Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard

[Stampede2TheCup]

Originally Posted by Cole436

This is going to be the last piece I say on this matter.

At no point have I defended Amber Heard as an abuser or said she hasn't lied. I've stated that this subject is quite a bit more complicated then it's been portrayed as, and while I do believe she has lied about aspects of this story I also recognize that there is a significant amount of evidence that Johnny Depp also abused her as well which I think is silly to ignore.

Go on and keep living your lives.

I agree on both points you’ve just said above and it seems a lot of people who side with Depp in this thread do too. I just don’t see how the fallout of this case feels misogynistic like you stated initially. I also just didn’t see any real value to the article you cited either, especially for anyone who followed the case. I also don’t see how or where people are ignoring evidence against Depp.

I’m not personally very embroiled in this case, but everyone is going on living their lives even if they are extremely interested in the case.

[djsFlames]

Nm

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Cole436

This is going to be the last piece I say on this matter.

At no point have I defended Amber Heard as an abuser or said she hasn't lied. I've stated that this subject is quite a bit more complicated then it's been portrayed as, and while I do believe she has lied about aspects of this story I also recognize that there is a significant amount of evidence that Johnny Depp also abused her as well which I think is silly to ignore.

Go on and keep living your lives.

She tried to present said evidence at the defamation trial and all of it was thoroughly debunked as a combination of lies, edited evidence (which likely only got presented because her lawyers were lied to about their veracity by Amber), or really false claims of the existence of evidence but would not provide to the court and/or her lawyers decided that it would damage her case more than it was worth presenting i.e. fabrications.

While she was on the stand she changed her story multiple times, in many cases during examination, in one sitting. She didn't just lie about aspects of the case, it was basically everything presented. Given the overwhelming documented nature of the falsehoods she presented, and Actual Malice (i.e. shown intent to manipulate), her claims of abuse cannot be taken with the same level of merit. Like FanIn80 said, she literally and verifiably lied in a manipulative manner about all claimed instances of abuse by Depp. The only verified claim against Depp's case was a statement made by his former legal team about Amber staging a hoax in an incident with police that couldn't be fully verified.

[calumniate]

Some big ones for me as well - she claimed she was assaulted dozens of times by being hit, and agreed that Depp wears rings all the time. There were zero medical records accounting from any of that, aside therapist records.
She also scored in the 98th percentile for PTSD, which would leave you unable to function as a human being (she would be shell-shocked).

So while you think there might be other evidence of abuse that happened Cole, she has falsely accused him on multiple accounts and that's where the defamation comes in. The other stuff wasn't proven so that's why I think the judge and jury got it right.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

All of these losers and trashy click bait article authors know that this is a hot topic right now. Writing an article about how Depp was abused and how Heard is an abuser doesn’t generate clicks. The world spent weeks learning about that. It’s old news and it isn’t controversial.

If you want eyeballs, you need to create controversy. And the easy controversy right now is to defend Heard and maintain that Depp is a scumbag who is single-handedly destroying the me too movement. It doesn’t hurt that the MRAs have, to no one’s surprise, taken Depp’s side. The fact that side happens to be the right one allows all of these rags and gossip sites (and some legitimate media) to tag anyone who thought Depp was a victim as being part of the misogynists.

Cecil - you are completely off your rocker on this opinion. Literally 95% of the content out there is pro-Depp. If you write something pro-Heard right now you are going to get all of the gamergate loons coming after you. That's not to say writing that is right or wrong - but the idea there is incentive to write pro-Heard stories right now is lunacy.

[PeteMoss]

The cocaine on the stand video posted in this thread is an example of the lunacy of the online coverage and the stuff that people buy into. Obviously its not true and the full video shows what is happening - but people casually following this stuff online believe she is completely off her rocker and would do that.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/am...cocaine-trial/

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Cecil - you are completely off your rocker on this opinion. Literally 95% of the content out there is pro-Depp. If you write something pro-Heard right now you are going to get all of the gamergate loons coming after you. That's not to say writing that is right or wrong - but the idea there is incentive to write pro-Heard stories right now is lunacy.

