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.

I agree with you. He is clearly an awful person (they both are).

@Cantanka
You don’t hoodwink a High Court judge easily, *and Amber Heard persuaded

Hmm. He was hoodwinked over her donating $7m. He's spoke as if that portrayed her in a good light to him. We now know that was a lie and that she lied in the UK court about that. She even lied at the application to appeal by saying that she'd made a 10 year plan to pay the donations. The children's hospital said they knew nothing about a plan and had expected to have it paid in full ASAP.

Incident #3 was a claim of sexual assault and trashing a trailer. The judge found that she wasn't sexually assaulted. He did find that Depp trashed the trailer based on the fact this followed Depps usual behaviour. We now know from the owner of the trailer, that the trailer wasn't trashed. Just a $62 light fitting was broken. So Depp had not trashed anything but Judge Nicol found him guilty because he was violent on other occasions.

But in incident #1 the judge said there was really insufficient evidence to find him guilty as a one off event but because he, the judge, had found Depp guilty of other occasions, this fitted within the same pattern so he reckoned he was guilty of that too.

So out of 12 incidents, one was subsequently proved untrue and one had insufficient evidence to be true as a one off event. On both, he was found guilty without evidence. Instead the guilty finding on one, supported him being guilty on the other. A bit like you going to court for a speeding offence. And the police threw in another speeding offence without any evidence and you were found automatically guilty because they'd found you guilty on the 1st offence.

Incident #9 was the fight on the stairs. The judge found Depp violent but Heard was only violent in defence of her sister.

In court Heard stated that she was on a mezzanine level and Depp was on ground level. Whitney ,her sister, had come down the stairs, presumably from a higher floor, and was on the mezzanine with her. She and Depp were trading insults and he suddenly ran up the stairs to the mezzanine level. He grabbed Heard's hair and hit her in the face. They struggled and Whitney "threw herself in the line of fire" between them. Whitneys back was to the staircase and Depp swung at Whitney. Heard says she immediately thought of Kate Moss and stairs, and she swung at him to protect her sister.

But Whitney's account is different.

She says she was downstairs with Depp as he and Heard were exchanging profanities. (My word not hers!) Whitney then went UP the stairs to join her sister. She was stood with her back to the stairs. Depp ran up the stairs and struck Whitney from behind as he passed. (So coming up and behind Whitney and striking from behind would impel Whitney forward and away from the stairs.) Amber shouted, don't hit my sister, and she smacked him. Then Depp grabbed Heards hair and hit her.

So according to Whitney:
a) Heard hit Depp first; Depp retaliated
b) Whitney was pushed away from the stairs not towards them
c) Whitney did not throw herself in the line of fire
d) Depp did not turn on Whitney during a physical fight and go to strike her

If Judge Nicol knew these facts, who he would he say was the aggressor between Depp and Heard?

In incident #13. The judge concluded Depp had “assaulted Ms Heard as he had done on previous occasions when he was stressed”. But there was no evidence. Just another incident that the judge found to be true based on other incidents found to be true with no evidence. But Heard claimed were all similar and he believed her (remember the donation claim).

In incident #14 the judge believed her friends over his employees because he believed Depp's employees would be biased. But he also believed Heard's friends over 2 police officers who had no involvement with either.

So the judge based an assumption of guilt on his other assumptions and not on evidence. I'm not researching the other points. I think parsing 5 is enough.

Was the uk judge right? Maybe. But we know that the trashed trailer was a lie. And we know Heards own sister contradicts the claim the Depp was violent first and went to push Whitney down the stairs. So when people say the judge is very experienced and would never be hoodwinked, I think they're wrong. He was hoodwinked, the only question is by how much.

I disagree. I have watched every day and, as a lawyer myself, I think the evidence heavily weighs in favour of Johnny Depp. I will explain more about that below, but first - Virginia.

If Johnny Depp is telling the truth, I think it makes most sense for it to be brought in Virginia and televised.

First, Depp is suing Ms Heard for an op-ed she published in the Washington Post. Washington Post’s place of business is in Virginia so it’s a jurisdictional decision.

Second, if your interest is in speaking the truth and clearing your name (to help you to gain work again), you need to convince the right people to contract you again. In Johnny Depp’s case, those people listen to public popularity to gauge whether they will make good $$ by contracting him. Regardless of whether he wins (and I actually don’t think he will as the bar is significantly high being a unanimous jury to decide in his favour on the balance of probabilities - not beyond reasonable doubt), his interest is in telling his story to the world because those people affect his popularity, and by extension, livelihood. Also, if a public figure has made up significant lies about you and other things - and these are some of the most serious allegations - what better way to ensure their evidence is properly tested than by allowing the world to hear what they have to say and provide evidence if they know it to be untrue? We have seen the power of this now as multiple people have come forward with evidence to contradict Amber Heard’s testimony. This is fair (if Johnny is telling the truth).

