VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Protecting your sources is sacrosanct for a journalist. No matter what you think of AH it is extremely tacky for this producer to come on this trial and reveal that she was the source when he doesn’t have to! TMZ is right to try to stop him bc that would affect their bottom line - why would anyone come forward to TMZ and be a source if former employees are going to walk into court and reveal sources? It’s just extremely bad form on his part when he doesn’t have to! He’s protected by law!
 
The problem is that the video was doctored in order to push a narrative to defame Johnny. They cut off the end where JD drops the phone in the rubbish and AH retrieves it, smiling and snickering. Clearly fine and not frightened which is a direct contrast to what AH testified and is why it was being used as a rebuttal.

Instead they ended it with blackness and rustling, implying a violent climax to the clip. It was an untrue representation of what occurred - therefore defamatory. The video was illegally taken without JD's consent.

Since the counter claim survived the motion to strike, it's important for JD's team to prove that AH was acting maliciously to defame JD and also was perpetrating a hoax.

But, I agree that the motion has merit and it's very possible that the TMZ testimony will not be allowed. It's fair in terms of legality, though it's frustrating.
 
Have been following constantly. Thanks so much for the company and updates!


Every time I look at Ben Chew I think of Walter Mattau!

No doubt that the plaintiff witnesses, without a doubt won the credibility in this casé.
 
Was pretty busy today but caught a fair amount....I think EB and AH team is much better under the time pressure...the whole trial should have moved like this. I think the Hicksville guy was enjoyed his 15 min. but did certainly put a difference spin on this massive damage. So much bs in this trial..almost done.
 
It would be good to hear the testimony from the TMZ person, but I don't think JD really needs them to testify. Imo, it's pretty obvious it was leaked by AH or her sister. AH took the video it's not rocket science, I think the jury will know JD wouldn't have access to said video. And would he or anyone in his camp leak it? lol what for? It's not like it shows him feeding the homeless or performing some heroic act. MOO
 
Interesting read about VA shield laws. I don't know if any of this applies in this civil case... I'm simply linking.

Virginia does not have a shield law. Nevertheless, there may be other legal grounds for protecting your sources and source material in Virginia.

The reporter's privilege is qualified, which means that a court may order you to reveal information covered by the privilege if the requesting party's need for it outweighs the policies favoring a privilege. In civil cases, in order to order disclosure, a court must find each of the following to be true:

  • The information is relevant;
  • The information cannot be obtained by alternative means; and
  • There is a compelling interest in the information.

 
From my view, overall, when JD is on the stand talking about upsetting things, his affect is sad-
when AH is doing the same, she looks and sounds angry to me, even when she's crying

My thoughts/view
 
im from australia and i dont understand why this case has gone on for so long i doubt it would in our australian courts
Yep, we have them here to we currently have a high profile defamation case in progress.

Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case …..


Case been going for 11 weeks at the date of that article in April and it hasn’t closed yet
 
The sounds like team Heard imo fighting hard to not have this witness testify tomorrow…

“TMZ promised this source that it would maintain their confidentiality and would not disclose their name or other information about them,” wrote the outlet’s attorneys.


If they win the motion does it mean the witness can't testify at all or just that they can't reveal the name of the person who sold it to them?
What I mean is,is there anything stopping them from saying who DIDN'T sell it to them, ie Laura Wasser?
 
Protecting your sources is sacrosanct for a journalist. No matter what you think of AH it is extremely tacky for this producer to come on this trial and reveal that she was the source when he doesn’t have to! TMZ is right to try to stop him bc that would affect their bottom line - why would anyone come forward to TMZ and be a source if former employees are going to walk into court and reveal sources? It’s just extremely bad form on his part when he doesn’t have to! He’s protected by law!

Thinking about it,what if its not the video?.
What if they will be asking if TMZ was tipped off to the divorce and the TRO before both were filed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
4,187
Total visitors
4,267

Forum statistics

Threads
592,488
Messages
17,969,721
Members
228,789
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top