Depp and Heard Trial Result

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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.

Another aspect of the case that adds an interesting wrinkle is that both individuals were highly paid actors. Maybe Heard did well in their mock cross examinations and then fell apart on the stand? Or maybe as has been mentioned she's a very convincing liar and her lawyers believed her only to be horrified by he performance? Idk, but it's hard to imagine any lawyer would see a private performance like that and think it's wise to let her take the stand unless she demanded it (and at that point Idk what a lawyer's ethical obligation is). 

16 minutes ago, Mladen said:

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. 

Agreed. Depp, though not completely, addressed a lot of his flaws and shortcomings while sticking to his guns that he wasn't a physical abuser while Heard from what I can tell always tried to portray herself as completely innocent.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@Tywin et al.

In a civil case any party can be required to testify.  Because there is no possibility of criminal sanction the 5th doesn’t apply (normally).

[Larry of the Lawn]

Anyone posting in this thread, or who even knows what this trial is, is a confirmed masochist. 

If you looked at this thread. 

If you clicked on it by accident when the board jumped while the page was loading.  

 

 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

If you clicked on it by accident when the board jumped while the page was loading.  

This is really pissing me off lately.  Let's have a dumbass thread about that.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is really pissing me off lately.  Let's have a dumbass thread about that.

I'm trying out this new engagement optimization technique where I say something dumb as fuck and then follow it up with a bunch of nonsense, and then drop some "appeal to the commons" complaint to see if it legitimizes the shit.  Going to use this to determine if I should pursue a jury or panel trial when they inevitably come for me.  

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

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.

The way I see it, failing in an interview or on the stand has basically the same result: he's fucked. OTOH, I don't think you get the same result if he does really well in either setting. A really good interview could, and that's a big if, begin a long process of him maybe returning to work he's more accustomed to. Doing well on the stand and winning the case accelerates the process dramatically with the unexpected added benefit that now people support him and have largely turned on Heard. Obviously you can't predict the latter, but I do think there's a good argument that taking this to court and winning was the single best option for him and that probably played a large role in him deciding to take that course of action. I agree with you that it was gross, but that wasn't a key factor in their decision making process. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@Tywin et al.

In a civil case any party can be required to testify.  Because there is no possibility of criminal sanction the 5th doesn’t apply (normally).

Yes, but doesn't that speak to them doing a poor job of preparing her? I would think they would have caught a lot of these problems on the front end and literally feed her lines to say when the came up in court.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The way I see it, failing in an interview or on the stand has basically the same result: he's fucked. OTOH, I don't think you get the same result if he does really well in either setting. A really good interview could, and that's a big if, begin a long process of him maybe returning to work he's more accustomed to. Doing well on the stand and winning the case accelerates the process dramatically with the unexpected added benefit that now people support him and have largely turned on Heard.

Obviously winning the case helps much more, and did, but that result was faaaaar from certain considering the complaint.  In terms of him taking the stand helping more than an interview would, sorry, I don't see much of a distinction.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree with you that it was gross, but that wasn't a key factor in their decision making process. 

Well then what the fuck are we arguing about?  I take your previous point that I started this all off in the middle of last night as a drunken combative rant but I explicitly said as much.  You all were warned.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yes, but doesn't that speak to them doing a poor job of preparing her? I would think they would have caught a lot of these problems on the front end and literally feed her lines to say when the came up in court.

You’d think so.  I’m very surprised by how poorly she came across on the stand.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

Obviously winning the case helps much more, and did, but that result was faaaaar from certain considering the complaint.  In terms of him taking the stand helping more than an interview would, sorry, I don't see much of a distinction.

It's like I said before, what's each outcome likely to yield and what's the best bet? I just don't think an interview, even if goes well, produces anything more than a first block to build off of and even that is just an if. Getting even a mixed result in court, which is what I kind of expected, could produce immediate positive spin. 

Quote

Well then what the fuck are we arguing about?  I take your previous point that I started this all off in the middle of last night as a drunken combative rant but I explicitly said as much.  You all were warned.

Because you're like a dog fighting to protect its bone even though you can't find it anymore because you ate it already. 

46 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You’d think so.  I’m very surprised by how poorly she came across on the stand.

How badly do you think this reflect on the firm? I can't imagine anyone wanting to hire them for a high profile case like this anytime soon.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Getting even a mixed result in court, which is what I kind of expected, could produce immediate positive spin. 

