Jump to content

Depp and Heard Trial Result


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

Again, much of the discussion here seems to work on the assumption that this trial result - still subject to a possible appeal, by the way - is in some way more significant than the previous trial result, which found fully in favour of Heard and agreed that Depp is an abuser. There is no substantial reason that it should be regarded as such.

Except incredibly wide, global coverage that turned it into a trial of decade, as some like to describe it. 

In legal ways, as I understood those lawyers om Legal Bytes and Law Network on YT, two different trials, with different motions. Let's not forget that the case in UK was not between Depp and Heard. Heard was a witness there, not a party.

***

That said, I will always blame Amber's team for making this a referendum on MeToo and giving far-right a perfect segue for criticism that is not valid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mladen said:

Let's not forget that the case in UK was not between Depp and Heard. Heard was a witness there, not a party.

And yet, as noted, Depp's legal strategy was to treat her as a party to that action. His legal team barely mentioned the newspaper or the writer of the story during the trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

No. But he is the one who brought two court cases in which he has portrayed himself as the victim.

I don't care to speculate about percentages, but as I say, even if you think he was 20% to blame, you have to conclude that this verdict is wrong.

Comparing the 14 points of accusation from the previous trial with the evidence and witness statements in this trial, it rather seems like they reached the wrong conclusion the first time. Regardless of how victims are supposed to act and who hit who more, I don't think it's likely that events transpired the way Heard say they did.

The extent of the violence she describes that preceeded public events where she exhibits no signs of said violence makes it seem like she hasn't been telling the truth.

Abusers can be very good at hitting in places it won't show, and victims end up skilled at covering injuries up, but extensive facial trauma leaving not a single mark visible during your talk show appearance the following day is far fetched.

 

Based on my own personal experience, my gut feeling is that Depp was not abusing Heard physically but may have been guilty of psychological abuse. Which as far as I am aware was not among the accusations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 16 day libel trial against a newspaper vs. a defamation trial against the alleged defamer that goes over twice as long with what appears to be many more witnesses and much more admitted evidence, I can see how both trials can come to their conclusions and both be "right" within the context of the actual standards of proof as well as the actual evidence they had before them. I've seen the argument that Depp's suit against The Sun was strategic, to get witness statements on the record that they could then use to gather counter-evidence that wasn't necessarily available or admitted at the libel trial. I doubt it was thought of that way by Depp and his team at the time, but certainly it probably did serve to give them a look at how Heard would support and defend her claims and prepare for it in the defamation suit.

I didn't watch any of it to speak of, but the one clip I did see -- where Heard claimed two photos were taken at different times, rather than very obviously being the same photo just run through different filters -- left me a bit confused about the whole business and I decided that I was right not to pay much attention to it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

And yet, as noted, Depp's legal strategy was to treat her as a party to that action. His legal team barely mentioned the newspaper or the writer of the story during the trial.

I haven't followed that trial. This one I did occasionally because I am bed-ridden. It seems to me like people are now choosing whatever verdict suits them. "Oh, Amber is right, look at UK trial." or "Oh, Johnny is right, look at US trial."

I am extremely careful as I know how difficult it is to prove some things when it comes to domestic violence. But I won't negate that "makeup covers all" argument didn't sit well with me. I am still confused whether Amber claims that she was sexually assaulted or not, as her attorneys were sometimes mentioning and sometimes not. 

Amber's credibility in this trial has been shattered to pieces as she was caught lying point blank too many times. Again, that doesn't mean she wasn't abused, but it does taint all of her testimonies. Which is why it was easy for some to simply side with Depp. I understand that, not easily agreeing with it, but I understand.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I don't understand your vitriol toward her while directing none at Depp.  It seems like they were both toxic and abusive, and did sound like there was substantial evidence of physical abuse directed both ways.  Why is she the target of your disgust and not him in at least equal measure? 

I mean I watched the trial. From that it seemed like while they were in a mutually destructive relationship, it was definitely Heard who was the most destructive. 
 

