wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,985
I rewatched the jury instructions. To find defamation by "implication," the jury is allowed to take the article as a whole, and if they take the article as a whole, I think they must find that the article is about sexual violence and the #metoo movement. It's reasonable to think that she is talking about speaking out against sexual violence that JD did to her and institutions protecting JD.
I think if you take the article as a whole, you can reach defamation by implication on all three counts. That has to be why she was scrambling to come up with incidences of sexual abuse in this case.
I don't know what will take the jury so long if they understand that they can do defamation by implication. I think that unless she proved she was speaking out against JD sexually assaulting her during the marriage, she has defamed him because she said she spoke out against it and it's what incurred her the wrath. I think she's also lying because she didn't lose the Lorelle job and she didn't lose the Aquaman job as she states in the article.
I think if you take the article as a whole, you can reach defamation by implication on all three counts. That has to be why she was scrambling to come up with incidences of sexual abuse in this case.
I don't know what will take the jury so long if they understand that they can do defamation by implication. I think that unless she proved she was speaking out against JD sexually assaulting her during the marriage, she has defamed him because she said she spoke out against it and it's what incurred her the wrath. I think she's also lying because she didn't lose the Lorelle job and she didn't lose the Aquaman job as she states in the article.
Last edited: