I assume (I could be way off) they referencing this article (Posted on the bottom of the previous page).
Last edited:
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Nope not really.
I don’t think it quite says what the poster I replied to thinks it does, but I have to say, that article is a load of shit
I'm sure we could both easily find one from the MAGA side about owning Feminazis and Libtards and all the woke people etc so I don't think its really an accurate representation of all "Pro Heard/ Anti Depp" people, just the lunatic fringe.
Disclaimer: I haven't followed this and I know nothing about defamation laws.
How common is it for victims of domestic violence to have proof of it? Could a victim talk about it publicly years later, something like "I know I have no proof but my ex-husband, this hollywood hot shot hit me in the past". How does this work, could the man sue her?
In legal terms, is there a line somewhere? Or you either have proof or you better keep quiet because you can be sued?
Again, not about this case, just in general.
How common is it for victims of domestic violence to have proof of it? Could a victim talk about it publicly years later, something like "I know I have no proof but my ex-husband, this hollywood hot shot hit me in the past". How does this work, could the man sue her?
In legal terms, is there a line somewhere? Or you either have proof or you better keep quiet because you can be sued?
Again, not about this case, just in general.
To be fair it is a good read if you subscribe to the notion that the majority of people were influenced by social media rather than the evidence presented. (I personally believe a portion were but that Heards own actions were enough to sour public opinion without any help from social media)
Also the "Even if people say they watched the trial, they didn't" part. I don't even have a TikTok (Or whatever you crazy kids are calling it these days).
You have litigation privilege when filing with the courts.
You don't have the right to say it in an international news paper without backing it up if its contentious.
In the US you do have anti-SLAPP protections where the suing party have to make a prima facie case in a pre trial hearing early on to protect the victim from harassment if its frivolous. Obviously not the case with Depp v Heard.
I hate the predictable argument from a certain political perspective within the media that has simply declared this loss for Amber Heard is a blow to for every female victim and that Depp's victory is a win for misogyny.
Someone very close to me was been a victim of a pretty awful crime, I take a very dim view of domestic violence and sexual crimes against women, but that doesn't mean the courts and media should automatically side with every accuser. False accusers should always be called out and punished.
Someone very close to me was been a victim of a pretty awful crime, I take a very dim view of domestic violence and sexual crimes against women, but that doesn't mean the courts and media should automatically side with every accuser. False accusers should always be called out and punished.
OK, so removing the "famous people" factor, let's say someone decides to produce a documentary about victims of domestic violence and a bunch of people give their testimonies. Could they be sued if they don't provide proof for what they say in that documentary?
If they don't mention their husband's name and not many people know them then there won't be damages. If they are named it would depend if its a fact statement or opinion. If its a fact statement it would be per se defamatory if untrue, so would be a risk of suit if unable to be proven by 51% - at least to my understanding.
Depp v Heard is fairly unique in that she intentionally didn't use his name but referred to her public allegation against Depp which the broader public would know to be him.
...and that men can, and are victims of abuse too.
So she's obviously appealing. It'll be interesting to see what grounds her useless team use.
If a woman doesn't mention the ex-husband's name but it's a small town and everyone know who he is, can he sue her in that case?
I suppose I'm trying to understand, in a case where a victim has no proof, what can or can't they say in public. Because the idea of causing damage seems a bit vague. In my example of the small town, the accused man can say his reputation in the community is ruined because of the woman's claims, no?
BBC says, "But unless new evidence or testimony emerges in the aftermath of this blockbuster six-week courtroom drama, little looks likely to affect Wednesday's outcome."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61668781
Would there be no witnesses to the damage? No photos that can be authenticated, No medical records, no police reports etc etc.
Would there be no evidence of family members telling them to leave the man, rather than encouraging them to work out any problems?
He would have to prove that he has a case the pre-trial hearing which she can fight him on. Then he would have to disprove the claims in court.
Depp won because Heard is a proven liar and there is a ton of public record of her not showing any injuries the day after he was alleged to have beaten her unconscious across a number of different alleged incidents. This is incredibly unusual.
The Guardian have been on a blast as expected.
No matter how bad and endemic sexual abuse is, every case has to be judged in its merits.
No matter how bad and endemic sexual abuse is, every case has to be judged in its merits.
Where is @shamans? Is he doing a glaston on us?
