IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th June 2022, 01:33 PM   #721
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
......
Disney and Warner both unexpectedly axed him from big-budget projects using pretexts anyone can take or leave, but under the circumstances I'm sceptical about them.
We can all believe what we want. The question here is what was proven in court. Industry gossip isn't proof.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2022, 01:39 PM   #722
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 772
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
We can all believe what we want. The question here is what was proven in court. Industry gossip isn't proof.
But you just quoted someone giving us "industry gossip"!

(He shoots! He scores!)
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2022, 01:46 PM   #723
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
But you just quoted someone giving us "industry gossip"!
....
The difference is that she testified about what she personally observed and experienced, not "some people say something might .....".
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2022, 01:54 PM   #724
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 772
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The difference is that she testified about what she personally observed and experienced, not "some people say something might .....".
"The difference" to what? (This should be good).
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2022, 02:05 PM   #725
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 772
Incidentally, I'm not actually arguing that Depp hadn't become less professional and more erratic/unreliable/'problematic' in the mid 2010's, but I've already pointed out it would actually to be expected as a result of what it's now been proven he was enduring at the hands of Amber Heard. He was undoubtedly at an all-time low in terms of 'self medicating' (and who knows, I absolutely wouldn't put past it Heard to have been 'spiking' him occasionally - she seems like the type who would have made a name as a 'poisoner' in times past)
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2022, 02:07 PM   #726
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,325
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Very clever. But I don't think it would go quite that way. The question is could she be proven to be lying with malice about a matter that a court has determined to be true?
Tell us more about what exactly the court determined to be true.

Did the court prove that Depp did in fact beat his wife? To what standard of proof? What evidence was presented, to prove this?

Or did the court prove that The Sun's allegations did not rise to the level of libel, according to UK laws defining libel?

I think we both understand that it is possible to say untrue things, without doing so in such a way as to be convicted of a crime of lying.

So when you say a UK court proved that it was true that Depp is a wife-beater, I very much want to see your detailed explanation of the trial and its conclusion.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2022, 02:09 PM   #727
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,989
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
A UK court found Depp liable for multiple counts of domestic abuse, a verdict upheld on appeal.
No, it didn't find he was liable. The judge found he had committed domestic abuse, but no liability attaches to that. And the verdict wasn't upheld on appeal, the appeal wasn't even authorized to be lodged, which doesn't add any more weight to that verdict.

And that court decision has some serious problems with it.

Quote:
Is it a lie for someone to believe and rely on a court judgment that's a matter of public record?
This has no connection to the post you were responding to. Let me quote it again:

Quote:
It would be absolutely wrong for a jury to reason their way to a conviction on this basis.
A jury isn't just someone, and an honest mistake is still a mistake.

Quote:
Suppose Heard had said in the column: "A UK court found Johnny Depp liable for 12 counts of domestic abuse." That would be a statement of plain fact, no different from a newspaper report.
No, that would have been a statement of prophecy, since the WP Heard column was published in 2018, and the UK trial verdict came down in 2020.

Quote:
As I think about it, it looks like Heard's lawyers could have adopted a completely different approach with a much narrower focus.
Yes, they could have. They probably should have. But they didn't, possibly under her direction.

Quote:
Heard didn't write the headline.
Doesn't matter. She adopted it through republication.

Quote:
The defense could have brought in, maybe under subpoena, the editor who wrote the headline to testify that it was intended to reflect the totality of Heard's column, which described abuse going back to childhood, not just by Depp.
Doesn't matter. It's her intent in republication, not the editor's, which matters.

Quote:
The lawyers could have demonstrated that the second statement was a matter of historical fact
Doesn't matter. If it creates a false and defamatory implication, and that implication is intended, then the literal truth doesn't suffice as protection.

Quote:
The third statement
Same as above.

Quote:
In this case, the defense only had to prove that the statements were not deliberate lies told with malice. That shouldn't have been very hard.
Had she not invented a whole bunch of outrageous lies and been caught out on the stand multiple times, it probably wouldn't have been.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 5th June 2022 at 02:16 PM. Reason: added link
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2022, 02:22 PM   #728
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
......
So when you say a UK court proved that it was true that Depp is a wife-beater, I very much want to see your detailed explanation of the trial and its conclusion.

