Amber Heard&Johnny Depp verdict

[Miscfeminista]

Continuation of previous thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4552076-amber-heardjohnny-depp-trial?page=36&reply=117586863

Speculations on verdict, news related to it, insights into specifics of legal matters, opinions and impressions…let’s keep it going and see how verdict finds us >>>>>>>>>>

Because we don't know why her ENT evidence was allowed. Perhaps because she wanted to frame it in a way that showed abuse whereas the actual evidence said otherwise

Nice of you to bring it up on this thread then.

Do some posters think the jury got it wrong. Why do you think that out of interest?

If it’s a US problem is it your take that another country would deliver another result

I didn’t really get as involved in the trial but I was interested in the outcome and feel that the jury are capable of making a decision, but get the sense some think not

"Still... the lady was working and even if it's a private flight she's still in charge of safety and security and employed by a company. It doesn't look good for her."

Not only that but Depp supposedly had an affair with her. I don't know if it's the same woman AH discovered but it was definitely during their relationship.

She appears to have had nose job/plastic surgery before JD so any injuries she had beforehand would be tended to I assume(that's speculation as there's no official confirmation she had nose job other than those plastic surgeons on YT saying what they think celebs had done)

"Do some posters think the jury got it wrong. Why do you think that out of interest?"

As someone said, I would be more inclined to put trust in judge that has experience reviewing plenty of evidence in cases(of DV on top of that, hopefully trained by poeple like Dawn Hughes)than I would by randomly selected people that are supposed to represent common folk in a world where most people don't take DV seriously at all. And that's exactly what happened, people reflected popular beliefs of"he was provoked in some way", which is clearly not fair at all.

*I mean jury reflected popular beliefs of people, you get me

@Miscfeminista Not only that but Depp supposedly had an affair with her. I don't know if it's the same woman AH discovered but it was definitely during their relationship.

plot thickens 🤣

Juries are easily manipulated by skilled lawyers. It's not just a US problem, but it's amplified there when high profile cases are televised and the jury isn't sequestered.

Personally the decision they reached simply doesn't make sense in so far of both the evidence and verdict - where she lied but didn't lie.

I feel a lot of people equate Depp with the characters he's played and think they know him. They don't.

On the flip side I'm no fan of Heard either, but it's a terrible outcome where the result is victims of abuse cannot afford to speak for fear of a lawsuit - even if they don't name the abuser.

There's a bigger picture here than the relationship between two troubled people and I can't understand why so many people can't understand this and would rather be caught up in the tawdry drama of a toxic couple whose behaviour has the potential to impact many, many victims of domestic violence.

On the evidence they had, I would say the title of the op-ed could be viewed as defamatory. I believe her when she said she was sexually assaulted (at least) twice by Depp but there wasn't really anything to corroborate that. I totally disagree with their verdict on the other two counts, particularly that it was done with malice as that could apply to anyone who claims to be a victim, and as I've said before on this thread, she had strong evidence of being abused. More than many victims would.

I don't have a strong view on her counterclaim. Obviously I don't believe it was a hoax, but what the damages should have been or whether Depp should be liable for what Waldman said, I don't know.

I don't think much of jury trials at all. Not legal experts, not sequestered, the usual prejudices. I have a lot more respect for the UK court judgement which runs to 197 pages and is very well reasoned and evidenced IMO.

They didn't find that "she lied but didn't lie though".

The case was about very specific statements, they found in her favour in respect of one of the particular statements in her counter claim (a statement that was actually made by JD's lawyer not him personally) because it wasn't sufficiently evidenced that this statement was true.

They found in favour of JD in respect of all 3 of the particular statements referenced in his claim.

Whether you agree with the verdict or not it is entirely consistent in my view.

I agree, it was consistent. I don't think it should ever have been a publicly filmed jury trial and I think the verdict was a real blow, but it was consistent.

I did think when the verdicts came out people would accept them but it seems many don’t - which is entirely their choice but I do wonder if a pre formed idea of what the result should be is a factor

One thing that does really damage a case ime for anyone is not telling the truth in a testimony. I’ve seen lists re AH on here (not many about Depp maybe someone has posted one) re falsehoods

Maybe if they had not been part of the evidence it would have gone the other way, but being credible was part of the jury’s decision making

They may have"just been honestly answering questions"but they also had their preconceived opinons on basis of mainstream opinon that abuse is very rare and that you have to be perfect victim. So even if the jurors believe they were being fair, they were not. They gave in to their impressions of her charachter rather than evidence in front of them, they misinterpreted evidence. Their yes answer that she intended malice is rubbish, it's pure victim blaming. They literally said JD was not an abuser, they did not just answer those question re defamation and they knew that.

It was her case to lose rather than his to win.
When you take an oath to tell the truth and then you get caught out either lying or embellishing and your stock response on this, over six long weeks, is always ‘of course I’m telling the truth it’s everyone else that’s lying’ then you have pretty much flushed your case down the toilet.

Time. I think that's it. It was jaw dropping to see the way she said (with a bit of attitude) that other witnesses were perjuring themselves especially Hicksville.

In addition, AH just didn't come across as genuine and it's a gut feeling thing when interacting with anyone, you get a vibe, probably more so bejng in the same room for weeks. This could be absolutely overlooked with evidence that cannot be contradicted but she couldn't produce it.

The only time I connected with her was at the verdict. Her demeanour was different.

