "That is why I wrote that op-ed." She said it herself. I have not seen her produce any evidence of abuse. Even that cabinet video... was abuse on Amber's part. Once you watch the beginning and the end (both of which omitted from the TMZ version). No one will believe you, Johnny. That's the crux of the matter. It's time to get rid of the sexism, the prejudice and the man-hating.

@one-day-at-a-time4134

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly and well said ☺

You nailed it, Lee, and you nailed the part, in which you said that Amber Heard -- rather than retweet the article in it's entirety -- could have said, "No, that part is incorrect." Instead, she welcomed the additional, false fuel and took ownership of it. I concur.

Amber Turd had a "lack of chemistry" with the truth during this trial.

@amycarlos1261

2 жыл бұрын

LOL =)

@marthamoreno1539

2 жыл бұрын

Yes 😂

@TerryEbertMendozza

2 жыл бұрын

However, it is your use of the word Turd which very well may sway the case toward Amber, because you are, by your statement, part of the “full force of the wrath” Ms. Heard faced by speaking up.

I honestly do not see what's so complicated when she was caught or trapped into telling on herself at least 5 times. Why would it take any jury to do so much "figuring out" when they sat there and watched the same evidence we all did. All of this is sickening. So much foolishness over a marriage that lasted less than two years.

@tiggerpup_nz

2 жыл бұрын

Because you’re all getting worked up in a festering pile of hatred, analysing with bias everything that’s said. Working each other up into hysterics. I’ve seen people claim ambers lawyers are badgering the witness, yet johnnys lawyers did the same and … crickets, no one bats an eye. These guys on the jury are meant to be impartial. Not getting twisted in the social media game of Johnny is a complete innocent and Amber is the devil incarnate I’m team Johnny Depp, but I’m anti the members of team Johnny Depp, because they’re turning into crazed baby killers. Wanting to put her baby in the microwave? It’s insane. Literally insane. Hopefully the jury can come back with a win for Johnny, and end this circus but it’s not as clear cut as so many die hard ultra biased frenzied supporters think it is. It’s hard to prove defamation. Was it the op Ed, or was it johnnys lack of work ethic that lost him work. Let’s hope they conclude it was the op Ed.

@humannature4327

2 жыл бұрын

They are figuring out how they can make an innocent man guilty... in so called patriarchal society......the thing is if Johnny lost this i won't be surprised... american men brought this upon themselves by being *mangina* ... accept it or not...

@Penny-bt4gc

2 жыл бұрын

All it takes is for one “bleeding heart “ to keep from having a unanimous vote.

@amamoykcuf

2 жыл бұрын

Also keep in mind, all the youtube warriors, the jury does NOT have access to ALL the information we do. You sit at home watching every little tidbit and snippet getting all the legal opinions and clarification you could ever want. Anyone whos ever had jury duty knows how different it all becomes when youre actually sitting IN that room, bearing all that responsibility. Plus as a human, that little voice in the back of your head never stops saying "but what if im wrong"

@neohg13blaze89

2 жыл бұрын

fooking jury wat the hell do they have to delibirate? they better not fook this up!!!🔥

Amber's closest friends won't testify because they don't want to perjure themselves. Her sister was the only one risking perjury. I believe 15 or more witnesses testified that Johnny has never hit amber, nor has he abused any women for that matter. The only people who testified for Amber were getting free rent, Ironically it was Johnny's penthouses. Amber is ruined no matter what the outcome of this trial, and rightfully so, she really is a sneaky narcissistic manipulator. The worst of the worst. She shouldn't be raising a child.

Amber heard originally claimed that the article wasn’t about Johnny; that JD *made it about JD*. Then when she was cross examined, AH admitted she wrote it about JD and knew people would pop out of the woodwork to support him. She wanted the money and she lied. DV and SV are not the same thing. I * hope* she loses, because I think JD may have said awful things, but I don’t think he did awful things.

@iamspartacus3114

2 жыл бұрын

I may have missed when AH actually said it was about JD but the bits I have seen imply that she said the article was written generically about 'men who have power' of which JD is an example. So the issue is not crystal clear but cloudy enough to put a bit of doubt in a juror's mind.

@hmckinnon1974

2 жыл бұрын

Ph

@snitty1996

2 жыл бұрын

I am a dv social worker and sexual violence actually does fall under the umbrella of intimate partner violence/domestic violence. FDV is very nuanced, look at the Duluth Model Power and Control Wheel..

@wolfpriesty13

2 жыл бұрын

@@iamspartacus3114 when she was being grilled on stand she said the article was about johnny twice or 3 times to avoid answering another question

@WunHungLo99

2 жыл бұрын

She wanted/wrote Depps name in initially as well.

If AH wrote the op-ed knowing it's false, then AH is liable for defamation. Publishers do not publish something that was not written by someone.

@findandobserve

2 жыл бұрын

Two years ago “I” became a public figure representing domestic abuse. If “I” means someone that isn’t Amber Heard, then someone is falsely claiming to be her in order to write this.

@SuperVesuvius

2 жыл бұрын

And they actually wrote the headline as a quote of what she said. The topic read - Amber Heard: "I spoke up for sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath." Which implies she said that. This should be open and shut. Johnny never abused or sexually assaulted her.

@eliethia1197

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly this!

