The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard thing

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

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.

Depp is one year younger than Tom Cruise, the star of the latest Summer Action Blockbuster called Top Gun: Marverick. So it's not entirely inconceivable to me.

Depp's lifestyle probably means that he hasn't aged quite as well as Cruise, who looks younger than his real age, and he's no longer a baby-face like like he once was, but he could play a detective or a gangster or that sort of role, like Pacino and Brando did in their later years. I mean, he already did that in fact, with Black Mass.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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?

Meh, it's the whole spectacle and cottage industry that has sprung up around this trial that I have found off-putting. Note that this is not a comment about the people involved, but about the spectators and on-lookers. Of which I am one, in a very minor sense, so I suppose I'm also pointing at myself. I just have the sense that we are seeing a modern version of the pillory. Someone being held up for ridicule and abuse by the mob. And comparisons with the likes of Weinstein and Spacey are a big stretch. Mack, I never heard of and don't recall noticing any dogpile at the time. But I probably wouldn't have found that to be entirely wholesome either. There's a reason why the pillory and the stocks were outlawed as cruel and unusual.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Meh, it's the whole spectacle and cottage industry that has sprung up around this trial that I have found off-putting. Note that this is not a comment about the people involved, but about the spectators and on-lookers. Of which I am one, in a very minor sense, so I suppose I'm also pointing at myself. I just have the sense that we are seeing a modern version of the pillory. Someone being held up for ridicule and abuse by the mob. And comparisons with the likes of Weinstein and Spacey are a big stretch. Mack, I never heard of and don't recall noticing any dogpile at the time. But I probably wouldn't have found that to be entirely wholesome either. There's a reason why the pillory and the stocks were outlawed as cruel and unusual.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not overly concerned in this case. Not only because I think Heard is lying and made the whole thing up, but also because she really brought this on herself.

The smart thing to do, when Depp sued her, was to just defend the suit, not file a counter-suit, and not make up even more outrageous claims about what Depp supposedly did. Much of the spectacle of this trial was made possible by the counter-suit and her new claims. Defamation suits against public figures are generally pretty hard to win for the plaintiffs. Absent the counter-suit, they couldn't have brought in Dr. Curry to testify about what a nut job she is. Absent Heard commenting about Moss, they couldn't have brought in Moss. Absent Heard having submitted two versions of the same photo with one of them edited, or two identical photos claiming to be two different incidents, they couldn't have impeached her on the stand. There's so much less Depp's team could have done if they had kept it to a tight, limited defense, only on the basis of her TRO. They might have won that case, and even if they didn't, she wouldn't have come out looking nearly this bad.

But that wouldn't have satisfied Amber Heard, and so she had to strike back at Depp, opening the door to a circus where she's the clown. Amber Heard is Amber Heard's worst enemy.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Meh, it's the whole spectacle and cottage industry that has sprung up around this trial that I have found off-putting. Note that this is not a comment about the people involved, but about the spectators and on-lookers. Of which I am one, in a very minor sense, so I suppose I'm also pointing at myself. I just have the sense that we are seeing a modern version of the pillory. Someone being held up for ridicule and abuse by the mob. And comparisons with the likes of Weinstein and Spacey are a big stretch. Mack, I never heard of and don't recall noticing any dogpile at the time. But I probably wouldn't have found that to be entirely wholesome either. There's a reason why the pillory and the stocks were outlawed as cruel and unusual.

No, what we're seeing is the modern version of government transparency and a free press.

There was a court of public opinion in the time of the pillory. Calling out a public figure in print, and holding them up for public ridicule in print, was a thing that happened alongside the pillory. It was - and still is! - completely different from physically binding someone in a public place where they can be subjected to verbal and physical abuse without respite or retreat.

If I point and laugh at how stupid your idea is here (which I am doing), have I put you in a pillory in miniature? Of course not. The slings and arrows of outrageous invective you are suffering here are not at all the same type of thing as the physical imprisonment you complain about. And the slings and arrows of public disdain that Amber Heard now suffers are just the same phenomena writ large. Not a modern pillory at all.

We have vast masses of law and custom, that distinguish quite carefully and wisely between holding someone up for ridicule, and holding someone down for a beating. Where is the care and wisdom in your calling this a modern pillory? Nowhere.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Meh, it's the whole spectacle and cottage industry that has sprung up around this trial that I have found off-putting. Note that this is not a comment about the people involved, but about the spectators and on-lookers. Of which I am one, in a very minor sense, so I suppose I'm also pointing at myself. I just have the sense that we are seeing a modern version of the pillory. Someone being held up for ridicule and abuse by the mob. And comparisons with the likes of Weinstein and Spacey are a big stretch. Mack, I never heard of and don't recall noticing any dogpile at the time. But I probably wouldn't have found that to be entirely wholesome either. There's a reason why the pillory and the stocks were outlawed as cruel and unusual.

