Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Depp/Heard Trial Verdict

12345679»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,938 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    I think most right thinking people know who the abuser and abused were in this case. This is a long overdue high profile victory for domestic abuse against men which can take many forms from psychological to physical. Hopefully it encourages more men to come forward and challenge abusers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    I hate it when the Dailymail is on point...

    Not because I disagree with the point made, on this occassion. But more that... well, it's the Daily Mail.




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yeah, that’s spot on. Pretty much my take on it.

    It’s not that domestic physical abuse doesn’t happen all too often against women (although a too close older generation relation of mine used to physically abuse her truck driving husband - I know, sounds ridiculous) it doesn’t mean abuse claims have to be accepted without question. All too few abuse victims fear to come forward, Heard hasn’t helped that. That’s her real sin.

    Domestic abuse happens all too often, some physical and others mental. Both are heinous.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    Oh, I know plenty of men who were abused by women. One or two were put in hospital on certain occassions. (Wife hit the husband on the head with a wine bottle, which broke and put him hospital for a week. He's a relative).

    Another was a handyman who left the wife after a number of years. I've seen one lesbian couple where one was an abusive, alcoholic person, who physically and mentally tortured her girlfriend. It culminated one night when the abusive one punched her girlfriend so hard, she literally fell on the ground, and her eye was swollen shut. (I'm not pointing this out as anti-lgbt stuff. I'm pointing this out as women being abusers). A very disturbing individual.

    I've met many, many lgbt couples. Many who I hope went on to get married, or will in the future. Both gay and lesbian. This was a rare occurrence.

    Edit: The handyman who left his wife did so because she was abusive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    Unfortunately I think that some people believe that everything the Daily Mail writes is lies and the it only caters to right wing views. I think the trial is terrible for highlighting spousal abuse by wifes as the husband doesnt seem to be believed by alot of people even after winning the case.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,859 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    The Guardian, perhaps no surprise, has another "opinion piece" on the trial today - "The US defamation trial has shown us how ‘transparency’ in court translates, which is into a festival of misogyny". They had another article a day or 2 ago pushing this "misogyny" angle.

    Most people I've talked to, that watched any of the case, saw who lied, and who deserved a win.


    Heard didn't set back women. She set back liars.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭Stephen_Maturin


    Not really - take a look at the articles in the Irish times and the Irish examiner today. All taking her side and saying she’s the victim.

    Perhaps unsurprising. These publications think women have a monopoly on victimhood



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,844 ✭✭✭py2006


    Are there really some Amber supporters, even now??

    Having said that I've come across narcissistic personality disorders in my time, particularly in the work place. They do manage to draw in certain people who can't see through them. They often worship the ground the walk on. That's why they do really well in terms of promotion and have the confidence to go for higher level jobs etc. They can turn on the charm and fool a lot of people.



  • Registered Users Posts: 604 ✭✭✭a_squirrelman


    Jesus, that is the biggest circle-jerking group ever. 🤢🤢🤢 I nearly commented but they look like the sort to dox so I chickened out. 😂



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,337 ✭✭✭Wombatman


    The more I look at it, I can't see how Heard's 3 alleged defamatory statements were deemed to be false. If a statement is true or substantially true it can't be defamatory right? Depp is a 'wife beater' - see UK ruling.

    “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”

    “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”

    “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”

    Not sure these types of disputes are best decided by juries. Can laypeople ever truly appreciate or understand the law enough, in these areas, to make a fair judgement. I prefer the way it was done in the UK where a judge rules and justifies the ruling.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    What's the legal definition of a 'wife beater'? And is it the same definition in the US?

    When was domestic abuse proven in the US?

    What evidence did she give that she had a 'rare vantage point of seeing (in any time) how institutions protect men accused of abuse.' The Jury ruled, I think, she was referring to Johnny Depp here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭donaghs



    Behind all the verbiage, the Guardian seems to be taking a findamentalist/dogmatic “woman can’t be abusive to men” approach to this.

    One good thing which came out of this case was to show publicly that women can be abusive in relationships, and challenge those taboos and stereotypes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Except the UK ruling did not determine Depp is a wife beater. It determined the Sun was not accountable for the claims Heard made.

    I thought it was also well known at this point that the judge was heavily bias towards the defendant.

    You may have proven your own point that the layperson does not really understand enough but it's up to the lawyers of each side and the judge to show the jury what the law is and how it's applied in each case.


    Edit to add: this is why Heard and her legal team committing perjury is such a problem.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭donaghs


    Also, the UK judge rejected Heard’s “characterisation” as a “gold-digger” saying that “her donation of the $ 7 million to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-digger”.

    But of course the donation was never made. And maybe it takes a proper trial to tease things out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Depp had the right lawers alright. Lawyers who were able to prove Heard told lies during the trial.

    If Heard didn't tell any lies, she wouldn't have been caught telling any lies.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,337 ✭✭✭Wombatman


    Depp lost his libel case against the Sun newspaper over an article that called him a "wife beater".

    Judge Mr Justice Nicol said the Sun had proved what was in the article to be "substantially true".

    He found 12 of the 14 alleged incidents of domestic violence had occurred.

    How is the appeal going I wonder?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,337 ✭✭✭Wombatman


    I'm fully expecting so random boards poster, without access to all the facts put before the UK judge, to say they know better than the British legal system. In fact it has probably happened already.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,952 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    We’re the same “facts” not just used in this trial though?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,493 ✭✭✭EltonJohn69


    Different evidentiary rules in the US and UK. Also the UK judge attached a lot of weight to Heard’s testimony, in particular the part about her donating the 7 million divorce settlement to charity. She was subsequently found to have lied about this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,952 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Don’t come in here with your facts! That will upset some people 🤣



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    maybe if the trial was anyway close, but this one was about as clear cut as it gets. I think if you have a jury that is anyway impartial he wins 100/100. Its not the jury who gets to the "truth" they make a decision on the facts as presented. what "luck" do you think he was the beneficiary of?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Did he really? Is that why a criminal case was then launched?

