except he isn't a rando and will have an even larger voice in the community since he's part of GB now
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
- Status
except he isn't a rando and will have an even larger voice in the community since he's part of GB now
A ton of credible, unbiased witnesses contradicted AH or align with JD's version of events.
Her own witnesses at least partly contradicted AH (including her own sister).
Evidence such as medical bills and photographs overwhelmingly supported JD's version of events
Therefore:
The Jury system worked. People were able to focus on all the above facts and unanimously said AH is a liar who defamed JD. Doesn't mean she's evil, just that she did break that law. No more. No less.
It can be reasonably concluded that:
1. AH has harmed the #metoo movement, and thus women as a whole. Yikes. Really bad thing to do, you know? With great fame comes great responsibility. How do you live down something like this? I don't see how, honestly. If you're selfish, it's best to delve deeper in the lie and keep claiming injustice, Sydney Powell-style.
2. Anyone who denies #1 above is guilty of harmful irresponsibility and spreading of fake news at the very least. You do not get to not watch the trial and then say that a unanimous jury reached the wrong conclusion without extraordinary evidence. To make such claims, you must first show us a video of Depp pointing a gun at the Jury during deliberations, or some equally stunning and game-changing evidence.
3. If your favorite celebrity/pundit is guilty of #2, you should just take it on the chin. Either forgive them or unfollow them but what they did is the definition of showing one's ass. Nobody forced them to be harmful and spread fake news, as well as defending a lying, defaming AH because of ...reasons. Your own credibility and judgement will be in question if you cut them slack, And rightly so.
Her own witnesses at least partly contradicted AH (including her own sister).
Evidence such as medical bills and photographs overwhelmingly supported JD's version of events
Therefore:
The Jury system worked. People were able to focus on all the above facts and unanimously said AH is a liar who defamed JD. Doesn't mean she's evil, just that she did break that law. No more. No less.
It can be reasonably concluded that:
1. AH has harmed the #metoo movement, and thus women as a whole. Yikes. Really bad thing to do, you know? With great fame comes great responsibility. How do you live down something like this? I don't see how, honestly. If you're selfish, it's best to delve deeper in the lie and keep claiming injustice, Sydney Powell-style.
2. Anyone who denies #1 above is guilty of harmful irresponsibility and spreading of fake news at the very least. You do not get to not watch the trial and then say that a unanimous jury reached the wrong conclusion without extraordinary evidence. To make such claims, you must first show us a video of Depp pointing a gun at the Jury during deliberations, or some equally stunning and game-changing evidence.
3. If your favorite celebrity/pundit is guilty of #2, you should just take it on the chin. Either forgive them or unfollow them but what they did is the definition of showing one's ass. Nobody forced them to be harmful and spread fake news, as well as defending a lying, defaming AH because of ...reasons. Your own credibility and judgement will be in question if you cut them slack, And rightly so.
That's really awesome. No doubt she has earned it after 10 years of service and especially with this case.camille became a partner at brown rudnick :)
Brown Rudnick Elects Camille Vasquez to Partnership
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF., June 7, 2022 – Brown Rudnick is pleased to announce that Camille Vasquez has been elevated to partner. Vasquez joined Brownbrownrudnick.com
Still isn't a news source and the thread has had enough derails from random people with their opinions, hey im just tapping the sign at the bottom of the thread here, i aint enforcing anything
Just so that I'm not just claiming things out of thin air and to make sure that people can make up their own mind about what they actually said:
I heard this in episode 195 (season 1) of the Some More News podcast. It's more than halway into the episode if I'm not misremembering.
Yeah I saw the tweet with their podcast when it came out, but also I had seen some of the tweets Cody had been liking/retweeting before that.
Just listened to the latest podcast and jeez.
I'm going to write up some cliff notes for anybody else interested but they have a whole discussion on the latest Some More News podcast. I think context is important so if anybody is interested, the conversation begins at 40:05 here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...-no-sense-george/id1364825229?i=1000565152408 (Adding direct link to the episode).