They are both professional actors, and they are both very well aware that there is an audience.They are both playing to that audience, trying to convince people that the other party behaved abominably.
It is fairly obvious who has already won that part of the trial.
What the spectators don't seem to understand is that they don't have to pick a side, one as the villain and the other one as the hero. Even if one of them is the victim, there is nothing heroic about that. Sometimes the victim is an *******, too, but the audience doesn't consider this and doesn't want to consider it.

It is not why people go see a movie or read a novel. It has surprised me how many comments on Amazon complain that the characters of a novel are all somewhat tainted. People want to be able to take sides, to root for the good guy. It's the whole point of the very American phenomenon of wrestling, for instance:

Quote:

"Faces" (the "good guys") are those whose actions are intended to encourage the audience to cheer, while "heels" (the "bad guys") act to draw the spectators' ire.
Professional wrestling (Wikipedia)

Even in the political landscape of the USA, it seems to be impossible for people to see that almost all politicians, even the ones they themselves are voting for, are in it for the money and nothing else.

Why would the way people view a case like this one be any different? It's hardwired into the American psyche to the extent that Americans confuse it with human nature.

[IsThisTheLife]

I *****g hate the corporate media and their perpetual half-truths and lying.

Apparently "Johnny Depp's fans" gave him standing ovations at a couple of gigs last weekend. This was during Jeff Beck's current tour and the first the audiences knew of his presence was when he walked on stage.

I hope people who are "informed" by these organs will have noted that they enthusiastically aided and abetted slandering Depp for years and they are not noted for retracting, let alone apologising for this kind of malfeasance.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Meh, it's the whole spectacle and cottage industry that has sprung up around this trial that I have found off-putting. Note that this is not a comment about the people involved, but about the spectators and on-lookers. Of which I am one, in a very minor sense, so I suppose I'm also pointing at myself. I just have the sense that we are seeing a modern version of the pillory. Someone being held up for ridicule and abuse by the mob. And comparisons with the likes of Weinstein and Spacey are a big stretch. Mack, I never heard of and don't recall noticing any dogpile at the time. But I probably wouldn't have found that to be entirely wholesome either. There's a reason why the pillory and the stocks were outlawed as cruel and unusual.

The whole media circus around this is quite incredible, and I suspect history will not look kindly on this gross spectacle on what amounts to Depp using the courts to lash out against an abused partner who dared speak out for herself.

I imagine the message sent to victims of domestic abuse, especially women, is quite clear. Heard's allegations of being abused are about as well documented as you could hope, including pictures of injuries, contemporaneous text conversations, and credible testimony from witnesses. If Heard can't be believed, no abuse victim can be. Depp's ulterior motivations for bringing this case which he absolutely knows he will not win could not be more transparent. A powerful man extracting a pound of flesh from a woman who spoke plainly about his abuse being received to thunderous applause.

At best Depp's hopeless defamation trial is showing that maybe Heard was also abusive, but it absolutely will not disprove the plain fact that Heard was abused (which is the heart of the defamation accusation). That won't stop the absolutely deranged public spectacle from treating the entire thing as a huge vindication for Depp.

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The whole media circus around this is quite incredible, and I suspect history will not look kindly on this gross spectacle on what amounts to Depp using the courts to lash out against an abused partner who dared speak out for herself.

I imagine the message sent to victims of domestic abuse, especially women, is quite clear. Heard's allegations of being abused are about as well documented as you could hope, including pictures of injuries, contemporaneous text conversations, and credible testimony from witnesses. If Heard can't be believed, no abuse victim can be. Depp's ulterior motivations for bringing this case which he absolutely knows he will not win could not be more transparent. A powerful man extracting a pound of flesh from a woman who spoke plainly about his abuse being received to thunderous applause.

Trolling? Or have you seen something everyone else has missed?

Quote:

At best Depp's hopeless defamation trial is showing that maybe Heard was also abusive, but it absolutely will not disprove the plain fact that Heard was abused (which is the heart of the defamation accusation). That won't stop the absolutely deranged public spectacle from treating the entire thing as a huge vindication for Depp.

You clearly don't get it. Whether or not the court finds in Depp's favour is completely moot. Everyone now has ready access to all the evidence (including much that wasn't admitted in this or the UK trial), only the pathological continue to believe the lies broadcast for Heard by the corporate media.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The whole media circus around this is quite incredible, and I suspect history will not look kindly on this gross spectacle on what amounts to Depp using the courts to lash out against an abused partner who dared speak out for herself.

You haven't actually paid attention to the trial, have you?

