This months Trial of the Century Depp v Heard

[chainsaw 9865]

1 minute ago, Caponata said:

Dating a chick diagnosed with BPD once. Never again. I remember having one of my psych professors asked what was the hardest personality disorders to treat & he immediately responded:"borderline personality disorder". Basically said it was almost untreatable.

They are the people Lifetime movies are based on.

[Nicole44 22059]

1 hour ago, Caponata said:

Dated a chick diagnosed with BPD once. Never again. *I remember having one of my college psych professors asked what was the hardest personality disorders to treat & he immediately responded:"borderline personality disorder". Basically said it was almost untreatable.

Almost “borderline” untreatable…

and yes…these types of people suck to have in your life…whether you’ve moved on from them or not…they still cause problems. It’s who they are.

[williemackgarza 1826]

The verdict IS in.....I'm guilty of laying pipe.

Ah, been hangin at oil cans again?

[Nicole44 22059]

Amber said she was “disappointed beyond words” with the jury’s verdict. Well then, why not donate the $2 million (after her crackerjack legal team takes their cut) they threw in your direction to abuse shelters? Oh wait…she tried that shit already.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18547]

4 hours ago, Caponata said:

Dated a chick diagnosed with BPD once. Never again. *I remember having one of my college psych professors asked what was the hardest personality disorders to treat & he immediately responded:"borderline personality disorder". Basically said it was almost untreatable.

In the textbook next to borderline personality disorder, they had pictures of Glen Close from Fatal Attraction. 

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

7 hours ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

How many new movie scripts does JD get sent this evening?

Fatal Attraction remake?

[Laxtonto 12080]

6 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The jury's finding of malice, but also finding that Depp's lawyer defamed Heard by alleging a hoax, makes zero sense. 

The one she did get is the statement where Depps lawyer said they staged the scene with her publicist and lawyer and then called the LA PD to come back again... The LA PD straight up refuted that set of events and Depps team never addressed it during the trial.

 

Supposedly AH's team kept fighting the subpena for her publicist and ran out the clock on it for her to get deposed and so nothing about it was ever brought to trial. It also is the reason why dude that used to work at TMZ was so valuable because they could never ask her publicist about knowing about the press being at the courthouse after filing her TRO..

[ztejas 43418]

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

Can this story finally go away now?

This is one of those stories where I don’t care about either of the people involved and had no interest in following it. But it was inescapable. Everyone knows Johnny Depp is a weirdo. Nothing has changed there. I’ve seen Amber Heard’s bare breasts and they’re nice but I’ve never actually seen any of her movies. I tried not to pay any attention to the goings on in the trial to almost no avail. But I can’t help but wonder if the fact that Amber Heard had a different hairstyle every single time an update was forced on me didn’t hurt her case. Yeah, obviously Depp’s a bigger star and he waved at fans when he showed up at court. But her changing look struck me as more performative. That made me question whether her tears were a performance as well.

[BigDHornfan 6546]

Can this story finally go away now?
This is one of those stories where I don’t care about either of the people involved and had no interest in following it. But it was inescapable. Everyone knows Johnny Depp is a weirdo. Nothing has changed there. I’ve seen Amber Heard’s bare breasts and they’re nice but I’ve never actually seen any of her movies. I tried not to pay any attention to the goings on in the trial to almost no avail. But I can’t help but wonder if the fact that Amber Heard had a different hairstyle every single time an update was forced on me didn’t hurt her case. Yeah, obviously Depp’s a bigger star and he waved at fans when he showed up at court. But her changing look struck me as more performative. That made me question whether her tears were a performance as well.

What tears?
There weren’t any.

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

So if she doesn’t have 10 million to pay him how does that work? We looking at potential sex tape?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Big winner here?  

 

Tim Burton.

[JesusSweatDuck 17781]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So if she doesn’t have 10 million to pay him how does that work? We looking at potential sex tape?

Bankruptcy, but not sure if that would remove this kind of debt

[Bateshorn 9927]

This whole situation is kinda sad and fucked up. Like @WhatTheBuck, I tried my damndest to avoid this, but the intertrons refused to let me stay happily oblivious. They both seem like unpleasant people that I wouldn’t want to hang out with. He’s obviously got quite the substance abuse problem.   Heard also appears to have some pretty serious mental health challenges. 
 

Since DC is Hollywood for ugly people, Heard’s op-Ed seems to fall under the common DC saying “You could, but I wouldn’t if I was you” rule when deciding to discuss powerful people publicly. 
 

