Depp and Heard Trial Result

[Winterfell is Burning]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

@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.

While I understand the argument, the judge has to justify his decisions in writing with legal and factual arguments, can be punished for misconduct, and his decisions can be appealed and reviewed. A jury has...none or almost none of this things, and if you got the unlucky turn of the dice of being judged by people who hate you because you're a woman that likes sex/gay/foreigner/has a minority religion/ likes pineapple in the pizza,etc, or your loved one was among those groups, too bad.  Seems much easier to change laws to make easier to punish the worst judges than to simply throw justice to the luck of the dice.

Also, the US specifically seems to take juries to the extreme, that makes all worse. Rather than just for most serious crimes, is for everything, even civil cases; if there's a not guilty verdict, it's almost impossible to overturn it; there's no provision to allow mixed panels with both judges and laypersons (which I think is what most countries outside of common law systems that have juries adopt today, but I'd have to research more); and also require unanimous decisions (which means even one asshole juror can make the trial useless- see the example of the juror from the OJ case I mentioned, who wouldn't convict him even if the prosecution did their job perfectly). 

Like a lot of things in the US, seems like a product of the age of the Constitution that wasn't updated with time (see Electoral College, or even the fact that is so hard to pass a Constitutional Amendment).

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

While I understand the argument, the judge has to justify his decisions in writing with legal and factual arguments, can be punished for misconduct, and his decisions can be appealed and reviewed. A jury has...none or almost none of this things, and if you got the unlucky turn of the dice of being judged by people who hate you because you're a woman that likes sex/gay/foreigner/has a minority religion/ likes pineapple in the pizza,etc, or your loved one was among those groups, too bad.  Seems much easier to change laws to make easier to punish the worst judges than to simply throw justice to the luck of the dice.

Also, the US specifically seems to take juries to the extreme, that makes all worse. Rather than just for most serious crimes, is for everything, even civil cases; if there's a not guilty verdict, it's almost impossible to overturn it; there's no provision to allow mixed panels with both judges and laypersons (which I think is what most countries outside of common law systems that have juries adopt today, but I'd have to research more); and also require unanimous decisions (which means even one asshole juror can make the trial useless- see the example of the juror from the OJ case I mentioned, who wouldn't convict him even if the prosecution did their job perfectly). 

Like a lot of things in the US, seems like a product of the age of the Constitution that wasn't updated with time (see Electoral College, or even the fact that is so hard to pass a Constitutional Amendment).

With civil trials, I'm right there with you.  But jury trials in the US for criminal trials are an anomaly, it's a system dependent on threatening massive sentences in exchange for a plea bargain.  

Criminal trial aquittals by jury are the least of our current problems.  

I like the mixed panel of judges and jurors idea, depending on the specifics.  

[Tywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

While I understand the argument, the judge has to justify his decisions in writing with legal and factual arguments, can be punished for misconduct, and his decisions can be appealed and reviewed.

Any halfway decent judge, no matter how shitty they are for whatever given reason, can start at A, preclude what C is and make B work enough to justify what they want. 

Also keep in mind that judges often times have several more biases that can influence the entire nature of a trial at every step of the process.  

[DMC]

7 hours ago, Fez said:

Because they are just generally treated as "less than" by the court system? Same as how, at least here in Virginia, criminal trials have 12 jurors but civil trials only have 7 jurors.

I'm just getting in and haven't read the next two pages of this, but I feel like the Seventh Amendment should be noted here.  It hasn't been incorporated much (especially comparatively), but the ideal of the right to a jury in a civil trial is right there in the Bill of Rights - as long as the suit exceeds twenty dollars.  So no, I wouldn't say at an institutional level they're treated as "less than" by the court system.  Obviously there's less of a public interest in civil cases as opposed to criminal cases, but, well, yeah.

[DMC]

BTW I think it's absolutely farcical when people say Depp was "fighting for his livelihood."  No, he was pissed he didn't get truckloads of money for playing Grindelwald in a couple more shitty Rawling offerings and Disney used the controversy as an out to not give him shitloads of money on another Pirates project after the last two were already clear money grabs with modest-at-best returns.  Cry me a fucking river.  His career was on a decided downward trajectory well before he ever met Amber Heard, and that was entirely his own doing (he wasn't even good in Public Enemies!).  As was initiating a dumbass lawsuit which he didn't need the actual money for but just wanted to make a point.  For what?  No, Johnny Depp knew exactly what he was doing and even if he was innocent, instead of being the bigger man he decided to galvanize all the hate he had for his "crazy" ex into a national and even worldwide movement of misogynistic vitriol -- with poop.  Perhaps he was too fucked up to realize that, but it doesn't make it any better.  And that, to me, is pretty gross.  Even if it was to "clear his name" in order to get way overpaid to make a few more shitty movies.

