Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "LiveNOW from FOX" channel.

  1.  @janasoraya  "Guilty?" This is not a criminal case. Did you read the alleged defamatory article? Do you know how to find articles, like, in newspapers and stuff like that, no talking, no pictures?
    21
  2.  @janasoraya  A defamation case is not about who is good or bad. Even bad people have free speech rights. Of course, at the rate we're going . . . :/
    20
  3.  @retrogamermama7941  He's the plaintiff. And this isn't a criminal case.
    14
  4.  @p6x2  No, she takes other cases and does other work for free. That's what pro bono means.
    9
  5. You must know that in the cases of various forms of abuse, PTSD, and so forth, when there is a legitimate perpetrator, either they cannot be located or refuse to come in, and (absent court order) it is always their right to refuse to come in. It is not a stigma to refuse and proves nothing either way. Hence these disciplines have to develop ways to determine whether the patient is being truthful. She explained that under direct examination.
    8
  6. It is evidence of what it SAID, not evidence that what is said is the truth. It is evidence of "reputation." How else do you prove what The Sun said? You have to produce an authentic copy.
    8
  7. No. It shows that this video thumbnail is abusing your intelligence with its ridiculous caption. A motion to dismiss is a normal procedural move at this time. It signals the end of the case in chief.
    6
  8. He's not arguing. That comes during the closing statement.
    6
  9. You can't diagnosis that now. 😂😂😂 🤡 The adrenaline has to work its way through a person's system. Didn't you have health and safety education in 11th grade?
    6
  10.  @hammerr3  Terrible People should have their house seized, and their bank accounts, and handed over to the TRUE victims!!! I'm on board. 🤣🤣🤣
    6
  11. At his age, he might calm down. Ten years ago, not so likely.
    5
  12.  @Sammich_baybee  It cannot be presented in court at all unless reputation has a direct bearing on calculating damages from this alleged libel.
    5
  13.  @Sammich_baybee  Define "hearsay." No, the First Amendment is not a "loophole." YIKES. No wonder.
    5
  14.  @Nofinator  Exactly. But they also participate in forming reputations, right or wrong. It is unfortunate that tabloids can do that, and celebrities usually need PR professionals to help them control for that. BTW, do you believe everything they say about Harry and Megan? Just curious.
    5
  15.  @kevinmyers440  Great point. They just use different tactics of persuasion.
    5
  16. Well, when you sue someone for $50,000,000, you have to prove they really harmed you to the tune of $50,000,000, before the court will order the sheriff to seize your bank accounts, assets, pull you out of your house and auction it off, grab your car, etc. You think it should go some other way? The Justin Trudeau approach, maybe? 🤣
    4
  17. ​@WW2SolitaireBoardGameChannel I think he looks great considering what he just went through.
    4
  18. GOOD QUESTION
    4
  19.  @brodyespiritu4363  The jury is questioning Question 3. 1:23
    4
  20.  @silkart1  Here's an interesting question: why do you think Depp didn't see Hughes? Why wasn't a reason given? Hint: it is analogous to the Fifth Amendment.
    3
  21. Yes. On these boards, where a cult is taking shape.
    3
  22.  @erepsekahs  Well, it is certainly a real trial, but the underlying purpose is not to win $50 million in damages, no. The purpose is more likely to put on a show and to settle scores, and possibly write a book. Very astute comment, by the way. We are seeing a cult or a mob coalesce before our eyes. Too bad Depp didn't just write a memoir. Much more positive than this.
    3
  23.  @SuperLKL The court reporter made a typo. Is everyone as high as Depp now?
    3
  24.  @deanmurphy7307  Everybody whacked out on this case is projecting their own tragedies on these two strangers. I've never seen more mass psychosis than over the last few years.
    3
  25.  @heelercs  A mob has formed. Mobs don't care about truth. The truth is, this is a defamation case. That means that if the article, which alludes to Depp as committing "domestic abuse," is true, then he cannot win. Domestic abuse includes emotional abuse, as long as it is more than trivial or occasional, and not just a brief response to provocation. IOW, as long as it's substantial enough to be traumatic to anyone, it is not a lie. It does not matter if she was abusive as well. It does not matter that she has a bad character. This isn't a criminal case or a divorce.
    3
  26.  @heelercs  No worries. The mobs are forming and switching targets too fast for my peace of mind. OTOH, this will blow over. Remember how we were supposed to suspend the 4th an 5th Amendments for Gabby Petito?
    3
  27.  @heelercs  Of course there is ample evidence they were both abusing each other, and it was an extremely dysfunctional relationship. This was already developed in one court, in the UK. Of course there are men who are not abusive to every partner, just certain ones. Everyone knows them. A friend I had in high school was like that, and he went into counseling on his own. It turned out that he had been an abused child, and something about that woman brought out a surge of anger. He worked very hard on it, got married much later, and worked hard on his marriage. I acknowledge that, even though years later he was mean to me. (I wouldn't date him in high school. High school was a sad time for him, I found out later.)
    3
  28.  @Cpt.CoffinNails  The only people taking sides are the ones who are reliving their own relationships through projecting them on this spectacle of strangers' lives. This is a defamation case. He already lost a better one. Every defamation case chips away at free speech, and asks the court to set aside free speech. The norm is always the First Amendment, the burden is on a plaintiff to prove it does not apply here. He could have written an autobiography instead, an instant best seller. Instead he did this.
    3
  29. @user-mq4xf1ix9w  You mean you don't know that you cannot diagnose it so soon, nor by seeing him at a political event that in certain respects mirrors the environment where the shooting took place a mere two days ago, nor from a distance, nor by pure appearance, without some conversation with the person? Scary.
    3
  30.  @asherjason46  She didn't sue. He did. She wrote a mild article, vastly milder than what The Sun wrote, no comparison in fact, and he already LOST his case against The Sun. You think she likes this attention? Is everyone suddenly crazed?
    3
  31.  @SChamberlain1978  A New York psychologist is not a member of the California Bar! 😂😂😂
    3
  32.  @justsayin3600  I don't. Her first reflex is to hate on someone else, because a mob has formed. Her first instinct is not to pause and observe, but to judge, as though she could hardly wait for the chance. And to judge solely based on her own lay experience, as if everyone's experience has to be the same.
    3
  33.  @baristaz8834  He was addicted. He might not remember. Or believe what he did drunk and high doesn't count anyway, because he never did it sober. Too bad he was rarely sober.
    3
  34. Every time
    3
  35.  @noahw5887  He's not countersuing. He sued her.
    3
  36.  @cjb2749  She's vastly more qualified, and thorough. How did you get caught up in this mass psychosis? (Is it drugs? Is that it?)
    3
  37. In actual abuse cases, it is very, very common for the abuser not to be available, or to refuse to come in, which is that person's right. Only a court order can force a person to submit to a psychological evaluation, and those are hard to get, as they should be. So, in this field, researchers and clinicians HAD TO find ways to figure out whether the person who does come in is being truthful or evasive, etc. This psychologist is Board certified in two specialties and she assessed Heard. She never said she assessed Depp. She looked for corroboration or contradiction in the records she did have, for both parties. And Depp had no obligation to see her. Totally his call, proves nothing either way. Just like you have the right to remain silent.
    2
  38.  @carlfriedman7127   This is an example of a mob mentality forming. They literally can't hear you now. If they come back to this thread in a few months, then maybe. Still, it's possible they will be more mad at you, not less. They need to play this out, they resent you because you don't have that need.
    2
  39.  @raneewether2071  Incorrect. Not how defamation law works. If both are abusers, the article is partial but it is not false. Hence it is First Amendment protected. Sorry. Depp can write his memoir, it would be a best seller.
    2
  40.  @silkart1  You can give an opinion about a relationship. You can never diagnose anyone you never met. It is a bright line. If you say this psychologist crossed it, I don't disbelieve you at all. You sound knowledgeable; show me where. One timestamp is plenty, since a psychologist is not supposed to do it even one time, ever. If a real abuse victim comes in, and the perpetrator won't, can you diagnose PTSD in the victim stemming from the relationship that you never saw in action, and never heard about from anyone but the victim? Why or why not? I say of course you can --- as long as you never forget you could be wrong. By your logic, could Heard have stymied the psychologist who testified for Depp? Heard could have prevented the BPD diagnosis by not agreeing to see her, but she couldn't prevent her from giving her opinion based on the rest of the data she had. (Don't you wonder why no other therapist diagnosed BPD in Heard, but this brief assessment revealed it? This is why we all have a right to refuse to see a psychologist, thank GOD. I said from the start, if Depp was asked to and declined, I support him. His business, his choice. Refusing proves nothing either way.)
    2
  41.  @silkart1  How do expert witnesses in medical malpractice/wrongful death draw conclusions about a dead person? They never met him. They did not witness the autopsy.
    2
  42.  @silkart1  You know the answer yourself. JD's team was counting on producing this outrage, because the other side cannot mention that Heard agreed to be evaluated as counting in her favor. Like the right to remain silent, there is a right to refuse to talk to your opponent's expert, and no one has the right to judge you for it. I support that right. Of course Depp was asked, too. Of course he said no. It was his right to say no. And he was right to say no. 💯 I judge him favorably for that, actually. Good for him.
