Johnny Depp defeats Amber Heard in Court

[CobraMJD]

"Tell the world Johnny..."

???

[DaivRules]

Follow up for anyone interested in the actual court procedure and verdict, without all the agenda biases, from a legal expert explained for non-legal experts:

 

 

[Raidou Kuzunoha XIV]

12 hours ago, DaivRules said:

Follow up for anyone interested in the actual court procedure and verdict, without all the agenda biases, from a legal expert explained for non-legal experts:

Spoiler

 

 

 

Thanks for the video. It's been hard finding too many impartial sources that aren't biased one way or another about this case, which is one of the reasons I haven't really bothered to look into this much. I decided to actually finally do a bit of research on this as I'm genuinely curious as to why this got so much attention, I can't even remember the last time a celebrity civil court case was this much the centre of attention for so long. I completely ignore the news when it comes to celebrities for the most part, but had to keep hearing about this case to annoying degrees from colleagues, acquaintances and social media (which I barely even use, but somehow I was getting videos about this in my YouTube's recommendations).

 

As expected, it does seem to simply boil down to a case of celebrity obsession/parasocial relationships, and those concerned about what this could mean for abuse victims seeking justice in the future (positively and/or negatively).

 

Interestingly, it seems Depp previously brought up a libel case here in the UK against some tabloid paper, "The Sun", which he lost, and also had his appeal rejected. Why I find it interesting, is because it's kind of notoriously hard to actually lose libel cases here (so much so we used to have a slight "libel tourism" issue), even after The Defamation Act 2013, we're still fairly "claimant-friendly", afaik. Depp has also allegedly assaulted a crew member during the filming of City of Lies, which he seems to be going back to court for in July.

 

Anyway, I still don't know enough to "take sides" (or have much of a firm opinion about the actual case itself, just the drama that's attached to and surrounds it), but I think that's kind of the issue with cases like this, the obsession with "taking sides" and painting people in these cases as either 100% innocent or 100% guilty. Like most humans, they probably both have flaws, and we (the general public) have no idea who these people really are behind closed doors, they're both actors after all. What's sad to me is that it sometimes seems like people can only really fully sympathise with a victim that's dead, or "did everything right". We don't seem to like sympathising quite so much with living, messy human beings.

 

I still believe whatever relationship they had was likely one of reactive abuse, or mutual abuse (which is rarer, but not unheard of). I don't know the details, nor do I really care. As stated before, I'm more appalled by how the case was handled by the public/social media and the media than anything else. It's fine making speculations, as long as you realise it's simply speculation, but the amount of people I've heard claim to be self professed experts when it seems like a lot of their knowledge has come from other people they heard it from, or dubious sources, and often pass off this knowledge as "fact", is kind of insane.

 

I'm still of the very strong opinion that court cases should not be televised. Even for celebrities, their privacy shouldn't be invaded to this degree. I don't think anyone would have cared anywhere near as much about this case if it wasn't televised and seemingly treated like a weekly soap opera or reality TV show for some people. That's the thing that still irks me the most about this case, and other cases like this, on a personal ethical level.

 

I know next to nothing about the American justice system, so I have no idea if there's some benefits I'm unaware of to cases being televised, but there seems to be so many negative side effects, I'm not sure what could possibly be worth it, speaking as a Brit anyway where televised court cases are simply not a thing that exists.

 

Anyhow, I'm injecting my own personal takes into this, so I'll stop here. Still hoping I won't have to offhand hear about this for much longer in the coming weeks if nothing else.

[Zephrese]

Feel like I had an aneurysm reading some of the takes in this thread, good lord. 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Zephrese

[Rozalia1]

10 hours ago, MercilessWaffle said:

Interestingly, it seems Depp previously brought up a libel case here in the UK against some tabloid paper, "The Sun", which he lost, and also had his appeal rejected. Why I find it interesting, is because it's kind of notoriously hard to actually lose libel cases here (so much so we used to have a slight "libel tourism" issue), even after The Defamation Act 2013, we're still fairly "claimant-friendly", afaik. Depp has also allegedly assaulted a crew member during the filming of City of Lies, which he seems to be going back to court for in July.

 

He ain't no angel trope. If you actually looked into the libel case you'd find that Amber's statement were basically taken as fact on her word and the Judge deemed that she likely wasn't going to be lying because "she gave all the money she got to charity", which she actually only gave a small portion.

 

Also, remarks that losing a libel case that should be easy to win is interesting. Winning a defamatory case which is hard to win... no interest at all I suppose.

 

10 hours ago, MercilessWaffle said:

Anyway, I still don't know enough to "take sides" (or have much of a firm opinion about the actual case itself, just the drama that's attached to and surrounds it), but I think that's kind of the issue with cases like this, the obsession with "taking sides" and painting people in these cases as either 100% innocent or 100% guilty. Like most humans, they probably both have flaws, and we (the general public) have no idea who these people really are behind closed doors, they're both actors after all. What's sad to me is that it sometimes seems like people can only really fully sympathise with a victim that's dead, or "did everything right". We don't seem to like sympathising quite so much with living, messy human beings.

