Page 18 | Who will win between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation case

Egtermekaar · 2022-05-25T13:49:12+00:00

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.

Tillsforthrills · 02/06/2022 17:38

AchatAVendre · 02/06/2022 13:36

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...

Balanced and correct.

Tillsforthrills · 02/06/2022 17:39

TheEnemy123 · 02/06/2022 11:52

@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 seem to have some sort of axe to grind, therefore imbalanced.

TheEnemy123 · 02/06/2022 17:57

TalkingCat · 02/06/2022 16:35

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.

Show quote history

Well, clearly not as Johnny Depp's legal team convinced a jury that the only liar and abuser was AH. Clearly, your hatred of men blinds you so badly that this isn't enough for you. Clear, proven evidence, and AH perjuring herself by contradicting "evidence" she gave previously still aren't enough for you. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. I bet you campaign for equality don't you? Yet you can't extend that same courtesy to a male DV victim and throw soundbites and claims of celebrity brainwashing at anyone who disagrees with you.

The game is up. You and your ilk have been quashed. Accept it and move on. This verdict was a huge victory for DV survivors like myself, and you and your hatred can't take that away from us.

TheEnemy123 · 02/06/2022 18:01

Tillsforthrills · 02/06/2022 17:39

You seem to have some sort of axe to grind, therefore imbalanced.

Show quote history

No more than people refusing to accept men can be victims of abuse.

Tontostitis · 02/06/2022 18:05

Johnny Depp's legal team convinced a jury that the only liar and abuser was AH.
Tbf Amber's own recordings, words and actions played a big part in that.

TheEnemy123 · 02/06/2022 18:07

Tontostitis · 02/06/2022 18:05

Johnny Depp's legal team convinced a jury that the only liar and abuser was AH.
Tbf Amber's own recordings, words and actions played a big part in that.

Indeed, but even taunting your victim on tape isn't enough for some people...

Tontostitis · 02/06/2022 18:28

Indeed, but even taunting your victim on tape isn't enough for some people...
Agreed you have to be seriously prejudiced or wilfully ignorant to listen to those tapes and still side with AH. But my NY resolution was to not argue with idiots 😎

Workwork21 · 02/06/2022 19:24

It would have been interesting if it could have done completely anonymised. Ie the juror didn't know who is person A or B. Voice distortion used for the testimonies etc. I suspect if you took out any way of knowing who was whom in it, the same outcome would have been reached.

I desperately wanted to believe AH. The actual evidence meant I could not.

Midlifemusings · 02/06/2022 19:48

Workwork21 · 02/06/2022 19:24

It would have been interesting if it could have done completely anonymised. Ie the juror didn't know who is person A or B. Voice distortion used for the testimonies etc. I suspect if you took out any way of knowing who was whom in it, the same outcome would have been reached.

I desperately wanted to believe AH. The actual evidence meant I could not.

I agree. I listened to some of the recordings where people reenacted them siwtching genders for the lines and I have no doubt if Depp had said and done the things that Heard did - the outcome would have found for Heard.

Interestingly Amber was the first one to bring social media into it - telling the jurors that social media was on Johnny's side and were being mean to her. She also clearly had been watching media and social media and even amended her own evidence when the TMZ photo was released with metadata showig itwas taken a year before the date she had just testified to.

TalkingCat · 02/06/2022 20:04

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TalkingCat · 02/06/2022 20:05

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TalkingCat · 02/06/2022 20:08

The minute a victim is violent or fights back the courts will no longer see her as a victim, there's been research on this and it's a huge contradiction in studies/mainstream view of abuse in general; this trial just proved it. This is a huge blow to DV survivors. But there are Meninists on this thread who are no doubt 'getting off' on this. 🙄

RosieRooster83 · 02/06/2022 20:10

TalkingCat · 02/06/2022 20:08

The minute a victim is violent or fights back the courts will no longer see her as a victim, there's been research on this and it's a huge contradiction in studies/mainstream view of abuse in general; this trial just proved it. This is a huge blow to DV survivors. But there are Meninists on this thread who are no doubt 'getting off' on this. 🙄

I don't think it is a blow for DV survivors at all. I think it is a positive thing for men who have been abused as so often they just do not get believed. Hopefully now they won't feel so ashamed to tell people what they have suffered.

Workwork21 · 02/06/2022 20:18

TalkingCat · 02/06/2022 20:08

The minute a victim is violent or fights back the courts will no longer see her as a victim, there's been research on this and it's a huge contradiction in studies/mainstream view of abuse in general; this trial just proved it. This is a huge blow to DV survivors. But there are Meninists on this thread who are no doubt 'getting off' on this. 🙄

The evidence does not show that it was a case of fighting back.

