[News] Depp Vs Heard

[NooBHA]

I have always thought Depp was an arrogant wally. His “too cool for school” attitude grates on me. He did nothing to dispel that image in court. Sneering and giggling his way through the trial.

Mediocre talent too. I can’t think of one great film he’s been in?

As you say, not a good result for women in DV relationships.

And perhaps a timely reminder that Depp lost a similar case against the Sun in the U.K. where they claimed he was a bully and a wife beater and the judge ruled their description to be “largely accurate”.

I think the jury in this trial had 7 jurors and I think 4 or 5 of them were apparently relatively younger men.

Says a lot about how the decision was derived at maybe ?

 

[The Clamp]

I think the jury in this trial had 7 jurors and I think 4 or 5 of them were apparently relatively younger men.

Says a lot about how the decision was derived at maybe ?

Could well be a factor. A real shame this played out on the public stage. Very unusual for a DV trial .
Look at the U.K. court case, not televised, barely anyone knows it even took place let’s alone that Depp was ruled against.

 

[Weststander]

I think the jury in this trial had 7 jurors and I think 4 or 5 of them were apparently relatively younger men.

Says a lot about how the decision was derived at maybe ?

Equally, females can be very biased against the female. Depp has a vast mainly female following, including my daughter!

Heard was onto a loser in the court of social media from day one. Quite possibly affecting the jury, almost impossible in this case for the jurors to 100% swerve years of incessant gossip/conjecture.

 

[Bodian]

Terrible Ruling for women currently in Domestic Violent Relationships.

Every time I watched the news on this story. I always felt I was watching an acting performance from both of them.

Doesn't bode well if we are judging acting performances as opposed to the reality of the situation.

This is really difficult though isn't it. I didn't follow it, or watch any of it - but in legal terms; the court has reached it's decision - which is basically that she wasn't a victim of domestic violence. So why would it a bad decision for those who are in that situation?

It's a bit like saying after a murder trial where the accused was found to be not guilty that it was a 'terrible ruling for potential murder victims' - but if the accused was actually innocent it's the correct decision. That is - how can it be a terrible ruling if what was alleged didn't actually happen?

It's only a terrible decision if the court was wrong, and that she was indeed a victim of domestic violence? In which case, she may well appeal.

All very difficult and emotional.

 

[B-right-on]

The whole thing is an excellent argument for not letting cameras into a trial like this.

The world certainly seems to have made up its mind about the pair of them. Everyone is suddenly an expert.

I agree that it looks like a toxic relationship, I hope they can both move on. More so though, I hope that everyone else can move on from judging them both and calling them names (lets face it this is mainly her).

I totally disagree. By allowing the cameras inside, people can look at the evidence and decide for themselves on the basis of the evidence and not have to listen to the biased media (such and the Gauardian article today written by a woman who herself is being sued for defamation by someone who was accused of rape on a newsletter she ran so is hardly unbiased). If I just read and decided on the Guardian article, JD should be stoned. HAving listened to the evidece, there was zero evidence of him abusing her and plenty of evidence off her abusing him. He had a dozen independant witnesses backing him up. She had one, her sister.

 

[B-right-on]

I have always thought Depp was an arrogant wally. His “too cool for school” attitude grates on me. He did nothing to dispel that image in court. Sneering and giggling his way through the trial.

Mediocre talent too. I can’t think of one great film he’s been in?

As you say, not a good result for women in DV relationships.

And perhaps a timely reminder that Depp lost a similar case against the Sun in the U.K. where they claimed he was a bully and a wife beater and the judge ruled their description to be “largely accurate”.

By your own admission, you dislike JD. I think that is clouding your judgement on this.

