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 >>>>>>>>>>

Oh and judges make findings all the time based on an individual's credibility on the stand. They will often set out in judgments that they preferred the evidence of one witness over another on a particular issue.

Maintaining credibility is incredibly important.

"With hindsight, a better defence from Heard would have been 'We were fucking horrible to each other. Thank fuck we're not together anymore"

In an audio, post TRO depp suggested a joint statement to her. We all know he had issues, no one is denying that. He was basically trying to tell her that if she did this, the consequences would be huge if the full truth came out.

She didn't want that though and thought no one would believe him.

Just musing on this, as I find the court system interesting

On the case I was on the story was all over the place - police statement different to testimony etc but at one point there was a heartfelt statement of why this person did what they did - because essentially people with money had power that felt unfair (large scale theft). It kind of came out at a point which revealed the motivation

Similar to AH’s heartfelt part where she says why she wrote the op Ed about JD - in contrast to earlier claims

Although just seeing another clip the way questions are phrases seem quite different in US. I just saw the part where Camille says you leaked something. In U.K. though the judge was very strict re leading, it had to be a question

That literally was her defence. Depp wasn't having it and vasquez said the jury had to believe it all or believe none of it.

So, not sure what else she could do. She showed he was abusive IMO. Yet because he showed she was a liar, he won.

It's awful really because if you are abused all your abuser has to do is undermine your credibility and then you clearly don't deserve justice.

And as life is all perspectives and interpretation its pretty easy to suggest someone isn't credible.

That's why this trial has upset me. Not because I'm a huge AH fan or a man hater. Because I think its awful that someone can go on this kind of trial for implying her abusive ex husband was abusive.

Oh and also. In my eyes the fact she was granted a restraining order in the first place is evidence she was abused. And the fact the UK judge found in favour of the sun.

Indeed. Depp lost to NGN in the UK because the judge found Heard a more credible witness than Depp. One of the points that persuaded him was Heard's evidence that she had given the entire $7M to charity. He cited that as the reason he did not accept Depp's argument that Heard had constructed an elaborate hoax. Of course, at that stage Depp and his lawyers were not aware that Heard had not given this money to charity so were unable to challenge this evidence.

If the alleged juror who has spoken to the press was one of the jurors and is telling the truth, this claim, the fact it was false and the fact Heard insisted on the witness stand that she had donated the money on the basis that a pledge is the same as a donation was one of the factors in the jury preferring Depp's evidence.

And actually I can't believe vasquez was allowed to say that in her summing up.
"Either it's all true or none of it is true" is ridiculous. There are lots of circumstances where people could reasonably muddle up the truth with fiction. E.g. Young children, very elderly, people with mental health issues.
Is it reasonable to say that because someone lies, they are outside the justice system? The mind boggles

It's awful really because if you are abused all your abuser has to do is undermine your credibility and then you clearly don't deserve justice.

She undermined her own credibility by lying. That’s not good when you are looking for a jury to find in your favour.

There were a lot of witness confirming her abuse, even a make up artist who had to cover her bruises. I strongly believe Ambers biggest sin was not talking to the police and getting Johny arrested or getting proper medical care for her bruises (proper evidence). If you're going to write an article of such magnitude you need some VERY solid evidence. selfies won't cut it. I'm a bit shocked that the lawyers who OK'ed her article before it got published didn't advice her on this. She was obviously poorly advised.

This defence was used in our case as to why a police statement would be different to a testimony (five years ago a long time etc), it was attempted but in our case the jury found it lacking.

I think it is used as defence but not always successful.

No, a genuine muddle is often easier to identify. A witness who has made a mistake can often retain credibility by accepting they made a mistake (it is helpful if you can also explain why the mistake was made).

If you repeatedly make statements that are subsequently (substantially or entirely) discredited then it, understandably, calls into question your entire testimony

A TRO lasts 14/21 days, he had just left the country on a tour of Europe that was going to last at least one month possibly two. She didn’t need a TRO at that point in time unless it was for other reasons.

Well, as I said throughout, I don't think she lied. That's one interpretation of the evidence but equally she misspoke (the pledge vs donate piece) or had a different perspective (the Kate moss piece - she said she heard a rumour, KM said it was incorrect, doesn't mean AH lied).

I wasn't on the jury. But I think if I had to go to court over arguments with my ex husband from 5 years ago, who said what, precise evidence, either of us could undermine the other.

I am absolutely stunned that even with everything her witnesses said in court they found in Depps favour. And that's not just needing her to lie. Either they believed his agent, his manager,his ex girlfriend, his friend and some of her friends lied when they said he was jealous, controlling, frequently drunk/drugged and had a temper in those circumstances. Or they believed that because she was a liar, it didn't matter he was abusive and angry.

