The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard thing

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I repeatl whoever wins in court is a minor matter now. They have wrecked each others reputation.

Are you sure about that? My impression is that Depp's reputation has enjoyed a bit of a boost, from the publication of these trial proceedings.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I repeatl whoever wins in court is a minor matter now. They have wrecked each others reputation.

I don't think you've actually been paying attention to the trial, nor do I think you've got a clue about its effects on his reputation.

[Puppycow]

I haven't been watching the trial itself, but I have been watching Ozzy Man's reviews, to save time but still keep up with the events.

I do get the distinct impression that Depp is winning the PR battle, and decisively, whether or not he ultimately prevails in court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-139wPJuQM

[Puppycow]

Why It’s Time to Believe Amber Heard

Quote:

It’s time to believe women—all women. It’s time to believe Heard.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I haven't been watching the trial itself, but I have been watching Ozzy Man's reviews, to save time but still keep up with the events.

I do get the distinct impression that Depp is winning the PR battle, and decisively, whether or not he ultimately prevails in court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-139wPJuQM

There's very little reason to believe this case is anything more than a PR exercise for Depp. He already lost a similar case in the UK where defamation laws are much more favorable for him, so it seems incredibly unlikely he will win his American case.

The weird Johnny Depp fan club are having an absolute field day making a spectacle out of this thing though. If Depp's goal was to extract a pound of flesh from Heard in the court of public opinion for having spoke up, he seems to have succeeded.

[Chanakya]

Jason Momoa testifies* : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKYQ2s_IwXA






*Not really. Obviously.


eta: There was another one, just as hilarious (or just as diabolically calculated to reduce AH, wrongly, to a caricature, depending on how the joke strikes you), about how he takes a pic of her the day after JD allegedly roughed her up. A very quick search didn't throw it up, at least not one page 1 of the search, and it seemed silly to spend any more time searching for it. But it's hilarious, the voice-over, and sufficiently realistic to make it really funny (and at the same time sufficiently obvious that these are fakes, that I didn't find them objectionable, given what I've seen of the trial so far ------- but of course, YMMV, as far as whether these are hilarious or calculated and objectionable, and I'm not saying the other "mileage" isn't also a valid POV, just, call me shallow, but I did do the LOL thing, quite literally, both times).

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

There's very little reason to believe this case is anything more than a PR exercise for Depp. He already lost a similar case in the UK where defamation laws are much more favorable for him, so it seems incredibly unlikely he will win his American case.

You haven't been playing close attention to either case, have you? Juries are fickle creatures so who knows how they will decide, but if you've watched any significant amount of the trial itself, you would know exactly why it wouldn't be a surprise for a jury to find in his favor.

Quote:

The weird Johnny Depp fan club are having an absolute field day making a spectacle out of this thing though. If Depp's goal was to extract a pound of flesh from Heard in the court of public opinion for having spoke up, he seems to have succeeded.

Oh, that might be a factor. But I don't think it's the primary thing. I think the primary thing is to rehabilitate his public image. And that's succeeding. If you've actually been paying attention, it's hard to come out of this without concluding that Depp didn't physically abuse Heard. Even with all the details about his drug abuse, clearing himself of that accusation is a really, really big deal.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Why It’s Time to Believe Amber Heard

That's... remarkably bad. I knew it would be, but it's even more vacuous than I expected.

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

There's very little reason to believe this case is anything more than a PR exercise for Depp. He already lost a similar case in the UK where defamation laws are much more favorable for him, so it seems incredibly unlikely he will win his American case.

The weird Johnny Depp fan club are having an absolute field day making a spectacle out of this thing though. If Depp's goal was to extract a pound of flesh from Heard in the court of public opinion for having spoke up, he seems to have succeeded.