@genericwhitemale909

2 жыл бұрын

JUSTICE FOR AMBER HEARD

@philwatling5109

2 жыл бұрын

It also proves mouse

"1 (a) Do you find that Johnny Depp has proven all elements of defamation? YES or NO?" The Jurors actually answered YES to that question in order to get to the "The statement was false?" sub question since they would basically skip to the next major question if they answered NO. But the lawyers (probably Amber's) were sneaky. They put like 7 sub questions under this major question. So they have to literally answer YES to all of those sub questions for Johnny to win this. I think it was purposely designed to trip up the jurors in case they answered YES to the main question.

I was so angry when I was a juror in my town. They didn’t tell us how to do anything. I had to ask the officer outside the door for jury tutorial and we weren’t allowed to know two key pieces of evidence that was very important to the case. Found that out later, and was relieved we had made the right decision even without all the information. Johnny gave them so much valid information and the judge explained things so well.

@barbaraeastwood

2 жыл бұрын

Me too in U.K. After jury service I didn’t feel this was a fair way of trying someone!, we based our decision on Our own backgrounds and not the court trial as didn’t have guidelines! The two trials I sat on are still with me and it was 15 years ago!

We are waiting for Justice to be served 🤦‍♀️ Justice for Johnny

She wrote the op ed with false claims having no evidence of those claims then retreated these claims online. Yes she is responsible. Without her writing this article there would be no reason for this trial.

@oliviaadan8208

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly..hence the reason Johnny Depp lost his roles in movies..Hollywood believed with no evidence that Johnny abused amber..and they dropped him because of her

@RealPackCat

2 жыл бұрын

Without her writing the article, Pirates 6 would have already been in the movie theaters.

@Netanyabee

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed, even if an ACLU editor cowrote it with her it’s published under her name so gets attributed to her

@Acap350

2 жыл бұрын

But won't matter because society and the law suck. Clinton's lawyer whom blatantly lied just got off. 18 months of us tax payers, paying into a lie. Like Trump or not, Clinton is a monster.

@Acap350

2 жыл бұрын

@@RealPackCat so sad. The world is so sad , now we don't have Johnny to make some of us laugh.

It is ironic that she is claiming that she didn't write the headline so cannot be held responsible for it but at the same time claiming defamation against Depp for evaluations of his lawyer.

As I recall, the "is the statement false" is a question the jury only have to answer if they voted "yes" to whether JD proved defamation in regard of the statement. If they voted no, they don't have to deal with the related questions but jump to the next statement.

@blobfish.

2 жыл бұрын

Good point!

Its actually a little more damning than that because the critical technicality for "re-publishing" was:- " did she add to the statements in reaching out to a new/additional audience" and I believe Ben Chew, Johnny's Lawyer did very clearly re-dress that when Rottenborn bought it up, by reading the additional comments Amber added in her tweet. So she didn't just retweet & attach the article -she actually added words which according to the law - she DID reach out to a new audience/add weight to her publication.

@sebschavoir7525

2 жыл бұрын

And I dont see why twitter audience and WP audience would be the same audience.

@Tiffany-Rose

2 жыл бұрын

💯

@sarahlang2119

2 жыл бұрын

Yes and Chew mentioned that she also used the tweet to announce her ACLU ambassador-ship (which I guess is very, very cancelled)

@angelacrane9589

2 жыл бұрын

Yes and she absolutely adopted the statements as her own when she retweeted it to viewers whom likely had never seen it

@clarkecorvo2692

2 жыл бұрын

@@sebschavoir7525 exactly that! im flabbergasted that its even debated.

I think she flat out LIED about that alleged sexual assault with a bottle. Didn't she claim she thought the bottle was broken and she might have been badly hurt but she wasn't sure... Then said 'so I went to sleep.' Yeah, she just rolls over and goes back to sleep. That doesn't sound like somebody remotely concerned. The only explanation here is that she was so intoxicated she doesn't really know what did or didn't happen and she's inventing a story to sell to her audience.

@Acap350

2 жыл бұрын

And she stole a real abuse case story. She said she felt no pain and is NOT a victim!!!!

@mariat108

2 жыл бұрын

Never happened imo. Can you imagine, all you women out there, if that happened to you and just going to sleep afterwards? Not hardly. She is truly a disgusting individual. I’m not going to honor her by calling her a human being.

@831mrscardoso

2 жыл бұрын

There is no way she would not know/not remember if her vag was injured from a broken bottle. She would definitely have to go to the ER to be seen for that injury (excessive bleeding and infection would be a big concern). She would have felt the pain and would not be able to just go to sleep, maybe pass out from the pain but go to sleep come on.

@laurenrenee2610

2 жыл бұрын

I can't imagine something like that happening to me and I just go to sleep and don't tell anyone or get checked and with all the audio recordings not bring this up even once? It's a lie and a blatant one

@tashahollywood1

2 жыл бұрын

She actually took sedatives then went to sleep. What’s even more strange is that Dr. Kipper and her nurse were at her disposal. But, she didn’t bother to utilize them or seek any type of medical treatment. However, remember that one time when she did call the cops twice when he “trashed the room and threw a wine glass in her face in P5?” In fact, AH used the same picture for 2 different alleged incidents dates. 🤣🤣🤣

I dont understand why she started accusing him of SV now, surely she couldve claimed the article wasn't in reference to him, and therefore not deformation, until she did that?

she didnt`t just re-tweet it, she tweeted it. She tweeted "today I published..." and than gave the link to this op-ed. Thats not really just "re-tweeting" something and I think thats actually a really important detail. But besides that, thank you for this explenation! 🙂

On cross though, she admitted she wrote the op-Ed because Johnny was a powerful man. She can’t have it both ways. She either wrote it or she didn’t. It’s either about JD or it’s not. However, everything leading up to the op-Ed and everything after, including interviews and articles for other papers AH made very clear who it was about. I hope the jury understands that.

