Depp and Heard Trial Result

[Winterfell is Burning]

3 hours 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.

While that should have been true, the fact that the judge allowed this to become not only open to the public, but broadcasted on TV and Internet to astonishing viewership figures and following on social media like probably no case in history makes it a lot more than just a case between two private citizens. And enemies of the #Metoo movement clearly wanted it to be that way too.

  

54 minutes ago, Ran said:

"If", yes, but were they, and were they affected? And wouldn't there be social media articles from just media written reports and journalists who witnessed the proceedings showing up to give their views?

Unless you're imagining completely closed trials with no reporting at all until the results are announced, I'm not sure there is that much difference.

 

 

But of course there is. We already had a trial with the very same two people without television in the UK that barely anyone paid attention and had a different outcome. And on this one, not only there was TV, there was a jury, that wasn't sequestered, and went home every day to see and read what was said online with friends and family telling them what they thought- we already know of at least one juror whose wife was telling him that Heard was a bitch. Do you think he was the only one or that this had zero influence?

Written reports by journalists are also completely different from a live feed because at least the serious ones will try to give an unbiased view of the proceedings, not clickbait articles, memes or trolling.

Even the OJ case, with all it's main flaws, had the jury sequestered, and there was no social media then.

 

[Mladen]

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If it is a high profile civil case with lots of public attention I don’t see why sequestration wouldn’t be an option.

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.

[Fragile Bird]

If there’s anything I’ve ever heard from jurors, it’s the fact that once chosen, they do tend to try to follow the judge’s instructions as closely as possible. Obviously there will be assholes out there who ignore instructions, but post trial interviews tend to show the majority of jurors take the job seriously.

[Winterfell is Burning]

2 minutes ago, Mladen said:

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.

Doesn't matter if the jurors names were sealed- we know at least one of them told his wife, who commented on the case, and likely more either told their families and friends or had people close to them figuring out. Even if no one else was contacted directly about the case by anyone they know, which is already doubtful, they saw social media, TV and newspapers, internet boards, etc, every single day. Even people trying to ignore this case end up seeing things about it, let alone anyone who was directly involved.

In sequestration, they stay somewhere isolated, usually an hotel, and have no contact to people outside the trial and are forbidden to see how the outside world is seeing the case. Like I said, even the OJ case, as fucked up as that was, had the jury sequestered, and that was before social media. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

In sequestration, they stay somewhere isolated, usually an hotel, and have no contact to people outside the trial and are forbidden to see how the outside world is seeing the case. Like I said, even the OJ case, as fucked up as that was, had the jury sequestered, and that was before social media. 

 

Incidentally, the extremely long sequestration for that trial play a significant role in the jury not taking their responsibilities seriously.

[Mladen]

Just now, Winterfell is Burning said:

Doesn't matter if the jurors names were sealed- we know at least one of them told his wife, who commented on the case, and likely more either told their families and friends or had people close to them figuring out. Even if no one else was contacted directly about the case by anyone they know, which is already doubtful, they saw social media, TV and newspapers, internet boards, etc, every single day. Even people trying to ignore this case end up seeing things about it, let alone anyone who was directly involved.

In sequestration, they stay somewhere isolated, usually an hotel, and have no contact to people outside the trial and are forbidden to see how the outside world is seeing the case. Like I said, even the OJ case, as fucked up as that was, had the jury sequestered, and that was before social media. 

 

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. 

[Jace, Extat]

I'm ashamed at some of you. 

If you're concerned that a humongous chunk of our citizenry apparently stopped their lives and work to follow this humilithon, how personally personally PERSONALLY involved they got in the proceedings and outcome and the depths of nastiness they unleash towards people they never met and never hurt them, or just the way our legal system basically encourages two people to perform against each other via proxies to try and smear the others credibility, all for the sweet sweet prize of cold hard cash... then this comment isn't for you. You're good people. Stay golden Pony Person.

