AIBU to wonder why so many people assume Johnny Depp is the good guy and Amber Heard is the villain? ..

[Cowslip4567]

People (from what I am reading in a variety of places on the internet) seem to have decided this even before the trial has been concluded. Presumably, we won't know all of the evidence until the trial ends.

The previous trial in the UK concluded that there was indeed evidence that JD was indeed a wife beater. How come everyone feels that they are sure previous trial had the wrong verdict?

There was no new evidence in the Maya Forstater case.

In one clip Heard tells Depp: 'I didn't punch you. I'm sorry I didn't hit you across the face in a proper slap. I was hitting you, it was not punching you.'
Depp says: 'Don't tell what it feels like to be punched.'
Heard replies: 'You've been in a lot of fights, you've been around a long time. You didn't get punched. You got hit. I'm sorry I hit you like this, I didn't punch you. I did not fucking deck you. I fucking was hitting you. I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was. You're fine. I did not hurt you, I did not punch you, I was hitting you. I'm not sitting here bitching about.
'You're a fucking baby,' Heard said.
Shouting, Heard continues: 'You are such a baby! Grow the fuck up Johnny'.

Im certainly not on JDs side but having listened to the testimony of their couples counselor and coupled with that bit of conversation means Im not on AHs side anymore either, toxicity never ends well for any party involved

Answering a question with a question is not an answer. It’s deflection.

No one has claimed the justice system is perfect, what has been said is that it’s superior to the court of public opinion. The opinion of a judge, by virtue of education and experience in the field, who has reviewed all evidence in this case, is absolutely superior to the opinion of Misssatan of mumsnet.

Anyway, you’ve made a lot of noise complaining about how the judge is wrong, yet you haven’t even attempted to demonstrate, or provided evidence in support of, why the judgement is wrong.

Why does anyone need to be on either one of their sides?

The judges in many famous miscarriages of justice were also highly trained in all matters legal. That doesn't make them right or free from bias. We know there is bias in sentencing against men and black men in particular. Judges are human and fallible. They have prejudices and make mistakes like the rest of us.

It’s not a case of taking sides. You can believe Johnny Depp is an abuser without thinking Amber Heard is the perfect victim, or wholly innocent in the toxicity that was their relationship.

It. Makes. Them. Better. Qualified. Than. You.

It’s really not difficult to grasp. The fact that miscarriages of justice occur (and interestingly enough usually get rectified by other judges, upon review of evidence) does not mean the court of public opinion is superior.

It was difficult to envision how that case could ever have arrived at another conclusion, given Depp openly admitted in court to having head butted Heard. Clearly the judge wasn't buying that this is something that occurs by accident. I don't buy it, either.

From even the titbits circulating in the highly selective media, Depp could well have bombed his own case through the evidence from his own mouth. Heard's behaviour was not in question; this wasn't what the court was being asked to decide. What she did or didn't do was irrelevant to the outcome. Depp's case - which he brought entirely voluntarily, at his own risk, and without being dragged kicking and screaming into litigation - hinged on proving the Sun had been libellous in referring to him as a wife beater. The judge listened to all the evidence, evaluated it, and decided on a balance of probabilities that it was not.

If you are too silly to understand the relevance of one of the top barristers of the last century being cynical about, and critical of, the UK legal system (and judges in particular) then I can't be bothered to explain it to you.

Miss Satan of Mumsnet doesn't claim to be a legal expert but she isn't foolish enough to believe every judge is wise and every judgement correct. That is a very strange position to take and you are only taking it because you agree in this instance based on your biases.

I have mentioned several times that I have largely based my opinion on the witness statements and the tapes. The former contradict Heard's story and the latter is self explanatory.

Yes, the judge didn't believe Depp. That doesn't mean it did or didn't happen. If you are restraining someone it is highly likely that heads can bump together.

I really don't care what the judge thought. I think it was a poor decision based on the evidence I saw and heard and I don't think judges are infallible. Apparently you do, or choose to when they make decisions you agree with based on your own prejudices.

I agree that it was mistake to bring the case. That doesn't mean he hadn't a very good reason to do so, merely that it was too risky a move.

We're not talking about a court of public opinion. We're talking about our personal opinions.

I don't think the judge made the right decision. I base that opinion on the evidence I have seen and heard. There is no other evidence that the judge had which was not publicly available.

The legal system is known to be flawed. It is hardly outrageous to think that a judge could and did make a mistake, given that we know this has happened very frequently before.

Do you honestly think that all miscarriages of justice have been rectified? What touching faith you have in experts!