@kristenhoeltzel6889

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah she said she wrote it PERIOD.

@desireereyes9043

2 жыл бұрын

She wrote it, the argument is is it about Johnny… I would say: she did say I spoke out & felt the wrath..? Well, she never came out with allegations ofvANYBODY else… she spoke out ABOUT HIM… so, yes, it was about HIM. Even if anyone else abused her, she never came forward about nobody else but him.

@desireereyes9043

2 жыл бұрын

She also said SEXUAL abuse… so… not Domestic V, but sexual abuse?

@gumzy3000

2 жыл бұрын

No one is denying she wrote the article, that’s not at all the point. The main issue is whether the article was about Johnny and whether the statements she made were false and therefore malicious and defamatory. Honestly, she has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she has been abused by Johnny. I’m also not denying she abused him but its going to be hard for the Jury to side with Johnny. Amber will win this

@Kegman24

2 жыл бұрын

@@gumzy3000 doubt it, let’s see

In life we become responsible for what we write or say. Amber was definitely referring to JD.

@jgiza8888

2 жыл бұрын

In theory you are correct. However with today's lack of personal responsibility, no so much.

I can't believe she didn't see the whole article and headline prior to its publication. And she tweeted it on line to secure additional coverage. Of all the accusations in court, the sexual abuse by a bottle was the worst.

I believe the fact that the jury is taking awhile just goes to show you that the jury don't believe amber. But they aren't entirely sure whether defamation has been proven. Which is kind of crazy when you think about it because if this was a criminal trial, amber would be convicted with a quickness based on the evidence presented.

@royboy6890

2 жыл бұрын

The biggest problem I see is the full scope of what they are tasked with. Yes if it was a criminal trial I think the jury would have formed a verdict but then it goes to the judge to decide the punishment When you complicate things by then asking the lay persons to decide on financial figures that they could only dream of sharing between themselves then the burden becomes mind boggling. Surely the outcome of the claims validity should be decided by jury and then the financial part goes to independent experts in that field. Maybe years ago this was ok but with todays outlandish amounts involved the law is outdated.

There seems to some confusion here, and maybe it's me, but I believe the jury is asking about the verdict form for Mr. Depp's claims in question number 3. Before you can even get to the subparts of question 3, which is where it asks "The statement is false?" the jury has to answer question 3(a) first. If the answer to 3(a), which asks: "Do you find that Mr.Depp has proven all the elements of defamation?" If the answer is no the jury is instructed to proceed to question 4. If the answer is yes the jury is instructed to answer 7 more questions, one of which is "the statement is false?" So, this tells me the jury has already determined the Mr. Depp has proven defamation. Question 3(a). To understand this better find a copy of the verdict forms online.

@mariat108

2 жыл бұрын

Wow this is the best comment on this topic I’ve heard or seen all day! Bravo!

@Kashban

2 жыл бұрын

Depends on how they work. If they go over the instructions to have a common understanding of them before starting working on the specific topics, you cannot draw this conclusion.

@citizengoodman8023

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kashban I think I can, and by the way, same applies to question number 1on the verdict form, probably more so because it also addresses the headline. The question "the statement is false? Is the 3rd SUBPART question and not question number 3. Again, you cannot get to the subpart questions unless you answer yes to question 1(a). The judge caused some of the confusion by referring the jury question to the instructions instead of the verdict forms and calling subpart question 3 question number 3. She should have been clearer about that. Read the verdict forms and it will become clear to you. Instructions are not questions and questions are not instructions.

@jbeannie90

2 жыл бұрын

@Citizen Goodman I completely agree. That's also how I understand the question process/sequence.

@gridlerbing

2 жыл бұрын

""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: 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? ●The statement was about Mr. Depp?"

"Did AH make the article?" she slipped up and admitted she wrote it, so there's that one checked off

@larushka1

2 жыл бұрын

She never denied writing the article. She denied writing the headline. Big difference and it was this case rests on.

@catlover4700

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think she dumb enough to " slip up". Just because she said she wrote it doesn't clarify what she wrote. " it" could mean the headline or the article . No one asked her to clarify what " it " was.

@xRainbowCloud

2 жыл бұрын

They have to be able to 'prove' she acted in malice whilst doing so, which I think is there to see, too.

@bowtoyoursensei554

2 жыл бұрын

@@larushka1 She claimed at the beginning that the ACLU wrote the article and she just gave them permission to use her name.

@johna8389

2 жыл бұрын

​@@bowtoyoursensei554 exactly, then when asked "why are you here" AH responded "because my ex husband is sueing me about an OP ED I WROTE". she definitely changed her testimony.

They can both lose. Amber doesn’t automatically “win” if none of the 3 op-ed statements are found to be defamatory. If they believe Waldmans statements were true, because they don’t believe the abuse allegations, she loses her case.