Depp might have substance abuse issues, but he would often be seen to try and de escalate while Heard would come after him. She was recorded admitting to not only hitting him ‘I didn’t punch you I was HITTING you!!’ but then laughing it off and taunting him, classic abuser behaviour. Outside of just violence there were clear examples of her psychological abuse that were vindictive and done as a means of hurting and humiliating him. Depp in contrast seem to be mainly reacting to her continual taunts and abuse. 
 

Then when it comes to the accusations against Depp, those seemed pretty shaky, not just because Heard was exposed as a pathological liar ( one reason why you can’t just ignore that aspect in these cases , because what if it’s true like here) but because her evidence was so shaky. Her claims of bruises were highly contentious, that a makeup company came out and exposed her lying about using that brand was incredible.
 

Then you have all of Depps previous wives and girlfriends come out and say he was never violent or abusive ( The Kate Moss moment was a real slip up for Heard) whereas Heard was clearly abusive and violent to other people all the time, including her own sister. 
 

Then all the other stuff around Heard’s character that really exposed her as an absolutely horrible individual. Lying about donating money to charity,over and over again, the way she talks to people, sending the video to TMZ and making sure photographers were there when she left court and pretending she didn’t do any of it. She is a scum bag.

For anyone to think it was in any way an equally abusive relationship simply wasn’t paying attention to the trial at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mormont said:

No. But he is the one who brought two court cases in which he has portrayed himself as the victim.

I don't care to speculate about percentages, but as I say, even if you think he was 20% to blame, you have to conclude that this verdict is wrong.

Not technically true if you’re talking physical abuse. There are recognitions in both psychology and law of different kinds of ipv and (psych) defensive ipv and (legal) self-defence are not considered abuse. And the reported default dynamic was Ms. Heard would get violent when he spoke about leaving and/or tried to leave, which is almost textbook self-defense. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839892/

https://www.boulderdefenseattorney.com/the-blurry-line-between-self-defense-and-domestic-violence/

 

[quote]Much of the criticism of Heard in this trial misses the point spectacularly. Depp's legal strategy in both trials has been simple: rather than refute allegations about his behaviour, spend as much time as possible talking about Heard's behaviour. This is based on appealing to the stereotyped idea of abusive relationships where there is one evil abuser and one innocent victim. If Heard is the evil abuser it follows that Depp is the innocent victim. In a nutshell, that's been his defence: put Amber Heard on trial for not being the right kind of victim. It's not surprising that strategy works better on a jury than a judge.[/quote]
 

Regarding this, has it ever occurred to you for a second that he might be telling the truth? In which case, rather than being a cynical blame-the-victim ploy that exploits sexism, this would instead rather ironically be a victim being blamed for…saying he’s a victim? And he’s no saying Amber Heard is the wrong kind of victim, he’s saying she’s the abuser. Iow, your paragraph above is built upon the assumption that he abused her as fact. Where do you get this certainty from?
 

 Moreover, he has not been presenting a defence, he has actually been the plaintiff in both trials. 
 

final edit: also, as to why this verdict matters more, remember this was a defamation case, not an abuse case. Winning defamation cases is considered such a difficult task that it’s rare for one to ever get to trial and has amongst the lowest success rates. Literally every legal expert I saw review this case early on said Mr. Depp had no chance of winning because legal unicorn, and must just want to win in the court of public opinion. So the fact that he actually won on all three counts and especially that the jury asked for massive punitive damages is considered, legally, a very big deal and that the jury must have found the evidence overwhelming. 

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I think they were both abusive in ways, but I don’t think it’s equal, either the abuse or the evidence. If we had audio of him laughing about hitting her, calling her a little baby for not wanting to be hit and daring him to go public about being a male abuse victim because no one would believe him, it might be. I am certain they were both verbally and psychologically abusive. I am much less certain they were both abusive physically, and I am fairly certain she was almost always the initiator.
 

Why not?   At minimum, makeup artists testified to covering up his physical abuse of her.  The fact that he did hit her at all means he was physically abusive, so she wasn't actually defaming him.  