The rest of you? Shame. Shame for advocating that the absurdities of "justice" be obscured from view. That the truth of how things of great weight developed be hidden because you have to step out of your wise towers and recall for a moment that the vast, vast, majority of human beings are short-sighted, impressionable, totally ignorant and intellectually atrophied assholes whose first thought on a subject is just about always their last thought and they'll be happy to repeat it to you as many times as they can until the teeny tiny sub-universal strings that hold the electrons in orbit around the nucleii of the atoms that compose your flesh lose their unknown and unmeasurable coherence and you -at your very essence- dissolve into a pool of flesh-toned subatomic particles that are defined precisely by the fact that they have lost all definition. A void of former person that exists only by dint of having had existed before, and the strange flesh-ish worldwound that now obscures the ground but will not touch it. 

If you're worried that the spectacle of the trial will lead to sensation that will impact the decision makers of the trial, I got something to tell ya: get the fuck over it. I hope the jury read every single internet article written for each side, one side, or no side as they prefer. They're there to represent the rest of us in examining the evidence and passing a judgement, why shouldn't they know what the rest of the ignoramuses are opining towards? A judge ain't some platonic being whose wisdom and learnedness ensures impartiality. They're just a motherfucker in a stupid outfit whose outdated, outgrown, cancerous bureaucracy has assigned a number on a fucking docket. The legal system is a fucking joke. It exists to act as a buffer between the dirty dumb masses and our goodly godly rich rulers. To give you your day in opposition -if you can fucking afford it!- to the meaners who meaned you bad. The American people have been getting fucked over by the legal system for fifty fucking years and you're telling me you want it to be more opaque? Go fuck Jupiter with that shit. This is what happens when you disillusion the masses from their opium, they act like fucking fools and get interested in different freakshow events. So as far as I'm concerned you either want the democracy to be transparent and accountable at as many levels as is feasible to its supposed constituents, and all that comes with that, or you are in favor of an entrenched legalistic class that costs a fortune to enter, hire, maintain, and train. Not only do most Americans have no opportunity to become a part of the legal class, most of them can't even afford to get advice from its least-prestigious and capable members. I want more observations of these characters and the methods they use to reach their verdicts. Not less. 

That being said; I understand and respect your desire for educated and considerate individuals to be directing serious business; I do not trust 'em.

Meanwhile, if you're calling for cameras to be taken out of courts because you're sore that the horse you apparently bet your lives on (to judge from the feverish tone of some of these posts) lost: also get the fuck over it. Same unhinged rant. Go back and read it again if you remain confused.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Well, we did it folks: we found someone here crazier than both Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Time to close shop, we got our job done.

[Cas Stark]

29 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Doesn't matter if the jurors names were sealed- we know at least one of them told his wife, who commented on the case, and likely more either told their families and friends or had people close to them figuring out. Even if no one else was contacted directly about the case by anyone they know, which is already doubtful, they saw social media, TV and newspapers, internet boards, etc, every single day. Even people trying to ignore this case end up seeing things about it, let alone anyone who was directly involved.

In sequestration, they stay somewhere isolated, usually an hotel, and have no contact to people outside the trial and are forbidden to see how the outside world is seeing the case. Like I said, even the OJ case, as fucked up as that was, had the jury sequestered, and that was before social media. 

 

I may be mistaken but I think the wife's comment came out in voir dire, e.g. it was before the trial, not during it.

[Winterfell is Burning]

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

I may be mistaken but I think the wife's comment came out in voir dire, e.g. it was before the trial, not during it.

OK (to be honest, I didn't follow THAT closely the trial, specially early on- more being ended up inevitably overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information on it). That also probably makes more sense why the judge wouldn't remove that juror.

[Jace, Extat]

15 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Well, we did it folks: we found someone here crazier than both Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Time to close shop, we got our job done.

People have been talking about this non-stop for months. Scores of lawyers hosting YouTube channels exposing themselves as hate-filled partisan assholes regardless of the facts presented before the court, a lot of whom seemed eager to see some kind of revenge upon Heard for something she never did to them or theirs. 

You're worried that too much media attention may have impacted the jury and their rationalizing towards whatever decision they walked through the door with anyway? 