TL;DR - the reason there isn't more sympathy for Johnny Depp is because he is not a sympathetic figure.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Any halfway decent judge, no matter how shitty they are for whatever given reason, can start at A, preclude what C is and make B work enough to justify what they want. 

Also keep in mind that judges often times have several more biases that can influence the entire nature of a trial at every step of the process.  

I’ve seen it with cases reversed on appeal.  You can read the original judgement, and it seems clear and obvious.  Then you read the ruling that overturns it, and that is just as clear and obvious.  Judges are good at providing reasoned arguments.

Juries in libel cases are not a bad idea per se.  But, this trial should not have been allowed to become a circus.

[Ran]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

after the last two were already clear money grabs with modest-at-best returns. 

Eh? The last film made just short of $800 million. The film before it made over $1 billion. Yeah, $200+ million budgets, but the typical math on this suggests the two films made Disney more than half a billion dollars, and that's just box office. Merchandise, licensing, blu-ray and DVD, broadcast, and streaming rights would have brought hundreds of millions more.

The real issue was that the declining audience scores and the sense that it was overstuffed and no longer fresh, and the downward trajectory was real. A hypothetical next movie would certainly have at least broken even at the box office, no matter how bad it was, but why bother taking the risk?

[DMC]

Just now, Ran said:

Eh? The last film made just short of $800 million. The film before it made over $1 billion.

I'm aware of the BO.  It was still on a downward trajectory, and as someone who actually kinda liked the fifth one, there wasn't much else to do.  If he never met Heard, I'm still not sure Disney would be willing to pony up as much for another installment. 

[Ran]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I'm aware of the BO.  It was still on a downward trajectory, and as someone who actually kinda liked the fifth one, there wasn't much else to do.  If he never met Heard, I'm still not sure Disney would be willing to pony up as much for another installment. 

Right, I edited, but the way you phrased it suggests that $500+ million dollars in profit was "modest", and... no? But the problem was the trajectory.

That said, what they said was they wanted to get back to fundamentals for a possible reboot... but I have to say, I would find it incredible that a rebooted Pirates of the Caribbean would not have seen it as a matter of course to include Depp as Jack Sparrow, even if in some sort of passing-on-the-torch kind of way. I'm not a fan of the films (think I've only seen one or two of them), but Sparrow is the franchise, near as I can tell. I am pretty sure that even with the headache of working with Depp before his legal wranglings, Disney would have ponied up one more time if they got a solid ground for a new, back-to-basics film.

[DMC]

Just now, Ran said:

Right, I edited, but the way you phrased it suggests that $500+ million dollars in profit was "modest", and... no? But the problem was the trajectory.

It was a drunken rant.  I may have been guilty of hyperbolic language.

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

I'm not a fan of the films (think I've only seen one or two of them), but Sparrow is the franchise, near as I can tell. I am pretty sure that even with the headache of working with Depp before his legal wranglings, Disney would have ponied up one more time if they got a solid ground for a new, back-to-basics film.

I mean, sure?  Don't really get what you're arguing here.  My point wasn't that Depp and/or Disney couldn't make more money from more Pirates films.  It's that I don't feel sympathy for him because Disney begged off on making a few more shitty money-grab installments with him as the lead.  And yes, I suspect if that is what occurred the BO would have diminishing returns.  And further from a creative standpoint they'd probably be better off searching for a new lead for the franchise anyway.  But that's hardly the point.

[Mladen]

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

BTW I think it's absolutely farcical when people say Depp was "fighting for his livelihood."  No, he was pissed he didn't get truckloads of money for playing Grindelwald in a couple more shitty Rawling offerings and Disney used the controversy as an out to not give him shitloads of money on another Pirates project after the last two were already clear money grabs with modest-at-best returns.  Cry me a fucking river.  His career was on a decided downward trajectory well before he ever met Amber Heard, and that was entirely his own doing (he wasn't even good in Public Enemies!).  As was initiating a dumbass lawsuit which he didn't need the actual money for but just wanted to make a point.  For what?  No, Johnny Depp knew exactly what he was doing and even if he was innocent, instead of being the bigger man he decided to galvanize all the hate he had for his "crazy" ex into a national and even worldwide movement of misogynistic vitriol -- with poop.  Perhaps he was too fucked up to realize that, but it doesn't make it any better.  And that, to me, is pretty gross.  Even if it was to "clear his name" in order to get way overpaid to make a few more shitty movies.

TL;DR - the reason there isn't more sympathy for Johnny Depp is because he is not a sympathetic figure.

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. 

[kungtotte]

If we assume that Depp is innocent (at least of the allegations Heard made), is it really surprising that he would go to great lengths to clear his name? Regardless of income and career nobody wants to go around with a reputation as an abuser.