What are you taking about? Have you even read this thread? There was a discussion about all of the pro heard opinion articles, several of which were posted.

And of course there’s a benefit and incentive. Clicks. People read things they disagree with before they’ll read something that supports their opinion. They want the controversy that comes with it. They want the twitter threats. It allows them to write more articles about how evil Depp is and how his misogynistic followers have destroyed the me too movement.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

What are you taking about? Have you even read this thread? There was a discussion about all of the pro heard opinion articles, several of which were posted.

And of course there’s a benefit and incentive. Clicks. People read things they disagree with before they’ll read something that supports their opinion. They want the controversy that comes with it. They want the twitter threats. It allows them to write more articles about how evil Depp is and how his misogynistic followers have destroyed the me too movement.

Which side is more engaged? There is a pro-Depp majority who is very engaged and a tiny pro-Heard minority who is way less engaged. Writing for which audience is going to generate you more clicks?

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Which side is more engaged? There is a pro-Depp majority who is very engaged and a tiny pro-Heard minority who is way less engaged. Writing for which audience is going to generate you more clicks?

There's no "pro Depp" and "pro Heard." There's only people who understand the outcome of the trial and the verdict that was rendered, and people who don't.

This is like saying people who watched the game yesterday are "pro Tampa" because they're trying to tell you that the Lightning won, and all the media sites that are showing clips and writing articles about how the Lightning won are just not "pro Rangers."

"Here's a video showing Tampa scoring against New York."

"Whatever, you're just too pro Tampa to see that it was a save."

"Umm... the puck is in the net, the goal light is on, everyone is celebrating and the ref signaled it was a goal."

"All I'm saying is that there's a pro Tampa majority out there and they're way more active than the pro New York people, so writing about how Tampa won is going to create more clicks than if they wrote about how New York."

"But... New York didn't win..."

"Again... pro Tampa."


Edit: Also, even if there was a pro Depp/Heard thing... why wouldn't you be on the side of the wrongly accused who, after 6 years of losing work and being branded a sexual abuser, was finally able to clear his name? Like, to me, this is the scariest part of this whole thing.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

There's no "pro Depp" and "pro Heard." There's only people who understand the outcome of the trial and the verdict that was rendered, and people who don't.

This is like saying people who watched the game yesterday are "pro Tampa" because they're trying to tell you that the Lightning won, and all the media sites that are showing clips and writing articles about how the Lightning won are just not "pro Rangers."

"Here's a video showing Tampa scoring against New York."

"Whatever, you're just too pro Tampa to see that it was a save."

"Umm... the puck is in the net, the goal light is on, everyone is celebrating and the ref signaled it was a goal."

"All I'm saying is that there's a pro Tampa majority out there and they're way more active than the pro New York people, so writing about how Tampa won is going to create more clicks than if they wrote about how New York."

"But... New York didn't win..."

"Again... pro Tampa."


Edit: Also, even if there was a pro Depp/Heard thing... why wouldn't you be on the side of the wrongly accused who, after 6 years of losing work and being branded a sexual abuser, was finally able to clear his name? Like, to me, this is the scariest part of this whole thing.

Were you off in the wilderness the past 3 weeks? There was large swaths of people who were pro-Depp before the trial even happened and it grew as the trial was ongoing. They didn't appear after the verdict happened.

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Cecil - you are completely off your rocker on this opinion. Literally 95% of the content out there is pro-Depp. If you write something pro-Heard right now you are going to get all of the gamergate loons coming after you. That's not to say writing that is right or wrong - but the idea there is incentive to write pro-Heard stories right now is lunacy.

I don't follow you at all. Slandering Depp has been profitable for media rags for 6 years straight. Certain outlets continue to do it after the verdict has been read. Why? Because Depp is a big name and it draws attention.

The pro-depp stuff is mostly found on twitter or reddit, but I'm not sure why you'd be so surprised.. she's perjured herself in Austrailia amongst other things.. perhaps these people saw issues in her story (which the vast majority now do, including a jury). It's not like there were a whole bunch of pro-Depp supporters when these initial allegations came out. Far from it, but once information started to come to light of course you're going to feel for somebody who has been victimized and slandered.

