LogFAQs > #965808545

red sox 777 posted...

The jury found that there was a particular incident where Depp's lawyer said that Heard committed abuse which she didn't do. So that's defamation. But their verdict is consistent with them finding that particular incident didn't happen, not that Heard was never abusive.

This is incorrect.

Depp's attorney, Adam Waldman, had made a statement where he said Amber and her friends created a hoax. They felt that statement was defamation because Depp's team didn't do enough of a job proving that it was a hoax.

However, there are no actual damages they could connect with Amber and she lost nothing as a result of that statement, so it's confusing how they could even give her this.

It reads more like a jury compromise verdict, where someone had apprehension about going full Depp so they said they would give Amber this gimme. If it goes to appeal, there's a chance they may overturn it because the evidence isn't there for Amber to have any damages from it.