Quote:

Heard's allegations of being abused are about as well documented as you could hope

No, they are not. They are hardly documented at all.

Quote:

including pictures of injuries,

The pictures show more injury to Depp than to Heard. And she's been caught in multiple lies about what those pictures supposedly show. She's got one picture of her with a cut on her lip (which lots of things can cause), she's got a picture of her with a bruise on her face from her TRO hearing which could easily have been faked with makeup, and she's got a photo she edited which shows a bit of redness that could have come from resting her head on a table or similar innocuous causes. What's missing is what you normally get from ACTUAL violent abuse victims, like the photos from when Chris Brown punched Rihanna. Look it up, you can't hide bruises like that with a makeup kit.

Quote:

contemporaneous text conversations, and credible testimony from witnesses.

Heard's sister isn't credible, and nobody else ever saw anything. Depp also has no history of violence. But Heard does. She is the ONLY person in that relationship who has physically assaulted a former intimate partner.

Quote:

At best Depp's hopeless defamation trial is showing that maybe Heard was also abusive,

At best? No, Heard's abusiveness has been absolutely proven, by her own admission and multiple times. That's the minimum it's proven, not the most. Heard's own claims of abuse have fallen apart like a house of cards.

Quote:

but it absolutely will not disprove the plain fact that Heard was abused (which is the heart of the defamation accusation). That won't stop the absolutely deranged public spectacle from treating the entire thing as a huge vindication for Depp.

You have that backwards too. Exposing Heard's lies won't convince everyone, and you're a case in point. This is, in fact, a huge vindication for Depp. As it should be.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

Trolling? Or have you seen something everyone else has missed?

Of course he hasn't. Chances are, he's read articles that characterize it that way, and he just believed them. After all, why would the press ever lie or misrepresent things?

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Of course he hasn't. Chances are, he's read articles that characterize it that way, and he just believed them. After all, why would the press ever lie or misrepresent things?

I can't think of a comparable example of the corporate media losing control of 'the narrative' the way it has with this one (which brings me considerable satisfaction), but ST seems to trust them implicitly. Peculiar.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The whole media circus around this is quite incredible, and I suspect history will not look kindly on this gross spectacle on what amounts to Depp using the courts to lash out against an abused partner who dared speak out for herself.

I imagine the message sent to victims of domestic abuse, especially women, is quite clear. Heard's allegations of being abused are about as well documented as you could hope, including pictures of injuries, contemporaneous text conversations, and credible testimony from witnesses. If Heard can't be believed, no abuse victim can be. Depp's ulterior motivations for bringing this case which he absolutely knows he will not win could not be more transparent. A powerful man extracting a pound of flesh from a woman who spoke plainly about his abuse being received to thunderous applause.

At best Depp's hopeless defamation trial is showing that maybe Heard was also abusive, but it absolutely will not disprove the plain fact that Heard was abused (which is the heart of the defamation accusation). That won't stop the absolutely deranged public spectacle from treating the entire thing as a huge vindication for Depp.

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

Trolling? Or have you seen something everyone else has missed?


You clearly don't get it. Whether or not the court finds in Depp's favour is completely moot. Everyone now has ready access to all the evidence (including much that wasn't admitted in this or the UK trial), only the pathological continue to believe the lies broadcast for Heard by the corporate media.

Actually here's an interesting question: If both the man and woman abuse each other, then, generally speaking, what kind of accommodation would be fair, both stand-alone as well as when seen as part of the larger social equation?

Basis what I've seen of late --- which isn't much, and I may be mistaken, absolutely --- Amber Heard comes across both as an abuser, as well as given to violence, as well as someone who'll lie when it suits her (I mean, her "synonyms"?!). On the other hand, Johnny Depp hardly comes across as some paragon, what with his clearly recorded disrespectful-to-the-extent-of-being-misogynistic comments to and/or about Amber Heard; not to mention his substance abuse, which may have led to his doing things that he genuinely does not remember.

Now on balance it is my personal (and entirely limited, and entirely fallible) opinion that Amber Heard wins the villain/vamp stakes by a wide margin; but, leaving that aside, and generally speaking, when both the man and the woman have "abused" each other, to some degree, then what ought to happen, ideally? The woman gets (legal) redressal, and not the man? Both do, in equal measure? Neither gets (legal) redressal? Both get (legal) redressal, in proportion with what they've suffered? But then if one side's "losses" are greater because their earning potential itself had been greater, and therefore also the losses they suffered, then what? These are some general questions that this trial throws up; that, I don't know to what extent this case will end up helping answer.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Actually here's an interesting question: If both the man and woman abuse each other, then, generally speaking, what kind of accommodation would be fair, both stand-alone as well as when seen as part of the larger social equation?

