Depp and Heard Trial Result

[Cas Stark]

I'm afraid I don't understand how the idea of 'mounds of evidence' that Depp is guilty being brought out in a trial  equates to some guarantee that Amber Heard would be publicly humiliated and discredited.

She is discredited because she was not credible on the witness stand.

It could just as easily, and was more likely to, have gone the other way with the case dismisssed or Depp losing again. A public trial was no guarantee that the public would believe Depp instead of Heard, but they did.

[Mladen]

I don't think Heard was ruined by Depp's lawsuit. But, I think she lost all credibility in public the moment she sat in that witness chair. It was simply "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" thing. Vasquez made her admit she lied about donating money to charity. Vasquez made her admit that op-ed was about Johnny, thus destroying that image of "woman moving on". She mentioned Kate Moss, in hope to ruin Depp, it backfired and Moss made Heard look even less trustworthy. Many people had issues with her facial expressions, believing she is faking tears. It was just bad. She admitted to nothing. I have heard her lawyer saying she admitted her faults. No, she didn't. We heard her smiling and snickering on the video, it was proved she leaked the edited video to TMZ, and there is of course poop-gate.

Simply, no one would believe her after so many lies. And had she sat rationally with her lawyers and told "Yes, I did this and this and this. Let we explain the jury my side and my reasons...", Depp would have never won. But, she denied things she couldn't possibly deny. And jury didn't believe her. 

[DMC]

@Tywin et al., see my previous response.  A lot of your post isn't really disagreeing with me much.  One other thing mentioned here that clearly damaged Heard was her recordings.  Did Depp need to go to trial to have access to those?  I honestly don't know.  If so, that's a fair point.  But if he already did he obviously could have just leaked them to the press.

[Cas Stark]

She may not be 'ruined' but she has a lot less to work with than Depp, she is a less talented actor, by a large margin, less charisma, and so less bankable.  She has much less money, and she seems to have trouble maintaining relationships, including friendships as many people who gave evidence even in her favor were characterized as 'former friends'.  There were a lot of rumors that Momoa didn't like her, so maybe she's also difficult to work with.  That doesn't leave her a lot to work with.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I'm afraid I don't understand how the idea of 'mounds of evidence' that Depp is guilty being brought out in a trial  equates to some guarantee that Amber Heard would be publicly humiliated and discredited.

She is discredited because she was not credible on the witness stand.

It could just as easily, and was more likely to, have gone the other way with the case dismisssed or Depp losing again. A public trial was no guarantee that the public would believe Depp instead of Heard, but they did.

Let's be clear, it seems fairly obvious that Depp was both physically and psychologically abusive and there is plenty of evidence unless you think Heard and all of her witnesses are lying about everything. It's just made complicated by the fact no one can reasonably say Heard is a credible witness.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Let's be clear, it seems fairly obvious that Depp was both physically and psychologically abusive and there is plenty of evidence unless you think Heard and all of her witnesses are lying about everything. It's just made complicated by the fact no one can reasonably say Heard is a credible witness.

Given the evidence of Depp’s physical and psychological abuse… why was Heard such a poor witness?  Why did she do stupid things like playing word games about “pledge” and “donation” with regard her money from the divorce settlement?  

I can’t figure out why her attorneys allowed her to sit on the stand and damage herself so very much.

[Fragile Bird]

Maybe she lied to her lawyers?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

@Tywin et al., see my previous response.  A lot of your post isn't really disagreeing with me much.  One other thing mentioned here that clearly damaged Heard was her recordings.  Did Depp need to go to trial to have access to those?  I honestly don't know.  If so, that's a fair point.  But if he already did he obviously could have just leaked them to the press.

The funny thing is what I just said and what you first responded with is actually pretty similar. It's your second response I took issue with because I really don't think it would be wise to book interviews for him and that's where we diverged.

And as I've told you before, improving your bedside manner would actually help you get your points across a lot more successfully. 

[Fragile Bird]

OMG I let the cat out of the bag, clients lie to their lawyers on occasion!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

Maybe she lied to her lawyers?

So… she’s stupid?

[Fragile Bird]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So… she’s stupid?

Hey, your lawyer had to believe you, right?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Hey, your lawyer had to believe you, right?

I’ve, to the best of my knowledge, never had a client black tongue lie to me.  She’s entering into the biggest case of her life and she lies to her lawyers… that’s just… stupid.

