Amber should get a Razzie nomination for todays performance.
-
-
I've watched it up to Ambers cross examination but from what I can gather they got her to admit writing the oped which pretty much seals the deal.
He may lose still but this is pretty much the highest chance of a win he could hope to get and her counter suit is dead.Comment
-
Amber just said 'That why I wrote the op-ed'
Case closed. She wrote it to defame Depp.Comment
-
Guardians already jumped in with another Heard leaning piece. Honestly wonder what she has on these outlets, I mean, even putting this aside the risk of a future abuse story against her from a future partner is insanely high.Comment
-
the UK media is more a circling the wagon after the SUN courtcase, protect one, protect them all.Originally posted by Neon Ignition View Post
I will say, being able to see the courtcase for myself (following a collection of lawyers on Rekieta Law talking over it) is very eye opening for reading any of the crap our media have reported on. Would be nice to see that kind of access in the UK courts.Last edited by Tobal; 26-05-2022, 18:40.Comment
-
-
I think, win or lose for Depp, one thing is for sure. His legal team absolutely kicked ass. They put everything they had into it and have definitely earned their pay.Comment
-
-
I can imagine this trial will prove to be a key moment in quite a few people either taking a prolonged interest or even career directions towards law. The case has been a fascinating showcase for everything that can go right and wrong in a courtroom and also revealing as to the methodology that is used and how the systems actually work.
This case was always going to be lightning rod moment as it was never limited to just the confines of being an OK Magazine style two celebrities at odds clash. Entire careers rest on this trial as well as the future direction of not just a social movement but women's ability to be acknowledged when speaking up about abuse. It should never have been the case that that was in question but the media, social media and Heard herself ensured that that is the situation regardless of what observers agree with.
With that in mind this was always going to be a trial with revelations due to the rare insight into the real workings of this world it gives viewers but I think it's safe to say that the details of the actual trial have far exceeded what was anticipated.
In terms of my take on the case now that it's effectively over:
When it comes to defamation cases it's been established that they're incredibly hard to win, particularly in cases like this where a lot of the cited details relate to instances of abuse conducted behind closed doors years ago. You're immediately into he said/she said territory and you can't take the 'believe women' stance because that is neither an morally strong position to take nor how the legal system works. It has to be the case that Depp has the potential to win but ultimately he has the burden of proof to bring to the court. One thing that both sides have stated and it's absolutely critical here is that the evidence they've provided goes well beyond what other couples would ever normally have. It isn't typical to be recording and photographing to document the relationship in the way Heard was but it gave us an abundance of material to witness.
So, Depp has to prove that the op-ed was about him and that Heard wrote it. He also has to prove that it was detrimental to his career and that Heard intentionally wrote it knowingly under the basis that its allegations were false. For the first point that was established early on via the ACLU and Heard's team who testified about the lengths they went to to avoid directly using Depp's name in the article. Despite this it also specified timeframes that could only apply to Depp unless Heard was committing perjury about her relationship history.
The second point was quickly mapped out too, Depp hasn't been able to secure a film in the last 5 years, an actor who was in a lot of films every year and was publicly removed from Fantastic Beasts III, let alone the discussion about Pirates of the Caribbean VI. This was the easiest one to evidence however under the basis that Depp had abused Heard it would mean nothing. The third point was loosely proven by the ACLU trying to se themselves up as being involved in writing the op-ed in conjunction with Heard but that in itself implicated that Heard was involved and approved the content, that's before yesterdays outright admittance of her writing it herself. That leaves the final point to prove, that the allegations in the op-ed were false and this is where the low chance of winning comes from.
To lose it just requires 1 juror to believe Depp physically, mentally or verbally abuse Heard just once and he's lost the case. No matter the amount of evidence submitted he can't account for every minute of a destructive relationship either so there's no way to definitively prove it either way which in essence means he loses. However, no-one ever could prove this definitively meaning every single case of accusation would be successful and every person ever denying a false allegation would lose which is a system that just cannot work so it comes down to the odds, showing reasonable credibility to your argument.
Easiest way forward from here is to tackle Heard. There's no real way to cut around the testimony and the evidence not just submitted by Depp but also by Heard's team and Heard herself. From edited photographs, misrepresented exhibits, paid testimonies from people willing to break court and malpractice rules, zero corroboration from witnesses with personal ties to Heard on the stand for her own team, the scientific discrepancies in her own testimonies and countless other elements, there isn't one part of Heard's case that isn't demonstrably falsified. Contrasting her testimonies in three other depositions she has committed perjury on multiple occasions and even went as far as to literally gaslight the jury. The details of what has been shown clearly shows not just falsified evidence but also when and how she falsified her injuries, time and time again disproven.
We are well, well past the point where it can be argued beyond the clear case that Amber Heard was the primary abuser in the relationship both verbally, mentally and physically. To deny that at this point is to take a stance that is not only abuse enabling but insulting to not just men but women everywhere. This is an area where the extent of the cases blast radius has shone out because of the number of media outlets and so called progressives willing to burn their reputation to protect Heard.
However... Heard's deplorable behaviour and guilt in the abuse does absolutely nothing to further Depp's case as it isn't focused on what abuse Heard caused but what he did himself. A lot of time and effort has gone into Depp's history with drug and alcohol abuse. The trouble with this argument is when it comes to charting his character. Depp has used substances for over 40 years and the only period of time where he is accused of being abusive is jut over 12 months out of the 40+. Using substances doesn't make you abusive either, it's not proof in of itself even if he only used it during his time with Heard. It could be argued however that being abused himself, as someone who has a childhood history of abuse, could be triggering in a manner that caused him to retaliate.
