Jump to content

Mladen

Members
  • Posts

    17,739
  • Joined

About Mladen

  • Birthday December 27

Profile Information

  • Lady's Ghost
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Just Around the River Bend

Previous Fields

  • Name
    Mladen

Recent Profile Visitors

40,226 profile views

Mladen's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. All of these arguments are factually correct and I can't argue against them. That said, I am more affected by Ms. Clark as Galadriel than anything else. And I know that Blanchett who is 53 ATM, can't play this younger version, but that emotional side of my brain says she should have. Cate Blanchett as Galadriel is one of those characters for me. One of those that define certain era. I was just a kid when I watched FOTR and her gliding down those stairs as the Fellowship looked at her. I still remember the excitement, the emotional connection with this serene, out-worldly creature. It marked the beginning of my love for Ms. Blanchett and it is still strong as it was 2 decades ago. So, yeah, I understand the arguments and they are all valid. It is just that there is part of me that would be ecstatic to have seen Ms. Blanchett as Galadriel one more time, especially in the role that gives us more grounded Galadriel. And, yes, I would totally ignore that she doesn't look like she is 25. Having said that, I wish Ms. Clark all the best. She has some gigantic shoes to fill and it seems she is doing just fine.
  2. If we talk about Dr Curry, I think yes, she talked to Heard (and more importantly, per Heard's lawyers, gave her muffins). I think they had two meetings or such. I am not sure that is how fact-finders work... The way I understand lawyers hire several experts, but bring to the stand only those that corroborate their story. As an expert witness myself few times, there were situations when lawyer would just thank me for my services and I never got on the stand. The fact that Dr Curry was on the stand means Depp's team found her results favorable for them.
  3. Oh, yeah... I mean, I don't think anyone can say Depp is innocent victim here. It was, as it seems, a mutually abusive relationship. And I think jury understood them. I think their problem was more of Heard representing herself as "noble victim" (to quote Vasquez) when in fact she was also abusive. I feel most of them thought that op-ed mischaracterized their relationship and that is why they found grounds for falsehood of those statements. Sexual abuse here is also very important topic and point of contention because her lawyers were all over the place with that. First they claimed there were no sexual abuse, then when judge decided that the title matters, they claimed there was sexual abuse, only not to mention it in the closing arguments. *** I am not sure she had bad lawyers. But, Elaine would sometimes do ad hominem attacks that didn't work. That TMZ employee really gave her the taste of her own medicine. Dr Curry very calmly explained muffin situation. They were more invested of discrediting these people as credible witnesses than proving them wrong. It was a strange and ineffective tactic. Lawyers commenting this were always wondering whether Heard is the problem here, as they would not understand some moves made by her lawyers.
  4. I don't think Heard was ruined by Depp's lawsuit. But, I think she lost all credibility in public the moment she sat in that witness chair. It was simply "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" thing. Vasquez made her admit she lied about donating money to charity. Vasquez made her admit that op-ed was about Johnny, thus destroying that image of "woman moving on". She mentioned Kate Moss, in hope to ruin Depp, it backfired and Moss made Heard look even less trustworthy. Many people had issues with her facial expressions, believing she is faking tears. It was just bad. She admitted to nothing. I have heard her lawyer saying she admitted her faults. No, she didn't. We heard her smiling and snickering on the video, it was proved she leaked the edited video to TMZ, and there is of course poop-gate. Simply, no one would believe her after so many lies. And had she sat rationally with her lawyers and told "Yes, I did this and this and this. Let we explain the jury my side and my reasons...", Depp would have never won. But, she denied things she couldn't possibly deny. And jury didn't believe her.
  5. I have read her article and yes, it doesn't mention him, but it is clearly about him. And you can deny that, I understand that perspective but she was called as a witness, she sat and said: So, we are passed pretending op-ed was not about him.
