Depp and Heard Trial Result

[polishgenius]

I haven't followed the cases closely enough to have a solid opinion beyond 'I wouldn't want to know either of them' but fucking hell if this is true:
 

 

[Winterfell is Burning]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

As someone who paid very little attention to all this but did see the constant recs, it felt more to me that the various "men's rights" folks latched on to Depp as their cause of the day. He also, probably because there's a lot of overlap here, started getting MAGA supporters (which is ironic considering he half-jokingly suggested killing Trump in 2017). It is possible that Depp's team started activating and encouraging those people, which would be incredibly scummy. But it's also possible that Depp's team had nothing to do with it; that it was simply a high profile case between a man and a woman and these people decided it was important that the man win. Which is incredibly gross of course, but just because bad people are rooting you on doesn't automatically mean that you're in the wrong.

Which is what I said in the first page and some people complained- not that all Depp supporters are MAGA types, but there was very clearly a campaign by Trump supporters on Depp's side and make Heard an example (I have no information to say whether Depp's team had any say in this).

 

2 hours ago, Week said:

Worth reading from Monica Lewinsky -- who, as she points out, as some experience in the line of fire of misogynistic vitriol.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022/05/monica-lewinskys-verdict-on-the-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial

Once again, it just proves how absurd it was that this was a public trial.

[mormont]

The people asking why the #MeToo folks aren't angry at Heard are so close to getting it. That is a good question. Maybe reflect on it for a while.

As for male abuse victims: as I said earlier, I have been in that situation. I believe, in principle, that it should be talked about more and yet I honestly struggled despite that with the idea of saying so in a public forum. It's not an easy thing to admit. But we do need to talk about it more.

But at the same time as feeling all that and having those experiences, I think Depp was lying.

Oh, and for men, being a victim of abuse (like being a single parent) isn't the same as it is for women. The standards you are held to are different. You only need to look at the media coverage around this trial to see that.

[Heartofice]

This thread seems to mainly be made up of people who think Heard is an abusive lying monster, and those who start posts with  ‘ I haven’t been following the case but..’

[butterbumps!]

16 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I haven't followed the cases closely enough to have a solid opinion beyond 'I wouldn't want to know either of them' but fucking hell if this is true:
 

 

If true, is that grounds for a mistrial?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

This thread seems to mainly be made up of people who think Heard is an abusive lying monster, and those who start posts with  ‘ I haven’t been following the case but..’

I followed the case but not terribly closely.  I watched a fair bit of the crossx of Ms. Heard and agree she came off poorly.  That doesn’t change my opinion that Heard and Depp seemed to bring out the worst in each other and likely both engaged in abuse.

This trial should never have been televised.

[LongRider]

This, so much this.

Quote

“This is basically the end of MeToo,” Dr. Jessica Taylor, a psychologist, forensic psychology Ph.D., and author of two books on misogyny and abuse, tells Rolling Stone. “It’s the death of the whole movement.”......Taylor says she has already been contacted by “hundreds” of survivors wishing to retract public statements they have made in the press, or pulling out of court cases against their abusers. She says the verdict “opens the floodgates” for future defamation cases. “Survivors watching this will rethink everything they say out loud about what happened to them, and the potential of being sued and dragged through a court process for saying something they know is true, but they could be found guilty of defamation,” she says. “It’s a scary place to be.”

Amber Heard-Johnny Depp Trial: Survivors 'Sickened' by Verdict - Rolling Stone

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, LongRider said:

This, so much this.

Amber Heard-Johnny Depp Trial: Survivors 'Sickened' by Verdict - Rolling Stone

Ok this is exactly one of the articles I was talking about. The tone of which suggests we need to let Heard win because then other women will feel safe to come forward. So we can’t let justice be done in case it scares other people. The anger is directed at the verdict, not the lying abuser who tried to take advantage of the system.

Maybe Mormont can explain it.

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Ok this is exactly one of the articles I was talking about. The tone of which suggests we need to let Heard win because then other women will feel safe to come forward. So we can’t let justice be done in case it scares other people. The anger is directed at the verdict, not the lying abuser who tried to take advantage of the system.

Maybe Mormont can explain it.

Way to miss the point and your appeal to authority fallacy does not sway me. 

[Ran]

My main issue with the article is the alarmism of it. If one case is sufficient to "kill" a movement, doesn't that call into question the movement if it's that fragile?  It seems senseless to me for supporters of the movement to embrace the fallacy that if they choose to dub some private civil suit part of the "movement", it means that they must win or the movement is lost, which is yet another fallacy. Two fallacies don't make a truth.

It just makes more sense to me to treat it as what it is: a single defamation case among all sorts of civil cases, saying nothing about movements. It's not the war, it's not even a battle in the war, it's just a case between two private citizens. There has to be some sense of proportion.

[Cas Stark]

That online piece is a little bit of a white wash, saying Heard's former assistant said she was a 'moody mercurial boss' when what she testified to was that Heard screamed, did a lot of drugs, and once spit in her face when she asked for a raise and that she had never witnessed Depp abuse her.

[kungtotte]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

My main issue with the article is the alarmism of it. If one case is sufficient to "kill" a movement, doesn't that call into question the movement if it's that fragile?  It seems senseless to me for supporters of the movement to embrace the fallacy that if they choose to dub some private civil suit part of the "movement", it means that they must win or the movement is lost, which is yet another fallacy. Two fallacies don't make a truth.

It just makes more sense to me to treat it as what it is: a single defamation case among all sorts of civil cases, saying nothing about movements. It's not the war, it's not even a battle in the war, it's just a case between two private citizens. There has to be some sense of proportion.

