[News] Depp Vs Heard

[Uh_huh_him]

Depp's extremely experienced legal team made the narrative of the case, that Heard was a manipulative liar.
The actual case they brought to court, was whether her Op-Ed piece, where she said that she had become a spokesperson for domestic violence, had defamed JD.
The statement was factually true. Whether JD was an abusive husband or not, there was nothing in the article that caused him to be "cancelled".
The damage was done by the UK court case, not her article.

Depp bringing the case to court to seek damages against Heard, rather than the Sun, is the problematic piece for me.

Who said what to whom and when, is irrelevant.
My ex-wife and myself said and did some pretty despicable things in the last 6 months of our marriage.
Judging either party about what happened between them in the final throws of their marriage, is not reasonable.

 

[GOM]

I think the jury in this trial had 7 jurors and I think 4 or 5 of them were apparently relatively younger men.

Says a lot about how the decision was derived at maybe ?

I've not seen anything anywhere re the composition of the jury, just the number of jurors (7). Where did your numbers of younger men come from? I'm surprised AH lawyers would have let that go in selection.

As you used terms 'I think' twice are you being naughty and have just guessed ? Good guess with 7.

 

[The Clamp]

They both fit the profile of co-dependent substance abusers who shouldn’t be within a million miles of each other. I’ve given testimony at a number of DV trials and in my opinion, they both present as abused and abuser.

Whether they requested or agreed to it or not, this trial should not have been allowed to be televised. It played right into certain narratives that were being pushed. I’m not sure who has final say but if it’s the judge, she should know a damned sight better.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Because JD was hung drawn and quartered by the 'Media' and had his name and reputation slaughtered, losing his job (got several films cancelled on him). The Couirt of Public Opinion found him guilty in the past. Aided by biased and sensationalistic media. If the original accusations weren't splashed all over the internet and printed press, I'd agree. However it wasnt and therefore this trial gave him the opportunity to clear his name.

At the end of the day, it was the choice of both to have it in the public eye. They have that right.[/QUOTE]

So they chose to have cameras and broadcast the trial around the world?

f that is true then I retract my statement and shake my head even more at the madness.

Although I still don't understand why anyone feels the need to sit in judgement on them. But like I say clearly in a minority on this one

Yes. The case was about ensuring that one's brand is no longer toxic because in their line of work a toxic brand means no work. Very different (I assume) from the likes of you and I.

 

[NooBHA]

I've not seen anything anywhere re the composition of the jury, just the number of jurors (7). Where did your numbers of younger men come from? I'm surprised AH lawyers would have let that go in selection.

As you used terms 'I think' twice are you being naughty and have just guessed ? Good guess with 7.

I saw it on a CNN news report

 

[Acker79]

[tweet]1532698879371747328[/tweet]

 

[Boys 9d]

I don't know how true this is but it might be relevant to any appeal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vnuHDDGkqA

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Just to clarify a couple of issues before I get into the substantive issue of the trial -

1. it is inaccurate to claim that both sides wanted the case televised. Heard's legal team fought a two-week battle before the trial to keep out the cameras. It was part of the Depp strategy to have the case televised to facilitate the Depp social media campaign against Heard. Incidentally Heard's team also pushed for the names of the jurors to be kept secret for one year after the trial so that they wouldn't become a target. Depp's team wanted the names released immediately after the trial as an intimidatory tactic.
2. it is also false to assert that recordings were made in secret - both Depp and Heard were told by their couples’ therapist to regularly record their interactions as part their couples therapy.
3. The video about the appeal is inaccurate – Heard can lodge an appeal – and has numerous grounds to do so.

This trial was never about defamation - if it was then Depp would have sued the Washington Post. Since their divorce Depp has engaged a social media team (and spent an estimated $5million) to engage in a social media campaign against Heard - using bots -- and denigrating her through a whole series of allegations. The campaign has been widespread and vindictive and is the result of Depp promising to destroy Heard following their divorce. The purpose of pushing for the televising of the case was to facilitate Depp's team to flood social media with selective edited extracts that bolstered their attacks on Heard.

The argument of the Depp legal team was -
1. Heard never told anyone of the abuse - false
2. There were no photographs of the abuse - false
3. Heard never sought medical attention - false.

