Depp and Heard Trial Result

[BigFatCoward]

7 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

But Johnny depp is a wife beater 

The evidence that he is a wife beater comes from the least believable person I've ever seen give evidence. 

 

[Mladen]

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.

16 minutes ago, IFR said:

I somewhat regret not watching the trial myself. Some of the news outlets I read paint a dramatically different picture of it than the two friends I have who were obsessed with it, and seemed convinced that Heard is a malicious sociopath. I have no opinion on either Heard or Depp, since like many others here I didn't pay much attention to it.

Since the trial was public, news outlets would have the same access to information as someone watching it, so it would be nice to compare one's own impressions of the trial and to that of news outlets, to analyze how well the bias of the news outlets align with one's own.

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.  

[LongRider]

7 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

But Johnny depp is a wife beater 

The article Heard wrote was how she has been treated since she came forward with allegations of abuse.  So what did the article say?  It's still up on the Washington's Post website and not behind a paywall.   Here.

 

Here is the last paragraph.  

Quote

I want to ensure that women who come forward to talk about violence receive more support. We are electing representatives who know how deeply we care about these issues. We can work together to demand changes to laws and rules and social norms — and to right the imbalances that have shaped our lives.

 

[Mladen]

Just now, LongRider said:

The article Heard wrote was how she has been treated since she came forward with allegations of abuse.  So what did the article say?  It's still up on the Washington's Post website and not behind a paywall.   Here.

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:

Quote

"I know how many people will come out and say whatever for him. That's his power. That's why I wrote the op-ed. I was speaking to that phenomenon, (about) how many people will come out in support of him and will fall to his power. He is a very powerful man and people love currying favor with powerful men."

So, we are passed pretending op-ed was not about him. 

[Jace, Extat]

9 hours ago, Alarich II said:

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

I seriously can't believe that I'm the only one coming out for the rights of the masses to participate in court. The only one who doesn't want more shadows in an institution that has kept anybody not wealthy and white and with a Y chromosome in the gutter for two hundred years.

What the fuck happened to you people?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, Week said:

He's singularly responsible for this circus, so I don't really have a lot of sympathy nor do I think he looks any better coming out of this. You acknowledge he's an abuser too - so what was gained? He dragged her down to his level -- great, glad we all witnessed such a lovely thing. All this "he cleared his name" -- nah, he didn't. That's not what a civil trial would give and not what happened unless you take it upon yourself to disbelieve 100% of Amber Heard, her friends and acquaintances, and some of Depp's own admission.

I don’t have sympathy for either of them, but your framing is backwards. You’re acting like he woke up one day and decided to ruin his ex-wife’s life, when in fact that’s exactly what Heard did to him, and the jury concluded she did it with malice.

What I don’t get is why people feel like they need to pick a side when in reality both actors appear to be appalling individuals.

[Cas Stark]

The op ed was obviously about her relationship with Depp, and she admitted the same on the witness stand.  So, that ship has sailed.  It was also, for whatever little it is worth, a repudiation of the joint statement they made when their divorce was announced, so I would speculate Depp felt doubly blind sided by it two years later, when the dust had begun to settle.

I thought it was well known that abusers minimize their level of violence in the relationship, that they are controlling, that they belittle and try to destroy their partner's self esteem [although they both seem to have done this] and that the victim will try various strategies of being good/apologizing/whatever in the hopeless idea they can stop their partner from abusing them and that the abuser will often tell the victim that 'no one will believe you'.  

[LongRider]

The article was vetted by her attorneys, and they passed it.  If one knew her history one would know who the abuser was.  She lost alot from coming forward, that is her point.  I don't buy the "Johnny was fighting for his life." meme one bit. The article was about her life after calling out abuse and the danger that this puts women into.  

Quote

I write this as a woman who had to change my phone number weekly because I was getting death threats. For months, I rarely left my apartment, and when I did, I was pursued by camera drones and photographers on foot, on motorcycles and in cars. Tabloid outlets that posted pictures of me spun them in a negative light. I felt as though I was on trial in the court of public opinion — and my life and livelihood depended on myriad judgments far beyond my control.

I want to ensure that women who come forward to talk about violence receive more support. 

 

[Week]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don’t have sympathy for either of them, but your framing is backwards. You’re acting like he woke up one day and decided to ruin his ex-wife’s life, when in fact that’s exactly what Heard did to him, and the jury concluded she did it with malice.

