Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard

[bluejays]

I'm completely in the minority here but I don't get the nations fascination with this trial. Everywhere you clicked it was dumped on and you had to read about it. Even weirder is that people are siding with one or another. They're both lowlife idiots putting on a show and somehow we have to like one or the other? I don't like and don't care about either, and take no pride in one winning over the other. I just don't care, and am glad this is over with.

[PeteMoss]

The coverage and just online information on this was wildly one-sided to the extent that I don't trust it.

The UK court judge said -

The British judge ultimately ruled that the allegations against Depp were “substantially true,” writing in a 2020 ruling that “the great majority of alleged assaults … have been proved to the civil standard.”

They are likely both terrible people. But I think what this shows is another danger of social media algorithms. I assume very few of us here followed this much beyond the memes and the wackos on twitter who manage to get things trending. We should all be careful coming to any conclusions based on that.

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The coverage and just online information on this was wildly one-sided to the extent that I don't trust it.

The UK court judge said -

They are likely both terrible people. But I think what this shows is another danger of social media algorithms. I assume very few of us here followed this much beyond the memes and the wackos on twitter who manage to get things trending. We should all be careful coming to any conclusions based on that.

I didn't follow the UK trial but apparently that judge had his own issues and really should have recused himself. I thought the judge in Virginia was fair. I'll give it to you that it's baffling how both trials yielded wildly different results. But if you paid attention to this one she's actually lied on the stand multiple times, and the evidence /process was thorough here

[FlameOn]

It was one judge in the UK case that basically ruled on the basis that "well Amber is basically a good person and she donated to charity so we should trust her" and there were pictures of Amber hurt. Both of which ended up being false. The UK it was a case of tabloid just have to prove that Depp was a wife beater rather than Depp proving that he wasn't. UK judge got duped.

[Dion]

Late to the party. I don't understand why this got so much media attention.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Dion

Late to the party. I don't understand why this got so much media attention.

Yeah... crazy how people would be so interested in one of the most beloved actors of all-time fighting to get his life back from a physical and psychological abuser who maliciously lied to the whole world in her quest to ruin him for divorcing her.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah this case was mission accomplished as Depp went from Hollywood outcast to back in business. Heard on the other hand is going to be a tough sell to producers going forward as any career she has left is likely in B movies.

I know Depp said he doesn't want another Pirates movie but money talks and I would think Disney is already thinking about it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Dion

Late to the party. I don't understand why this got so much media attention.

Anytime a celebrity is involved in a televised court battle it's going to get a lot of attention. Once news broke out about someo of the behaviour (pooping on beds, etc) you knew the masses would get roped in. This is a rare look into the private life of what is one of the biggest hollywood celebrities and you only have to look at all the grocery store tabloids to see that the public has great interest in the private lives of celebrities.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The coverage and just online information on this was wildly one-sided to the extent that I don't trust it.

The UK court judge said -

They are likely both terrible people. But I think what this shows is another danger of social media algorithms. I assume very few of us here followed this much beyond the memes and the wackos on twitter who manage to get things trending. We should all be careful coming to any conclusions based on that.

I followed a lot of it. I can definitively say Amber is a psycho hose -beast that will eat your soul and blame you for it. Johnny is a generous, self-absorbed, harmless junkie who's annoying to live with. This isnt two crappy people who got stuck with each other, its a clear cut case of abuser and abusee.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by calumniate

I didn't follow the UK trial but apparently that judge had his own issues and really should have recused himself. I thought the judge in Virginia was fair. I'll give it to you that it's baffling how both trials yielded wildly different results. But if you paid attention to this one she's actually lied on the stand multiple times, and the evidence /process was thorough here

I guess my question is - what is your source the UK judge issues and should have recused himself?

I mean it may be true what you are saying - I have no idea. But I worry about people just getting biased views based off what is clearly a one-sided social media pull.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I guess my question is - what is your source the UK judge issues and should have recused himself?

I mean it may be true what you are saying - I have no idea. But I worry about people just getting biased views based off what is clearly a one-sided social media pull.

You didn't pay attention at all. UK judge accepted Amber's "evidence" about being abused at face value and there wasn't the scrutiny to it because she was "basically good for donating to charity". All of which were proven false in the US case in both cross and Amber's own statements and expert testimony. The judge threw out almost all evidence presented of domestic abuse against Depp because he was a drug user. Both central decision points against Depp in the UK case were shown to be false when the evidence was allowed. Judge made a personal decision on who he thought was more believable without allowing evidence presented that Amber had lied, there's gotta be some bias there.

Of the 14 alleged assaults heard in the court, the judge found 12 incidents of domestic violence had occurred.

Judge Justice Nicol had said on 2 November 2020 that The Sun had proved what was in the article to be “substantially true”.

“I accept her evidence of the nature of the assaults he committed against her. They must have been terrifying,” the judge had said.

Justice Nicol had said that “a recurring theme in Mr Depp’s evidence was that Ms Heard had constructed a hoax and that she had done this as an ‘insurance policy’,” and the actress was a “gold-digger”. He concluded that he did not accept that “characterisation” of Heard.

Speaking on her YouTube live stream, the former LA District Attorney said she believed several factors could explain why Depp won his UK case, but lost his action in the UK.

One of the most telling is the fact that Baker believes the judge in the UK case put “great weight” in Heard’s testimony that she’d donated her entire divorce settlement from Depp to two different charities.

In the US case, Heard admitted that this was not true.

