Comments by "B Bodziak" (@B_Bodziak) on "'The Five' reacts to Amber Heard's plan to appeal Depp-Heard ruling" video.

I believe it was the title of the online article that she claimed she did not write. HOWEVER, when she sent out a tweet with the article attached and writing "I just wrote and published this...." The law (at least in Virginia) considers that by attaching the article to her tweet, she essentially and legally re-published the entire article WITH and including the title even if she did not write the title originally. The ACLU testified that the Washington Post wrote the title. Legally, it did not matter b/c she met the legal criteria for 100% writing and publishing it when she re-published it via Twitter Funny how two media ouets Murdoch owns, The Sun and Fox, can have two completely different views on this.
16
Lawyers often disagree with the jury on verdicts, and the lawyer for a losing side ALWAYS disagrees with it. It's unprofessional to give an interview and try to blame it on jurors not following protocol. It's DOUBTFUL she will be dumb enough to try and use that as one of the reasons to support an appeal. I think even Elaine knows better than to do that -- unless, of course, she has some actual proof (key word: actual) that the jury was compromised.
15
She will have to put up her own money and/or property worth $10.35 million in order to file an appeal for this case. Gotta wonder how she's going to be able to do that.
6
We also don't want to be in a courtroom when our abuser, an actual abuser, tells the judge and jury that we are lying and are not actually a victim and then compares us to Amber Heard. THAT is how her fake abuse claims are going to hurt female victims in the future. On a positive note, male victims might be more willing to come forward and seek help now
3
@horrorgirl688 Unfortunately, Australia is likely the only place that might actually follow it up. I know the US won't. Bits not usually difficult to prove a lie was told, it's proving the lie was egregious enough to change the outcome of the case. With the verdict favoring JD, there's little chance of that. However, it was brought to her lawyers' attention during Discovery about having the two different sets of duplicate pics with different dates for different incidents being in separate exhibits and they still chose to move to admit them into evidence. Her attorneys should be sanctioned for that. I hope it's reported. Dr. Speigel also needs to be reported to the APA. His expert witness status needs to be challenged, as well. Even a lay person knows you can't do a psyche evaluation on someone by watching him act in commercials and movies. As soon as he called JD an idiot during his deposition, he should have been replaced. Did Bredehoft and Rottenborn think Ben Chew wouldn't notice that?
2
I hope she files for an appeal because when the appellate judges deny it, the bond can pay JD. Everyone talks big about appealing in these type of civil cases with big awards, but that's usually prior to understanding the entire process
2