Basis what I've seen of late --- which isn't much, and I may be mistaken, absolutely --- Amber Heard comes across both as an abuser, as well as given to violence, as well as someone who'll lie when it suits her (I mean, her "synonyms"?!). On the other hand, Johnny Depp hardly comes across as some paragon, what with his clearly recorded disrespectful-to-the-extent-of-being-misogynistic comments to and/or about Amber Heard; not to mention his substance abuse, which may have led to his doing things that he genuinely does not remember.

Now on balance it is my personal (and entirely limited, and entirely fallible) opinion that Amber Heard wins the villain/vamp stakes by a wide margin; but, leaving that aside, and generally speaking, when both the man and the woman have "abused" each other, to some degree, then what ought to happen, ideally? The woman gets (legal) redressal, and not the man? Both do, in equal measure? Neither gets (legal) redressal? Both get (legal) redressal, in proportion with what they've suffered? But then if one side's "losses" are greater because their earning potential itself had been greater, and therefore also the losses they suffered, then what? These are some general questions that this trial throws up; that, I don't know to what extent this case will end up helping answer.

I'm not sure what you mean by legal redressal in this context.

Abusive relationships are often quite complicated, but this case is about defamation, not a messy divorce or restraining order case. From a legal perspective, the question is quite simple: was Heard ever abused by Depp?

This simple question is already why the UK case ended in failure for Depp, because it doesn't really matter how messy their relationship was or who was the most abusive. If Depp ever once abused Heard, which seems extremely hard for all but the most deranged to deny, the case is a loser. The UK has much more generous defamation laws, and even in that context Depp's case was a loser. There's no reason to believe the US case, which requires a higher burden for the accuser to meet, is going to end in victory for Depp.

Generally speaking I take an extremely jaundiced view of any person who uses the courts to harass people in hopeless cases, and often defamation cases are used for exactly that purpose. This seems a pretty clear example of a guaranteed losing case being dragged through the courts as a means of extracting a financial and public cost, rather than any good-faith attempt for legal recourse. In that regard, Depp is a real *******.

[Puppycow]

I think you are a little too confident if you claim that it's impossible for Depp to prevail in this case, but as I am not a lawyer, my opinion on this ain't worth much.

For starters, if it was truly that bad, then why did the judge allow it to go forward?

It would be highly irresponsible of a judge to not summarily dismiss a case that had no possible hope of prevailing, wasting valuable court time on a nuisance lawsuit.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I think you are a little too confident if you claim that it's impossible for Depp to prevail in this case, but as I am not a lawyer, my opinion on this ain't worth much.

For starters, if it was truly that bad, then why did the judge allow it to go forward?

It would be highly irresponsible of a judge to not summarily dismiss a case that had no possible hope of prevailing, wasting valuable court time on a nuisance lawsuit.

The burdens of summary judgement are rightly very high. There's a wide gap between cases that are extremely likely to lose and those that can be summarily dismissed without trial.

It's not like defamation laws don't have a long history of being used in bad-faith for exactly the purpose of being a nuisance. This path for abusing the legal system is so well understood that many states have explicit laws, called SLAPP laws, to hopefully tamp down on such behavior.

Depp's legal team successfully had the case heard in a Virginia court, which notably has weaker anti-SLAPP laws than California, where both Heard and Depp live.

[Puppycow]

Here's the opinion of an actual lawyer:

Former LA lawyer says Johnny Depp may win trial due to Amber Heard’s past tweet

Quote:

Former LA District Attorney and legal analyst Emily D. Baker, who has been providing YouTube commentary on the widely-followed trial, admitted she was at first convinced neither Depp or Heard would win the case during an interview on the Not Skinny But Not Fat podcast recently.

However, she has changed her tune after one key detail in Amber Heard’s testimony, leading her to believe Depp may win the case.
. . .

Baker’s views on closing statements

Speaking on her YouTube channel, Baker explained why she didn’t think there was a “path to victory” for either party at the beginning of the trial, but surmised that a win for Depp would be plausible because of the tweet, calling it “the clearest path” to a win.

“The law and the op ed were not working for me well. And I was like ‘This is going to be very, very hard’,” she said.

“After seeing six weeks of this trial, I understand why they chose to take this to trial and I see that Johnny Depp has a potential to win.

“And that is a huge win, I think, for them because that wasn’t where I was at at the beginning of this case.

“So my verdict is if there’s a win, it’s that. I still think this jury could go with nobody wins, I still think this jury could hang. I never put that aside. I also don’t like betting on verdicts, I didn’t do that with my own verdicts.”

Ultimately she still hedges her bets, but she sees a possible victory for Depp, and not for Heard in her countersuit.

I'm not finding a lot of commentary from lawyers willing to make a concrete prediction.

