Jump to content

Depp and Heard Trial Result


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No trials should be televised.

Disagree entirely. People need to see behind the curtain. A farce in the dark is still a farce.

I say TVs in every courtroom. Live phone-in polls to see which lawyer gets more time to present. A public officer elected from Twitter who is allowed, once a day, to throw a pie in the face of a witness if the proceedings become too dull. I want a MakeAWish kid to pick a side and testify based solely on their gut instinct. Give me ten clowns and a masonry contractor racing against each other to build a wall between each party's lawyers made entirely of Dollar Store bubble wands. At some point execute a previously convicted in-between witnesses so that we remember the stakes, and the smell of gasoline fuelled immolated human flesh just might put us in the mood for some steaks. Get ten Hibachi chefs going in the front row of the audience, jury gets served first. Wagu beef only. We can give the baliff rump roast, because they're a wagey and those stupid hourlies will eat anything if it's served in a paper container. Yeah, you can go see some justice, get some steak, and see a clown show all while participating in a democratic extravaganza at the expense of someone else's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gorn said:

I think the Eichmann trial is a better example. Televising it internationally was arguably the entire point of the trial, not whether a Nazi bureaucrat will get a death sentence or not.

Fair point. Definitely a landmark moment, and it shows that the limited filming of the Nuremberg Trials probably didn't fully inform people about what had happened. In any case, it's definitely a case-by-case thing, and I suspect the US errs too far towards immediate access in most cases.

In over 20 years in Sweden, the only Scandinavian trial shown at any length was that of terrorist Anders Breivik in Norway, and shortly after there was a motion filed with Riksdagen (Sweden's parliament) to allow similar televising of Swedish trials and that was rejected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against cameras in the courtroom.   I used to think it was a good idea, fairness, transparency, etc.  But, it totally changes the tone of the trial because everyone is playing to the cameras [media] and the jury.  In cases where the jury is not sequestered it exponentially increases the chance for the jury to be contaminated and influenced by media coverage of the trial.  What's the up side?  That we can consume crimes, victims and the ruin of people's lives along with the rest of the news? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of the Eichmann comparison I can't help but think of Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem New Yorker missives.  If that was the quality of journalism courtroom reporters were aspiring to this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

  In cases where the jury is not sequestered it exponentially increases the chance for the jury to be contaminated and influenced by media coverage of the trial.

In my only jury experience, the jury was instructed not to look at, internet or newspaper for info about the trial.  Easy enough in the early '2000s for 2-day trial.  How could this jury avoid being contaminated by the excessive media, social media, and other exposure of this trial?  The excessive exposure was driven by the trial being televised. I found the whole thing appalling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cameras everywhere. I want cameras in buses, churches, and palapas everywhere. Put 'em in supermarkets, ketchup bottles, and bathtubs. I say put cameras in people's eyes! Can't recall what you shoulda saw? That's ok, we submit to the jury the occu-cam footage of the event in question. Here you can clearly see Mr. Obama grasp the hotdog with his bare fingers before placing it on the grill. His bare fingers, ladies and gentlemen, which could have easily transmitted incalculable and incurable quantities of contaminants from Mr. Obama's fingertips on to the skin of the semi-sausage. All while the grilling tongs were within easy reach, appropriately hanging from the tong hook at the front of the grill, exactly as Mr. Adolph Hitler's clone testified he left them earlier this week. Now what the former president's motives were for serving a fingered dog to Mr. Gosling? We may never know. But the constant and exactly-measured cycling of my client's breathing apparatus which we have all graciously pretended not to hear during the course of these proceedings fairly attests to the damage that one former president's fingers can do... and put cameras in the toilets too, so that we always know someone flushing is who they say they are. And think of the jobs! Camera maker jobs, camera watcher jobs, camera installer jobs and camera repairer jobs. Jobs for people who support the camera related jobs like human services jobs attached to the camera related jobs. Then you got your camera carrying jobs. Someone's got to get these cameras from place to place, every place, and then get back again so now you've got your gas station jobs to support the camera related jobs even though being a gas station attendant has nothing to do with cameras 