[Cas Stark]

One of Depp's  'experts' diagnosed her as having borderline personality disorder.  If that is an accurate diagnosis, it would explain a lot about her testimony. 

[Mladen]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Let's be clear, it seems fairly obvious that Depp was both physically and psychologically abusive and there is plenty of evidence unless you think Heard and all of her witnesses are lying about everything. It's just made complicated by the fact no one can reasonably say Heard is a credible witness.

Oh, yeah... I mean, I don't think anyone can say Depp is innocent victim here. It was, as it seems, a mutually abusive relationship. And I think jury understood them. I think their problem was more of Heard representing herself as "noble victim" (to quote Vasquez) when in fact she was also abusive. I feel most of them thought that op-ed mischaracterized their relationship and that is why they found grounds for falsehood of those statements. 

Sexual abuse here is also very important topic and point of contention because her lawyers were all over the place with that. First they claimed there were no sexual abuse, then when judge decided that the title matters, they claimed there was sexual abuse, only not to mention it in the closing arguments. 

***

I am not sure she had bad lawyers. But, Elaine would sometimes do ad hominem attacks that didn't work. That TMZ employee really gave her the taste of her own medicine. Dr Curry very calmly explained muffin situation. They were more invested of discrediting these people as credible witnesses than proving them wrong. It was a strange and ineffective tactic. Lawyers commenting this were always wondering whether Heard is the problem here, as they would not understand some moves made by her lawyers.

[Fragile Bird]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’ve, to the best of My knowledge, never had a client black tongue lie to me.  She’s entering into the biggest case of her life and she lies to her lawyers… that’s just… stupid.

Well, do you think her high-priced lawyers told her to say the things she said? 

Though I guess the stuff about donations/pledges came before that?

[Winterfell is Burning]

One thing that came to my mind- there was someone who greatly benefited from this mess, more than Depp, MAGA types, tabloid press, Tiktok, etc...when was the last time you heard about Will Smith? His publicists must be relieved 

 

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

One of Depp's  'experts' diagnosed her as having borderline personality disorder.  If that is an accurate diagnosis, it would explain a lot about her testimony. 

If I understood correctly, that expert didn't even talk to Heard, she was Depp's therapist, not hers.

She could be right, but still, hard to take a "diagnosis" like this too seriously.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Well, do you think her high-priced lawyers told her to say the things she said? 

Though I guess the stuff about donations/pledges came before that?

I cannot believe they wouldn’t tell her to lay the skunk on the table give her rationale and move on.  She played word games for 5 or 10 minutes… she looked like she was looking for a way to lie.

[Cas Stark]

6 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

One thing that came to my mind- there was someone who greatly benefited from this mess, more than Depp, MAGA types, tabloid press, Tiktok, etc...when was the last time you heard about Will Smith? His publicists must be relieved 

 

If I understood correctly, that expert didn't even talk to Heard, she was Depp's therapist, not hers.

She could be right, but still, hard to take a "diagnosis" like this too seriously.

For whatever it's worth she met her in person 2x and said she spent apprx. 12 hours with her.  It doesn't mean Depp didn't buy the diagnosis, but it doesn't mean she's wrong either.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/psychologist-dr-shannon-curry-said-194334509.html

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's your second response I took issue with because I really don't think it would be wise to book interviews for him and that's where we diverged.

I mean, I guess I look at it as a comparison to what he actually had to do - which is take the stand and get cross-examined.  Would an interview with a journalist be just as tough?  Maybe, but definitely maybe not.  And I don't see how it could possibly be tougher (especially considering the information asymmetry between Heard's lawyer and a hypothetical interviewer).  Which again goes to my point that other recourses were a better strategy for him.

[Mladen]

4 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

If I understood correctly, that expert didn't even talk to Heard, she was Depp's therapist, not hers.

She could be right, but still, hard to take a "diagnosis" like this too seriously.

If we talk about Dr Curry, I think yes, she talked to Heard (and more importantly, per Heard's lawyers, gave her muffins). I think they had two meetings or such. 

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

For whatever it's worth she met her in person 2x and said she spent apprx. 12 hours with her.  It doesn't mean Depp didn't buy the diagnosis, but it doesn't mean she's wrong either.

I am not sure that is how fact-finders work... The way I understand lawyers hire several experts, but bring to the stand only those that corroborate their story. As an expert witness myself few times, there were situations when lawyer would just thank me for my services and I never got on the stand. The fact that Dr Curry was on the stand means Depp's team found her results favorable for them.