What I don’t get is why people feel like they need to pick a side when in reality both actors appear to be appalling individuals.

Well, fortunately, I didn't pick a side -- I agree there is plenty of blame to go around (though the framing and vitriol has been decidedly one sided...) -- so I'll turn your attention to all the folks here calling Amber Heard the least credible, malicious, sociopath. 

[IFR]

1 hour ago, Week said:

so I'll turn your attention to all the folks here calling Amber Heard the least credible, malicious, sociopath.

The behavior Heard is alleged to have engaged in is quite extraordinary. I didn't watch the trial itself, but if Heard did indeed defecate on a bed, lie about donating millions of dollars (effectively embezzling a larger divorce settlement), and engage in the numerous other abuses of which she's accused, including the one over which the trial was concerned (maliciously defaming her ex to destroy his reputation), I think "malicious sociopath" is a pretty fair description. That reads like comic book villain behavior. Like the woman analog to Trump.

Abusive behavior in any form is not a good thing, but this collection of behaviors certainly calls attention to itself. 

I make no judgment here, but for those who from watching the trial found - like the jury - the evidence substantial enough believe this behavior of Heard...well, people are accused of being sociopaths over much less extreme actions.

[Week]

Relevant specific to what Tywin was referring to about taking sides. Personally, I would be more thoughtful and cautious to use such biased and loaded language in such a fraught case. Shockingly, there are many here who are all to happy to paint Heard with that brush while declaring Depp innocent. As has been pointed out many times, the tone and language people use is absolutely important and noticed by others of have, are currently, or may in the future be in such circumstances and may be hurt/cautious/scared by such hubristic and aggressive judgement, particularly towards women.

Also, re: Depp's career prospects -- timing suggests that it was a self-inflicted wound:

https://www.vox.com/culture/23043519/johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-trial-fairfax-county-domestic-abuse-violence-me-too

Quote

It’s difficult to see Depp’s reputation fully recovering from his recent string of lawsuits. Even after Heard accused him of domestic abuse, Hollywood had plenty of cover to continue business as usual, as it worked with Depp up until he dragged the fight into the courtroom. He wasn’t fired from Fantastic Beasts, after all, until he lost his UK case*. It’s not clear whether a win in the US court system will fully redeem his reputation. And Heard, who has less of an established reputation to protect her, is potentially at even more risk.

*That he brought and then lost.

[IFR]

11 minutes ago, Week said:

Relevant specific to what Tywin was referring to about taking sides. Personally, I would be more thoughtful and cautious to use such biased and loaded language in such a fraught case. 

I think this is an excellent policy in general. It is, sadly, not a commonly practiced one. I enjoy reading the Politics threads, for instance, but it is a thread rife with hyperbolic, biased, and loaded language. I suppose when one finds something deeply disconcerting it is an easy approach to use such language for some catharsis, even if it isn't fair.

But I absolutely agree with you here.

[Cas Stark]

I don't think he will ever get his reputation back--to the place it was before Amber got the restraining order, or to where it was before he lost the UK case.  The testimony of his drug use and infantile behavior is damaging even if you don't believe he was physically abusive. 

He's still in an immeasurably better position today than he was a week ago.  There is now a path forward for him to get some acting gigs and to feel at least partially vindicated and begin his public personna rehabilitation. I would guess that the depth and breadth of his fan base, which I was surprised by, as demonstrated by level of interest and public opinion will also help him going forward.

I read somewhere that this lawsuit was a hail mary, and I agree.  Once he lost the UK case, which I still am puzzled by that ruling, he had nothing to lose.  He was already now legally a 'wife beater' and no one would hire him.  He got lucky, Amber was terrible on the stand, and the jury did not believe her.  Even if the decision is thrown out on appeal, I think it will remain a huge win for him.  

[Lord Varys]

Don't care about the trial as such ... but I feel that it is kind of ridiculous to get invested in celebrity lives, or to be outraged or invested or whatever when their careers are in danger.

An actor like Depp was *never* actually worth what he earned. He was paid so much money because his reputation was such that folks might end up wanting to see them. But that's not an actual accomplishment of the actor. You cannot control your public image and Depp's skills as an actor don't get better or worse depending how much he is paid nor by how many people actually like him.