😂😂😂

By all means keep constructing those strawmen to knock down. Again, I have repeatedly says the legal system is not infallible. I never claimed it to be perfect. What I did say is that it’s superior to the court of public opinion (which, incidentally What was said is that judges are in better position that you to make judgement. Multiple judges in this particular case.

John Mortimer criticized aspects of the legal system (significantly in regards to obscenity laws), he did not dismiss it in it’s entirety, which you are attempting to do. He did not compare it unfavorably to the court of public opinion. At no point did he hold the opinions of laypeople to be equal to those of judges.

You’ve got plenty to say on Amber Heard, but very little to say on how Johnny Depp exposed himself in his own text messages.

You keep attempting to take me to task on things I have never said.

Of course there are miscarriages of justices that have not been rectified. Again, I did not claim otherwise. Please demonstrate, with evidence, why Johnny Depp’s is on of these cases. Demonstrate why your judgement is superior to that of the judges that dealt with his case and his attempts of appeal.

They could both be abusive certainly. That's very common in relationships, probably the most common with domestic abuse.

It's not that Heard isn't the perfect victim it's that she is known to be abusive and has admitted as much on tape. It's now just a matter of deciding if it was mutual.

But that's not what the current - or previous - proceedings were about. It doesn't matter whether she was abusive for these purposes.

Have you failed to understand what it happening here?

I don't claim my judgement is superior to the judge's or indeed yours. All I can do is look at the evidence and come to my own conclusions. In a jury trial that is what I would do and my judgement as well as the judgement of 11 other people with no legal training would decide the case, not the judge's, although the latter will try to guide the jury.

I am getting bored in repeating myself. I base my opinion primarily on witness statements which saw no damage to the apartment after the alleged fight and saw no bruises to Heard's face. There is also now the matter of Milani weighing in to say she couldn't have used the product she claimed to. Add to that her own words on tape and her treatment of her assistant and her sister and the many lies she has been caught in I think the balance of probability suggests that she was the primary abuser and he was the 'not perfect' victim.

These posts are hilarious. It's not a matter of deciding that, at all. Civil courts do not exist for the purpose of clearing someone's name, nor of deciding guilty or not-guilty, and certainly not for the enactment of personal vengeance against a former partner who's had the audacity to leave. Their purpose - their sole purpose - is restitution for harm done. The recourse is punitive damages, which are more often than not settled under terms of strict secrecy.

But in this whackadoodle thread anything goes, including the erroneous assumption that sentences are ever passed in the civil courts. For entertainment value this one's right up there with the Mexican house thief ...

It does matter if she was abusive because it undermines her credibility and her story is considerably weakened if she doesn't admit to the violence being mutual at the very least. Someone who doesn't admit to her own violence is not someone in whose word we should trust and her violence is not really in dispute. She has said very plainly on tape that she frequently hit him (although definitely not a punch) and threw things at him.

But that wasn't what the case was about, the case was not about who abused who it was in a nutshell "did the sun commit libel by stating in a article that Johnny Depp was a "wife beater"

JD took to the stand and said "yeah I headbutted her" ....

Court then deemed that headbutting someone along with other documented evidence of battery was infact a act of battery and therefore the article "Johnny Depp is a wife beater" is not libelous.

That was it.

Should another article be written "Depp and Heard hit eachother" yes, yes it should and it would still not be libelous.

A decision is better word to use than sentence, but it essentially amounts to the same thing if a jury decides that she harmed him through claiming he was abusive when he was not and that he deserves restitution. Neither of them are going to face prison based on the decision, although some of Heard's behaviour, especially with the dogs was illegal.

Her credibility isn't in question here. Good grief.

If someone knocks heads accidentally that is not wife beating. If someone does it deliberately it is.

Of course it is. If she lied and that can be proved (or suggested in a sufficiently persuasive manner) then it weakens her case and strengthens Depp's. That is why the lawyers will attempt to undermine each of them.

She did admit to her own violence. This case isn’t about whether she’s abusive or not, it’s about Johnny Depp taking issue with being called a wifebeater and a perpetrator or domestic violence. Her being toxic and violent in her own right does not mean that he is innocent, it does not mean that he is not a perpetrator himself.

This is not a criminal case, it’s a civil one to determine whether calling him a wifebeater is defamation. Hence all the evidence as to his own unpleasant behavior being laid bare. This is entirely his choice. She’s not the one dragging him through courts internationally exposing all of this, he is.

@Momicrone why are you judging me on a thread about JD and AH for watching the trial for half an hour? Such a weird response. If you think I’m strange why are you here? 🤣🤣