From the UK decision (last of 585 paragraphs):
Quote:
The Claimant has not succeeded in his action for libel. Although he has proved the necessary elements of his cause of action in libel, the Defendants have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true. I have reached these conclusions having examined in detail the 14 incidents on which the Defendants rely as well as the overarching considerations which the Claimant submitted I should take into account. In those circumstances, Parliament has said that a defendant has a complete defence. It has not been necessary to consider the fairness of the article or the defendants' 'malice' because those are immaterial to the statutory defence of truth. The parties will have an opportunity to make submissions in writing as to the precise terms of the order which should follow my decision.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2022, 02:26 PM   #729
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 772
Quote:
Suppose Heard had said in the column: "A UK court found Johnny Depp liable for 12 counts of domestic abuse." That would be a statement of plain fact, no different from a newspaper report.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, that would have been a statement of prophecy, since the WP Heard column was published in 2018, and the UK trial verdict came down in 2020.
Bob complimented you on how "clever" your imaginary legal banter was earlier, Ziggurat (oops) - theprestige. A bit too clever apparently.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."

Last edited by IsThisTheLife; 5th June 2022 at 02:34 PM.
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2022, 09:55 PM   #730
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 40,600
I'm siding with Ziggurat, theprestige, et al in this, though I've been against them in political threads in the past. The truth has no bias.

They have watched the trial, and brought here relevant findings. I've been following the thread.

I know at least one woman who has a terrible temper, who sees hostility in mundane things.

I can fully believe that Amber Heard went on a rant and attacked Johnny Depp and then perceived his defences as attacks, being blinded to her own part by her temper.
__________________
"We stigmatize and send to the margins
people who trigger in us the feelings we want to avoid"
- Melinda Gates, "The Moment of Lift".
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 02:27 AM   #731
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,869
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
I'm siding with Ziggurat, theprestige, et al in this, though I've been against them in political threads in the past. The truth has no bias.

They have watched the trial, and brought here relevant findings. I've been following the thread.

I know at least one woman who has a terrible temper, who sees hostility in mundane things.

I can fully believe that Amber Heard went on a rant and attacked Johnny Depp and then perceived his defences as attacks, being blinded to her own part by her temper.
And me... and like you, I have been on the opposite sides from them in most debates here.

I didn't watch all of the trial, but I watched a lot of it, and I came away with the same impression as both Zig and theprestige... that Amber Heard is both a compulsive liar and a "drama queen". She clearly has some serious psychological issues going on there - she needs professional help.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 05:31 AM   #732
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,407
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Oh okay, so no actual, substantiated talks. Thanks.
I don't think there's ever been an official reason given by Disney. But if you want to ignore the testimony of people who would have been involved in those discussions then you do you.

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I ask again, if Heard had stated in her column as a matter of fact "A UK court convicted Johnny Depp of 12 counts of domestic abuse," would that have been defamatory? if so, then every media outlet that reported it or commented on it would be liable.
I would probably say yes, since Depp wasn't convicted of anything in that trial. I don't know if the other outlets would be liable for quoting the column outright and not doing any actual journalism to see if that was true.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 05:50 AM   #733
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 772
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
I'm siding with Ziggurat, theprestige, et al in this, though I've been against them in political threads in the past. The truth has no bias.

They have watched the trial, and brought here relevant findings. I've been following the thread.

I know at least one woman who has a terrible temper, who sees hostility in mundane things.

I can fully believe that Amber Heard went on a rant and attacked Johnny Depp and then perceived his defences as attacks, being blinded to her own part by her temper.
Actually, in Heard's solipsistic reality Depp's refusal to stay in her presence and fight her until she had sated herself in one of her histrionic fits was abuse. She as good as said exactly this in a couple of the recordings in evidence.

But yes, of course he would have physically defended himself (although you can't really do that when the abuse takes the form of heavy items being thrown at you, which Amber Heard evidently has a propensity for).

Here's the bottom line;

For some years, decades now, if you are a man and you defend yourself when you are physically attacked by a woman, or a woman is destroying your property in front of you (not uncommon) and you physically restrain her, you are doing so at your peril.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 07:25 AM   #734
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Oh, I absolutely do have a way to substantiate by objective standards. Just watch her testimony, and look at the pictures. There isn't any ambiguity.

