I think people have totally misunderstood that the trial isn't about who the 'baddie' is. JD must know he can't win the case, but thinks he can win in the court of public opinion regardless of regardless of the outcome. He said she faced public humiliation and he's achieved his goal. For those confused about the case, this is a handy and unbiased summary of what the jury is required to decide, specifically based on these words: "
"To win a claim for defamation in Virginia, a public-figure plaintiff like Depp (or a public-figure defendant asserting a counterclaim, like Heard) must prove all of the following:
1 a factual assertion or implication made by the party against whom the claim is brought;
2 that is materially false (slight inaccuracies are insufficient);
3 and defamatory in nature;
4 that is about the party asserting the claim;
5 and made to a third party;
6 in a setting or context that isn’t privileged;
7 with “actual malice”;
8 that causes actual or presumed damages
Notice what’s not on this list. There is no requirement, for example, that either party demonstrate that the other one in the relationship was “the real abuser.”
Online debates about who the primary abuser was in the relationship are really not relevant to the issues in the case. In fact, any of the witness testimony or other evidence brought out in this trial that does not relate in some way to one of the above 8 elements should not affect the outcome in any way.
The case is not about whether Depp or Heard is a better human being. It’s about whether either one of them committed actionable defamation resulting in harm to the other.
Remember: Depp’s claim concerns only what Heard wrote about him in her op-ed. It’s not about whether Heard’s tears on the witness stand are real, whether she pooped in Depp’s bed, or which of the parties snorts the most cocaine. If the jury finds that the op-ed’s factual assertions are substantially true, then it’s game over for Depp as Depp will have failed to prove the material-falsity element of his claim.
Heard described herself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse” who “spoke up against sexual violence.” Those are the key statements that need to be false for Depp to win. The jury will have to interpret what they mean. If it finds these statements the equivalent of a mere observation that a couple of years prior, she had gained some notoriety for making an accusation of domestic abuse against Depp, then the statements would be completely accurate and therefore non-actionable. In my view, this would be the correct outcome.
The op-ed doesn’t accuse Depp of any specific acts of abuse. All it says is that Heard became associated with domestic abuse when she had made certain allegations in the past."