Depp and Heard Trial Result

[Cas Stark]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

 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.

 

I agree.  Presumably the testimony from both of them was largely the same in UK and US.  So, the difference in public reaction is because of the TV coverage [which then I am arguing against my own position of no cameras or live streaming].

I would say obviously Depp is the better actor here, but then, he would have been 'acting' the same in UK and same for Heard. 

it is possible,if the diagnosis that she has a personality disorder is correct, that perhaps her testimony was different in tone as she could not help herself from playing to the cameras and the crowd, and maybe that did her in.  Just pure speculation on that, but there has to be a reason why the same basic evidence has led to two diametrically opposed rulings and the same evidence, on paper, was used in both trials.  The difference being again the public saw the testimony and heard the tapes.

[Maltaran]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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

They decide whether to give you leave to appeal, which to quote Wikipedia “the appeal must have "a real prospect of success", or there must be "some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard" for it to be accepted”

[mormont]

24 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

But I also gather there was no scope in the UK trial for Depp to talk about her abuse against him

I have no idea why you think this. Depp's whole case was that Heard had lied and was the real abuser. He produced photos of injuries she had allegedly caused him, discussed the faeces in the bed incident at length, accused her repeatedly of being the aggressor in their fights, produced the same recordings where Heard admits to hitting him, made the same allegations about his finger injury, and more.

He may have had more scope in the US trial to attack Heard, but as noted, he spent most of his time in the UK trial doing so. The difference is that the judge didn't give it much weight.

[Cas Stark]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

I have no idea why you think this. Depp's whole case was that Heard had lied and was the real abuser. He produced photos of injuries she had allegedly caused him, discussed the faeces in the bed incident at length, accused her repeatedly of being the aggressor in their fights, produced the same recordings where Heard admits to hitting him, made the same allegations about his finger injury, and more.

He may have had more scope in the US trial to attack Heard, but as noted, he spent most of his time in the UK trial doing so. The difference is that the judge didn't give it much weight.

That seems really odd to me, I just don't get it.  If he heard her taunting Depp, and telling him she only hit him didn't punch him and taunting him to go public and that no one would believe him....I don't see how he could have found for Heard that she was in fear of her life and to have substantiated almost every single one of the allegations. A woman in fear for her life multiple times does not hit her partner and then taunt him like that, her behavior belies everything that is known about an abusive relationship unless she is the abuser here.  His ruling to me does not fit the facts.  He also substantiated a number of her claims where there was basically no objective or other witness evidence, only Heard's statements, which is his right to believe her, as it was the jury's right to not believe her....weird.

 

[Fragile Bird]

8 minutes ago, mormont said:

I have no idea why you think this. Depp's whole case was that Heard had lied and was the real abuser. He produced photos of injuries she had allegedly caused him, discussed the faeces in the bed incident at length, accused her repeatedly of being the aggressor in their fights, produced the same recordings where Heard admits to hitting him, made the same allegations about his finger injury, and more.

He may have had more scope in the US trial to attack Heard, but as noted, he spent most of his time in the UK trial doing so. The difference is that the judge didn't give it much weight.

Thanks, I never followed the U.K. trial and the stories I saw all talked about her evidence and made it sound like there was almost nothing from Depp. I am not invested enough to read the actual judgement, I’ve read too many in my life!

eta: what Cas Stark just posted ahead of me. 

[Winterfell is Burning]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

I have no idea why you think this. Depp's whole case was that Heard had lied and was the real abuser. He produced photos of injuries she had allegedly caused him, discussed the faeces in the bed incident at length, accused her repeatedly of being the aggressor in their fights, produced the same recordings where Heard admits to hitting him, made the same allegations about his finger injury, and more.

He may have had more scope in the US trial to attack Heard, but as noted, he spent most of his time in the UK trial doing so. The difference is that the judge didn't give it much weight.

If that's what happened, explains perfectly why he would lose in the UK: judges are trained (supposedly at least) to not pay attention to ad hominem attacks, and just look at evidence. Depp's case wasn't "I was also a victim of abuse, Amber Heard is a bitch, etc", which is probably true, but rather "I was NEVER abusive towards Heard, and she and the Sun knowingly defamed me when claiming otherwise", which is, well, probably false.  A jury can pay more attention to the media frenzy and the mudslide than the actual case being made.

[butterbumps!]

14 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

A woman in fear for her life multiple times does not hit her partner and then taunt him like that, her behavior belies everything that is known about an abusive relationship unless she is the abuser here.  His ruling to me does not fit the facts.  He also substantiated a number of her claims where there was basically no objective or other witness evidence, only Heard's statements, which is his right to believe her, as it was the jury's right to not believe her....weird.

 

Is this actually true, though?   I’m genuinely asking if that’s true or are you basing that on common sense and what seems logical.   It seems like so much of public perception about how victims of abuse and rape are “supposed” to behave like is not what people with expertise in the matter say.    

[Week]

42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

I would say that being accused of sexual exploitation and rape is more serious than what Amber Heard alleged (though there were sexual assault accusations uncovered in the trial that I don't believe were so thoroughly documented before).

Louis CK just won an Emmy and is absolutely re-engaging as broadly as he can.

Regardless, I'm not interested in educating someone like HoI any further as any evidence is ignored to fit worldview that increasingly departs from reality.