A Lawyer Answers Your Questions About the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard Trial

Quote:

How likely is that both lose?
It’s highly unlikely. They can't pick one side without sort of tarnishing the other. I've never seen a split decision where the jury just says they both lose. It's possible, but I don't think the jury would be taking their job incredibly seriously if that's what they do, because their job is to decide who is credible and who is not.
. . .

Who do you think is likely to win?
I think this is a true toss up. I would say that Depp has brought a very effective case in terms of rebutting the allegations, and that it really could come down to who is the better actor, in terms of who has put up a better performance and come across as most believable. I thought Depp answered the questions, whereas Heard was very combative with Depp's attorneys.

At the end of the day, it's his burden to knock down Heard's story to try and show it's not true. So I can very well see this going in Depp's favour in a way that it didn't in the UK, because he has presented that evidence. Kate Moss saying nothing happened is especially a problem for Heard's case, because Heard brought that up, and Moss rebuking it could be seen to undermine the integrity of Heard's story. But it could go either way.

And here's a lawyer who thinks that Heard is more likely to prevail:

Predictions for Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Defamation Trial

Quote:

Predictions on the Depp vs. Heard Defamation Verdict
I believe that the most likely outcome is that the jury will come back with a defense verdict in favor of Heard. Although public sentiment seems to be with Depp, there seems to be ample evidence that Depp was occasionally abusive to Heard. There is also evidence that Heard may have gotten physical with Depp on numerous occasions. But that doesn’t defeat Depp’s defamation claim.

Remember, Depp presented virtually the same legal claims in his case against The Sun tabloid in the UK. The legal standards for libel and defamation in Britain are much more favorable for plaintiffs, yet Depp still lost that case. Depp is facing a much tougher legal standard in Virginia. So there is little reason to think that the result will be any different.

One major difference between the UK case and the current case against Heard in Virginia is that the UK case was decided by a judge. The defamation case in Virginia will be decided by a jury. This may give Depp a ray of hope for a different outcome.

So I guess the experts are all over the place, and none of them seem to be very confident in predicting which side will win. You have one saying that she sees a path for Depp to win, although she was skeptical at the outset of the trial. Or they could both lose. Another says it's a 50-50 tossup, but he doesn't expect them to both lose, and a third who says that he thinks the most likely outcome is for Heard to win, because supposedly the UK case should have been easier to prove, but he sees a ray of hope for Depp since it is up to a jury rather than a judge.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

This simple question is already why the UK case ended in failure for Depp, because it doesn't really matter how messy their relationship was or who was the most abusive. If Depp ever once abused Heard, which seems extremely hard for all but the most deranged to deny, the case is a loser.

Well, no. Heard's accusations included the claim of sexual abuse. And there's really no evidence for that at all. It hinges upon the credibility of the alleged victim, and she's thrown all of that away with repeated lies.

Quote:

The UK has much more generous defamation laws, and even in that context Depp's case was a loser.

There were so, so many problems with the UK case, both in terms of what was allowed into evidence and even a massive conflict of interest for the judge who should never have been allowed on the case. Using that as any kind of guide for either what actually happened or how this case resolve is completely unjustified.

Quote:

There's no reason to believe the US case, which requires a higher burden for the accuser to meet, is going to end in victory for Depp.

Oh yes there is. Again, you clearly haven't been paying attention to the actual trial.

Quote:

This seems a pretty clear example of a guaranteed losing case being dragged through the courts as a means of extracting a financial and public cost, rather than any good-faith attempt for legal recourse. In that regard, Depp is a real *******.

Juries are fickle creatures and so I can't guarantee the outcome, but anyone who watched that trial can tell that Depp has a very good chance at winning. You're in deep, deep denial.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

...

Juries are fickle creatures and so I can't guarantee the outcome,

...

I don't agree with much else you say, but this is a good point. Juries do whatever they want, law be damned, sometimes. I don't think that actually winning the trial is really that important to Depp, but I suppose anything is possible when it comes to jury trials.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

So I guess the experts are all over the place, and none of them seem to be very confident in predicting which side will win. You have one saying that she sees a path for Depp to win, although she was skeptical at the outset of the trial. Or they could both lose. Another says it's a 50-50 tossup, but he doesn't expect them to both lose, and a third who says that he thinks the most likely outcome is for Heard to win, because supposedly the UK case should have been easier to prove, but he sees a ray of hope for Depp since it is up to a jury rather than a judge.

And juries are susceptible to likeability. I was on a jury for an attempted murder case and the defense was quite successful in bringing out how unlikeable the victim was. Ultimately it didn't make a difference in that case because the defendant took the stand against his own attorney's advice and proceeded to torpedo his own defence, but if it had been a defamation/libel case it would have been an effective strategy. From what I've read of this case, Heard and her attorney are not making themselves likeable, and that does matter to a jury.