@Lee - this is the first video of yours I have seen. I appreciate your quick but succinct coverage of the jury's question/s and possible interpretations, without engaging in endless speculation. You added a little excitement and color (what the lawyers might be thinking) while conveying the message that, as rational adults, we need to wait for that verdict!

I cannot fathom that they believed her SA story and with a Twitter savvy person it should be understood how a tweet works, so hopefully it’s in JDs favor. After this nightmare he deserves a win here

@janabishop1064

2 жыл бұрын

GOD WILLING, AMBER HEARD WILL WIN !!

@vermilliongecko

2 жыл бұрын

@@janabishop1064 It's got nothing to do with God. Truth will out.

@janabishop1064

2 жыл бұрын

Evidence proves he abused her.

@lisbethdelcarmenmedicapitt5979

2 жыл бұрын

@Jana Bishop God does not sponsor injustice

@annabajas6481

2 жыл бұрын

@@janabishop1064 you think so...Truth shall prevail...

This is by far the best breakdown of the trial available on the Internet. So professional and unbiased, even when providing an opinion.

I am not an Amber fan, but somehow, somewhere in her life she was broken. She could have made it as an actress, I saw her in a B movie and she was a good actress. Much younger but talented. I do not believe Depp did anything harmful to her, but he did bust things and raise Cain. Perhaps rightfully so. She was cheating on him and inciting him. All that being said, I would just ask as any Christian to another, and if you’re not, I get it. But if you are pray for her. I trust she will get the punishment she deserves. She has basically thrown away all her dreams and that to me means something is very wrong with her. If you don’t agree, I get it, but if you feel that a prayer may ease the anger and misery this woman is putting herself through, at least think about it. I believe JD will win this case.

@harmonygordon6901

2 жыл бұрын

I find her difficult to tolerate. But I am praying for her. Not praying for her to win this case. PRAYING FOR HER SOUL. PRAYING FOR A CONVERSION TO JESUS. Because she seems like a lost soul.

That guy Tremain, ex-TMG, has been a god-send for Johnny. Good on him for having the courage to reach-out to Johnny's lawyers (I think that's how it went). If Johnny looses this case, he should Appeal the decision because the majority of the population would see it as that he has absolutely been defamed; not once, but twice - the 'edited' video sent to TMG and the online article.

@auntijen3781

2 жыл бұрын

The same tmz employee Tremaine just did an exclusive interview w the DUI guy+ (he didn't want to do any media but the DUI guy+ was in the courtroom and his reaction to Tremaine burning AH'S lawyer was legendary, so he made an exception)

Amber is trying to burn both ends of the candle !!! Amber took responsibility for the op-ed when she said she wrote it and in her testimony she made everyone one of these claims and said it more than once !!! Amber can't say it and then take it back !! To me it really simple She's Guilty !!!

@michellepernula872

2 жыл бұрын

Perfectly stated!!! She burned both ends on many issues, and noticed she's good at that. She pivots quickly and projects blame or distracts. This is just a way to distract and a seed her attorneys planted that she didn't publish this. No...she hasn't written those words in a book or a book tour, but she DID air dirty laundry, gave it to someone who WOULD put this out to public to read....plain and simple.

One point of confusion that Amber successfully introduced with her evasive answers while testifying is the idea that Amber retweeted the article. She didn't retweet it. She tweeted the link to the article with the caption that she had published it, followed immediately by a tweet announcing her ACLU ambassadorship. And then she admitted on record to recognizing and intending the cross pollination effects of posting both tweets together. What actually happened points much more towards Amber's ownership of the article than the mischaracterization that she simply retweeted it.

@shaft2365

2 жыл бұрын

And to follow on from your points, on the last day of cross she admitted again that she wrote the oped about johnny .......justice for johnny please

@heatherc2939

2 жыл бұрын

Well articulated Kevin.

@bertrandanon2176

2 жыл бұрын

Very true and very well put.👍🏻

@TheRosewood1

2 жыл бұрын

Q

@Nunyabzinss

2 жыл бұрын

Yup she signed sealed and delivered it in my opinion

Thank you for addressing this I hope the jury sees this case as I do, justice for Johnny.

Harvard Lawyer Lee explains confusing legal jargon in a clear concise manner. She is awesome!!! Very intelligent and articulate.

She admitted it on the stand. clearly more than one count of perjury.

@joas3324

2 жыл бұрын

And Depp lied about his finger

@leflopjames5628

2 жыл бұрын

@@joas3324 You're delusional and a sick and twisted troll for attacking the victim of abuse, Johnny Depp. #CancelAmberHeard #Microwave

@SineN0mine3

2 жыл бұрын

You don't need an apostrophe for plurals, and your sentence makes less sense with the plural. You should say "There is more than one count of perjury" because one is not plural.

@bellaswan1459

2 жыл бұрын

@@joas3324 he didn't lie she cut it off. There's damn audio of her admitting to it just they couldn't for some reason use it in court.

@joas3324

2 жыл бұрын

@@bellaswan1459 Haha!!!Of course.

I hope Johnny gets his justice tomorrow!

@dragonfly6336

2 жыл бұрын

Amen

I was waiting for your video explaining the question. Thanks!! ♥

You are such a breath of fresh air compared to the other KZread attorney presenters! Your voice is pleasant and calming amid all the chaos. Thank you!

they answered "yes" to question 1, I think that seals the deal

I am personally shocked that the jury needs this much time to conclude that AH is a friggin liar!

