Depp and Heard Trial Result

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The UK Trial was a bench trial not a jury trial?

[James Arryn]

24 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Not really- we literally had their couple therapist saying Depp (like Heard herself) was an abuser and that didn't really matter. In a trial by media, the charismatic actor with millions of fans is far more likely to win than the less known actress who is not particularly sympathetic.

That’s not what she actually said. She said that the pattern was that Ms. Heard’s abandonment issues would ‘trigger’ her when Mr. Depp would habitually try and deescalate arguments by leaving, and she would often get violent and abusive at that point, and she hypothesized that it might become mutual abuse at that point.  
 

She said that when Heard was "triggered" by something Depp did, she considered it a "point of pride" to "initiate" a fight, and "if [Depp] was going to leave her to deescalate the fight, she would strike him to keep him there.”

The couple's counselor also said that Heard started the fights with Depp on more than one occasion to "keep him with her because abandonment and having him leave was her worst nightmare."

Anderson added, "I think [Depp] may have initiated it on occasions too. That I am less sure on."

 

 

 

 

[butterbumps!]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

She is a serial liar, fantasist and an abuser, I think it’s been pretty clear throughout the trial what a piece of shit she really is. From leaking the story to TMZ, lying about the makeup she uses to ‘cover up her bruises’, lying about giving divorce money to charity, and then beating Depp and taunting him because nobody will ever believe him. She’s going to be vilified for the rest of her life and for good reason. 

I don't understand your vitriol toward her while directing none at Depp.  It seems like they were both toxic and abusive, and did sound like there was substantial evidence of physical abuse directed both ways.  Why is she the target of your disgust and not him in at least equal measure? 

[Kalbear]

38 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I don't understand your vitriol toward her while directing none at Depp.  It seems like they were both toxic and abusive, and did sound like there was substantial evidence of physical abuse directed both ways.  Why is she the target of your disgust and not him in at least equal measure? 

Yeah, real mystery

[Morpheus]

Looks like someone is asking for one of these 

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

I don't understand your vitriol toward her while directing none at Depp.  It seems like they were both toxic and abusive, and did sound like there was substantial evidence of physical abuse directed both ways.  Why is she the target of your disgust and not him in at least equal measure? 

I think they were both abusive in ways, but I don’t think it’s equal, either the abuse or the evidence. If we had audio of him laughing about hitting her, calling her a little baby for not wanting to be hit and daring him to go public about being a male abuse victim because no one would believe him, it might be. I am certain they were both verbally and psychologically abusive. I am much less certain they were both abusive physically, and I am fairly certain she was almost always the initiator.
 

The overwhelming dynamic, as testified to from many witnesses on both sides, was that he would try and leave arguments* to deescalate and she would attack and pursue. In most other contexts this behaviour would be called defensive IF he ever got physical in response. Their couples therapist said she would not even let him talk in their sessions, switching to a verbal ‘jackhammer’ style of speech to talk over him and eventually he would just stop talking. That’s completely consistent with the behaviour of an abuser…as their therapist noted btw. And she would mock and demean him as lacking masculinity for always wanting to ‘run away’ from their arguments. 
 

His texts about her were terrible, and his substance abuse calls his memory into question, but…and I hate to say this because it lines up so well with all the misogynistic bullshit fucktards are spreading everywhere about this…but if the genders were reversed and he was on record exasperatedly explaining to her that he hits her but doesn’t punch her, laughing at her for complaining about being hit, daring her to go public and not be believed, dominating her in couples therapy and repeatedly chasing her down and attacking her even in front of others when she tried to leave we would be in no doubt who the primary abuser was and we would contextualize the possibility that she sometimes responded to being attacked while trying to leave very differently. 
 

* this pattern of his of avoiding fights goes back to childhood as attested to by his family and prior partners, and they all said he was never remotely abusive, including his wife of almost 20 years. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Fairly disgusted to open up FB and see 9/10 people are cheering Depp on, talking about wanting him to immediately get back to work and/or how they're going to marathon his movies. Just gross. 

[Mladen]

I am sorry, but given how American media reported on this trial, I would actually say that we REALLY need cameras in courtrooms. 

It is beyond any doubt that we talk about extremely toxic relationship, with both of them being abusive. What I really hated about Amber's team is their blatant attempt to make this as sort of referendum on women's rights and MeToo moevemnt. I really hope people will be sensible enough not to do it, but I sincerely doubt. One can hope that this will be forgotten soon enough.