The problem is that looking at the evidence is the one thing you refuse to do. Yet you continue to look down on the people who did what you refuse to do.
My opinion on whether or not Amber Heard committed a crime is worth exactly the same as yours: Nothing. There's a big difference between saying that Amber Heard lied and establishing that the elements of the crime of perjury have been met.

If this was a discussion about literally any other potential crime taking place, not only would you understand that, but it would be your default position.

Last edited by johnny karate; 6th June 2022 at 07:47 AM. Reason: typo
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 07:28 AM   #735
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry View Post
I love this new world we live in where apparently, unless someone is prosecuted for perjury, they must have been telling the truth.

Except for those hundreds of thousands of cases where there was conflicting testimony.
Yes, this is a ridiculous argument. You should definitely roast anyone making it.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 07:40 AM   #736
Thurkon
Critical Thinker
 
Thurkon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 359
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
A civil trial is essentially a private dispute between two parties. It doesn't involve criminal laws or the power of the state. It shouldn't be turned into a celebrity reality show. Press reports -- and I have more confidence in the mainstream media than you do -- serve the public interest sufficiently.
Except when they absolutely don't. My wife, and by extension me, watched a huge amount of the trial almost every day (and she You Tubed the stuff she missed). A huge bulk of what I'm seeing in the press are articles about how the verdict affects all women, how its going to silence victims, and the future of their acting careers. Its a lot of journalists opining on the verdict with an obvious agenda, and none of it has anything to do with reality. It's as if they didn't watch the trial and see any of the evidence, and are implying that this was some kind of grave miscarriage of justice and an insult to victims everywhere.

The reality is: all of the evidence seemed to imply HE was actually the victim, which has largely gone ignored. Why? My guess is that it doesn't fit nicely with whatever narrative they want to use. Politically, I'm pretty damn left, but the media covering this case and the stories they have generated are baffling.
__________________
"No, no, no...my name is spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced Throatwobbler Mangrove."

-Monty Python's Flying Circus
Thurkon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 07:41 AM   #737
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
That's BS. He was completely black-listed by the two biggest players in Hollyweird - Disney and Warner, and anyone who doesn't think pathologically knows it.

ETA >> these were only the ones with whom he'd worked in recent years, who had to explicitly cut ties, the black-listing undoubtedly extended to the other studios.
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Incidentally, I'm not actually arguing that Depp hadn't become less professional and more erratic/unreliable/'problematic' in the mid 2010's, but I've already pointed out it would actually to be expected as a result of what it's now been proven he was enduring at the hands of Amber Heard. He was undoubtedly at an all-time low in terms of 'self medicating' (and who knows, I absolutely wouldn't put past it Heard to have been 'spiking' him occasionally - she seems like the type who would have made a name as a 'poisoner' in times past)
The evolution of conspiracy theories are fun to watch.

Johnny Depp was blacklisted because of the lies that Amber Heard told about him!

Okay, maybe, he was blacklisted because of his own behavior, but that was probably because Amber Heard poisoned him!


This is one of the people, by the way, I'm supposed to trust for unbiased, objective commentary about the trial.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 07:43 AM   #738
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
I don't think there's ever been an official reason given by Disney. But if you want to ignore the testimony of people who would have been involved in those discussions then you do you.
Yes thank you, I will be ignoring the self-serving, uncorroborated testimony.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 08:01 AM   #739
Thurkon
Critical Thinker
 
Thurkon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 359
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Gosh, that sounds really damning, and I'm certain that you're presenting all the facts objectively and completely. No way there was a rebuttal witness who contradicted any this, right?
No, there wasn't. You can't really argue against the metadata. It doesn't necessarily mean she altered the pictures, but somebody did, and she presented them as evidence. And chances are she knew about it and lied.


Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
To Ziggurat's earlier point, it's unfair to assume guilt on Manson's part just yet. But we'll see how the trial goes. Even if his guilt is made clear and he loses, we're still going to have the same alt-right trolls and misogynists engaging in some really ugly behavior.
No, I wouldn't call an untried man guilty, but we shall see. And there's always going to be misogynists, but calling all people who hate on Amber Heard misogynists is really quite inaccurate. I love women, and had little opinion of Ms Heard pre-trial (I quite like her in Aquaman), but after watching the bulk of the trial she comes off as quite an awful person. Now, I don't know her personally, but neither do the Depp haters know him...and that certainly hasn't stopped them from forming an opinion.
__________________
"No, no, no...my name is spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced Throatwobbler Mangrove."