@VKat

2 жыл бұрын

I know!! But I think it’s taking long because they have many questions to answer and the questions are confusing

@proudmama2006

2 жыл бұрын

Same here.

@coastalcruiser4317

2 жыл бұрын

Right?! Unless a Juror is trying to save Amber.

@kerrynicholls6683

2 жыл бұрын

That’s not what they’re doing, it’s not that simple.

@cb5117

2 жыл бұрын

Even with the existence of certain instituted“sheltering” protocols/rules, its a practice in futility, as the largesse of said case renders the jury’s ignorance to its significance and overall scope, an absolute impossibility. Criticism is inevitable, yet they open themselves up to unnecessary condemnation delivering, what detractors could potentially view/spin, as a “hasty” judgment. Hence, I’m surmising pragmatic and methodical deliberations shall rue the day with this jury.

Not only did it defame him and ruin his reputation and movie deals and endorsements but she also committed perjury and abused him

Personally I'm a little worried this case wasn't closed on day one of deliberation and there's further questions. Why? 1. Amber originally testified she didn't write the op-ed, only retweeted it (which, as you say, is confirmation she believes it's true). 2. She later goes on to say she DID write the op-ed because he was a powerful man. She not only lied by saying she didn't, but released it with intent. 3. Amber lied about Kate Moss, she lied about the makeup used because it wasn't even produced at the time, she lied about the bruises. Literally no makeup can make a battered face look unblemished. Lipstick won't hide a cut lip. 4. Her theatrics on the stand were so telling 5. At one point she cowers as JD walks past her, but in every other camera shot she's smirking. A true DV victim would never act this way. 6. Her lawyers were caught submitting false evidence (in their defense I don't think they knew) 7. Various audio recordings of her abusing Johnny, but none of Johnny abusing her. Yes he slammed some cabinets, but he had just lost a lot of money. I'd be angry, too. 8. Let's talk about the video leaked to TMZ. It came from Amber's phone and she said only her and her legal team had access to it. So was it Amber or her legal team that leaked it? Nobody else had access to it. TMZ received the rights to the video within 15 minutes meaning it came from the original copyright holder, ie: Amber Heard. I could literally go on. To me, this is an open and shut case. The only reason the jury would want to keep this case going is for the free lunch (unfortunately for them dinner isn't provided) and time off work.

@STOPGREENSCREENKIDS1015

2 жыл бұрын

If I was on that jury, I would probably want to go through all the evidence anyway, that means listening to several hours of recordings. All of it wasn't played during the trial and what IF they said something crucial to the case? Also, it's been a long time since the first testimonies, it's probably a good idea to refreshen your memory if you're on the jury and thus been unable to watch clips over and over.

7:50 Well we at least know she said she wrote the op-ed and on the stand she also claimed she knew people would "come out and say whatever for Johnny" and she said that THAT was why she wrote it; which shows that yes, it infact WAS about Johnny

@mandym9249

2 жыл бұрын

And it WAS MALICIOUS AF.

I hope Johnny doesn’t lose based on a technicality

@VKat

2 жыл бұрын

My fear as well!!

Thank you for clear, direct info. You did not preamble at the beginning just directly went into the discussion. Much much appreciated. Subscribed. On another note I am not a lawyer at all and have no tendencies to interpret legalese. I'll just listen. Thank you for clear concise info.

Great video! You made it very easy to understand. Thank you and keep up the good work!

3 questions jury has to decide, is A.H. responsible, is it about J.D., and is it defamatory? Easy to answer when you’re not the ones in the jury room.

@edwardjohnson6744

2 жыл бұрын

SHE ADMITTED ON THE STAND UNDER OATH THAT SHE WROTE IT ABOUT JOHNNY DEPP!!! "THAT'S WHY I WROTE IT"

@lee5802

2 жыл бұрын

The one question that would answer everything is "do you believe her at all."

@raider1297

2 жыл бұрын

It should be pretty easy even inside the jury room. They watched her this whole trial, the contradictions, body language, conflicting testimonies from her own witnesses, her own admission to having written the op-ed because of Depp and that experience as a whole, etc. At this point if it goes against Depp, the jury are probably as incompetent as they come. At some point basic logic has to rear its head in, after all...juries are meant to be the voice of the people and are meant to determine outcomes to reflect what the common man and woman of the United States would do in these cases, not what a judge sticking by all the small technicalities would. The whole point of it is to be as logically fair as possible.

@chillybbbee747

2 жыл бұрын

@@raider1297 if I was on the jury, everything she looked over at me if make a funny face at her. I was trying to get her to stop (cough) crying (cough) It drove me nuts that she wouldn't answer the person asking the questions! That's rude. She wanted to play a part for the jury, but she isn't a good, or even fair, actress.

@mandym9249

2 жыл бұрын

@@raider1297 yes I thought there were just way too many words being said.

The fact she stated. That she was a victim of SV during her defence for an example the bottle incident, then Amber's intent was to defame JD using a false statement this without any evidence of medical or police records ,

@kirpdeb

2 жыл бұрын

I agree! If there was any doubt about AH defamation of JD BEFORE this trial, this trial continued her defamation of him. Defamation = ABUSE.