    2
  43.  @nomchompsky3012  There is nothing remarkable about this. In true cases of domestic partner violence, the abuser frequently cannot be located, or cannot be made to come to a psychologist. Nor can anyone make him, short of a court order. It's his right to refuse, and that proves nothing either way. So therapists in the field have to develop methods to assess the person who does come in, and to have some idea of whether they are being truthful, guarded, evasive, etc., about what is going on. This never occurred to you? If Depp declined to talk to this woman, I don't blame him. I have no idea why Heard agreed to talk to that smug celebrity hound with the muffin basket.
    2
  44.  @tonya--7704  At issue is a text, and whether that text is defamation, not who The Bad Guy Really Is.
    2
  45.  @wilmameijer437  I don't pretend this system is ideal, but that is the process, and everyone knows that, going in. It's an adversarial system because it is constructed that way. Of course the plaintiff must go first, to make his case. He has the burden of proof.
    2
  46. In real cases of abuse and PTSD, when there is a legitimate perpetrator, they often cannot be located or refuse to come in, and (absent court order) it is always their right to refuse to come in. It is not a stigma to refuse and proves nothing either way. Hence these disciplines have to develop ways to determine whether the patient who does come in is being truthful, evasive, guarded, or exaggerating, etc. She explained all that under direct examination. I don't blame Depp if he declined to be evaluated by her, and I don't understand why Heard agreed to talk to the muffin lady.
    2
  47.  @barryfrench2534  What I understood is that she made a distinction between cases where she actually testified, which did not include any female perpetrated IPV, and cases that settled, which did. Lawyers decide who to call, and they may be the ones who introduce the bias. I'm serious. They literally specialize, and not just into plaintiffs, defense, and appeals. There are divorce lawyers who only take women clients. Some only take millionaire women clients. I wish I were kidding, but no.
    2
  48.  @Sunshine-n1n  The plaintiff's complaint is online. You could download that, for example.
    2
  49.  @ContentMadame His perspective is one you should seriously consider. You want informed people to "humble themselves" before the group. The exact opposite is needed. Just how many more mass hysterias do you want to see? Better to calm down, sit back, and ponder other possible explanations of what is going on. The dominant one on these boards is sheer nonsense.
    2
  50.  @erepsekahs  Your take is the best one I've read, and certainly the most original, an example of independent thought. Who brings a claim like this twice? Who takes that idea at face value?
    2
  51.  @chrismogard4144  WAIT. Are you saying Putin DIDN'T do anything to Dior? You are risking cancellation.
    2
  52.  @nina2222  Anyone who does drugs is someone to run away from, especially if he's 23 years older, has two failed relationships, and two kids.
    2
  53.  @himanimalhotra26  You do for real? Say no to drugs.
    2
  54. This is a normal procedural move at this time and may even be required, depending on Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.
    2
  55.  @SChamberlain1978  So you paid such close attention you missed that she's from New York? 🤣🤣🤣
    2
  56. In cases of various forms of abuse, PTSD, and so forth, when there is a legitimate perpetrator, either they cannot be located or refuse to come in, and (absent court order) it is always their right to refuse to come in. It is not a stigma to refuse and proves nothing either way. Hence these disciplines have to develop ways to determine whether the patient is being truthful. She explained that under direct examination. I guess you missed that part?
    2
  57.  @TimUnknown-h5q  I agree with you about the comment swarm. It is not appropriate. But if there is a trial, this woman will very likely be subpoenaed and cross examined. A 15-minute shock is plausible. An 8-hour shock is not. Something here needs explaining, also for the sake of others who may have too lax of a lifestyle and not realize the dangers. The more innocent the mind, the less prepared to act in case of emergency. Too many young adults are childish now, and seem to want to stay that way. That does have to be addressed, no?
    2
  58.  @markusmuller6173  Erm, I don't see that others are much interested in narrative, tone, dialogue writing, and stuff. Just my impression.
    2
  59.  @sujanaryal833  Of COURSE there's proof. But are you so deep into your cult you won't acknowledge it? You'll smear whoever brings forward the proof? Why did he lose a lawsuit where he had a better case, and is redoing it anyway? Pure vindictiveness.
    2
  60.  @agustinsp1  Okay, this is mass formation psychosis.
    2
  61.  @kieranlee9610  In a court case, plaintiffs go first. They have to prove their case. That means all we have heard so far is his side.
    2
  62.  @sujanaryal833  Well, the plaintiff just rested and the defense is presenting its case. The Sun case, which was a better defamation case, also had these core facts. Of course, an American jury might decide to hate on Heard. You can see that in action here.
    2
  63.  @LBenn302  what not 😂
    2
  64. Every year, every day I find out that other people are vastly sicker than I ever imagined. I'm referring to your comment.
    2
  65.  @joanndavid3406  The people here have formed a mob. Her real-world qualifications make them hate her more. It always works that way, like when the smartest kid in class will be bullied and hazed, no matter how nice they are at heart.
    2
  66.  @supercarsandlifestyle  She works for free a lot. That's what pro bono means.
    2
  67. The case isn't about her, it's about the article. Even liars have First Amendment rights. Even murderers do.
    2
  68.  @peachbun  It's one hysteria after another, one designated Enemy after another. This is what scares me. You never know which way a mob may turn. People have the illusion of strength from being part of a mob, and the illusion of being exempt from the wrath of the mob. But no one is exempt, ever. No one can ever be sure.
    2
  69.  @casualfoodenjoyer7951  If he admits to emotional abuse, then the article is not defamatory as a matter of law. Did you read the article? Depp already lost a defamation lawsuit in UK against a tabloid which was a much stronger case. His reputation from that, and his reputation in general before Heard published anything, was so bad that he can't prove SHE caused his damages by writing THAT article. See, before a court can order the sheriff to seize someone's bank accounts, car, house, etc., you have to prove that you're entitled to it, for real. Feelings are not enough. Unless you want to vote on Facebook instead. 🤣
    2
  70.  @ragingmouse5547  Heard's article nowhere calls him physically violent. An article in The Sun did, and labeled him a "wife-beater." He sued in the UK and lost. Losing that case damaged his earning ability. (I don't know why that case turned out so badly for him, but anyway. British tabloids are horrid.)
    2
  71.  @GrumpyStoic  You're right. Let me clarify: this is a perfectly normal cross-examination of an opposing witness in a case where the plaintiff is suing the defendant for $50 million. Before a court orders someone to pay money, and seizes their bank account and other assets, grabs their house, and so forth, the plaintiff has to PROVE they really lost $50 million on account of the defendant, and for no other reason. If the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that, maybe filing suit (due to bitterness? just to get even?) wasn't nice.
    2
  72.  @GrumpyStoic  Wow, you're a kind person. Thanks very much. I'm kind of embarrassed now.
    2
  73.  @Jana-wx3lp  OMG, you are normal. What are you doing here? 🤣
    2
  74. Or . . . Maybe you don't know the law? Could that be it?
    2
  75. @Bri Grant I guess you don't get it. They have to prove Depp was slated to star in another Pirates movie, which he lost out on only because of Heard's opinion piece, and they are failing to prove that.
    2
  76. @Private Banks Do you actually believe that? Or just joking around?
    2
  77.  @ProsperousHobo  They don't have the burden of proof.
    2
  78.  @silkart1  If that were true, then any litigant who declined to talk to your expert witness could derail your case. Obviously not true. (1) Depp has no duty to talk to her, totally his call. His side only had to produce records. (2) That doesn't undermine her assessment, based on the facts she has gleened. If it did, then Heard could have declined to talk to Miss Muffins and undermined his expert. Nope. The fact that no one is seeing this, is evidence that mob thinking is taking over.
    1
  79.  @HaryBallsagna  So, you can diagnose/assess all this, but a person with two Board certifications and experience since the 1970s cannot? Listen to yourself, if you still can. Mobs do not care about right and wrong, they turn on a dime.
    1
  80.  @silkart1  Depp's psychologist is less qualified than Heard's by far, and reached a "pop" diagnosis (a favorite subject of bloggers and youtubers) that literally NO other therapist ever reached. Not one time. And she had a smug, duping delight grin on her face while she did. 🤣 Question: how can you tell a mob is forming? When absolutely no FACTS that might possibly disrupt the narrative ever so slightly are permitted, and cause a huge rush of denunciations. That's how. This degree of irrationality (and over what?) taking form so quickly is astonishing. This episode won't help anyone, male victims or female ones. That part will be forgotten. But the propensity to respond when a group stokes mass hysteria will be greater than it was. That's what always happens. I wonder what the next new thing will be? If the economy really tanks, it will be something worse.
    1
  81.  @TheDr.Umbreon  When anyone who says anything rational and measured and fair is going to be attacked and insulted, especially using a trendy label that no one heard of a year ago and you suddenly see everywhere, then you should ask yourself some questions. A mob can turn on a dime. You can't predict the next Enemy.
    1
  82.  @boliusabol822  Everything you said was true. The most important thing is not to allow any "expert" to substitute their opinion on the veracity of a witness. Only the jury gets to decide who is telling the truth about what.
    1
  83.  @minz456  That could be true, but who was worse isn't an issue in defamation. If both were abusers, both have the free speech right to tell their story in print. That used to be the law, but the First Amendment has taken a hit lately. What happens this time is up for grabs.