The judge in the Sun libel trial was compromised, he failed to declare 'personal interests' which, had he done so, would have forced him to 'recuse' himself (this is a matter of fundamental common law precepts, you know, the ones in Latin) - he was literally acting unlawfully. He and his wife are close friends of Rupert Murdoch and his wife. His son (using his mother's maiden name) was at that time a highly-paid prime time (commute) presenter on TalkRADIO, also Murdoch-owned, which itself also employed the, er, journalist who penned the Sun article that precipitated Depp's action.

Nichol made numerous arbitrary and perverse decisions to refuse admission of evidence which is explained by the above - he had decided the ruling before the hearing started.

https://intelligenceuk.com/index.php...johnny_depp_2/

ETA >>

Quote:

It was Dan Wootten of the Sun, also a host of Talk Radio's drive time show and [hence] a close associate of Robert Palmer [Judge Nichol's son], who wrote the defamatory article ...

[IsThisTheLife]

The psych hired by Team Amber was entertaining yesterday. He's a specialist in neuropharmacology which explains why he was speeding his nuts off (don't ask me how I know).

[IsThisTheLife]

I haven't actually watched much of this "circus" live, but I am right now.

A real heavy-hitter of a psychologist, who also appears to be a major dude, has been brought by Team Depp and another coup is unfolding.

(Caught the end of the previous witness and he was pretty impressive too.)

It's so one-sided it's almost not funny anymore.

[dann]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dann

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

In the interest of saving you a click:

"Kate Moss bombshell: Johnny Depp never pushed me down stairs, Amber Heard wrong"

[figarot]

Is this the first defamation trial involving well-known individuals to be televised?

I don't remember any others but my memory's worse than Johnny's.

It was mentioned during some testimony that Johnny hates James Franco. I now expect the mouse to announce, once this farce is over (though I've heard it said that no matter the outcome, an appeal is inevitable), that the new Jack Sparrow is James Franco.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by figarot

Is this the first defamation trial involving well-known individuals to be televised?

I don't remember any others but my memory's worse than Johnny's.

It was mentioned during some testimony that Johnny hates James Franco. I now expect the mouse to announce, once this farce is over (though I've heard it said that no matter the outcome, an appeal is inevitable), that the new Jack Sparrow is James Franco.

I think televisied trials are wrong,wrong,wrong, and hopeless distort the legal process.
After the OJ fiasco, there has not been a major criminal trial broadcast in the US. It's interesting in their was no law passed about ti, it just that it is SOP for judges to refuse to allow trials to be broadcast live. Same should extend to civil trials.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think televisied trials are wrong,wrong,wrong, and hopeless distort the legal process.

I disagree. I think they provide daylight on the legal process, and help hold courts accountable.

Quote:

After the OJ fiasco, there has not been a major criminal trial broadcast in the US.

That's just factually wrong. Have you forgotten Rittenhouse? That was major. You participated in the thread about that trial. And it's a good example of why televised trials are a good thing. We got to see prosecutorial misconduct unfiltered.

Quote:

Same should extend to civil trials.

I disagree, for the same reason: transparency matters in civil affairs too. If the UK trial for Depp had been televised, I think more people would be aware of what a farce that was.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think televisied trials are wrong,wrong,wrong, and hopeless distort the legal process.
After the OJ fiasco, there has not been a major criminal trial broadcast in the US. It's interesting in their was no law passed about ti, it just that it is SOP for judges to refuse to allow trials to be broadcast live. Same should extend to civil trials.

Was the Phil Spector trial, or the Rittenhouse trial not broadcast? I watched quite a bit of Rittenhouse live. I watched a bunch of the George Floyd trial. There are whole YouTube channels that do endless livestreams covering such things.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I disagree, for the same reason: transparency matters in civil affairs too. If the UK trial for Depp had been televised, I think more people would be aware of what a farce that was.

Absolutely. When you watch the trials what you find, or at least I found, is that the last people you should rely on for an account of what happened is the media. Shutting out the cameras just makes it much harder for people to find out what happened for themselves.

