Amber Heard & Johnny Depp....Your thoughts? THREAD 2!

[Whatdoyouthinkaboutthisone]

Hi everyone,

I’ve started a second thread for anyone who wants to continue the debate!

Link to thread 1:-
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/3962491-Amber-Heard-Johnny-Depp-Your-thoughts

That would be an awful thing to have done, but the judge has found that to be an untrue allegation

No, the judge did not find that. He found that working out who was responsible for the faeces was irrelevant. He thinks it is unlikely it was Heard or one of her friends but stops short of making a finding, so he has not said it was untrue.

You are correct that the judge does not accept that Heard was responsible for the injury to Depp's finger. He relies on Depp texting his doctor to say that he had cut his finger and prefers that to the report of another witness who arrived on the scene shortly afterwards who says that Depp told him that Heard had cut his finger. He rejects the possibility that Depp lied to cover up the fact that he was being abused by Heard.

prh,
Depp had the opportunity to correct the account re: the finger in a conversation with the doctor where he said it was over. No longer a need to 'protect her'. In fact, a divorce case to build. Wass pressed him on this.

Re: the faeces. He said it was unlikely also, because Depp had left for Schweetzer address (sp) so a 'trick' unlikely to affect him. Who is it who plotted by text with Deuters about 'laying a dookie' outside her door? I mean if we're looking for culprits...

It'll be hard to appeal that judgment. You'd have to show it was really perverse. It's very thorough and does seem to weigh up each side's evidence before the finding of whose was preferred (and why).
The judge's job is precisely to decide whose evidence he prefers. When he is favouring one over another, he has to say why. I think he's done that.
It is much more resounding then I expected, based on AH's very flaky testimony. There are some inconsequential things he could have given JD in the judgment, but he doesn't, he finds in her favour on just about every issue, big or small. He even dealt with the turd in the bed. In spite of saying that it was irrelevant, he then goes on to say he doesn't believe she did it (he could have stayed silent on that, given that it was irrelevant).
The judgment shows the contemporaneous texts were quite damning.

I was very on the fence. One of the biggest things for me, as a prior DV victim, was that email she drafted but never sent. I did similar. It was very cathartic. If the entire thing was an elaborate hoax, wouldn't she have sent that? The judge also said (serious paraphrasing here) if it were a hoax he'd have expected her to have evidenced it all in a much more systematic way.

@ThrowawayBerna - I am only reporting what the judge has said and what Depp's lawyers are saying. I am not taking sides.

@Enko

2020 certainly is a weird year covid and now we find out the sun newspaper can tell the truth.....

On a more serious point good for her for standing up and voicing what happened.
I hope it will make other abuse victims get the strength to walk out and speak up.

She's an horrific spousal abuser herself.

She's not the victim.

Why must a DV sufferer be a helpless victim??

If she's a victim then so is Depp. You keep your hands to yourself unless it's in self defence if you're not a scumbag.

She's freely admitted on tapes beating the shit out of him.

Hmm I wasn't expecting that! I've read the judgement and some of it seems a bit odd. I definitely think that Depp abused her, and she him but I find it interesting how the Judge made those findings. He seems to have put a lot of faith in Heard's testimony but very little in Depp's, despite Depp coming across more genuine in the transcripts. I also find it interesting that the Judge said Depp's staff are loyal to him, but not that her friends and sister are to her.

I wonder if JD doesn’t deeply regret leaving Vanessa.

It's important to remember that the Judge heard confidential evidence which the media/general public was not privy to, which is referred to but not detailed in the judgement. We can't really make a judgement when we haven't heard all the facts and haven't seen all the evidence that was presented in court.

There's an entire annexe to the judgement (detailing "further acts of violence against Ms Heard by the defendant") which has been made confidential.

Just read the whole thing and wow! The judge certainly seems to favour AH testimony in pretty much every event.

I really was surprised he found so much in her favour when at times it was her word against his with a diary entry she had written and emails. He really believed her on what seems liked her say so.

I think he did himself no favours by claiming he was sober and drug free for periods and then this clearly being a lie in his correspondence with staff members. Once he admitted that he couldn't remember large periods of time during these events, along with AH referring to him as a monster, it seemed that the judge then thought this meant he had done all these actions whilst out of it. Once it was established he did kick her on the plane and admitted some violence he made the jump that he was violent every time. I think he knows she was violent too but that was not relevant in the case.

That confidential evidence must have been extremely damning for him to side with her own on so much.

I still find it strange that no one saw the bruises though after the brutality she is describing.

@PizzzaExpressWoking

It's important to remember that the Judge heard confidential evidence which the media/general public was not privy to, which is referred to but not detailed in the judgement. We can't really make a judgement when we haven't heard all the facts and haven't seen all the evidence that was presented in court.

There's an entire annexe to the judgement (detailing "further acts of violence against Ms Heard by the defendant") which has been made confidential.

I wonder if this refers to rape.