    1
  84.  @silkart1  Don't you see that what you're saying doesn't make sense? If it were true, Heard could have declined to talk to Depp's expert. What then? Then she can't make any assessment of their relationship whatsoever, based on examining him and the records they both had to produce? Or would you have found some way around that?
    1
  85.  @boliusabol822  Absolutely
    1
  86.  @rocky13m  That would be what you would think. And when this hysteria dies down, there will be a new hysteria for you to be titillated by. You won't remember all the ridiculous things you believed this time. You'll be primed to believe even more ridiculous things next time.
    1
  87.  @rocky13m  blocked
    1
  88.  @rocky13m  So which were you? Team Russiagate or Team QAnon? Team Vaxx or Team Antivaxx? Team Gabby Petito or Team Brian Laundrie? Team Wills/Kate or Team Harry/Megan? I left out at least ten, I know. Sorry if I missed one that was extremely important to you. It was unintentional.
    1
  89.  @highestqualitypigiron  You think it was news to anyone? Both sides are aware of everything. This is the show for the jury.
    1
  90. Or worse
    1
  91. This defamation case is not about whether Depp was also abused. It is about whether a specific article that that Heard signed and the Washington Post published is defamatory. If Depp also abused her, more than trivially, and more than in self-defense, then the article is NOT defamatory. That's the law. If he wants his story to be heard, he should write an autobiography and it would be the best seller of the decade. 🙄
    1
  92. 9:51 "Within our own borders" -- stop right there I think this gentleman just hit the target.
    1
  93. Of course it is. Depp says Heard's article is defamatory and is responsible for costing him $50,000,000. Depp has to prove that, before the sheriff starts seizing Heard's assets, her bank accounts, her house, etc. The defense gets to show that Depp can't prove $50,000,000 in damages due to Heard's article. Seems like a good idea to me.
    1
  94.  @evewaddington6225  oh my goodness 🤣🤣🤣
    1
  95.  @fernandofranco6391  Women hate other women and love to tell men all about it. It's a compliment, actually. They might welcome a flirtation.
    1
  96.  @BastardOfTheNorth  False.
    1
  97. What would happen if they flew over Hunter Biden's house? 😮
    1
  98. It is evidence of what the tabloids SAID, not evidence that what they said is the truth. It is evidence of "reputation." It can't be introduced, unless reputation bears directly on an issue the plaintiff himself raised, like how to calculate the damages, who caused how much of the damages, etc. How do you think you decide "reputation?" Yeah, the goofy reviews some jerk wrote about you online could count one day. It's possible.
    1
  99. None of this has any bearing on the issue at hand, which is whether a rather mild article is defamatory and caused him $50,000,000 in damages. He already lost a defamation lawsuit in the UK against a tabloid which said much worse things about him. He is the one using the court to settle a score rather than vindicate his rights. He is the one who sued, he is the one who orchestrated this circus. Everything you said about her probably applies to him, too, but you can't see it. Moral panic. Did you read the article? By the way.
    1
  100.  @cerriberry6835  This is another case of mass hysteria. I don't know that an adversarial witness made a correct diagnosis in the first place, and frankly I doubt it. Her assertion that Amber Heard does not have post-traumatic stress, when she had an assault in her past, before meeting Depp, struck me as dubious. Hiring an expert to make it appear as though a key witness is untrustworthy is considered a dirty trick in litigation. Hillary Clinton once tried to do that when she was appointed by a court to represent a rapist of a young teen, maybe younger.
    1
  101.  @cerriberry6835  This is crazy, it really is. Every new episode still surprises me.
    1
  102.  @beewithab6122  cell phone?
    1
  103. I AM SHOCKED. SHOCKED THAT GAMBLING IS GOING ON IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT
    1
  104. Depp is suing Heard for $50 million. Guess what? Before a court orders someone to pay money, and seizes their bank account and other assets, grabs their house, and so forth, the plaintiff has to PROVE they really lost $50 million on account of the defendant, and for no other reason. If other magazines like The Sun wrote derogatory things about Depp, he sued for defamation, and lost, then maybe just maybe he lost movie deals on account of THOSE articles.
    1
  105. Sure. Goes to WHO damaged Depp.
    1
  106.  @bonniehowell9206  What do you think is the issue? It's whether Heard's mild article is responsible for $50 million in Depp's losses. If Depp had a terrible reputation already, then how is that Heard's fault? Before a court orders someone to pay money, and seizes their bank account and other assets, grabs their house, and so forth, the plaintiff has to PROVE they really lost $50 million on account of the defendant, and for no other reason. Is that too tough to grasp? Why?
    1
  107.  @MrJamberee  How did the media dupe you all?
    1
  108.  @bonniehowell9206  It's relying on these tabloids to show that it's laughable to think that Heard's mild article ruined Depp's reputation to the tune of causing $50 million in losses.
    1
  109.  @Jezebel066  Correct!!!! Ding ding dung ding ding. That was perfect.
    1
  110.  @js1241  He's suing her.
    1
  111.  @squishyushi  Wrong.
    1
  112.  @tonya--7704  Whether she was abusive as well is not an issue. If he wants the court to order the sheriff to start seizing Heard's assets -- her house, her car, her bank accounts, her jewelry, etc., etc., he has to prove that the article she wrote was false and that it was responsible for costing him $50 million in film deals. This testimony bears on whether his reputation was already damaged, by far worse allegations, in many news outlets. This is relevant. Whether Heard is a worse person than he is may be true, but it's not relevant. I kind of doubt it, though. He had 23 more years and two more relationships to do whatever it is he does.
    1
  113.  @tonya--7704  The point of the line of questioning in this video is to show that any claim that she ruined his career makes no sense. His lost film deals cannot be traced back to her article. The only way you can show what people are saying about you is to quote them. It's not hearsay to show what was said, to prove it was said. It could all be false, but it is still factual that it was said. It goes to "reputation." Reputation is often unfair. Rich people spend millions on public relations for a reason.
    1
  114.  @wilmameijer437  That's because direct examination of the witnesses for your side is different from cross examination of opposing witnesses.
    1
  115.  @wilmameijer437  Much of Europe has laws against severe harassment in the workplace, and it can be prosecuted as a crime if it's bad enough, like if it makes people sick. Do you have that? Remember the Orange case in France, the privatized telephone company that used to be part of the PTT? That CEO was sentenced to prison. I like that system. :)
    1
  116.  @wilmameijer437  It was shocking. There were suicides, I think even one in the company parking lot. It was considered the worst company to work for in France.
    1
  117.  @wilmameijer437  I just found an article,"Telecom Giant Orange on Trial." There were 19 suicides, twelve more attempts.😢
    1
  118.  @barryfrench2534  That wasn't what she said. She said most cases settle. Therefore she will not be called to testify.
    1
  119.  @Ohioblues  Actually, no one has to agree to be evaluated. I'm sorry Heard agreed, although to be slapped with a diagnosis no one ever gave her before by her ex's shrink is kind of funny.
    1
  120. @photag216 Heard did agree to talk to Ms. Muffins. I wonder why.
    1
  121. It is evidence of what The Sun SAID, not evidence that any of what it said is the truth. It is evidence of "reputation." How else do you prove what The Sun said? You have to produce an authentic copy. You cannot introduce it at all unless reputation bears directly on an issue in the case that the plaintiff himself brought up, like calculating damages. If it doesn't, it cannot be introduced.
    1
  122.  @Freigeist2008  How do Europeans prove that something was written in a newspaper? Don't they have to produce the newspaper? Do newspaper articles bear on "reputation?" Reputation is an issue in the case because the causation of damage to reputation (and how much damage) is an issue. These boards have devolved into cult behavior and mob mentality. Anyone who can still think for themselves knows this. They explained what they were doing in the video.
    1
  123.  @Freigeist2008  Then how do you assess damage to reputation from an article, if another paper printed something derogatory first, you sued them, and they won? It's a question of pricing it. Your reputation was damaged and you lost work already.
    1
  124.  @katiemilku  Imagining you think you know a stranger . . .
    1
  125.  @erepsekahs  Had Depp never lost, I would probably fall for it. If I didn't know the law (i.e., if he abused her, he cannot win in defamation even if she was horrid as well; if his reputation was toast, if his drug use made him an insurance risk, and if he was fired after losing the first case, he cannot collect meaningful damages), I would probably fall for it. But this? No, this is not a real case first of all. This is a performance first of all.
    1
  126.  @chrismogard4144  He lost a defamation suit in UK and is an insurance risk due to drugs. It's Putin's fault, I mean Heather's, no wait this one is named Amber.
    1
  127.  @chrismogard4144  Oh, I thought Putin did something to Dior. My bad.
    1
  128. Nothing abusive whatsoever. Depp is claiming Amber Heard owes him $50 million. Depp must then PROVE that he lost $50 million because Amber Heard defamed him. No less than $50 million, and for no other reason but Heard's allegedly defamatory opinion piece.
    1
  129.  @dalnim4294  Because he sued her, and because she is 23 years younger, and thus has a longer work life ahead of her, or did. She countersued, correct. She did not initiate these proceedings.
    1
  130. A motion to dismiss is a normal procedural move at this time. It mirrors a motion for summary judgment, and may be necessary to preserve all issues for an eventual appeal.
