Johnny Depp loses libel case against The Sun

[RoyalCorgi]

I think this is probably a good thing for those of us who campaign against domestic violence:

www.theguardian.com/film/2020/nov/02/johnny-depp-loses-libel-case-against-sun-over-claims-he-beat-ex-wife-amber-heard

[WeeBisom]

His ruling isn’t questionable. It isn’t going to appeal. There’s nothing in the judgment that the higher courts found fishy or weird. The judge also listened to dozens of witnesses who spoke in favour of Depp. It just seems like some people can’t accept that Depp was found to have hit his wife.

[ExitChasedByAnImposter]

@Xenia

I followed the trial in the papers and I couldn't really understand why he decided to bring the case. Both sides admitted they were violent so no good was ever going to come of all the extra publicity.

I completely agree. I think he was poorly advised. Also, I don’t think people realise that Amber Heard also has powerful connections as well. Didn’t she get offered protection by Elon Musk? She has a rather close relationship with him.

That being said, regardless of her behaviour, Depp clearly has anger management and addiction issues and whether or not this reckless behaviour started after his first divorce, he should have sought help.

[nauticant]

I think he was poorly advised.

It's more likely that he was advised in strong terms not to proceed and said "fuck this, I'm Johnny Depp, make it happen". Legal teams will still act for clients who instruct them to act against their legal counsel. So long as they're confident that the bills will be paid.

[wrigglepigg]

There’s nothing in the judgment that the higher courts found fishy or weird.

It hasn’t been presented to a higher court yet. It is the judge himself who has refused appeal.

[WeeBisom]

Wrigglepig: yeah, but the higher courts can only hear matters of law, and this was a very straightforward case. The dispute is all to do with the facts, and higher courts are exceptionally reluctant to interfere with original fact finding of the lower judge. Also, the judge in this case is a really big name in media law and has a good reputation.

Nauticant: my media law friend prof used to say that if a major libel case gets to trial then someone has seriously messed up. It's surprising it got so far because usually they settle. Someone was really pushing for this trial.

[nauticant]

My experience of litigation is that if a case is unwise to pursue and all avenues to settle are resisted, then there's often a delusional and vast ego somewhere in the mix.

[PotholeParadies]

It was a ridiculous case to bring.

As a result of it, the extent of Depp's drug and alcohol usage was made public knowledge, along with his own mobile phone records. He might have managed to character smear Heard back, but I can't see how it was worth it.

[Forgivenandsetfree]

Thankyou, @headpain, for writing everything down and explaining things better than I was able to. This has nothing to do with being a 'super fan' and everything to do with the fact she is a vile human being. I feel for him at a human level.

[nauticant]

The court case was never anything to do with whether Amber Heard is a bad person. Those who ignore the reality of the court case and focus on that are fooling themselves.

[Thewithesarehere]

@nauticant

I think he was poorly advised.

It's more likely that he was advised in strong terms not to proceed and said "fuck this, I'm Johnny Depp, make it happen". Legal teams will still act for clients who instruct them to act against their legal counsel. So long as they're confident that the bills will be paid.

This^.
He appeared on Graham Norton nearly dead on his feet. He needs therapy, not courts.
I truly do not get the appeal. He is a barely there actor, was average looking as per Hollywood standards and has no other talent like a lot of others seem to have. In those times, big studios needed to prop up stars artificially so they could get the big buck they wanted.

[HeadPain]

Ok, this has the written transcript of their recorded conversation posted in earlier YouTube video.
It also has text of audio that wasn't in the youtube video I posted earlier.

Written transcript:
amberjohnnyaudio.blogspot.com/2020/12/amberjohnnytranscript.html

Here's links to the full audio:
Part 1: m.youtube.com/watch?v=G1urAd2UJtg
Part 2: m.youtube.com/watch?v=IGmC0NSEuWQ

[PotholeParadies]

It is my observation from Saturday nights outside bars that people who are off their heads on alcohol and/or drugs are as apt to hit 'vile' people as they are Mother Theresa walking past on her way home after another hard day's work at the hospital. Perhaps more so.

I'm not really interested in listening to any videos, but I will comment that it isn't clinching evidence that he was an innocent victim, even if he was the best partner ever to Vanessa Paradis. Perhaps he wasn't having a midlife crisis with the same level of drug and alcohol consumption during those years.

I rather suspect that who Depp is (or was) without heavy use of alcohol and drugs is a very different person to who he is when he's off the rails.

[Anordinarymum]

@PotholeParadies

It is my observation from Saturday nights outside bars that people who are off their heads on alcohol and/or drugs are as apt to hit 'vile' people as they are Mother Theresa walking past on her way home after another hard day's work at the hospital. Perhaps more so.

I'm not really interested in listening to any videos, but I will comment that it isn't clinching evidence that he was an innocent victim, even if he was the best partner ever to Vanessa Paradis. Perhaps he wasn't having a midlife crisis with the same level of drug and alcohol consumption during those years.