Not alone did the judge rule that the case be televised - the judge ruled out all of Heard's medical records - the judge manipulated the hear-say rule that prevented Heard from telling the court that who she told about the abuse and what she told them - the judge ruled out large numbers of photographs of Heard's injuries. All of this evidence was admitted in the UK trial. Furthermore, the judge ruled that the jurors were not to be told that Depp lost the UK trial and that the judge in the UK found that the Depp was proven to have assaulted Heard on 12 of the 14 incidents that were examined in the UK trial.

This case has been five years in the making - Depp's team have been waiting for an opportunity to get a case against Heard heard in Virginia. The reason for this is that Virginia has virtually no anti-SLAPP laws on the statute books. These laws are designed to prevent frivilous lawsuits that go directly against the first amendment. Virginia is known for 'libel tourism' as a state where high profile celebrities and politicians can get cases heard that should never see the light of day. If this lawsuit by Depp was heard in most other states in the US it would have been thrown out way before ever reaching a trial. Since Depp lodged his lawsuit and and as a result of the lawsuit (and a subsequent lawsuit by Devin Nunes - a Trumpite Republican in the House of Representatives) - Virginia has been forced to change it's anti-SLAPP laws. If Depp was to lodge exactly the same lawsuit today in Virginia, it would be dismissed out of hand.

The judge ruled that the case could be heard in Virginia on the basis that the Washington Post servers are located in Fairfax County. This is a dubious decision at best because the WP was not being sued by Depp (Depp would have had to face a far wealthier and more powerful individual than his ex-wife) – and is actually the first potential ground for an appeal.

Throughout the trial the judge made numerous dubious decisions – all of which, bar one, went in Depp’s favour. These decisions allowed Depp’s team (and in particular Cammille Vasquez) to attack Heard with claims that she never told anyone about the abuse – knowing full well that the judge had already ruled that Heard could not answer the question – that Heard never sought medical help – knowing full well that the judge had already ruled that the medical records could not be submitted as evidence and that Heard was barred from talking about her medical consultations – and thirdly – that Heard faked the photographs – knowing that there was no evidence of this and that the judge ruled out many other photographs that would have backed up Heard’s allegations.

At the same time the judge never sequestered the jury – simply telling the jurors not to check their phones outside the courthouse – as if that was not going to happen, particularly during the break in the trial of several days. It has since emerged that at least one juror was in contact with someone outside the courthouse who was providing a running commentary of the social media campaign against Heard during the trial. It is possible, even likely that the rest of the jury were doing something similar.

On the evidence presented – there is zero corroborative evidence that Heard ever assaulted Depp, apart from her admission that she hit Depp in the face when he attacked her sister and that she threw bottles at him (without hitting him) on a number of occasions when he was attacking her. All of the witnesses for Depp who claimed that Heard assaulted him are well paid employees (like the caretaker of his private island who is paid $120,000 a month - $1.5million a year – to make sure his island hideaway is properly stocked for a couple of weeks a year) – and his security and assistants who were enablers for his alcohol and drug addiction. There were no photos, (apart from one on their honeymoon where Depp had a couple of black eyes after and drink and drug binge and of his finger, which the medical evidence goes against Depp’s account of the injury), no other medical records and no witness testimony that he told people about the ‘abuse’ inflicted by Heard. Indeed most of evidence provided showed that Depp was a vile misogynist in his comments about Heard, before, during and after their marriage – talking about beating her, talking about raping her and talking about murdering her – and, in particular, promising to get Heard back for publicly stating that she is a survivor of abuse. In contrast to all this -Heard did tell people she was being abused, repeatedly, did have photos of her injuries and did have medical records – most of which were blocked by the judge.

As for the expert witnesses – Depp had a forensic psychologist who is not a registered therapist and who does nothing other than act as a court expert make all kinds of allegations about Heard’s state of mind (to play into the Depp team’s social media campaign that Heard is a crackpot). This witness met with Depp and his legal team before that lawsuit was filed and shortly afterwards the lawyers filed the lawsuit with claims about Heard’s mental health conditions, word-for-word and months before their forensic psychologist interviewed Heard – for this the expert witness was paid up to $300,000 for her testimony. In contrast, Heard’s expert witness is a registered and practicing therapist who counsels victims of domestic abuse and carries out pro-bono court work for victims who cannot afford to pay for expert testimony. While Depp’s witness did not interview Heard’s therapists, Heard’s own expert did. So, Depp’s expert gave testimony on domestic violence, despite having no expertise in it – while Heard’s expert is actually qualified in that sphere and does that job as part of her day-to-day work. Who would you believe?