[Matthew Best]

I would not be surprised if Depp loses (in his case against Heard for $50 million), but I'd be very surprised if Heard wins (in her counter-suit for $100 million). I really don't think the jury is going to want to reward her after all that's come out in the trial, but they might not want to reward him either.

But, in a sense, Depp has already won. He appeared on stage with Jeff Beck the last couple of nights and got a standing ovation just for being there. That's got to seem like a win to him.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I don't agree with much else you say, but this is a good point. Juries do whatever they want, law be damned, sometimes. I don't think that actually winning the trial is really that important to Depp, but I suppose anything is possible when it comes to jury trials.

I disagree, I think getting a verdict in his favor will be very significant for him. The dollar amount not so much, but even a $1 verdict in his favor is still vindication, and studios interested in hiring him can use that as justification.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I'm not sure what you mean by legal redressal in this context.

Abusive relationships are often quite complicated, but this case is about defamation, not a messy divorce or restraining order case.

That's true.

I was thinking in general terms, so that I suppose what I said should rightly have been specified as applying to regular marital issues, including divorce, as well as attendant civil and criminal liability. After all regular folks don't generally think to file defamation charges against one another. Agreed, this defamation thing is different than that.

Quote:

From a legal perspective, the question is quite simple: was Heard ever abused by Depp?

This simple question is already why the UK case ended in failure for Depp, because it doesn't really matter how messy their relationship was or who was the most abusive. If Depp ever once abused Heard, which seems extremely hard for all but the most deranged to deny, the case is a loser. The UK has much more generous defamation laws, and even in that context Depp's case was a loser. There's no reason to believe the US case, which requires a higher burden for the accuser to meet, is going to end in victory for Depp.

Generally speaking I take an extremely jaundiced view of any person who uses the courts to harass people in hopeless cases, and often defamation cases are used for exactly that purpose. This seems a pretty clear example of a guaranteed losing case being dragged through the courts as a means of extracting a financial and public cost, rather than any good-faith attempt for legal recourse. In that regard, Depp is a real *******.

Actually, basis what (little) I've seen I do think that JD was right in filing the defamation case, not for so much for the money but to clear his name; and that AH deserves what's coming to her. But like I said, I don't think JD is any kind of a paragon either, and may well have indulged in some abuse himself, although in my (limited) view probably far less than AH did. But I'm not going to argue that out, because I've only very sketchily followed this case, so it's quite possible my understanding on this is flawed. Let's see how this plays out; and meantime I'll be following the case (if only sketchily), and just look at what others (including you) are saying. That said, my (admittedly limited) understanding of the case leads me to see this differently than you. Agreed, JD is without doubt a collection of asterisks, whose disrespectful comments that I've heard played in Court cross well into the misogyny line, and who may well have gotten physical as well when inebriated; but AH, as far as I can see, is a larger collection of asterisks ---- if a hot one (or at least, she would have been, hot I mean, had her hygiene been more conventional), not that her hotness matters to the case of course.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Actually, basis what (little) I've seen I do think that JD was right in filing the defamation case, not for so much for the money but to clear his name; and that AH deserves what's coming to her. But like I said, I don't think JD is any kind of a paragon either, and may well have indulged in some abuse himself, although in my (limited) view probably far less than AH did. But I'm not going to argue that out, because I've only very sketchily followed this case, so it's quite possible my understanding on this is flawed. Let's see how this plays out; and meantime I'll be following the case (if only sketchily), and just look at what others (including you) are saying. That said, my (admittedly limited) understanding of the case leads me to see this differently than you. Agreed, JD is without doubt a collection of asterisks, whose disrespectful comments that I've heard played in Court cross well into the misogyny line, and who may well have gotten physical as well when inebriated; but AH, as far as I can see, is a larger collection of asterisks ---- if a hot one (or at least, she would have been, hot I mean, had her hygiene been more conventional), not that her hotness matters to the case of course.

It is Depp's defamation claim that he never abused Heard and calls her claims a hoax. I don't see how you can square this circle. Either Depp never abused Heard, or the defamation claim is bunk. I don't see any viable middle ground.

This was also the thrust of his lawsuit against the UK tabloid that labeled him a wife beater, which he lost.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It is Depp's defamation claim that he never abused Heard and calls her claims a hoax. I don't see how you can square this circle. Either Depp never abused Heard, or the defamation claim is bunk. I don't see any viable middle ground.

This was also the thrust of his lawsuit against the UK tabloid that labeled him a wife beater, which he lost.