    1
  131. Of course there are a lot of unanswered questions here, but there is no law mandating that she help the victims. Other countries have those laws, the US does not. Only if you caused the harm, created risk of harm, or if you have a special relationship with a victim (parent, spouse) do you have any obligation to do anything. IOW, if she left a door unlocked or something like that, then she could be in trouble.
    1
  132.  @jebalitabb8228  It shows another moral panic.
    1
  133.  @NorbiGaming  He already lost one defamation suit, a much better one. He's doing this exactly to get this rise out of you.
    1
  134.  @ladyzuzu7  You're the one who joined the latest mob.
    1
  135.  @ladyzuzu7  Did you read the article? It's the whole basis of the case. Did you bother to find it and read it? Well, "I feel sorry for you, you will be really embarrassed when . . . " blah blah. Why are you projecting your life onto a couple of drugged up millionaires who think $10 million is spare change?
    1
  136.  @heelercs  I just remembered, Petito ended up dead in small part because in their police encounter, the police decided she was the primary abuser. Suddenly, that never happened. That's not part of our store of knowledge about human relationships.
    1
  137.  @paulinamreno  When you decided you know people you don't know, you understand laws you don't understand, and picked a side (the one that lost one defamation suit already), how did you do that? Some of us are not prone to that sort of thing.
    1
  138.  @TotalDbag24  So, defamation law demands a plaintiff prove the unproveable.
    1
  139.  @paulinamreno  My father was quite agnostic, but there was one precept from the Bible he always quoted to me: "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." It stuck.
    1
  140.  @paulinamreno  It's a call to deeper and truer conscience.
    1
  141.  @paulinamreno  Well, I guess it was wasted on you. Such is crowd psychology. Lots of people agree with me, and we have longer exchanges. You're right, I am wasting my time on those with a thirst to identify Enemies, and will say anything to satisfy their thirst. Blocked.
    1
  142. The comments to this case show how many bad relationships are out there.
    1
  143.  @nomopms1  PTSD is a "disorder." There's no evidence of any disorder.
    1
  144. @fleatactical7390  What does the last letter of PTSD stand for? Yeah, well, I don't see that, and at this point neither does anyone else.
    1
  145.  @fleatactical7390  Are you a Big Pharma rep? Okay, pill pusher . . . 😂
    1
  146.  @fleatactical7390  Am I the one medicalizing healthy, normal reactions?
    1
  147.  @fleatactical7390  Please, no worries!! Have a good week . . . Summer! Year. Decade? Let's not get too crazy.
    1
  148. Her parents are dead. Reported for c word.
    1
  149. In cases of various forms of abuse, PTSD, and so forth, when there is a legitimate perpetrator, they often cannot be located or refuse to come in, and (absent court order) it is always their right to refuse. Anyone can refuse to see a psychologist, and it proves nothing either way. Hence these disciplines have to develop ways to determine whether the patient is being truthful. She explained that under direct examination. But this doesn't cross your mind? REALLY?
    1
  150.  @americals7256  In most abuse cases, the abuser will never agree to come in. Duh. I don't blame Depp for not talking to her, and I don't see why Heard talked to the muffin lady, either.
    1
  151.  @lucylu2927  I agree. Of course. But that does not change the fact that a person has a right to refuse. You can't assume it means guilt, nor can you say, well, the psychologist can't assess the relationship. They do in this field all the time. They had to develop methods to do it well.
    1
  152.  @itsjustmaddisen  She had 30 hours over four sessions. How long did your diagnosis take? Would that be 3 hours? Six?
    1
  153.  @itsjustmaddisen  She did not assess HIM, she assessed HER. So, why have you joined the latest mob? Don't tell us, tell yourself.
    1
  154. Does anyone actually think anyone else will be President? Seriously?
    1
  155. HE SUED HER. Depp initiated all of this. What are you in about? Or should I ask, what are you on?
    1
  156.  @00veronique00  If he can prove defamation, and if he can prove such losses, yes. His burden to prove. Have you read the article? Only a biased jury that follows a red herring could find for him. He lost a case already where he had a much better claim -- and lost jobs when he lost that case.
    1
  157.  @00veronique00  One phrase in the article made obvious reference to Depp, though she never named him. She said "domestic abuse." If he abused her emotionally while they lived together as a couple, and it was more than rare or trivial, then as a matter of defamation law, she did not lie. That's the law. It protects free speech. He was free to write his own biography, and tell his side at length, and had the money to hire an assistant to help him. Instead, he's using legal process to create this spectacle and settle a score he should have settled in his divorce.
    1
  158.  @emmsy9295  It's futile to explain. I'm not defending her. I have no use for either of these self-involved, hypermillionaire drug abusers. You seem to think this case is about who the worse abuser is. No. It's about whether a published article is defamatory. That is the sole issue. All the rest is sheer diversion and celebrity porn. If he abused her, then "domestic abuse" is not false -- even if she was far worse. Even bad people have First Amendment rights. Even murderers do. We are pressed into becoming hysterical over things that have no bearing on our lives, joining crowds to mete out mob justice, and finding new Enemies.
    1
  159.  @emmsy9295  Depp had a better case against The Sun. What they wrote about him was scurrilous. Did you read the article at issue here? Did you read his complaint? I know you didn't.
    1
  160.  @emmsy9295  This is what I really think: If Charlie was a 10 in the Manson scale, then Amber is a 7 at least, and Johnny about a 5. That tells you what I think of them as people. What I think about defamation is that it is terrible, but so are weak claims of defamation. Every defamation case chips away at free speech rights, and the First Amendment is already in a bad way. If Depp wants to retaliate, he can use his freedom of speech and write a memoir. Instant best seller. Earn that $50 million. Do something creative instead of destructive.
    1
  161.  @irene9263  She has practiced since the 70s. She treated veterans at the VA and child abuse survivors for free. She has two Board certifications and teaches at Cornell. Her resume sounds like two illustrious careers, not one. How do YOU know what Amber's demeanor was during those private sessions? Shame on you for joining a mob so easily.
    1
  162. He's not on trial. He already lost a defamation case on these basic facts.
    1
  163.  @yesyouarecorrect1315  That's not an issue in a defamation case. If he abused a terrible person who was just as bad or worse, that terrible person still has a right to mention it in an article. The article is not defamatory.
    1
  164. First I had to stay in my house. Then I had to double mask. Then it was time to be injected with some new vaxx. Or else. (Hunter's laptop is Russian dis/mis/malinformation I swear it is, don't come for me.) Next, I had to fly the Ukrainian flag. (I had to buy a Ukrainian flag.) And then I have to be for some DRUGGIE because Bad Women and pirates. Or else. America, Land of the Free.
    1
  165. Russia looking better EVERY day.
    1
  166.  @vicki6624  And the jury can and should take that into account. OTOH, Depp's expert was obviously incompetent and diagnosed Heard with two new disorders on flimsy grounds that are nowhere mentioned before by any other psychologist or psychiatrist. Do you believe her?
    1
  167.  @vicki6624  My point is they are forced to make assumptions based on clinical evaluations of one person, and have extensively researched how to do that to the greatest extent possible. Also, Depp had no obligation to agree to being examined, none. I would never blame him, or anyone, for declining.
    1
  168.  @82Catfish  You're witnessing group psychosis, and it's coming on faster and faster. I've already lost count how many directions we switched. This is what the beginning of collapse looks like. You can literally make people believe anything, and you can count on it getting worse. Drug use is not doing any of these people any favors, either.
    1
  169.  @GertusMaximus747  The muffin lady was incompetent and had duping delight written all over her.
    1
  170. Say no to drugs.
    1
  171. False
    1
  172.  @ferrouswheel2677  Negligence isn't a criminal offense. A person has a moral duty to call 911, but unless they are responsible for creating the risk, or are a parent or spouse of a person who is in danger, they have no legal duty to call. That's true even if calling could have saved them.
    1
  173. We have no motive so far. Do you recall that the initial "profilers" insisted that the slaying was targeted, and that murders of this nature, using a knife, are almost always highly "personal?"
    1
  174.  @CatBrash  I don't see that. Even serial killers have desisted, and you can read the accounts of those who crossed paths with them and survived. I knew once such person who got a ride from John Gacy.
    1
  175.  @markusmuller6173  Good thing your opinion doesn't count in court.
    1
  176.  @markusmuller6173  "Must have been an accomplice?" "Obvious?" I think they need to find, like, EVIDENCE and stuff. I'm not saying not to investigate. I'm not saying I'd be stunned out of my mind if he did have an accomplice. Or two. I'm saying there is no "must" about it, because there isn't.
    1
  177.  @markusmuller6173  So far, their probable cause affidavit spells out a very, very strong case -- against him. I'm glad. That's the sort of thing regular, rational people wait for, before having opinions about something that heinous.
    1
  178.  @markusmuller6173  Where did I say that was impossible? I trust that the investigation will continue, and that many questions will be answered. If you know about this, then so do the detectives. I don't know what that stilted, lofty language is about. It doesn't make you more right.
    1
  179.  @markusmuller6173  Not that I know of.
    1
  180.  @markusmuller6173  I don't recall either of us proving anything, but only one was observing the principles of modal logic. Seriously, though, now that I think about it, I grant you it should be obvious, to anyone, that there were problems at that house long before this crime -- based on how frequently the police were called, for one thing. I don't know the full extent of those problems, nor am I in a hurry to hear about them. I am quite content to allow the legal process to play out. I hope they take it nice and slow, and investigate carefully, and that they respect all the survivors' rights.