[whoanellie]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think televisied trials are wrong,wrong,wrong, and hopeless distort the legal process.
After the OJ fiasco, there has not been a major criminal trial broadcast in the US. It's interesting in their was no law passed about ti, it just that it is SOP for judges to refuse to allow trials to be broadcast live. Same should extend to civil trials.

There is almost always at least one trial being shown live on YouTube. Law & Crime Network and Court TV regularly stream trials on YouTube. Various local television stations also stream trials that are of particular interest. Today OR v Brophy (verdict just reached), FL v Magbanua, and Depp v Heard were shown live on YouTube. It is rare for a television station or network to pre-empt their regular programming to show a trial unless it is of overwhelming interest due to the lost ad revenue, but with some exceptions (trials in New York and Federal courts come to mind) it is standard for cameras to be allowed in court rooms and for news organizations to be given access to the feeds. I do believe significant portions of the Chauvin and Zimmerman trials were broadcast.

[theprestige]

One thing that fascinates me about live trials is how stuttery and disjointed judges and lawyers often are in their regular speech. Even though I know courtroom dramas are almost always entirely wrong about how trials actually work, I still kind of expect real life jurists to be as well-spoken as their TV and movie counterparts.

[Shadowdweller]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think televisied trials are wrong,wrong,wrong, and hopeless distort the legal process.
After the OJ fiasco, there has not been a major criminal trial broadcast in the US. It's interesting in their was no law passed about ti, it just that it is SOP for judges to refuse to allow trials to be broadcast live. Same should extend to civil trials.

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. The American criminal justice system - of which the courts are at least a part - is in dire need of more transparency, not less. Far worse distortions occur when people and institutions are free to make baseless or fabricated claims about court proceedings without the possibility and ease of public oversight.

Effective democracy requires knowledge and perspective in the hands of the voting public.

[theprestige]

I enjoyed assuming Johnny Depp was an unmitigated scumbag. I enjoyed the idea of believing all women a priori, no questions asked. I enjoyed assuming that these were self-evident truths, widely accepted by my fellow citizens. The publication of these trial proceedings, and the apparently widespread public reaction to them, have soured my enjoyment. If only we had rules prohibiting the publication of such proceedings, I would be happier today.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by theprestige

In the interest of saving you a click:

"Kate Moss bombshell: Johnny Depp never pushed me down stairs, Amber Heard wrong"

Interesting development.

For those who prefer the written word:

Kate Moss testifies that Johnny Depp did not push her down stairs

Quote:

Moss said Depp had not pushed her down the stairs. Asked if, at any point in their relationship, he had pushed her in that way, Moss said: “No.”

“He never pushed me, kicked me or threw me down any stairs, no,” Moss told the court.

Heard’s attorneys declined to cross-examine Moss, and she was told she was free to go.

Moss was called by Depp’s legal team, who appeared to celebrate when her name was mentioned by Heard during her testimony, when she revived the rumor that Depp had pushed her down a flight of stairs.

Boy, she (Heard) really is sabotaging her own case with her testimony. She should have stuck to facts instead of a rumor that could be easily disproved. Especially considering that this is a defamation case. She made a suggestion that turned out to be provably false. On the witness stand.

I think this sort of thing will weigh in the jury's decision. Although I'm not a lawyer, I have a strong sense of impending doom for her.

[Cain]

Regardless of what happens, I predict 80% of people will say they 100% predicted the outcome. If you want bragging rights, explicitly predict what will happen now.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Cain

Regardless of what happens, I predict 80% of people will say they 100% predicted the outcome. If you want bragging rights, explicitly predict what will happen now.

Sure, I agree. I don't have a crystal ball, but here's what I'll say:

There are two outcomes that matter here, the legal outcome and the public relations outcome.

I think that Depp has already won the public relations battle. That's not a prediction, but an observation.

As far as whether the jury will rule in his favor, my guess is that he will win that battle too, although I don't know how much they will award him. Could be anything from a nominal symbolic amount up to something quite substantial.

[Puppycow]

Stepping back for perspective:

The dogpiling on Heard is getting pretty sickening though.