Expecting him to not do anything is naive at best.

[DMC]

Just now, Mladen said:

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.

Well, no, he definitely wasn't fired from anything because of the op-ed itself.  Again, that's why I think the whole lawsuit is kinda stupid.  In the age of the internet defaming public figures is like Folgers In Your Cup.  And frankly it always has.  Jefferson and Adams defamed each other in the 1800 presidential election in far worse ways.  And that was back when candidates themselves didn't even actively campaign.  Hell, so did Trump and Hillary.  Which is why, IMHO, that standard has always been set incredibly high and shouldn't have even been entertained here.

But regardless, my point is I have a hard time having sympathy from some rich-ass actor who is suing his "crazy ex" when he full well knows the legal strategy entailed will be character assassination and subsequent propagation of rank misogyny.  Does Depp have the right to do so?  Absolutely.  Do I think it's gross he chose to?  Absolutely.

[Alarich II]

7 hours ago, Babblebauble said:

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.

Ahh, yes, the "common peoples justice", I can already see the strange fruit of that justice hanging from a tree....

[Mladen]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

But regardless, my point is I have a hard time having sympathy from some rich-ass actor who is suing his "crazy ex" when he full well knows the legal strategy entailed will be character assassination and subsequent propagation of rank misogyny.  Does Depp have the right to do so?  Absolutely.  Do I think it's gross he chose to?  Absolutely.

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. 

[john]

I don’t have that much interest in what happened in Heard and Depp’s relationship but the idea you can’t write you were the victim of abuse without losing most of your net worth is bizarre. The same jury said that she lied and yet awarded her 2 mill for Depp’s lawyer saying it was a hoax. So she lied but it wasn’t a hoax? Juries are stupid. And libel laws are stupid.

[Ran]

11 minutes ago, john said:

I don’t have that much interest in what happened in Heard and Depp’s relationship but the idea you can’t write you were the victim of abuse without losing most of your net worth is bizarre.

I mean, alleging you were abused and then a jury finding that you knowingly lied should have some consequence. The amounts appear to be based on statuatory rules.

11 minutes ago, john said:

The same jury said that she lied and yet awarded her 2 mill for Depp’s lawyer saying it was a hoax. So she lied but it wasn’t a hoax? Juries are stupid. And libel laws are stupid.

Not quite. They found his lawyer lied claiming that she conspired with friends to perpetrate a hoax, but it also seems they found that she independently and on her own defamed Depp by stating untrue things with malice. There's no real inconsistency in those decisions, they're distinct claims.

[mormont]

46 minutes ago, Mladen said:

Yeah, but I am not sure what other ways he would have in "clearing his name".

Writing an op-ed of his own. Writing a book. Issuing a statement through his publicist. Going on a talk show tour. 

His career was in decline but at the same time, he was still Johnny Depp. The idea that he had no way to get his side of the story across than some extremely expensive lawsuits is absurd. 

You might claim that all of these options had severe disadvantages, and they do, but the lawsuits have had the same disadvantages. They've drawn more attention to the claims, have had mixed results at best when it comes to 'clearing his name', are unlikely to significantly revive his career, and have cost him a serious amount of money. Thanks to COVID delays, they've also dragged the issue out over a prolonged period. 

[DMC]

38 minutes ago, Mladen said:

Yeah, but I am not sure what other ways he would have in "clearing his name".

This is absolute bullshit.  And I say this as a qualified expert on political behavior.  As admitted, and which is hardly a surprise, he had substance abuse issues throughout his relationship with Heard.  I am inherently sympathetic to that, but at the same time I also understand how that affects people I love.  The idea that he couldn't have used his considerable resources to get his story out without suing Heard for an op-ed she published is ludicrous.  Regardless of what actually happened, which none of us will ever know, he chose vengeance.

I suppose I'd ask you to put yourself in his position -- assuming he's innocent.  He married her, which I assume means he cared for her.  If she went on the deep end and tried to destroy my career would I be pissed?  You bet.  But to take that anger into pursuing lawsuits - two in different countries - just because her anger caused me to miss out on a few huge paydays I really didn't deserve in the first place?  That seems cruel to me, but obviously YMMV.

[Heartofice]

31 minutes ago, mormont said:

Writing an op-ed of his own. Writing a book. Issuing a statement through his publicist. Going on a talk show tour. 

His career was in decline but at the same time, he was still Johnny Depp. The idea that he had no way to get his side of the story across than some extremely expensive lawsuits is absurd. 

 

I’d say since we are living in a MeToo ‘believe all women’ era, the idea that Depp could have just done a few talk shows and all would be forgiven stretches credibility. 
 

On top of that, if someone had gone out of their way to lie about you, to wreck your career, whilst also being the person who abused you, I would think that putting out an article would not be a particularly appropriate reaction.