A single defamation case that was only won in round two after losing the first round no less, not exactly a slam dunk on Depp's part. I don't want to minimize the fears of abused women who worry that this will be a setback to them, but in practice I don't think the outcome of this trial significantly changed the risk of being counter-sued for defamation if you try to bring your abuser to trial.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Ran said:

It just makes more sense to me to treat it as what it is: a single defamation case among all sorts of civil cases, saying nothing about movements. It's not the war, it's not even a battle in the war, it's just a case between two private citizens. There has to be some sense of proportion.

Yeah I think it's important to keep in mind that this precedent is a very limited one - most victims are not going to be publishing op-eds in a major newspaper.  And even if they did it's going to be very difficult for others to demonstrate its publishing "destroyed" the complainant's career (of course, Depp's career would have been fucked regardless of whether or not Heard published that op-ed, which is why I thought the whole suit was kinda stupid).  

That being said, I think concern that this could deter victims from speaking out is a valid one.  Perhaps the concern should be more measured, but still.

[LongRider]

The op-Ed that Heard wrote that started Depp suing her for defamation was about how she had been treated after bringing forward her claims of abuse. She did not name names.

She has been treated even worse during this trial, see polish genius’s post above. Even if that sign is only a meme it is grotesque and inappropriate harassment of an individual whether one believes her or not. 
 

That shit matters. The misogyny heaped on her is not lost on other female abuse victims, they hear it loud and clear. 

[Mladen]

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. 

18 minutes ago, LongRider said:

The op-Ed that Heard wrote that started Depp suing her for defamation was about how she had been treated after bringing forward her claims of abuse. She did not name names.

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.

 

[Week]

8 minutes ago, LongRider said:

The op-Ed that Heard wrote that started Depp suing her for defamation was about how she had been treated after bringing forward her claims of abuse. She did not name names.

She has been treated even worse during this trial, see polish genius’s post above. Even if that sign is only a meme it is grotesque and inappropriate harassment of an individual whether one believes her or not. 

That shit matters. The misogyny heaped on her is not lost on other female abuse victims, they hear it loud and clear. 

100% -- trying to change the narrative to focus solely on the verdict is either intentionally missing the point or poor reading comprehension (concerning on a message board; famously text medium).

Quote

In the thick of the trial, many organizations that advocate for survivors have remained silent, choosing not to weigh in on one side or the other until a verdict was reached. (The #MeToo organization released a tepid statement in support of “survivors” in general, without aligning with either Heard or Depp by name.) But that hasn’t stopped Depp fans from sending harassing and abusive messages to these organizations, accusing them of bias in Heard’s favor.

[...]

Other experts on domestic abuse have been horrified watching the methods that are traditionally employed to discredit survivors — such as diagnosing them with a mental illness — wielded on a global stage, with Dr. Shannon Curry, a clinical and forensic psychologist who testified on Depp’s behalf, diagnosing Heard, whom she has never treated, with borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder, inaccurately linking these conditions to physical abuse. “I hear from women in the U.K., Canada. All the lawyers use the same tactics — they position them as hysterical, as gold-diggers, malicious, out for revenge, emotionally unstable, as having personality disorders,” says Taylor. “It provides a model of discrediting the woman.” The Depp verdict, she says, will only make such tactics more common in a courtroom setting.

#MeToo is, at its core, a movement to listen to and empower victims of abuse, solidarity among victims, and hold those committing or covering up the abuse to account.  To call it shaky, is patently obvious. It's a movement of the abused, silenced, and disempowered against abusers and their power structures. 

[Week]

Another very thorough article on background, trial, and implications --

https://www.readthepresentage.com/p/johnny-depp-amber-heard?s=r

The kicker for the tl;dr crowd:

Quote

I have no idea what happens next, but I do know that Depp’s unbelievably cynical strategy to discredit his ex-wife’s abuse claims (Jessica Winter called it “a high-budget, general-admission form of revenge porn”) was a resounding success. Heard is now one of the most hated figures in America. Even if she overturns the decision on appeal, she will likely never be cast in a major Hollywood role again — what studio wants to risk a hostile internet campaign before they even start shooting?

Depp’s core claim — women advance their careers by accusing powerful men of abuse — doesn’t even hold up to the evidence of his own abuse accusation. Heard is ruined; Depp is in pre-production for his next role; other alleged abusers are already copying his legal strategy. 

And outside the courtroom, America’s march backward toward the 1950s continues apace.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Mladen said:

Heard was innocent until this jury found her guilty. (of defamation, to be precise. Let's not forget what was this case about)

No.  Heard was found liable… not guilty.  This was a civil case and the proof required for civil liability is much lower than that required for criminal sanctions.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

40 minutes ago, Week said:

Depp’s core claim — women advance their careers by accusing powerful men of abuse — doesn’t even hold up to the evidence of his own abuse accusation. Heard is ruined; Depp is in pre-production for his next role; other alleged abusers are already copying his legal strategy. 

I don’t recall Depp making any claims about women in general… while I don’t think Depp is innocent in all of this what other method did he have, besides a defamation suit to attempt to demonstrate his accuser hadn’t been truthful?

[Mladen]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  Heard was found liable… not guilty.  This was a civil case and the proof required for civil liability is much lower than that required for criminal sanctions.  

Sorry, my mistake. My English legal vernacular is not as good as I think. You are completely right.

 

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t recall Depp making any claims about women in general… while I don’t think Depp is innocent in all of this what other method did he have, besides a defamation suit to attempt to demonstrate his accuser hadn’t been truthful?

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.