    1
  181.  @markusmuller6173  No, modal logic is something that Aristotle founded. It has to do with reasoning about possibility and necessity. But I don' want whatever is in your drink, thanks.
    1
  182.  @markusmuller6173  You know, if something is necessary, it must be possible. If it is possible, it may or may not also be necessary. If something is not necessary, it may nevertheless be possible. I'm sure you've run across it. You could look it up and stuff.
    1
  183.  @markusmuller6173  Go ahead. Take a writing class. You know you want to. (I'd recommend screen writing, actually. At a real art school.)
    1
  184.  @markusmuller6173  I'm not asking for information or offering anything . . . wait. Are you a bot? Yikes. BLOCKED
    1
  185.  @rijudehingia1381  They have no children. Depp left the mother of his children, who are adults and live in Paris. This was Depp's third marriage/domestic relationship.
    1
  186.  @baristaz8834  It's Putin's fault.
    1
  187.  @baristaz8834  He was the enemy in the last cult. Now we have a new cult, with new enemies.
    1
  188.  @baristaz8834  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  189.  @baristaz8834  blocked
    1
  190.  @baristaz8834  Amber is as all-powerful as Putin. 🤣
    1
  191.  @baristaz8834  Nowhere does the alleged defamation say he was the abuser. It's not an issue.
    1
  192.  @lizwadsworth6918  No, no. All men are good. They may get physical if severely provoked, or if women force them into addiction. Now, women are the killers. Career killers, baby killers, killers simpliciter. We must take sides in a court case with complex interpersonal dynamics and First Amendment implications BEFORE we hear both sides, to demonstrate full loyalty. . . 1984 took a little longer, needed hashtags. /s
    1
  193.  @JadeEyedJinx  None of that counts in Hashtag World. We are in the midst of another cult phenomenon/moral panic. You cannot reason with these people. In fact, I'm surprised you haven't been censored.
    1
  194.  @cjwhosthat9216  We should seize the assets of people who are ratioed by YT and hand them over to "Johnny."
    1
  195. No court case is about any "group justice" but about the individuals facing the judge and jury in that case, and no one else. All of you who are projecting your own sorry episodes on two people who are complete strangers to you and screaming for show "justice" will come to rue this day.
    1
  196. Say no to drugs.
    1
  197.  @LBenn302  First I had to stay in my house. Then I had to double mask. Then it was time to be injected with some new vaxx. Or else. (Hunter's laptop is Russian dis/mis/malinformation I swear it is, don't come for me.) Next, I had to fly the Ukrainian flag. (I had to buy a Ukrainian flag.) And then I have to be for some DRUGGIE because Bad Women and pirates. Finally, I have to shut up. America, Land of the Free.
    1
  198. Police are right, the community should still be careful. After seeing this person's face, I am worried there could be an attempted copycat. I almost wish we had not been told about his criminal justice studies. It's not so different from mass shooters who imitate other mass shooters. Could some other "mastermind" criminal try to top this, to "prove" they could get away with it? I am so saddened, this whole day is so sad, and so hard to accept.
    1
  199. WHAT NEXT??
    1
  200. There is nothing wrong with her cross-examination. Depp is claiming 50 million in damages. HE has to prove he lost 50 million.
    1
  201. It's evidence of prior reputation, which goes to damages. He has to prove her little, measured article is what cost him 50 million smackaroos. He can't just send the sheriff over to seize and collect.
    1
  202.  @ikramrasid3257  Just the opposite is true. She is a national leader in the field of trauma, teaches at an Ivy, works pro bono (for free), treated veterans and abused children, and is board certified in both specialties. Curry had smug, duping delight written all over her, and is impressed by Hollywood.
    1
  203.  @ikramrasid3257  Her name is not Karen. Blocked for Orwellian sloganeering.
    1
  204.  @vickiebrown9625  Is that a threat?
    1
  205.  @loristoneking4536  That's what they said about Charlie. Manson, I mean.
    1
  206.  @vickihazelwood4003  So you didn't watch the direct examination, only the cross? You would be perfect as a judge, or FBI agent, missed your calling.
    1
  207.  @kellybeveridge8916  Have you always hated pretty women, or is this new? EDIT: No, wait. Amber is thin. Now I get it.
    1
  208.  @irene9263  She's been practicing since the 70s. She treated veterans at the VA. She treated people who were abused as children, for free. You should be ashamed for joining a mob so easily.
    1
  209.  @toddcorley464  I believe in the First Amendment. Every defamation case chips away at free speech. No one should get away with defamation, and no one should bring a case lightly. (If they already lost on the same core facts, that's a clue to consider other remedies. An autobiography, for example, tell your own story. Best seller. )
    1
  210.  @h.dungore839  The issue in the Arias case was not guilt, it was the death penalty. Arias did not deserve death.
    1
  211.  @marycarman8579  Her parents are dead. Is that okay with you? Do they get a pass, then?
    1
  212.  @KJ-xc6qs  That's nothing. CEOs of defense contractors make $50,000 a day, 365 days a year. For example.
    1
  213.  @luneuforever8790  That's why she works for free regularly.
    1
  214. Say no to drugs.
    1
  215.  @karenanthony4684  Say no to drugs.
    1
  216.  @marlak4203  He already lost a defamation lawsuit in UK on the same basic facts, but over there he had a stronger case. He's repeating the performance here out of sheer vindictiveness.
    1
  217.  @hania5928  In real cases of various forms of abuse, PTSD, and so forth, when there is a legitimate perpetrator, usually they cannot be located or they refuse to come in, and (absent court order) it is always their right to refuse. So these therapists have to develop ways to determine whether the patient is being truthful, evasive, etc. She explained all that under direct examination. This is COMMON. It never occurred to you?
    1
  218.  @hania5928  I don't know what his team suggested to him, obviously. If he chose not to, or if they advised him not to and he agreed with them, that's his right. I don't see an issue, actually. I don't know why you're speculating about what she would have had to write down. Her notes aren't magic. He is pursuing this case, so she knows his sworn testimony.
    1
  219.  @hania5928  Are you suggesting that was the judge's sole basis for his ruling? Are you a lawyer?
    1
  220.  @hania5928  Not at all. My POINT is that in this FIELD, therapists must assess relationships on the basis of one person's reports of it, together with any other evidence they can obtain about the other person, ALL the time, and they have developed methods to help them to do that. It's not illegitimate. It's not remarkable. It's also not ideal.
    1
  221.  @hania5928  She got his side of the story, just not from examining him.
    1
  222.  @hania5928  Well, I started a reply and the tablet crashed, so I won't bother continuing at length. Dr. Hughes is a perfectly normal expert witness, with much better experience and credentials than you usually see, and I can tell you as an attorney, these complaints about her are trivial. It is the jury's job to be fair, and they are entitled to discount all of her testimony if they consider that fair. Consulting notes for correct dates is normal, not noting every impression is normal, and introducing the data upon which you based your assessment is normal. Hearsay is actually a difficult subject, even many lawyers misunderstand it, and Depp's lawyers are right to object whenever they suspect the line has been crossed. It's not a big gotcha, it's what they do, and should. They were usually overruled, but were right to object anyway. I'll tell you what concerns me. I've lost count of the number of mass hysterias that have been unleashed on the public since Russiagate, and they've only been succeeding one another at shorter and shorter intervals since March 2020. I fail to see why so many people are this invested in the sordid private lives of two very rich people who engage in serious drug abuse and for whom $10 million is spare change. I don't identify emotionally with either one, much less see my life reflected in theirs -- and yes I've been lied about, and left a job because of it. Who hasn't? Every defamation case chips away at First Amendment freedom of speech. We already have a problem in that area. You might not remember, but when Gabby Petito went missing, a mob formed in front of her ex-boyfriend's parents' home, and demanded that police violate their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. This was insane. Even immoral people have First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, even very immoral people. Even murderers do. Among other things, the pandemic invocation of "emergency powers" degraded these rights. This is what worries me. This, and the way people seem to lose their minds, not seeing that this time, the hysteria is just like the last time, and the time before that. Any mob can go after anyone. It does not care about truth. It's funny. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn describes exactly such an incident. Pure genius. How did Twain know?
    1
  223.  @Gabriel_F4924  Once a person starts to recover, they usually know what they need better than any therapist. That's usually a great sign. :)
    1
  224.  @hania5928  The very same people so outraged over Heard's alleged lies are trying to defame Dr. Hughes and destroy her reputation. I guess they must have lofty principles. They must really be against defamation and realize how bad it is. Mobs do not care about truth. America is mob-prone now.
    1
  225.  @cryptoking7093  🤣🤣🤣 No, sweetie kins, I'm a writer suffering from writer's block and using this as an on ramp. Get a clue. I believe everything I wrote, but I don't care about either of them. "Sans intérêt."
