Depp/Heard Trial Verdict

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.

The Guardian has become an embarrassment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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'.

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

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.

Agreed.

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

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.

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.

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.