 

[Nicole44 22059]

20 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

Bankruptcy, but not sure if that would remove this kind of debt

I think she has to post bond for the amount (secure it) and if she can’t (I guess she’s probably been dialing Elon Musk non-stop) then she won’t be able to appeal the decision/verdict. And I guess her income will be garnished to a certain extent. I’m sure some misguided groups will probably help her financially secure the bond for an appeal…but if not I guess it’s Only Fans..or Scat Fans…

Shes likely not going to move to Australia or the UK…so since a she’s so pissed at the verdict and the US wonder if she loves to New Zealand. Canada is pretty damn strict on who they will take in…lol

[Sawbonz 27546]

Only kept up with this goat show on here, but some of my follows on Twitter whom I am usually on the same page are decrying the verdict as misinformation, gaslighting, and misogyny, with some even attacking the concept of trial by jury itself. So I guess now the thing to do on social media anytime there is an outcome you don’t agree with is to attack the entire system as corrupt?

[speed817 19256]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So if she doesn’t have 10 million to pay him how does that work? We looking at potential sex tape?

1 girl, 1 bed

[Fuck Tim Beck 3815]

6 minutes ago, speed817 said:

1 girl, 1 bed

PPV event on Christmas. Call it the Christmas poo. 

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

1 minute ago, Fuck Tim Beck said:

PPV event on Christmas. Call it the Christmas poo. 

She might get sued by Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

14 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

So I guess now the thing to do on social media anytime there is an outcome you don’t agree with is to attack the entire system as corrupt?

Well, yeah.

[TwiceHorn 31450]

2 hours ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

Bankruptcy, but not sure if that would remove this kind of debt

Probably not dischargeable by bankruptcy, but a Chapter 11 plan could put some sort of "payment plan" in effect so she doesn't get all her shit seized and sold at auction and accounts garnished all at once.

I have seen something already that says she can't pay the judgment.

Collection of judgments is governed by state law, so what remedies (execution, garnishment, etc.) she is subject to will depend on her residency and the location of property that might be seized.

There are ways to avoid execution/seizure of funds and assets that can be pretty effective.  But it's a pain in the ass to live under a judgment that someone is trying to collect.  It's far better to try to negotiate a lump-sum settlement or a payment plan that avoids having to do the collection-of-judgments dance.  Probably better for Depp, too, because you can spend a shit-ton chasing stuff down.

Edited June 2, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29349]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Only kept up with this goat show on here, but some of my follows on Twitter whom I am usually on the same page are decrying the verdict as misinformation, gaslighting, and misogyny, with some even attacking the concept of trial by jury itself. So I guess now the thing to do on social media anytime there is an outcome you don’t agree with is to attack the entire system as corrupt?

Juries get shit wrong sometimes. This is one of those times and the implications for free speech are pretty horrible. If you can be successfully sued for defamation by a rich or powerful person for something you said that is (1) supported by substantial corroborating evidence and (2) didn't even name that person, you don't really have a right to free speech (unless you've got essentially bottomless pockets to pay legal fees to defend yourself).

The jury's finding of actual malice in this case was egregious. There's some incel losers who probably do seriously think she actually made it all up and spent a decade secretly plotting it all or something, but I doubt the jury really thought that. I suspect they did what juries often do, which is decide they don't really like or trust one of the parties (which juries do for good and bad reasons) and sort of wing it on the law.  Because I think the law is pretty unjust, I don't even think that's always a bad thing. Jury nullification sometimes provides the most just outcome. But it didn't here, and there are going to be some pretty nasty side effects that result. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Juries get shit wrong sometimes. This is one of those times and the implications for free speech are pretty horrible. If you can be successfully sued for defamation by a rich or powerful person for something you said that is (1) supported by substantial corroborating evidence and (2) didn't even name that person, you don't really have a right to free speech (unless you've got essentially bottomless pockets to pay legal fees to defend yourself).

The jury's finding of actual malice in this case was egregious. There's some incel losers who probably do seriously think she actually made it all up and spent a decade secretly plotting it all or something, but I doubt the jury really thought that. I suspect they did what juries often do, which is decide they don't really like or trust one of the parties (which juries do for good and bad reasons) and sort of wing it on the law.  Because I think the law is pretty unjust, I don't even think that's always a bad thing. Jury nullification sometimes provides the most just outcome. But it didn't here, and there are going to be some pretty nasty side effects that result. 

