Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard

Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard - defamation trial. The jury will rule in favour of...

  • Johnny Depp

    Votes: 11 68.8%

  • Amber Heard

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Total voters
    16
Cerro de Casa

Cerro de Casa

User
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
68,342
Surprised there isn't more discussion around this.
Anyway I'm watching the closing arguments now.




Who do you think will win the defamation case?
 
I have been trying to avoid it because I largely DO NOT CARE and they both seem like dreadful human beings, but YouTube sending me constant PUSH NOTIFICATIONS about it is really not the one.

From my limited knowledge, I think Heard will win the case, because she has plainly not defamed him by pointing out that he was abusive towards her, but Depp has won the PR battle.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been following it quite a lot mostly because the mainstream reporting has been SO incredibly off compared to what has actually happened in the courtroom. When they can blatantly misrepresent issues that are publicly available to dispute, what else will they do? That’s the wider issue here for me.

Most interesting has been the battle of psychologist reports, and the fact that Dr. Curry who did a thorough evaluation of Heard (as a result of her PTSD claim), then diagnosed her with Histrionic Personality Disorder, and both times after she testified, Heard took the stand and proved every single thing she said as correct.
 
The whole thing is extremely gross and they’re both awful cunts. However the amount of power this is giving people who excuse abuse is just ugh.

We will look at this in a few years and be like we laughed at this? Like we did Britney.
 
It’s an interesting (and dreadful) that #metoo seems to come to a shuddering halt when the victims are not perfect characters.
 
But there’s barely a scrap of evidence against him apart from the fact that he has an issue with opiates and wrote some nasty texts about her to his friends including quoting the Monty Python burn the witch scene, but shitloads of evidence that she planned and faked the whole thing. This is where you need to watch the actual trial and not refer to what the media is reporting.

The “imperfect victim” thing is absolute rubbish l. She’s not a promiscuous rape victim, she’s been caught blatantly lying and making up crap as she goes along.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea who’s to blame but I do know that the psychologist that was paid by Amber Heard’s team to testify on her behalf was GREAT television, in that he was an absolutely appalling psychologist and (very likely) human being, and should not in any way be anyone’s actual psychologist. What a deplorable specimen!
 
funky said:
I have no idea who’s to blame but I do know that the psychologist that was paid by Amber Heard’s team to testify on her behalf was GREAT television, in that he was an absolutely appalling psychologist and (very likely) human being, and should not in any way be anyone’s actual psychologist. What a deplorable specimen!
Click to expand...
You mean the guy who decided to diagnose Johnny Depp as having a personality disorder, having never met him and admittedly by “watching Pirates of the Caribbean”?

Maybe he should have watched Sweeney Todd and accused him of being a serial killer too :D
 
And I also can’t believe that she is actually paying her legal team that much money, let alone any money at all, as they are the worst legal team I’ve ever watched :D

Mind you, they agreed to take on the case, and anyone could see they were set up to fail. I guess they felt the money was worth it.

But my GOD what a shitshow.
 
Ellie said:
You mean the guy who decided to diagnose Johnny Depp as having a personality disorder, having never met him and admittedly by “watching Pirates of the Caribbean”?

Maybe he should have watched Sweeney Todd and accused him of being a serial killer too :D
Click to expand...

I can’t remember that but - the one who had to be reminded by the judge about three times that he needed to just answer the questions, because he thought being on the stand meant he could have a straight up debate with the lawyers

On one hand I thought the lawyers let him off way lightly by letting him talk over them, but then again, they probably knew he was working for the prosecution at that point, on account of just being plain awful
 
I don’t believe she defamed him.

Depp lost comprehensively at the English counts despite all the odds being stacked in his favour.

If she loses, it will be because the Americans insist on putting this sort of thing to juries.
 
Madison said:
I don’t believe she defamed him.

Depp lost comprehensively at the English counts despite all the odds being stacked in his favour.

If she loses, it will be because the Americans insist on putting this sort of thing to juries.
Click to expand...
Taken the words out of my mouth.
 
The UK trial was completely different. How were the odds in his favour when all The Sun had to prove is that they acted in good faith when they printed a headline? They’re completely different trials.

If you haven’t watched the whole thing, watch the closing arguments from today which at least sums up what has happened and what the jury instructions actually are. If you’re not interested then fine, but there is hardly any unbiased truth in any mainstream media article or editorial about this.
 
Madison said:
I don’t believe she defamed him.

Depp lost comprehensively at the English counts despite all the odds being stacked in his favour.

If she loses, it will be because the Americans insist on putting this sort of thing to juries.
Click to expand...

That was a completely different case.
 
It’s highly likely Depp won’t win this case either, because it’s a very difficult case to prove. The difference here is that he went out to clear his name in the public eye as much as in the legal sense, and in that respect he’s very much won. Amber Heard is clearly unwell and while I don’t support the online bullying levied against her, she’s definitely been exposed as a pathological liar with some real issues. All that’s been detailed about Johnny Depp is that he had a drink and drug problem. Something that has been detailed many times before and he has been open about well before she came along.
 
funky said:
That was a completely different case.
Click to expand...
A different case, but dealing with fundamentally the same underlying conduct.