-Monty Python's Flying Circus
Thurkon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 08:10 AM   #740
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,989
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
My opinion on whether or not Amber Heard committed a crime is worth exactly the same as yours: Nothing. There's a big difference between saying that Amber Heard lied and establishing that the elements of the crime of perjury have been met.
You can witness all the elements yourself. Again, it's not complex. You just have to pay attention.

If you don't want to pay attention because the issue doesn't matter to you, that's no skin off my nose. But you can't make not paying attention an actual virtue, nor does it make sense to look down on those who did.

Quote:
If this was a discussion about literally any other potential crime taking place, not only would you understand that, but it would be your default position.
That's really not true. It makes sense to withhold judgment in cases where the facts aren't all known, but this isn't one of those cases. The facts are all known. I even gave you all the facts in a prior post. It's perfectly acceptable to reach a conclusion when you have all the relevant facts. You don't need to defer to authorities on something so simple.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 08:18 AM   #741
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,989
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Gosh, that sounds really damning, and I'm certain that you're presenting all the facts objectively and completely.
You could actually check, if you cared.

Quote:
No way there was a rebuttal witness who contradicted any this, right?
Heard's defense had a rebuttal witness who made a few claims of note regarding photos. One: metadata indicating the program had been saved in Photos 3.0 (or earlier versions) doesn't demonstrate that the photos were edited, only that they could have been. Which is correct, but doesn't get her off the hook. Two: original versions of several photos with Photos 3.0 tags were identified, and were visually the same as the photos submitted. Which I have no reason to dispute, but it doesn't include the items in question below.

No witness for Heard rebutted the fact that she presented the same photo has being from two different incidents at very different times, and no witness for Heard rebutted the fact that one of her photos was an edited version of another photo, even though she claimed it was a different photo taken under different lighting.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 08:20 AM   #742
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,989
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
This is one of the people, by the way, I'm supposed to trust for unbiased, objective commentary about the trial.
You don't have to trust anyone about the trial. You can watch it yourself.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 08:30 AM   #743
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You can witness all the elements yourself. Again, it's not complex. You just have to pay attention.

If you don't want to pay attention because the issue doesn't matter to you, that's no skin off my nose. But you can't make not paying attention an actual virtue, nor does it make sense to look down on those who did.

That's really not true. It makes sense to withhold judgment in cases where the facts aren't all known, but this isn't one of those cases. The facts are all known. I even gave you all the facts in a prior post. It's perfectly acceptable to reach a conclusion when you have all the relevant facts. You don't need to defer to authorities on something so simple.

Perjury in Virginia is described as follows:
Quote:
...if any person in any written declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury pursuant to § 8.01-4.3 willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe is true, he is guilty of perjury, punishable as a Class 5 felony.

Please let me know when and how the highlighted element of the crime was established.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 08:32 AM   #744
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You don't have to trust anyone about the trial. You can watch it yourself.
I certainly can. But that doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to discuss it with anyone here.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 08:38 AM   #745
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by Thurkon View Post
No, there wasn't. You can't really argue against the metadata. It doesn't necessarily mean she altered the pictures, but somebody did, and she presented them as evidence. And chances are she knew about it and lied.
Per Ziggurat's subsequent post, it seems there was in fact a rebuttal witness. Perhaps it was a terrible witness who failed spectacularly to rebut anything, but don't you think it would have been worthwhile and - you know, accurate - to acknowledge this witness instead of pretending like the witness didn't exist?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 08:39 AM   #746
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You could actually check, if you cared.

Heard's defense had a rebuttal witness who made a few claims of note regarding photos. One: metadata indicating the program had been saved in Photos 3.0 (or earlier versions) doesn't demonstrate that the photos were edited, only that they could have been. Which is correct, but doesn't get her off the hook. Two: original versions of several photos with Photos 3.0 tags were identified, and were visually the same as the photos submitted. Which I have no reason to dispute, but it doesn't include the items in question below.