I'm worried that no media attention -zip, zilch, nada- may have impacted the Supreme Court and some of their recent decisions. 

Anybody remember the last big decision handed down by a courtly body shrouded in mystique and unavailability? Or has your outrage index drifted so far away that you don't remember the ruling that -actually, literally, for fucking real- impacts all women in this country and their rights to do what the fuck they want; including divorce themselves of the product of abuse with the aid of informed medical assistance. 

I'll take your answer off the air.

[Winterfell is Burning]

43 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

People have been talking about this non-stop for months. Scores of lawyers hosting YouTube channels exposing themselves as hate-filled partisan assholes regardless of the facts presented before the court, a lot of whom seemed eager to see some kind of revenge upon Heard for something she never did to them or theirs. 

You're worried that too much media attention may have impacted the jury and their rationalizing towards whatever decision they walked through the door with anyway? 

I'm worried that no media attention -zip, zilch, nada- may have impacted the Supreme Court and some of their recent decisions. 

Anybody remember the last big decision handed down by a courtly body shrouded in mystique and unavailability? Or has your outrage index drifted so far away that you don't remember the ruling that -actually, literally, for fucking real- impacts all women in this country and their rights to do what the fuck they want; including divorce themselves of the product of abuse with the aid of informed medical assistance. 

I'll take your answer off the air.

You're talking like the two different extremes (show trial and secretive decision without any regard to public opinion in issue that matters to them and arrives out of nowhere by out-of-touch judges) are the only options when they are very much an exception (and that IS crazy!), at least in any democratic system

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard's case should either not be judged by a jury or at least not one that wasn't sequestered and isolated from the toxicity in social media because public opinion about the case shouldn't matter, period. Just the facts that should be looked coldly and independently of what supporters of either side want. 

The fact this was made a trial by media with a jury that went home every day to hear what everyone and their mother said is an abomination, regardless of who was in the right about the facts. and since it was made a show trial followed by millions, it will inevitably have consequences that it shouldn't- we already hear about advocates of victims of violence saying people are afraid of coming forward or recanting their statements, and MAGA types using it for their own ends. Even if Heard was found to be lying, a trial without all that frenzy would have consequences for her alone.

Meanwhile, the 5 far right-wingers, one of whom is almost certainly a rapist, shouldn't decide whether a woman is allowed or not to have an abortion because this is a matter that impacts a lot more people than just these 5, deals with far more than just one abstract case, and has direct consequences in other people's lives, but not for them. 

The fact there are 5 far right-wingers with clear partisan bias in the Supreme Court is in itself an abomination brought because the US is, at least to my knowledge, the only country that doesn't have either term limits or mandatory retirement ages (or both) for SC judges, so well past their prime judges are allowed  to take residence for an indefinite period of time until they are confident that the president will appoint someone with similar outdated ideas. In a more sane system, Scalia and RBG would have retired years or decades before they died, and the balance of the court would have been more reasonable.

Finally, I (and some far smarter and better legal minds than me too) am against jury trials not just because it allows stupid or fickle people who don't want to be there to decide on matters up to and including life and death- although that also is a key factor- but because a judge, no matter how stupid or incompetent, has to justify their decision in writing explaining precisely how he or she got there and the legal and factual issues that led to the conclusion; if that isn't done, that alone is grounds for appeal. Meanwhile, a jury can simply vote guilty or not guilty and can't even tell you why. 

This isn't because I think judges are inherently smarter or saner people- anyone that has met some or has to work depending on their decisions knows otherwise- but that because due to experience and legal training, they are less likely to fall for obvious bullshit, or, at least, when they fail at their jobs you have (in theory) the chance to do something about it.

[Fragile Bird]

The right to be heard and tried by a jury of your peers is a pretty fundamental right in Common Law jurisdictions.