I fundamentally disagree with you that this was the best way to repair his public image.  No reason harping on it any further, or at least I'm done.  But the larger point and reason I got all internet emo about it is because Depp knew exactly what he was doing in escalating the bullshit publicity war by pursuing such lawsuits.  Even giving him the entire benefit of doubt, it's disgusting, and I think that should be noted while others continue to perpetuate vitriol towards Heard.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

How badly do you think this reflect on the firm? I can't imagine anyone wanting to hire them for a high profile case like this anytime soon.

One of the Attorneys I work with mentioned today that some homeowners insurance policies cover defamation suits.  It’s possible these attorneys weren’t hired directly by Heard but by her insurance carrier.  That would still surprise me… but… her team seemed surprised by the quality and aggressiveness of Depp’s team.

[Cpl. Tunny]

On 6/1/2022 at 3:37 PM, Winterfell is Burning said:

Nope, it's pretty clear. I'm not saying everyone that supported Depp is a Trump supporter, of course, just that is pretty clear whom all the MAGA types were siding with.

Well, lol, why wouldn't you take Depps side? All evidence points to Heard lying and manipulating to ruin a man's life. It's quite concerning to see anyone that defends Heard. What type of supporters are those, would you say? Feminazi? Man-haters? Tell me, why shouldn't everyone be on the side of a man who has had his career and reputation ruined by lies of a deceitful, ugly human? It's mind-boggling.

ETA: Am definitely not a MAGA supporter, BTW. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Still not a single horse problem in this thread.

With an ongoing war in Europe, the assault on reproductive rights in the US, another NRA sanctioned school shooting (I mean Uvalde, just in case there's another happening by the time somebody wants to respond). And yet, people talk about the court case of a washed up Hollywood star and his ex-wife. If only half that much time and energy was wasted on shutting down the NRA...

At least no horses were harmed in that court circus aka Depp vs. Heard.

[IFR]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

With an ongoing war in Europe, the assault on reproductive rights in the US, another NRA sanctioned school shooting (I mean Uvalde, just in case there's another happening by the time somebody wants to respond). And yet, people talk about the court case of a washed up Hollywood star and his ex-wife. If only half that much time and energy was wasted on shutting down the NRA...

If the objection is that a celebrity trial that may or may not have some sociological impact is receiving too much attention relative to these other issues that you view more important, then I humbly submit climate change and industrial meat production, which surpasses even that which you've mentioned in gravity and magnitude, but receives less serious consideration.

We live in an unfair world. Gun control will not be addressed in any kind of functional way, a nuclear state will continue to engage in genocide as long as they are able (states, really - China is still engaging in its genocide), global warming will not effectively be dealt with (in America particularly, Democrats and Republicans are deeply opposed to any meaningful action on this front), and there will continue to be disregard for the unfathomable hell we put other animals in (and the harm to the environment this causes) because it's pleasurable to do so and we've conveniently designated non-human creatures as inferior beings whose suffering is of negligible concern.

These discussions are a hobby, like watching shows. I don't feel guilty about watching Stranger Things while horrible things occur in the world, nor do I feel guilty about popping in to discuss the latest gossip on Heard and Depp. 

[kungtotte]

4 hours 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. 

 

4 hours 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.

My understanding of it is that Dr. Curry performed a psychological evaluation of Ms. Heard with the goal of finding out whether or not she suffered from PTSD, which again as I understand it is one of the claims made by Heard. She found that she didn't meet the diagnostic criteria for that, but instead displayed signs of suffering from BPD.

She didn't diagnose her, technically, but rather offered her expert opinion about what she might suffer from. In a televised spectacle like this though that distinction might be lost.

And speaking as someone with a lot of personal experience of living with someone with BPD, and the subsequent autodidactical efforts to improve my understanding of it all, I am also not diagnosing Heard but I have no trouble whatsoever believing the claim that she suffers from BPD.

And that does indeed explain a lot about her behaviour during the relationship and trial both. The push-pull dynamic of escalating fights to the physical when Depp tries to leave the situation is almost textbook.

It could also be an explanation for why she apparently lied to her lawyers, in which case she's not really stupid as much as she's suffering from a disorder.

And one thing that I think everyone can agree to is that regardless of whatever else has been going on, both of these people need a good dose of therapy for their issues.