As a medical worker, I know how it is difficult to prove abuse. That is why the lack of evidence should be taken with grain of salt. Medical records are filled by people and thus can be full of errors. But then we enter what I perceive as fantastical narrative that I find difficult to believe. For all my sympathy, but "my nose was broken, I was swelling and in bruises, but somehow tomorrow I looked the image of perfect health." truly lost me. Abuse victims are sadly great in hiding the bruises, cuts and wounds, but mostly relying on sunglasses and clothing items, not makeup. As a male, I have no idea how effective makeup can be in hiding bruises, so I can't really comment on that. I will say I find it difficult to believe that it is that successful. As for hearing her "Tell the world Johnny", plus snickering... Those were difficult to forget. 

According to some on-site analysts, the most important moments were Vasquez making Amber admit that pledge and donation are not the same, Dr Curry's calm and collected testimony and Kate Moss. They say that jurors really reacted on these three instances, among others. And I suppose most people, regardless of how inaccurate it may be, will think that someone is not abusive if he has no prior record of abuse. 

I am not cheering for anyone here... What I will admit is that Johnny's team really played their cards perfectly. I don't like Amber's team trying to influence jury through wider perspective, as that simply was not the point of this case. This is about two toxic individuals, not a Supreme Court case about MeToo movement. 

[Makk]

What I don't understand is why there were so many audio recordings of them talking. When Heard was telling Depp to suck her d.., and I was hitting you not punching you, was Depp secretly recording it? These were really telling pieces of evidence but if one person is aware their argument is recorded and the other isn't, it is going to turn out very warped.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Makk said:

What I don't understand is why there were so many audio recordings of them talking. When Heard was telling Depp to suck her d.., and I was hitting you not punching you, was Depp secretly recording it? These were really telling pieces of evidence but if one person is aware their argument is recorded and the other isn't, it is going to turn out very warped.

Depp started recording them, with her knowledge, because she would frequently later deny things she’d said or done…that’s what that conversation about smashing him in the head with the bathroom door was about. This is apparently very common for borderline/histrionic disordered people, because their emotions are translated into physical memories, ie if they felt attacked emotionally they will often perceive/remember being attacked physically, and similarly they will forget things they have said or done if they conflict with how they were feeling. And abandonment, real or perceived, is ABSOLUTELY an attack to them, it’s their biggest fear. 
 

She also agreed to start taping their conversations with his knowledge/approval but then later began recording him secretly. The kitchen video comes across to many, myself included, as her trying to goad him into getting angry and possibly abusive on camera (while hiding it) but all he attacked were some cupboards and then, true to form, drank and left. 
 

According to psychologists I have seen commenting, if she’s histrionic/borderline she might be able to literally hear herself saying things like ‘I didn’t punch you, I didn’t full on clock you, I hit you, stop being a baby’ and think that sounds fine, in th same way that her laughing and goading him while he’s drunk might not register with her as someone with zero fear of being attacked. 

[BigFatCoward]

6 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I don't understand your vitriol toward her while directing none at Depp.  It seems like they were both toxic and abusive, and did sound like there was substantial evidence of physical abuse directed both ways.  Why is she the target of your disgust and not him in at least equal measure? 

For anyone that remotely followed the case this is obvious. Its because the abuse wasn't in equal measure, and he didn't write an article painting himself as the victim trying to ruin her career.

Nobody comes out of this well but her behavior, her lies and manipulative and sociopathic behavior are many levels above anything he did.  

[kungtotte]

I'm curious as to how it would've turned out had Heard's team been more competent and if there had been less apparent lies and confusion on her side of the aisle.

Kate Moss would not have been allowed to testify if it weren't for the fact that Heard brought her and the alleged incident up during her testimony, for example, so if she (Moss) doesn't testify does that affect the verdict?

[BigFatCoward]

25 minutes ago, kungtotte said:

I'm curious as to how it would've turned out had Heard's team been more competent and if there had been less apparent lies and confusion on her side of the aisle.

Kate Moss would not have been allowed to testify if it weren't for the fact that Heard brought her and the alleged incident up during her testimony, for example, so if she (Moss) doesn't testify does that affect the verdict?

This is very true, the expert witnesses on Depps side were also better, and he came across as much better on the stand and more believable (wonder how much of this is down to him just being a far superior actor)?

I'm sure that law firm won't be getting much business on the back of this case. 

[Mladen]

10 minutes ago, kungtotte said:

I'm curious as to how it would've turned out had Heard's team been more competent and if there had been less apparent lies and confusion on her side of the aisle.

Kate Moss would not have been allowed to testify if it weren't for the fact that Heard brought her and the alleged incident up during her testimony, for example, so if she (Moss) doesn't testify does that affect the verdict?

I don't think Amber had a "bad team" or that she was in disadvantage to Depp in that regard. Elaine Bredehoft is, as I read somewhere, in top 1% of US lawyers, had several honors by her fellow colleagues in Virginia and US in general. Ben Rottenborn proved himself as a very commanding presence, especially during opening and closing statements. Unfortunately, I think it all came down to Amber. And her dishonesty regarding certain things - most notably donations, then TMZ release, were too damaging and shook her credibility. 

