-
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.
Johnny Depp v Amber Heard's defamation trial is underway [UPDATE: Verdict reached. Johnny Depp won.]
- Thread starter WinFonda
- Start date
- Status
I am not a legal expert but I think that that any legal mechanism that protects such individuals only applies to people whose disabilities significantly impede or limit their life's activities. For Amber Heard's team to try to make that defense they would have to prove that her capabilities are significantly lessened because of the diagnosis which would be hard to do considering that:
a) they deny, or at least discredit, the Dr. Curry diagnosis and allege she an entirely different disorder
b) if they weren't denying a) they'd have to prove that Amber Heard's life has been significantly impeded in some form while she is a movie actress and has a very public-facing socialite/celebrity life.
c) trying to justify why Amber Heard believes her lies would require that they admit a lot of her allegations are lies would destroy her case more more than her cross examination did
I think it's not applicable to this case.
Last edited:
TBF they have to take the time to decide on the foreperson then go through each question in the jury instructions for both the claim and the counter-claim. They are also probably going through evidence to support their decisions. Probably rewatching and listening to the audio and videos which are not short in any way. So expecting any verdict today was a fantasy unless you expected them to go in, decide the foreperson in the first 5 minutes and go through ALL the jury instructions in an hour and a half. Its pretty unrealistic and even people who think JH has a high chance of winning didn't expect a verdict today.
Edit: You have to also remember that none of them have been allowed to talk about the case with each other until they start deliberating. And with the last six weeks there is a lot to discuss, even if they are checking the temperature of the room. If I was a betting man, all they did today was probably decide on the foreperson and checked how each of the seven jurors feel about the cases currently.
Last edited:
They do go home. What I've really been curious about is how and if members of the jury have been keeping themselves from seeing the (social) media circus around this trial, per instruction.
Certainly avoiding the internet entirely for 6 weeks is a good way to do it because I don't think this trial has been that big on 24/7 cable news and such (though I don't watch that).
But it's hard to miss if you even just dip your toes on really any social media platform. And the pro-Depp momentum there can really work both ways, especially as Heard's team has tried to argue that she's also a victim of significant online derision and abuse.
Eh... I really doubt that all Jury members ignore social media or the news. I'm sure some do but given how pervasive social media and interconnected our devices are and how many notifications we get all the time... I don't buy it that most people don't check the news or talk to someone about it anymore than I believe that witnesses don't do it as well. For example, Amber Heard complained about the barrage of insults and threats being sent her way online, or something to that extent, and that's basically her admitting that she did check on what people were saying about her.
I don't think that rule is taken too seriously because it's almost impossible to enforce it unless the Jury and witnesses were sequestered after each session.
All the online articles are defensive of heard
I assume most people read those instead of tiktok memes. Unsure if anyone is talking about this on social media because its sure not a convo in my circles
You weren't kidding.
I can't even remember what sort of bullshit Rottenborn said that I thought might persuade some on the jury. What a fucking disaster.
You lost me here Camille
"And Zendaya [...] is in every single Spider-Man movie"
She isn't in Spider-Man 1, 2, 3, and The Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2
Team Amber lost the chance, they could have used this easy objection smh
"And Zendaya [...] is in every single Spider-Man movie"
She isn't in Spider-Man 1, 2, 3, and The Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2
Team Amber lost the chance, they could have used this easy objection smh
While I wouldn't have expected them to come back today at all, I honestly think a shorter deliberation would be less positive for Depp?
I mean, this is just how my brain is processing it, so I could be totally wrong lol, but I'd think if it's quick, it means they don't buy his story so they're going to dismiss his claim and get it over with, maybe deliberate to see if they think Heard gets anything for her counterclaim.
If they deliberate longer, they're actually thinking about "can this pass the high bar for defamation", the law behind it, what, if anything, Depp should get, and then moving on to see if they think Heard gets anything as well, etc.
So…while I'd usually see a quick deliberation being a good thing for the Plaintiff/crown/state, in this case, I think a fast turnaround would be less positive.
I mean, this is just how my brain is processing it, so I could be totally wrong lol, but I'd think if it's quick, it means they don't buy his story so they're going to dismiss his claim and get it over with, maybe deliberate to see if they think Heard gets anything for her counterclaim.