Are you pro-OJ Simpson or something? Geez

[Itse]

What I find fascinating is how completely people are forgetting that this is the second trial over essentially the same stuff, and Depp decisively lost the first trial in England, both in the actual trial and in the appeal.

It's becoming difficult to even google for that trial anymore, which I think is extremely telling. This was a trial in the court of public opinion, a media circus, and it's all about narrative, not facts. That first trial is a pretty strong fact that goes heavily against the current narrative.

Here's the thing: even liars can be abused.

In both the UK and the US trial, Mr Depp's lawyers argued that Ms Heard was lying - to make their case, they attacked her character and claimed that she was in fact the abusive partner.

This is a common defence tactic in sexual assault and domestic violence trials called "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender" or "Darvo", said Mr Stephens. The strategy turns the tables on the alleged victim, shifting the conversation away from "did the accused commit abuse" to "is the alleged victim believable".

"They deny that they did anything, they deny they're the real perpetrator, and they attack the credibility of the individual calling out the abuse, and then reverse the roles of the victim and the offender," Mr Stephens said.

In the UK trial, Mr Stephens said the judge recognised that strategy, and dismissed a lot of the evidence that did not directly address whether Mr Depp committed assault or not.

"Lawyers and judges tend not to fall for it, but it's very, very effective against juries," he said. Men are more likely to believe Darvo arguments, but female jurors are also susceptible.

"People have a paradigm in their mind of how a victim of abuse might be like and how they might behave, and of course we all know that's often false."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61673676

Now, I don't pretend to know the truth. But I do know that if people think they know the truth after the circus that was this second trial, they are fools.

All this process does is highlight how problematic the court of public opinion tends to be.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Itse

What I find fascinating is how completely people are forgetting that this is the second trial over essentially the same stuff, and Depp decisively lost the first trial in England, both in the actual trial and in the appeal.

It's becoming difficult to even google for that trial anymore, which I think is extremely telling. This was a trial in the court of public opinion, a media circus, and it's all about narrative, not facts. That first trial is a pretty strong fact that goes heavily against the current narrative.

Here's the thing: even liars can be abused.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61673676

Now, I don't pretend to know the truth. But I do know that if people think they know the truth after the circus that was this second trial, they are fools.

All this process does is highlight how problematic the court of public opinion tends to be.

The first trial didn’t find that Depp abused Heard, it found that he couldn’t prove that he didn’t.

Just because something is considered a common defence tactic doesn’t mean the party using that tactic isn’t telling the truth.

You claim the trial was about narrative not facts but ironically your post to defend that argument could also be described as such.

[Firebot]

You can tell who has watched the trial here, and who have read the media narrative of the trial and made their opinions off that narrative.

The UK trial was a debacle, because the judge took Amber Heard's testimony as truth and the judge refused to admit any evidence that could refute the accusation claims. The judge also has a direct family connection with the Sun.

Based off the UK case, it was widely expected at first that Johnny Depp would lose the US case in an even worse fashion, as defamation verdict is much harder in the US.

In the US case however, the key difference was that evidence that could put into question the testimony itself was allowed (as it should be in a fair trial). What we got was undeniable convincing evidence that not only was her whole testimony a lie, all the purported evidence was fabricated by her, down to the bruises and the pictures. Everything she said was a lie and all her proof was proven with convincing corroborating evidence to be false.

For whatever reason, BBC and the Guardian have ran this story that the UK was just since it had a judge ruling, while the US was a public opinion case because it had a jury. That is such a horrible representation of the justice system; Canada uses a Jury for the most serious criminal offenses precisely to have a more fair ruling for the accused. By all accounts, the jury in the US case should have been easier for Amber Heard to win.

That she couldn't win, doesn't make this a public opinion farce after the fact, it's that the evidence was so strong again her testimony, that she met all criteria that would count towards defamation out of malice. Had he lost the case, despite the evidence that was presented, the narrative would have been how the jury was fair and was the first step of justice triumphing over misogamy and a sign of great things to come.

