Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

wibble

VIP Member
There is almost certainly a very good reason he didn't mention the knife earlier. I don't believe for a second it was an oversight. Choosing to bring it up in closing means there can't be any testimony about it.
It may work as a casual reference.

But in their position. with her evidence, I would at least have mentioned the knife three times to plant in more firmly in the juries mind... or betterstill to have Johnny or his team deny it as his.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

Silent85

VIP Member
Depps team asked for a motion in strike in one comment from ambers teams closing statement where it was said “ their decision would send a message to DV victims everywhere” as inappropriate as it’s a larger social issue. Judge denied as case had already gone to jury.
It says plaintiffs motion is granted in the documentation
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1

Swerve

Well-known member
Not to de rail but I think jury trials are so important. The issue of being judged by your peers to me is paramount. Also because you can bring in your own life experiences into play. I think it's when some very questionable verdicts happen that people question them. Eg OJ

I should have made myself more clear you are right. The 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to lie with impunity. However defamation, going by the very strict letter of the law is difficult to prove. Rottenborn's technique is to make it strictly about the OP Ed in the Washington Times. If he can keep it that very strict parameter then I believe Amber Heard wins.

Just my opinion. Despite vowing now to watch the trial as you can see I am not fully engrossed in it. Lol.
I‘m not sure what you mean. Both sides are making it “strictly about the op-ed”. They have been given three sentences - one a headline, and the other two part of the text - from the piece and have to decide whether they are defamatory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1