Quote

The overwhelming dynamic, as testified to from many witnesses on both sides, was that he would try and leave arguments* to deescalate and she would attack and pursue. In most other contexts this behaviour would be called defensive IF he ever got physical in response. Their couples therapist said she would not even let him talk in their sessions, switching to a verbal ‘jackhammer’ style of speech to talk over him and eventually he would just stop talking. That’s completely consistent with the behaviour of an abuser…as their therapist noted btw. And she would mock and demean him as lacking masculinity for always wanting to ‘run away’ from their arguments. 
 

His texts about her were terrible, and his substance abuse calls his memory into question, but…and I hate to say this because it lines up so well with all the misogynistic bullshit fucktards are spreading everywhere about this…but if the genders were reversed and he was on record exasperatedly explaining to her that he hits her but doesn’t punch her, laughing at her for complaining about being hit, daring her to go public and not be believed, dominating her in couples therapy and repeatedly chasing her down and attacking her even in front of others when she tried to leave we would be in no doubt who the primary abuser was and we would contextualize the possibility that she sometimes responded to being attacked while trying to leave very differently. 
 

* this pattern of his of avoiding fights goes back to childhood as attested to by his family and prior partners, and they all said he was never remotely abusive, including his wife of almost 20 years. 

Why would anyone, especially a woman, come forward against Depp to say anything against him given what we know about what happens when women do this?  I mean, seriously, don't you think there's a fairly skewed incentive structure to say Depp is not abusive?

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

For anyone that remotely followed the case this is obvious. Its because the abuse wasn't in equal measure, and he didn't write an article painting himself as the victim trying to ruin her career.

Nobody comes out of this well but her behavior, her lies and manipulative and sociopathic behavior are many levels above anything he did.  

He wasn't even mentioned by name.   His career was kind of going downward anyway, wasn't it?  

 

Also, to both of these comments, why does her behavior seem so much more "sociopathic" and abusive than his?  I definitely saw this as a flaming train wreck of a marriage, and my gut reaction throughout this was how much they both suck, were completely toxic and mutually abusive.  But I'm also not an expert in domestic violence, and the handful of articles I came across with input in part or whole from people who do have expertise with domestic violence to pretty uniformly explained Heard's behavior as being typical for a lot of victims, and how abuse spirals in relationships.  That domestic violence is extremely messy and not all the behaviors look rational or intuitive as to what's going on.  Many are also lamenting how this trial is further distorting the perception of domestic violence.   Unlikable and irrational people can still be victims, and likable people can still be total pieces of shit.

I'm not saying that Heard is a sole victim here, but it's hard not to read the exclusive vitriol against her as an expression of some biases at play.  It does seem very much like this is a shitty relationship between a very likable and charismatic man and a less likable and unsympathetic woman.  He did a great job of portraying himself as a victim despite having a lot more power in general than she does.  

Edited by butterbumps!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Not technically true if you’re talking physical abuse. There are recognitions in both psychology and law of different kinds of ipv and (psych) defensive ipv and (legal) self-defence are not considered abuse. And the reported default dynamic was Ms. Heard would get violent when he spoke about leaving and/or tried to leave, which is almost textbook self-defense. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839892/

https://www.boulderdefenseattorney.com/the-blurry-line-between-self-defense-and-domestic-violence/

 

[quote]Much of the criticism of Heard in this trial misses the point spectacularly. Depp's legal strategy in both trials has been simple: rather than refute allegations about his behaviour, spend as much time as possible talking about Heard's behaviour. This is based on appealing to the stereotyped idea of abusive relationships where there is one evil abuser and one innocent victim. If Heard is the evil abuser it follows that Depp is the innocent victim. In a nutshell, that's been his defence: put Amber Heard on trial for not being the right kind of victim. It's not surprising that strategy works better on a jury than a judge.[/quote]
 

Regarding this, has it ever occurred to you for a second that he might be telling the truth? In which case, rather than being a cynical blame-the-victim ploy that exploits sexism, this would instead rather ironically be a victim being blamed for…saying he’s a victim? And he’s no saying Amber Heard is the wrong kind of victim, he’s saying she’s the abuser. Iow, your paragraph above is built upon the assumption that he abused her as fact. Where do you get this certainty from?
 