Tell me you didn't watch the trial without telling me you didn't watch the trial.

[TwiceHorn 31450]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Juries get shit wrong sometimes. This is one of those times and the implications for free speech are pretty horrible. If you can be successfully sued for defamation by a rich or powerful person for something you said that is (1) supported by substantial corroborating evidence and (2) didn't even name that person, you don't really have a right to free speech (unless you've got essentially bottomless pockets to pay legal fees to defend yourself).

The jury's finding of actual malice in this case was egregious. There's some incel losers who probably do seriously think she actually made it all up and spent a decade secretly plotting it all or something, but I doubt the jury really thought that. I suspect they did what juries often do, which is decide they don't really like or trust one of the parties (which juries do for good and bad reasons) and sort of wing it on the law.  Because I think the law is pretty unjust, I don't even think that's always a bad thing. Jury nullification sometimes provides the most just outcome. But it didn't here, and there are going to be some pretty nasty side effects that result. 

One of the things going on here, I think, is whether public figure doctrine and actual malice should have protected Heard.

But Heard isn't a journalistic entity, where that doctrine carries the most force, I think.  She's just a private citizen who also happens to be a public figure talking shit about another public figure.  

It's difficult and problematic to draw lines between journalistic entities  and other defendants in applying public figure doctrine, but it may make a certain amount of sense to attempt to do so in this age of misinformation on the internet.  I believe that this is Gorsuch's concern with public figure doctrine, as opposed to Thomas, who just wants to eliminate it altogether.

[JBJ 3654]

Malice is a non-issue in this case.  The person being sued was claiming to be a witness.  She can't have any reasonable deniability.

[wildcat09 29349]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Malice is a non-issue in this case.  The person being sued was claiming to be a witness.  She can't have any reasonable deniability.

From the jury instructions:

Quote

Actual Malice

Both parties have the burden of proving “actual malice” by clear and convincing evidence. To meet this burden, each party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that each statement was made or published: (1) with knowledge that the statement was false; or (2) so recklessly as to amount to a willful disregard for the truth, that is, with a high degree of awareness that the statement was probably false Actual malice is a subjective analysis that looks to the state of mind of the person who made the statement. If the person who made the statement believed it was substantially accurate at the time of its publication, then it does not give rise to liability for defamation.

Actual malice is a subjective standard. I don't think it's remotely reasonable to believe, given their history, that she believed that Depp had never abused her when she made the statements at issue in this case. Yes, she seems like she sucks. That doesn't mean she should be liable for defamation here.

[JBJ 3654]

It's not reasonable for a jury to determine she doesn't know if she is lying.  Not with her testimony and case as presented.

Maybe if they leaned really heavily into her HPD and drug use, but that would cause memory losses not fake memories.

[utee94 15811]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

So I guess now the thing to do on social media anytime there is an outcome you don’t agree with is to attack the entire system as corrupt?

This has always been the move, it's just that the internet and social media make it easier than ever for morons to voice their opinions.  If we choose to consume it, then it's our fault for hearing about it.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Actual malice is a subjective standard. I don't think it's remotely reasonable to believe, given their history, that she believed that Depp had never abused her when she made the statements at issue in this case. Yes, she seems like she sucks. That doesn't mean she should be liable for defamation here.

She lied on purpose and it cost him his reputation and money. Doesn't seem subjective at all. It's like claiming that the insurance company's payout in my accident is subjective. No. They got an estimate of the damages and will pay you accordingly.

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

She lied on purpose and it cost him his reputation and money. Doesn't seem subjective at all. It's like claiming that the insurance company's payout in my accident is subjective. No. They got an estimate of the damages and will pay you accordingly.

Couple that with the way it appeared she tried to purposely make him look bad the entire time by camera placement, staging photos, and etc. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

“Tell the world, Johnny, see what a Judge or Jury thinks. Tell the world, I Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence. See how many people believe or side with you.” - Amber Heard, lying bitch

[wildcat09 29349]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

She lied on purpose and it cost him his reputation and money. Doesn't seem subjective at all. It's like claiming that the insurance company's payout in my accident is subjective. No. They got an estimate of the damages and will pay you accordingly.

The subjective standard has nothing to do with the damage calculation, it's the requisite standard for the defendant's mindset to find liability for defamation against public figures. In other words, the question was "did she know she was lying?" rather than "would a reasonable person in her shoes have known they were lying?"