I rather suspect that who Depp is (or was) without heavy use of alcohol and drugs is a very different person to who he is when he's off the rails.

Agree with this

[SheepandCow]

@PotholeParadies

It was a ridiculous case to bring.

As a result of it, the extent of Depp's drug and alcohol usage was made public knowledge, along with his own mobile phone records. He might have managed to character smear Heard back, but I can't see how it was worth it.

It will have been worth it for an abuser. It's what they do - especially when, as is the case here, the evidence of their very violent abuse is indisputable.

Depp is a proven (and self admitted) wife beater. He couldn't get rid of all the evidence. So he resorted to the abuser's next tactic. Destroy the victim. In a misogynistic world, that's very easy to do.

Most of his supporters won't have bothered reading the Sun (which details the repeated incidents of serious violence). Even if they do read it, they dismiss it all - head butting, injuries, and murder fantasy/threats (including talk about wanting to fuck her dead corpse) included. Because 'she provoked it', 'she asked for it', and 'she's toxic'.

And I bet some of these same people will pop up on relationships threads berating a woman for not reporting or leaving...

[HeadPain]

Btw, this is JD's US lawyer, and reportedly close friend, he seems... unconventional, maybe not for an American lawyer, I don't know (no offense).

mobile.twitter.com/adam_waldman
www.instagram.com/Adam.Waldman/

There is another case in Virginia, USA, Depp accuses Heard of defaming him in a Washington Post op-ed. He's suing for $50 million. Trial due to start January. I just read this one will be in front of a jury, unlike UK. I don't know if it will continue now after UK judgement, but Judge there has apparently kicked lawyer Adam W aldman off the case. www.courthousenews.com/lawyer-for-johnny-depp-kicked-off-case-after-press-leaks/?amp=1

UK lawyer "Depp’s lawyer, Jenny Afia of Schilling’s law firm who represented the actor, has now spoken out on his behalf following the ruling. ‘This decision is as perverse as it is bewildering,’ Afia began. ‘Most troubling is the judge’s reliance on the testimony of Amber Heard, and corresponding disregard of the mountain of counter-evidence from police officers, medical practitioners, her own former assistant, other unchallenged witnesses and an array of documentary evidence which completely undermined the allegations, point by point.’

Suggesting how Depp may proceed following the verdict, Afia continued: ‘All of this was overlooked. The judgment is so flawed that it would be ridiculous for Mr Depp not to appeal this decision. ‘In the meantime, we hope that in contrast to this case, the ongoing libel proceedings in America are equitable, with both parties providing full disclosure rather than one side strategically cherry picking what evidence can and cannot be relied upon.’"

metro.co.uk/2020/11/02/johnny-depps-lawyers-plan-on-appealing-perverse-verdict-as-he-loses-libel-case-against-the-suns-publishers-13521507/?ito=cbshare

Jenny Afia also represents Duchess Meghan in her case against the Daily Mail. So did another of Depp's UK lawyers/barristers David Sherborne QC, until very recently, when Meghan replaced him.

Lots of media says appeal rejected, by same Judge who made the initial judgment, how that's even ok to be same Judge making that decision, idk. BBC says libel case appeal bid turned down, refused permission to appeal, but also says Judge said Depp has until 7 December, Monday, to apply directly to the Court of Appeal.

"Johnny Depp has been refused permission to appeal against a High Court ruling which concluded that he assaulted his ex-wife Amber Heard.

The Pirates Of The Caribbean actor sued the publisher of the Sun, News Group Newspapers (NGN), for libel over a 2018 article labelling him a "wife beater".

The judge who dismissed Mr Depp's claim this month said an appeal did not have a "reasonable prospect of success".

But he gave him until 7 December to apply directly to the Court of Appeal.

Mr Justice Nicol's ruling on the application to overturn his judgement came last week - and was made public on Wednesday.

He also ordered the actor to make an initial payment to NGN of almost £630,000 for its legal fees."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55079825

[wrigglepigg]

The judgment is bizarre. Often he has made a decision based only on Ambers word in court. I don’t give a crap if appeal won’t be granted because the judge can ‘legally’ make decisions to come down on one side simply because he valued her word under oath and dismissed other evidence - the judgment doesn’t make sense comes across more like his opinion, which favoured heard, and it doesn’t prove depp is a wife beater.

Criminal court is different.

[WeeBisom]

Wrugglepig: on what basis are our saying this standard libel judgment is “bizarre”? How is it any different from other high profile libel cases? What specific parts of the judgment are erroneous? Which bits “don’t make sense”? It is very transparent, by the way, that quite a few people in this thread are salty at this ruling. Look, just because you don’t like the result doesn’t mean the case was flawed or it was a bad judgment. Yes, the judge was the referee who got to decide who was telling the truth and what the truth was - that is the entire point of taking something to trial. You put it in the hands of the expert judge and he weighs up who is more reliable.

[wrigglepigg]

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1341833147353358339.html

Skeleton argument for appeal. His lawyers also describe part of ruling as ‘bizarre’