It's important to remember that the Judge heard confidential evidence which the media/general public was not privy to, which is referred to but not detailed in the judgement

No, he did not. None of the proceedings were in camera. We have heard everything that was said in court. The transcripts are all publicly available.

The confidential evidence is entirely documentary and appears to relate to additional allegations around three of the alleged incidents, although it is possible it also includes some completely separate incidents. From what is said in the judgement I suspect that it consists largely or entirely of further witness statements from Heard and Depp.

It is not entirely clear, but I suspect that the confidentiality relates to the Virginia trial in which the judge has allowed either side to designate documents as confidential. There would be little point in them doing so in the US if the information was published in this judgement.

It is, however, true that the judge had access to the entire trial bundle whereas we only have excerpts. So we have not seen all the documentary evidence.

Having said the above, the more I read this judgement the more surprised I am at the judge's willingness to take Heard's word for things and ignore contrary evidence, including documentary evidence, either by not mentioning it at all or on very flimsy grounds. It may be that this approach is justified, of course. I am not saying the judge is wrong, but I can see why Depp's lawyers believe there is a chance to appeal this judgement on the grounds that it is perverse.

By the way, I meant to say in an earlier post that, when considering the evidence from the police officers, the judge states that there is no evidence as to whether the timer on the CCTV was working correctly but decides that it can be relied on to show how long the officers were in the apartment even if it was faulty.

I still find it strange that no one saw the bruises though after the brutality she is describing

Looking at one of the incidents, the judge reports but then ignores evidence from Heard's stylist that she did not have black eyes before appearing on James Corden's show in December 2015 the day after an alleged assault. Heard was seen by a nurse 2 days after the alleged assault. The nurse saw fresh blood on Heard's lower lip. The judge has decided that this was an injury caused by Depp and rejects the possibility that Heard caused it herself by biting her lip, despite the fact that you would not expect to see fresh blood 2 days after the injury was inflicted. He rejects the nurse's evidence that there were no injuries to Heard's scalp on the basis that this was not a full examination and the nurse was in a rush.

I note that, for this incident, the judge decides that Heard was telling the truth when she told friends that Depp had injured her and was lying when she told a doctor that the injury was self-inflicted, apparently because she was not yet willing to go public with Depp's abuse. However, when dealing with the earlier incident in which Depp lost part of his finger, the judge decides that Depp was lying when he told friends that Heard had caused the injury and telling the truth when he told a doctor that the injury was self-inflicted, rejecting Depp's argument that he lied to the doctor to protect Heard. He does not appear to give any justification for this difference in approach. It may be that the judge's conclusions on these incidents are justified but I would expect Depp's legal team to pick up on this kind of discrepancy in his approach to the evidence.

To say again, the judge may be right. He observed the witnesses rather than simply reading a transcript. He had all the documentary evidence and witness statements. It may be that, if I had been in his position, I would have arrived at the same conclusions. However, I am surprised at the lack of justification within the judgement for his decision to accept Heard's evidence and reject that of witnesses who disagreed with her.

@prh47bridge

Having said the above, the more I read this judgement the more surprised I am at the judge's willingness to take Heard's word for things and ignore contrary evidence, including documentary evidence, either by not mentioning it at all or on very flimsy grounds. It may be that this approach is justified, of course. I am not saying the judge is wrong, but I can see why Depp's lawyers believe there is a chance to appeal this judgement on the grounds that it is perverse.

By the way, I meant to say in an earlier post that, when considering the evidence from the police officers, the judge states that there is no evidence as to whether the timer on the CCTV was working correctly but decides that it can be relied on to show how long the officers were in the apartment even if it was faulty.

It certainly looks that way on the surface. He believed the here say of what she told friends and family as correct and an email she didn't send written like a diary. It does seem incredible that he did this. That is why I think the evidence that was confidential must have been very damning for JD as it seems based on the above only it's strange he ruled so heavily on AH side.

I the trouble is JD tried to portray himself as I southern gentleman from the start and it is clear this was a lie. He tried to claim he remembered these incidents which was a lie and that he was sober during some of these periods which was also a lie. This showed him as a lier and probably invalidated much of what he said. JD tried to paint AH as a lier with all the emails about the dogs going into Australia and the arrest for abuse of her ex-wife which the judge ruled wasn't relevant to the case and didn't show AH as the lier or manipulator they wanted. So I guess to the judge her evidence seemed more believable than hers.

However, he did seem to rule against JD that his staff would be loyal in their witness statements and in particular I think one of JD witnesses he said showed himself not to be reliable, and ruled against the police as they didn't make detailed notes but totally believed what AH's friends said. I think this was because of the damning texts he sent to employees demanding their loyalty and asking them to give evidence. The guy needs to stop texting, he incriminated himself.

I don’t think she has to be a helpless victim to be taken seriously at all, I do think he abused her but I think she abused him too. It was just a toxic relationship and they should both be grateful it’s over.

That is why I think the evidence that was confidential must have been very damning for JD as it seems based on the above only it's strange he ruled so heavily on AH side.

