I went over the verdict forms, and it's kind of hard on JD's claims, but AH's are easy. I can dismiss all that because, even though AW acted as an agent of JD, made the statements about Amber Heard that were read by others, it might or might not be false (It's a working theory, I think), I can't find that he had malice or that the defamed her.
I don't think he defamed her because he had reasonable inferences that it was a hoax. His statements seem entirely about May 21st and thereafter, except the one that says something about sexual violence.
The basis for my belief:
1. Two photos of her face with the same name at the same time. One reddened, one not. I don't know how you get those two pictures that way, but it's a lie that one was taken in light and the other wasn't.
2. Wine bottle picture entered into evidence at two different "fight" scenes.
3. Police see no evidence of destruction.
4. Magic bruise. The bruise appears and disappears at will. It's there 5/27, but gone 5/28.
5. Divorce demands. She told JD that she would NOT file the restraining order if he caved to the demands in the letter. Then she jumped the gun, filing for the order in the AM on Friday before JD's lawyers could respond. I assume they thought they had until the end of the business day. She filed using the police call as EVIDENCE for the TRO. She didn't need to talk to the police. She just needed a call on record. They were called twice because IO didn't think his New York call had gone through.
6. TMZ greeting her at the courthouse to see her turn her face, just as her publicist who probably called them there said it would be.
I believe the hoax happened because JD said he was divorcing her and they wanted to devise a way to keep their penthouses, etc.
The sexual violence part of his first statement on the forms, I think is really fake because she said nothing about that back in 2016. Suddenly, after the op-ed, she alleges it. There are no doctor reports, witnesses, etc, and I don't think she talks about it in the UK trial. I could be wrong about that, though, but it's reasonable for him to assert they are fake without it being defamation, imo.
So that's how I would decide her counterclaims. Thoughts from you guys?
www.documentcloud.org