Before this trial, I thought they were both nuts because of the fiasco in Australia with the dogs and also the media around their relationship. However, having watched the full trial (minus closing statements tomorrow), I do believe Depp, on the balance of probabilities.

Credibility is significantly important in a ‘he said she said’ scenario and I think Depp has come off more genuine and credible in his testimony. His story has been consistent and he has conceded where it’s not favourable to him (i.e. vulgar text messages in anger and drugs/alcohol abuse). These things aren’t absolute but they go to his credibility.

Amber Heard does not have a whole lot of convincing circumstantial evidence Depp sexually or physically abused her (the contrary exists though) and more importantly, we have seen her credibility shot to pieces because she has lied on several occasions (and not conceded on anything), under oath. Her stories often don’t make sense when you piece them altogether. For example (and there are many), her response to every question about numerous photos of her on the day/s following alleged significant abuse is that we can’t see bruising or swelling because she’s always wearing make up. In isolation, this may be plausible.. Yet, there’s evidence that (she denies) she tipped off the paparazzi that she would be at the courthouse and to get footage of a bruise under her right eye on a day she randomly doesn’t wear make up. Then in photos with her friends the following day, we can’t see a bruise again because ‘she’s wearing makeup’. Pieced together, this just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense/logic.

I don’t think either party will win (though if I was on the jury, I would be in favour of Depp at this point), but at least their stories have been heard (no pun intended).

I am not sure it matters if he wins, he's done what I suspect was the point of the legal action, air what he needs to in public. Get the public and industry back on his side as much as he can.

This is a defamation case so the elements to prove on the balance of probabilities are : 1. publication of 2. an actionable statement with 3. the requisite intent. Depp must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a defamatory statement was made with ‘actual malice’ (i.e knowledge that it was false and with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not’. This means the biggest hurdle for Depp is essentially proving the statements in Heard’s op-ed were false.

Stops as soon as someone says objection as well.

I find the whole thing sickening to watch.
He has been allowed to abuse her through the courts. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's a very powerful popular actor and this is all part of his abuse.

If someone told malicious lies about me in public, repeatedly, over years, not caring about their impact on me and my family, I would want to tell my side in the most public way possible and I don't think I'd care very much about the impact on that person.

Furthermore he knows how to manipulate her and what buttons to press. She looks like a woman on the edge whilst he portrays the victim smirking. Watch their body language.
I would be interested to know how many of you have had any experience of working with or supporting those who been abused or lived through trauma.
I see this as sad a case as OJ Simpson. He had the best lawyers and ultimately got away with murder.
Look at the body language he's enjoying her discomfort knows she's weaker than him and he's using his public support to twist the knife.

justfiveminutes you sure about that how exactly? You are choosing to believe him why? How do you know these are lies because he said so 🤔 My points still stand.

There are many victims who wish they could expose their abuser. Especially when that abuser has manipulated and charmed others.

Amber didn't think he would ever have a venue to tell his story but he did. He had the money and the perseverance to make it happen. I have seen so many survivors talk about how empowering this trial has been for them to see a victim be able to expose their abuser for who they really are. Many for whom the dynamic in the recordings is all too real and who wish everyone knew what their abuser was really like behind closed doors. They don't have the money or position to do that but having an example of similar experiences in the public sphere validates their own experiences.

has he got to prove he wasn’t abusive or has he got to prove he didn’t hit her?

I think they’re both totally toxic and that he could smash the place up and shout (which is abusive). But also that she was abusive to him - and physically as well, she admits it on a tape.

she has been caught out lying at least once on the stand. Which makes me not believe anything she says. Do they not have perjury laws in America?

but I also think he might lose the case as he can’t prove the article was about him.

but I agree he’s “won” no matter what the jury decides. Everyone has heard his side and they have seen how she can be.

He’s repeatedly taking her to court, including purposefully picking a state that neither of them have anything to do with just so he could get all that footage of “his side” out

just wanted to mention this - I believe neither got to choose where the case was heard? It’s to do with the location of the HQ of the newspaper which published her article.

This case, along with the Rooney/Vardy one have sickened me and I’ve refused to follow either. Neither should have come to court.

There are no winners

HIs defamation suit was based on three sentences in the OpEd - the title about Amber being a victim of sexual violence, a sentence that said she was a public figure representing domestic violence, and a sentence about insitutions had protected him the abuse but she had faced culture's wrath. Hers was based on three phrases - abuse hoax, fake and fraud.