As for the UK case, it was not JD vs AH but JD vs The Sun and basically The Sun said 'we printed what she said' which was enough to kick it out of Court as he was not levally (unbelievably) allowed to prove that it was not true. So the 'substantially true' was based solely on AH testimoney. The Sun has lawyers who are expert in fighting this kind of thing having being sued many many times.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I totally disagree. By allowing the cameras inside, people can look at the evidence and decide for themselves on the basis of the evidence and not have to listen to the biased media (such and the Gauardian article today written by a woman who herself is being sued for defamation by someone who was accused of rape on a newsletter she ran so is hardly unbiased). If I just read and decided on the Guardian article, JD should be stoned. HAving listened to the evidece, there was zero evidence of him abusing her and plenty of evidence off her abusing him. He had a dozen independant witnesses backing him up. She had one, her sister.

It would appear from the evidence he often was!

 

[B-right-on]

It would appear from the evidence he often was!

 

[Acker79]

[tweet]1532115409889026048[/tweet]

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

This is really difficult though isn't it. I didn't follow it, or watch any of it - but in legal terms; the court has reached it's decision - which is basically that she wasn't a victim of domestic violence. So why would it a bad decision for those who are in that situation?

It's a bit like saying after a murder trial where the accused was found to be not guilty that it was a 'terrible ruling for potential murder victims' - but if the accused was actually innocent it's the correct decision. That is - how can it be a terrible ruling if what was alleged didn't actually happen?

It's only a terrible decision if the court was wrong, and that she was indeed a victim of domestic violence? In which case, she may well appeal.

All very difficult and emotional.

Perhaps the part that is terrible for victims of domestic violence is the fact that this was played out in public and with people online making judgements when they don’t know the full facts and context. I would imagine that to be quite isolating.

I totally disagree. By allowing the cameras inside, people can look at the evidence and decide for themselves on the basis of the evidence and not have to listen to the biased media (such and the Gauardian article today written by a woman who herself is being sued for defamation by someone who was accused of rape on a newsletter she ran so is hardly unbiased). If I just read and decided on the Guardian article, JD should be stoned. HAving listened to the evidece, there was zero evidence of him abusing her and plenty of evidence off her abusing him. He had a dozen independant witnesses backing him up. She had one, her sister.

Why should people get the opportunity to ‘look at the evidence and decide for themselves ?’ It is nothing to do with ‘people.’ It is Depp and Heard’s lives and the only views that matter in a court case are those of the judge and jury.

 

[B-right-on]

Why should people get the opportunity to ‘look at the evidence and decide for themselves ?’ It is nothing to do with ‘people.’ It is Depp and Heard’s lives and the only views that matter in a court case are those of the judge and jury.

Because JD was hung drawn and quartered by the 'Media' and had his name and reputation slaughtered, losing his job (got several films cancelled on him). The Couirt of Public Opinion found him guilty in the past. Aided by biased and sensationalistic media. If the original accusations weren't splashed all over the internet and printed press, I'd agree. However it wasnt and therefore this trial gave him the opportunity to clear his name.

At the end of the day, it was the choice of both to have it in the public eye. They have that right.

 

[beorhthelm]

Why should people get the opportunity to ‘look at the evidence and decide for themselves ?’ It is nothing to do with ‘people.’ It is Depp and Heard’s lives and the only views that matter in a court case are those of the judge and jury.

as its a libel case (which many watchers seem to have ignored), its about reputation and therefore all about "people" and their perceptions of those involved.

 

[BadFish]

I totally disagree. By allowing the cameras inside, people can look at the evidence and decide for themselves on the basis of the evidence and not have to listen to the biased media (such and the Gauardian article today written by a woman who herself is being sued for defamation by someone who was accused of rape on a newsletter she ran so is hardly unbiased). If I just read and decided on the Guardian article, JD should be stoned. HAving listened to the evidece, there was zero evidence of him abusing her and plenty of evidence off her abusing him. He had a dozen independant witnesses backing him up. She had one, her sister.