Seems like it
I don't use any of twitter, tik-tok, instagram. I don't even have a personal facebook account anymore, hand on heart.
I also honestly don't give a shit about Depp, I don't even like his type of movies so that's not why I sided against Heard.
The main reason Heard lost isn't some social media campaign, it's certainly not misogyny nor is it bots driving some campaign. Anyone who watched this trial as the jury did distrusted everything Heard said because of her unbelievable and constant lying. She got caught in so many lies that you simply couldn't believe a word she said. She lost this trial on her own, Depp didn't need any external help.
her line about " "Tell the world, Johnny, tell them, Johnny Depp, I, Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence and how many people will believe you " will stay with me for a long time.
Its clear from this trial that Depp is far from a saint and his issues, but I find it hard to find redeeming qualities in Amber Heard.
Last edited:
So the jury just followed the case on Tiktok I suppose? Or were they on Twitter?
She claimed to have lots of evidence that for some unknown reason had failed to be submitted by her lawyers so we'll soon find out. If she doesn't appeal we'll know that was another lie.
Weird as he claimed to be balanced in his views
Honestly, there was probably a basic to Amber's stories but she kept playing 'Damsel in distress' card for far too long. Every man woman and their dog could tell it 100% was not the case here. If she had surrendered to some induspted facts, jury would have given her enough benefit of the doubt but this woman was so stuborn. It was the main reason she had lost all her credibility long before the verdict.
This trial is really an one off and AH has only herself to blame. Everyone should watch it and make your own conclusion instead of reading headline.
This trial is really an one off and AH has only herself to blame. Everyone should watch it and make your own conclusion instead of reading headline.
I feel like this saga is missing a final post by Shamann.
Drainy vs. Shamann was the real fight all along.
Drainy vs. Shamann was the real fight all along.
Yup, I'm completely the same, Amber Heard represents the quintessential abuser, she just happens to be a female, which makes certain groups of people uneasy as they see women as some sort of higher being for some weird reason.
This case has just highlighted the fact women can be just as vile as men, and they don't like it.
The amount of times I saw "both as bad as each other" in this thread (I don't really do social media, just here) was quite alarming when all the evidence in this trial, and even the evidence that wasn't showed due to the deal they had where they wouldn't include 3rd parties pointed to the main abuser being Heard.
Imagine if Greenwood came out and said his partner was equally abusive to him, then having male activists saying they're both as bad as each other even though the audio clearly points to Greenwood being the aggressor just because the girl did drugs?
Even the bbc getting in on the act https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
As they seem to suggest we should probably go ahead and abolish trial by jury. Much better to leave it all in the hands of a single judge, even better if they have vested interests.
As they seem to suggest we should probably go ahead and abolish trial by jury. Much better to leave it all in the hands of a single judge, even better if they have vested interests.
Hardly passes the smell test, but i guess it's possible.
From what I remember on one of the days she alluded to giving everything to her lawyers but not all of it was submitted as evidence.
So the lawyers fecked up? Won't be surprised given how incompetent they looked, but we'll see if that's the case. Must be a reason not to put forward something if it was that clearly implicating Depp.
good for him. She was full of shit.
I see a lot of comments in mainstream media, that this is a setback for the MeToo movement. That's really unfortunate. It basically encourages a view that only the woman can be a victim, or that the woman is always right.
I'm glad Johnny Depp won. He is not angel, by any means, but on the other hand you can't just throw accusations of domestic abuse into the public sphere without being able to back it up or at least seem credible.
I'm glad Johnny Depp won. He is not angel, by any means, but on the other hand you can't just throw accusations of domestic abuse into the public sphere without being able to back it up or at least seem credible.
You should just accept that a judge in England, viewing probably slightly different evidence, didn’t come to the same conclusion as a jury in Virginia. This whole ‘vested interest’ thing just seems like a lazy get-out clause so you can ignore the result you didn’t want to happen.
Obviously not, and you're missing the point.
Whoever wrote that BBC article is tacitly suggesting only one trial is valid, the one ruled on by 1 man, and the one decided by a jury of 7 peers is essentially worthless. Because they came to a conclusion that the author didn't like.
And there's obviously a feck ton wrong with this line of thinking not least because the two trials are not in any way comparable, for reasons other than who judged them.