    1
  226.  @hania5928  Who brings a defamation case after losing a stronger defamation case on the same material facts concerning their conduct in a relationship? I support real victims of defamation. Of course defamation should exist as a tort. That's not my point. (Ask yourself why you assumed so.) Defamation law: he cannot win if he abused her, even if she was horrid. He cannot win meaningful damages if his reputation was already toast, his drug use made him an insurance risk, and he was fired after losing the first case. (So, why is he doing this? Hm?) The tendency toward mob justice is something you see growing in the US, a country with a Second Amendment, too. It is a dangerous phenomenon here, more than in most places. We have more guns than people. Death threats toward people in the news are common.
    1
  227.  @hania5928  She never called him a "wife beater." The Sun did, a real rag. It won anyway.
    1
  228.  @cryptoking7093  You must be. Everyone can tell. Creative screen name you've go there, "overflowing with creativity and creation . . . " Jealous much? 🤣
    1
  229.  @cryptoking7093  "Nobody know what Johnny been through . . . " Another representative sample? There, there, dear. You're a REAL writer. Not only that, but you're "built Ford tough."
    1
  230.  @cryptoking7093  Have you talked to someone about this?
    1
  231.  @h.dungore839  That means any litigant can win a case like this by refusing to talk to the other side's psychologist.
    1
  232.  @h.dungore839  In chaotic couples, it's common for one party to refuse therapy, and it's their right to refuse. In that field, they had to develop methods for having some idea of whether the person who was coming in was mostly being truthful or fabricating. Of course they can't know for sure, but this has been something they have been working on for a long time. No professional can substitute their opinion of anyone's veracity for that of the jury. The jury can decide to discount both experts.
    1
  233.  @cryptoking7093 oops, forgot to block
    1
  234.  @h.dungore839  You didn't wonder why Heard agreed to speak with Depp's expert, but Depp never saw Heard's? Hint: analogous to the Fifth Amendment.
    1
  235.  @h.dungore839  You really don't get it? Sure you do. JD's team was counting on producing exactly this outrage, because the other side cannot mention that Heard agreed to be evaluated as counting in her favor. Like the right to remain silent, there is a right to refuse to talk to your opponent's expert, and no one has the right to judge you for it. No one is allowed to call attention to it. I support that right with no reservations. Of course Depp was asked to see Hughes. Of course he said no. It was his right to say no. And he was right to say no. 💯 I don't hold it against him. On the contrary, it was wise. Good for him and his lawyers.
    1
  236.  @h.dungore839  The only issue in Arias was the death penalty or life in prison. No one who murders a person who just slept with them, and humuliated them, and tried to put them out should receive a death sentence. That case has zero relevance to a defamation case.
    1
  237.  @h.dungore839  Hard for me to believe people are as naive as they are, and convoluted. This is simple.
    1
  238.  @hania5928  I did not use that "logic" -- not that it would matter, if it were sound. But it does not prove what you wrongly say I said it did. Prezel logic, guilt by association, and the association doesn't exist. The loss of the prior case limits or eliminates damages that can be obtained in a subsequent case, rightly or wrongly. It breaks the causal chain (the article I'm suing on is the one that cost me $50 million, which but for that false and defamatory article I would have earned). I know all this law, and from how you write, I know you don't -- you're parroting someone else.
    1
  239.  @hania5928  Here is the actual First Amendment issue: Let's put this case aside. Let's try a pure hypothetical. A man abused his former wife. She, however, abused him as well, and engaged in truly odd psychological behavior intended to goad him, rather than making honest attempts to get his abuse to end. Does he have a right to tell his story? Can he publish it? Suppose he tells the truth about her abuse of him, but fails to acknowledge his abuse of her? That may be a pretty seedy discourse, even an infuriating one, and partial, and misleading -- but it is First Amendment-protected. Or at least it used to be. "Be careful what you wish for." This is tedious. Don't waste your time.
    1
  240.  @hania5928  Don't waste my time, either. The tone and style you adopted is awful, by the way. If you thought you were imitating how lawyers sound, well, you were imitating how imitation lawyers think real lawyers sound.
    1
  241. @MastersMasterson Think this through. 😉
    1
  242. @MastersMasterson What "appeal to authority?" When people say this woman is objectively unqualified, they are stating a falsehood. In this field, anyone can be very wrong. Horribly wrong. The therapists Heard saw, or Depp and Heard saw together, either agreed that he was abusive when intoxicated, or that it was mutual and that she played games to goad him. I find it plausible that he was abusive when intoxicated AND that she played games to goad him, and often gave as good as she got. The real moral of this story: tell youth never to play choking games. Leave anyone who touches your neck.
    1
  243. @MastersMasterson I know precisely what I'm talking about, and you sound very angry that I do.
    1
  244.  @match20x  Why are you joining a Team? Did you join Team Vaxx or Team Antivaxx? Team Russiagate or Team QAnon? Team Kate or Team Megan? Team Proudboys or Team Antifa? I left out 20 more, but there's so many I can't keep track. If I missed one that was extremely important to you, I'm sorry. It was unintentional.
    1
  245.  @pineapplesonpizza7726  The case really is about whether an article is defamatory, and whether that defamation cause damages. It's not about who was worse. All the rest is diversion. If Depp can get the jury to focus on something other than the law and the facts that pertain to his claim, or if he can get a mob together on his side that scares the jury, then he can win. If he WAS an abuser, then the article is not defamatory. It's free speech. It doesn't matter whether she was worse.
    1
  246.  @conmanumber1  Exactly. It is about settling scores. Court is not supposed to be for that purpose. He could have written a memoir. Best seller.
    1
  247. We should suspend the Bill of Rights. We should vote on Facebook. Elon Musk will save us. Bill Gates is a doctor. Storm Brian Laundrie's house and make his parents talk. Fauci is Science. Hunter is hot, you're jealous. War is Peace. Seize $50m from Amber, hand it over to Johnny. Put Novak Djokovic in a camp. Homeland Security!!! Putin did it. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  248. Did Depp lodge a complaint?
    1
  249.  @CardinaleVattene00  We should suspend the Bill of Rights. We should vote on Facebook. Elon Musk will save us. Bill Gates is a doctor. Storm Brian Laundrie's house and make his parents talk. Fauci is Science. Hunter is hot, you're jealous. War is Peace. Seize $50m from Amber, hand it over to Johnny. Put Novak Djokovic in a camp. Homeland Security!!! Putin did it. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  250.  @TwinsBigLikeTia  Any case SHE had? He's suing her. She didn't initiate this trial. This is a defamation case. It's not a divorce, or a criminal case. If the article at issue is not false, then she is not liable for defamation. Do not collect $50 million. Even Bad People have First Amendment rights. Even crazy ones. Even criminals do.
    1
  251.  @jeffm1083  Not an issue.
    1
  252.  @JAF2991  So he can write his own article. That's how free speech works.
    1
  253.  @kaiyugunther1177  Precisely. 💯 It's not hard at all. It is very, very simple.
    1
  254.  @JAF2991  Er . . . HE must prove that the article she wrote is defamatory. Did you read it? She mentioned "domestic abuse" (not violence) one time, while most of the article was about her life as a teen and young woman before she met Depp. If Depp abused her emotionally while they lived together as a couple, more than trivially, then her article ISN'T defamation. It's free speech. That's the law.
    1
  255.  @jeffm1083  Whether she also abused him is not an issue in this case. This is a defamation case. At issue is an article she wrote that was published in the Washington Post. If it was truthful, it's not defamation. Even if she lies 99% of the time, and was the bigger abuser in their relationship, it's still not defamation. Even liars have First Amendment rights. (Crazy, I know!)
    1
  256.  @sharonlong881  Not an issue here. That's all to confuse you.
    1
  257.  @JAF2991  Then Depp is abusing the legal process. Court isn't for the purpose of pulling someone through the mud, it exists to vindicate rights. If public opinion falls for it, then they deserve what they get. Why would anyone cheer using the courts for that? Who do you think pays for the courts?
    1
  258.  @JAF2991  Well what a noble goal. Get behind that! It's his third relationship. He's 23 years older than her. What happened the prior two times, eh?
    1
  259.  @JAF2991  He already lost in a moral sense. He initiated this fiasco.
    1
  260.  @jessamalala6203  Let me see if I understand. According to Depp, she assaults him, a crime, but he does nothing. She writes a mild article, and he sues her for defamation, after already losing one defamation case where The Sun called him terrible names. Yeah, that makes sense, to initiate this circus now. Bravo.
    1
  261.  @jeffm1083  Read. The. Complaint. It's online. Read it. See what it's about. Oh, and read the article, too.
    1
  262.  @jeffm1083  There is something called a statute of limitations. There's also something called a First Amendment. Whether what I say "impacts someone negatively" doesn't matter at all. It is still my right to say it. To be actionable, it has to be defamatory, and that has to be proved. It is presumed to be First Amendment-protected, and has to be PROVED otherwise.
    1
  263.  @jeffm1083  The countersuit will be dropped if and when he loses.
    1
  264.  @jeffm1083  I know how. I'm licensed in California.
    1
  265.  @jeffm1083  Cornell has a good website. Maybe you should look it up.
    1
  266.  @jessamalala6203  I know! Even horrible people have free speech. Even convicted criminals do. They can write articles, and biographies, and essays, and stories drawn from their lives . . . Actually, I appreciate why that can make people mad, me included, but do we want it any other way?
    1
  267.  @rach101  So that's what the hate is about. She got the chance to marry someone you think is hot AND rich, and she's not behaving herself. You would have been so much nicer. 🤣
    1
  268.  @JustFingAwesome  Exactly.