By "abuse" I meant his unarguably misogynistic insults directed to and/or at Amber, that were played in Court. Verbal abuse, not physical. But then again, someone who habitually passes out when abusing drugs and alcohol is likely enough to do stuff when under the influence, that he may not even remember ---- but of course, that's up to Amber to prove in court. Otherwise from what I gather he didn't actually physically beat up on her while in possession of his senses --- which she apparently was given to doing.

Agreed again, if AH's team can indeed show physical abuse (on JD's part), then obviously the defamation claim falls flat. But they haven't actually been able to, is my impression?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

By "abuse" I meant his unarguably misogynistic insults directed to and/or at Amber, that were played in Court. Verbal abuse, not physical. But then again, someone who habitually passes out when abusing drugs and alcohol is likely enough to do stuff when under the influence, that he may not even remember ---- but of course, that's up to Amber to prove in court. Otherwise from what I gather he didn't actually physically beat up on her while in possession of his senses --- which she apparently was given to doing.

Agreed again, if AH's team can indeed show physical abuse (on JD's part), then obviously the defamation claim falls flat. But they haven't actually been able to, is my impression?

No, it's Depp's burden to prove she lied. The standards in the US for defamation are pretty onerous for the accuser. The benefit of the doubt goes to Heard, assuming a jury actually follows the law.

[whoanellie]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The whole media circus around this is quite incredible, and I suspect history will not look kindly on this gross spectacle on what amounts to Depp using the courts to lash out against an abused partner who dared speak out for herself.

I imagine the message sent to victims of domestic abuse, especially women, is quite clear. Heard's allegations of being abused are about as well documented as you could hope, including pictures of injuries, contemporaneous text conversations, and credible testimony from witnesses. If Heard can't be believed, no abuse victim can be. Depp's ulterior motivations for bringing this case which he absolutely knows he will not win could not be more transparent. A powerful man extracting a pound of flesh from a woman who spoke plainly about his abuse being received to thunderous applause.

At best Depp's hopeless defamation trial is showing that maybe Heard was also abusive, but it absolutely will not disprove the plain fact that Heard was abused (which is the heart of the defamation accusation). That won't stop the absolutely deranged public spectacle from treating the entire thing as a huge vindication for Depp.

I largely agree with what you say here, ST. While Depp has clearly won the PR battle, neither has come across well after 6 weeks of dirty laundry airing. I have no idea what the jury will do but a victory in court for Depp will send a very strong and very wrong message to any victim of domestic abuse.

[IsThisTheLife]

An example of the kind of MSM/corporate media/"liberal" crapola that "informs" certain people (from Vox - it's a doozy);

Why the Depp-Heard trial is so much worse than you realize

(Why the MSM/corporate media is so much worse than you realise).

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

No, it's Depp's burden to prove she lied. The standards in the US for defamation are pretty onerous for the accuser. The benefit of the doubt goes to Heard, assuming a jury actually follows the law.

The burden of proof is indeed on Depp, but it doesn't need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, only by a preponderance of evidence. And given that Heard was caught in multiple lies in court, I don't think it's much of a stretch for a jury to conclude she lied in her op ed either.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by whoanellie

I largely agree with what you say here, ST. While Depp has clearly won the PR battle, neither has come across well after 6 weeks of dirty laundry airing. I have no idea what the jury will do but a victory in court for Depp will send a very strong and very wrong message to any victim of domestic abuse.

This is a garbage argument. If you lie about abuse, being called out for that lie isn't the wrong message. You're trying to short-circuit having to argue that Heard told the truth, by appealing to hypothetical harm to others. But that doesn't suffice. Her accusations have to stand on their own. But they don't. They crumble under scrutiny. She's a liar. She perjured herself on the stand. There's really no uncertainty about that.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

No, it's Depp's burden to prove she lied. The standards in the US for defamation are pretty onerous for the accuser. The benefit of the doubt goes to Heard, assuming a jury actually follows the law.

That seems a bit weird. How can you prove it that you did not hit someone? I mean, I've no idea about how the law works there, no doubt you're right. But how does one even do that, prove a negative?


eta: oh, us you said. i thought you meant uk. anyway, either way.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

That seems a bit weird. How can you prove it that you did not hit someone? I mean, I've no idea about how the law works there, no doubt you're right. But how does one even do that, prove a negative?

You don't prove it, not in a mathematical sense. Rather, you establish likelihood. Did anyone see you do it? Did anyone see the aftermath? Is this the sort of thing you've done to anyone else? Does the person claiming it lie about this sort of thing? You collect a bunch of circumstantial evidence, and then the jury decides what's more likely.

