International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard thing (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307772)

Bob001 14th July 2022 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowdweller (Post 13855165)
That was not and never would have been an option. Leaving aside the extremely questionable notion of letting Depp's team set the narrative regarding the allegations of abuse, Heard was countersuing over Andrew Waldeman's statements that Heard's allegations of abuse were a hoax.
....

That's another stupid failure by Heard's lawyers. The trial should have been about her column alone. She didn't have to respond to Depp's lawyer at all, let alone sue him for $100 million.

As I think about it, she might just have released a statement along the lines of "Mr. Depp's lawyer is paid to say whatever Mr. Depp wants. I simply observe that a UK court, after reviewing all the evidence and hearing all the testimony, ruled that a newspapers's allegations that Mr. Depp is a 'wife-beater' are 'substantially true'." That would have been a plain statement of fact.

Shadowdweller 16th July 2022 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13855377)
That's another stupid failure by Heard's lawyers. The trial should have been about her column alone. She didn't have to respond to Depp's lawyer at all, let alone sue him for $100 million.

As I think about it, she might just have released a statement along the lines of "Mr. Depp's lawyer is paid to say whatever Mr. Depp wants. I simply observe that a UK court, after reviewing all the evidence and hearing all the testimony, ruled that a newspapers's allegations that Mr. Depp is a 'wife-beater' are 'substantially true'." That would have been a plain statement of fact.

Or, if we're playing let's pretend, Heard could have chosen NOT to fabricate claims of physical and sexual abuse in the first place.

Heard's legal team were hardly any more competent. They tried to use variations of photographs as evidence of multiple chronologically distinct incidents (i.e. Exhibit A shows what happened on date X, Variant Exhibit A shows what happened on date Y). They repeatedly made or let Heard make easily falsifiable statements. They called in a police domestic abuse expert that disputed the narrative they were trying to push. They called in a photographic expert that was entirely unable to dispute previous claims made by Depp's team. They called in a psychiatrist who claimed he could diagnose the extent of drug-induced brain damage... from clips of Depp's films. They wasted huge amounts of limited rebuttal time on infantile semantic games.

theprestige 16th July 2022 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13855377)
That's another stupid failure by Heard's lawyers. The trial should have been about her column alone. She didn't have to respond to Depp's lawyer at all, let alone sue him for $100 million.

As I think about it, she might just have released a statement along the lines of "Mr. Depp's lawyer is paid to say whatever Mr. Depp wants. I simply observe that a UK court, after reviewing all the evidence and hearing all the testimony, ruled that a newspapers's allegations that Mr. Depp is a 'wife-beater' are 'substantially true'." That would have been a plain statement of fact.

Ah yes, the "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" tactic for escaping a defamation verdict.

Gord_in_Toronto 2nd August 2022 06:45 PM

Just to keep the pot boiling:

The biggest bombshells from unsealed Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard court docs

(My first. And most likely last post in this thread. :covereyes )

:popcorn1

Bob001 3rd August 2022 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto (Post 13869255)


Here's an interesting revelation:
Quote:

As The Daily Beast reported, audio and photos submitted by Depp as evidence include metadata that show "the items were 'Modified' days before their production in this case." Metadata is information written into digital files. Depp only submitted one modified version of audio files, yet metadata indicated the file had been created, changed about a year after its creation, then modified again. "This raises significant concerns of manipulation, alteration, and deletion."

Heard's team requested the full, unedited version of audio evidence, but their repeated requests were denied. Photo evidence submitted by Depp of injuries he allegedly received from Heard also reveals metadata signs of manipulation, which leads to concern that evidence may have been altered.
https://www.salon.com/2022/08/01/dep...prescriptions/

So Depp may have submitted doctored evidence, and Heard's lawyers weren't allowed to find out?

IsThisTheLife 4th August 2022 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13869825)
Here's an interesting revelation:

https://www.salon.com/2022/08/01/dep...prescriptions/

So Depp may have submitted doctored evidence, and Heard's lawyers weren't allowed to find out?

Salon, eh? Is that an example of your preferred reading?

In the meantime, Heard refused to submit any of her devices for forensic examination (Depp handed his over without hesitation) which wasn't permitted to be raised in court but was likely given to the jury in their instructions. Eventually, in lieu of them and one month before the first day of the trial, Heard's team provided data-dumps of thousands upon thousands of files, leaving no chance of their being sifted though and analysed. That they weren't sanctioned over this is somewhat puzzling to many.

theprestige 4th August 2022 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13869825)
Here's an interesting revelation:

https://www.salon.com/2022/08/01/dep...prescriptions/

So Depp may have submitted doctored evidence, and Heard's lawyers weren't allowed to find out?

Sure, a lot of things MAY HAVE happened.

But the verdict did not hinge on the extent of Depp's injuries.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.