You obviously think she was intentionally lying. I don't. I don't think she's a secret genius who secretly plotted for years to destroy Johnny Depp, a man who was perfectly capable of destroying himself.  I think she's unstable herself and not very smart, and more importantly, had no reason to concoct a grand conspiracy. They didn't have a prenup so none of it would've been necessary to get any money from him. 

[wildcat09 29349]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

“Tell the world, Johnny, see what a Judge or Jury thinks. Tell the world, I Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence. See how many people believe or side with you.” - Amber Heard, lying bitch

People in abusive relationships say shit like that all the time. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You obviously think she was intentionally lying.

Is there any other kind?

[ChickenSandwich 9832]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Post #827

 

[Homercles 10205]

20 hours ago, Vito Andolini said:

 

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

People in abusive relationships say shit like that all the time. 

Narrator: she was the abuser

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Only kept up with this goat show on here, but some of my follows on Twitter whom I am usually on the same page are decrying the verdict as misinformation, gaslighting, and misogyny, with some even attacking the concept of trial by jury itself. So I guess now the thing to do on social media anytime there is an outcome you don’t agree with is to attack the entire system as corrupt?

Another reason why twatter in particular is such a cesspool of stupidity. I didn't watch this trial and am consistently opposed to nationalizing local / private events. As @wildcat09 noted, sometimes juries make mistakes, but that does not mean the system needs to be burned down or there is some great conspiratorial evil at play. This weird trend has emerged where the tiny but loud crazies believe the system must perfectly match their will in ever case or be destroyed and to deny its destruction is to play into some X. Verdict goes my way, the system is amazing. It doesn't, it's literally Hitler.

No opinion really on this case - not a lawyer, only heard about it through similar inescapable channels - think he's right: Depp came across as more believable and authentic and probably more likable in this particular instance despite being arguable the weirdest dude in Hollywood. Given my little exposure, she did seem to come across as a nutjob in this particular case and particularly disingenuous. I think she probably lost the case on the entire donating the $7M to charity lie ... I can imagine the average joe jury looking at this privileged actress feigning charity probably did not land too well and made her out to be completely non-credible. It is one of those lies made worse by the fact it was unnecessary, purely fake virtue signaling. 

But harkening back to a college paper on Falwell v. Hustler, I am digging the actual malice discussion among the barristers. My guess is the original interview and source of the complaints probably was a mix of 15% vendetta against Depp and 85% trying to get credibility as a battered woman, #metoo victim ... doesn't mean it's right she got to use him as the foil. In the context of the fake charity donations seems like another unsubstantiated virtual signal.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Harrison Bergeron

[crash_davis 23107]

if i'm a juror, after the revelation of her shitting on his bed and trying to lie about it, that bitch be cray and vindictive. she guilty af.

[Sawbonz 27546]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Juries get shit wrong sometimes. This is one of those times and the implications for free speech are pretty horrible. If you can be successfully sued for defamation by a rich or powerful person for something you said that is (1) supported by substantial corroborating evidence and (2) didn't even name that person, you don't really have a right to free speech (unless you've got essentially bottomless pockets to pay legal fees to defend yourself).

The jury's finding of actual malice in this case was egregious. There's some incel losers who probably do seriously think she actually made it all up and spent a decade secretly plotting it all or something, but I doubt the jury really thought that. I suspect they did what juries often do, which is decide they don't really like or trust one of the parties (which juries do for good and bad reasons) and sort of wing it on the law.  Because I think the law is pretty unjust, I don't even think that's always a bad thing. Jury nullification sometimes provides the most just outcome. But it didn't here, and there are going to be some pretty nasty side effects that result. 

What evidence did you see that leads you to conclude the jury failed to reach the correct judgement? Also how many of the jurors found for Depp? And are you positing that the jury was full of incels?

[dcbc 14471]

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Is there any other kind?

 

[wildcat09 29349]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

What evidence did you see that leads you to conclude the jury failed to reach the correct judgement? Also how many of the jurors found for Depp? And are you positing that the jury was full of incels?

I think this lays it out pretty well. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence and some contemporaneous corroborating evidence (witnesses, evidence of scars soon after, etc.) that Depp abused her, and an absolute mountain of evidence (much of which I'm sure wasn't admitted at trial) that he's exactly the type of guy who abuses women.  Seven jurors (who were not sequestered while the case was ongoing) looked at the evidence that was admitted and disagreed. I doubt they were incels (as I said, I don't think the jurors likely agreed with the incels that it was all an evil genius plot by her), I think they just decided they liked him and not her for many reasons, some of which are reasonable and some of which are not.