We will have to wait for specific jury instructions to really understand the law in Virginia and what the jury is tasked to do but I believe the plantiff in each case has to prove the claims the defendents made were false and done with malicious intent.

Midlifemusings he had the money arrogance and utter contempt for her that she had the strength to stand up to him and publicly shamed him. Ofcourse the article was about him.

Everything about this case is utterly abhorrent. Very upsetting for many who have had years of gaslighting by perpetrators like him.

The only winners are the lawyers.

The amount of money spent has to be astronomical. People get to choose how they spend their money and I guess Johnny felt that having a voice was worth tens of millions. I was reading some of the court documents and there are so many more motions and write ups and back and forth between lawyers and judges behind the scene that we never even see in the lead up to the trial. One small detail can have dozens of documents associated with it.

She wasn’t listened to at all, all the pro Johnny depp social media campaigns started as soon as it was reported on and he had plenty of support from public figures too.

I believed her. I saw her as a meek young woman who was abused by a megastar and too scared to speak out for fear of being blacklisted in Hollywood. I assumed she finally felt safe because of the MeToo movement and a huge shift in support of women speaking out about the abuse in Hollywood. After the English trial she didn't seem quite so helpless but I still thought the relationship was toxic because of him. Since this trial my opinion has changed. @MyneighbourisTotoro put it more eloquently than I could below. She's going to be blacklisted but not because she's a victim.

I see a woman who is abusive and likes to goad her partners into a fight, this was a toxic relationship and JD has always been vulnerable and has had difficulties with drink and drugs due to an abusive life growing up and AH also abused the same substances.
In my opinion if he ever did abuse her then it was in retaliation from her relentlessness, it doesn’t excuse the behaviour but she is clearly an awful person who repeatedly took advantage of him.

I have never been a JD fan and he has proven himself to be a vile abhorrent man with serious issues however, my ex has borderline and the recordings of Amber terrified me. The only difference between them was he would physically hurt himself then say I did it. I'm pleased JD found a way to get his side played to the world. I don't think it matters if he wins, he's won anyway.

I’m going to point out again that they did choose where to file the suit - they went with where the paper is printed, not the headquarters or where the owner is based, both of those were options.

If someone abused me, for years, in private and then spent the time after we split up maliciously paying PR firms to destroy my reputation in public, then dragged me to court saying I was lying, I would want to tell my side in the most public way possible and I don't think I'd care very much about the impact on that person.

Exactly.
For some reason posters can say "she's just like my mum/grandma/ex with BOD, she's an abuser" and they get told that's correct and women abusing men is a huge problem
Say "he's just like my abusive narcissist stonewalling gaslighty ex" and you get called a man hater with an agenda

Its misogyny and also distorting reality

Who will win? The Lawyers. 😁

Do we really want the situation where women are terrified into talking about their past relationships by powerful rich men to become the norm?

Depp isn't the only famous star to have been involved in a libel trial. Craig Maclachlan in Australia just last week dropped his defamation action against multiple woman who had accused him of sexual assault. Theres been a few cases in Britain where men have used the law of defamation to silence women for speaking out against abuse or even rape claims - there was a British case a few years back where the ex girlfriend killed herself in the face of various claims being made against her by her ex, backed by his wealthy family.

The law of defamation is a bit of a farce. Its often vanity-based legal action and ironically often does more to damage the claimant's reputation than the claimed defamatory statements themselves. Because we have an Anglo-American legal system in the UK (well in England at least) we have these awful trials which are not judge-led but claimant and defence led, descending into these lengthy mud slinging battles at great expense. Lawrence Fox is facing a bill of £150,000 just for asking and failing to be granted a civil jury trial as part of his defence for a defamation case being brought against him.

But if your ex is wealthy and was abusive, do you really want to live your life in silence lest you make a statement that might be slandarous or libellous in any way? Its clear that Depp is using the law of defamation to harass, humiliate and basically stalk Amber Heard. He could have chosen to make his own series of public statements rather than the courts, denying the allegations and he has enough of a fan base that people would have believed him, but he has chosen action that repeatedly rehashes the same issues of their relationship, over and over again, in the most expensive way possible.

Its clear that Depp is using the law of defamation to harass, humiliate and basically stalk Amber Heard. He could have chosen to make his own series of public statements rather than the courts, denying the allegations and he has enough of a fan base that people would have believed him, but he has chosen action that repeatedly rehashes the same issues of their relationship, over and over again, in the most expensive way possible.

Exactly. To me he's basically gone "I'm going down and I'm taking you with me"

He could have come out after the op ed and said something like "I'm aware of some of the issues amber had in her life prior to meeting me, and commend her for using her voice for victims of abuse"

And it would have been a total non-story
But no, he has to escalate and get all this aired in court