Who will win between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation case

[Egtermekaar]

If you were jury in this case, how would you decide?

I think Johnny Depp will win because he had strong, reliable and consistent evidence of "his" case

I hope MN will allow debate about a matter of public interest.

@DaisyQuakeJohnson give it up. You don't half talk some rubbish 😂 The man won. He won because he was innocent. It must be a tough pill to swallow for a misandrist such as yourself, but it's time to accept it and move on.

Amber Heard is a vile abuser. Fact.

You're showing you misunderstood this case and also the meaning of 'fact'. Now whether that's because you didn't follow it, based your impression on social media, think you know better than professionals in the field or are being deliberately disingenuous, I don't know. I also don't care.

Those who tried to push disinformation (and continue to do so) are making it clear who they are and what they care about (whilst showing a shocking lack of understanding of DV; VAWG and both the US and UK cases). No amount of smiley faces hides that.

There's nothing for me to 'give up'. Despite certain factions wanting to pretend this outcome negates the UK case - it doesn't. Despite them wanting to pretend it was a completely different judgement than a defamation case - it wasn't. And despite them wanting to pretend they care about abuse victims - they obviously don't.

Those of us that do- will still be here working on VAWG; challenging the DAVRO and supporting posters on MN that need it.

No, you're showing that you've not paid attention to the UK case, the evidence that wasn't allowed to be submitted and the FACT that AH has perjured herself during the US trial and contradicted things she stated as fact in the UK case.

You can say whatever you wish about it, but you can't dispute the things I've just written as they're now documented forever, for the world to see.

I get you have an issue with male violence. Every reasonable human being should have. But this case doesn't represent that. If it's triggered you because of past experience then I'm sorry, as a fellow survivor of an abusive relationship I truly do sympathise. But please, separate yourself from this and stop trying to push the "JD is an abuser" narrative. It's literally been blown to pieces.

You seem to be confusing me with another poster. I'm not pushing any narrative.

I posted a quote from The Guardian about the outcome of the UK case. An article from the US about what they had observed about the alliances springing up between MRAs, Republicans and JD 'supporters' and a comment from an international media lawyer on why the UK and US cases were different.

All referenced. All factual.

I posted a quote from The Guardian about the outcome of the UK case.

At the start of Depps suing NGN and Heard, Depps side decided to court and give information to Internet news and YouTubers. Heard's side decided to go to the main stream media.
During the UK trial, I wasn't really that interested and I only heard the news reports on TV and of course that is just a reporters summary of what they think is important. That's why I assumed the uk outcome to be fair.
But because the US trial was televised and I could see myself what was happening, when I read reports in The Independent or The Guardian, I could see they didn't tally with what I'd observed. On top of that there were many articles written in favour of Heard based on feminists issues. I have no problem with opinion pieces although there were never any from Depps perspective. But the fact that the new reports were slanted or toned down made me wonder how accurate newspaper reports are generally and specifically to this case whether this was part of Heards publicity campaign.

That he did indeed abuse her so I didn't libel.

@TheEnemy123 You are the one talking rubbish. He wasn't found innocent. He is indeed an abuser and beater, so give it up.

This trial was no doubt political.

Many are signing the petition about the nuetrality of the uk judge, it shows a flow chart which they claim is evidence that the retired judge had conflicting interests.

The UK trial was in civil court so no he isn't.

Amber was very generous pledging to donate all of her divorce settlement to ACLU.

I wish people would realise that the way American justice deals with these sort of cases is very, very different from the rest of the world.

First of all, it has an adversarial, not inquisatorial (judge-led) system (as does the UK), however only in the US do you get such plaintiff and defence led arguments with little judicial direction. That is why it turned into such a circus.

Then in addition, you have a civil jury. Juries are notoriously poor at sifting through evidence. When you study evidence as a law student, you learn that people and therefore jurors tend to hold all sorts of pre-conceptions, prejudices and personal views that affect their judgment. We know from studies that jurors are prejudiced to believe men and to disbelieve women and for that reason, in the UK at least, we tend to discourage their use where possible. Lawrence Fox has been refused a civil jury trial in the defamation case being brought against him presently.

Judges on the other hand are trained in adductive thinking (as are some of the police) where you develop many theories and then look for evidence and then examine that evidence to see which theory is best supported by it.

Non-lawyers tend to be prejudiced towards purposive thinking, which is where you have one outcome already decided in your mind as being the "best" and which you look for evidence to fit that outcome.

There is a reason that the US keeps producing these extremely powerful men who evade justice and these media circuses around trials - Epstein, Weinstein, OJ Simpson. There is a reason that the US can't decide whether allowing women to have bodily autonomy is a basic human right or not. In many ways, the US is quite backwards as to how it treats women (and poor people/minorities). I'm really shocked but not surprised by the whole thing. It is almost impossible in the US to bring a famous man to justice timeously. Albeit the former were criminal trials and this was a civil trial, but how many years did it take to bring Epstein and Weinstein to account?

Also not saying that the UK is perfect. I'm currently looking at the Malcolm Webster (wife killer) trial and the number of times people reported their concerns to the police after his first murder and how his father in the MET protected him is disgraceful.

Anyway, I don't think that Depp had to prove his case on the normal balance of probabilities at all. I think what was actually applied in this trial was a special standard of proof reserved for powerful Hollywood stars with a massive fan base and so what we actually got was "on the balance of public prejudice/public opinion/level of fame". Its a witch trial for modern times.

And please can anyone who disagrees with me not regale me with the plaintive "Did you read/watch/listen to the trial" question...

AchatAVendre...very well explained.

Do you think she will appeal?

Actually half her settlement to the ACLU. But bah. A measly $3.5m. I hearby pledge a billion dollars to the ACLU. Of course I might have a few difficulties in actually paying it but, at the end of the day, a pledge is the same as a donation so I'm sure they won't mind.
(I'm trying to get the bank to accept my pledge to pay a $3m mortgage on a lovely house near me. No luck so far but I'm sure once they see it's a perfectly acceptable arrangement, they'll change their mind. 🙏 🙂)

Her lawyer has apparently just announced her intention to appeal, one of the grounds being that she believes the jury has been influenced by social media and therefore the decision is biased.

I think its actually worth appealing the amount of damages.

Obviously theres no award of costs yet but you would assume neither side would have got costs because the Defender's side asked for the trial to be ended at an early stage (as is standard to try to avoid costs amongst other matters) and the judge's direction then was inconsistent with the jury outcome.

I'm just catching up with the thread but while I do, can someone please explain what MRA and TRA stands for?

@AchatAVendre
"Anyway, I don't think that Depp had to prove his case on the normal balance of probabilities at all. I think what was actually applied in this trial was a special standard of proof reserved for powerful Hollywood stars with a massive fan base and so what we actually got was "on the balance of public prejudice/public opinion/level of fame". Its a witch trial for modern times.

"And please can anyone who disagrees with me not regale me with the plaintive "Did you read/watch/listen to the trial" question..."
................................

In my experiencea person's opinion on how well a judge or a jury performs, usually depends on how the result measures up to what they think it should have been. Most jury members do not take their responsibilities lightly and do their best. It's always easier for lawyers to know/feel they know better when they have access to so much more information.

I was interested watching US lawyers opinions online. I can't think of one that I watched that at the start thought that Depp would win. (A) because its so hard to win defamation; and (B) they relied on the UK judge making a reasonable finding. In fact they all thought Depp was mad to bring the case.

But as the trial progressed, their opinions shifted. Their comments moved more and more in Depps favour as the trial went on. These are lawyers working in the US system and have done criminal and civil law. They also called out good and bad lawyering on both sides. So they would have a knowledgeable interpretation of what was going on, the legalities of how the court was being conducted, and how juries typically react to certain things. It seems unreasonable to me to say that the jury only found for Depp because he was famous, but ignore that Heards behaviour on the stand and her contradicted testimony and, honestly, lies, played no part.

I don't know if you're in the legal profession but if you are, I hope you don't make judge. Because that would disprove that judges don't bring their own personal prejudices into court.

LetitiaLeghorn So they would have a knowledgeable interpretation of what was going on, the legalities of how the court was being conducted, and how juries typically react to certain things. It seems unreasonable to me to say that the jury only found for Depp because he was famous, but ignore that Heards behaviour on the stand and her contradicted testimony and, honestly, lies, played no part.

It would indeed be unreasonable to say that the jury only found for Depp because he was famous. Who said that?

"Behaviour on the stand, eh?" Or who had the best acting abilities or played best to the audience? Anyway behaviour on the stand should not be relevant to evidence. Some witnesses are simply better at being witnesses than others, trained legal minds can better overlook this than juries. An adversarial system with a civil jury in a defamation case is pushing the boundaries of justice.

I don't know if you're in the legal profession but if you are, I hope you don't make judge. Because that would disprove that judges don't bring their own personal prejudices into court.

I hope one day you grow up and learn to communicate with people without being rude or insulting them just because you disagree with them.

@RosieRooster83 Mens Rights Activists, and Trans Rights Activists.

The text message exchange with Paul Bethany seems incongruous with the almost hero status JD has been ascribed.

AH has been found to have exaggerated and lied, but my ex has never sent his mate a message saying he wanted to burn me. I don’t think he’s the innocent victim he’s being portrayed to be.

*Bettany

Thank you for articulating my thoughts. I felt a discomfort I couldn’t put my finger on when I heard the verdict. I’m sure AH is a nightmare, I’m not defending her.

The fact that people outside the court were wearing pirate hats and a truck/ship parked outside made me think that some people think their hero ‘Swashbuckling Jack Sparrow’ was in jeopardy and somehow this was a cos play.

😂 Who are you trying to convince? The only liar and abuser is AH. I feel sorry for you.

The only one trying to convince anyone of anything, is yourself. To say the 'only' liar and abuser is AH shows your deep ignorance and brainwashing. I truly feel sorry for you that you are this snowed by a celeb that you can't see Depp was proven to have lied and to have abused.

@AchatAVendre
It would indeed be unreasonable to say that the jury only found for Depp because he was famous. Who said that?

Well, you did. With your mention special standards.

special standard of proof reserved for powerful Hollywood stars with a massive fan base

"Behaviour on the stand, eh?" Or who had the best acting abilities or played best to the audience? Anyway behaviour on the stand should not be relevant to evidence.

I'm puzzled by this. Of course Depp is going to bring his considerable acting skills to bear. How could he not? And Heard will bring hers and as she is forecasting that she's lost $100m in revenue, she must be excellent too. But what I find difficult to understand is that legal people genuinely believe that personality and presentation are notvteoevabt to anyone watching them. Of course it's not that it trumps evidence, but for many people it just helps to confirm belief. That's why lawyers make sure their defendant look respectable and respectful. Ideallly, should it matter? No. In reality does it matter? Yes. Truth is people,with charisma,and looks often get away with more than the rest of us.

trained legal minds can better overlook this than juries.

I'd agree they've had more experience but judges and stipendiary magistrates are open to making misjudgements based on demeanour and manner. Blimey, even lawyers who actually represent their clients and believe they know what's going on, get caught out.

An adversarial system with a civil jury in a defamation case is pushing the boundaries of justice.

That's a generalisation so I'm not going to comment. But here the uk judge made findings based on his belief that Heard was telling the truth. But we now know some of what she said was not the truth. So if you a person (being respectful 🙃) said that the jury gave him special consideration for his fame, maybe actually they'd looked at several bits of Heards testimony where she'd been shown to be dishonest, and so gave Depp the benefit of the doubt. Maybe if the UK judge had seen the things she'd lied over, he too would not have believed her and found in Depps favour. A person couldn't compare the uk and us trials because the facts were different. So I can't see you could base your claim of defamation jury trials as being unfair or pushing boundaries based on this case.

I hope one day you grow up and learn to communicate with people without being rude or insulting them just because you disagree with them.

😂 OK, then. I wasn't meaning to be rude but just pointing out that from this thread you have prejudices and beliefs that you carry with you like the rest of us. And like the rest of us, you try to keep them out of your professional life. But its imposdible to do that completely and when pushed into a corner of things being close or you're uncertain, your preconceptions will kick in.

Excellent post a chat a vendre.