    1
  269.  @peachbun  Well, we have a result. Looks to me like the jury looked beyond First Amendment law and provable damages to punish wrongdoing, in the proportion they saw fit. If that is what happened, it means we all lost. As usual.
    1
  270.  @richardkovacs2006  Looks like he did not need more than that. The affirmative verdict on both his claim and her counterclaim may not even be coherent. Lots of First Amendment lawyers would take either appeal for free. It smacks of proportional punishment for wrongdoing, not liability for defamation.
    1
  271.  @peachbun  Way more worried about that than about one case. Can you name all the Enemies? I know I can't.
    1
  272. She's not on trial. The only question is whether a particular writing is defamation, and if it is, whether it is the cause of the plaintiff's damages . Too bad what could be truly educational is being wildly distorted. BTW, did you ever read that writing? I mean the mild article Heard wrote, that Depp calls defamation?
    1
  273.  @unabellavita6541  Depp is pursuing a case. He already lost a stronger case. Who do you think brought this case?
    1
  274.  @AfrewSpines  Where do you get the idea the case is stacked for Depp? He lost a much better case already.
    1
  275.  @retrojohnny1899  These people's minds are gone. This isn't a court for them, it's a psychodrama and they are as involved as if it were happening to them. They are reliving their own relationships through two weird people they do not know, and would pity if they did .
    1
  276.  @madtrigger6835  So, you're incapable of hearing what this lawyer actually said just now? And you don't know what a defamation case is? Every defamation case chips away at free speech rights. I would defend a defamation case that should not have been brought in the first place.
    1
  277.  @Stayler17  This is a civil case. She cannot be found guilty of anything.
    1
  278.  @brandonwalker5011  They have made objective mistakes? Please cite the mistake and the law underlying it. I'm thinking you must be an attorney yourself to make such an assertion.
    1
  279.  @tbk29  She's not going to be punished. Depp failed to press criminal charges.
    1
  280.  @Terrible_Peril  Yeah. So, Depp brought this case as a show trial, a re-do of his divorce and to settle scores. That is not what court is supposed to be for. Legal process is not for the purpose of getting even in the eyes of the public, it is to vindicate actual rights. Every defamation case chips away at free speech rights. Be careful what you wish for.
    1
  281.  @casualfoodenjoyer7951  Her alleged abuse of him has no bearing on defamation, no. Who the bigger abuser was has no bearing, either. Did you read the article? The CASE is about the ARTICLE. Not about who is badder.
    1
  282.  @joelgarcia3907  Depp brought the case. Yes, it is vindictive. He lost one defamation suit already, and he had a much better case in that instance, and his loss there might not have been fair (but the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, so in a close case is likely to lose just for that reason). In this case, he is attacking free speech, in a country with a real First Amendment. That's how comparatively flimsy it is.
    1
  283.  @madtrigger6835  Mm. Tell me exactly where in the article that Depp asserts to be defamatory Heard lied. Tell me her words, and contrast them with proven facts. Right. You have exactly zero idea of what you're talking about, and the absurdities promoted here, plus the censorship of cogent views, means I am abandoning this nonsense. Depp already lost a case on the theory you seem to believe. I wonder if you even read the article that is the gravamen of Depp's complaint? Nah. I don't wonder. 😂 Blocked.
    1
  284. The article he is suing her for does not say "domestic violence." It mentions "domestic abuse," but mostly focuses on experiences she had much earlier, as a teen and young woman, before she met Depp. Maybe you could read it? BTW, "domestic abuse" refers to any abuse that occurred while they lived together as a couple, including emotional abuse. If it's true he did that, it's not defamation, even if she was worse than he was. She could be a very bad person. She could have had the upper hand. She still has a right to write articles. It's called the First Amendment.
    1
  285.  Big Chungus  Why don't people understand this? Yes, even abusers have the right to write articles, and biographies, and opinion pieces, and stories drawn from their lives. Even the worst criminals do. An article is presumed to be First Amendment-protected, and has to be proved to be defamatory.
    1
  286.  @Jana-wx3lp  I hate to tell you -- everyone. Rich people have ghost writers and editors. The way that ACLU witness described it is exactly how things get into the major papers. Sick, isn't it?
    1
  287. Depp is suing Heard for $50 million. Guess what? Before a court orders someone to pay money, and seizes their bank account and other assets, grabs their house, and so forth, the plaintiff (Depp) has to PROVE he really lost $50 million on account of the defendant, and for no other reason. Funny how that is. We should just get to vote on Facebook instead.
    1
  288.  @Alex-xp9vv  Not in this phase of the trial. She can demonstrate as a matter of law that Heard cannot possibly owe Depp the $50 million he is demanding that she give him. If she does that, feewings don't matter.
    1
  289.  @zurfergoth  Who told you this? You believed it? 🤣
    1
  290.  @jjayguy23  NO lawyer will allow a client such control. Not one. Absolutely never. Remember the interviews Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyer gave after securing acquittal? Go watch those. Listen closely. He says as much.
    1
  291.  @SkoomaCat  Of course not. These people are wallowing in rumors.
    1
  292.  @janiesuper3222  Who do you think has to prove what?
    1
  293.  @juliestanfield8433  Not at all. This is a defamation case. It has NOTHING to do with their marriage, which was dissolved a long time ago. Depp must prove that Heard defamed him with the simple phrase "domestic abuse." If he abused her emotionally while they lived together as a couple, then the article she wrote is NOT defamation. This is true even if she was worse than he was. He can go write his own article about his own experience with her. He can't make a court find liability and collect money from her. Depp is trying to prove the article was not only defamatory, but cost him $50m, because that's what HE is suing HER for. He's failing to prove that so far. Hint: the media is always manipulating people's feelings.
    1
  294.  @supersonic7605  The issue is not whether Depp was a victim of domestic abuse. The issue is whether the article Heard wrote is defamatory, and if so, whether she owes him a lot of money. The plaintiff (Depp) appears to be trying to get the jury to believe that whether or not Heard abused him is the issue. But that is not the issue. This case is about a text, and whether the text is defamation. It's not about who is the Better Person.
    1
  295.  @lblincoe2094  Certainly not. His reputation due to his substance abuse was already bad, making him an INSURANCE RISK. You must know nothing about Hollywood, and the real power behind the movies. Read up on it. And did you read her mild article? And do you realize he lost a much bigger suit, which further eroded his reputation? All the accusations against him appear to be true, and his only goal is to smear his ex in a way where SHE can never retaliate or recover. The result is right in front of you. This case has no merit. It is pure vindictiveness. He is the only one doing what you accuse her of, and massive contemporaneous evidence was just brought forward for THAT. Why you all fall for it, I will never understand. But I don't have to. My family is in Europe now, and I'm getting out of the Anglosphere.
    1
  296.  @lblincoe2094  By the way, are you aware that every defamation case chips away at free speech rights? Maybe you should read up on that, too. Erode the First Amendment some more, for a pirate movie. 🤣 The remedy for "bad speech" is more speech. Why didn't he hire a ghost writer and an editor, and write an autobiography? Instant best seller. Nothing whatsoever prevented him from telling everyone his side. And create artistically, instead of this.
    1
  297.  @christianpaleka5063  These people are like a cult. It seems to me they are being swept up in one thing or another that is extremely irrational at a faster and faster pace. They're identifying "enemies," too. That's the worst part. Heard just had one of the leading experts on PTSD in the world testify for her, board certified, faculty at an Ivy, but best of all a woman who used to work extensively with veterans. She did a massive assessment, including contemporaneous treatment notes from many therapists from the time of the marriage, not created for a lawsuit. Makes no difference. Absolutely none.
    1
  298.  @okbutthenagain.9402  You do know the only evidence so far was the plaintiff's case in chief? Did you think juries ought to decide based on one side? Like mobs do.
    1
  299. How so? It's a defamation case. Looks to me like Depp brought it to settle scores, not because he has any hope of winning. He already lost a case where he had a much better claim. He wanted a showcase for his bitterness, not to vindicate rights. The legal process is not supposed to be abused in that way.
    1
  300.  @Miss_nu_vintage  She didn't initiate this case.
    1
  301.  @Miss_nu_vintage  Or this spectacle. That's what I mean. I guess family court wasn't a big enough stage for Depp. The divorce was the place to air these grievances. Read the article Heard wrote, then tell me whether $50 million in damages is warranted.
    1
  302.  @Miss_nu_vintage  Or, he could have written his own article. Or an autobiography, with a ghost writer assisting. But that takes work.
    1
  303.  @Dragon-wt1vv  This particular case? And after losing a much better one? No. I have a California license. I would have never brought this case. I would have worked my butt off to get his autobiography written. A best seller. The best remedy for bad speech is more speech. Ever heard that?
    1
  304.  @roscoe4092  He cannot prove that this article caused him any damage at all.
    1
  305.  @roscoe4092  I'm not a watcher, I'm a reader. I read the complaint and exhibits, and I know the law. It's all available online, and easy to find. The watchers are being duped again.
    1
  306.  @Miss_nu_vintage  How do you know it was a lie?
    1
  307.  @NoFeArChiC2  How much? By the post or by the hour?