Whatever you think about her, this resembles a herd of vultures fighting over a corpse.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

As far as whether the jury will rule in his favor, my guess is that he will win that battle too, although I don't know how much they will award him. Could be anything from a nominal symbolic amount up to something quite substantial.

I'm guessing they will award around 7 million.

[Ziggurat]

Closing arguments this morning. I suspect the jury won't reach a verdict until next week. Even if they decide quickly on who they believe, if they find for either plaintiff, then they have to decide damages, and I doubt that will be quick.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Stepping back for perspective:

The dogpiling on Heard is getting pretty sickening though.

Whatever you think about her, this resembles a herd of vultures fighting over a corpse.

What dogpiling? How is it any more sickening than the dogpiling on Kevin Spacey, or Harvey Weinstein? How is it worse than the dogpiling on Alison Mack?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Cain

Regardless of what happens, I predict 80% of people will say they 100% predicted the outcome. If you want bragging rights, explicitly predict what will happen now.

Pirates of the Caribbean Part 12: The Litigation

[Ziggurat]

Initial arguments for Depp finished. They hammered on the idea that it wasn't about the money, it was about restoring his reputation.

This is probably a good strategy. It opens the door to the jury returning a verdict in his favor for a nominal amount, which may be easier for the jury to agree to than a large amount, but still does what Depp needs it to do. He doesn't need the money from Heard (and she doesn't have much anyways), he needs to be able to get big roles again. And even a $1 verdict in his favor likely does that. So even if the jury doesn't feel like punishing Heard, he can still come out on top.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Initial arguments for Depp finished. They hammered on the idea that it wasn't about the money, it was about restoring his reputation.

This is probably a good strategy. It opens the door to the jury returning a verdict in his favor for a nominal amount, which may be easier for the jury to agree to than a large amount, but still does what Depp needs it to do. He doesn't need the money from Heard (and she doesn't have much anyways), he needs to be able to get big roles again. And even a $1 verdict in his favor likely does that. So even if the jury doesn't feel like punishing Heard, he can still come out on top.

Thats never going to happen, even if he wins this suit (I think he will). He'll never be the leading man in a big budget film ever again. His star power was waning badly even before the Amber Hear controversy. If Disney does make another Pirates movie I'd wager he would, at best, have a supporting role.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Thats never going to happen, even if he wins this suit (I think he will). He'll never be the leading man in a big budget film ever again. His star power was waning badly even before the Amber Hear controversy. If Disney does make another Pirates movie I'd wager he would, at best, have a supporting role.

Oh, he's never doing Pirates again, because he's got a grudge against Disney and won't accept a part. But I think you're wrong about his star power. Yeah, it was waning. But it wasn't gone, and I think it's coming back in the wake of this trial. He's got a lot of fans that want to support him, and are supporting him, and they're going to show up at the box office for anything he does. I think studios can recognize this. He might never be in a part as big as Pirates again, but he's still got a significant career ahead of him.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think televisied trials are wrong,wrong,wrong, and hopeless distort the legal process.
After the OJ fiasco, there has not been a major criminal trial broadcast in the US. It's interesting in their was no law passed about ti, it just that it is SOP for judges to refuse to allow trials to be broadcast live. Same should extend to civil trials.

I don't understand this POV.

I agree there might be negative fallouts to televising trials, like hurting the reputation of the people involved, sure. But as far as "distorting the legal process", could you spell out why you think that? As far as I can see that can only a positive --- in terms of getting more people "out of the woodwork" to testify (those quote marks are for those who've been following the trial; the rest just read those words without the quote marks); and also in terms of making it much for difficult to have direct miscarriage of justice (as some claim the UK trial had been --- which I've not seen or read anything about myself, incidentally, other than in comments of people talking about this here trial).