I'm so fed up with it. Men can treat women with impunity and we can do nothing to protect ourselves. The law doesn't support us. Society thinks a mans reputation is more important and deserving of protection than a woman's right not to be raped and abused. I despair (and the AH trial is just the latest in a long line of "poor man falsely accused of xxx" when there's loads of evidence the poor man is in fact a misogynistic entitled walker with behaviour entirely consistent with what is alleged).

Why are violent men more deserving of protection than lying women?

Oh and also. In my eyes the fact she was granted a restraining order in the first place is evidence she was abused. And the fact the UK judge found in favour of the sun.

The restraining order is not evidence she was abused. It was a temporary restraining order granted entirely on the basis of her claims. Depp did not have any chance to oppose the TRO, nor could he appeal it. A TRO in the US is a temporary measure put in place with minimal process to protect the complainant until a full hearing takes place. They are issued entirely on the evidence of the complainant. The other party is usually not even informed - the first they know about it is after the order has been made. The full hearing in this case never happened. Heard withdrew her request for a permanent restraining order.

The UK judge did not have all the evidence that was presented in this case. As Heard was a third party in the UK case, she did not have to disclose documents that undermined her position that she was forced to disclose in this case. Also, Depp and his lawyers were not aware that her claim to have donated the entire divorce settlement to charity was untrue. And, because we don't have rebuttal in the UK (and some of the witnesses had not come forward), the judge did not hear from the ex-TMZ employee, Kate Moss and others who disputed Heard's evidence. I'm not saying the judge got it wrong, but we don't know what he would have decided if he had seen all the evidence that emerged in the US case.

she misspoke (the pledge vs donate piece)

She was given every opportunity to say she misspoke. She didn't. She dug in and insisted that she had donated the money and that pledging it was the same as donating it.

I dunno. If I'd been on the jury, I also might have been tempted to argue for a verdict which wasn't consistent with the narrow point of law of the defamation case (clearly, the jury didn't do that either.) Maybe rule yes to both party's claims, and award them $1 each.

@MarshaBradyo The position on leading questions is the same in both the UK and the US. You cannot lead a witness during their evidence in chief. You can lead a witness all you like in cross examination. What is different is that, in the UK, the judge will intervene to stop inappropriate questions. In the US, the judge will only step in if there is an objection.

Interesting, leading stuck in my mind as judge was hot on it but now you mention it not the case for cross examination

He also got really annoyed re defendant not answering questions which we appreciated, he intervened rather than barrister

What is interesting is the amount of ways you can say that someone lied without saying that they lied.
She over egged the pudding
She mis-spoke
She exaggerated
as just a few.

Telling the truth whilst giving evidence is a fundamental aspect of the legal system. It's why you give an oath before testifying and why there are potential criminal sanctions for lying under oath.

If, hypothetically, we accept that AH did make statements on the stand that were fundamentally disproved then how is anyone (judge or jury) supposed to discern the truth from the untruths in her testimony? Particularly if there is another version of events?

It will almost never be possible to completely prove or disprove every word of an individual's statement which is why credibility is so key.

@prh47bridge the issue of the donation was known about and discussed at the appeal against the UK judgement in 2021 - the court of appeal did not find it a significant factor in the original decision. I’ve seen a couple of people say the fact of her donation swung the original UK judgement but having read it I disagree. It gets one brief mention in one paragraph of a 130 page judgement.

The appeal judgement is here and mercifully only 14 pages and worth a read: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Depp-approved-for-hand-down.pdf

That was not one of the points that persuaded him. He analysed 14 of domestic abuse - alleged assaults - found 12 of proven to the civil standard. The reference to the donated funds was made in passing in his findings as per the unlikelihood of the whole narrative being a hoax, but he didn’t base his findings on that and it was highly unlikely based on the proven points anyway.

Yep.

the amount of ways you can say that someone lied without saying that they lied.
Lying is a willful intent to deceive.
There are lots of reasons people can say things that aren't "the truth" that don't involve them lying.
I think in AH case a lot of what people say are "lies" can be other things.

I don't believe there is the evidence she lied. I think its much easier for people to assume a woman is lying than that a man could behave the way she alleged JD did. So any hint of "lies" feeds into people confirmation bias.

Also Depp "lied" and yet that goes unremarked on

thegeekbuzz.com/news/83-times-johnny-depp-lied-under-cross-examination-so-far/

Because an embellishment isn’t a straight up falsehood.

Depp lied on the stand, but he got away with it. People are desperate to believe the best of him, and allow him to minimise and explain away without really questioning it.

It’s not clear why she exaggerated some of her testimony, but there’s not actually as much as people claim.

The problem is that what there was undermined her credibility on everything else.

The claim that she lied about Kate Moss - Depp actually accurately deduced that Heard had turned it in her head into something it wasn’t. I think she did believe it, probably based on her own experience of him