Johny depp defamation trial

1. Why does Dumbledore, the most powerful wizard in the world, use a putter-outer to turn off the street lights? Just a flex?
2. Professor McGonagall's transformation sequence (from cat to human) was a budget solution, right? Still a cool shot, though.
3. How did the Dursleys come across the Hut-on-the-Rock? Which landlord did they get in contact with to rent it?
4. Where did Hagrid have to go, when Harry entered Ollivander's? More top secret stuff?
5. What does it look like to Muggles, when wizards run through a pillar to enter Platform 9 and 3/4? Same question goes to when Harry and Hagrid enter the Leaky Cauldron. I know the pub itself is said to look like a rundown shop, to Muggles.
6. What determines if the students travel by stagecoach or boat, from the Hogsmeade station to Hogwarts?
7. Why do the ghosts at Hogwarts hangout there, not leave for somewere else?
8. Was Quirrell's troll in the underground chambers his own idea and initiative, or was it Voldemort's?
9. When did the inflation of Marge come to an end? For how long was she flying around?
10. What "terrible things" would happen if the Time-Turner wasn't used properly? Something related to death?
11. Igor loses his accent during his trial. That was the actor, not the character, right?
12. Why did Dumbledore seemingly ignore Harry for most of the Order of the Phoenix?
13. Any common theory on the BTS situation of the Grindewald reveal at the end of Fantastic Beasts? The scene may very well have been filmed early on -- with the reveal being the plan all along -- but, to me, it felt like Farrell only signed up for one movie, so WB solved it with Depp and that reveal. Pure speculation ofc.

I'm a huge fan of Lex Fridman's podcasts and I thought this one was chock full of tidbits that might be interesting for this audience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtOKrG_wK5A
Honorable mention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sndW9hzX-wA

Visit article from The New York Times (Grade: A-) or alternatively:

Source (Grade)	Link to article
CNN.com (C-)	Judge may force Rupert Murdoch to testify in Dominion defamation case
Washington Post (B)	Rupert Murdoch may have to testify in Dominion trial despite ‘hardship’ claim
Reuters (A+)	Fox, Dominion lawyers spar over top executives' liability in defamation suit
Age (B)	Murdoch told he will likely have to testify in Fox News defamation case

More: Fox Argues Top Executives ... FAQ & Grades I'm a bot

Has anyone come across any talented streamers, podcasters, or YouTubers who would broadcast the preliminary hearing (if cameras are permitted in the courtroom)? Someone with a legal background who can be relied upon like Emily D. Baker etc.? I mean whole Depp versus Heard had a panel of lawyers throughout the whole trial.
Is it possible for us to create a live chat here so that we can all exchange messages while viewing?

Colborn omitted perjury on October 13, 2005 (only 18 days before Teresa's death). This is now part of the state and federal court record. According to US District judge Ludwig Colborn told an "outright lie" during his sworn deposition testimony. Colborn unequivocally testified under oath he NEVER discussed the 1995 call with District Attorney Rohrer (nor did he recall speaking with anyone other than Lenk). Lying under oath is considered perjury, which in Wisconsin is a Class H felony. This is all thanks to Colborn's superiors, and of course, Colborn's ill-informed decision to sue Netflix and the filmmakers (both parties knew the case much better than Colborn).
 

Rohrer Under Oath

 

Kelly: At the time that you received information from the crime lab telling you that Gregory Allen was inculpated in the sexual assault of Mrs. Bernsteen, did you have conversation with any people in the sheriff's office?
Rohrer: Yes.
Kelly: Who were they?
Rohrer: Andy Colborn -- and Jim Lenk -- had information that he had received.

 

Kusche Under Oath

 

Kelly: Do you have any reason to believe that Doug Jones would misreport what you told him?
Kusche: No.
Kelly: Okay. It goes on to say that you said Lenk, MTSO Lt. James Lenk Bureau Command Officer was aware. Did you tell that to Doug Jones!?
Kusche: If he put it there I probably did.
Kelly: And what was the basis for your knowledge about that!?
Kusche: It would had to have been from Andy Colborn.