@michellepernula872

2 жыл бұрын

@@kirpdeb BINGO !!!! And a Political Science professor used to say repeatedly that one must ask the right question to get to the right answer....What is her motive? To boost herself, her reputation, gain fame, strip his supporters, to harm "males" as she blames society that they gang up on women and SHE is the OMNIPOTENT one that will shine light on that and stop it. She wants to extort fame and his money, and revenge for him having audacity to evict her for pooping in a bed. She feared he'd out her about that, so she hits back harder. She's kooks.

@caligirl1039

2 жыл бұрын

YES, YES AND YES !!!

She admitted “that’s why I wrote the “OP-ED”

Thank you for this explanation. You are very good at clarifying a complex situation. Subscribed.

I think it means Amber is screwed. Amber's lawyers attempted a hailmary by alleging several form of abuses. But the Jury looks like they are only zeroing in on Sexual Abuse which is the hardest to prove in my opinion.

@michikomi6358

2 жыл бұрын

True, i mean technically with a bottle first thing I would do is go the the hospital, then again in a DA relationship you don’t want to go to not incriminate your bf. However, Amber probably always wanted a kid, and if you always wanted something that you would make sure you can actually get it (the bottle could’ve broke and not allow her to have kids, hence the importance to go to the hospital) but again, she did not go.

@Ilovegrunge123

2 жыл бұрын

Which means they disregarded Dr. Hughes testimony because she was trying to say that some things that Amber did during the relationship would be considered SA. I don't blame them Dr. Hughes was not credible at all.

During cross when she snapped she said" and that is why I wrote the oped" also she didn't re tweet , she was the author of the tweet. Both points are completely different from what you are saying

@huntercollins1310

2 жыл бұрын

She was author of the tweet, which was also retweeting the second element, which was the attached article, fulfilling both elements. Legal technicality.

I believe she accepted the whole thing, headline with the article, when she retweeted it, she approved it as correct. She owns the publication of it.

Thank you for explaining that question and the possible meanings. I actually thought at first that your second explanation was what they were considering but now I understand how it could also mean your first explanation. TY!

To me it seems that in order for jurors to be in question three, they most likely already answered yes to the defamation question since it requires a yes or no answer. I found this jury’s question to be revealing as to where they are in their deliberation and based on the instructions if they answered yes to question 2 I believe with regards to Johnny proving defamation, then the instruction is to proceed to question 3, I think they’re going thru this methodically and with due diligence. Maybe I am looking at this very simplistic, but it seems to me this is good news for Johnny and not good news for Amber.

@susanutterback300

2 жыл бұрын

Agree!

@broadsword310

2 жыл бұрын

Yep

@clairetrinkle3034

2 жыл бұрын

You are very sharp👍

@clairetrinkle3034

2 жыл бұрын

AGREED 100%👍

@gridlerbing

2 жыл бұрын

Basically this👇🏼 "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: 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? ●The statement was about Mr. Depp?

If I were a juror, I would definitely feel that it was specifically about Depp. It was an ugly marriage (from what I’ve gathered from here and there) and an uglier divorce. Correct me if I’m wrong, but she did not get all she wanted from the divorce, correct? And then the Op-Ed came out? Normal people do not photograph spouses in need of help or at their worst, they help them. Normal people do not record their spouses. This case. The defendant? Can we say as side line jurors that 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4 and ONLY 4. Judgement is for the Plaintiff.

@annesophie4037

2 жыл бұрын

Like one of the witnesses said: "Was she married to someone else in that timeframe?" So i agree, i feel it's very clear who she meant even without saying any names

@Ilovegrunge123

2 жыл бұрын

She also sent a blackmail letter through her lawyers to Depps saying give me these things or else I will say you abused me. The day she filed the TRO was the day time ran out for Depps lawyer to respond to her demands. But remember she wanted nothing.

@sue-annewalklett7960

2 жыл бұрын

Spot on, unless she planned this from the start. I actual feel that she set out to destroy him before they were even married

@Lisa-1901

2 жыл бұрын

She had an agenda or perhaps even vendetta toward Mr Depp from day one she has never given not one damn for this man. Any real spouse would never put their partners personal struggles and or moments on display for all the world to hear and for all the world to see, I don't care what someone is going through you don't humiliate them downgrade or degrade them, any decent human being would not do this to someone they claim to love. This entire trial she has not shed one tear, she has had no problem on her quest to get on a smear campaign and ruin not only Johnny Depp's prestigious name she also has ruined this man's entire life. it's a damn shame that he has had to fight in a court of law to prove his innocence, clear his name, and fight to take his life back. I will say this regardless of what the jury decides, the world sees exactly just what kind of man Johnny Depp truly is ❣️❣️❣️ #justiceforjohnnydepp let me say one last thing, I have a friend that lives in New York that knows Mr Depp personally, I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting him in person but I can tell you this she clearly stated time and time again that he is the kindest and most gentle soul, he is extremely generous and selfless, in essence I feel like I know him through her ❣️❣️❣️

@bereal6590

2 жыл бұрын

They were recording for therapy

Thanks for your insight...I watched so many videos on this subject. None of them has helped me understand what exactly that Jury's question mean. Great interpretation.

