AIBU to wonder why everyone is saying ruling wrong in Johnny Depp libel case?

[WorkQuery]

Jury believed that Johnny Depp was violent to Amber Heard. All I keep reading on Facebook etc is comments from people who believe that the ruling was wrong. Why do people assume that it's wrong? Clearly there must have been very strong evidence to support that Depp was abusive to Amber?

Some of us who have been in that type of relationship know it isn't as clear cut as one half being branded the main instigator. I would say that had Amber been called a husband-beater too. Sometimes - many times - two people just should not be together and what they minimise as tempestuous is actually just very, very toxic on both sides.
That's neither misogyny or misandry - if a relationship is volatile with both sexes winding each other up on a daily basis and resorting to physical violence on a loop then it's clearly not working. Both have victim and aggressor status in a precarious, co-dependent dysfunctional dynamic.
The ruling is correct but it could easily have been her versus the Sun on a different news day - same story but husband-beater. Defence would have been similar - he made me do it. As we say on here all the time to men and to women, there is no excuse for domestic violence however it starts. These two just seem to be the living embodiment of this:

I continue to urge everybody to read the excellent article in the Sun
I bet you never thought you would type those words?

Did you get to bed in the end the other night during the Covid thread that kept being replied to?

@StarCat2020

I continue to urge everybody to read the excellent article in the Sun I bet you never thought you would type those words?

Did you get to bed in the end the other night during the Covid thread that kept being replied to?

It's a new experience.

I did finally snuggle under the duvet. I'm a natural night owl but also love my sleep!
(Staying up later tonight to follow the US election).

Sleep well to those who are heading to bed.

I did finally snuggle under the duvet. I'm a natural night owl but also love my sleep!
(Staying up later tonight to follow the US election)

Me too.

Enjoy!!

@SheepandCow I am very well-educated thank you. I was merely pointing out your flawed logic.

What is this "bringing out the monster" trope? I don't think I've seen it outside of horror movies and made for TV psychodramas. I've never seen it to explain away the dynamics of violent abuse in real life before.

@SheepandCow - He's has a previous conviction for assault

No, he does not. He has no convictions for violence. He was arrested for assault in 1989 but was never charged, let alone convicted.

What is this "bringing out the monster" trope

It comes from the evidence in this case. The evidence shows that Depp sometimes becomes what he calls "the monster", although he says that Heard invented the term. Unsurprisingly, Depp and NGN differ about the meaning of the term.

I commented above that the judge had refused to order disclosure of documents held by Heard, had excluded one of Depp's witnesses and had heavily edited the witness statement of another. I should also have noted that the judge refused permission for Depp to introduce expert evidence relating to a number of the allegations. Given that, on several points, the judge makes no finding due to the lack of expert evidence, I suspect Depp's lawyers will argue on appeal that the judge should have allowed the expert evidence and, had he done so, he would have been forced to make findings in Depp's favour on these issues which would have undermined the judgement. Of course, that argument is not necessarily correct. If Depp had been allowed to introduce expert evidence, NGN may have been able to advance expert evidence of its own that disputed the findings of Depp's experts.

@prh47bridge

Was JD solicitor British or American

British.

She basically acussed the judge of being bias and the justice system as being a load of crap, saying the ruling was perverse

She said nothing directly about the judge and nothing at all about the justice system. She did say the ruling was perverse, which is lawyer-speak for a judgement that is not supported by the evidence. That is not generally seen by lawyers as trashing the judge, nor is it a personal criticism of the judge, although it is clearly a criticism of the judgement.

Her point about the US relates to the fact that the judge excluded evidence from one of Depp's witnesses completely, heavily edited the witness statement of another of Depp's witnesses and refused to order Heard to disclose documents, recordings and photos which they believe would have seriously damaged NGN's case, hence her comment that NGN have been allowed to pick and choose which evidence can be relied upon. Heard will almost certainly have to disclose these items in the US case. I don't have any inside knowledge but it would not surprise me if the judge's refusal to order disclosure from Heard is an issue raised at appeal.

I would suggest you have a legal background. For us mere mortals the word 'perverse' has the meaning it has, which is not what you say she means. It is also hard to understand a critism of a judgement is not critism of the person that was soley responsible for the judgement.

Also saying the evidence was selectively interpreted/used is critism of the system/judge, to none legal brains. If the public statement was coded in legal meanings then why not stick to using them in Court.

There was no respect shown to the judgement and we wonder why Twitter etc has no respect when legal professionals make public statements like they did.

Would it have been perverse if they had won? Much better to compare it to being a bananna as per Ian Hislop.

Man is well liked in his social circle, kind, helpful, considerate. Man gets out of his head at home to relive the pressure he perceives he is under and beats his wife.

Wife eventually makes it public. Nobody believes her because Man is so nice and would not do it.
Man uses all his power to close the wife down and protect his status.
People don't believe wife - he comes across as so nice, he could never do that. He once gave my dog a bicuit in Batley market. Wife beaters don't take the time to give strange dogs biscuits, do they?
Wife is made the focus and everything she has ever done is scrutinised.
But he's so nice. I don't actually know him, but he always seems so nice.

Not exactly the most original storey, is it.

It's clear it was a violent relationship on both sides. However a libel case isn't about criminal evidence and 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'. It's about did the newspaper report the facts accurately and in good faith. Apparently they did.

For us mere mortals the word 'perverse' has the meaning it has, which is not what you say she means. It is also hard to understand a critism of a judgement is not critism of the person that was soley responsible for the judgement.

I understand. However, the law is that you can only appeal if the judge has made an error in law or if the judgement is perverse. The term is therefore used a lot by lawyers.