No witness for Heard rebutted the fact that she presented the same photo has being from two different incidents at very different times, and no witness for Heard rebutted the fact that one of her photos was an edited version of another photo, even though she claimed it was a different photo taken under different lighting.
The fact that up until your post I was being led to believe that there was not a rebuttal witness is just another reason why it's pointless to have these discussions on an internet message board.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 08:43 AM   #747
Thurkon
Critical Thinker
 
Thurkon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 359
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
In an interview, Heard's lawyer said this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-...ny-depp-trial/

Is this true? Was the defense prohibited from presenting medical evidence? Seems like that raises some doubts about the validity of the verdict.
It doesn't raise doubts, at all. Heard's lawyer has been saying a lot of things, because lawyers who lose in such a public forum (in such a magnificent fashion) certainly need to keep their careers going. Depp's lawyers certainly outdid and outclassed them in every way, and now Heard's team is making any excuse they can. Even if what the lawyer claims about the therapist is true, and who knows if it even is, that's not medical evidence and he knows it. Medical evidence is a police/hospital report. She could lie to her therapist as easily as she seemingly did in the courtroom.

And Depp's assistant? Produce the guy. Stop with the hearsay. That's what got her in trouble with the Kate Moss testimony.
__________________
"No, no, no...my name is spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced Throatwobbler Mangrove."

-Monty Python's Flying Circus
Thurkon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 08:59 AM   #748
Thurkon
Critical Thinker
 
Thurkon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 359
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Johnny Depp won his case. A jury found that Amber Heard defamed him. I don't dispute that. I'm just not sure why it matters if I'm unwilling to get down in the muck and hash out the details of the trial with internet know-it-alls spoiling for a fight.

Personally, if it was me, I would just be satisfied that I'm right instead of being so angry that someone else won't acknowledge it.
Then don't go on an internet message board that specializes in debates. Why on Earth are you here, debating a subject you know nothing about, with zero interest in educating yourself about it in the slightest?
__________________
"No, no, no...my name is spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced Throatwobbler Mangrove."

-Monty Python's Flying Circus
Thurkon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 09:00 AM   #749
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by Thurkon View Post
Then don't go on an internet message board that specializes in debates. Why on Earth are you here, debating a subject you know nothing about, with zero interest in educating yourself about it in the slightest?
I'm not doing the part that's highlighted.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 09:16 AM   #750
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,989
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
The fact that up until your post I was being led to believe that there was not a rebuttal witness is just another reason why it's pointless to have these discussions on an internet message board.
You still don't understand anything.

The rebuttal witness was to the EXIF data showing many photos had "Photos 3" as the source (indicating they had been processed after being taken). And all the rebuttal really said was that this EXIF tag didn't prove the photos were edited, which is true, but doesn't constitute any part of my claim about Heard having lied.

There was no rebuttal witness to Heard having edited one photo she claimed was only taken under different lighting, and to Heard claiming that the same photo represented two different events at different times. That was what I said there was no rebuttal to, and that's still true.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 09:18 AM   #751
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,989
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I certainly can. But that doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to discuss it with anyone here.
Your participation so far has been both worthless and pointless. You have added nothing. You know nothing. Why are you participating in this thread?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 09:27 AM   #752
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,989
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Perjury in Virginia is described as follows:



Please let me know when and how the highlighted element of the crime was established.
I already did. Heard knows that exhibits 712 and 713 are not separate photos in different lighting, because she took the photo herself. She knows that they are the same photo, but one of them was edited to change the color. But she testified to the contrary, under oath. Even when called out, she did not correct the record, but maintained that her original testimony was true.

And we know for certain that this is false, both because they are obviously the same photo (you would never be able to recreate the exact same distance, angle, pose, and even every hair placement), and because the metadata reveal them to be the same photo.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 09:29 AM   #753
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 772
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
The evolution of conspiracy theories are fun to watch.
That's just weak, pathetic and obnoxious even.

Quote:
Johnny Depp was blacklisted because of the lies that Amber Heard told about him!

Okay, maybe, he was blacklisted because of his own behavior, but that was probably because Amber Heard poisoned him!


This is one of the people, by the way, I'm supposed to trust for unbiased, objective commentary about the trial.
I compared her to historic 'poisoners', for centuries a very common way of murdering people with plausible deniability until modern medical science made it more and more difficult to pull off.