[Sawbonz 27546]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think this lays it out pretty well. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence and some contemporaneous corroborating evidence (witnesses, evidence of scars soon after, etc.) that Depp abused her, and an absolute mountain of evidence (much of which I'm sure wasn't admitted at trial) that he's exactly the type of guy who abuses women.  Seven jurors (who were not sequestered while the case was ongoing) looked at the evidence that was admitted and disagreed. I doubt they were incels (as I said, I don't think the jurors likely agreed with the incels that it was all an evil genius plot by her), I think they just decided they liked him and not her for many reasons, some of which are reasonable and some of which are not.

Sorry I don’t care enough to read all that. I have been an expert witness often and have watched juries sift through very complex data to reach reasonable conclusions though not always mine. I would bet that is what happened here

['stache 21802]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Narrator: she was the abuser

They were abusive to each other. People "taking sides" on this have too much time on their hands and need perspective on what really matters in this world. I don't think she met the legal standard, but the recording of her berating Depp came first and soured the jury against her right off the bat. I just don't see how any of it rises to defamation under the strict legal standards applicable to public figures. I can see her getting something out of an appeal, but the default is usually to just go along with what the jury decided.

Either way, he got what he wanted. He knew most men would be on his side, and seeing as many women loathe other women, especially pretty white girls, her career is done and he gets to play hero to a fanbase of fucked up people. Again, they are both despicable people. Doesn't matter who pays what to whom, they should both be exiled to complete irrelevance, but it'll be the complete opposite.

Edited June 2, 2022 by 'stache

[dcbc 14471]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think this lays it out pretty well. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence and some contemporaneous corroborating evidence (witnesses, evidence of scars soon after, etc.) that Depp abused her, and an absolute mountain of evidence (much of which I'm sure wasn't admitted at trial) that he's exactly the type of guy who abuses women.  Seven jurors (who were not sequestered while the case was ongoing) looked at the evidence that was admitted and disagreed. I doubt they were incels (as I said, I don't think the jurors likely agreed with the incels that it was all an evil genius plot by her), I think they just decided they liked him and not her for many reasons, some of which are reasonable and some of which are not.

Wasn't the jury charged with her statement relating to "sexual violence"?  I know she testified to two incidents which would qualify, but I don't recall there being any physical evidence to corroborate her testimony as to those two alleged incidents.  And while her testimony would be sufficient to support her alleged defamatory statement, if the jurors found her to be generally untruthful, it is understandable that they would discount or disbelieve her testimony on the subject of occurrences of "sexual violence."  And if they believed she was lying about it on the stand, their finding on malice starts to make more sense. 

Edited June 2, 2022 by dcbc

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

Wasn't the jury charged with her statement relating to "sexual violence"?  I know she testified to two incidents which would qualify, but I don't recall there being any physical evidence to corroborate her testimony as to those two alleged incidents.  And while her testimony would be sufficient to support her alleged defamatory statement, if the jurors found her to be generally untruthful, it is understandable that they would discount or disbelieve her testimony on the subject of occurrences of "sexual violence."

One was a bottle that broke off in her but no medical records of the incident. I’m not expert but I’m sure it glass breaks in you there needs to be medical care. 

[wildcat09 29349]

2 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Wasn't the jury charged with her statement relating to "sexual violence"?  I know she testified to two incidents which would qualify, but I don't recall there being any physical evidence to corroborate her testimony as to those two alleged incidents.  And while her testimony would be sufficient to support her alleged defamatory statement, if the jurors found her to be generally untruthful, it is understandable that they would discount or disbelieve her testimony on the subject of occurrences of "sexual violence."

Her statement about sexual violence was "I spoke up against sexual violence - and faced our culture's wrath." Nothing even implicitly about Johnny there. 

[chainsaw 9865]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

People in abusive relationships say shit like that all the time. 

Yes, and it has consequences.

[dcbc 14471]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

One was a bottle that broke off in her but no medical records of the incident. I’m not expert but I’m sure it glass breaks in you there needs to be medical care. 

I couldn't recall if she testified that it broke, but that was my surmise as well.  The other was about a "cavity search" for drugs while everyone was tripping balls in the desert.  Who the hell knows?

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

Just now, dcbc said:

I couldn't recall if she testified that it broke, but that was my surmise as well.  The other was about a "cavity search" for drugs while everyone was tripping balls in the desert.  Who the hell knows?

Both I think are plots from movies.