Kate Moss was a HUGE blunder. We all saw how Ben Chew reacted when he heard Amber saying her name, knowing full well that he now can bring Depp's previous romantic partner who will most likely speak nicely of him. And Depp's team probably warned several people not to get involved on Social Media or watch trial. Some commentaries, that had people in the courtroom said that Kate Moss testimony was like a nuke for Amber's credibility.

Did it affect the verdict? I am not sure. I still think Vasquez destroyed Amber's credibility in those cross-examinations, especially with "pledge" and "donate". And while one can argue that the fact that Amber lied about numerous things doesn't mean that she wasn't abused, the fact is that her credibility was destroyed. When she went to testify for the second time, it was clear that jury, just like wide audience, does not believe her. And in midst of that, she blatantly admits the malicious intent.

3 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

This is very true, the expert witnesses on Depps side were also better, and he came across as much better on the stand and more believable (wonder how much of this is down to him just being a far superior actor)?

I'm sure that law firm won't be getting much business on the back of this case. 

One thing is that Depp came more honest. He was very open about alcohol and drugs, even the foul language and the fights, drawing line when it came to abuse. Amber wanted to portray perfect picture of abused woman. Depp made himself relatable, while Amber really looked like a narcissist blaming everyone else. It is perception that surely influenced the judge. 

[kiko]

30 minutes ago, kungtotte said:

I'm curious as to how it would've turned out had Heard's team been more competent and if there had been less apparent lies and confusion on her side of the aisle.

Kate Moss would not have been allowed to testify if it weren't for the fact that Heard brought her and the alleged incident up during her testimony, for example, so if she (Moss) doesn't testify does that affect the verdict?

I didn't follow this at all, luckily I wasn't exposed to this. But could it be that her team was really good but they didn't have good material to work with?

[kungtotte]

2 minutes ago, Mladen said:

I don't think Amber had a "bad team" or that she was in disadvantage to Depp in that regard. Elaine Bredehoft is, as I read somewhere, in top 1% of US lawyers, had several honors by her fellow colleagues in Virginia and US in general. Ben Rottenborn proved himself as a very commanding presence, especially during opening and closing statements. Unfortunately, I think it all came down to Amber. And her dishonesty regarding certain things - most notably donations, then TMZ release, were too damaging and shook her credibility. 

 

Eh, they might have been undone by bad information from Heard, but they didn't come across as very competent. Fumbling questions, objecting to their own questions, asking things they didn't know the answer to. I'm not saying it was all down to them but they could have approached the case like Depp's team did and I think it would've scored a lot of points.

1 minute ago, kiko said:

I didn't follow this at all, luckily I wasn't exposed to this. But could it be that her team was really good but they didn't have good material to work with?

Oh there was definitely a bunch of that going around!

[mormont]

Again, much of the discussion here seems to work on the assumption that this trial result - still subject to a possible appeal, by the way - is in some way more significant than the previous trial result, which found fully in favour of Heard and agreed that Depp is an abuser. There is no substantial reason that it should be regarded as such.

Much of the criticism of Heard in this trial misses the point spectacularly. Depp's legal strategy in both trials has been simple: rather than refute allegations about his behaviour, spend as much time as possible talking about Heard's behaviour. This is based on appealing to the stereotyped idea of abusive relationships where there is one evil abuser and one innocent victim. If Heard is the evil abuser it follows that Depp is the innocent victim. In a nutshell, that's been his defence: put Amber Heard on trial for not being the right kind of victim. It's not surprising that strategy works better on a jury than a judge.

I hear people saying that they were both abusive. Well, if they were both abusive, Depp is an abuser and his defamation claim has no merit. The jury here have said that they believe he was not abusive. If you really believe both parties were abusive, even if you think that Heard was more so than Depp, you disagree with this verdict. And if you think he hit her, even in self defence, you think he lied on the stand.

[BigFatCoward]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

I hear people saying that they were both abusive. Well, if they were both abusive, Depp is an abuser and his defamation claim has no merit. The jury here have said that they believe he was not abusive. If you really believe both parties were abusive, even if you think that Heard was more so than Depp, you disagree with this verdict. And if you think he hit her, even in self defence, you think he lied on the stand.

Do you believe they were as bad as each other or was one worse than the other based on what has been revealed about their relationship? 

I've got it about 80/20 split, and he wasn't the one that wrote an article portraying himself as the victim. 

[Red Tiger]

I am very happy with the result of this trial.

[mormont]

9 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I've got it about 80/20 split, and he wasn't the one that wrote an article portraying himself as the victim. 

No. But he is the one who brought two court cases in which he has portrayed himself as the victim.

I don't care to speculate about percentages, but as I say, even if you think he was 20% to blame, you have to conclude that this verdict is wrong.