So, from here we have a theory which needs to be evidenced. The trouble is... there is no evidence that he ever abused Heard. It's outright unacceptable to take the stance Heard's team tried to of saying he is a man therefore guilty. Heard detailed multiple graphic occasions of abuse, witnesses, dates and locations and each and every one of them was accounted for and evidenced that she was lying. This leaves you thinking what are the chances he did something at some point and questioning whether berating her or injuring her in instances such as the headbutt which is detailed as happening when she was mid-assault constitute as abuse or natural reactive responses to constant suffered abuse.
In many cases I imagine it's easy to imagine the situation in your mind and think that on all probability something probably happened at some point ergo he loses. However, the scale of evidence in his defense is telling in of itself. If you're trying to calculate whether Heard was lying in the oped:
She lied about the abuse, she falsified injuries, she lied about witnesses, she lied about incidents, she falsified evidence, she lied to the Australian court, she lied in the UK court, she fed information to the media, she lied to secure a restriction on Depp, she staged evidence, she edited evidence and she openly lied on the stand. In effect we're deciding whether when she wrote the op-ed was the one time she told the truth, a truth that focuses on the same subject matter as all the lies.
Faced with that and the complete absence of evidence Depp did commit abuse, coupled with how the testimonies of his witnesses and then even Heard's witnesses support Depp's singular version of events I don't see any rational way the blind faith required has been justified for Heards op-ed claim so I feel more than enough exists to prove his fourth point.
Based on the evidence and testimony from the last six weeks:
Heard was with Depp because he raised her profile and was very amiable to using his studio contacts and friends to create career opportunities for her. As the relationship grew on she grew tired of being stuck with him and after he created the opening for her to secure the Mera role with DC she had what she wanted and the facade dropped and the abuse escalated. There's enough evidence to suggest that Heard began orchestrating a plan to divorce Depp and frame him as an abuser just several months into the marriage and she spent most of the year collating photo's, video's and evidence to back claims up which is why so much exists. She waited till he was out the country when he was with his daughter, distracted by his mothers death and film promotion to contact TMZ and line up the court order restriction scenario thereby ensuring maximum PR exposure and his inability to refute the situation. The collected media and evidence was then used by her to get him to agree the divorce settlement on her terms, keeping his silence and she set up the donation pledges to receive $14m from him without being subject to taxation.
That's where things went quiet for over a year. She spent that year filming Aquaman and then when the Metoo movement took off she saw the opportunity to capitalise on the exposure it could bring so worked on the oped targeting it to coincide with the films release to ensure maximum prominence for herself, capitalise on her career high, position herself as a prominent figure within the Metoo movement whilst also inflicting further damage on Depp.
She didn't, though, expect him to fight back. She expected he would retreat just like he had throughout the relationship, taking the career hit whilst she became a global name in his place. He didn't though, and the road to this trial began.
Honestly, if Heard had turned up to the trial with no evidence, reigned in her fake crying and largely said that it all happened years ago so she isn't sure of a lot of the details because of time and trauma I think she'd have likely won outright. It was her case to lose and very hard to lose at that. Instead Depp's case is the strongest it could possibly be, certainly to the point to question whether such cases even can be won if not with this evidence trail.
I think that even if Depp ever did anything to Heard it's hard to argue it wasn't reactive, he was very clearly the victim and her the abuser in the relationship. With all that in mind he really should win the case and her outright lose her counter suit.
In terms of what will happen:
I think her counter suit is 110% dead in the water. There's no arguing with the evidence and testimony that she never lost a role or opportunity, she simply believes she should have had far more offered to her than was ever going to be. Any hesitance from the studios comes less from Depp and more from how hard she is to work with.
Depp, I still feel is likely to lose his case too. The trouble is that it only takes a single juror to hesitate and as many things in the last few years have shown, the world is full of bad takes so the bar is just too high.
Outside of the literal verdicts. Depp will never retrieve his career high back. He may work his way back into major films in a more supportive capacity or ensemble line up but that alone would be a win given his prior outright block on work being offered to him. Unless she gets involved in some very poor corners of the industry I feel this has been career ending for her. I would not be surprised at all if at some point we hear about reshoots as refilming 10 minutes of Aquaman 2 with a different actress is well below what films have done before.
That leaves the media, they will continue to try to vilify Depp until it drifts away from relevance rather than admit they backed an abuser. For the MeToo movement, it's definitely damaged from this which is the biggest shame. It's exposed multiple bad players and issues in the approaches taken, none of which was necessary. Heard has been the single biggest factor in drowning out future voices.
In the unlikely event he wins his case though, a line needs drawing under it. Him free to resume his life, her exposed for what she's done and the endless media circle hatejerk wrapped up because mass media victim blaming is a look the world does not need.Comment
-
Depps closing statements: Full of facts and emotions with his lawyer even tearing up at the end.
Ambers: Word SaladComment
-
-
Damn it. I thought it'd be funny if they spent like 10 minutes in there, all nodded, and then came back with a guilty verdict.Comment
-
The closing statements were just polar opposites, Depps team utilising the evidence and Heard's just literally lying and dismissing even the idea that it's even an issue if Heard beat him and severed his fingerComment
-
I've tried to stay clear of 'youtubers' vids during this but crossed paths with this vid which appears to have spotted something in the first bit
Comment
-
Everything is against her. The whole trial shows she is a lying untrustworthy bitch. How on earth can Johnny Depp not win this case? So much shows he is the victim.
I don't know law but I sure know common sense.Comment
Comment