 

I still believe whatever relationship they had was likely one of reactive abuse, or mutual abuse (which is rarer, but not unheard of). I don't know the details, nor do I really care. As stated before, I'm more appalled by how the case was handled by the public/social media and the media than anything else. It's fine making speculations, as long as you realise it's simply speculation, but the amount of people I've heard claim to be self professed experts when it seems like a lot of their knowledge has come from other people they heard it from, or dubious sources, and often pass off this knowledge as "fact", is kind of insane.

 

Johnny Depp: Said some angry words to friends about Heard due to her abuse.

Amber Heard: Lashed out at Depp constantly verbally, would punch him, cut up his finger, recorded everything in hopes of entrapping him on anything he might do.

 

mUtUaL aBuSe! Again, would you dream of saying that if the sexes were reversed? The answer is you wouldn't and you have already said as such previously.

 

10 hours ago, MercilessWaffle said:

I'm still of the very strong opinion that court cases should not be televised. Even for celebrities, their privacy shouldn't be invaded to this degree. I don't think anyone would have cared anywhere near as much about this case if it wasn't televised and seemingly treated like a weekly soap opera or reality TV show for some people. That's the thing that still irks me the most about this case, and other cases like this, on a personal ethical level.

 

I know next to nothing about the American justice system, so I have no idea if there's some benefits I'm unaware of to cases being televised, but there seems to be so many negative side effects, I'm not sure what could possibly be worth it, speaking as a Brit anyway where televised court cases are simply not a thing that exists.

 

Anyhow, I'm injecting my own personal takes into this, so I'll stop here. Still hoping I won't have to offhand hear about this for much longer in the coming weeks if nothing else.

 

This case is evidence FOR cases being televised as it allowed the public to weigh in and overwhelm the media and activists who are fully invested in sacrificing a male victim at the alter to not make their movement look bad, exactly what the MRA/Conservative/so forth types claim they do, so good job to them for showing their true ugly faces to the public. The claim that "Women hardly ever lie in cases of abuse of this nature" is going to likely get laughed at by the public in the future and it won't be because Johnny Depp won a case against Amber Heard, it'll be because of how the media and activists acted. As one of the founders of MeToo smartly said, the way to handle this case is to label it a victory for MeToo as a victim overcame their abuser and was heard, something especially rare for male victims, it is not to claim that MeToo has failed and an innocent woman has been punished by the patriarchy. Had the case not been televised then Depp likely would have lost as the obvious truth would have not been allowed to propagate. 

 

Don't worry, stay in the echo chamber and you won't have to hear anything you disagree with. Also yes I know, you ain't going to respond because you think I'm a meaniehead or whatever, that is fine as your response on this is just going to be another boring "I don't know, but let me tell you how smart I am anyway". The thread needs no more of those anyway so it is only a good thing.

 

9 hours ago, Zephrese said:

Feel like I had an aneurysm reading some of the takes in this thread, good lord. 

 

Can't know for certain if you're talking about me or the Progressive gang, but either way don't worry about it. I'm one person and their gang is a small (angry) one.

[DaivRules]

7 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

Had the case not been televised then Depp likely would have lost as the obvious truth would have not been allowed to propagate. 

Is this your claim or is this tied to the previous sentences about what the founder of MeToo made a statement about?

 

I don’t see where the premise of being televised impacted what the jury in this case understood about their role and how it would have changed their conclusions. 
 

[Rozalia1]

1 minute ago, DaivRules said:

Is this your claim or is this tied to the previous sentences about what the founder of MeToo made a statement about?

 

I don’t see where the premise of being televised impacted what the jury in this case understood about their role and how it would have changed their conclusions. 

 

You can consider it both if you want. A closed courtroom has certain advantages, but it can be a disadvantage for victims if they're in an unfair situations where the deck is stacked against them. The UK case is considered by many to have been stacked against Depp due to the Judge's conduct. That is not to say he would have won if it had been different, but it certainly made it harder.

 

I'm not referring to the Jury, more the system/Judge. If everything is televised and open then the System/Judge is given more pause when it comes to disregarding things as they'll know that it could cause a public backlash. Of course, I don't ignore that it could be said to also be able to have the opposite effect if the public is "against justice", but the common person for all that they are maligned as stupid and evil people by certain people, aren't as bad as they make out.

[czDante92]

Don't care about Depp that much, but good god I do hope Marilyn Manson will be the next to clear his name.
The fact that he got dropped by his label and all promotion of his latest album halted just because of some unproven and highly suspicious claims is crazy, especially after he posted solid evidence of his innocence.
Same as Depp, Manson is not exactly boy scout, but the idea that he survived all that flak in the 90's and 2000's and THIS is what buries him is just surreal.

[Valzentia]

Some of the takes here make the Twitter village idiots look good, dear god

On 6/5/2022 at 5:21 PM, czDante92 said:

good god I do hope Marilyn Manson will be the next to clear his name.

Highly unlikely—doesn't he have multiple accusers, not just Wood?

[czDante92]

2 hours ago, Valzentia said:

Highly unlikely—doesn't he have multiple accusers, not just Wood?

Check the document in Manson's Instagram bio if you're interested, it was enough for me to trust the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.