If they deliberate longer, they're actually thinking about "can this pass the high bar for defamation", the law behind it, what, if anything, Depp should get, and then moving on to see if they think Heard gets anything as well, etc.
So…while I'd usually see a quick deliberation being a good thing for the Plaintiff/crown/state, in this case, I think a fast turnaround would be less positive.
There's also the fact that they have weeks of testimonies, tons of material entered into evidence and a lot of it is not organized by dates. I imagine that putting all the testimonies and evidence in an orderly manner in order to get a better picture of the timeline of events and evidence related to each incident would take far more than two hours and then there is also answering the questions presented to them which all have different standards and rules which they are, most likely, not trained to recognize.
Even if they mostly agreed or believed in either side, they still have a lot of work to do. If this were a criminal case, I think it could have been decided today because the evidence is quite overwhelming but because it isn't and because the bar Depp's team needed to reach is much higher for them to win the case, it's not surprising that it will take considerably longer for them to reach a verdict.
Yeah, basically! I mean, you definitely see lots of clear cut cases (civil, criminal, etc) come back quickly because one side is overwhelmingly obvious. But in this case, there is a lot to untangle, even if you're leaning one way or another, because even though it's defamation at its core (and by law lol), a lot of it hinges on domestic abuse, he said/she said, and various other things. It's kind of a mess, no matter which way you cut it.
And then the general high bar to defamation in general, especially of a public figure—it should take a while.
I'm still not expecting Depp to win with how difficult more knowledgeable people keep saying it is to win a case like this, but the defamation feels like half the reason Depp's doing this. Not even half maybe, it was getting all this out in the public. The media and some others can ignore everything to keep arguing their biases and harmful, dogmatic and egotistical views on abuse, but anyone informed knows what's up and it's very easy to debunk the bullshit because the only weapon they have is ignorance. So he's already got a win. It'll feel unjust if he loses just because of all the lies spewed by Heard and her side, it feels bad to see that get a win, but I don't think that'll sway the needle of public opinion. People seem to be on Johnny's side from my experience. The only people I've seen not on Johnny's side is when you guys post it in here honestly.
Why were they dispensed and why are people saying they were pro Johnny? How would people even know
They start the jury with 9 jurors, but 2 are randomly alternates, meaning they are dispensed after closing and 7 remain to deliberate.
As for people thinking about the jurors sides, that's just guesswork from lawtube people and some are more reliable than others. I actually think in light of what Chanley says, and it would be more telling during a closing, it might actually be a good thing they got let go.
Body language. Some of the people in the gallery have been watch the jury's body language throughout the trial. Ultimately it doesn't mean anything but it's interesting to note.
Emily D. Baker starts explaining how she changed her opinion about JD chances of winning the trial
"after seem 6 weeks of this trial I understand why they chose to take this to trial and I see that JD has a potential to win and that is a huge win I think for them because that wasn't where I was at the beginning of this case"
She says that the chances are small, but he has a chance, something she never considered possible at the beginning
"after seem 6 weeks of this trial I understand why they chose to take this to trial and I see that JD has a potential to win and that is a huge win I think for them because that wasn't where I was at the beginning of this case"
She says that the chances are small, but he has a chance, something she never considered possible at the beginning
🤣 I imagine your being sarcastic but for anyone reading Jereziah's post DO NOT DO THIS you will not have a good time. Even if you get away with it once or twice they will get you< in the USA>, jury duty and taxes do not mess with them. I'm in healthcare and so I get to postpone dt legitimate work reasons but they still just cycle me back a few months and find my ass.
Last edited:
At the very least call and explain why you can't show. Don't lie.
Last time I had jury duty I told them that I was living in a paycheck-to-paycheck household and could not afford to miss any days of work as I was an hourly employee.
They let me off without attending.
So with all these blatant lies and contradictions Amber has made under oath. What are the chances she actually faces legal consequences for this stuff?
Like she contradicts her own lies meaning under oath atleast one of her statements must be a lie. Yet if feels like there's no actual consequences for lying.
