AIBU to want to only discuss the legal aspects of the JD/AH verdict?

[Blackbird2020]

I really enjoyed the series of threads started by @StormzyinaTCup that had a (mainly!) respectful discussion about particular legal aspects of the JD/AH defamation cases.

The last one unfortunately descended into a slanging match and was deleted 😭

If there are any of the old posters from the original threads who’d like to continue the dry and possible boring legal discussion please feel free to join in!

Let’s see how long the civility can last 😉

Thanks for making the thread ✨️. Been out in the garden enjoying the weather. On the balance of the evidence the correct decision was made by the jury. I am glad that the judge has sealed their identities for a year as there are already pictures of them floating around on social media.

I agree.

I’ll be interested to know on what specific grounds AH’s legal team will appeal on. It seems they are focussing in on a belief that social media has influenced their judgement, though how can they prove this? The jury were under strict media ban.

It's widely portrayed as a 'win' for JD. I see it differently. There was a claim and a counter claim. Both succeeded in part as I see it, one (JDs) was more successful than the other. But neither party got the compensation they sought. Both proved that the other had been defamatory against the other. Evidence did show (in my view) mutual abuse.

Am I wrong?

Elaine, one of AHs lawyers has been doing the rounds on American TV alleging that the jury was influenced by social media and that the judge made errors in the law. So I imagine that will be basis of the appeal. Rekeita Law explained a few days ago that appeals in Virginia are always allowed, though a judge could simply come back with a 1 line answer affirming the lower courts decision.

RE: AHs one win, it was based on a very specific statement made by JDs lawyer about AH staging the room as part of a hoax. JDs team didn't do enough to explain that the correct person for AH to pursue would have been Waldman personally or to rebut that he was working as an agent for Depp. Ironically they may have the option to appeal this.

AH’s defamation claim was interesting as it was specifically regarding an interview JD’s then lawyer made to the Daily Mail saying that AH had staged a room and herself to look like JD had violently abused her.

The jury found in her favour because there wasn’t any/enough to prove she had staged it. It was purely on evidence at the time, I.e. at the time JD’s lawyer wasnt able to prove that was the case, so shouldn’t have been bad-mouthing her to the press. She suffered financial loss and so has now been compensated. It didn’t find his previous lawyer guilty of lying, just that he didn’t have evidence to prove his claim, therefore = defamation.

@Blackbird2020

And beyond the staging, Waldman alleged in that same statement that Amber's lawyer and her publicist had both been involved in the stating and guided her on next steps. I think that might be where the jury decided that they really didn't have evidence that her publicist and lawyer were in on it.

Ooh just found you.

I have seen a couple of Elaine’s interviews, she is getting her 15mins of fame for sure😁.

I’m not sure criticising Judge A was a wise move and if they want to appeal on the basis of the Jury being influenced by SM then it probably would have been a good idea to have not bought the court of public opinion (via Twitter#) into the court as evidence in the first place. Outside of that error, to say the Jury checked SM outside of court that would be difficult to prove, ‘lack of foundation’ ‘speculation’’ and you could probably throw in ‘Hearsay’ for good measure! I’m not sure that’s going to fly. Are they considering appealing on other grounds as well ?

👋 @StormzyinaTCup I’m following the other thread in Feminism, but struggling to wade through the heated arguments regarding feminism and domestic violence. I
miss those clinical legal discussions from your previous threads!

I read somewhere that appeals in VA are far more readily accepted by the judge than in other states. Maybe the bar won’t have to be that high for AH’s legal team.. will be interesting to see what they come up with.

I saw an interesting legal argument on one of the British news channels. He (the legal expert) stated that in front of a wise judge (not jury) JD had already been found guilty of 12 counts of assaulting AH.
the legal situation was different in the US in what had to be proved/disproved and it was in front of a (non legally trained) jury. Some things that were said (‘vile’) had no legal bearing. He seemed to think that there are good grounds for appeal.

I feel sorry for AH.

let’s not forget JD definitely offered to ‘f* her corpse” - and Jason Mamoa was wholly contemptuous in his appearance.

Johnny was not found guilty of anything as there haven't been any charges laid against him or cases brought against him. He brought forward a civil defamation case against The Sun and lost. There was never a case on his guilt or innocence and he has never been investigated, charged or taken to court for any of this. Amber could have filed a police report and gone that route but hasn't for whatever reason.

What appearance by Momoa are you referring to?

I hope that I am allowed to join your respectful discussion. To answer a question, the statement AH "won" on was:

Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops, but the first attempt didn’t do the trick. The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911.

I'm not surprised. That's a very detailed statement and timeline of events that Waldman stated, with no way to proving it. I think the jury could have taken issue with any part of that. JD's team didn't prove that anyone else had been involved in any of it.

I saw a video of Jason Momoa and thought it was a spoof? He didn't make an appearance as a witness did he???

Correct me if I’m wrong but he made an online appearance and was reprimanded by the judge??

Momoa did not make any appearance at the trial.

There’s an infamous viral spoof video doing the rounds which is believed to have been made by a Depp supporter - spliced together from old Momoa interviews and clips from the trial itself - is that what you’re thinking of?

The timeline could have easily been explored in court by showing the time stamps of the photos submitted into evidence. If the photos were taken before the second set of police officers arrived it is in her favour and follows her version that they weren’t aware a second call had been placed and had cleared the mess and glass due to the dogs. If the photos were taken after the officers attended it is problematic as there is none of the damage on the body cams.

I think the fact people have fallen for these spoof videos, that have been circulating on SM, shows the detrimental extent that SM had on this case.

His Youtube channel was created in 2006 and he has over 250 vidoes on it. He has been making dubbed clips of various celebrities for over 5 years. That is what the channel does - I don't know if he personally supports everyone he makes a video about. The channel is GeoMFilms if you want to watch them.

I don't think it shows the effect of SM on the case, I think it shows that many people now form opinions based on headlines or tiktok videos or video clips they see online without any thinking or research into actual facts and truth.

That happens with everything - it is how social media works and has been working for years now. It is all about little sound bites to influence thinking and many people don't look any further. Nothing specific to this case, it is on every topic or event or person.

If Amber and her team had complied with the court order to provide the devices and photos for review by Depp's team (just as Depp provided his devices and photos to Heard's team) - then metadata could have been entered. Since Amber and team did not comply with the court order, the judge ruled no metadata allowed.

I was surprised that JD could claim defamation based on an article that didn't mention him by name, and was not written entirely by AH. A final technicality I admit

fine not final

Couldn’t agree more. It’s terrifying really.