Well, I guess there could be some publicity seekers who might cause difficulties in the trial itself by bearing false testimony, sure; but I'm guessing our legal process is equipped, more or less, to weed out (the effects of) such. And overall, getting more people aware of this, and also getting more people wanting to testify, if only for the publicity, might be a good thing, in terms of adding clarity. Like that manager guy from Australia who flew over to contradict AH's claim about the trashing of the trailer, as well as the TMZ guy's testimony. (I mean, the former may well have been contacted anyway by JD's team, stands to reason; but the latter is a great example of someone who wouldn't have turned up had the case not bee publicized in detail like this.)

Anyway, whether in terms of this specific case, or maybe even in general, I'm curious why you think televising trials is a bad idea, I mean in terms of specifically its impact on the legal process itself.

[theprestige]

I mean... Polanski and Spacey are still getting work. Even Heard hasn't been cut from Aquaman 2 (yet). I don't think Depp is as down and out as some might think (hope?).

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I mean... Polanski and Spacey are still getting work. Even Heard hasn't been cut from Aquaman 2 (yet). I don't think Depp is as down and out as some might think (hope?).

Looks like Spacey is going to jail.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/uk/ke...gbr/index.html

Depp is about to turn 60. I've looked at his imdb page and his career was on a downtrend already. While male actors keep leading roles for longer than women not many do so after 60, not in blockbuster films. Harrison Ford, and Sean Connery excepted. That said he's an A+ quality talented actor, and I've enjoyed his work long before he was a Disney Pirate. Looks like he has an interesting role in a French historical drama coming up.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I mean... Polanski and Spacey are still getting work. Even Heard hasn't been cut from Aquaman 2 (yet). I don't think Depp is as down and out as some might think (hope?).

I don't think Spacey is getting much work. "The Man Who Drew God" hasn't come out yet, nor has "Peter Five Eight" and they are both being touted as his first role since the allegations against him came to light in 2017.

And this week he was charged with four counts of sexual assault, which might be a bit of an impediment to continued work. But who knows?

[Ziggurat]

Heard's closing is done, both rebuttals still to go.

Her closing arguments were a mess. Both sides are limited to 2 hours total for closing and rebuttal. Depp has 39 minutes left, but Heard only has 6 minutes. Symptomatic of bad time management on Heard's side, much better time management on Depp's. And Heard's lawyer ended on a really weird note. Her lawyer actually said, "We're not asking for $100 million". But that's exactly what she sued for. She basically admitted that their countersuit amount was frivolous and just intended to be revenge.

Now you might think this is a bit contradictory to what I said about Depp since there's a superficial similarity in both sides telling the jury it's OK to not award the full amount, but there's an important difference. Depp's attorney did it right, Heard's did it wrong. Depp's attorney didn't admit his number was bull ****. Their position is still that he's legally entitled to the full claimed amount. What he's saying is that Depp doesn't care about what he's legally entitled to. In contrast, Heard's attorney is basically saying she's NOT legally entitled to the amount she claimed. And that's a really bad look for a lawyer.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Looks like Spacey is going to jail.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/uk/ke...gbr/index.html

Depp is about to turn 60. I've looked at his imdb page and his career was on a downtrend already. While male actors keep leading roles for longer than women not many do so after 60, not in blockbuster films. Harrison Ford, and Sean Connery excepted. That said he's an A+ quality talented actor, and I've enjoyed his work long before he was a Disney Pirate. Looks like he has an interesting role in a French historical drama coming up.

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

I don't think Spacey is getting much work. "The Man Who Drew God" hasn't come out yet, nor has "Peter Five Eight" and they are both being touted as his first role since the allegations against him came to light in 2017.

And this week he was charged with four counts of sexual assault, which might be a bit of an impediment to continued work. But who knows?

Fair points. And obviously if Depp commits any new offenses, that will further tarnish his reputation.

I just think that rumors of his professional demise are waaay premature at this point. I don't think this trial is such a big nail in his coffin as some seem to assume. Honestly I'm not even sure there really is a coffin, yet.

[Ziggurat]

Rebuttal has finished. Jury is receiving final instructions.