LogFAQs > #964582719

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

By a matter of law, they need to prove that she did not knowingly lie. Which is easy, because she knows whether or not she had been a victim of domestic abuse or not because she lived it. It's up to the jury to decide whether or not she was.

I just don't think there's enough here to prove Johnny Depp ever laid a hand on her though, just judging by the UK information.

That's exactly the point of my question. These are separate issues with separate legal standards, right? It's even separate from the issue of if Heard attacked Depp, which there seems to be plenty of evidence for and she even admits to.

If this was a criminal trial, with the goal to convict Depp of domestic violence, I would agree the evidence seems too flimsy to do so. But that's not the point. The point is to determine if Heard is lying. So far I would not be able to definitively say Depp did not abuse Heard just because the physical evidence is flimsy. What's the legal standard?