Depp wins.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp wins.:
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp wins.:
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
The talking heads can say whatever the fuck they want, their gaslighting is going to hurt them this time around. The entire thing was televised. A shitload of people saw at least the highlights, of which there were many.
I suspect Ms Heard did more damage to the #MeToo cause than any other human being to date. It was a runaway trolley before she laid down in front of it. God bless her dark, dishonest heart.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp wins.:
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
The talking heads can say whatever the fuck they want, their gaslighting is going to hurt them this time around. The entire thing was televised. A shitload of people saw at least the highlights, of which there were many.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp wins.:
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp wins.:
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
The talking heads can say whatever the fuck they want, their gaslighting is going to hurt them this time around. The entire thing was televised. A shitload of people saw at least the highlights, of which there were many.
And it wasn't the intellectual elite. It was a lot of average Americans who got to enjoy the idiocy.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp wins.:
@Horace said in Depp wins.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp wins.:
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp wins.:
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
The talking heads can say whatever the fuck they want, their gaslighting is going to hurt them this time around. The entire thing was televised. A shitload of people saw at least the highlights, of which there were many.
I suspect Ms Heard did more damage to the #MeToo cause than any other human being to date. It was a runaway trolley before she laid down in front of it. God bless her dark, dishonest heart.
Low-hanging fruit. This sort of thing was bound to happen at some point, and soon.
Public opinion was firmly on Depp's side after seeing the hearing, but I don't think anybody was entirely confident the verdict would be like this. Maybe it would have been similar no matter the jury. One can hope.
@Horace said in Depp wins.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp wins.:
@Horace said in Depp wins.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp wins.:
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp wins.:
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
The talking heads can say whatever the fuck they want, their gaslighting is going to hurt them this time around. The entire thing was televised. A shitload of people saw at least the highlights, of which there were many.
I suspect Ms Heard did more damage to the #MeToo cause than any other human being to date. It was a runaway trolley before she laid down in front of it. God bless her dark, dishonest heart.
Low-hanging fruit. This sort of thing was bound to happen at some point, and soon.
Public opinion was firmly on Depp's side after seeing the hearing, but I don't think anybody was entirely confident the verdict would be like this. Maybe it would have been similar no matter the jury. One can hope.
The case was tried in Fairfax, a very blue area. Reports by lawyers who sat in on the case suggested the jury found Heard to be every bit as ridiculous as the rest of us, pretty much from the get.
Gives me hope.
Please love yourself.
-
I've often seen justifications for lawyers doing their thing in a courtroom, even for clients they know are guilty or are lying, by saying everybody deserves the best representation, regardless of the underlying reality. Which I understand and can get behind. But then in cases like this, these same lawyers are giving press conferences after the verdict expounding on how right or wrong morally the verdict was. Should that sort of thing be taken in the same light, just lawyers doing their jobs? Are they expected to method act their whole life, playing the part of believing their clients and presenting their case?
Education is extremely important.
-
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp wins.:
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
The message here is “if you’re bat shit crazy and a little evil you shouldn’t start public wars of reputation agains your exes”.
But the bat shit crazy slightly evil folks out there will never absorb it.
“Don’t make me repeat myself”
- history
-
I've often seen justifications for lawyers doing their thing in a courtroom, even for clients they know are guilty or are lying, by saying everybody deserves the best representation, regardless of the underlying reality. Which I understand and can get behind. But then in cases like this, these same lawyers are giving press conferences after the verdict expounding on how right or wrong morally the verdict was. Should that sort of thing be taken in the same light, just lawyers doing their jobs? Are they expected to method act their whole life, playing the part of believing their clients and presenting their case?
@Horace said in Depp wins.:
Are they expected to method act their whole life, playing the part of believing their clients and presenting their case?
It's a mixed bag. Lawyers have expenses like everybody else. You could speculate that lawyers who milk the ridiculous on the courthouse steps can doff that hat and be a real lawyer for a worthwhile criminal case later.