A couple of thing spring to mind here:

1. All power to you if you have sat and listened to all the evidence firsthand and not relied on second-hand commentary. I don't believe that this is what most people have done. It seems to me most people have listened to edited snippets on social media to make up their minds. It also occurs to me that the justice system is designed to let 12 people do that job for us. We are represented in the courtroom by those people and they are making a decision on our behalf.

2, I don't see why it is any of our business. Why are so many people compelled to pass judgment on these two individuals in the first place? You don't need to answer that question. I am clearly in a minority here. The age of social media I suppose. Everyone has to pick a 'team' and all shades of grey and nuance are forgotten. What A horrible situation these two went through and then they had to share it with millions around the world via cameras in the courtroom. You are never going to persuade me that this is okay . . . especially when the only real reason for it is so people with no role to play in the case can pass judgement on them.

 

[BadFish]

Because JD was hung drawn and quartered by the 'Media' and had his name and reputation slaughtered, losing his job (got several films cancelled on him). The Couirt of Public Opinion found him guilty in the past. Aided by biased and sensationalistic media. If the original accusations weren't splashed all over the internet and printed press, I'd agree. However it wasnt and therefore this trial gave him the opportunity to clear his name.

At the end of the day, it was the choice of both to have it in the public eye. They have that right.[/QUOTE]

So they chose to have cameras and broadcast the trial around the world?

f that is true then I retract my statement and shake my head even more at the madness.

Although I still don't understand why anyone feels the need to sit in judgement on them. But like I say clearly in a minority on this one

 

[Questions]

I didn’t know much about amber before….::: god she’s lovely though isn’t she

 

[The Clamp]

A couple of thing spring to mind here:

1. All power to you if you have sat and listened to all the evidence firsthand and not relied on second-hand commentary. I don't believe that this is what most people have done. It seems to me most people have listened to edited snippets on social media to make up their minds. It also occurs to me that the justice system is designed to let 12 people do that job for us. We are represented in the courtroom by those people and they are making a decision on our behalf.

2, I don't see why it is any of our business. Why are so many people compelled to pass judgment on these two individuals in the first place? You don't need to answer that question. I am clearly in a minority here. The age of social media I suppose. Everyone has to pick a 'team' and all shades of grey and nuance are forgotten. What A horrible situation these two went through and then they had to share it with millions around the world via cameras in the courtroom. You are never going to persuade me that this is okay . . . especially when the only real reason for it is so people with no role to play in the case can pass judgement on them.

I think you’re right.

My overriding impression is that they had a toxic relationship and substance abuse played a big part in that. I have my own opinions on the two of them but not the actual outcome. That was for the jury who were privy to all the evidence, to decide.

 

[B-right-on]

I didn’t know much about amber before….::: god she’s lovely though isn’t she

No. Just no.

Poisonous black widow spider wrapped in a mink coat.

 

[schmunk]

I didn’t know much about amber before….::: god she’s lovely though isn’t she

I'm of course in no place to judge, but I really don't see it - to my eyes she's a fairly average looking woman.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

JD was smart to record her when she basically said nobody would believe his story of her abusing him because he's a man.

She knew the system would favour her word over his but she didn't realise she was caught admitting she'd use the system against him.

That's the mind of a cocky calculated manipulator.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Because JD was hung drawn and quartered by the 'Media' and had his name and reputation slaughtered, losing his job (got several films cancelled on him). The Couirt of Public Opinion found him guilty in the past. Aided by biased and sensationalistic media. If the original accusations weren't splashed all over the internet and printed press, I'd agree. However it wasnt and therefore this trial gave him the opportunity to clear his name.

At the end of the day, it was the choice of both to have it in the public eye. They have that right.

Do you think that he has cleared his name ? I don’t. He lost the UK court case whilst winning the American one. More importantly, if you watched so much of the coverage do you not feel a little used ? The only coverage I saw was on headline summaries at the beginning of news programmes and even that felt intrusive. Why would you want to have an opinion on their (or anybody else’s) marriage, because I don’t. Modern life can be horrible.