I do hope this case has been a bit of an eye opener for some here on how easily a narrative can be created by the media and mold what they want you to believe, versus the truth.

Interestingly, the division here hasn't been on the left / right spectrum, but of the "watched the case" / "not watched the case but read the news" variety.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The first trial didn’t find that Depp abused Heard, it found that he couldn’t prove that he didn’t.

Just because something is considered a common defence tactic doesn’t mean the party using that tactic isn’t telling the truth.

You claim the trial was about narrative not facts but ironically your post to defend that argument could also be described as such.

This is the thing that gets me. Neither trial was about who abused who (I think they are both spoiled rich narcissist's).

The UK trial was about the UK Sun calling him a 'wife beater' without putting 'alleged' in front of it. There is a different burden of proof there, so the Sun (not Heard) only had to prove that they believed Heard when she said Johnny committed DV on her. Not whether or not he actually did.

The US trial was not about whether or not one party was abusive the other, but whether or not Heard's op-ed defamed Depp. It can be conclusively proven (and was) that that op-ed was the source of a significant downturn in Depp's career.

Neither trial was ever about whether or not one party in the relationship abused the other (as, I believe, DV charges have never been filed by either party on either party). The trials were all about things being said.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

This is the thing that gets me. Neither trial was about who abused who (I think they are both spoiled rich narcissist's).

The UK trial was about the UK Sun calling him a 'wife beater' without putting 'alleged' in front of it. There is a different burden of proof there, so the Sun (not Heard) only had to prove that they believed Heard when she said Johnny committed DV on her. Not whether or not he actually did.

The US trial was not about whether or not one party was abusive the other, but whether or not Heard's op-ed defamed Depp. It can be conclusively proven (and was) that that op-ed was the source of a significant downturn in Depp's career.

Neither trial was ever about whether or not one party in the relationship abused the other (as, I believe, DV charges have never been filed by either party on either party). The trials were all about things being said.

While the UK bit is correct there, the US part isn't quite right. To prove there was defamation in the WAPO OP-ED, Depp's legal team had to prove that Amber's allegations of sexual/physical abuse outlined in the OP-ED were both false, damaging to Depp's career, and done so with malice... So while it is about what was said, it is also about the abuse.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Neither trial was ever about whether or not one party in the relationship abused the other (as, I believe, DV charges have never been filed by either party on either party). The trials were all about things being said.

Sure, but part of rendering a judgement in the UK trial was determining whether there was truth to the assault allegations and some of the statements in the judgement are pretty categorical in that regard:

x) Overall, I conclude that Mr Depp did assault Ms Heard as she and the Defendants have alleged in Incident 2.

v) I conclude that Mr Depp did assault Ms Heard as she and the Defendants have alleged in Incident 7.

Yes, we're talking about a civil standard, but each allegation was considered separately and the judge found that 12 of the 14 ocurred based on the preponderance of evidence. I think you can argue that for several of them that too much weight is given to Heard's testimony, but there are several incidents in there where the evidence is fairly damning.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...ment-FINAL.pdf

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Sure, but part of rendering a judgement in the UK trial was determining whether there was truth to the assault allegations and some of the statements in the judgement are pretty categorical in that regard:

Yes, we're talking about a civil standard, but each allegation was considered separately and the judge found that 12 of the 14 ocurred based on the preponderance of evidence. I think you can argue that for several of them that too much weight is given to Heard's testimony, but there are several incidents in there where the evidence is fairly damning.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...ment-FINAL.pdf

It's like ppl don't read the thread before posting, again read what's been posted multiple times in this thread. The UK suit was a defamation suit against the Tabloid newspaper The Sun and not Amber's claims of abuse. The judge decided to throw out any evidence deemed not relevant to the claims against the paper (i.e. if the paper didn't intentionally publish fake info, it wouldn't matter if it was true/false), took Amber's claims at face value because of her charitable donations to ACLU "I recognise that there were other elements to the divorce settlement as well, but her donation of the $ 7 million to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-digger." (even though this ended up not being true at all once testimony/financials proving she didn't make the donations at all were allowed) and did not allow a lot of evidence to counter claims of actual abuse by Amber based on Depp's "multiple substances of abuse" made him less credible/it was not relevant to defamation case against The Sun. Not to mention the Judge's son works directly for Newsgroup, the company named in the lawsuit so is a huge conflict of interest there which should have required him to recuse himself from the proceedings.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