Heard is now known to have methodically and ruthlessly set Depp up over the course of several years. Here's my "conspiracy theory" again; if Depp was expected on set at dawn and had to rise at 4AM, what better way to help ruin his reputation than slip him a little extra something to sedate him so deeply he didn't regain consciousness until 8 the next morning? It's not even particularly ingenious, Heard most certainly had motive, means and opportunity, and there's no way I would put something like that past her.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 09:42 AM   #754
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You still don't understand anything.

The rebuttal witness was to the EXIF data showing many photos had "Photos 3" as the source (indicating they had been processed after being taken). And all the rebuttal really said was that this EXIF tag didn't prove the photos were edited, which is true, but doesn't constitute any part of my claim about Heard having lied.

There was no rebuttal witness to Heard having edited one photo she claimed was only taken under different lighting, and to Heard claiming that the same photo represented two different events at different times. That was what I said there was no rebuttal to, and that's still true.
I asked about the existence of a rebuttal witness, not the validity of the rebuttal or the extent to which any particular testimony was rebutted.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 09:45 AM   #755
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,473
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I already did. Heard knows that exhibits 712 and 713 are not separate photos in different lighting, because she took the photo herself. She knows that they are the same photo, but one of them was edited to change the color. But she testified to the contrary, under oath. Even when called out, she did not correct the record, but maintained that her original testimony was true.

And we know for certain that this is false, both because they are obviously the same photo (you would never be able to recreate the exact same distance, angle, pose, and even every hair placement), and because the metadata reveal them to be the same photo.
Maybe it's how she uses the words “pledged” and “donated” interchangeably? She just uses the terms "edited" and "not edited" interchangeably.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 09:45 AM   #756
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your participation so far has been both worthless and pointless. You have added nothing. You know nothing. Why are you participating in this thread?
First of all, I'm devastated that you think this.

Secondly, feel free to stop engaging with me. I came here to discuss what this verdict will mean for Depp's career going forward, not capitulate to the demands of posters who insist that I debate them on the details of the trial.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 09:46 AM   #757
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 772
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You still don't understand anything.

The rebuttal witness was to the EXIF data showing many photos had "Photos 3" as the source (indicating they had been processed after being taken). And all the rebuttal really said was that this EXIF tag didn't prove the photos were edited, which is true, but doesn't constitute any part of my claim about Heard having lied.

There was no rebuttal witness to Heard having edited one photo she claimed was only taken under different lighting, and to Heard claiming that the same photo represented two different events at different times. That was what I said there was no rebuttal to, and that's still true.
Depp's expert's actual words were "they're not photographs", meaning they weren't exposures but files created from those exposures.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 09:47 AM   #758
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I already did. Heard knows that exhibits 712 and 713 are not separate photos in different lighting, because she took the photo herself. She knows that they are the same photo, but one of them was edited to change the color. But she testified to the contrary, under oath. Even when called out, she did not correct the record, but maintained that her original testimony was true.

And we know for certain that this is false, both because they are obviously the same photo (you would never be able to recreate the exact same distance, angle, pose, and even every hair placement), and because the metadata reveal them to be the same photo.
I know you might find this shocking, but you claiming to know with a certainty Amber Heard's state of mind is still not particularly convincing.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 09:50 AM   #759
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,510
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
That's just weak, pathetic and obnoxious even.


I compared her to historic 'poisoners', for centuries a very common way of murdering people with plausible deniability until modern medical science made it more and more difficult to pull off.

Heard is now known to have methodically and ruthlessly set Depp up over the course of several years. Here's my "conspiracy theory" again; if Depp was expected on set at dawn and had to rise at 4AM, what better way to help ruin his reputation than slip him a little extra something to sedate him so deeply he didn't regain consciousness until 8 the next morning? It's not even particularly ingenious, Heard most certainly had motive, means and opportunity, and there's no way I would put something like that past her.
I like how you put "conspiracy theory" in quotation marks as if what you're suggesting isn't totally ridiculous.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2022, 10:00 AM   #760
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 772
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I like how you put "conspiracy theory" in quotation marks as if what you're suggesting isn't totally ridiculous.
I'd have no problem with you saying you find it hard to believe or unlikely, but your spluttering only makes you look ridiculous.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.