This case was never about defamation – it was about a ‘wife beater’ (what a UK court ruled that Depp was) determined to destroy a woman who dared to say that she is a survivor of abuse – it was to prove to a woman that he would keep his promise and to continue abusing her five years later.

By the way – Depp is back in court in a couple of weeks – he is being sued by a film assistant who has filed a lawsuit alleging that (gentle, passive, a little misguided) Depp assaulted him on a film set. Then again – this is hardly surprising given that Depp is a self-described drunk, drug addicted ‘monster’.

 

[The Clamp]

Just to clarify a couple of issues before I get into the substantive issue of the trial -

1. it is inaccurate to claim that both sides wanted the case televised. Heard's legal team fought a two-week battle before the case to keep out the cameras. It was part of the Depp strategy to have the case televised to facilitate the Depp social media campaign against Heard. Incidentally Heard's team also pushed for the names of the jurors to be kept secret for one year after the trial so that they wouldn't become a target. Depp's team wanted the names released immediately after the trial as an intimidatory tactic.
2. it is also false to assert that recordings were made in secret - both Depp and Heard were told by their couples’ therapist to regularly record their interacts as part their couples therapy.
3. The video about the appeal is inaccurate – Heard can lodge an appeal – and has numerous grounds to do so.

This trial was never about defamation - if it was then Depp would have sued the Washington Post. Since their divorce Depp has engaged a social media team (and spent an estimated $5million) to engage in a social media campaign against Heard - using bots -- and denigrating her through a whole series of allegations. The campaign has been widespread and vindictive and is the result of Depp promising to destroy Heard following their divorce. The purpose of pushing for the televising of the case was to facilitate Depp's team to flood social media with selective edited extracts that bolstered their attacks on Heard.

The argument of the Depp legal team was -
1. Heard never told anyone of the abuse - false
2. There were no photographs of the abuse - false
3. Heard never sought medical attention - false.

Not alone did the judge rule that the case be televised - the judge ruled out all of Heard's medical records - the judge manipulated the hear-say rule that prevented Heard from telling the court that who she told about the abuse and what she told them - the judge ruled out large numbers of photographs of Heard's injuries. All of this evidence was admitted in the UK trial. Furthermore, the judge ruled that the jurors were not to be told that Depp lost the UK trial and that the judge in the UK found that the Depp was proven to have assaulted Heard on 12 of the 14 incidents that were examined in the UK trial.

This case has been five years in the making - Depp's team have been waiting for an opportunity to get a case against Heard heard in Virginia. The reason for this is that Virginia has virtually no anti-SLAPP laws on the statute books. These laws are designed to prevent frivilous lawsuits that go directly against the first amendment. Virginia is known for 'libel tourism' as a state where high profile celebrities and politicians can get cases heard that should never see the light of day. If this lawsuit by Depp was heard in most other states in the US it would have been thrown out way before ever reaching a trial. Since Depp lodged his lawsuit and and as a result of the lawsuit (and a subsequent lawsuit by Devin Nunes - a Trumpite Republican in the House of Representatives) - Virginia has been forced to change it's anti-SLAPP laws. If Depp was to lodge exactly the same lawsuit today in Virginia, it would be dismissed out of hand.

The judge ruled that the case could be heard in Virginia on the basis that the Washington Post servers are located in Fairfax County. This is a dubious decision at best because the WP was not being sued by Depp (Depp would have had to face a far wealthier and more powerful individual than his ex-wife) – and is actually the first potential ground for an appeal.

Throughout the trial the judge made numerous dubious decisions – all of which, bar one, went in Depp’s favour. These decisions allowed Depp’s team (and in particular Cammille Vasquez) to attack Heard with claims that she never told anyone about the abuse – knowing full well that the judge had already ruled that Heard could not answer the question – that Heard never sought medical help – knowing full well that the judge had already ruled that the medical records could not be submitted as evidence and that Heard was barred from talking about her medical consultations – and thirdly – that Heard faked the photographs – knowing that there was no evidence of this and that the judge ruled out many other photographs that would have backed up Heard’s allegations.

At the same time the judge never sequestered the jury – simply telling the jurors not to check their phones outside the courthouse – as if that was not going to happen, particularly during the break in the trial of several days. It has since emerged that at least one juror was in contact with someone outside the courthouse who was providing a running commentary of the social media campaign against Heard during the trial. It is possible, even likely that the rest of the jury were doing something similar.