For what it's worth, my ex tried to do me for fighting back and there were no issues with it being seen for what it was because the evidence supported the truth.

Workwork21 · 02/06/2022 20:21

The evidence actually shows that JD was hiding in a bathroom whilst being goaded and pushed and pushed and pushed.

I can say when I was in the midst of it with my ex that goading would have been the last thing I did. It was always me hiding in the bathroom to keep safe. I resonate more as a victim with Johnny's actions, his actions were far more plausible to reality. That is why huge numbers of DV victims support him.

justfiveminutes · 02/06/2022 20:22

TalkingCat, I don't think I've posted on this thread but enjoyed reading the debate until yesterday when it got so nasty. I don't think it's right to insult posters who disagree with you - calling pp incels and misogynists, accusing them of celebrating when the OJ Simpson trial ended.

Unless you know JD or AH personally, you don't know any more about the case than everyone else. Some people have watched the trial, just like you, but reached a different conclusion, that's all. To you, he's an abuser who got away with it but to many she is the abuser who lied maliciously and has paid the price. I really think it's time to accept the verdict. Anyone who uses this case to disbelieve an abused victim probably wouldn't have believed them anyway.

minutesturntohours · 02/06/2022 21:05

TalkingCat · 02/06/2022 13:11

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

Show quote history

No, he didn't, so it is.

RosieRooster83 · 02/06/2022 21:07

Those that think JD was the abuser, what evidence is this based upon from the trial? Genuinely interested as to the reasoning behind it.

minutesturntohours · 02/06/2022 21:07

DaisyQuakeJohnson · 02/06/2022 10:01

This article is interesting. Republicans hated JD because he made a joke about Trump being assassinated but Reps and Trump have been falling over themselves to support him now because they hate women; they hate feminists and they hated Me Too.

The social media onslaught was about getting women to stfu and showing rich men in the US can shop around for their desired result.

AH was awarded damages too but even if every count had been found in her favour, posters wouldn't have been on here gloating. There was no gloating when the UK case upheld so many counts of abuse against him. Most women (and men with empathy tbh) don't celebrate abuse. Yet another sign that for the JD 'supporters'/bots/Republicans/MRAs/TRAs this was never about abuse. It was about certain factions consistently trying to get women to shut up and inadvertently showing how inadequate social media is at managing co-ordinated assaults. Women and many politicians have known both those things for a long time. This circus has just brought it to wider attention and given them more evidence for pushing ahead with social media reform.

Why Republicans Supported JD

Are you having a laugh? Of course they would have been gloating!

As for pretending that we must be MRAs if we dont blindly support a lying, disgraceful excuse for a human who uses abused women to ride on the coat tails of, that's ridiculous. Its not about "shutting her up", its about stopping her lying. And by the way, we arnt celebrating abuse. We are celebrating no abuse, because there wasn't any!

Nothappyatwork · 02/06/2022 21:15

That’s not forget that this is the same justice system that found OJ not guilty 🙄

minutesturntohours · 02/06/2022 21:29

Nothappyatwork · 02/06/2022 21:15

That’s not forget that this is the same justice system that found OJ not guilty 🙄

Oh for goodness sake.
Johnny really can't win here, can he?

Now I assume if Amber had won you would be quite pleased with the justice system?

See, here's the thing. This isn't Johnny's fault. It isn't the media's. It isn't the judges. It isnt the people who support him, It isn't men's as a whole.

It's Amber's. Plain and simple. The fact she has a vagina does not magically free her from this fact.

justfiveminutes · 02/06/2022 21:31

Nothappyatwork · 02/06/2022 21:15

That’s not forget that this is the same justice system that found OJ not guilty 🙄

We can't forget that. AH supporters mention it every five minutes.

minutesturntohours · 02/06/2022 21:32

RosieRooster83 · 02/06/2022 21:07

Those that think JD was the abuser, what evidence is this based upon from the trial? Genuinely interested as to the reasoning behind it.

Three words. She's a woman.

minutesturntohours · 02/06/2022 21:34

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

that is a disgusting post.

Fwiw, I agree with the Enemy 100 percent, as do the vast majority of people. I'm over the moon he won and Amber deserves everything she gets.

To tell a DV survivor you think she was happy someone was murdered is the most digusting thing I've read on here.

BigFatLiar · 02/06/2022 21:40

justfiveminutes · 02/06/2022 21:31

We can't forget that. AH supporters mention it every five minutes.

Show quote history

Don't forget that the reason OJ won his case was not because he was innocent but because the prosecution were caught out fixing evidence. If they'd simply stuck to rules they'd have got a conviction rather than ruin their case.