    1
  308.  @aaronpeaty6619  Is bringing a defamation case to court after losing a significantly stronger defamation case on the same factual predicates not wasting a court's time? Or only if girls do it?
    1
  309.  @aaronpeaty6619  Hint: the boy brought these lawsuits, not the girl.
    1
  310.  @aaronpeaty6619  Do you guys have trials or hashtags? Vote on Twitter? OOPS, I mean Facebook. Obviously.
    1
  311.  @aaronpeaty6619  You accidently let Novak Djokovic go free, then. My GOD what a mistake. /s
    1
  312.  @LAVAZZ.  Um. I'm making fun. How big of a problem are drugs, anyway? The question just popped into my head for some reason.
    1
  313.  @cjb34  Routine motion at the end of the case in chief. The defense always says that the evidence brought forward is insufficient as a matter of law to find liability.
    1
  314. Please get counseling.
    1
  315. @donnamoore5977  I know. Our gun laws are way too restrictive. /s
    1
  316.  @shadowywarrior  A defamation case is about what was said. Did anyone read the article? The actual words count. The actual words do not imply physical abuse, so the lawyers argued emotional abuse, which Depp admitted, was sufficient for a dismissal.
    1
  317.  @haithai7022  Let me ask you this. Suppose an actual abuse victim comes to a psychologist, and the actual perpetrator refuses. Can the psychologist make an assessment concerning whether the patient is likely to be telling the truth or fabricating, being evasive, exaggerating? They have to, all the time, and have methods to help them do that. They can never be sure they're right, but they can form an opinion. Now suppose Heard had refused to go to Depp's expert. Would that mean Depp's expert can form no opinion of the relationship, based on studying him and the medical and psychological records of the both of them? Could Heard deciding not to cooperate have ruined the witness for him? Then an abuser can always prevent a psychologist from testifying. Simple.
    1
  318.  @birgip.m.1236  In abuse cases they make assessments of the relationship all the time. In PTSD, whoever may have played a role in causing it won't be available to interview, and certainly has a right to decline. Does that mean you can't diagnose it? If Heard had decided not to cooperate with Depp's expert, could she have blocked her from giving any opinion of their relationship? Why? Then the actual abuser, whoever that may be, can always block an expert on abuse, neat trick.
    1
  319.  @haithai7022  Actually, no medical professional can diagnose anyone without meeting them in some way, at least through teleconference (and teleconference is a poor way). They can make an assessment of a relationship, as long as they realize they could be wrong. They have to do it all the time. A real abuser in a real abuse case will often refuse to come in, as is their right. The therapist can later testify as to the limited basis of the assessment, and the jury can then chose to ignore the assessment.
    1
  320.  @haithai7022  Every lawyer calls the other side's experts a professional witness.
    1
  321.  @haithai7022  Reread what I wrote. Follow the logic. It's there. Don't get caught up.
    1
  322.  @haithai7022  Here's a fascinating question: why didn't Depp see Dr. Hughes? Why was no reason given? Hint: the Fifth Amendment is an analogy.
    1
  323.  @haithai7022  Right. And do you get the Fifth Amendment analogy?
    1
  324.  @haithai7022  One more hint: Heard went to Depp's expert.
    1
  325.  @haithai7022  Exactly. JD's team was counting on producing this outrage, because the other side cannot mention that Heard agreed to be evaluated as counting in her favor. Like the right to remain silent, there is a right to refuse to talk to your opponent's expert, and no one has the right to judge you for it. I support that right.
    1
  326.  @haithai7022  Focus. Dr. Curry never treated Heard. She assessed Heard for purposes of this lawsuit only. So . . . Why didn't Depp see Dr. Hughes, too? You don't see it? That's what happens in crowd psychology.
    1
  327.  @haithai7022  SHE IS NOT ALLOWED TO MENTION IT. And good that she can't. JUST LIKE the Fifth Amendment. If you really don't get it, either you are extremely naive, or caught up in crowd psychology. Or both. Someone who can still think normally can understand perfectly well what I just said. Very simple.
    1
  328.  @haithai7022  Don't do this to yourself. Don't let crowds convince you to stop using your mind. And over what? A couple of self-involved, hypermillionaire druggies? A sixth pirate movie? A misguided belief this helps other men?
    1
  329.  @haithai7022  yeah, her lawyers forgot to ask Depp to see their expert, too . . . 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  330. Well don't sound cheerful, my G-d.
    1
  331. He pled guilty to federal charges.
    1
  332.  @Pumpkin0_0  She has a massively positive reputation and teaches at Cornell's medical school.
    1
  333.  @theresagomez2605  This was cross examination. Her qualifications were established on direct, not here.
    1
  334.  @Pumpkin0_0  Negative reviews? Those were all posted by loonies after she testified, and have since been purged. Just how big of a problem is drug use? P. S. Don't go to war with Russia. Bad idea.
    1
  335. In cases of various forms of abuse, PTSD, and so forth, when there is a legitimate perpetrator, either they cannot be located or refuse to come in, and (absent court order) it is always their right to refuse to come in. It is not a stigma to refuse and proves nothing either way. Hence these disciplines have to develop ways to determine whether the patient is being truthful. She explained that under direct examination. But if you don't like her, that's what counts. There, there.
    1
  336. No. She's doing her job. Depp wants a court to order Amber Heard to pay him $50 million. So, he has to prove that her article was defamatory and cost him $50 million.
    1
  337.  @GrumpyStoic  Oh yeah? But Depp trying to get $50 million from Heard, because Heard referred to "domestic abuse" in an opinion piece. And he already lost a defamation lawsuit in UK. That's nice.
    1
  338.  @Jana-wx3lp  So, what makes Depp entitled to the $50,000,000 in damages he is claiming?
    1
  339.  @mimasam5528  Yeah. The judge rules on the merits and the law, not based on who you think is the Bad Person.
    1
  340.  @annmarieknapp2480  You cannot do that in a court proceeding. The agent must be clearly indicated. A lawsuit is an adversarial proceeding. You cannot hide who you are asserting did what to whom by "softening" the language.
    1
  341.  @YouTuberr285  No. The plaintiff goes first, with their case in chief. They have to prove defamation and prove damages. They must carry the burden of proof. All of the defense attorneys' questioning you see of plaintiff's witnesses is cross examination of opposing (or hostile) witnesses. The RULES permit cross examination to be rather harsh, since it was the plaintiff who dragged the defendant into court.
    1
  342.  @shavonne4831  Media is misleading you, AGAIN.
    1
  343. So, if an abuser refuses to see a therapist, does that prove he is right? He can block any expert by refusing an interview? Obviously not. OTOH, refusal proves nothing either way. Everyone has a right to say no to seeing a psychologist.
    1
  344. Before you can get a court to set aside First Amendment freedom of speech, you have to prove it does not apply. Yup. Correct. Before a court orders the sheriff to seize your assets, like your bank accounts, your car, your house and place it on auction, a person has to prove you owe them $50,000,000. Well, in Canada, Trudeau did it to the truckers, and here Biden does it to Russians, but you get the general idea.
    1
  345.  @claudeseymour  Did you read that op-ed? He lost work after losing a much better defamation case in Britain. You think the mild article Heard wrote without naming names cost him $50,000,000? He cannot prove that.
    1
  346.  @K.N.H.  He cannot sue anyone to get even with the UK court. There is no law to let anyone do that.
    1
  347.  @kcg8162  Because the Washington Post is incorporated in Virginia.
    1
  348.  @schumiprofan  Right. On the civil side, it's called liability, not guilt.
    1
  349.  @zeenaabdura5686  She corroborated all of it with prior, contemporaneous consistent statements to multiple people, like relatives and therapists. That is not hearsay.
    1
  350.  @payamal-abid2651  What do you think this mob is?
    1
  351.  @jacobdestern4288 He lost work mostly because of his addiction and because he lost a prior defamation case and because he said lots of weird things like that "assassination joke," which you can find on YT right now.
    1
  352. Depp has no obligation to speak to her.
    1
  353.  @Nofinator  I don't endorse the tabloids. I think they are odious. After they won the case Depp brought, his lawyers could not keep it out. He basically acknowledged they had an effect on his reputation and ability to practice his art by bringing the case. BTW, this is one reason why so many people do not sue for libel, even when they have an excellent case. It's a risk. 😐 Very unfair, actually.
    1
  354.  @djmelodyex  It was brought in as evidence of reputation, for the purpose of challenging damages due to the article alleged to be defamatory here. They explained why it was introduced. After Depp lost his suit against The Sun, they couldn't keep it out.
    1
  355.  @naveenvenkateshk  What "truth?" This trial is about a published text, whether that text is defamatory, and whether it cost Depp money. Depp sued, so he has to prove these things. The trial is not about who is the Better Person. Depp is suing for $50 million. Guess what? Before a court orders someone to pay money, and seizes their bank account and other assets, grabs their house, and so forth, the plaintiff has to PROVE he really lost $50 million on account of the defendant, and for no other reason. Funny how that is. We should just vote on Facebook instead.
    1
  356. Depp is suing Heard for $50 million. Guess what? Before a court orders someone to pay money, and seizes their bank account and other assets, grabs their house, and so forth, the plaintiff has to PROVE they really lost $50 million on account of the defendant, and for no other reason. This is a perfectly normal cross-examination of an opposing witness.
    1