[Fragile Bird]

‘Groans’

I might have to take a look at the U.K. judgement just to see how the judge couched his language. There are things we were taught in law school to look for that will mean a judgement has basically been made appeal-proof. What it essentially comes down to is that the judge says, in not so many words, I was there, I saw and listened to the guy, and fuck him, I didn’t believe a word he said, so fuck you Appeals Court, if you dare allow an appeal to be heard I will fucking curse you by making judgements that are so evil you will regret the day you ever tried to cross me.

In not so many words.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

32 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

They decide whether to give you leave to appeal, which to quote Wikipedia “the appeal must have "a real prospect of success", or there must be "some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard" for it to be accepted”

It functions like a “Writ of Certiorari” to Courts of “last resort” in the US.  Those courts have no legal obligation to hear all appeals brought before them.  That’s surprising to me.

[Cas Stark]

15 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Is this actually true, though?   I’m genuinely asking if that’s true or are you basing that on common sense and what seems logical.   It seems like so much of public perception about how victims of abuse and rape are “supposed” to behave like is not what people with expertise in the matter say.    

 It isn't an issue of her not being a perfect victim, it is the issue that her behavior--belittling her partner, saying no one would believe him, taunting him to go ahead and tell the world, and minimizing her own violence--are textbook examples of how the abuser behaves.  Depp's attempts to defuse the situation by walking away again and again [and then being followed/physically attacked], trying to please his partner, and apologizing, you could even include his substance abuse except it seems to pre-date his relationship with Heard are behaviors typical of the abuse victim.

 

[SeanF]

20 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

If that's what happened, explains perfectly why he would lose in the UK: judges are trained (supposedly at least) to not pay attention to ad hominem attacks, and just look at evidence. Depp's case wasn't "I was also a victim of abuse, Amber Heard is a bitch, etc", which is probably true, but rather "I was NEVER abusive towards Heard, and she and the Sun knowingly defamed me when claiming otherwise", which is, well, probably false.  A jury can pay more attention to the media frenzy and the mudslide than the actual case being made.

I think that’s correct.  The UK trial focused on the allegation that Depp was a wife-beater, which he was.

The US trial focused increasingly on the allegation that Heard is a horrible person, which she is.

[Heartofice]

Just now, SeanF said:

I think that’s correct.  The UK trial focused on the allegation that Depp was a wife-beater, which he was.

The US trial focused increasingly on the allegation that Heard is a horrible person, which she is.

I think what you mean is whether Heard's testimony was credible, and it wasn't. 

[butterbumps!]

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

 It isn't an issue of her not being a perfect victim, it is the issue that her behavior--belittling her partner, saying no one would believe him, taunting him to go ahead and tell the world, and minimizing her own violence--are textbook examples of how the abuser behaves.  Depp's attempts to defuse the situation by walking away again and again [and then being followed/physically attacked], trying to please his partner, and apologizing, you could even include his substance abuse except it seems to pre-date his relationship with Heard are behaviors typical of the abuse victim.

 

I’m not asking about perfect victimhood.   I’m asking if these behaviors you say tell us that she is not a victim but the abuser actually say that according to people who know about domestic violence.   People who know about domestic violence lament how poorly the public understands domestic violence, and stress how it doesn’t follow common sense or what we’d see as logic.     I’m asking how you are so sure her behavior precludes her from being a victim.  And also why you are equally sure Depp’s portrayal of his supposedly defusing behaviors is just as he says?   The guy with very serious substance abuse issues and a history of violent expression, if not a documented history of physical abuse.  

[BigFatCoward]

@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?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

46 minutes ago, Week said:

I would say that being accused of sexual exploitation and rape is more serious than what Amber Heard alleged (though there were sexual assault accusations uncovered in the trial that I don't believe were so thoroughly documented before).

Heard accused Depp of a lot. She said there was sexual violence and that he constantly was assaulting her. Heard was clearly a victim, but she was also not credible and an abuser herself. I really don’t know what to do with that which why I said I’d rule that they both defamed each other and award them both nothing.

Quote

Louis CK just won an Emmy and is absolutely re-engaging as broadly as he can.

I didn’t know he won an Emmy, but that is nothing compared to where he was before his fall and that’s kind of the point. People who get cancelled can come back sometimes, but it’s almost always in a limited capacity and that’s what Depp was trying to fight against. If you were in his shoes and thought you were being lied about and that it would destroy your career, wouldn’t you try to fight back?  That doesn’t make him a good person because he’s not, but I can understand why he wanted to take this to court.

[Week]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you were in his shoes and thought you were being lied about and that it would destroy your career, wouldn’t you try to fight back?  That doesn’t make him a good person because he’s not, but I can understand why he wanted to take this to court.

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.

As for Louis CK ... He's guilty of what he was accused of and had admitted as much. He still is able to come back. Is he still at his height? No, nor should he be.

[Conflicting Thought]

21 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

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? 

But Johnny depp is a wife beater 

[IFR]

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 to that of news outlets, to analyze how well the bias of the news outlets align with one's own.

[Heartofice]

7 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.

Is he? Heard was the one who wrote the article, leaked video to TMZ, told TMZ where she was going to be during court appearances . If anyone was courting public opinion it has been her. It just backfired spectacularly