The claims in the English court were much more defamatory (“wife-beater”), much more specific, and our law gives people alleging libel such an advantage - and he still lost. There were adverse findings of fact on 12 separate incidents out of 14.

The statement Heard is being sued in the US for is that “I became a public figure representing domestic abuse”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNL
I've not followed any of it and have very little interest. All I have see is posts from a local charity who work with women who experience abuse, and from two women of my age I know from school (I'm not friends with them, but they both have open fb profiles and I like a hatewatch every so often) who are utterly vile about Amber Heard.

So for that reason, and the fact that Depp looks like he fucking stinks, I'm notionally Team Amber.
 
lolly said:
I've not followed any of it and have very little interest. All I have see is posts from a local charity who work with women who experience abuse, and from two women of my age I know from school (I'm not friends with them, but they both have open fb profiles and I like a hatewatch every so often) who are utterly vile about Amber Heard.
Click to expand...
This has been the most worrying issue really, and it is particularly vile on social media.
 
Suedey said:
If she perjured herself then so did he when he pretended those text messages weren't from him..
Click to expand...
Who cares about some text messages? She has literally painted bruises on her face, called the paparazzi and sold an edited video to TMZ, added a weird rape claim all of a sudden, testified to injuries that were physically impossible to cover with make-up, admitted to abusing him on tape and admitted to setting him up! Honestly watch the testimonies. Yesterday she accused EVERY independent witness he had of lying.
 
1653686688597.png
 
If my husband suddenly wanted a divorce, I would get Gloria Allred to represent me. She would probably get Amber Heard’s lawyer.
 
That’s evidence of him having a pretty sick and dark sense of humour, none of which he’s denied. Nothing else.

I have no real affiliation for Depp BTW. Used to like him a lot as an actor but his last great film was before he even met that woman.
 
Ellie said:
Who cares about some text messages? She has literally painted bruises on her face, called the paparazzi and sold an edited video to TMZ, added a weird rape claim all of a sudden, testified to injuries that were physically impossible to cover with make-up, admitted to abusing him on tape and admitted to setting him up! Honestly watch the testimonies. Yesterday she accused EVERY independent witness he had of lying.
Click to expand...

She did not accuse them of lying, I think you'll find their testimonials were incorrect :side-eye:

What is it Amber is immediately looking away to after addressing Depp's lawyer? It's quite a purposeful display. With the water drinking and previous eating (I think from 2016), I half expect to see her open a pizza box whilst responding next.

I do dislike all the click bait thumbnails on YouTube. It's a trend I noticed with Will Smith.
 
straightorbroken said:
She did not accuse them of lying, I think you'll find their testimonials were incorrect :side-eye:

What is it Amber is immediately looking away to after addressing Depp's lawyer? It's quite a purposeful display. With the water drinking and previous eating (I think from 2016), I half expect to see her open a pizza box whilst responding next.

I do dislike all the click bait thumbnails on YouTube. It's a trend I noticed with Will Smith.
Click to expand...
She's responding and turning her head directly to the jury, but when she is angrily arguing with the lawyer she's being aggressive towards them instead of her. It's a strange tactic quite a few people have done including some of the psychologists. If I was a juror I'd be weirded out by it.
 
Madison said:
A different case, but dealing with fundamentally the same underlying conduct.

The claims in the English court were much more defamatory (“wife-beater”), much more specific, and our law gives people alleging libel such an advantage - and he still lost. There were adverse findings of fact on 12 separate incidents out of 14.

The statement Heard is being sued in the US for is that “I became a public figure representing domestic abuse”.
Click to expand...

But he didn’t lose because the court agreed with The Sun that he was a wife beater. He lost because he couldn’t prove he wasn’t, and the dreadful loopholes in the media laws in this country (which are the reason the Sun and Fail are the way they are, less we forget) allow The Sun to find ways to claim such slander is acceptable - whether it’s true or not.

I’m not a Johnny Depp fan at all, nor do I dislike him. I just think Amber Heard is vile and she undermines the genuine problem of abuse. It sounds like it was a horrible relationship but he never once went to the press or accused of her anything during or after the relationship. She on the other hand went to extraordinary lengths to destroy him. I haven’t even scratched the surface of the story but the stuff coming out of this case is astonishing.
 
funky said:
But he didn’t lose because the court agreed with The Sun that he was a wife beater. He lost because he couldn’t prove he wasn’t, and the dreadful loopholes in the media laws in this country (which are the reason the Sun and Fail are the way they are, less we forget) allow The Sun to find ways to claim such slander is acceptable - whether it’s true or not.
Click to expand...
The burden was on the Sun to show the claim was substantially true, not the other way round.
 