- (41:28) Questioning why the trial was in Virginia, claiming it's because the Anti-SLAPP laws there only need to be heard by a jury, not a judge (Implying the trial was just to silence Amber Heard, since that's what SLAPP suits are designed to do)
- (42:21) Referencing The Sun trial, misunderstanding the ruling, suggesting the UK Trial proves he abused Heard "He lost that suit, because that was in front of a judge. Because he did (abuse her), as was proved in this trial that we all watched"
- (42:47) Cody says the reaction was "expected", then subsequently says he didn't pay much attention to the trial "for the first few weeks of it.", then says he's lately been reviewing ambiguous "details and quotes", and that they're "full of liars". "Blatant misrepresentations of what was actually said and revealed".
- (43:45) Saying that the trial was about dragging her through the mud because she wasn't a perfect victim. Misunderstanding the one claim Amber Heard won and Cody saying "If she's awarded damages because his lawyer called her accusations a hoax, that means that it wasn't a hoax, which means it's accurate" and Katy saying "Because the question here was whether or not she was defaming him. By not naming him."
- (44:30) Dave implying that there was obviously some kind of juror misconduct and not sequestering the jury was a mistake because the fervor against Heard on the internet must have swayed the jury and the jury must not have known what they were doing, evidenced by awarding Johnny Depp anything if they awarded Amber anything.
- (45:34) Katy: "I specifically did not want to consume any of this trial". Additional suggestions by Cody that Johnny Depp wanted this to be public because he was going to win the trial on the back of his own charisma, or something?
- (47:26) Katy suggesting this damages MeToo because it will silence victims, because "you can just be accused of defamation".
Couldn't really bear to listen to more of it.
- (42:21) Referencing The Sun trial, misunderstanding the ruling, suggesting the UK Trial proves he abused Heard "He lost that suit, because that was in front of a judge. Because he did (abuse her), as was proved in this trial that we all watched"
- (42:47) Cody says the reaction was "expected", then subsequently says he didn't pay much attention to the trial "for the first few weeks of it.", then says he's lately been reviewing ambiguous "details and quotes", and that they're "full of liars". "Blatant misrepresentations of what was actually said and revealed".
- (43:45) Saying that the trial was about dragging her through the mud because she wasn't a perfect victim. Misunderstanding the one claim Amber Heard won and Cody saying "If she's awarded damages because his lawyer called her accusations a hoax, that means that it wasn't a hoax, which means it's accurate" and Katy saying "Because the question here was whether or not she was defaming him. By not naming him."
- (44:30) Dave implying that there was obviously some kind of juror misconduct and not sequestering the jury was a mistake because the fervor against Heard on the internet must have swayed the jury and the jury must not have known what they were doing, evidenced by awarding Johnny Depp anything if they awarded Amber anything.
- (45:34) Katy: "I specifically did not want to consume any of this trial". Additional suggestions by Cody that Johnny Depp wanted this to be public because he was going to win the trial on the back of his own charisma, or something?
- (47:26) Katy suggesting this damages MeToo because it will silence victims, because "you can just be accused of defamation".
Couldn't really bear to listen to more of it.
I get this is an extremely emotional trial and nobody is going to be 100% on point, but listening to them and other content creators I follow speak with such conviction about topics they openly admit they didn't follow is just so intellectually dishonest. If this post is against the thread guidelines I'll gladly delete it, I was just particularly disappointed in Cody/Katy's take and needed to vent I guess.
Last edited:
If anything ever comes of the various perjury investigations/Adam Waldman's hinting about future action and revelations regarding Amber, what the fallout will be in the media as Amber's credibility continues to dwindle.
The ACLU has updated their ambassadors and she remains on the website, so that's one org that seem's invested in shielding her/themselves from their consequences.
Interested in the tone Ben Chew takes in his interview tomorrow, the Depp team has all the reason to wind down and not escalate to sniping back and forth like Elain and Co.
Winner's can rest- for now, Johnny still has a ways to go in reclaiming his name/status but this was the first domino.
The ACLU has updated their ambassadors and she remains on the website, so that's one org that seem's invested in shielding her/themselves from their consequences.
Interested in the tone Ben Chew takes in his interview tomorrow, the Depp team has all the reason to wind down and not escalate to sniping back and forth like Elain and Co.