[Jace, Extat]

Stupid and fickle people are peers. I reject absolutely any suggestion that a deliberately labyrinthine bureaucratic class be given exclusive agency over the peoples justice. I'd rather be judged by an idiot with a mortgage and a scratch-off addiction than any one of the assholes with law degrees behind them screaming bloody victory for Johnny Depp on YouTube.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Babblebauble said:

Anybody remember the last big decision handed down by a courtly body shrouded in mystique and unavailability? Or has your outrage index drifted so far away that you don't remember the ruling that -actually, literally, for fucking real- impacts all women in this country and their rights to do what the fuck they want; including divorce themselves of the product of abuse with the aid of informed medical assistance. 

That decision hasn’t been handed down.  FYI.  A draft opinion is not the holding of the US Supreme Court.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The right to be heard and tried by a jury of your peers is a pretty fundamental right in Common Law jurisdictions.

If there is a question of fact.  If all facts are agreed upon by the parties no Jury is necessary.

[Winterfell is Burning]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

The right to be heard and tried by a jury of your peers is a pretty fundamental right in Common Law jurisdictions.

Good thing I don't live in one of those.

And mind you, the only country that uses jury trials for pretty much everything is the US. In most other places, even Common Law ones, it's only used for criminal cases, and usually only for very serious ones. I don't know any other country in which civil trials have juries.

57 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

Stupid and fickle people are peers. I reject absolutely any suggestion that a deliberately labyrinthine bureaucratic class be given exclusive agency over the peoples justice. I'd rather be judged by an idiot with a mortgage and a scratch-off addiction than any one of the assholes with law degrees behind them screaming bloody victory for Johnny Depp on YouTube.

This "judged by your peers" thing is, to say the least, very debatable . Is a black man in, say, rural Alabama being judged by 12 white people really being judged by his peers?  Is, say, a foreign Muslim accused of terrorism judged by 12 Christian Americans? Can, for example, the richest man in a small town where everyone's job depends directly or indirectly on him be among his peers? And so on.

The number of miscarriages of justice is juries is vast, and leaves victims usually with no recourse and no chance to appeal.

Now you say, this happens with judges too. Sure, but again, a judge, who has legal expertise and experience, has stability in his job and security enough against threats provided by the state that he doesn't have to fear consequences if his decision displeases either the population or powerful people.

And again, most importantly, a judge has to justify his decision in writing, providing clear and rational explanations for it, and if he doesn't, it can be overturned or annulled. A big number of absurd decisions or even just a very absurd one can get him punished (though, of course, varies from place to place or country to country how easily that happens)

Meanwhile, a jury can vote anyway they feel like it, for any reason whatsoever, not justify it, and suffer no consequences- think of obvious absurd decisions like Rodney King or OJ (in OJ: Made in America, one of jurors all but spells she would have absolved him no matter what and implies Nicole deserved what she got).

And in case you haven't noticed, the idiots with mortgages and scratch-off addictions are the ones celebrating Depp.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That decision hasn’t been handed down.  FYI.  A draft opinion is not the holding of the US Supreme Court.

Oh I'm aware, councilor. And I'd like to aside that I don't mean for my lunacies to be felt as any kind of attack on you or your profession. Very smart very dedicated people make up all parts of the legal system. I am, however, taking a hard stance against assigning some magical sense of fairness and impartiality to judges that makes them uniquely capable of passing judgement. 

They -SHOULD- have those qualities, and they study for a long time to hopefully have them, but for the love of all that is good and right in the world I can't comprehend how a liberal would be in favor of removing the peoples' ability to offer verdict on not only themselves, but their societal overlords (once in a blue moon) as well, and place it in the hands of such an exclusionary club.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Winterfell is Burning,

The counterpoint is that while judges do have some oversight, it's not exactly enforced that often, and if you have a racist/corrupt judge they can sit in their seat for years if not decades and let that influence everyone that comes into their court where they're completely in control. With a jury you get a roll of the dice.

[Larry of the Lawn]

If I'm ever in trial, right before the sentence comes down, I'm pulling the gag I saw in mad magazine when I was a kid.  

"I object your honor, I'm entitled to a jury of my peers.  There isn't one lowlife, stoned, criminal scum among them."