 

Oh and I think the MAGA thing is a bit of a red herring. Are we surprised that people whose chosen cult leader "grabs them by the pussy" will default to rallying around the man in a case like this? The facts of the case aren't really relevant there.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

30 minutes ago, IFR said:

If the objection is that a celebrity trial that may or may not have some sociological impact is receiving too much attention relative to these other issues that you view more important, then I humbly submit climate change and industrial meat production, which surpasses even that which you've mentioned in gravity and magnitude, but receives less serious consideration.

We live in an unfair world. Gun control will not be addressed in any kind of functional way, a nuclear state will continue to engage in genocide as long as they are able (states, really - China is still engaging in its genocide), global warming will not effectively be dealt with (in America particularly, Democrats and Republicans are deeply opposed to any meaningful action on this front), and there will continue to be disregard for the unfathomable hell we put other animals in (and the harm to the environment this causes) because it's pleasurable to do so and we've conveniently designated non-human creatures as inferior beings whose suffering is of negligible concern.

These discussions are a hobby, like watching shows. I don't feel guilty about watching Stranger Things while horrible things occur in the world, nor do I feel guilty about popping in to discuss the latest gossip on Heard and Depp. 

Sorry, if that came across overly harsh. Just a bit of annoyance. Main news program opener the other day, fucking jubilee of the bloody Queen of England, and I am not even British, nor do I live in Britain for that matter. 

This trial was another news item I have gladly ignored for most parts. Saw some video recommendationss randomly popping up on youtube for no reason, which I gladly ignored. The sociological impact of this trial, I think the impact is wildly blown out of proportions. #Metoo will survive Heard. If the movement can be brought down by Amber Heard losing a libel trial, then the movement wasn't particularly strong to begin with. And I like to believe it is. Will Heard's career survive this trial? Different question, I dunno, I don't care. She apparently was not the victim of a super influential rich guy, but was a rather abusive party in a dysfunctional relationship - the latter is not what #metoo is about.

Depp by most accounts is not a mysogynist piece of crap. So he (or somebody like him) had to be the vehicle for the anti movement to #metoo. It had to be a buddy of Joaquin Phoenix, one of the biggest stars of the 2000s-2010s. I mean it sure as hell couldn't be James Woods. So yeah, pretty much all the MAGAts were rooting for him. I don't think he is particularly fond of that part of his support. But then again, he was fighting for whatever could be salvaged from his career and livelihood. Those wifebeater allegations by Heard effectively cost him that gig in that Potterverse (or Rawlingverse) he had. And he was considered too toxic to star in major productions (in combination with his addiction issues not a great place for an acting career). So I find it hard to fault him for filing that case. Will he be as big as he was 10-15 years ago? Probably not, but again, I dunno, I don't care.

[IFR]

37 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Sorry, if that came across overly harsh. Just a bit of annoyance. Main news program opener the other day, fucking jubilee of the bloody Queen of England, and I am not even British, nor do I live in Britain for that matter

No worries! I actually can empathize with your position. I remember several months back charging into the Politics thread when the IPCC released their report on the climate. I was irritated that the report essentially went without comment and the focus of conversation was Cuomo. I felt that Cuomo was a distraction that would be old news within a couple of months, but it would allow people to put climate change on the sidelines (yet again), even though climate change always will be relevant.

And I was gently reminded that people are under no obligation to discuss what I want them to discuss (perfectly true).

It's not like anyone here can do anything about it anyway. But I did consider the discussion as a microcosm of a larger issue of society, and it's a hard thing to come to terms with. So I fully understand your frustration.

The world is not in a good state, and it's discouraging that so many things point to it only getting worse from here on out.

[kiko]

I have learned a lot in this thread.

Jonny Depp shouldn't have sued his abuser because it's known he is damaged goods - something that abusers are known to exploit but so what. Instead he should accept his fate and be ashamed that he is so damaged.

Since learning new knowledge is useless without applying it, I now declare that Virginia Giuffre shouldn't have sued prince Andrew and especially not in the USA where the court system is inferiour to the one in the UK, especially when you sue the establishment.

Did I get it right?

 

[Heartofice]

41 minutes ago, kiko said:

I have learned a lot in this thread.

Jonny Depp shouldn't have sued his abuser because it's known he is damaged goods - something that abusers are known to exploit but so what. Instead he should accept his fate and be ashamed that he is so damaged.

Since learning new knowledge is useless without applying it, I now declare that Virginia Giuffre shouldn't have sued prince Andrew and especially not in the USA where the court system is inferiour to the one in the UK, especially when you sue the establishment.

Did I get it right?

 

Prince Andrew did an interview to try and defend himself and that worked out REALLY well for him!