Would it have been perverse if they had won?

Depp's lawyers would not have described it as perverse but I would expect NGN's lawyers to have done so.

The judge does not appear to have made any errors of law (highly unlikely as there was no dispute on the relevant law) so either side would have to argue that the judgement was perverse if they wanted to appeal.

YABVU. Don't you know that celebrities you are a fan of who you know fuck all about in reality can't possibly commit crimes or, indeed, do anything wrong?

@SequinsandStiIettos

Brilliant post.

This article mimics what some posters have been saying about the public opinion of Heard sitting on her 'unladylike' (i.e. not meek) in her response to the situation.

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/a-theory-about-why-amber-heard-lost-public-sympathy-for-standing-against-depps-abuse/ar-BB1aGfV9?ocid=ientp

He seemed a genuinely gentle person

The public (not those who knew him) thought pretty much the same about Jimmy Saville.

@Leaannb

Because Amber Heard admitted to abusing Johnny Depp in recorded Deposition

Exactly, it's a pity that the judge didn't have the opportunity to record a 'six and two threes' verdict, they both sound as bad as each other.

Exactly, it's a pity that the judge didn't have the opportunity to record a 'six and two threes' verdict

A six and two threes verdict against The Sun who were able to defend that their characterisation of Jonny Depp was true????

No, he does not. He has no convictions for violence. He was arrested for assault in 1989 but was never charged, let alone convicted.

That's a complete lie. Why do you keep making stuff up? It doesn't make your arguments very convincing, when it's so obvious you have an agenda to defend him.

Depp's been arrested multiple times, and he HAS been charged with assault, the charges were dropped because he paid the guy off. He also paid off the disabled university professor who had both her shoulders dislocated.

He has a long, long, long history of extreme violence, rage, and mentally unstable behaviour, and also of decades of serious drug abuse which he has admitted to (started using hard drugs while under 16). Even back in the 1980s the director of one of his films said that Depp set fire to something on set because he was angry over something minor. He was violent around Kate Moss (smashed up hotel rooms). Violent around Vanessa Paradis (beat up at least two people in front of her, and admitted that she had to "talk him off the ledge" during his "hillbilly rage" episodes) and even back in the 1990s there were rumours in the magazines about him being violent in his relationships then. When I was a teenager my mum wouldn't let me watch his movies, because he had such a bad reputation as a violent hellraiser.

Anyone who perceives him as "gentle" hasn't been paying attention.

It sounds like it was a very messy relationship which drew out the worst parts of their character equally. It sounds like they were both perpetrators and victims of the abuse, so the Sun was right, but I don't see this as a win for Heard - it is a career ending embarrassment for both of them.

No, that is not a complete lie. I am not making stuff up. I refer you to the judgement, paragraph 187 - "There is no evidence that Mr Depp has any convictions for violence in the UK, in the USA or in any other jurisdiction"

I do not have an agenda to defend him. My only agenda is to stick to the truth.

The judgement lists 5 incidents advanced by NGN to show that Depp was violent. These are clearly the only allegations NGN felt they could stand up in court. They were:

The 1989 arrest on suspicion of assault. The judge states that there is insufficient evidence that he was ever charged of an offence. My own comment on this is that there are certainly internet rumours that he was charged and paid off the victim but there are internet rumours about a lot of things, many of which are untrue. There is, as far as I am aware, no authoritative source for him being charged or paying off the victim. I am, of course, happy to be corrected if you know of such a source. I could amend my original comment to "but there is no evidence he was ever charged" if that makes you happy.

In 1994 he damaged a hotel room. Press reports at the time said he paid $10,000 compensation to the hotel.

Ellen Barkin has said that in 1998, whilst making a film, there was an argument between Depp and his assistants and a wine bottle was thrown in her direction.

In 1999 he was having dinner with Vanessa Paradis. A group of paparazzi attempted to take their picture. He hit them with a piece of wood about 12-15 inches long. Some reports say he was trying to stop them forcing their way into the restaurant through a locked door.

There is an ongoing civil claim against him for an alleged assault that took place in 2018. Depp agrees that there were verbal exchanges after the individual behaved badly towards one of the extras, an African-American woman, but denies the assault.

I stand by my statement. He is no angel but he has no convictions for violence. I am happy to be proved wrong if you have evidence that was not available to the court. But claiming I am lying and making stuff up when I am in fact agreeing with the findings of the court suggests that you are the one with an agenda.

[quote prh47bridge]**@SheepandCow* - He's has a previous conviction for assault*

No, he does not. He has no convictions for violence. He was arrested for assault in 1989 but was never charged, let alone convicted.[/quote]
I've almost certain he has a conviction. I'll try to find a link later.

In the meantime, the rumours are ongoing. Certainly it's not confined to the 80s. Here's an apparent recent incident.

Johnny Depp 'punched crew member in drunken tirade'
www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/entertainment-arts-44778997

@Facelikearustytractor

It sounds like it was a very messy relationship which drew out the worst parts of their character equally. It sounds like they were both perpetrators and victims of the abuse, so the Sun was right, but I don't see this as a win for Heard - it is a career ending embarrassment for both of them.

No. It's very simply a bog standard case of domestic violence. With Johnny Depp as the perpetrator.

Johnny Depp is a violent wife-beater.

@SheepandCow - That is the 2018 incident I refer to in my post at 16:54. Unsurprisingly, Depp's account of the incident is very different from that of the alleged victim.

I will certainly be interested if you manage to find an authoritative source showing that he has a conviction. NGN and their lawyers clearly failed to find any evidence of a conviction.