Who will win between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation case

[Egtermekaar]

If you were jury in this case, how would you decide?

I think Johnny Depp will win because he had strong, reliable and consistent evidence of "his" case

I hope MN will allow debate about a matter of public interest.

This is a really interesting point actually. At regular intervals during the trial I did stop and try and look at things from her perspective. Wonder if I was being "taken in". I like to challenge my own views regularly and do a sort of internal "fact check" just to see if I've wandered away from objectivity. Each time I came away feeling the same way.

Fairness is really important to me. Far more than being on one person's "side". I felt so outraged by Trump's behaviour, and to a lesser degree, Boris' too because of the blatant lies. It really really pisses me off and I think that's why I reacted so strongly to this case. I can't bear someone lying about something so important just so they can destroy someone they've fallen out with.

That's why Kate Moss was allowed to testify. Amber made a claim on the stand that Kate's evidence could prove to be a lie.

If Amber's team had any meaningful evidence to refute the claims made by Johnny's team, it could have been introduced as a rebuttal witness/evidence.

I would say while not an ideology or political position there were some rabid Depp fans who likely were just as committed to their view without hearing or caring about evidence or fact. I didn't really see many of those on here but they definitely exist.

For many of us, we may have gone in leaning more towards Amber or Johnny but were mostly keen on hearing the evidence and testimony and forming our view as the trail went on. Mine certainly shifted fairly substantially from start to finish. There was a lot I heard during the trial that I didn't know before. It seems that most people who were open to the evidence shifted towards Depp - and I think fact checking as you said was very important. I did see on the other threads (not the feminism one) that there were one or two posters who ended up still mostly supporting Amber's side but they had been open to looking at evidence as well. It isn't that everyone needs to see something the same way but ignoring lies and lying and facts and flat out believing unbelievable things is a problem.

If Amber's team had any meaningful evidence to refute the claims made by Johnny's team, it could have been introduced as a rebuttal witness/evidence.
I don't think that's true in the case of them saying "there was no evidence" when actually it was "there was no admissible evidence"
I'm assuming in the case of Kate Moss, Amber's team argued against her as a witness, but then bought it up and so Depps team could call her.

In the case of Amber's nose injuries, Depps team had it ruled inadmissible and then stopped Amber's team from raising those in any way. They didn't say she had injuries so Amber's team couldn't call a rebuttal witness.

That's all as it should be but Vasquez saying there was nothing to support AH claims was a lie and I'm surprised that's allowed. It feels unethical to me.

Anyway this is now going the same way as all the threads and I can't be bothered really. So bye

Amber's lawyer tried to get the jury to think they only had to find one incident of abuse for it not to be defamation...when that was untrue and irrelevant to this specific case and the defamation claim statements. Had they followed his directive, the jury would have had to ignore and go against all jury instruction...very unethical!