I don’t think that article is particularly good but the writer may well have a point that juries react differently to emotional triggers than judges. I also don’t think the article suggests that one viewpoint is ‘worthless’ but maybe it implies it.
I was responding to the vested interests part of your post- I couldn’t, and still can’t, see the relevance of that unless you’re trying to imply that the UK verdict is somehow less valid because of it.
The judge only had to determine if The Sun did their due diligence in getting corroboration on her claims, not whether they were true. I'll post what I posted earlier again:
Very interesting article by a Virginia lawyer about the case, including the UK case. The judge only had to determine if the paper did their due diligence to confirm the allegations, not whether they were completely true or not, for example. The location is tactical too, he could have sued her in the UK.
“As such, these two trials are about COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in all legal senses.
You see, Johnny Depp was suing a NEWSPAPER, and a newspaper is not REQUIRED to get everything right as a general rule when it comes to defamation trials. Instead, newspapers are generally safe, so long as they don’t do one of two things:
Purposefully get facts wrong that damages someone’s reputation [called “actual malice”], or
Not exercise due diligence in investigating whether the things they report are false [called “knew or should have known it to be false”].
So, when the judge in the UK was deciding if the various allegations were “substantially true,” what the UK judge was doing was seeing whether the newspaper was liable. The judge was also not determining anything like “75% of the abuse allegations are true, adding up to substantial truth” (more on that below). Instead, the point was to see if the Sun had good reason to believe that Johnny Depp was a “wife beater.”
And based on what Amber Heard had publicly stated, the Sun (without commenting on the general standards of that newspaper or the truthfulness of the allegations) had “good reason” to believe that Johnny Depp was a “wife beater.” Why? Because his ex-wife was throwing SERIOUS HINTS that he was a “wife beater” when they published the story. Amber Heard testified in that trial because she was A WITNESS, not because she was a defendant.
The judgement in the UK wasn’t making claims about whether Johnny’s alleged abuse of Amber Heard ACTUALLY did or did not happen. Instead, the question before the judge was whether the Sun had good reason to think so. And no matter what your opinion of Amber Heard or Johnny Depp is, Amber Heard is THE PERFECT person to serve as a witness to the alleged abuse by Johnny Depp.
Unless, of course…. ….she’s totally lying.”
https://jcalebjones.com/2022/05/17/the-johnny-depp-trial-explained-by-a-virginia-lawyer/
I fully understand that, I was responding to the suggestion of vested interests by the judge.
Also, although I take your point about the responsibility of The Sun to get it right not being absolute, here’s a quote from the judge:
“I have found that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard”. So he DOES make a judgement on it, no?
Can you explain why it isn't?
This is the first I heard of this but it seems mad to me the judge is the father of someone who works for the party that's involved in the case.
I'd have been asking for a new judge.
Articles like this concern me, especially when it comes from the Beeb who - despite my frequent moaning - are still the most balanced mainstream source in the UK.
It concerns me for a couple of reasons. The first is that, like the two Guardian Opinion articles I read this morning - Depp is still being called an abuser, the court case was a sham because the jury were influenced not by evidence but by online chatter, and Amber is 100% the victim in all of this because the evidence doesn't prove anything. By questioning due process and the integrity of the court systems you start setting a dangerous precedent for future as well as feed into the growing narrative nowadays of "guilty until proven innocent, at which point you're still guilty."
The second reason why it concerns me is because it fuels the fires of conflict between people even further. Online trolls, incels, misogynists, general pieces of shit, will use this news coverage as ammo to recruit more dipshits into their ranks. I couldn't give a shit about placating these people - feck them, they're bigoted cnuts - but helping them build their ranks further by sending out the message to fence sitters that "you'll never be believed because of nasty feminists/wimmin/liberals/people who wash" is a unintentional but near guaranteed result of these kinds of articles.
Last edited:
I, like many other people I gather, and independent of what was being said on social media, increasingly thought that Amber Heard was dishonest, toxic and simply not credible as the trial progressed. I know a few people who sadly have been the victims of domestic violence, who thought that she was utterly untrustworthy.
If Depp donates at least sizeable chunk of the damages awarded to him to the same charities to which Heard has failed to meet her pledges, that would really be powerful and probably make her look even worse.
If Depp donates at least sizeable chunk of the damages awarded to him to the same charities to which Heard has failed to meet her pledges, that would really be powerful and probably make her look even worse.