Until it's time to clean the fucking bathrooms. And that's when you'll be on board for the camera fascism party. The party of observation and recording. The party that has, in its platform, a desire to put away -nay, very well to burn alive- the kind of people who make bathroom jobs that inspire camera maker jobs. And that'll make it all easier to know, easier to see, who you hate on sight because they once said, saw, or shit something that you didn't like. So you can go to their trial and ask America to burn them alive, hell you could even make your own streaming channel to get others on your side. Active participation in a democracy, letting other people know what you think and what the truth could be. But you'll need a camera first

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

horrible to see the misogyny  that this trial has brought out of people

 

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

She is a serial liar, fantasist and an abuser, I think it’s been pretty clear throughout the trial what a piece of shit she really is. From leaking the story to TMZ, lying about the makeup she uses to ‘cover up her bruises’, lying about giving divorce money to charity, and then beating Depp and taunting him because nobody will ever believe him. She’s going to be vilified for the rest of her life and for good reason. 

/Gif of Grampa Simpson entering the bar and then leaving the bar.

QED. Both are a mess and yet only one gets the fire and the insults. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Week said:

QED. Both are a mess and yet only one gets the fire and the insults. 

Both are a mess yes, that was my initial reaction to the trial. However as it’s gone one, it’s very difficult to bothsides it any more. There is just too much evidence against Heard.

What this trial has exposed is that while Depp is a druggie mess and has serious issues, Heard is a manipulative sociopath who went out of her way to destroy his career, faked evidence, lied continuously.

But the biggest most appalling part of this, is far from Depp being the abuser, he was the victim. She not only physically and mentally abused him, but mocked him for it. 
 

There is really no way you can just go ‘oh they are just as bad as each other’, fuck that shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Both are a mess yes, that was my initial reaction to the trial. However as it’s gone one, it’s very difficult to bothsides it any more. There is just too much evidence against Heard.

What this trial has exposed is that while Depp is a druggie mess and has serious issues, Heard is a manipulative sociopath who went out of her way to destroy his career, faked evidence, lied continuously.

But the biggest most appalling part of this, is far from Depp being the abuser, he was the victim. She not only physically and mentally abused him, but mocked him for it. 
 

There is really no way you can just go ‘oh they are just as bad as each other’, fuck that shit.

But the High Court of Justice in England did  indeed rule that he used violence against her.

That does not make her an innocent, either.  Plainly, she’s horrible.  And so is he.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SeanF said:

But the High Court of Justice in England did  indeed rule that he used violence against her.

That does not make her an innocent, either.  Plainly, she’s horrible.

So, he's at 50% in court rulings in his favor, better than yesterday when 100% of rulings were against him.

The UK judge decision I thought was a little odd, since he seemed to take everything Amber said at face value and dismissed evidence of her lies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From his point of view, if he’s telling anything like the truth, the trial being public/televised was the whole point. He told the jury he didn’t care about the money, give him 1$ if they want, this was about getting a forum to tell his side. 
 

I watched a lot of this. I tend to think the jury got it right but I am astonished that so many seem certain one way or the other. I also think throwing your hands up and calling it all a circus is potentially throwing out a significant victim with the bath water. I wonder how we’ll see this in 20 years. Turning back the clock on female victims, beginning a new phase where all victims are accounted for, or what. 

But though I came to believe his side a lot more than hers, there is no doubt that a HUGE amount of the people who agree with me are bringing a whole lot of misogyny and #METOO payback and general vileness. To see so many celebrating her downfall with such glee is pretty sickening. If she is borderline/histrionic, she probably believes much of what she was saying and these are clearly two damaged people. No one should be celebrating anything about this except the lawyers. I have a hard time looking up clips on YT because 95% of them come from people exercising major agendas, mostly toxic masculinity.
 