On the evidence presented – there is zero corroborative evidence that Heard ever assaulted Depp, apart from her admission that she hit Depp in the face when he attacked her sister and that she threw bottles at him (without hitting him) on a number of occasions when he was attacking her. All of the witnesses for Depp who claimed that Heard assaulted him are well paid employees (like the caretaker of his private island who is paid $120,000 a month - $1.5million a year – to make sure his island hideaway is properly stocked for a couple of weeks a year) – and his security and assistants who were enablers for his alcohol and drug addiction. There were no photos, (apart from one on their honeymoon where Depp had a couple of black eyes after and drink and drug binge and of his finger, which the medical evidence goes against Depp’s account of the injury), no other medical records and no witness testimony that he told people about the ‘abuse’ inflicted by Heard. Indeed most of evidence provided showed that Depp was a vile misogynist in his comments about Heard, before, during and after their marriage – talking about beating her, talking about raping her and talking about murdering her – and, in particular, promising to get Heard back for publicly stating that she is a survivor of abuse. In contrast to all this -Heard did tell people she was being abused, repeatedly, did have photos of her injuries and did have medical records – most of which were blocked by the judge.

As for the expert witnesses – Depp had a forensic psychologist who is not a registered therapist and who does nothing other than act as a court expert make all kinds of allegations about Heard’s state of mind (to play into the Depp team’s social media campaign that Heard is a crackpot). This witness met with Depp and his legal team before that lawsuit was filed and shortly afterwards the lawyers filed the lawsuit with claims about Heard’s mental health conditions, word-for-word and months before their forensic psychologist interviewed Heard – for this the expert witness was paid up to $300,000 for her testimony. In contrast, Heard’s expert witness is a registered and practicing therapist who counsels victims of domestic abuse and carries out pro-bono court work for victims who cannot afford to pay for expert testimony. While Depp’s witness did not interview Heard’s therapists, Heard’s own expert did. So, Depp’s expert gave testimony on domestic violence, despite having no expertise in it – while Heard’s expert is actually qualified in that sphere and does that job as part of her day-to-day work. Who would you believe?

This case was never about defamation – it was about a ‘wife beater’ (what a UK court ruled that Depp was) determined to destroy a woman who dared to say that she is a survivor of abuse – it was to prove to a woman that he would keep his promise and to continue abusing her five years later.

By the way – Depp is back in court in a couple of weeks – he is being sued by a film assistant who has filed a lawsuit alleging that (gentle, passive, a little misguided) Depp assaulted him on a film set. Then again – this is hardly surprising given that Depp is a self-described drunk, drug addicted ‘monster’.

Very interesting. Some of it I knew, some of it I suspected, some of it is new to me, so thank you. There is no doubt in my mind that Depp has lead a malicious campaign against Heard, this recent case being an example.

Heard has been very misrepresented in my opinion.

 

[B-right-on]

Just to clarify a couple of issues before I get into the substantive issue of the trial -
......

Can't be arsed to get into it with you but you are 99% wrong and 1% right, with a different narrative.

Amber Heard is a viscous parasite and got everything she deserved.

Believe what you will, the facts speak for themselves and the jury correctly called it based on all of the evidence.

 

[B-right-on]

Just to clarify a couple of issues before I get into the substantive issue of the trial -
......

Can't be arsed to get into it with you but you are 99% wrong and 1% right, with a different narrative.

Amber Heard is a viscous parasite and got everything she deserved.

Believe what you will, the facts speak for themselves and the jury correctly called it based on all of the evidence.

 

[BadFish]

Just to clarify a couple of issues before I get into the substantive issue of the trial -

1. it is inaccurate to claim that both sides wanted the case televised. Heard's legal team fought a two-week battle before the trial to keep out the cameras. It was part of the Depp strategy to have the case televised to facilitate the Depp social media campaign against Heard. Incidentally Heard's team also pushed for the names of the jurors to be kept secret for one year after the trial so that they wouldn't become a target. Depp's team wanted the names released immediately after the trial as an intimidatory tactic.
2. it is also false to assert that recordings were made in secret - both Depp and Heard were told by their couples’ therapist to regularly record their interactions as part their couples therapy.
3. The video about the appeal is inaccurate – Heard can lodge an appeal – and has numerous grounds to do so.