Winner's can rest- for now, Johnny still has a ways to go in reclaiming his name/status but this was the first domino.
people being 'proud' of not knowing anything about it, issuing 'definitive' takes, and then proclaiming 'also i'm done talking about this don't @ me' really dredges up memories of losing all of the mutual friends i had with my abuser when i finally left them. i wasn't going to speak up about what had happened publicly on fucking facebook but i know she did and none of them ever talked to me again. no one ever reached out to ask me what was up, her words were all it took.
the whole thing sucks
the whole thing sucks
Yeah back to full disinformation, misinterpretation and fake news spreading. The usual at this point.
My favorite is "THEY AGREED IT WASNT A HOAX !!" no they did the exact opposite of that, denied her counter claim where it was called a hoax ....
Yeah... honestly offensive and outright shocking the stuff I'm seeing out there. Had to drop a few friends over this exact rhetoric and defense of Heard.
Oops, beat by Firmus_Anguis.
I'm happy for Depp and I think that he is a victim of abuse that has found justice through this jury's verdict. He thanking his fans saying that they are moving forward together is a good thing, but in light of the bad actors trying to co-opt what a victory to Depp means to the women victims of abuse and abuse in general, I hope it won't take long for him to publicly speak about this and call it bullshit, even with so many op-eds still attacking him out there. I understand that Depp is not savvy with social media so I'd expect him addressing that with an interview, but still. Do the right thing, Mr. Captain.
Meanwhile…
If only more people called out how Amber Heard uses not just the #MeToo movement but feminism as an weapon to attack Johnny Depp, that would also be a good thing. No Ms. Heard, it isn't an abused victim finding justice that is setting things backwards to victims of abuse. It's you and those willing to die on this hill. Appeal in court, smear each other via social media, I don't really care. But stop fear mongering and weaponizing victims of abuse to privilege anyone other than yourself.
I'm happy for Depp and I think that he is a victim of abuse that has found justice through this jury's verdict. He thanking his fans saying that they are moving forward together is a good thing, but in light of the bad actors trying to co-opt what a victory to Depp means to the women victims of abuse and abuse in general, I hope it won't take long for him to publicly speak about this and call it bullshit, even with so many op-eds still attacking him out there. I understand that Depp is not savvy with social media so I'd expect him addressing that with an interview, but still. Do the right thing, Mr. Captain.
Meanwhile…
If only more people called out how Amber Heard uses not just the #MeToo movement but feminism as an weapon to attack Johnny Depp, that would also be a good thing. No Ms. Heard, it isn't an abused victim finding justice that is setting things backwards to victims of abuse. It's you and those willing to die on this hill. Appeal in court, smear each other via social media, I don't really care. But stop fear mongering and weaponizing victims of abuse to privilege anyone other than yourself.
Last edited:
they are really clinging to heard winning that $2M without understanding what it actually was for lmao
They wear their ignorance as a badge of honor. Which, again, is so frigging weird for a group of people that typically pride themselves on doing extensive and detailed research on most topics. I just don't understand why, in this case, they refuse to do even a tiny bit of research.
A million thanks for this writeup.
A common theme here, and with people I talk to is exactly what you call out---they openly admit to not paying attention. Then when I called a friend out on it, they said they didn't watch because it was "a gross media circus." What's a nice way of telling people to not comment on shit they are openly admittant to being ignorant of? But anyway, yeah. The writeup here echoes so closely with people I know.
They wear it as a badge because they think they're above the gossip and circus, as they call it, and they are better than others for not feeding into it. Of course, this makes it hard for them to be swayed from their initial belief of Depp's guilt.
And then on the UK trial if you find issue with the evidence the judge considered/his rulings and or point out the nature of the trial as against the Magazine and being a ruling of probabilities with less weight than what the Virginia trial entailed; you're hit with "that's just technicalities," appeals to the authority of the judge in a manner they never would do otherwise as judges are known not to be infallible arbiters of reality/the courts in general (along with the magazine being The Sun which had a man not been found at fault, would have definitely been hyper-focused on by anyone in the Heard camp), and then outright attacks on the jury system and the juries lack of "expertise" and "training."