I will also say that those saying that the court had to find for Heard because of the implications of a Depp verdict on women were also advocating for injustice, even if they were accurate about what this will mean. But it might be Heard, not Depp, who did that damage. Her and people who honestly believe and state that women never lie about this kind of thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

So, he's at 50% in court rulings in his favor, better than yesterday when 100% of rulings were against him.

The UK judge decision I thought was a little odd, since he seemed to take everything Amber said at face value and dismissed evidence of her lies

The criticism of the UK trial judge was that he didn’t take into account any of the large stacks of evidence that backed Depps case, but chose instead to believe Heard based mainly on her word. I think this trial has shown that her word is worthless , she is a serial liar who has real trouble with the concept of the truth.

Im sure Depp will see this result as an overturning of the UK result, and the fact he was so keen to go to trial again suggests he knew he’d get the truth out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The criticism of the UK trial judge was that he didn’t take into account any of the large stacks of evidence that backed Depps case, but chose instead to believe Heard based mainly on her word. I think this trial has shown that her word is worthless , she is a serial liar who has real trouble with the concept of the truth.

Im sure Depp will see this result as an overturning of the UK result, and the fact he was so keen to go to trial again suggests he knew he’d get the truth out. 

My guess would be after losing in the UK, he figured he had nothing to lose.  If he wins, it's at least a partial vindication and there is some [narrow] path back for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No trials should be televised.

Should be noticed here in Brazil since 2002 literally all cases in the Supreme Court are transmitted live, both oral arguments and the votes of the judges (who were already public long before this, unlike in the US supreme court) in a channel dedicated to the Judiciary (kind of C-Span in the US to the Congress) or in the Internet, and a study showed that since that went into effect, the amount of time each Supreme Court judge takes to vote literally doubled- the judges tend to showboat, and often end up repeating arguments the previous ones had, or not even addressing the points that were made before.

And of course that also leads to ego clashes, with the judges often offending or mocking each other more or less openly, among other problems.

  

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The criticism of the UK trial judge was that he didn’t take into account any of the large stacks of evidence that backed Depps case, but chose instead to believe Heard based mainly on her word. I think this trial has shown that her word is worthless , she is a serial liar who has real trouble with the concept of the truth.

Im sure Depp will see this result as an overturning of the UK result, and the fact he was so keen to go to trial again suggests he knew he’d get the truth out. 

Alternatively, one can say that the judge, who has lots of experience, looked at evidence presented and not on a trial by media, which seemingly had an effect on this one.

While either (or both at the same time, to some extent at least) could happen, seems to me far more likely than a jury of 7 people with no experience or legal training would be affected by social media and outside influences in a trial that lasted weeks and had no sequester than a seasoned judge would simply overlook evidence because she feels like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cas Stark said:

My guess would be after losing in the UK, he figured he had nothing to lose.  If he wins, it's at least a partial vindication and there is some [narrow] path back for him. 

I think he’d have quite a lot to lose if all the evidence pointed to him being an abuser. Having that out in the public would be incredibly damaging to him if it all got played out in real time in a live court hearing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

I think he’d have quite a lot to lose if all the evidence pointed to him being an abuser. Having that out in the public would be incredibly damaging to him if it all got played out in real time in a live court hearing 

Not really- we literally had their couple therapist saying Depp (like Heard herself) was an abuser and that didn't really matter. In a trial by media, the charismatic actor with millions of fans is far more likely to win than the less known actress who is not particularly sympathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think he’d have quite a lot to lose if all the evidence pointed to him being an abuser. Having that out in the public would be incredibly damaging to him if it all got played out in real time in a live court hearing 

It's the same basic evidence in terms of abuse though, isn't it?  They both testified in each case.  The incidents of alleged abuse are the same.  He lost one and then he won one, or mostly won it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...