It's like, if they find themselves caught up in a circus, complete with clowns, they may as well preen for the cameras. If they're any kind of ethical, they can always drown their sorrows in expensive scotch later.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp wins.:
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
The message here is “if you’re bat shit crazy and a little evil you shouldn’t start public wars of reputation agains your exes”.
But the bat shit crazy slightly evil folks out there will never absorb it.
@jon-nyc said in Depp wins.:
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp wins.:
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
The message here is “if you’re bat shit crazy and a little evil you shouldn’t start public wars of reputation agains your exes”.
But the bat shit crazy slightly evil folks out there will never absorb it.
That inability to absorb is the very essence of the bat shit crazy individual’s absurd existential existence.
-
@Horace said in Depp wins.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp wins.:
@Horace said in Depp wins.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp wins.:
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp wins.:
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
The talking heads can say whatever the fuck they want, their gaslighting is going to hurt them this time around. The entire thing was televised. A shitload of people saw at least the highlights, of which there were many.
I suspect Ms Heard did more damage to the #MeToo cause than any other human being to date. It was a runaway trolley before she laid down in front of it. God bless her dark, dishonest heart.
Low-hanging fruit. This sort of thing was bound to happen at some point, and soon.
Public opinion was firmly on Depp's side after seeing the hearing, but I don't think anybody was entirely confident the verdict would be like this. Maybe it would have been similar no matter the jury. One can hope.
The case was tried in Fairfax, a very blue area. Reports by lawyers who sat in on the case suggested the jury found Heard to be every bit as ridiculous as the rest of us, pretty much from the get.
Gives me hope.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp wins.:
The case was tried in Fairfax, a very blue area.
The last time I was in that judicial building it was to testify (my only time ever) during a buddy's custody hearings against his absolute psycho wife. His wife's lawyer kept trying to frame it as if I didn't really know their family by asking me things like "So you knew them in 2016? How many times did you see them that year? What was your first time that year hanging out? Oh you can't recall the specific instance?" and shit like that for the years 2017, 2018, too. Eventually I replied from the stand with "I mean, you saw movies in 2017 but do you remember the first movie you saw in 2017?" to which the judge asked me not to question the council.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp wins.:
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
The message here is “if you’re bat shit crazy and a little evil you shouldn’t start public wars of reputation agains your exes”.
But the bat shit crazy slightly evil folks out there will never absorb it.
@jon-nyc said in Depp wins.:
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp wins.:
And I’ve already heard three talking heads say how this is going to scare woman from speaking out in the future…
The message here is “if you’re bat shit crazy and a little evil you shouldn’t start public wars of reputation agains your exes”.
But the bat shit crazy slightly evil folks out there will never absorb it.
QFT
-
Interesting op-ed on why Depp lost his case in the UK but mostly prevailed in the US.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/
Prior to reading this article, I was not even aware that Depp sued in UK, that a UK court found evidence to support 12 instances of calling Depp a "wife beater," yet in the US, the jury found none.
-
Interesting op-ed on why Depp lost his case in the UK but mostly prevailed in the US.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/
Prior to reading this article, I was not even aware that Depp sued in UK, that a UK court found evidence to support 12 instances of calling Depp a "wife beater," yet in the US, the jury found none.
@Axtremus I've read that much of the evidence brought in the US was not admitted in the UK. Secondly, most of the accusations about being a "wife-beater", if not all, came from Heard. Later, the judge commented that he did not find her testimony credible. Some of the things she said in the UK she denied in the US and vice-versa.
So was she lying then, or...
As to his being a wife-beater, he's been married twice. His first wife never made the accusation. Kate Moss never made the accusation. The woman with whom he shares two children and had a relationship with for 14 years never made the accusation.
So, he has a 25 year history of relationships with women, and only this one is to be believed. This one, who was arrested in LAX for attacking her partner. Yeah, that one.