There's no way to win as their minds were already made and they'll just reverse any statement and if disproved, hold strong or equivocate.
User Banned (Permanent): Trolling over a series of post. History of similar behavior.
The jury was wrong and Amber Heard is clearly a victim of abuse. In fact, the jury itself tacitly admits that in their defamation finding against Depp's lawyer: it was in their view defamatory to say a call to the police was 'a hoax, a fake'. Well, if it's defamatory to say a domestic abuse call is 'fake' then what else can be said about it?
Recordings of Depp
Recordings of Depp
What was it for?
Don't know if this was posted, but the ACLU can go fuck themselves for even trying, so I hope Johnny wins this too.
I hope they get nothing at all.
I hope they get nothing at all.
The defamatory part was the lawyer accusing Heard and her friends of conspiring to "rough up" the penthouse and call the police back a second time.
The police didn't observe any damage.
It was because of the implication her friends conspired. The other two hoax claims were not found defamatory
around and around we go. The defamation finding against Depp has nothing to do with whether he abused her. His lawyer said they created a hoax by trashing the place between two police calls.
"Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops but the first attempt didn't do the trick. The officers came to the penthouse, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911."
You are disgusting and reported. Don't engage further, people.
The ruling was related to paragraph 2, where Depp's former lawyer went into detail about the alleged scenario of what Heard and her friends did.
Paragraphs 1 and 3, which called the incident a hoax, were not ruled in favor of Heard.
Agreed. I had a smartass response, saw this was their first post in here, and backspaced. Not worth my time for a troll.
This is the defamatory statement:
Her friends are not the subject of this statement.
Case in point of not following the trial yet coming in to speak on it...
No, that is one of the two statements (out of three) found to NOT be defamatory.
Seriously, if you have evidence that the jury found anything with her 'friends' creating a hoax being defamatory, show it now. The jury clearly specifically said the claim that Amber Heard created an abuse hoax is defamatory.
Nope, you're right. The article I referenced was wrong.
They were literally different counts. If you need evidence, read the jury form yourself: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circu...f-memo-obj-mot-rev-verdict-form-5-31-2022.pdf
Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial verdict live update: Jury sides with Depp in libel lawsuit, Heard on counterclaim | abc7.com
A jury sided with Johnny Depp in his libel lawsuit against Amber Heard. They also found in favor of Heard, who said she was defamed by Depp's lawyer.
abc7.com
Maybe learn to read?
There are three statements by Waldman that were at issue in her counterclaim. The one she won on was the statement that referred to a conspiracy with her friends to stage the scene on May 21st 2016. Evidence of this exists, but it wasn't strong enough, so she won.
The other two statements refer to her general claims of being abused by Depp. She lost on those.
Hmm so now do you still believe this?
Did... Did you just respond to yourself?
Royalan, can we get this person banned already? This is just too much.
Misrepresenting the verdict/evidence and also shitting up the thread.
I admit I haven't been following this story much, but I just listened to the NYT's "The Daily" Podcast about this case and it seemed very pro-Amber and pro-"believe the accuser".
But most people in here seems to be 100% team Johnny. I'm just wondering where that contrast in opinion comes from.
I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be a jury member on this case. Ooof.
But most people in here seems to be 100% team Johnny. I'm just wondering where that contrast in opinion comes from.
I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be a jury member on this case. Ooof.
I really don't want to over simplify it. But it really seems like the difference is a lot of us in the thread watched the trial, while critics of the result overwhelmingly didn't.
Y'all, you don't have to @ us.
Give me heart palpations when y'all do this...
I see.
So are people just judging guilt or innocence based on gut instinct after watching both Amber and Johnny's mannerisms?
Or was there compelling evidence for Johnny that's just not getting reported in the news?
I'm guessing the asshole has more than one account and forgot to switch...?
Over 2000 posts, man... And that's the hill they chose to nuke their account on.
This really is the key difference. I've not spoken with anyone pro amber that actually watched the trial. Lots of us came in pro amber but watching the trial it was clear she mislead and even fabricated evidence in support of her claims, she was the abuser.
Sorry...! 😅
I panicked, just wanted to stop the derail, my bad! (I reported him too)
- Status