  6. One really has to enjoy the cherry-picking of verdicts people do here. "Oh, you should trust the judge in UK". "No, the jury in Virginia heard Amber." I mean, both sides are doing the same. Choosing the verdict they believe in because it suits their narrative. And then we go into mischaracterizing both trials. One side will say that it is possible that judge was biased and hadn't have all evidence in UK, the others will talk how jury was tainted. As similar as two cases have been, legal experts are very clear that they are not about the same thing, the laws in UK and US are different, hence the different verdicts. We are all right and we are all wrong. As one said, "at the end, we will see that the only thing abused here were substances," Yes, both these individuals have issues, it was a toxic relationship and perhaps it is good that we have two different verdicts so neither of them would get "free out of jail" card. The one thing I am truly bothered is Ms. Heard's insistence that this trial affects all women. No, it affects you. The vernacular that is being used about "setbacks for women". People speak about character assassinations. Well, Amber tossed a first stone and she has been throwing for a while now. Now, when she lost, she says she doesn't like the game. Well, I am sorry, but this Pandora box has been opened by you. And, the thing we have learned so many times with celebrities, you try to control narratives and media will ultimately backfire. This is just the last example of it. I am in a hospital and I am bed-ridden for the past few weeks. I followed it plus US lawyers' commentaries on that. Your opinion can vary on Depp based on what you heard on that trial. But, without any doubt, after hearing her two testimonies, I feel like no jury would let her off the hook. The impression was disastrous. She has been caught lying, point black, numerous times. And she did come off as malicious sociopath. The only reason I am careful with my words regarding Ms. Heard is that I know that it could all be impression. But, most certainly, Depp's lawyers, especially Camille Vasquez annihilated Heard's credibility. I would even say that Vasquez as attorney, Dr Curry as a witness expert and Kate Moss as a witness were the trifecta that swayed jury.
  7. Yeah, but I am not sure what other ways he would have in "clearing his name". I mean, Heard certainly had no regards for him when she penned that op-ed. It was also a very public character assassination. There is no way one can spin that. She sat and admitted the op-ed was about him. So I am not sure how we would expect him not to "go for the jugular". Also, I am not sure we can blame him for propagation of misogyny. At least, his lawyers made sure to be very specific that the case is about one man and one woman. Heard's team transformed the trial into "sending messages". *** Honestly, I have some serious issues with how Heard's team approached this. Yes, Depp's team chose the "playground" but they had enough room. Most lawyers I followed on YT were certain Depp would lose, and as the trial progressed, they were all changing opinions. And those opinions were not based on some TikTok/Twitter commentary, but on what they have seen. Their comments were that the judge was extremely fair to both parties, that jury took seriously their duty. As far as I understood the lawyers' commentaries on the case, Heard's cross-examinations by Vasquez both times really undermined the case she had.
  8. I understand where you come from and you are right about Depp's career. I won't be crying over some Hollywood actor not earning tens of millions of dollars. But, we know he was fired from Pirates and Beasts because of this. I mean, he has the right to work and make shitty movies, if he wants to. Half of Hollywood shoots bad movies that earn far less. So, as much as I would agree with you, he is entitled to continue his career as long as there are those who would watch his movies.
  9. IDK, I don't think the jury was the problem here. I understand that argument, but I would find difficult to believe that there is one jury case today in US where a juror hadn't commented with their family. From the people who reported directly from the courtroom, the jury was very much invested, they had extensive instructions by the judge, they took notes. I am not sure that the jury was the problem here. For me, it all came down to Amber's disastrous performance on the stand, I think her lawyers went too many times ad hominem on Depp witnesses. I mean, Elaine complained about time to Dr Curry after investigating her about muffins. The people Depp team put on the stand seemed in better control of the public. When you compare Dr Hughes and Dr Curry, and I am no expert on it, one can easily guess whom would jury listen more. Kate Moss thing was also a huge blow for Ms. Heard, as simply people are more prone to believe that a man is not abuser if he has not a history of abuse and Kate Moss certainly refuted that. I think Ms. Heard lost because simply, her team miscalculated certain things. She simply wasn't believable and her emotions seemed ingenuine. I am not sure sequestered jury, or non-televised process or even other jury would change that.