To add JDs slow speech drove me nuts sometimes.

He explicitly says in the tape it happened but that her nose injury could not have been from it because"it wasn't so bad". You are trying to cover up for him harder than his lawyers seems.

No, I am not trying to cover up for him. What he says on tape is not absolute proof. I set out his explanation (which you clearly don't accept) and stated that the tape adds weight to the allegation but falls short of proof.

@TiddyTidTwo To add JDs slow speech drove me nuts sometimes.

Yes, specially the last time he took the stand, he was slower than usual, blurring his speech, mind not quite fully there and had to be repeated questions. I could tell right away he was high on something (looked like prescription drugs, benzos or something in the line). His lawyers were throwing him some very concerned looks . "Having a drug addict as client taking the stand must not be fun" I thought.

I know you're paraphrasing, but I'm not sure she accused everyone of lying? And surely much of Depp's case is arguing the same thing, that her witnesses are lying?

A lot of what was said was perception-based rather than 100% black and white, true or false. For instance people claiming they didn't see something - could be true, could be they turned a blind eye.

In terms of specifics, there was the island manager (I don't remember her name) who claimed she'd never seen Depp passed out but was impeached on that because she admitted to the incident where Jack found his dad passed out on the beach, and she was present.

With Kate Moss, she mentioned a well known rumour and her fear at the time based on that rumour.

The police who were called to the penthouse did lie in one respect because CCTV shows they were in and out in 15 minutes. I believe they said they were there for longer. Also tbf LA police have a bad reputation for corruption. At one time I would have thought that was a bit of a reach but there are now so many examples of police lies, arse covering and mendaciousness, here and in the US, I take them with a big pinch of salt these days.

The trailer park manager - she said he wasn't there and couldn't really have known how that situation went down, and disagreed on the extent of the damage. He follows at least one Depp 'superfan' twitter account and there are some... interesting reviews online about him going back several years. He came across as a bit of a creepy 'dudebro' type who wanted to ingratiate himself with Depp, to me.

So overall I don't find it the incredible that some of those witnesses saw whatever was most expedient. I actually think it's scary how much influence someone as rich and famous as Depp can have. All those paid bot accounts, a lawyer with links to Putin. Texts from him berating the medical team for not getting Amber under control, excoriating Stephen Deuters for his disloyalty over the texts he sent (he seems to be back in the fold now with a very cushy job working for Depp), texts to Kate James about 'fixing Amber's flabby ass'. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature at all, but he seems dodgy as fuck to me.

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.

Anyone seen this #cutforamber thing trending on Twitter. trigger warning: self harm

I am extremely concerned about this. Obviously absolutely nothing to do with Amber but I've just listened into the groups radio chat on Twitter and I can't make out if the name is actually nothing to do with self harm and and trolls have picked up on it and are trolling or....I don't know. I'm reporting posts but there's a lot of concern someone will do something.

Someone has even faked an Amber Twitter post endorsing it on her behalf ffs.

People are sick!

Just wanted to put it out there if anyone cab get on there and report and get Twitter to close this down as they seem to be taking their time.

Sorry if I've upset anyone by posting this.

I agree with her. I looked at the witness lists the other day, Heards team objected to a few, Depps team objected to every single one
They objected to statements constantly in court- hearsay, not an expert witness etc
Then said AH was lying and there was no evidence, when there was evidence but it was disallowed
I accept the jury's findingbut the whole thing leaves a very bad taste

Tbf I do think she told some lies - the TMZ thing, and maybe writing in lipstick on the mirror in Australia. I don't entirely agree she lied about the donations, it seems there was a payment plan which is common with large donations. It could be said she knew it would be taken a different way by the average person and she said whatever would make the best soundbite, but she's donated a lot of money and I would assume hasn't been in a position to continue. She will have been paying legal fees since the UK trial, even though she was only a witness to that one.

However, those lies are actually not material to the abuse allegations. I think she wanted to look 'better' and it's a shame she did that but it's a long way from a multi year hoax and conspiracy with her friends.

I'm not bedazzled by Depp. Literally couldn't care for him one bit. However, I am a big fan of justice. If something isnt right, I'll point it out and Amber being called a victim isn't right. I was in a EA relationship for 4 years so I am a survivor and I know who I relate to more. I was Depp. As soon as the shouting started I would go room to room trying to get away from my abuser but he'd follow me constantly shouting. Occasionally I'd shout back. I'd lock doors and he would just stand outside screaming and trying to knock it down. I was given the silent treatment and had whispered shouting anytime I did "wrong" out in public. He would beg me not to leave anytime I travelled to see my family. My friends stopped coming round because he was rude to them and made it uncomfortable. He was fine around his friend though. He would ridicule me and bully me in stupid voices. He was always charming and the life and soul while he and his friends said I was miserable and moody. I saw myself in Depp and his actions. I saw my abuser in Amber.

Surely, with such a strong opinion, we have seem the same evidence? Why are you so sure that the male in this relationship isn't the victim?

She lies. Her lies have been picked apart. The rape with a bottle in Australia didn't happen - it's literally on tape if you care to look for the audio - and I can't support any women who makes up such a disgusting and despicable lie, let alone 10+ lies. She got caught in a lie and she's had to try and lie her way out of it.

Wasn’t there a contradiction with the article not being about JD but later it was

When you get conflicting statements it undermines your case because the jury starts to doubt the credibility of the testimony