This trial was never about defamation - if it was then Depp would have sued the Washington Post. Since their divorce Depp has engaged a social media team (and spent an estimated $5million) to engage in a social media campaign against Heard - using bots -- and denigrating her through a whole series of allegations. The campaign has been widespread and vindictive and is the result of Depp promising to destroy Heard following their divorce. The purpose of pushing for the televising of the case was to facilitate Depp's team to flood social media with selective edited extracts that bolstered their attacks on Heard.

The argument of the Depp legal team was -
1. Heard never told anyone of the abuse - false
2. There were no photographs of the abuse - false
3. Heard never sought medical attention - false.

Not alone did the judge rule that the case be televised - the judge ruled out all of Heard's medical records - the judge manipulated the hear-say rule that prevented Heard from telling the court that who she told about the abuse and what she told them - the judge ruled out large numbers of photographs of Heard's injuries. All of this evidence was admitted in the UK trial. Furthermore, the judge ruled that the jurors were not to be told that Depp lost the UK trial and that the judge in the UK found that the Depp was proven to have assaulted Heard on 12 of the 14 incidents that were examined in the UK trial.

This case has been five years in the making - Depp's team have been waiting for an opportunity to get a case against Heard heard in Virginia. The reason for this is that Virginia has virtually no anti-SLAPP laws on the statute books. These laws are designed to prevent frivilous lawsuits that go directly against the first amendment. Virginia is known for 'libel tourism' as a state where high profile celebrities and politicians can get cases heard that should never see the light of day. If this lawsuit by Depp was heard in most other states in the US it would have been thrown out way before ever reaching a trial. Since Depp lodged his lawsuit and and as a result of the lawsuit (and a subsequent lawsuit by Devin Nunes - a Trumpite Republican in the House of Representatives) - Virginia has been forced to change it's anti-SLAPP laws. If Depp was to lodge exactly the same lawsuit today in Virginia, it would be dismissed out of hand.

The judge ruled that the case could be heard in Virginia on the basis that the Washington Post servers are located in Fairfax County. This is a dubious decision at best because the WP was not being sued by Depp (Depp would have had to face a far wealthier and more powerful individual than his ex-wife) – and is actually the first potential ground for an appeal.

Throughout the trial the judge made numerous dubious decisions – all of which, bar one, went in Depp’s favour. These decisions allowed Depp’s team (and in particular Cammille Vasquez) to attack Heard with claims that she never told anyone about the abuse – knowing full well that the judge had already ruled that Heard could not answer the question – that Heard never sought medical help – knowing full well that the judge had already ruled that the medical records could not be submitted as evidence and that Heard was barred from talking about her medical consultations – and thirdly – that Heard faked the photographs – knowing that there was no evidence of this and that the judge ruled out many other photographs that would have backed up Heard’s allegations.

At the same time the judge never sequestered the jury – simply telling the jurors not to check their phones outside the courthouse – as if that was not going to happen, particularly during the break in the trial of several days. It has since emerged that at least one juror was in contact with someone outside the courthouse who was providing a running commentary of the social media campaign against Heard during the trial. It is possible, even likely that the rest of the jury were doing something similar.

On the evidence presented – there is zero corroborative evidence that Heard ever assaulted Depp, apart from her admission that she hit Depp in the face when he attacked her sister and that she threw bottles at him (without hitting him) on a number of occasions when he was attacking her. All of the witnesses for Depp who claimed that Heard assaulted him are well paid employees (like the caretaker of his private island who is paid $120,000 a month - $1.5million a year – to make sure his island hideaway is properly stocked for a couple of weeks a year) – and his security and assistants who were enablers for his alcohol and drug addiction. There were no photos, (apart from one on their honeymoon where Depp had a couple of black eyes after and drink and drug binge and of his finger, which the medical evidence goes against Depp’s account of the injury), no other medical records and no witness testimony that he told people about the ‘abuse’ inflicted by Heard. Indeed most of evidence provided showed that Depp was a vile misogynist in his comments about Heard, before, during and after their marriage – talking about beating her, talking about raping her and talking about murdering her – and, in particular, promising to get Heard back for publicly stating that she is a survivor of abuse. In contrast to all this -Heard did tell people she was being abused, repeatedly, did have photos of her injuries and did have medical records – most of which were blocked by the judge.