Yes, that is possible but, based on the hints in the judgement, I don't think that's it. I would expect there to be more references to the confidential annex if that was the case.

rom what the judge has said, I think he has started from the position that most DV cases are the word of the alleged victim against that of the alleged abuser with little or nothing in the way of supporting evidence and therefore the evidence of an alleged victim should be given a lot of credence. This position has led him to reject or ignore evidence that disagrees with Heard's testimony. He has rejected the argument that Depp is actually the victim, accepting Heard's evidence over Depp's and essentially saying that Depp is making it up as a way of countering Heard's allegations.

“ I think he has started from the position that most DV cases are the word of the alleged victim against that of the alleged abuser with little or nothing in the way of supporting evidence and therefore the evidence of an alleged victim should be given a lot of credence.“

I wonder if depps legal team will try to argue that he judge was not entirely suitable for this case. He is a media lawyer, not a domestic violence lawyer and it may be arguable that this case requires specialism in both areas in order to properly determine findings of fact as well as applying the law relating to defamation??

@prh47bridge

Having said the above, the more I read this judgement the more surprised I am at the judge's willingness to take Heard's word for things and ignore contrary evidence, including documentary evidence, either by not mentioning it at all or on very flimsy grounds. It may be that this approach is justified, of course. I am not saying the judge is wrong, but I can see why Depp's lawyers believe there is a chance to appeal this judgement on the grounds that it is perverse.

By the way, I meant to say in an earlier post that, when considering the evidence from the police officers, the judge states that there is no evidence as to whether the timer on the CCTV was working correctly but decides that it can be relied on to show how long the officers were in the apartment even if it was faulty.

Do we know why in a his word versus hers case, and both unreliable witnesses with contradictory information and damning evidence against both, the judge has just believed everything she says?

It's just a toxic relationship of mutual abuse. Both seem more like aggressors than victims.

I originally supported Heard and didnt like the abuse she got or gets but having said that, after whats come out in court- that verdict stinks.

Oh and the fucking Sun coming out with 'for more than 20 years we;ve supported domestically abused women'. The utter cheek of it. That 'for 20 years' is also very telling

Do we know why in a his word versus hers case, and both unreliable witnesses with contradictory information and damning evidence against both, the judge has just believed everything she says?

The judge hasn't believed everything she says but he appears to have accepted the vast majority of her evidence. He appears to have decided that she was a more credible witness than Depp but I haven't seen any specific reasons for that.

@annabel85
Because that's the judges job.
Where it is one person's word against the other's, the judge has to decide who he believes more.
Likewise where there are witnesses giving competing evidence, he has to decide which he believes. As long as he explains why and this is not totally perverse, he has exercised his discretion and an appeal will be very difficult. You have to get permission to appeal on strict grounds and the bar for that is quite high.

What stood out in the judgment is that he decided in favour of AH in virtually every respect. Even things that didn't particularly matter. Like he could have found that she wasn't truthful to the Australian or US authorities but that does not evidence that she was lying now. He could have said he did think she'd left the turd in the bed (he didn't make an actual finding about that but expressly stated that he didn't think it had been anything to do with her and was the dog, as she had claimed).

Looking at possible grounds for appeal for a moment, I note that Depp's lawyers imply that NGN have been allowed to cherry pick the evidence. I've been looking at the judgement and previous judgements in this case with that in mind to see what I could find.

The judge excluded one of Depp's witnesses on the basis that their evidence was irrelevant. Depp may try to argue that this witness should have been allowed, although I'm not convinced he would succeed.

The judge heavily edited the witness statement of one of Depp's other witnesses, removing a substantial portion of it. Depp may try to argue that this witnesses statement should have stood unaltered. I haven't seen the unedited statement so can't comment.

The judge refused Depp's application to force Heard to disclose evidence (documents, photographs and recordings) that his lawyers clearly believed would help his case. They may argue that this evidence should have been disclosed and that, had this happened, it would have undermined NGN's case.

The judge refused to allow Depp to call expert witnesses. Given that there are a number of places in the judgement where the judge refuses to make findings on the basis that there was no expert evidence, I suspect Depp's lawyers will argue that the expert evidence should have been admitted and that this would have forced the judge to make findings in Depp's favour on these matters which would have undermined his judgement. Of course, if Depp's experts had been admitted it is possible NGN would have introduced their own experts so it is by no means certain that the expert evidence would have changed things.

This is all conjecture on my part. I have no inside knowledge.

For those still following this, the news that the judge has refused Depp's application for leave to appeal is not surprising. It is unusual for the original judge in a case to grant leave to appeal so this ruling was to be expected. The next step is for Depp to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. The application will be heard by a single judge who will decide if Depp has an arguable case. That means he has to show that there is a rational basis on which his appeal could succeed. That does not mean his appeal will succeed, or even that it stands a good chance of success. It simply means that there is some chance of success.

If he succeeds in getting leave to appeal the case will proceed to a full hearing before three judges.