I discovered your channel during the JD/AH defamation case, and really enjoyed your clear, intelligent and fair comments! I suscribed as I'm impressed by your calm and very thoughtful reponses! I am team Johnny all the way! JUSTICE FOR JOHNNY DEPP!

Didn't Amber already admit that she wrote the article? Isn't that enough evidence?

@cynthiacecil9451

2 жыл бұрын

I was under the impression she denied writing it just shared it. BUT while on the stand she was getting upset with JD attorney and said "That's why I wrote it".. then admitting to something she has been denying..

@gwenmarie7311

2 жыл бұрын

@@cynthiacecil9451 Exactly!!! She Took ownership of it on the stand!!!

@fatalcircuit007

2 жыл бұрын

It’s not a question of if she wrote, it’s what she meant by writing it.

@alicejones9031

2 жыл бұрын

@@cynthiacecil9451 i remember her saying that and was glad she finally admitted it..

@larushka1

2 жыл бұрын

That’s not the issue, whether or not she wrote it. The issue is whether someone reading the article would know it was about Johnny as it doesnt mention him directly.

If you really listen and watch everything, there is not doubt that she was taking about Johnny Depp. Two years ago, she said first clue, she didn't ask for the headline to be change, and she re- twitted it on her account.

I was a juror for a nationally covered death penalty murder trial (well, 1 of the 3 death penalty trials for that murder.) Anyway, one of our 12 jurors had asked during deliberations if we could see the video footage of the trial to re-watch bits and pieces we were discussing. Obviously, the answer was no. Could you explain why jurors only get the trial evidence during deliberations and are not able to rewatch/hear any parts of the trial other than what was in our notes? I'm just curious what the official reason(s) are for that. I did notice when we each received our DVD copies of the trial after the trial was over, the court footage you could hear everything the attorneys discussed with the judge in private (which was very awesome to hear afterwards what we didn't get to hear during the entire trial!) Is that why- so that jurors do not accidentally hear things they are not supposed to hear/consider? Is it a time thing? Is it many things? Lol!

The jury is not stupid. No one could listen to this trial and not know she set him up. She had the opportunity to go on with her life but instead chose to unleash these claims of SV. No one knew about any of that until she wrote that op-ed. What did she think was going to happen?? She was bitter that all her crying and whining could not win him back so she took the revenge route and tried to destroy his career.

Amber testified that she wrote the article.

@donnaleone3818

2 жыл бұрын

Of course she wrote it. No one is contesting that. The question is, did her op Ed destroy Depp’s career with untrue allegations.

I feel like if Amber didn't want any ties to that and Washington Post did it she should not have retweeted it that's basically agreeing to it. Plus when she got back on the stand the second time she admitted to writing the op-ed

You made me feel better about them asking the question.

She constantly said: " ...when I wrote the Op-ed .. " "... I wrote it because ..." Do I remember that wrong ?? I hope they have first responders in the courtroom because I think Amber Heard will go in a complete meltdown if she loses the case ...

Hopefully jury thinks Heard published the SV statement. Her retweet text says 'today I published' and the Judge earlier ruled that a retweet of the whole article and an added message constitutes publication

@Augrills

2 жыл бұрын

It’s not even a retweet. She linked the article and attached the statement.

Interesting- I actually had to pull up the jury instructions on this. Here are my thoughts. I believe if it was a question of whether AH made or published the statement, the question would have ended there-. If she did not make it or publish the statement, it ends there-no reason to move on to question 3. So, the question leads me to believe it is pro- Johnny

@elrond3737

2 жыл бұрын

you are right. unless you missed something

@a_numbers_girl7025

2 жыл бұрын

@@elrond3737 Absolutely! I didn’t have a great deal of time to devote to watching, so that is very possible. I was looking at it from a logical perspective, and we know that is not how everyone thinks.

@jasonhaberski6843

2 жыл бұрын

Bingo!

@littleone7404

2 жыл бұрын

She say that she wrote the pre op

@covenator190

2 жыл бұрын

I agree

So interesting, love that I found your channel ☺️

I like how you explain things clearly. Liked and subscribed.

The reason that Heard's attorney was asking Mr. Depp about his not initiating an action against the magazine is an attempt at defense in that Ms. Heard did not herself make the statement, and thus did not defame Mr. Depp with said statement. Depp's attorneys saw this and pointed out that Ms. Heard sharing of said article constituted publication (which it does). As to why the jury asked the question, it could go either way. Or, at least, it could if Ms. Heard had not herself published that very article by tweeting it etc. Therefore I think it more likely than not that they are leaning toward finding Ms. Heard liable for defamation.

@michelletoler383

2 жыл бұрын

She also added text to the tweet and by tweeting it (validating the publishing claim), and intended on reaching a new audience.

@florcastro6552

2 жыл бұрын

🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

@catlover4700

2 жыл бұрын

Buy the article was already out . I don't see her reposting it makes her liable especially when it was worldwide online .

The way Judge Penny spoke to both parties to me was telling. She spoke to JDs council first in a positive tone. AH it was more like this is what it is soooooo.....then she seemed annoyed with Elaine.

@xRainbowCloud

2 жыл бұрын

That might have more to do with the fact that Johnny's team have been respectful towards her when she makes rulings while AH's team have argued with her on every ruling and been rude about it. I think she was expecting them to argue with her some more when it was clear she was asking if her wording was okay with everyone yet she actually didn't care if it was, that was her ruling and she was going with it, it was out of respect that she 'asked' if it was at all. Elaine needs to learn to read the room.

