Depp and Heard Trial Result

[Winterfell is Burning]

7 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

That's true, but then a court ruling doesn't always jibe with 'truth' as one of these rulings, UK or the US got it wrong. I was surprised actually that Depp lost the UK case in such a big way, where the judge specifically enumerated each incident that he believed was substantiated.  The judge ignored the evidence from Depp's side that called at least some of those incidents into serious question.  I didn't expect him to win the case in VA and thought he was nuts for filing either case because the risk of loss, as happened in UK, was so extreme.  But, just maybe, he filed the cases because he IS the only telling the truth.

Or...the judge, who has experience and legal training, and who wrote down his decision explaining why he led to that conclusion, thought Depp's evidence was full of shit or at least not as strong as you claim, while a jury that wasn't sequestered and was influenced by a charismatic actor who's an idol to millions and the greatest social media upheaval in the history of trials and who didn't even had to explain the reasons for their decision overestimated actual proof he had.

And again, if Depp's evidence in the UK trial was so great and the judge just ignored it, why didn't he appeal? Seems pretty obvious he thought it would be easier to win in the court of social media and an easily swayed jury than with a serious legal examination.

[Cas Stark]

1 minute ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Or...the judge, who has experience and legal training, and who wrote down his decision explaining why he led to that conclusion, thought Depp's evidence was full of shit or at least not as strong as you claim, while a jury that wasn't sequestered and was influenced by a charismatic actor who's an idol to millions and the greatest social media upheaval in the history of trials and who didn't even had to explain the reasons for their decision overestimated actual proof he had.

And again, if Depp's evidence in the UK trial was so great and the judge just ignored it, why didn't he appeal? Seems pretty obvious he thought it would be easier to win in the court of social media and an easily swayed jury than with a serious legal examination.

He did appeal.  He lost the appeal.  

Judges also have prejudices, even if their training is supposed to trump their own views and biases.  In the US trial, all the evidence was out there for everyone to see and evaluate, and on that basis, Heard did not seem credible to me, she was caught in many lies, and the tapes of her taunting her husband seemed to me 'classic abuser' behavior.  But, mileage varies.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

And again, if Depp's evidence in the UK trial was so great and the judge just ignored it, why didn't he appeal? Seems pretty obvious he thought it would be easier to win in the court of social media and an easily swayed jury than with a serious legal examination.

His team very much wanted to appeal, but it wasn’t allowed. Their criticism of the UK trial was very much that the judge didn’t really take into account their evidence and chose instead to believe Heards word.
 

Looking at the US trial i am a little confused as to how the UK judge came to his conclusion, seeing just how low quality Heards evidence was. Hard to know what wasn’t presented before but so many of the revelations of the trial seem to be a shock to Heard’s lawyers which makes me wonder if it was new

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I stand by my assessment that this trial was problematic.  That it was a circus.  It took too long… it was televised… the jury wasn’t sequestered… there appear to have been communication with the jurors about the case… the attorneys weren’t presenting to the court and the jury they were presenting to the public at large who ate up the salacious details of this trial like vampires sucking on a human victim.  

It was really problematic to me.  

Neither Depp nor Heard came off well in my mind.  They both seemed petty and self obsessed.  And… interestingly… the jury found they both lied and defamed each other… via proxies.  

This, in my mind, is an example of how not to do this.  The responsibility for allowing this to become a circus is squarely on the Court.  The Court can and should control the attorneys keeping them on point.  Focusing them on getting down to brass tacks.  Requiring them to purport themselves in a calm and professional manner.  Keep the cameras out.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

Depp being "effectively blacklisted" had a lot to do with Depp himself.  It is absolutely hilarious how much you guys insist on holding water for the dude.  It's cute, in a way.

I'm not holding water for him, I think he's an abusive dickhead who should go away, but so is Heard and it's weird how some of the responses seem to ignore that. And no, he was not blacklisted before this, he was still attached to two massive franchises.

Quote

But anyway, no, you are wrong.  If Depp wanted to counter Heard's accusations in the court of public opinion all he had to do is pay some people to do so.  

Lol, what are you talking about? Who has that worked for, especially when it's been on this scale? 

[Cas Stark]

I agree that the case should not have been televised or live streamed, not only because its two celebrities, but because it does not advance any goal of justice or fairness and live coverage is not needed to serve the interest of transparency.  It's interseting though, with Depp being characterized as a has been, possibly the judge never expected tens of millions of people to follow it minute by minute from beginning to end.  I know I didn't.

[mormont]

6 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Or...the judge, who has experience and legal training, and who wrote down his decision explaining why he led to that conclusion, thought Depp's evidence was full of shit or at least not as strong as you claim, while a jury that wasn't sequestered and was influenced by a charismatic actor who's an idol to millions and the greatest social media upheaval in the history of trials and who didn't even had to explain the reasons for their decision overestimated actual proof he had.

And again, if Depp's evidence in the UK trial was so great and the judge just ignored it, why didn't he appeal? Seems pretty obvious he thought it would be easier to win in the court of social media and an easily swayed jury than with a serious legal examination.

He was denied leave to appeal.

If anyone wants to read why the UK judge found as he did, it's all here.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf

This is a pretty long read, but even a brief check of the highlights will show there's more to it than the judge arbitrarily preferring Heard's evidence over Depp's. For example, he notes that one photo of an alleged injury to Depp, submitted in evidence, could not possibly have been taken at the time Depp's team claimed. He notes that the allegation about the faeces in the bed makes no sense since Depp had left to spend some time staying at another property. He notes that Depp's evidence about being sober at various times lacks credibility and that this affects the credibility of his other evidence about what happened at these times. And so on.

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

He was denied leave to appeal.

If anyone wants to read why the UK judge found as he did, it's all here.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf

This is a pretty long read, but even a brief check of the highlights will show there's more to it than the judge arbitrarily preferring Heard's evidence over Depp's. For example, he notes that one photo of an alleged injury to Depp, submitted in evidence, could not possibly have been taken at the time Depp's team claimed. He notes that the allegation about the faeces in the bed makes no sense since Depp had left to spend some time staying at another property. He notes that Depp's evidence about being sober at various times lacks credibility and that this affects the credibility of his other evidence about what happened at these times. And so on.

Mark Stephens’ view is that Depp’s team (and supporters on social media) had far greater leeway to attack Heard in the US than in the UK.  

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And no, he was not blacklisted before this, he was still attached to two massive franchises.

Classic post hoc fallacy.

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol, what are you talking about? Who has that worked for, especially when it's been on this scale? 

LOL, what are you talking about?  When hasn't a charming white male movie star not been immediately forgiven if they say the right things?  Mel Gibson?  Even then...

Anyway, the point is he didn't need a trial.  He could have done the same shit just by booking an interview on 60 Minutes, MTP, Inside Edition, or TMZ.  America would always be willing to forgive Johnny Depp.  Anyone that thinks otherwise is at least lying to themselves.  Making Amber Heard the most hated person in America in the process is what is gross, regardless of what she did.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

He was denied leave to appeal.

There is no “Appeal of Right” in English (was this an English Court?) Courts?  If there is no “Appeal of Right” then trial level judges in England have… tremendous… power.  There is always an “Appeal of Right” in US Courts.

Parties can choose not to appeal but the ability to have a lower court’s legal decisions reviewed by a higher court always exists to at least one level (sometimes two levels) of review.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is no “Appeal of Right” in English (was this an English Court?) Courts?  If there is no “Appeal of Right” then trial level judges in England have… tremendous… power.  There is always an “Appeal of Right” in US Courts.

Trial judges can either grant or refuse leave to appeal, but one can always apply to the Court of Appeal for leave.

[Cas Stark]

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

He was denied leave to appeal.

If anyone wants to read why the UK judge found as he did, it's all here.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf

This is a pretty long read, but even a brief check of the highlights will show there's more to it than the judge arbitrarily preferring Heard's evidence over Depp's. For example, he notes that one photo of an alleged injury to Depp, submitted in evidence, could not possibly have been taken at the time Depp's team claimed. He notes that the allegation about the faeces in the bed makes no sense since Depp had left to spend some time staying at another property. He notes that Depp's evidence about being sober at various times lacks credibility and that this affects the credibility of his other evidence about what happened at these times. And so on.

I don't know, I'm only up to the part about the letter to Homeland Security and the dogs and it certainly seems like the judge is arbitrarily choosing to believe Heard's version of events, when there is significant evidence to the contrary.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Trial judges can either grant or refuse leave to appeal, but one can always apply to the Court of Appeal for leave.

But it is a petition for Certiorari?  There is no guarantee the Court of Appeals will give the appeal a full review?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, what are you talking about?  When hasn't a charming white male movie star not been immediately forgiven if they say the right things?  Mel Gibson?  Even then...

Mel Gibson's reputation has not recovered and he mostly makes bad movies that go straight to VoD. Besides that, people in this current climate are less forgiving to abusers. I can think of a ton of public figures recently who had mild accusations against them and they just went away. 

Quote

Anyway, the point is he didn't need a trial.  He could have done the same shit just by booking an interview on 60 Minutes, MTP, Inside Edition, or TMZ.  America would always be willing to forgive Johnny Depp.  Anyone that thinks otherwise is at least lying to themselves.  Making Amber Heard the most hated person in America in the process is what is gross, regardless of what she did.

I think this is incredibly naïve. Giving an interview wouldn't have done shit. The public's mind was largely made up about him. Sure his biggest fans would still support him, but outside of that everyone else had mostly abandoned him. Taking Heard to court, especially if he genuinely believed she was lying was possibly his best course of action and it's proven correct.

[Week]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, what are you talking about?  When hasn't a charming white male movie star not been immediately forgiven if they say the right things?  Mel Gibson?  Even then...

Anyway, the point is he didn't need a trial.  He could have done the same shit just by booking an interview on 60 Minutes, MTP, Inside Edition, or TMZ.  America would always be willing to forgive Johnny Depp.  Anyone that thinks otherwise is at least lying to themselves.  Making Amber Heard the most hated person in America in the process is what is gross, regardless of what she did.

Mel Gibson, Kevin Spacey, Woody Allen, Louie C.K., Roman Polanski, Aziz Ansari, Liam Neeson,  etc. etc. 

All accused of a variety of things -- racism, sexual assault, etc. -- that have continued working despite controversy.

I think the ones only truly blackballed in the 'metoo' era we're Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, and Fox News execs. 

Eta- Mel Gibson is in pre-production for 2 movies he's directing (also did Hacksaw ridge well after the initial accusations came out (IIRC)), starring in the John Wick spinoff show, and acting in about 4 more things coming out this year.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Mel Gibson's reputation has not recovered and he mostly makes bad movies that go straight to VoD. Besides that, people in this current climate are less forgiving to abusers. I can think of a ton of public figures recently who had mild accusations against them and they just went away. 

HA!  I mention Mel Gibson as an outlier and you act like this is somehow some point in your favor.  Ah, hilarious.  Anyway, please, tell me someone of Johnny Depp's stature that has "just went away."  And what they went away for.  I'm dying to see what you pull out of your ass.

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think this is incredibly naïve.

It's incredibly naive to think an interview would be any different from his testimony in the trial.  Like, literally, he'd have the same lawyer coaching him on what and how to say things.  There's no significant difference.  If you don't understand that the entire trial was a war of optics, you're more naive than I thought.

[Week]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Mel Gibson's reputation has not recovered and he mostly makes bad movies that go straight to VoD. Besides that, people in this current climate are less forgiving to abusers. I can think of a ton of public figures recently who had mild accusations against them and they just went away. 

Curious for this list. The only person that I can think of off the top of my head is Gina Carano which is a whole different set of questions and context.

[Fragile Bird]

In looking up stories about the UK case, one story opened with a Depp quote after this trial where he says “The jury gave me my life back”. I hadn’t seen that before so I think my comment that he was literally fighting for his life was accurate. He certainly thought so.

I gather that the UK judge took the position that 12 out of 14 of Heard’s accusations that she had been abused were proven. But I also gather there was no scope in the UK trial for Depp to talk about her abuse against him, hence all the anger directed against Depp for the so-called “DARVO” strategy in the US trial. I also see lots of confirmation that the cases are quite shocking in that plaintiffs will shop libel trials in the UK if they can because they’re easier to win there, far easier than the US, yet Depp won. I already said at the start of this thread that his victory was shocking, pretty well all the legal commentators thought he’d lose.

As far as I’m concerned these are two emotionally damaged people who need a lot of time in therapy. I don’t know why Depp married Heard or why Heard married Depp, I assume some form of love was involved. I also know that it’s a well known phenomena that people will marry their abusers for a lot of different reasons, including the fact that they forgive signs of abuse before marriage in the belief the abuse will stop. I never watched any of the trial, I just heard highlights during regular news reports, but to me the most interesting fact mentioned was the one about how Depp would leave when Heard started to abuse him. And he did that time and time again. The fact that he walked away convinces me that, while his conduct was unacceptable, on the balance of things I suspect it was in reaction to her conduct to him, but he retained enough dignity or self-control to walk away.

Let’s face it, male instigators of abuse regularly put women in hospital and in extreme cases kill. I don’t know any jurisdiction where it’s not the overwhelming situation that male partners kill female partners, not the other way around. I also know that here in Canada the police have taken the position that they will charge both parties when partners fight with each other and one calls the police, because the behavior has to stop before it escalates.

I actually opened this thread because last week I was having a conversation with my next door neighbour and two friends of his who were having lunch and a few beers on his back porch. All three are university professors and we joked about drawing legal inferences about something, and my neighbour then asked what my legal opinion was of the trial. All I could say was that these were two seriously damaged people and that I was uncertain which way the trial would go. I did think public sympathy had shifted to Depp but that didn’t mean a jury felt that way.

Seriously-not-seriously, maybe the U.K. judge hated Jack Sparrow and his attitude towards the British and just said to himself, fuck you, Johnny Depp. Judges are known to be people with sticks up their asses.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

HA!  I mention Mel Gibson as an outlier and you act like this is somehow some point in your favor.  Ah, hilarious.  Anyway, please, tell me someone of Johnny Depp's stature that has "just went away."  And what they went away for.  I'm dying to see what you pull out of your ass.

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?"

Quote

It's incredibly naive to think an interview would be any different from his testimony in the trial.  Like, literally, he'd have the same lawyer coaching him on what and how to say things.  There's no significant difference.  If you don't understand that the entire trial was a war of optics, you're more naive than I thought.

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.

19 minutes ago, Week said:

Curious for this list. The only person that I can think of off the top of my head is Gina Carano which is a whole different set of questions and context.

Seen James Franco anywhere recently? Even many of his closest friends don't want to work with anymore. And among those you listed, Neeson is probably the only one who is still widely liked, maybe to a lesser extent Ansari and he still hasn't really recovered from what was a fairly minor accusation by comparison. The rest are not viewed well outside of their circles.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Week said:

Mel Gibson, Kevin Spacey, Woody Allen, Louie C.K., Roman Polanski, Aziz Ansari, Liam Neeson,  etc. etc. 

 

I mean Kevin Spacey has basically not worked since and was even digitally replaced from a movie! Mel Gibson was pretty much outcast from Hollywood for decades, lurking in straight to DVD movies and is only now making some limited appearances. Louis CK who used to be enormous is now scrabbling around trying to sell his latest special on his own website. 

Aziz's career is really not the same, even though the accusations against him were really more in the 'bad date' category. 

Neeson, I mean what did Neeson actually do? Are we talking about his open regret at his own racist thoughts years past? I'm not sure why anyone would think that was grounds to prevent him working.

I was also going to mention James Franco, he hasn't done shit since 2019 and he was everywhere before then. Arnie the Cannibal Hammer isn't getting any jobs any time soon either.

The ones where there is maybe a point, Allen and Polanski, are basically pre-MeToo, at a time where I agree these things were kind of swept under the carpet.. although it's not like either have enjoyed success recently, or for some time.