Also, remember that Depp sued Heard, not the WaPo. It was up to him to prove defamation with malice. Her suit was a countersuit regarding what his former attorney said about her, presumably acting as his agent.
-
More on why he lost in the UK.
She (Attorney Emily Baker) said one of the possible reasons was the judge in the U.K. deemed Heard's testimony that she had donated the entire amount of her divorce settlement from Depp to charity to be absolutely true — something that was proven to be false in the U.S. trial.
She never donated money to the LA Children's Hospital or the ACLU despite what she claimed on Dutch TV. After their divorce in 2017 she said she donated the settlement ($7M) to these charities. She didn't. She pledged it. Total donations were about $200K. Much of that paid by Depp.
-
That op ed would actually have qualified as courageous, if it was plausible that Heard had considered the possibility that she could be held liable in court for her righteous claims of victimhood. But of course, she didn't. She was very sure the culture had her back. This was at the height of #MeToo, and she confused the sheer terror of the public of question a woman's accusations, with the attitude a court might have towards those same claims.
-
I looked at some videos of the trial.
I found the questions of the lawyers to be rather odd. Maybe somebody with more insight into legal strategy can enlighten me. The majority of the questions, especially from JDs lawyers to AH, were pretty useless as questions. For instance, when they listened to a recording, they'd ask her "Did X say Y in the recording?". Or "Was there a newspaper article with title X on day Y?". So the point seemed to be to just point out or emphasize some evidence, rather than actually getting information from the witness.
Why do the lawyers do that?
-
I looked at some videos of the trial.
I found the questions of the lawyers to be rather odd. Maybe somebody with more insight into legal strategy can enlighten me. The majority of the questions, especially from JDs lawyers to AH, were pretty useless as questions. For instance, when they listened to a recording, they'd ask her "Did X say Y in the recording?". Or "Was there a newspaper article with title X on day Y?". So the point seemed to be to just point out or emphasize some evidence, rather than actually getting information from the witness.
Why do the lawyers do that?
@Klaus said in Depp wins.:
Why do the lawyers do that?
Somebody who's been there and done that might have a better answer, but I'd guess that what you saw is the lawyer nailing something down unmistakably for his closing argument, as well as highlighting it for the jury.
-
I looked at some videos of the trial.
I found the questions of the lawyers to be rather odd. Maybe somebody with more insight into legal strategy can enlighten me. The majority of the questions, especially from JDs lawyers to AH, were pretty useless as questions. For instance, when they listened to a recording, they'd ask her "Did X say Y in the recording?". Or "Was there a newspaper article with title X on day Y?". So the point seemed to be to just point out or emphasize some evidence, rather than actually getting information from the witness.
Why do the lawyers do that?
@Klaus said in Depp wins.:
Why do the lawyers do that?
It is said that while in court a lawyer should never ask any question to which he does not already know the answer. A lawyer asks questions in court not to “get information” but to convince the judge or jury of something.
-
@Klaus said in Depp wins.:
Why do the lawyers do that?
It is said that while in court a lawyer should never ask any question to which he does not already know the answer. A lawyer asks questions in court not to “get information” but to convince the judge or jury of something.
@Axtremus said in Depp wins.:
@Klaus said in Depp wins.:
Why do the lawyers do that?
It is said that while in court a lawyer should never ask any question to which he does not already know the answer. A lawyer asks questions in court not to “get information” but to convince the judge or jury of something.
An attorney is not working for "the court". He is working for his/her client.
Each side has a chance to determine what is accurate information. If the opposing side objects, they can let the judge decide.
Ultimately, it is the job of the jury to decide the validity of the evidence presented. They are given very strict instructions as to what they can, and can not, evaluate.
In a jury trial, the judge just serves as the arbiter as to what can and can not be presented in evidence. If either side disagrees, that's a matter of appealing the verdict.