    No, both cases were defamation cases. By definition, the only thing the UK trial could find was if the Sun was liable for Heard's comments, which they based their article on.

    The judge has since retired and there was no appeal because of the US case made much more sense. There has since been talk of an appeal, and additonal perjury cases against Heard in Australia and possibly the UK.



    Some were the same, some were different depending on what was required for the different countries. For example, in the UK trial, many of the witnesses were not brought forward, that then spoke in the US



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    I'd a conversation with a yank relative on WhatsApp last night. She can't see why Amber Heard lost her case because.......according to her..........Johnny abused Amber.

    I pointed out all the lies that Heard told but she wouldn't have any of it. Heard was right and Depp was wrong and that's all there is to it. She didn't care one bit that Heard told lies. She didn't even deny that Heard told lies. It was like trying to explain something to a dog. Although a dog might have caught on eventually.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    Dogs are definitely more intelligent than dogmatic people. Far more willing to adapt and change.

    I have to wonder how many journalists 'genuinely believe Heard's story. Like 100 percent, no doubt in their mind.

    Or is it like the 'wokerati' that we found were just projecting to hide their own stuff? We've seen, time and time again, these people didn't believe any of what they were preaching. They just thought it would make them money...which it didn't. Much of the people who 'proclaim' to be part of a movement, are doing so to give themselves power.

    Really, they've got more negative views than your average Klan member, it's just they hide it behind supposed 'progression'.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    Nice breakdown of the whys the jury ruled against Heard.

    The Lawyer notes how, in a previous case where the 'people believed a woman's lies', we ended up with the murder of Emmett Till, a 14 year old African-America teenager, in 1955. And the woman at the center of that case only admitted to lying in 2017.

    https://medium.com/@natalie.whittingham/the-jury-had-no-choice-but-to-rule-against-amber-heard-6e5a71cec2d8



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭gimli2112


    he could have got the wrong jury, there's enough people still supporting her to see this could happen



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,202 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,202 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    TBH i think its going to prevent male victims coming forth just as much ....Depp had to humiliate himself and hang his dirty laundry out to get this done.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,202 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    I think that is slightly ...blind.


    He is 'an imperfect victim' as they say. What human IS perfect?


    The truth is in order to do this Depp like a LOT of victims both male and female had to air out their dirty laundry and then some.


    But you have to remember a part of why he was behaving like this ...was because he was being abused. SHE CUT HIS FINGER OFF.


    He lost his mother he had financial concerns and a wife who was a nasty piece of work. I think 99% of us would be hitting the bottle hard in that situation.


    I think people fail to realize that Ambers Abuse was not on the mild end of the spectrum at all ....


    Yes he is no angel. He never claimed to be. He just claimed not to be a wife beater.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,151 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    You always have to remember that is nearly impossible to reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    How was it luck, he didn't get the "wrong" jury?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭gimli2112


    if he had gotten a bad jury it would have been bad luck, it's not outside the realms of possibility he could have lost with enough eejits on the jury



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Aren't juries selected in the US?

    The attorneys involved essentially keep/remove those submitted to the jury. So, any kind of "bad" jury would be because the Attorneys F'd up. Depps Attorneys looked far too clued in to allow that to happen. And that's without even considering the whole area of Jury selection consultants.

    As for losing because of eejits on the jury, the jury are responsible for determining the facts of the case, so, the onus would be on the attorneys to provide the relevant evidence, which is what the jury would be basing their views on. But sure, considering that a civil case is just 6 jurors, you could get a group of muppets, although it still comes back to jury selection and the attorneys decisions.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Oh, it appears that Heard is broke, and can't pay Depp, or even her own attorneys for past services. She was using her insurance to cover the costs during the case, and apparently, the policies of the insurance prevent pay outs when lies are involved. Nobody seems to know where the money for the pledges have gone either... all the while, she was supposedly living the life of a top movie star. Hmm...

    Looks like she's in a really bad way. Oh, dear. I guess I'm a bad person, because I feel she deserves it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭gimli2112


    I think (and this is based totally on the movies) that the lawyers get a certain number of challenges. I'm also unsure how big the selection pool is. The legal teams are probably quite adept at jury selection but I doubt it's anywhere near infallible. With a case like this which is so polarizing it's probably even more difficult to get an unbiased jury.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,938 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    She decided she was going to bet the farm on fleecing Depp.

    Hard to have much sympathy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    In this case, every member of the jury would have to be biased. If even one member was against Depp, he would have lost the case. It wasn't a majority rules ruling, it had to be unanimous.

    The nice thing about this case is that it was televised and so even if the unlikely case that somehow the entire jury were obviously bias, it would have been picked up on. But really, all you have to do is watch it to know they made the only right call. Heard made some ridiculously jawdropping (quite literally) mistruths that were shown up over and over. I'm genuinely at a loss as to why this could be so polarising when it's a such a clear cut case.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


     I'm genuinely at a loss as to why this could be so polarising when it's a such a clear cut case.

    Because people want to hold on tightly to their outrage/anger/whatever. The facts don't matter to them, although the media aren't helping by encouraging the victimhood attitudes.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    It's funny how the mainstream media promote this 'people just hate strong women' argument, yet ignored how twitter, and the internet, were congratulating Camille Vasquez after she got a promotion for her excellent work in this trial.

    For those who don't know, she made partner at the legal firm where she works-having previously been an associate. She should be celebrated by the mainstream as a strong woman.

    Yet that wouldn't be beneficial. Feel good stuff rarely is.



Advertisement