 Moreover, he has not been presenting a defence, he has actually been the plaintiff in both trials. 
 

final edit: also, as to why this verdict matters more, remember this was a defamation case, not an abuse case. Winning defamation cases is considered such a difficult task that it’s rare for one to ever get to trial and has amongst the lowest success rates. Literally every legal expert I saw review this case early on said Mr. Depp had no chance of winning because legal unicorn, and must just want to win in the court of public opinion. So the fact that he actually won on all three counts and especially that the jury asked for massive punitive damages is considered, legally, a very big deal and that the jury must have found the evidence overwhelming. 

Because the English trial judge made such a finding of fact. 

His being an abuser is not incompatible with Amber Heard being an abuser and a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

Why not?   At minimum, makeup artists testified to covering up his physical abuse of her.  The fact that he did hit her at all means he was physically abusive, so she wasn't actually defaming him.  

Quote

There are also plenty of other witness statements that she didn’t have any bruises and there is certainly a lot of doubt about any of her statements regarding injuries 

 

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Why would anyone, especially a woman, come forward against Depp to say anything against him given what we know about what happens when women do this?  I mean, seriously, don't you think there's a fairly skewed incentive structure to say Depp is not abusive?

You don’t think it’s telling that so many of his past relationships came out to defend him? Why would they do that if he was a serial abuser?

 

3 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

He wasn't even mentioned by name.   His career was kind of going downward anyway, wasn't it?  

Seriously???

 

4 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Also, to both of these comments, why does her behavior seem so much more "sociopathic" and abusive than his?

Because so much of it was sociopathic, and more so than his behaviour. That became increasingly clear during the trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

You don’t think it’s telling that so many of his past relationships came out to defend him? Why would they do that if he was a serial abuser?

This would have more weight to me if we didn't just see how his army of fans treat apostates.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Consigliere said:

At least Depp has gotten some measure of justice. It's clear that Heard was the primary abuser.

Yep, anyone saying they were both as bad as each other, it's like comparing a paper cut to a broken leg. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Regarding this, has it ever occurred to you for a second that he might be telling the truth?

Yes.

I debated whether to go into this, and I think it'll be obvious why. But I'm willing to say this much: I have been in the situation Depp and his legal team claim he was in. Emotional, verbal, and physical abuse by a female partner who (almost certainly) had psychological issues that contributed to that abuse.

So going into coverage of this issue, I had no particular reason to assume Depp was lying. You could argue I had reasons to assume he was telling the truth. But having watched the man speak, I'll say this: his testimony didn't remind me of my experience. Instead, it reminded me of the things my ex would say. Because I'll tell you this: every abuser I've ever met, and unfortunately in my life I've met a few, in my relationships and in relationships of people I know: every abuser I've ever met had a story about how they were the real victim.

And that's the story I heard over these two trials from Depp. I found parts of Heard's testimony to lack credibility. I found almost all of Depp's testimony to lack credibility and frankly to give me the creeps. Not a particularly objective argument, I know. All I know is, I don't believe him. I find his claim that he 'has never hit a woman' not only hard to credit, but exactly the kind of thing an abuser says in public. I find his motivation to bring these trials in the first place dubious on many grounds: they're not going to restore his career, and he must know that. I find the way he justifies and explains away all the things he did to be unsettling. And you can argue against all of these feelings and I'm sure you'll make valid points, but you won't persuade me that Johnny Depp isn't an abusive asshole. And like many such people, he's extremely skilled at public presentation.

And yeah, that's where I get my certainty from.

52 minutes ago, Consigliere said:

At least Depp has gotten some measure of justice. It's clear that Heard was the primary abuser.

No. It isn't. At least not to me, and not to the judge in the UK trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss to understand how someone can listen to Amber berate Depp about 'not punching him but only hitting him' and somehow conclude that she is the victim.  The totality of the evidence showed to me that she was the abuser and the aggressor in the physical violence, and also that she is a liar who lied about a multitude of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Consigliere said:

Yes. It is. At least to me, and the jury in the US trial.

I don't know how anyone who had even a passing interest in the evidence, rather than an agenda, could think otherwise.

I've seen some shady people giving evidence in my life, I've never seen anyone who I thought was less trustworthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...