 

Griesbach under oath

 

Kelly: Okay, so was there any further discussion with either Colborn or Lenk?
Griesbach: It was likely with Mr. Rohrer. I was more of a receiver of information [and] I do recall this same topic coming up once or twice more.
Kelly: Okay. And what further information did you learn about that?
Griesbach: My recollection is just that it was confirmed that indeed Sheriff Kocourek had said, upon hearing that somebody else did this, that he got the right guy and [Colborn] should not concern himself. That was what people were saying was the case.
Kelly: Can you identify the people that you're talking about?
Griesbach: I believe it would be Officer Colborn. He's the only one I can say with any level of certainty who confirmed that. That is my understanding of Deputy Colborn's recollection.

 
All of this sworn testimony, some from Colborn's superiors, demonstrate he committed perjury during litigation of Steven's 36 million dollar lawsuit, and this occurred only weeks before Teresa's death. If Colborn had any discussion with Rohrer or Griesbach he may have known how fucked he was, possibly explaining why he admits "the thought crossed [his] mind" he might be added as a named defendant (that thought doesn't cross your mind unless you think you did something that would shock the conscience of reasonable jurors).
 

Where was Colborn on the day of Teresa's death?

 
On 12/15/06 Buting demanded "All documents and information about the work schedules and whereabouts" of Andrew Colborn on October 31, 2005. Buting wanted to know if Colborn had an alibi for the day of Teresa's death (only one reason to ask that question). About a month later, on 1/11/07, Colborn told police he "worked a nine and one-half hour workday [on Halloween 2005] and was done around 2118 hours." The report notes Colborn said he "would generally" go home after his shift, watch TV and go to bed. I guess Colborn couldn't specifically recall what he did after work on 10/31 so he offered what he generally did.
 
One week later (January 19, 2007) Buting and Fallon had their big blowout during a pre trial hearing, with Fallon demanding: "Show me the evidence that Lenk and Colborn were responsible for the death of Teresa Halbach, before you get in here and have the nerve, the unmitigated gall to get up here and suggest that they were responsible for her death!" Buting told the court he would happily rule Colborn and Lenk out as suspects, but wasn't prepared to immediately do that "because I don't know where they were on October 31st, even though we asked for [their alibi] over a month ago." Fallon says Buting's request for that information qualifies as "the best example of this case getting sidetracked." The fact that this was being discussed in open court will never not be wild to me (also interesting at this point Fallon had the alibi but didn't provide it).
 

Netflix omitted discussion of Colborn's possible motive for Teresa's murder

 
Ludwig finishes his DENIAL of Colborn's lawsuit by reminding him the Netflix emails he referenced actually "undercut allegations of defamation." In the referenced email exchange a Netflix creative producer (Del Deo) expresses concern with footage of Buting discussing a theory of police involvement in Teresa's death. A separate producer (Cotner) worried if they relayed this note to the filmmakers it would confuse them (they were told presenting alternative suspects was important for the series). Del Deo reaffirms his desire to ensure they clearly relay "Buting isn't saying the officers killed as a mater of fact since there's no physical evidence to prove the officers were there, rather just a very strong motive."
 
Cotner said the concern was understood and they would "leave it in for now" and can always "pull it out later" which of course they did. At no point in Making a Murderer was footage included revealing Colborn was considered as having a motive to commit the murder of Teresa Halbach (in fact Strang is heard explicitly saying police did not kill Teresa Halbach). We have the transcripts and so we know the argument was Colborn may have had a motive to kill Teresa in order to provide himself with "an opportunity to frame Steven Avery" and put an end to his lawsuit which was going to expose a staggering amount of corruption within the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department, including Colborn's own obstruction of justice (perjury and suppression of exculpatory evidence).
 

What Netflix Could Have Done...

 
IMO it's clear that Netflix, Ricciardi and Demos made Colborn appear more credible than he comes off in the unedited deposition or mixed-feed footage. I don't think this was necessarily intentional, but a natural byproduct of condensing decades of material into a 10 or 20 hour docu-series. Here is Ludwig's collection of editorial decisions the filmmakers would have been permitted to make without defaming Colborn:
 

• Netflix could have included Colborn's outright lie to further damage his credibility and helped explain to the world why attorneys believed Colborn had a motive for Teresa's death. Netflix didn't do this (which Ludwig says undercuts Colborn's claims of mal-intent).
  