As for the expert witnesses – Depp had a forensic psychologist who is not a registered therapist and who does nothing other than act as a court expert make all kinds of allegations about Heard’s state of mind (to play into the Depp team’s social media campaign that Heard is a crackpot). This witness met with Depp and his legal team before that lawsuit was filed and shortly afterwards the lawyers filed the lawsuit with claims about Heard’s mental health conditions, word-for-word and months before their forensic psychologist interviewed Heard – for this the expert witness was paid up to $300,000 for her testimony. In contrast, Heard’s expert witness is a registered and practicing therapist who counsels victims of domestic abuse and carries out pro-bono court work for victims who cannot afford to pay for expert testimony. While Depp’s witness did not interview Heard’s therapists, Heard’s own expert did. So, Depp’s expert gave testimony on domestic violence, despite having no expertise in it – while Heard’s expert is actually qualified in that sphere and does that job as part of her day-to-day work. Who would you believe?

This case was never about defamation – it was about a ‘wife beater’ (what a UK court ruled that Depp was) determined to destroy a woman who dared to say that she is a survivor of abuse – it was to prove to a woman that he would keep his promise and to continue abusing her five years later.

By the way – Depp is back in court in a couple of weeks – he is being sued by a film assistant who has filed a lawsuit alleging that (gentle, passive, a little misguided) Depp assaulted him on a film set. Then again – this is hardly surprising given that Depp is a self-described drunk, drug addicted ‘monster’.

This is all interesting but is it on record? I am always a bit suspicious when links and citations are not included when making such claims.

I would be interested in digging a little further, could you point me in the right direction?

 

[B-right-on]

Double post

 

[B-right-on]

This is all interesting but is it on record? I am always a bit suspicious when links and citations are not included when making such claims.

I would be interested in digging a little further, could you point me in the right direction?

Look at the trial itself on You Tube. There's various lawyers who comment on the trial legal proceedings as it goes along.

Anything other than looking at the trial proceedings, you are subjected to the opinions of the person who is reporting. That way you can come to your own conclusions.

As I did. And not believe the MSM as JRG has.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Just to clarify a couple of issues before I get into the substantive issue of the trial -
......
\QUOTE]

Can't be arsed to get into it with you but you are 99% wrong and 1% right, with a different narrative.

Amber Heard is a viscous parasite and got everything she deserved.

Believe what you will, the facts speak for themselves and the jury correctly called it based on all of the evidence.

We can never know the truth here. Heard seems to have a blameless past, apart from one odd episode:

"Heard was in a relationship with photographer Tasya van Ree from 2008 to 2012.[109][111] Heard had her last name legally changed to van Ree during the relationship and reverted to her birth name in 2014.[2] In 2009, Heard was arrested for misdemeanor domestic violence at Seattle–Tacoma International Airport, Washington state after allegedly hitting van Ree. Heard appeared the next day in King County District Court, Seattle but was not charged. The arrest was made public in 2016 during Heard's divorce proceedings from actor Johnny Depp. A statement was then issued by Heard's publicist in which van Ree said that Heard had been "wrongfully" accused, that the incident had been "misinterpreted and over-sensationalized" and that she recalled "hints of misogynistic attitudes toward us which later appeared to be homophobic when they found out we were domestic partners and not just 'friends'".[112][113] The female officer who conducted the arrest, who is openly lesbian herself, subsequently posted on Facebook to say, "I am so not homophobic or misogynistic! The arrest was made because an assault occurred (I witnessed it)".[114]"

For a man of his age, were Depp a beast, one can anticipate a flurry of women, dating back, saying 'me too', I would assume. That's evidence (and the only evidence) against notable recently revealed ageing wrong 'uns (some convicted, others accused posthumously).

Or it could have been a middle aged emergence of a beast after a blameless four decades of decorum. This would be an unusual trajectory, as men are normally at their most ****ish when young, unless they become impotent and enraged and drunken as middle age trundles in.

Or perhaps he's innocent.

The jury has decided, and now only time will tell.

Time, perhaps to close the thread.

 

[BadFish]

Look at the trial itself on You Tube. There's various lawyers who comment on the trial legal proceedings as it goes along.

Anything other than looking at the trial proceedings, you are subjected to the opinions of the person who is reporting.