Between pledging/donating money, saying the op-ed is not about him and then that it is, all the claims of abuse that have been disproven etc. Her sister lying for her and having people to disprove that too. Does Amber just get away with this? Like regardless of the jury decision in this trial. Surely there has to be consequences for lying under oath?
Like she contradicts her own lies meaning under oath atleast one of her statements must be a lie. Yet if feels like there's no actual consequences for lying.
Between pledging/donating money, saying the op-ed is not about him and then that it is, all the claims of abuse that have been disproven etc. Her sister lying for her and having people to disprove that too. Does Amber just get away with this? Like regardless of the jury decision in this trial. Surely there has to be consequences for lying under oath?
Proving perjury is even more difficult than proving defecation.
She only has to say:
I misremembered.
I was feeling emotional and attacked.
At the time I thought it was true.
You literally need evidence of the person saying "I'm totally going to lie" to prove it.
It's not worth the time or resources so it's rarely pursued.
I still see Depp struggling to win anything. Sure, he was constantly verbally and phyiscally abused by his wife behind the scenes, but I suspect that to garner any real sympathy in the mainstream media, and in the eyes of all of the jurors, those texts need to not exist. Despite all the evidence that he was abused, and despite there being no evidence he fought back with anything other than words (and most of those seem to be venting frustrations to other people), he wasn't the perfect victim. When you're worth the money he is, when you're perceived to have near infinite power and the ability to change your life however you please, that's enough for people to continue to dismiss his case.
At the very least the case was fought in public, so people willing to do the research can learn just how vile a person Amber Heard was.
At the very least the case was fought in public, so people willing to do the research can learn just how vile a person Amber Heard was.
I'm not sure if that typo is on purpose or not but regardless defamation is extremely tough to win in the USA. Not that it matters but imo depp has won because his name has been cleared at least publically, he brought the horrible receipts to prove amber heard is the bona fide domestic abuser not Depp and has given those that identify as male a little nudge that it's ok to speak up.
Last edited:
Lol. Yes that was a bad auto-correct.
And the clear something up. It doesn't matter if Amber Heard wrote the article, or if she wrote the article to hurt Johnny.
She has to have written the article knowing what she was saying is a lie. And much like perjury, you basically have to have her admit it or have a huge amount evidence that she knew she was lying.
Every so often someone I follow will RT a Michael Hobbes tweet where he exasperatedly exclaims that he's going mad based on how "Depp stans" don't believe or understand the basic facts.
Meanwhile I'm there feeling I'm in backwards land but in the opposite direction.
The thing I don't get is that the evidence they point to is Amber's testimony. And okay, that's fine. We need to believe the claims of women claiming abuse. I did 5 years ago or whenever the stories first started coming out.
But why do people do doggedly DENY Johnny's testimony?
I'm just taking testimony versus testimony. WHY is that the case?
Then they point to drugs and drink.
And conveniently ignore every proven lie, some to the point of perjury.
I've seen people point to how unrealistic it would be for Heard to concoct this story, ergo the simpler explanation is the truth… I might understand that point if she didn't keep messing up her lies.
Meanwhile I'm there feeling I'm in backwards land but in the opposite direction.
The thing I don't get is that the evidence they point to is Amber's testimony. And okay, that's fine. We need to believe the claims of women claiming abuse. I did 5 years ago or whenever the stories first started coming out.
But why do people do doggedly DENY Johnny's testimony?
I'm just taking testimony versus testimony. WHY is that the case?
Then they point to drugs and drink.
And conveniently ignore every proven lie, some to the point of perjury.
I've seen people point to how unrealistic it would be for Heard to concoct this story, ergo the simpler explanation is the truth… I might understand that point if she didn't keep messing up her lies.
Last edited:
It's quite telling that on her final visit to the stand she chose to lie yet again. Not in repeating her past stories, but by creating an entirely new and irrelevant one. The claim that she hadn't, unlike Depp been sitting in the court laughing and making snide remarks came moments after she had been doing exactly that, and everyone could see it. It even continued into today. Yet here we are, supposed to hang on her every word.
This isn't a zero sum thing either.
Johnny did fucked up shit. His texts in particular are reprehensible. But they're not a excuse for abuse, and they're not examples of him abusing her.