“The UK has a different system of law, with a different judge, with a different burden, with a different question,” Baker said.

“The evidence in the UK ... the judge disregarded a lot of Johnny Depp’s evidence and the judge took into great weight that the money was donated.”

Baker added: “This jury saw evidence that was narrowly tailored and constructed based on our system of law. A different system of law than in the UK.

“In the UK, the judge seemed to disregard a lot of what Johnny Depp said because he was using substances. This jury was not swayed by that.

“This jury seemed to believe Johnny Depp based on their verdict.

“And I realise that is probably disappointing to Amber Heard. But I don’t think this is a setback [for people who allege domestic violence].

“I think it shows that a jury can sit down and look at the evidence and decide what the facts are.”

https://7news.com.au/entertainment/c...rial-c-7023188

[csnarpy]

Originally Posted by fleury

I'm completely in the minority here but I don't get the nations fascination with this trial. Everywhere you clicked it was dumped on and you had to read about it. Even weirder is that people are siding with one or another. They're both lowlife idiots putting on a show and somehow we have to like one or the other? I don't like and don't care about either, and take no pride in one winning over the other. I just don't care, and am glad this is over with.

Time for

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

You didn't pay attention at all. UK judge accepted Amber's "evidence" about being abused at face value and there wasn't the scrutiny to it because she was "basically good for donating to charity". All of which were proven false in the US case in both cross and Amber's own statements and expert testimony. The judge threw out almost all evidence presented of domestic abuse against Depp because he was a drug user. Both central decision points against Depp in the UK case were shown to be false when the evidence was allowed. Judge made a personal decision on who he thought was more believable without allowing evidence presented that Amber had lied, there's gotta be some bias there.




https://7news.com.au/entertainment/c...rial-c-7023188

Seems pretty bold to assume a judge is biased.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Seems pretty bold to assume a judge is biased.

Every human being a collection of biases, the ability to look beyond your biases when presented when information is provided to you is what makes someone objective.

Two questions that should be answered to be completely objective in this case:

• Does a pledge for a charitable donation prevent a person from being a domestic abuser?
• Does substance abuse automatically make person a liar?

This judge decided yes for both questions and prevented the evidence from being presented to show would have "no" to both questions. That's not an assumption, its based on court records and judge statements from the UK case itself.

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Seems pretty bold to assume a judge is biased.

https://www.newsweek.com/johnny-depp...-trial-1712025

Here's some of it.. his son was affiliated with the Sun, amongst other things.

[Bagor]

Depp-Heard trial: Why Johnny Depp lost in the UK but won in the US

In 2020, Hollywood actor Johnny Depp lost a UK libel lawsuit against the Sun newspaper. But on Wednesday, he won a similar lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard in a US courtroom.

At the start of his recent trial, many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK, because the US has very strong free speech protections.

The fact that the jury found that Ms Heard was guilty of defamation with an article in which she claimed she was a victim of domestic abuse means they didn't believe her testimony.

Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer, told the BBC that it's "very rare" that essentially the same case is tried on two sides of the pond and gets different results.

He believes the main factor that influenced Mr Depp's victory in America was the fact that his US trial was before a jury while his UK trial, over an article in the British tabloid that called him a "wife-beater", was before a judge only.

"Amber Heard has comprehensively lost in the court of public opinion, and in front of the jury," he said.

Three questions from the Depp-Heard trial answered
Depp wins defamation case against Heard
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 rolls 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.

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

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Every human being a collection of biases, the ability to look beyond your biases when presented when information is provided to you is what makes someone objective.

Two questions that should be answered to be completely objective in this case:

• Does a pledge for a charitable donation prevent a person from being a domestic abuser?
• Does substance abuse automatically make person a liar?

This judge decided yes for both questions and prevented the evidence from being presented to show would have "no" to both questions. That's not an assumption, its based on court records and judge statements from the UK case itself.

In most cases - I'd trust a judge over a jury in a public trial like this where there is a clear winner on the PR side.

You may very well be right in this case however.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by fleury

I'm completely in the minority here but I don't get the nations fascination with this trial. Everywhere you clicked it was dumped on and you had to read about it. Even weirder is that people are siding with one or another. They're both lowlife idiots putting on a show and somehow we have to like one or the other? I don't like and don't care about either, and take no pride in one winning over the other. I just don't care, and am glad this is over with.

From what I've seen, both parties acted like entitled brats, to an extreme degree. In my social media feed, I'm seeing multiple women posting messages supporting Depp. While the way he acted may not have been criminal, it's hardly deserving of any kind of praise.

This looked like a toxic relationship with constant abuse from both sides. I don't see how anyone could praise either party.

Although...the Depp memes and quotes from the trial were kind of funny. The only good thing to come out of all of this. Watching Depp deal with a young and insecure lawyer was pretty hilarious at points.

[woob]

Wasn't it proven that she didn't in fact donate any funds yet at this point, had 13 months to do so, but still hadn't? She pledged to donate though.

[Cappy]

Two different systems of law.

One case was a judge, the other a jury.

Depp had the charm offensive. I know quite a few family lawyers who watched the trial while working and noted that Depp is just too damn charming. If a lawyer could take that away from the trial, it would be hard for a layperson jury not to be captivated by captain jack sparrow.

Also, on judge rulings and issues, that is why we have appeal courts. Judges mess up all the time, sometimes they are appealed sometimes they arent. For example, the UK decision could be appealed based on the weight the judge ascribed to specific evidence etc.