Certainly a good option. I would obviously be at the mercy of those lawyers commenting on it as my understanding of the legal system is limited. However, if I am honest I am not going to sit down and watch the trial. The bits I have seen certainly buy into the overriding narrative of Depp = Good, Heard = Bad, but it isn't sitting right with me. Things are rarely this clear cut, no matter how much we crave the narrative.

Jolly red Giant's post certainly suggests what I suspect and I would be interested in exploring it further. The Twitter thread shared a little above also suggests there is some more to this than meets the social media narrative driven eye.

IF JRG's claims are true then it suggests that the trial you have watched is lacking in some quite vital evidence and may explain why Depp won this case but lost the UK case against The Sun?

 

[B-right-on]

Certainly a good option. I would obviously be at the mercy of those lawyers commenting on it as my understanding of the legal system is limited. However, if I am honest I am not going to sit down and watch the trial. The bits I have seen certainly buy into the overriding narrative of Depp = Good, Heard = Bad, but it isn't sitting right with me. Things are rarely this clear cut, no matter how much we crave the narrative.

Jolly red Giant's post certainly suggests what I suspect and I would be interested in exploring it further. The Twitter thread shared a little above also suggests there is some more to this than meets the social media narrative driven eye.

IF JRG's claims are true then it suggests that the trial you have watched is lacking in some quite vital evidence and may explain why Depp won this case but lost the UK case against The Sun?

Fair enough, I meant the lawyers explaining the legalese,m that's all.

Actually it's the other way around. There was a lot of evidence that JD couldn't bring up in the UK trial because of a) the UK laws and b) he was suing the Sun rather than the person who made the claims. That's why he didn't sue the Washington Post because they could hide behind "we just print what she says" as was the basis of the Sun's win in the UK.

JD is no saint and I don't really like his films that much (only seen 1 1/2 of the Pirates film). But drink and drugs are a long way from Sexual Assault. AH claimed he SA'd her. Bottom line is there was zero evidence of it from anyone. Including her own Dr and nurse who she saw the next day after he ’SAd her and broke her nose'. AHs claim. Don't forget these 2 were in the media constantly so there's hundreds, if not thousands of photos of her from dozens of paparazzi over the years and AHs defence scoured the lot trying to get some evidence of him lbeating her up and found nothing. In fact they found many photos of him with cuts, bruises and black eyes from her abuse of him.

Anyway,, his name's been cleared of this so hopefully stops her spiteful attacks on him (which coincidentally starred within a couple of hours of him telling her it's over and he wants a divorce)..

 

[B-right-on]

FFS. Double post again.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Can't be arsed to get into it with you but you are 99% wrong and 1% right, with a different narrative.

Amber Heard is a viscous parasite and got everything she deserved.

Believe what you will, the facts speak for themselves and the jury correctly called it based on all of the evidence.

Yet a UK court decided that Depp was proven to have committed acts of violence in 12 of the 14 incidents heard before the court (and the other 2 weren't proven false - just that there was insufficient evidence to prove they happened). These are the facts.

The judge in Virginia refused to allow Heard's medical records, which showed a five year pattern of abuse, be admitted as evidence - the judge refused to allow text messages that demonstrated that Depp admitted assaulting Heard be admitted as evidence - the judge ruled that the verdict in the UK trial could not be mentioned and selectively admitted testimony from the UK trial into evidence - the judge refused to allow any video or audio recording that contained a third person be admitted into evidence. the jury in Virginia did not have all the evidence - and it was precisely because of the laws in Virginia that Depp's team pursued the case in that state.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Look at the trial itself on You Tube. There's various lawyers who comment on the trial legal proceedings as it goes along.

Anything other than looking at the trial proceedings, you are subjected to the opinions of the person who is reporting. That way you can come to your own conclusions.

As I did. And not believe the MSM as JRG has.

The so-called legal experts on youtube were almost exclusively on Depp's side from the off and were part of the social media campaign against Heard - their views were driven by bots from the Depp social media team and now several of them have become commentators on right-wing media platforms like Fox News. They did what they were required to do - selectively address what happened in court - and they are being amply rewarded (some made up to $20K a day during the trial from advertising and donations from Deppheads - none of which they would have got if they took a balanced approach to analysing the evidence).

You say - Anything other than looking at the trial proceedings, you are subjected to the opinions of the person who is reporting - which is precisely what you did by point to these 'lawyers' on youtube (and by the way - I watched the entire trial live).