People will point to a text he sent to a friend, a disgusting text to be sure, and be like "SEE! HOW COULD YOU BELIEVE THIS ABUSER?"
But they'll outright ignore the audio of Amber taunting him. They'll ignore the audio of her admitting to hitting him, of him wanting to get away from that. It just boggles my mind!
Like fucking hell I'm not defending the fucked up shit he has done - I'm on his side in this trial because of what has been shown and what I believe based on that.
It's messing with my head - either way I can't wait for this to be over.
Johnny did fucked up shit. His texts in particular are reprehensible. But they're not a excuse for abuse, and they're not examples of him abusing her.
People will point to a text he sent to a friend, a disgusting text to be sure, and be like "SEE! HOW COULD YOU BELIEVE THIS ABUSER?"
But they'll outright ignore the audio of Amber taunting him. They'll ignore the audio of her admitting to hitting him, of him wanting to get away from that. It just boggles my mind!
Like fucking hell I'm not defending the fucked up shit he has done - I'm on his side in this trial because of what has been shown and what I believe based on that.
It's messing with my head - either way I can't wait for this to be over.
It's just that this trial kind of opened my eyes to what I went through, or rather maybe validated my feelings, I really want to talk about it, but my experience is that of emotional and mental abuse rather than a violent one, I still don't even know how to open up or approach the subject, I'm still hesistant that if I ever talk about it people might be dismisive, I've never went into the details with others just maybe a couple of incidents, but I really don't know.
Good medium piece.
medium.com
Johnny Depp and The Tragedy Of Male Abuse Victims
If our culture is impervious to the idea of male abuse victims, then that culture needs to change.
medium.com
Would you feel that it's fair that it would take the jury less than 2 hours to deliberate on that? Because I wouldn't. They are taking this seriously, and I say this regardless of the result of the trial. And this is a good thing. It's a real trial with movie stars, not a movie.
Maybe it's good because it means the same for AH, they aren't all in support of her either.
JD needs a unanimous decision to win this afaik
So the longer this goes probably the harder it is for him to win, that's my feeling
The masses support him but most progressive spaces/communities have a lot of Amber supporters/Depp antis or are entirely made up out of them as has been the case for years, along with incredibly biased progressive media, professionals, and content creators/streamers spreading misinformation that people searching for confirmation bias for Heard regurgitate as if they have higher reasoning skills.
The jury I was on took around 4 hours and that was a much, much clearer case with only a 5 day trial. It takes time to go back through evidence and make sure you didn't misunderstand anything. I definitely wouldn't rule anything out even though I do think JD has a fairly low chance of winning, unfortunately. I do feel better about his chances after the closing arguments today though.
Most Jurys for complicated cases take days or weeks to decide.
Well a few options, a very close friend you trust you can talk to. There are abuse hotlines that you can speak with, there is also therapist or in your area see if there are groups that are either gender neutral dv, IVP or SV to talk with.
You can probably DM one of the other members here who opened up about their experiences too. I'm sure they will listen.
So, considering that it has to be unanimous in favour of Depp for him to win, would that mean that the Jury would walk in to deliberate and say "Right anyone going for heard and not changing their mind?", and if so would they then just declare not guilty and walk away? I don't know how this works but I would have thought that taking time was good because it implies they are going into it deeper, possibly looking at amounts and the level of Heard's culpability etc.
I mean, a part of me feels bad for her lawyers in the sense that I genuinely believe they spent a very long 6 weeks doing their absolute best to defend someone who lied about the most heinous of things. If you felt, even for a second, that Elaine or anyone on that team had a moment to just be a human instead of a lawyer, and think on one second about the implications of what they did, you might be emotional at that.
That being said, they performed an extraordinarily important function in the justice system, I believe they did their best, and they have nothing to be ashamed of. Everyone should be allowed their day in court. I realize this is speculative as to why she was crying, but in any event my feeling remains the same.
That being said, they performed an extraordinarily important function in the justice system, I believe they did their best, and they have nothing to be ashamed of. Everyone should be allowed their day in court. I realize this is speculative as to why she was crying, but in any event my feeling remains the same.
- Status