• Ludwig also explains Netflix could have chosen to "omit [Colborn's] vehement denials without intending to distort or recklessly disregard the truth" (Colborn's planting denials were included in MAM which further undermines claims of mal-intent).
  
• Ludwig explains editing down or splicing trial testimony is expected in film-making and the question is if "the result conveys the substantial truth." Amazingly, Ludwig says the filmmakers could have even "attribute[d] words he never uttered to [Colborn] without running afoul of defamation law" so long as the substantial truth is conveyed.
  

 
Wow! The filmmakers would have been well within their rights to make Colborn look MUCH worse, such as by excluding his denials of planting evidence (imagine the outrage from team guilty if they had done that); or by including his outright lies under oath as going towards motive for Teresa's death (again, imagine the outrage). Netflix did neither, nor did they attribute words to Colborn he never spoke. As Ludwig says, Making a Murderer was not the "calibrated hit job" Colborn made it out to be. It was a documentary series, or as Ludwig prefers, a docu-series. An award winning critically acclaimed docu-series that accurately paints an unflattering portrait of (among other things) MTSO officer Andrew Colborn and his involvement with Steven Avery.

When Stormy Daniels lost her defamation case she was ordered to pay Trump $300K in legal fees. But if this later case proves that she was correct, does she still have to pay it b/c these cases are considered individually? So for her to get her money back she'd have to sue again and ask for damages + the $300K she originally lost?
Edit: I should mention that I know that Trump's current issue is not that he payed someone off, but that he violated campaign finance rules. But the original suit was that Stormy Daniels claimed to have an affair with Trump. If during the the hush money payments trial it comes out that he did have an affair (which admittedly may or may not happen), then would Stormy Daniels have to re-sue to not be on the hook for $300K?

After the trial that cleared Naofumi's name, and stripped both the king and first princess of their power and royal status, Naofumi chose to spare their lives regarding a name change that would make them WISH they were dead.
For Princess Bitch, she still tried to make Naofumi suffer, such as by poisoning food meant for his party's table. Leaving her in the hands of the Spear Hero is a stupid idea, as that idiot Motoyasu still tried to stick up for her even though her crimes are as clear as day.
So how else could Bitch be punished even further to ensure she can no longer cause or tweak havoc, and that she finally starts learning her lesson? I have an idea. Since she has no inheritance to the throne, is a criminal for all to see, and has made quite a large number of messes and suffering for the people of Melromarc, why not force her to start cleaning it all up? Her slave crest gave me an idea.
First, she will rejoin Naofumi's party, only this time, have a slave pact with him. Now, I know this may sound crazy, but hear me out. After the pact has been made, she'd be forced to go with Naofumi and his party and forced to do work manual labor and community service and clean up her messes. If she refuses, her slave crest would activate. And with Naofumi looking over her actions, ensuring she obeys and does as her "master" says, she'd have no choice buy to go through with everything. Plus, I doubt the queen would mind if Naofumi and his party tortured her a bit from time to time to further put her through the same hell she did to him.
During this time, Naofumi would demand that she starts explaining why she's so rude, selfish, bitchy, etc. and why she wanted to defame him so badly.
Either way, she'd be forced into slavery by the one she brought the most suffering onto, and possibly even tortured, but not raped, by Naofimi on a daily basis.
What do you guys think?

Lawyers for the company, which faces a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit, are pushing for a judge to rule in their favor before a trial.. Business

Anyone else watching live with me? It's all so petty, I don't really find anyone in this trial likeable yet.
I don't understand the injuries claimed, I don't understand the wildly different accounts of the accident. The first witness for the plaintiff yesterday was a mess, clearly trying to protect his friend, IMO, and his refusal to answer basic questions made me doubt the motives of the plaintiff.
Gwyneth Paltrow, who hawks a lifestyle website where you could add a $275 branded hoodie or a $25,700 gold/diamond bracelet (final sale) to your cart, appears in person because she is trying to avoid a compensatory judgement and win a symbolic $1 counter-suit.
In court today, her team insists a camera aimed at her be focused on the podium or on someone speaking at a microphone only. And while I get it, I get that she doesn't want the public watching her when the legality of it is at issue, neither Depp nor Heard pitched that kind of fit.
EDB said estimates are 8 days of trial, this is day 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlC8b8l79Vs