  10. Well, I don't know what sequestration means exactly, but for this trial, cameras never recorded the jurors, plus the judge sealed their names from public record for a year. As for juror being tainted, I am not buying it. I think Vasquez did incredible job in crushing Ms. Heard's credibility and this was a case of who is more credible.
  11. Sorry, my mistake. My English legal vernacular is not as good as I think. You are completely right. I think that is, in part, why he won. He and his team tried to make this about one man and one woman, while Ms. Heard on the stand was issuing statement after statement about powerful men, their power. As I said, they were playing "this is the bigger issue" and it simply backfired. And I agree with you... I know it is not perfect, but the thing that most countries admire United States for is the ability for anyone to have their day at court and be heard. That tease "Tell the world, Johnny" sadly did not end well for Ms. Heard.
  12. I am with @Ran with regard to this. Simply, if this case is going to destroy the movement, then it was a shaky movement to begin with. Today we speak about this case's impact on MeToo movement, because Amber Heard lawyer basically wanted jury to feel that way. Rottenborn clearly stated that the jury needed to send a message. I mean, that is not what jury does, as far as my understanding of American law goes. They are there to decide whether Amber defamed Johnny and vice versa. Nothing more. But, Amber's lawyers felt the need to put the pressure on the jury and it simply backfired. What is being forgotten here... Heard was innocent until this jury found her guilty. (of defamation, to be precise. Let's not forget what was this case about) Depp was guilty until this case found him liable for defamation about hoax. I don't think this trial exonerates Johnny, but it did cast a significantly different light to the narrative Heard, ACLU and Washington Post served to the public. All of that was Ms. Herard's narrative until she sat on witness' chair and said that op-ed was about him. Plain and simple. In front of the jury. She herself claimed it was about him and that he is the reason why it was written. If I find that moment unforgettable, I am sure that jury who was 2 meters away from her, felt the same. Today, we could have had people encouraging both men and women to come forward when it comes to abuse. Instead, people are using the same vernacular claiming that it is a "setback". One really needs to ask why are they doing so. Is it because they believe Depp vs Heard was a referendum on MeToo, or they simply rally the troops against any reasonable criticism? But, with such divisive and polarized society, it is a wonder anyone can have reasonable opinion without being targeted as far-left or far-right.
  13. Given that you have responded to me, I really doubt I show any sort of certainty regarding this case. Well, the regulars - LA Times, Variety, Washington Post, etc. What I find on Google Search from American and British media. My impression and it can be wrong is that although they recognize Heard's lack of credibility, it is like "it doesn't matter because he is a powerful man". It's just my impression. And many of liberal commentators are doing the same. Again, just my impression, not a state of fact.
  14. I edited that part. I apologize for it. From my perspective, here in Europe, this entire case is once again clashing of far-left and far-right. And somehow I think the point is lost here... @polishgenius, thanks. I really didn't know.
  15. This is a gross misrepresentation of the support Depp got. (Not saying there is no misogyny there, there most certainly is, but to put entire Depp support into far-right corner would be, IMO, really wrong.) And practically this argument is what is wrong with American society these days. You all think in extremes. Either you are far-left or far-right. There is no middle ground anymore. We have seen numerous Hollywood women like Jennifer Aniston, Penelope Cruz, Eva Green, Selma Hayek supporting Depp - are they mean-spirited and misogynistic? Instead of using this moment to reexamine the cancel culture Hollywood has based MeToo on and admit some mistakes, we see leftist being closed to any idea of wrongdoing by anyone surrounding Amber. And they immediately started firing: "No one will ever believe women because of this." As far as I am concerned, both extremes here are wrong. I feel like the common sense has been lost here. I do believe that one can believe in MeToo movement and still believe AH lied. I believe someone can sympathize with Depp and still hold him accountable for some actions. What I don't believe is this strawman argument American media played since last night.
×
×
  • Create New...