It's like ppl don't read the thread before posting, again read what's been posted multiple times in this thread. The UK suit was a defamation suit against the Tabloid newspaper The Sun and not Amber's claims of abuse. The judge decided to throw out any evidence deemed not relevant to the claims against the paper (i.e. if the paper didn't intentionally publish fake info, it wouldn't matter if it was true/false), took Amber's claims at face value because of her charitable donations to ACLU "I recognise that there were other elements to the divorce settlement as well, but her donation of the $ 7 million to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-digger." (even though this ended up not being true at all once testimony/financials proving she didn't make the donations at all were allowed) and did not allow a lot of evidence to counter claims of actual abuse by Amber based on Depp's "multiple substances of abuse" made him less credible/it was not relevant to defamation case against The Sun. Not to mention the Judge's son works directly for Newsgroup, the company named in the lawsuit so is a huge conflict of interest there which should have required him to recuse himself from the proceedings.

Seems more that it’s like people are up their own ass about this case for the most bizarre reasons. Personally, glad Johnny got some justice. You can’t defame people, pretty simple. Amber came off immensely unlikeable, untrustworthy, and obviously bad. Who is THE abuser in the relationship? I don’t know, who cares? They both seem ####ty and there’s evidence they’ve done ####ty things to each other. They seem like a great couple.

That said, the knots people are twisting themselves into to pick a side and have it mean something are hilarious. Some of the criticisms you’re making about the UK trial are mostly meaningless. The judge didn’t allow evidence of Amber abusing Johnny? In a trial centred around proving whether it was ok to say Johnny abused Amber? You don’t say. Maybe because it IS irrelevant. Oh, the judge didn’t think she was a gold digger because she said she donated to charity and SHE ACTUALLY hadn’t? What was the trial about again? Whether Amber was a gold digger? No? Cool, seems irrelevant either way. And, at the end of the day, what’s the goal in picking apart everything wrong with the UK trial and treating this one as gospel, the perfect vision of what a trial should be? What do you, or anyone else really, stand to gain from it? Is it easier to rewatch Pirates of the Caribbean eliminating any notion from your mind that Depp might be kinda ####ty? Do you just want to go back to simpler times where you could watch Rum Diary and think “man, we were so young.” It’s honestly bizarre. And kind of gross, because the whole thing ends up as entertainment and a mockery of a real trial made and female victims of abuse would have to go through.

It seems like everyone got what they wanted out of this trial, which was to stir people up about a celebrity circus show or get stirred up by one. Amber is the bad guy! Johnny is the bad guy! No wait, the media is the bad guy! Is the court system the bad guy! Ok, just this judge or that judge is the bad guy! Lawyers are the bad guys! It was like a buffet for people to make it about whatever they hate.

One of them was writing fake notes and talking about bees while the other was delivering meme-able quip after quip and people actually think this was a serious thing worth giving attention to.

To anyone saying things like “You can tell who watched the trial and who didn’t”… please, if you’re suggesting there’s anything inherently good about having sat through and spent real time on that trial without being paid to do so, I implore you to go for more walks, make more friends, and discover any of the more blessed things life has to offer. Go forth and touch grass, my children.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The cocaine on the stand video posted in this thread is an example of the lunacy of the online coverage and the stuff that people buy into. Obviously its not true and the full video shows what is happening - but people casually following this stuff online believe she is completely off her rocker and would do that.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/am...cocaine-trial/

I've been to enough music festivals to have seen 1,000 people do 1,000 bumps. Try as I may, I can't see that clip as anything other than someone doing a bump, I'm not at all surprised people went wild with that one. I doubt it was cocaine, I think it was probably something meant to stimulate crying but it wasn't enough.