Which means if you lose her popularity/standing with the crowds then you are actually merely cut down to size - you do not lose something you were entitled to, you just no longer get what you were never entitled to in the first place.

In that sense I don't actually think that 'defamation' is a very important issue when you are a public person. It is, of course, wrong to claim something about X that isn't true, but you cannot force people to believe or disbelieve something, so a public image cannot possibly be repaired (completely) by a trial.

Basically, if you are a public person and earn money (mainly) based on how people perceive you, then there are different rules for you than the average person.

[polishgenius]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You cannot control your public image

What? Of course you can.

[Cas Stark]

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Don't care about the trial as such ... but I feel that it is kind of ridiculous to get invested in celebrity lives, or to be outraged or invested or whatever when their careers are in danger.

 

That has been a public past-time since the invention of celebrity culture at the dawn of the 20th century.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

That has been a public past-time since the invention of celebrity culture at the dawn of the 20th century.

Of course, and it was actually a brillant move of the rich to invent the tabloid press.

5 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

What? Of course you can.

You can try, but folks don't have to buy what you try to sell them.

[Fragile Bird]

Funny thing, I’m watching an HBO documentary on David Crosby, David Crosby: Remember My Name. After 45 years of being friends with and making music with Stills, Nash and Young (fewer with Neil) he has utterly burned his bridges with them. Stills was saying he hadn’t spoken to him in a couple of years. Young says he’ll never, ever sing with him again.  On their last tour they had to travel in different buses. On stage Nash and Stills sang facing each other, their backs to Crosby. Crosby says it was his anger, that once he got the adrenaline rush from the anger it just fed itself.

I kind of imagine the two of them, Depp and Heard, getting this adrenaline rush from their fighting, that just fed on itself. And if, in fact, Depp would turn around and walk out on fights I can imagine how angry Heard would have gotten, to have that adrenaline rush cut off.

Like I said, these are two people who seriously need therapy.

[polishgenius]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You can try, but folks don't have to buy what you try to sell them.

 

They don't have to, but people with that kind of money are often incredibly good at controlling the story. Even when the dirty stuff is right there. Like, come on, Roman Polanski is still a going concern despite committing what probably most people consider the most heinous crime of all. Hell, Luc Besson almost certainly fucked a child and most people don't even know that. Sean Penn was accused of beating up Madonna multiple times and he's basically fine. Chris Brown definitely beat up Rihanna and he's completely fine. 

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

As mentioned above, Kevin Spacey. I've only heard of him being attached to one project of note since he was cancelled and the collective response was "gross, you put Kevin Spacey in your film?"

LOL!  Kevin Spacey has been criminally charged, multiple times.  As well as has been accused in civil suits, multiple times.  Johnny Depp?  Zero criminal charges (well, relevant criminal charges).  The only civil action against him was Heard's counterclaim.  Plus, of course, there's the gay thing.  I'd say nice try, but it really wasn't.

James Franco was a slightly better try, but again, he was accused by multiple young and even underage students.  And even Seth Rogan ditched him.  And he eventually admitted it.  Plus suggesting Franco is on the same level as Depp is...amusing, all things considered.

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

An interview would not have done much to help him. I believe the biggest thing that swung public opinion was Heard's story unravelling, not Depp's testimony and that's only coming out at a trial.

Acting like pursuing defamation lawsuits - this one because WaPo published a decidedly banal op-ed from Heard - was Depp's only recourse is just about the dumbest argument you could make.  It is so detached from the reality of multitudes of public figures that have sought forgiveness and gotten it - a well-founded and successful strategy any self-respecting publicist would immediately recommend - that it betrays either a willful and extraordinary ignorance or a blatant underlying agenda.  Like, literally, this is the behavior you're defending:

 

4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

@DMC do you really think going on a talk shown, or any of the other means you suggested would have been anywhere near as successful or reached as wide an audience as his court case did? 

Like do you really think he should just pipe down and be know as a wife beater forever, rather than doing what it took to clear his reputation? 

Why should he not only be the victim of abuse, but also the victim of a smear campaign by the person who abused him?

First, acting like engaging in a PR campaign defending himself is "piping down," or telling him to just lie down and take it, defies even a rudimentary understanding of what defending himself means.  Second, yes, I think other recourses would have been much more successful (not to mention a whole hell of a lot easier and cheaper).  This is based on both the preponderance of prior examples and a basic understanding of how American public opinion works.