Madison said:
The burden was on the Sun to show the claim was substantially true, not the other way round.
Click to expand...
Which was mostly based on her London testimony along with her ex-friends who were living rent free in his penthouses, which was not sufficiently cross examined due to the limitations of the case. Now we’ve had the police and their bodycam footage of nothing happening when they were called, the audio recordings being admitted into evidence, full testimony of witnesses to the events on his island; Hicksville trailer park, events in Australia, forensic evidence of altered photos etc.
 
If the jury believes Depp abused her even once, regardless if they believe she was also abusive, isn't the truth a complete defense for her? This is the standard in most states, anyway. A jury is probably going to think she exaggerated and is a narcissist, but that's not going to make his burden of proof any less difficult to overcome.

I know nothing about the counterclaim.
 
POP! said:
If the jury believes Depp abused her even once, regardless if they believe she was also abusive, isn't the truth a complete defense for her? This is the standard in most states, anyway. A jury is probably going to think she exaggerated and is a narcissist, but that's not going to make his burden of proof any less difficult to overcome.

I know nothing about the counterclaim.
Click to expand...
No, watch the full final arguments from both sides as they explain it all. They have 7 questions to answer all related to the 2018 op-ed and it being 100% valid as well as its effects causing defamation and being written with malice, which AH quite literally admitted to on the stand yesterday, saying she “wrote it about him to take away his power”.

At 1hr 11mins here in this video is the crux of it with the full instructions:



Just because he once head-butted her by when he was barricading himself in a bathroom as she was trying to kick the door in, and once grabbed her by the arms to remove her from blocking him to leave (all admitted), does not matter as it’s about how truthful the op-ed was in its entirety. For her to win damages she has to prove that a bunch of tweets from his lawyer being a bit unprofessional, but possibly truthful, were incorrect and were directly responsible for her losing work.

Also the UK term in court of something being “substantially true” is a legal definition of weighing up a slight probability, which in the press makes the verdict sound like he was found “guilty” of some kind of offence. Her PR has actually been sending out a bunch of factual inaccuracies as if it was some kind of criminal trial against him. Part of the UK verdict was also based on the probability of her making up stories of abuse for her gain, when she testified that she donated all of her divorce settlement to charity. That has since been proven to be false as she donated nothing.

Like I said at the start, I’ve mostly been interested in this case because of the media reaction and the absolute blatant bias on display when what they’re reporting on is available to see for yourself. With 8 hours of court time every day, anyone with any agenda can twist and turn what was said in whichever way they wish, by taking a couple of quotes to “sum up” the events to portray one side in the context of their choosing. They pick and choose what to omit and some of these mad mainstream editorials about having to “believe all women or it will be a slap in the face to victims” are completely illogical. I really think UK courts should have cameras allowed in.
 
Last edited:
Ellie said:
No, watch the full final arguments from both sides as they explain it all. They have 7 questions to answer all related to the 2018 op-ed and it being 100% valid as well as its effects causing defamation and being written with malice, which AH quite literally admitted to on the stand yesterday, saying she “wrote it about him to take away his power”.

At 1hr 11mins here in this video is the crux of it with the full instructions:



Just because he once head-butted her by when he was barricading himself in a bathroom as she was trying to kick the door in, and once grabbed her by the arms to remove her from blocking him to leave (all admitted), does not matter as it’s about how truthful the op-ed was in its entirety. For her to win damages she has to prove that a bunch of tweets from his lawyer being a bit unprofessional, but possibly truthful, were incorrect and were directly responsible for her losing work.

Also the UK term in court of something being “substantially true” is a legal definition of weighing up a slight probability, which in the press makes the verdict sound like he was found “guilty” of some kind of offence. Her PR has actually been sending out a bunch of factual inaccuracies as if it was some kind of criminal trial against him. Part of the UK verdict was also based on the probability of her making up stories of abuse for her gain, when she testified that she donated all of her divorce settlement to charity. That has since been proven to be false as she donated nothing.

Like I said at the start, I’ve mostly been interested in this case because of the media reaction and the absolute blatant bias on display when what they’re reporting on is available to see for yourself. With 8 hours of court time every day, anyone with any agenda can twist and turn what was said in whichever way they wish, by taking a couple of quotes to “sum up” the events to portray one side in the context of their choosing. They pick and choose what to omit and some of these mad mainstream editorials about having to “believe all women or it will be a slap in the face to victims” are completely illogical. I really think UK courts should have cameras allowed in.
Click to expand...

Is this the op-ed? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html

It's so vague, what aspects of it are supposed to be proven false or even targeted at Johnny? I can read between the lines, but there are no specific factual allegations in that article and the "abuse" allegation could be interpreted a million different ways even if he never physically touched her.

I can't stand either of them, tbh.
 
Well…
It looks like at least one of them has won.
 
It’s the sort of case that is just made of a damages award of one dollar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom