Amber Heard V Johnny Depp

maxyzee on 31/05/2022 - 14:09
Last edited 02/06/2022 - 07:53 by 1 other user

Over the last couple of weeks I’ve really delved myself into this trial. It’s been the most guilty pleasure. Like a real life drama playing out.

Anyway I started out quite neutral thinking they both had equal share of the blame but now as this trial has gone on and the more evidence gets bought up it’s unequivocally clear that Johnny Depp is actually nearly entirely innocent and that Amber Heard is a real absolute monster. The lengths that she would go to, even falsifying evidence and now has the real possibility of being charged with perjury. I’m now firmly in the JD camp and hope the verdict goes his way.

Anyway I was wondering what OzBargain might also have thought?

Edit: Depp has won his case! There is some justice in this world. And yes it’s not something more serious like gun control or climate change or whatever but I think this is still important especially for male victims of DV.

I’ll add a poll.

Poll Options

  • 601
    Team Johnny
  • 33
    Team Amber
Entertainment

Comments

      • [Deactivated] on 31/05/2022 - 17:24
        +3

        gamergate itself was a victim of wikipedia jannies, among others. if you look into it, it becomes pretty obvious that all the people whinging about death threats and hate online had sent the threats to themselves from fake accounts and latched onto the tiny amount of trolls who were just there to spread hate. it's unfortunate when "journalists" become the wikipedia jannies, given the platform and reach that they have.

    • maxyzee on 31/05/2022 - 16:23
      +11

      Yeah I get your point on social media being exclusively pro JD. However one the weight of the evidence itself, two her own testimony has made it really hard to see her side.

      If she just acknowledged some fault and not denied blatant truths, like the TMZ leak, the Hicksville incident, the audio etc. I might have given her more of a benefit of doubt. But since she denies everything and everyone else is lying except her it just makes difficult to believe anything that she says.

      • SnowDragon on 31/05/2022 - 16:31
        +3

        Doubling down on everything really didn't help her case. Especially when she tried to claim two pictures were taken the same day, one with and one without a vanity light. It's literally the same photo that has been edited.

        • spackbace on 31/05/2022 - 16:38
          +2

          Yep, or not saying the op-ed was about Johnny, then saying it was, when she slipped up

        • moar bargains on 31/05/2022 - 16:40

          🤣 It's not even well edited! It's like "Let's try some of these filter sliders… There, that looks better!"

          • maxyzee on 31/05/2022 - 18:58
            +1

            @moar bargains: Yeah that’s what it literally was. The forensic expert stated that it was edited using the inbuilt IOS photos app. So it literally was click edit the slide saturation to max.

    • ThithLord on 31/05/2022 - 17:14
      +2

      Yeah there seems to be a lot information that doesn't make it into the memez so it's hardly fair. They're effing funny but none of the evidence against Mr Depp are showcased.

      I think they're both pretty damn toxic, but it's also quite unfair that Mr Depp has had to face the brunt of being labelled an abuser whereas Mrs Heard previously hasn't.

    • allie181 on 01/06/2022 - 08:59
      +8

      I'm "neg" you because Amber does not have "a lot of evidence" to support that he —> physically and sexually abused her <—. I emphasis this last part.

      She may have "evidence" of some horrible text messages where he vented to friends. That is not the point. The point is, she has no evidence of the PHYSICAL and SEXUAL abuse.

      In a "normal" case I could understand why there may be a lack of evidence. But in this case there was tons of evidence that REFUTED her claims. Photos in the days after alleged beatings where she looked perfect. No amount of makeup and Arnica cream can cover swelling etc. Heck, during the trial she couldn't even cover a scratch on her forehead, so how the heck can she legitimately claim that she covered facial injuries after being bunch by Johnny while he was wearing rings, which would have caused massive soft tissue damage.

      I could go on, but I have to get to work. However, the above should be a sufficient response to your comment "Edit: if you're going to neg, at least tell me why my comment was below your standards."

      • heal on 03/06/2022 - 15:47

        No amount of makeup and Arnica cream can cover swelling etc

        Maybe there's some sort of make up that has uet to be invented that she could "use"

    • trapper on 01/06/2022 - 10:44
      +13

      Nobody will ever really know if Johnny did beat her.

      You must be joking. The woman is a psychopath.

    • syousef on 04/06/2022 - 16:49

      Might not know for 100% sure if she was beaten, but we know no one else accused him of such, and we know she faked pictures. Don't now in a Russell's teapot kind of way.

  • SBOB on 31/05/2022 - 15:17
    +5

    Like a real life drama playing out.

    'LIKE'?

  • GordonD on 31/05/2022 - 15:27
    +7

    A media outlet wrote up this trial by saying it is damaging to the domestic violence cause by pointing out the things Heard did and implying she's not really a victim.

    There is a research project going on in NZ that has been looking at all 1037 kids born in Dunedin in, I think, 1972. They have been measured and tested and interviewed every year, allowing the researchers to look back to see if there were lessons to be learned from what happened earlier in their life when it comes to things that happened later in their life. For example, are there early signs of subsequent criminality. The answer was yes, you can pick them in kindergarten.

    One of the areas they questioned the study participants on was domestic violence. The researchers have found their results almost impossible to get published because they go against the version you hear from the feminists and the media and the anti-domestic violence advertising we get on TV. Those sources all paint a picture of men being responsible for all DV, and women always being innocent victims. What the NZ researchers found was that people tend to marry other people similar in temperament to themselves. And that the women in their survey admitted that they start the DV flare-ups about half the time, but they can rely on the police always arresting their male partner. That is the case because men are generally bigger and stronger than women, and when things escalate to the point of physical violence, whichever of them started it, it much more likely that the woman will end up injured than the man.

    Depp and Heard demonstrate what the NZ researchers found was more often than not the case in marriages. Where one of them is like Depp or Heard, the other is likely just as bad.

    (The research project is called the Dunedin Project. SBS ran a 4-part documentary on it back in July 2016 called "Predict My Future".)

    • cookie2 on 31/05/2022 - 21:24

      Sounds interesting, thanks. There was one done in the UK that I grew up with called "Up", was similar to the doco you've referenced.

      • cookie2 on 01/06/2022 - 15:40

        Wtheck I must've offended someone Up was a doco that goes through kids lives and catches up every 7 years to see where they're at. Lol

    • dclee12 on 02/06/2022 - 22:36
      +1

      Sounds interesting , will see if I can find the doco.
      After hearing about this trial from my wife for weeks on end I finally looked a bit closer into it.

      My opinion pretty much matches the above. I get the impression both had substance/drinking/emotional issues , could be volatile and overall they were a bad match.

      I don’t buy that he’s just a cool good guy all round and is the innocent victim of an evil witch. Equally , her claim that she was only ever defending herself doesn’t really add up.
      Makes sense that all things being equal the smaller female is going to come off worse in these altercations.

      I don’t agree with the common feminist reaction of “blame the male”. But I do agree that all the jack sparrow/Depp worship , mixed with the mocking of Heard was pretty weird and not really appropriate for a DV court case. (Though i should point out a lot of the mocking on TikTok etc is from other women)

      Funny thing is that once I took an interest in this , my wife was not really open to counter discussion about it ,she’s insistent that Heard is just a psycho bitch.

  • Godric on 31/05/2022 - 15:33
    +8

    This court case has been one of the best series on in a while tbh

    • whatwasherproblem on 31/05/2022 - 16:11
      +9

      Agreed. It's like a real life Phoenix Wright trial playing out for all of our entertainment. We've got everything: the scruffy, lovable protagonist; the hilariously over-the-top evil piece-of-sh.t villainess; and the absolute cartoon characters that end up testifying. It's been a ride and a half.

      • maxyzee on 31/05/2022 - 17:07
        +1

        This^. Yeah it’s seriously is like the best episode of Boston Legal ever.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 01/06/2022 - 13:18
        +1

        TAKE THAT!

  • Donaldhump on 31/05/2022 - 16:50
    +1

    i know who i would rather have a beer with

    • DrScavenger on 01/06/2022 - 18:27
      +2

      Does that person want to have a beer with you tho?

  • Keplaffintech on 31/05/2022 - 16:53
    +4

    I watch it more to learn about how the courts work in the US and enjoy the direct/cross examinations. A bit like watching a sport. There's no value in a ball being kicked back and forth across a field but millions of people still watch it and root for teams etc.

  • Yummy on 31/05/2022 - 17:04
    +3

    My dog stepped on a bee. Ozb cringe face

    • HairyChickens on 31/05/2022 - 18:24
      +3

      Everyone negs JV….

      Continue it lads

      • maxyzee on 31/05/2022 - 18:34
        +3

        There haven’t been any eneloop deals lately.

        • Kangal on 01/06/2022 - 23:06
          +4

          Help my car's not insured, somebody hit mee. 😫

          • maxyzee on 01/06/2022 - 23:08
            +4

            @Kangal: I’m not insured and I hit somebodeee

            FTFY

  • maxyzee on 31/05/2022 - 18:40
    +17

    I might add on a more serious note, what Amber has done is seriously set back the work that’s been done for DV victim activism. No matter what the verdict is it will be that much more difficult for real DV victims.

    I really do hope she gets charged with perjury. Being so brazen to submit obviously false evidence to the court should be looked very seriously.

    • HairyChickens on 31/05/2022 - 18:49
      +18

      You could argue that it raises awareness that men also suffer DV and that it's not uncommon for them to bottle it in, hide it from others or be ashamed/embarrassed to talk about it.

      • maxyzee on 31/05/2022 - 18:52
        +2

        Yeah that’s a good point. Even though it’s not as common it does happen more than one might think.

        I wonder if JD now becomes like an ambassador for DV victims, notably the male victims that are too ashamed to come out. That would be the most perfect ending.

        • HelpMeiCantSee on 01/06/2022 - 09:15
          +14

          From what I’ve seen in the emergency services, the split of dv victims seems to be about 60:40 women:men. Though “complaints” or charges is about 95:5

          It is a fact that men tend not to report DV. They often aren’t believed. I’ve never attended to a dv call where a woman was yelling at a man, but many of a man yelling at a woman.

          Society sets different standards for men and women. It is culturally acceptable for a man to be berated by a partner, however a man berating his partner usually results in a call, or at least scorn from society.

          Make it that what you will, but my experience with (a lot) of dv suggests near parity of victims. Of course, when things get physical, women tend to sustain far greater injuries more often.

    • [Deactivated] on 31/05/2022 - 20:54
      +10

      No matter what the verdict is it will be that much more difficult for real DV victims.

      like johnny?

      people keep saying this case is making it difficult for people who actually experience domestic violence, as if that isn't what johnny has experienced. he nearly lost a finger for christs sake

      think about how hard it has been for him to get people to believe him, and the only reason that they do now is because he was smart and put his psycho ex into a position where she would do all the work for him. very few people believed him when it was his word against hers, he even lost a lucrative role because of her word alone, just because she is a woman, but now they believe him after seeing all the lies and manipulation that she was exhibiting, all by herself.

      frankly, if anything, this trial has helped real domestic violence victims, maybe people will think twice before accepting an accusation against someone as gospel just because the alleged perpetrator is a man, and maybe they will investigate things properly before passing judgement, though probably not.

      • maxyzee on 31/05/2022 - 22:38
        +1

        Yeah you’re right. It’s been rather interesting seeing how the MSM has been covering this and to me all the channels except for channel 7 for some reason have been clinging on to the #beleiveallwomen narrative.

        I guess it was me reading some of those articles harping on about if the verdict went Johnny’s way it would make it hard etc. etc. that’s influenced me somewhat.

        I’ve always had an issue with the whole #beleiveallwomen movement. It should be more like #takeallwomenseriously and accusations are investigated rather than taking the word of the accuser immediately.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2022 - 04:10

          to be honest, it didn't click with me either until someone pointed it out.

          just goes to show you how ingrained the hypocrisy is in our society

        • bejahi on 01/06/2022 - 23:47

          "believe"

        • Dogsrule on 03/06/2022 - 09:15

          #believeallwomen dehumanises women. It presupposes that women are incapable of lying for profit, which is a very human trait.

          Women are fully self-actualised humans possessing personal agency and the power that comes with that status must be balanced with commensurate responsibility.

      • relentless on 01/06/2022 - 13:41

        he also lost the role in the wizarding world franchise

    • syousef on 04/06/2022 - 16:53
      +1

      On the contrary. She's shown that women can and do lie about domestic violence, which is important. The fiction that women don't lie about abuse was being used to set aside the presumption of innocence and instead literally believe and act on any half cocked accusation as if it were true "believe the victim" (before proving they are a victim). You should believe a claimed victim only in so much as you should go ahead and investigate the claim honestly instead of dismissing them. If there is no evidence, there should be no punishment. And yes in SOME cases evidence is very hard to gather, but that doesn't mean you destroy lives ("cancel culture") without such evidence.

  • cookie2 on 31/05/2022 - 21:20
    +1

    Poll OP

  • DoctorCalculon on 01/06/2022 - 01:20
    +3

    My favourite line from Depp's rockster lawyer Camille Vasquez: "Another lie on the stand, Ms Heard?". LOL!

  • Misplaced on 01/06/2022 - 08:16

    Interesting poll, still seems to be quite a few #turd lovers there …..

    • DoctorCalculon on 01/06/2022 - 19:30
      +2

      Yes, surprised to see so many turd lovers when the turd maker blatantly lies, implies credible witnesses are perjurers, and submits doctored evidence / photos (all exposed by EXIF data).

    • twinbag on 02/06/2022 - 00:08

      More likely trolls with a couple of simps mixed in

  • allie181 on 01/06/2022 - 08:49
    +25

    I was the same. I had no idea that any of this had even gone down. I vaguely recall seeing something about her TRO / bruise years ago, but took no real notice. I've never been a JD fan. I saw Edward Scissorhands when it came out, and one or two of his dramas and that's about it. I've never seen Pirates or any of the weird stuff like Alice in Wonderland etc.

    I'm a litigation lawyer and a bit of a trial nerd, so when I heard about this trial which was being televised, I started watching. I watched the full days, usually through the Legal Bytes Youtube channel which had a bit of commentary from other lawyers.

    Being a lawyer myself, I came in entirely unbiased and dispassionate. I was focused on analysing the evidence, identifying inconsistencies etc. Like I said, I'm a nerd when it comes to this stuff.

    I had no preconceived notions or impressions, but after seeing this trial I am 100% team Johnny and I'm furious at anyone who supports Amber because of their utter disregard for the truth and evidence. There is simply no way that she is telling the truth, and to make up the rape story is just abhorrent. Anyone who continues to support her is simply incapable of seeing reason and just focusing on their own agenda. "Me too" and the "believe all women" notion goes too far and can clearly be abused, as demonstrated here.

    I hope Johnny succeeds. I'm not convinced he will end up getting any money as she'll likely declare bankruptcy (and has probably already hidden any assets she does have), but I don't expect he'll care about the money and I do believe for him it was about clearing his name. The sad thing is that even if he wins, there will always be some who continue to believe her.

    She is an absolutely vile person and knowing that she is a solo mum by choice, I'm sad and scared for her child as there isn't another parent there to "buffer" the child from her moods (I'm a SMBC too, so I'm obviously not judging that choice, but I am for her). A person with such extreme and pervasive personality disorders will not be able to switch that off when it comes to interacting with their child, so that child will be damaged psychologically (and potentially physically given her history). If it is Elon's child (which seems highly likely), I hope he does something to ensure the child is protected from any harm that may be inflicted by Amber.

    ETA: This case has also made it clear to me that mainstream media cannot be trusted. Seeing news clips on tv about the trial which promoted Amber's side and just restated the claims she made as if they were fact was outrageous. I no longer have any faith in any mainstream media and I'm left wondering, where to I turn to for genuinely factual and reliable news?

    • maxyzee on 01/06/2022 - 10:07

      Definitely agree with you there about the MSM. I was always sceptical of the MSM but this case really highlighted that bias.

      Although 7 has taken a bit of a different tact and is much more impartial I’d say. Have a look at their social media feed and you’ll see. Very interesting.

    • whatwasherproblem on 01/06/2022 - 20:28
      +1

      ETA: This case has also made it clear to me that mainstream media cannot be trusted.

      Rupert Murdock has a bone to pick with JD, so of course all of his puppet media corporations are going to run the 'approved' narrative.

      I no longer have any faith in any mainstream media and I'm left wondering, where to I turn to for genuinely factual and reliable news?

      I'm optimistic. Every time something like this happens (e.g. this trial, the Kyle Rittenhouse stuff a while back, the Covington kid stuff even earlier, etc) where there's video evidence that contradicts the media's spin on the situation, more and more people start to wake up and realise that journalists are not their friends. At some point these MSM vermin are going to have to actually start reporting facts again if they want anyone to listen.

    • Laurana on 03/06/2022 - 18:50

      I’m also a legal bytes follower! That’s how I got into the case. I saw one of her recap videos just to find out what the whole thing was about it and then stumbled on one of her live shows and the rest was history!

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 01/06/2022 - 08:57
    +8

    I think the only thing this trial has proven is that Amber is a crap actress, and is a compulsive liar. Oh, and that they’re both bonkers but her much more so.

    She is the poster child of why women aren’t always believed when they make an accusation. One woman single handedly setting back the me too movement by a generation. Mint.

    • MessyG on 01/06/2022 - 18:14
      -8

      If it takes one woman to set the movement back, when the vast majority of women truly are victims - well that just tells you all you need to know about the people doing the judging doesn't it.

      From where I am standing it seems that those doing the judging are just using this as permission to hang on to their pre-existing views…

      • HelpMeiCantSee on 03/06/2022 - 10:55
        +1

        Negative. This One woman set false accusers back, which is wonderful.

        True victims will still be believed, though the onus may be shifted slightly from hearsay being adequate proof to requiring a slither of evidence so substantiate.

        I mean for gods sake, she LITERALLY shit the bed.

        • MessyG on 03/06/2022 - 18:00

          The Me Too movement are not false accusers. You've said that she singlehandedly set that whole movement back. False accusers are not even remotely close to the majority, yet the amount of attention being given to that, instead of the one woman dying a week from DV, again, really just tells me that people are using it to entrench their own hatred.

          • syousef on 04/06/2022 - 16:58
            +2

            @MessyG: How do you know what percentage are false accusers when we insist on believing anyone who makes an accusation and "cancelling" any man based on his gender? I've heard numbers as high as 96% for the percentage of claims that are genuine but I've never seen any convincing evidence of such.

            There is a reason the presumption of innocence holds such a central place in our legal system. If you want rule of law and respect for the law, the law needs to work on what can be demonstrated to be true, not on whatever one group of people identified by an innate quality claims.

            https://www.oneinthree.com.au/

            The same people who claim to be all for justice and equality never even acknowledge issues that affect men disproportionately. Suicide. Workplace injury. etc. but focus only on the issues of one gender. Sorry but that's not credible. I'm fortunate enough to have a son and a daughter and I want both to be treated fairly.

          • HelpMeiCantSee on 05/06/2022 - 12:12
            +1

            @MessyG: Your assessment of the movement is incomplete. The movement itself may be aimed at true victims, but this clown has proven that the whole believe all women thing allows grubs like ms turd to weaponise it. Thereby setting back the movement as a whole. Not all “me too” are victims, that’s your prime mistake. It’s a social media bandwagon. Narcissists will use anything for clout. Those who are genuine victims should have no fear of telling the truth- but those who wish to embellish the truth, hyper sensitise whatever happened, lie or use it as “punishment” for “wrongs” done to them will think again.

            Being a drunk is not abuse. Doing drugs is not abuse. Being mentally damaged is not abuse. Using power bestowed on you to manipulator a situation or punish someone is. Ms turd used the me too movement as a weapon. Thankfully it failed miserably for her.

            As a society we are sick of poor and manipulative behaviour, from both sides. The turd smuggler saga simply cemented this attitude.

            Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned- a live courtroom drama.

            We can all cherry-pick data to suit our agenda. Those women who die weekly to dv I can guarantee are not on this social media bandwagon. And you are absolutely correct, they are the women we should be moving the world to change- not rich women weaponising it or using it to cover for poor decisions. I agree, it isn’t a majority, but more are men who rape or kill a majority.

            The simplest fix is to jail and penalise false accusers and proven liars. Accountability is key. This removes them from the pool, and strengthens the position of the true victims.

            Also, me too applies to men as well.

  • anthony t on 01/06/2022 - 10:08
    +1

    To reply to Allie, I read ‘The Monthly’ though it’s more into in-depth than the daily news cycle. It’s changed many of my preconceptions, as has reading this whole post! There is a bit too much content on women & First Nations issues for my idea of what is balanced ‘news’ coverage though, but well written I reckon.

    • allie181 on 01/06/2022 - 10:28

      Thanks, I'll check it out :)

    • maxyzee on 01/06/2022 - 10:46
      +7

      Really? As I mentioned in the post I actually started out impartial thinking that both parties had equal share of the blame, however it’s blatantly obvious now on who the abuser was and who the abused was.

      Yes that’s also a problem that needs to be looked at and our society needs to come to grips with the rich and powerful getting away with murder.

      But how is it helpful in any way to say I’m what’s wrong with society when I share my thoughts on this case?

      • idonotknowwhy on 01/06/2022 - 10:51
        +1

        And as far as guilty pleasures go, there's nothing wrong with following this drama.
        I've been avoiding it because I know I'll end up watching videos for hours, eating popcorn if I start lol.

      • Ryno08 on 01/06/2022 - 14:11
        -5

        It shows just like half of you kids that your just perplexed by some stupid reality bullshit and not what's directly in front of you and what needs actually attention and focus.

        • whatwasherproblem on 01/06/2022 - 20:54
          +5

          Why would you want to keep up with the Epstein/Ghislane Maxwell stuff though?

          This Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial is entertaining precisely because it's low-stakes watching. Johnny may be the 'hero' but I'm certainly not losing an ounce of sleep if he 'loses' this case and… doesn't get his money. And on the other hand, Amber Heard is almost comically awful. I mean that literally: she's so over-the-top sh.tty that it's funny, and it almost overflows back into being endearing really. She's like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. Her 'winning' is some drugged-out overcompensated actor giving her money. Her 'losing' is some drugged-out overcompensated actor giving Johnny money. That's it. There's no jail/prison time associated with any of this for either of them. (I've seen that midwit "jail/prison" take going around Twitter and I have no idea where they're getting it from. Amber winning/Johnny losing does literally nothing, because it's a civil trial.)

          The Johnny Depp trial is funny sure, but it's also basically just two rich jack*sses broadcasting their private relationship problems for all of us to gawk at and be entertained by, and nothing that happens in the trial matters beyond the memes. Johnny is still going to be a beloved actor no matter what happens, and Amber's 'acting career' is still over no matter what happens (but for the Amber lovers out there, she'll probably be just fine after this too, because nothing ever matters in Hollywood).

          Contrast that with the heinous sh.t that's going on with the Epstein/Maxwell trials. People that have ("allegedly", lol) done truly unspeakable things and probably continue to do those things, secure in the knowledge that money is power and they rule the world and there's not a damn thing any of us can do to stop them. The outcome of the trials is a foregone conclusion, nobody actually guilty is going to lose anything of substance, justice doesn't exist anywhere, and there's not even anything to laugh at because it's all just so distasteful.

          Why even bother watching such doomer drivel? "To be in the know?" Ignorance is literally bliss in this case. Down that path is only darkness.

    • pwnd on 01/06/2022 - 10:48
      +3

      Nan, that you? found a way off Facebook?

      • Ryno08 on 01/06/2022 - 14:13
        -2

        Yep total boomer, got something useful to comment or just some condescending nonsense?

    • payton on 01/06/2022 - 11:44
      +3

      no its people like you who are conflating different, unrelated issues

  • ozbjunkie on 01/06/2022 - 11:16
    +2

    Lol who voted team amber?
    Mansplain yourselves!

  • JimB on 01/06/2022 - 11:24

    I haven't watched the trial but based on the unbiased recap/summary from Ozzy Man reviews, I'm team Depp.

    Here's part 1 of 6 (so far)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV63wF5RsYM

    I'm hoping Dr Curry is called up again - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrLxpc_ZrLU

  • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2022 - 11:50
    -4

    There's two different trials here. The legal ones, and the court of public opinion. Legally, neither has much of a case. It's very difficult to prove anything she said in that interview was false or defamatory. Her case that he hurt her career also lacks any credible evidence. If anything, he helped her.

    Of course when it comes to what the public thinks, she has missed the #MeToo believe all wammin boat, and she will forever be known as the bed shitter. It's very unfortunate for her that her name rhymes with turd.

    He is Johnny Depp, and no one really cares if someone in Hollywood is a bit of a drug using mental case. He's still Captain Jack Sparrow and Johnny Depp.

    • allie181 on 01/06/2022 - 13:40
      +14

      Are you a lawyer? I query this because part of your comment is factually incorrect (she wrote an "op-ed". It is not an interview that is in issue as you have suggested). Also, I do not agree with your assessment of the prospects of his case (although I agree that her case is hopeless).

      Re Johnny's case:

      1. The evidence has clearly attributed her as the author of it (evidence of emails, it passing through ACLU legal and editing etc), and she then re-published it via twitter and saying she wrote it this op-ed etc.

      2. Johnny wasn't named, however evidence has shown that the target reader understood her to be referring to Johnny. Evidence showed such an inference was well founded (e.g. she said in the op-ed that "2 years ago …", and it was 2 years before the op-ed that she got the TRO). Further, on the last day of the trial she admitted she wrote it about him (face palm moment!)

      3. A large part of the trial was spent putting forward evidence that the accusations in her op-ed were false, and that Johnny never physically or sexually abused her. His team did exceptionally well in this regard. I will be absolutely floored if the jury don't find that these accusations were false.

      4. She needs to be shown to have acted with malice (or reckless indifference to the truth). This is probably the most difficult part of the claim, but I think there is a good chance they got over the line on this because she knew the accusations were false and would obviously damage his career and injure him. She also timed her op-ed for her own financial advantage (i.e. just before Aquaman was released).

      5. If all of the above are established, Johnny then needs to prove the damages aspect of his claim. The jury can award $ for pain and suffering etc. They can also award for loss of earnings, which is what he is claiming as he says he lost certain movies (e.g. Pirates) because of this. The damages part is harder to predict because there certainly was some evidence that he was "difficult" and may have lost the Pirates role anyway, but on balance the evidence seems to support that he lost the roles because of Amber's allegations, especially given it was during the Me Too / cancellation era.

      The above is just off the top of my head, so I may have missed an element or two, but the above are the pertinent aspects of his claim. I will be very surprised if he doesn't succeed in proving defamation, although I don't know how much the jury will award him in damages / compensation.

      Now, as for her claim, I don't think she has any chance at proving he defamed her.

      Her claim:

      A lawyer who was acting for Johnny made claims in the press that she and her friends committed a hoax / staged things before calling the cops on him.

      She has a mountain of hurdles to overcome to succeed and I just can't see it happening. Without listing them all, she needs to:

      1) prove that the lawyer was acting as Johnny's agent and that Johnny is therefore liable as if he made the statements himself (unlikely she'll succeed here as Johnny said he had no idea, the lawyer who made the comments said Johnny had no idea and he was just acting of his own accord. From memory he wasn't even Johnny's lawyer at the time of the statements. He became his lawyer some time later.)

      2) prove that what he said was false (unlikely she can prove this as all the evidence seems to point to what he said being true, including the body cam footage from the cops who attended the apartment, and their testimony in court, plus there is other evidence too)

      3) she'd need to prove he made the comments with malice or a reckless disregard for the truth (again, unlikely as all evidence points to the lawyer genuinely believing the statements were true, and he still does to this day)

      4) She'd need to prove damage. She tried to say she lost roles due to these statements. Her evidence was weak at best. Her "experts" said Aquaman would have been her big break and made her as big as it did for Jason Mamoa etc. The "expert evidence" on this was laughable. (There are other reasons why this aspect will fail too. For example, it Johnny's claim succeeds, then she is a liar. In that case, the lawyer's statements about her are true, and she brought this all on herself so any damage wasn't caused by the lawyer/Johnny.)

      So, in summary, I agree that legally she has no case, but I do not agree that legally, he has no case. I will be very surprised if he doesn't succeed.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2022 - 17:06

        Are you a lawyer? I query this because part of your comment is factually incorrect (she wrote an "op-ed". It is not an interview that is in issue as you have suggested).

        No, and you're right. It's not an interview.

        A large part of the trial was spent putting forward evidence that the accusations in her op-ed were false, and that Johnny never physically or sexually abused her.

        She never wrote that in the article. The exact quote is "Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse" and the definition of abuse is considerably more broad than physical or sexual. The recordings are enough to prove abuse. Representing is not the same as experiencing, but then…

        she admitted she wrote it about him (face palm moment!)

        She's not very bright, and her lawyer is terrible, even if she doesn't have much to work with. Her (other?) lawyer is also the one that originally named him.

        She needs to be shown to have acted with malice (or reckless indifference to the truth).

        If she, or anyone else on the jury, believes that it was abuse, then it is true. Even if the jury doesn't consider it abuse, it could be argued that she considered it as such. This is the key point that makes it so difficult for him to prove.

        • allie181 on 02/06/2022 - 08:27
          +5

          She never wrote that in the article. The exact quote is "Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse" and the definition of abuse is considerably more broad than physical or sexual. The recordings are enough to prove abuse. Representing is not the same as experiencing, but then…

          Unfortunately you are mistaken.

          The heading of the article was "Opinion Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change." The heading and the content of the article = allegation of sexual abuse.

          The physical abuse allegation was implied from the fact that she referenced "2 years ago" which was when she got a TRO based on the allegations that JD physically assaulted her (hence the "bruise" on her cheek).

          If she, or anyone else on the jury, believes that it was abuse, then it is true. Even if the jury doesn't consider it abuse, it could be argued that she considered it as such. This is the key point that makes it so difficult for him to prove.

          Again, not correct. JD sued her for alleging that she suffered "sexual" and "physical" violence at his hand. The jury must have formed the view that JD did commit acts of sexual and/or physical violence against her. What she thought she experienced is irrelevant.

          This is the unfortunate difficulty when non-lawyers try to understand or explain the law or a particular legal case. There is a reason we go to law school for years to learn how to read and understand the legal elements (yes, I'm a lawyer).

          Today's verdict again shows the trouble with lay people trying to understand and apply the law. The jury f'd up and the verdict is now somewhat legally inconsistent, so it will be interesting to see what happens with appeals.

          Summary of the verdict:

          Note: The jury form (the questions the jury had to answer) is here - https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Depp-Heard-t…

          JD's case

          JD won on absolutely everything and they awarded him $10 for financial loss, plus punitive damages of $5m.

          It is the punitive damages element which indicates a jury's opinion of the parties, and this was a resounding "we believe Johnny and want to punish Amber". (Unfortunately legislative limits in Virginia mean the $5m will be reduced to $350k because politicians have determined that punitive damages can never exceed $350k). However, the knowledge that they awarded $5m against her is a huge win for him even if he doesn't end up with that amount.

          AH's case

          She lost on claims 1 and 3, but won on claim 2. If she had to win something, #2 is the "least worst option".

          They awarded her $2m for financial loss but $0 for punitive damages. The $0 for punitive damages is a clear sign they didn't believe her or like her.

          Basically, they didn't find she had been abused. They just said the lawyer's statement that AH and her friends called the cops, they came and found no evidence to support abuse and left, so she and her friends staged the place a bit more and called the cops again to give it another go. Therefore, the effect of the jury's finding here is that they do not believe AH engaged in this particular conduct.

          The evidence was clear (police body cams etc) that the cops were called in twice on this particular night as the lawyer claimed, and on the second occasion there was some spilled wine on the floor that wasn't present during their first visit. The evidence was also clear that JD was not there between the cop visits, yet AH and friends claimed that he spilled the wine as part of his abusive conduct - so why wasn't it on the floor during the first attendance by police? (It is not just the cops testimony being relied on, it is their body cam footage so basically irrefutable evidence.)

          The reason many of us consider this to be an inconsistent verdict is that in JD's case the jury found for him 100% and in doing so essentially said "we believe Amber is a complete liar". To find for her on this part of her case, they need to believe her when she said she didn't do what was claimed. How can they believe her here when they've already effectively said she is an complete and utter liar?

          Unfortunately this is the problem when you have juries involved. They don't understand the law and you can end up with stupid results.

          It is widely understood by those in the legal world that the ONLY reason for this result is that there was 1 hold out juror who supported AH to some extent (not fully or they would have held out entirely or awarded her punitive damages, which they didn't). The jurors wanted this to be over so they did a deal where JD would win everything and in exchange, AH got this tiny win and $2m (probably because they believe she has lost any chance to be in Aquaman 3). Again though, how they could find that this insignificant issue was the cause of her losing Aquaman is illogical, when the primary reason would be because she has proven to make horrific claims which she knew were false and she made with the sole purpose of destroying someone.

          Overall, it is a clear message that AH was not believed at all, but it is irritating that she "won" anything, as she will now spout that she won, and this will feed her rabid supporters who misrepresent everything.

          It will be interesting to see what happens with appeals. You cannot appeal on a jury's finding of facts, but you can appeal where the law has been misapplied. You can also appeal various things that occurred during the trial which led to the jury's erroneous decision. This could happen here because, as I said, it is an inconsistent verdict.

          • [Deactivated] on 02/06/2022 - 12:07

            @allie181:

            The heading of the article was "Opinion Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change." The heading and the content of the article = allegation of sexual abuse.

            Yes, I saw that explained in various media after I wrote it. What did she speak up about exactly? What prompted the article in the first place? By admitting it was about him, she basically proved his case.

            Basically, they didn't find she had been abused. They just said the lawyer's statement that AH and her friends called the cops, they came and found no evidence to support abuse and left, so she and her friends staged the place a bit more and called the cops again to give it another go. Therefore, the effect of the jury's finding here is that they do not believe AH engaged in this particular conduct.

            She's obviously completely unreliable, but I still think they're both terrible, and the relationship could very easily be classed as abusive. I don't think either one is purely to blame, but I don't think either of them won anything here, other than money.

            The lawyers did well, although only his lawyer came off looking good. Hers came off looking incompetent. The same with many of her witnesses. It was like a clown show.

            Johnny lost roles, he won't get them back. He lost money. He lost the UK trial. He definitely showed he still has fans in the US, but I don't think he won either financially, or in terms of getting his career back. At best, it's a symbolic victory.

            She had no real career or talent to speak of, and while she did lose a lot of reputation, she can still play the victim, and she kind of won financially? She probably had nothing before she met him, and with the divorce and this, she's probably doing better than if she hadn't met him.

          • maxyzee on 02/06/2022 - 16:01
            +1

            @allie181: I actually think it’ll make it harder for her to appeal. Yeah it’s annoying that she won anything at all but a judge looking at the ruling would argue it was fair because the jury deliberated on all the facts and handed out judgements fairly.

  • nephilim on 01/06/2022 - 12:06
    +4

    99% of team Depp fans havnt even read the article which triggered the court case based on this thread, its hilarious how online outrage is blinding.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institu…

    • Blitzfx on 01/06/2022 - 12:11
      -1

      Washingtonpost lol. They took CCP money and pushed their propaganda in their ads.

    • payton on 01/06/2022 - 12:40
      +7

      Significant parts of that article have been debunked eg she kept her role in Aquaman 2 and a senior Warner Bros executive testified her role in that sequel was not cut short because of her "speaking out" (in very large quotes).

      Her ambassador/sponsorship contracts were also renewed and its not the 'everyone deserted me because I'm a whistleblower' bs narrative she is spouting.
      Did you watch the way she testified on the stand and all the red flags on how cunning and manipulative she is?

      Even when a very basic irrefutable fact was rubbed on her nose (eg how to date, she hasn't paid the 7mill she pledged to non-profit orgs many moons ago) she still refused to acknowledge it and gave roundabout excuses for most of the questions posed to her.

      Amber's famous post-ed article was drafted by ghost writer(s) from ACLU. She also timed the release to coincide with her (then) new movie. ACLU was in it for the money.

  • mitt on 01/06/2022 - 12:15
    +20

    I am enjoying that so many people are now getting their first taste at a distance of what its like to deal with a woman that has BPD. Heard isn't an exception, that's normal behaviour for BPD.

    The "believe all women" nonsense has given these psychos an absurd amount of power.

    • Ti-au on 01/06/2022 - 22:03
      +3

      whats it like to deal with a man that is a drug addicted alcoholic ?