And the circumstantial evidence stacks up very strongly in Depp's favor. There's only one witness claiming to have seen the abuse (Whitney Heard), lots of witnesses claiming it never happened, lots of evidence of stuff OTHER than physical abuse but almost no evidence of physical abuse, no history of past abuse by Depp, a history of past abuse by Heard, and most damning of all, a history of lying and faking evidence by Heard including demonstrated lies and fake evidence on the witness stand. It would be very, very easy for a jury to find for Depp under these circumstances. They aren't guaranteed to, but it wouldn't be a surprise at all if they did.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

That seems a bit weird. How can you prove it that you did not hit someone? I mean, I've no idea about how the law works there, no doubt you're right. But how does one even do that, prove a negative?


eta: oh, us you said. i thought you meant uk. anyway, either way.

If you cant prove it, you shouldn't be suing. Nobody made Depp bring this lawsuit, and he easily could have called Heard a liar or otherwise disputed the claims without suing.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

If you cant prove it, you shouldn't be suing. Nobody made Depp bring this lawsuit, and he easily could have called Heard a liar or otherwise disputed the claims without suing.

Not to beat this to death, and I'm not doubting what you so confidently state is the legal requirement to prove defamation. But this simply doesn't make sense to me, from a common sense perspective. Because if this is actually what the law asks for, then no one can ever file a defamation suit! If you've lived with someone for a year or two or more, then how is it even possible, even theoretically possible, to prove that you've not hit them?


(Okay, maybe over a short period of a day, or maybe a week, it might be possible. Simply by being able to account for your presence for every minute of every day, via CCTV maybe, or maybe by showing pics from every single day sans bruises, or something like that. -------- Although, wait, even then how do you prove you haven't hit them and bruised them under the clothing. Nah, this sounds ...weird.)

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Not to beat this to death, and I'm not doubting what you so confidently state is the legal requirement to prove defamation.

ST has said very little about what the burden of proof is, and what he has said isn't very useful in understanding it. He is correct that the "burden of proof" lies with the plaintiff, in the sense that the plaintiff needs to show something. But what you're really asking for isn't the burden of proof, but the standard of proof. And for a civil trial, including defamation, it's "preponderance of evidence". This is a much lower standard of proof than for criminal trials where the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt". What makes defamation trials generally difficult isn't the standard of proof, but the elements of the offense, ie, the things you need to show in order to win.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Not to beat this to death, and I'm not doubting what you so confidently state is the legal requirement to prove defamation. But this simply doesn't make sense to me, from a common sense perspective. Because if this is actually what the law asks for, then no one can ever file a defamation suit! If you've lived with someone for a year or two or more, then how is it even possible, even theoretically possible, to prove that you've not hit them?


(Okay, maybe over a short period of a day, or maybe a week, it might be possible. Simply by being able to account for your presence for every minute of every day, via CCTV maybe, or maybe by showing pics from every single day sans bruises, or something like that. -------- Although, wait, even then how do you prove you haven't hit them and bruised them under the clothing. Nah, this sounds ...weird.)

Beats me. I don't think defamation is a useful tool for many circumstances, least of all sorting through the dirty laundry of an extremely toxic relationship. Fortunately this is the kind of stunt that is really only accessible to people with enough money to pay lawyers for prolonged, tedious trials.

I would agree that responding to claims of being a domestic abuser is indeed quite difficult. I don't see why long-shot defamation cases should be a solution, nor why standards should be lowered to make it easier.

Depp easily could have mirrored Heard's move and published some opinion piece or whatever in any publication that would have him, and I imagine a decent segment of the population would have found his explanation or accusations credible. Suing strikes me as a very petty and vindictive move, but I suppose I should withhold judgement until the jury makes their decision.

[whoanellie]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This is a garbage argument. If you lie about abuse, being called out for that lie isn't the wrong message. You're trying to short-circuit having to argue that Heard told the truth, by appealing to hypothetical harm to others. But that doesn't suffice. Her accusations have to stand on their own. But they don't. They crumble under scrutiny. She's a liar. She perjured herself on the stand. There's really no uncertainty about that.

Depp and his witnesses told multiple lies. Focusing on Heard without critically looking at Depp is not fair.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by whoanellie

Depp and his witnesses told multiple lies.

Elaborate.

[whoanellie]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Elaborate.

I'd start with Depp accusing Heard's attorney of writing texts that came from Depp's phone.

[figarot]

It was silly for Johnny to think anyone believes him when he says he never took enough MDMA for it to have any effect.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by whoanellie

I'd start with Depp accusing Heard's attorney of writing texts that came from Depp's phone.

That's... not what he said. He wasn't claiming that they wrote the texts. He was using that possibility as a hypothetical to make the point that he had no idea of the provenance of certain text messages. His ACTUAL claim is that he didn't write the texts.

Was he lying that he didn't write the texts in question? Possibly. But that hasn't been proven.