It’s unbelievable that this jury is deliberating on the verdict, after seeing Johnnys lawyers tear into her witnesses I found her guilty immediately and the false emotions OMG she’s up for the next Oscar’s

No bla bla, straight to the point! Thanks dear!

Isn't the most interesting finding from this question,that the having to arrive there,they had to answer all previous questions with"YES"??????

@The_Kirk_Lazarus

2 жыл бұрын

That's a really good point.

@patriciagazey4693

2 жыл бұрын

My thought too

@Demour77

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for pointing this out, subtle but is a big clue!

@sarahlang2119

2 жыл бұрын

YES!!!

@sarahlang2119

2 жыл бұрын

@@sammoser6281 technically they can't move onto c until they've said yes to a and b

they must of said yes to the first question to get to question c

New Subscriber 💜 love your way of explaining things to make it easier to understand! Thank you 😊

Awesome video. Very eye opening about why the jury may ask questions.

I don’t get the whole discussion weather she wrote the headline or not, she later multiple times re-stated the allegations even during the trial! So if she claims that her story is true why not stand up for the headline as well as the up-Ed?

@michellepernula872

2 жыл бұрын

Because her side is pointing out that no one from WA news paper came in to point out that SHE contacted them, offered information, or that she had help in writing HER article that she signed then removed after someone most likely told her if it's NOT completely truthful, she could suffer slander, libel, and defamation of character law suit...but she'd already retweeted to campaign herself and harmed him in the process. She wasn't the only one married, it was a couple, she harmed them as a couple and damaged his hand and reputation.

@avelinosantos6455

2 жыл бұрын

@@michellepernula872 qaaqaaaqaaaaaq

This question makes me think the jurors are heavily divided on the issue to raise the question to the judge. Which means there's at least 1 dumass in the group.

@diamondsparkle9967

2 жыл бұрын

Yep. Thats exactly what it is.

@tonyvelasquez6776

2 жыл бұрын

Not really, they could just be trying to figure out damages, which depends on how many of these claims are true and how they impacted him

@stephaniediaz2710

2 жыл бұрын

there always is!

@raider1297

2 жыл бұрын

It only takes one hardcore feminist lol

We already know who’s gonna win but it’s still nerve racking .

The fact that the jury is asking those type of questions tells me the jury lacks common sense, I mean the whole world saw that Amber is a liar.

The one thing that I thought about was that since they had a question about statement 3, they've probably already made a decision on statements 1 & 2. This is assuming that they addressed each statement consecutively. If this is so, then I expect a verdict tomorrow.

@831mrscardoso

2 жыл бұрын

I hope so, JD deserves the closure he's been waiting for all this time.

@TheDigitalThreat

2 жыл бұрын

They are not supposed to even answer questions b and c unless they answered yes to #1a. If they say no to #1a it renders the rest irrelevant.

@TheDigitalThreat

2 жыл бұрын

@@sammoser6281 Well I got that directly from a trial attorney who has looked over the documents, and that is a summed up version of his statement.

@TheDigitalThreat

2 жыл бұрын

Still tho, if they didnt agree that there is some form of defamation (just in what capacity) then why would they bother with all the rest (of that statement). Unless they read the page from the bottom up or someone changed their mind mid way I dont see the confusion (outside my poor earlier explanation lol)

@coastalcruiser4317

2 жыл бұрын

Honestly, because 1 or more Jurors needed clarification on questions 3, and when they got the clarification, they still couldn't wrap it up makes me think there's a hold out Juror who could cause a hung Jury.

According to the Q asked by the jury - They are asking about the 3rd question in 1a, that would infer they answered ‘Yes’ that JD proved all the elements of defamation, cause you can’t get to the 3rd question unless you answered ‘Yes’ that JD has proven all the elements defamation by AH. This gives me a indication that the jury agrees defamation occurred and JD has proven it so far.

@bowtoyoursensei554

2 жыл бұрын

Now they have to prove "actual malice" for him to win. That's more difficult.

@mikequon4427

2 жыл бұрын

@@werdylox6114 Under the special verdict form where question 1(a) Did you find that JD has proven all the elements of defamation? Yes or No. If yes then continue on to the Elements. If no go to question 2. Within question 1(a) the jury was asking about the 3rd element question. The statement was false? So if they are asking about the element question, wouldn’t that infer that they are answering’Yes’ to 1(a), cause if they were going to answer ‘No’ to 1(a) then the element question is moot, right?

@mikequon4427

2 жыл бұрын

@@sammoser6281 correct, the element questions are within 1(a), if 1(a) is yes. It is possible they are just reviewing the elements within 1(a) before they answer. I was just wondering if that was the reaction JD legal had when that question was asked. I’m purely speculating if that was what they were smiling about.

@sarahlang2119

2 жыл бұрын

@@bowtoyoursensei554 No, the actual definition of actual malice was read out by the judge. It doesn't mean you're trying to ruin someone. It means you made them knowing then to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth

@sarahlang2119

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikequon4427 yep I think their reactions are pretty telling

Before they proceed to inquire about a clarification they should answers the question if there is a defamation. I assume they all agree that JD was defamed in order to be able to ask for a clarification.

Yeah I can imagine how huge the anticipation is.