      (I get your point, but there should be zero enjoyment - they whole thing is just a complete sordid mess).

      • mitt on 01/06/2022 - 22:12

        I dont enjoy that it happened, but I am enjoying that this flavour of abuse is finally getting a spotlight put on it.

        That "what about men" you dropped there is exactly the kind of dismissal that lets this kind of abuse flourish. Will I enjoy it if that reaction finally dies, or at least earns the rebuke it deserves?

        You better believe it.

        • syousef on 04/06/2022 - 17:05
          +1

          It's not a "dismissal" to require that the law is applied fairly and equally. People who claim they want justice, equality and fairness then turn around and prove they only want it for one gender are not making the world a better place at all.

      • syousef on 04/06/2022 - 17:04
        +1

        Listen to the tapes. For a drug addicted alcoholic he was quite a functional one.

    • MessyG on 03/06/2022 - 21:34

      Let's not stigmatise BPD in this way. It's a complex disorder, experienced by both genders, and over 90% of them have experienced complex childhood trauma, to the point that there is a lot of argument within the field of psychiatry as to whether or not it should be renamed complex PTSD. There is some emerging evidence that this behaviour is trauma driven, so please tread carefully and consider that Ozbargainers may have this diagnosis too.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 05/06/2022 - 19:51
        +2

        Social stigma in this case serves an important purpose of warning potential victims about dangerous people. An explanation for abusive behaviour doesn't excuse it. Our society understands the need to protect people from pedophiles and this is a parallel situation.

  • NightVision on 01/06/2022 - 12:19
    +5

    Johnny Depp, Craig McLachlan and Geoffrey Rush can prove that they are innocent or have justice for them because they have the (family & team) supports and the finance to support them.
    Many men, who has been falsely accused will just have to accept and suffer the consequence and do their best to move on with their life or end it. Simply they don't have the financial support for good lawyers for the likes of these celebrities.

    • JimB on 01/06/2022 - 12:37
      +2

      I don't think Craig McLachlan has proven he is innocent. To the contrary and dropped the case.

      Just like the Ben Roberts-Smith trial. I think about 2 days into the trail, Ben is thinking 'WTF did I get myself into?' lol

      • NightVision on 01/06/2022 - 12:44
        +2

        From my understanding and a little bit of reading the news he did get justice didn't he?
        "When Melbourne magistrate Belinda Wallington delivered her verdict on Tuesday, she found actor Craig McLachlan not guilty of assault and indecent assault charges dating back to 2014.
        Magistrate Wallington laid out her decision during a court hearing on Tuesday, and a 105-page written decision was later published."

        • JimB on 01/06/2022 - 14:54
          +1

          Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush are all defamation cases.

          You're referring to the criminal case that Craig McLachlan.

          I was referring to the recent defamation case that Craig McLachlan instigated and subsequently dropped. If he was fully cleared of the allegations (in the mind of the public), he wouldn't have proceeded with the defamation case.

          https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-20/craig-mclachlan-appli…

          After it was going down shit creek for him, he pulled the plug. Ben Roberts-Smith should have also early on. I wonder what shit legal advice they both received.

          Re: McLachlan. just because you're cleared in the criminal court doesn't mean that the events didn't happen- it means the allegations couldn't be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

          If McLachlan continued with the defamation case, more witnesses would have come forward and he would be on the stand for the defence to pick apart.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2022 - 13:04
    +1

    If JD isn't guilty, what a shame that he lost the grindewald movie. We would never know what happen if he still there now.

    • JimB on 01/06/2022 - 14:59
      -1

      JD isn't on trial.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2022 - 15:41

        He is

        • JimB on 01/06/2022 - 16:59
          +2

          Depp is the plaintiff who's suing Amber, so how can be found guilty?

          It's not a criminal trial.. lol

          • [Deactivated] on 02/06/2022 - 02:44

            @JimB: Counter suit

    • ColtNoir on 01/06/2022 - 15:54

      I'm glad he lost it. He didn't fit the role of Grindelwald to me, and I couldn't see how dumbledore could have been romantically involved with him.
      The new actor was far better for the role.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2022 - 15:58

        Love, arrogance, naivety, pick your poison.

    • R4 on 02/06/2022 - 10:03

      There is no question of guilty or not in this case - this is a civil action that was brought by Depp.

      He won anyway.

      Good for him.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/06/2022 - 11:46

        Ah, yeah I see your point, I mean loss. He loss 2m, win 10m

  • Bluto Mindpretzel on 01/06/2022 - 13:16
    +12

    As someone who saw a mate suffer the wrath of the legal system purely because his ex wanted to falsify unfound allegations, I think this case is of high importance. #MenToo

    It is also important for #MeToo as it can have a very unfortunate consequence of taking power from their good movement because of this one woman's lies and it tars everyone else with the same brush. It's probably sent that movement back years.

    • MessyG on 03/06/2022 - 21:37

      Not at all, it's actually given impetus to collect a lot more evidence than before in abusive relationships.

  • Cluster on 01/06/2022 - 13:52
    +5

    To me the whole saga between the protagonists is a competition to prove who is the bigger a-hole. They're both nasty people in a toxic relationship. The court only has to decide who is nastier.

    Unfortunately there has to be a 'winner' here. Someone will come up on top and claim all the glory for themselves. But the real winners are the lawyers.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join