This months Trial of the Century Depp v Heard

[dcbc 14644]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

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

Well, that's another issue than I was addressing in your prior post, but did she testify who she was writing about if not JD?  She was married to the dude previously and they had a rocky relationship to put it mildly.  I don't think it's an illogical conclusion based on the evidence.  If she was writing about someone else, or a composite of several old relationships to the exclusion of JD, that's one thing.  I don't think the subject of the defamatory statement has to be spelled out in the statement, and there's enough circumstantial evidence here to support that she was writing about JD.

Edited June 2, 2022 by dcbc

[dcbc 14644]

4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Both I think are plots from movies. 

I think Zappa wrote a song on the topic, but it involved a mud shark.

[JBJ 3828]

7 minutes ago, 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?

She testified that it was an already broken Makers Mark bottle.  When the Makers Mark bottle was shown to be intact, she testified that it was an already broken Vodka bottle.  The broken vodka bottle was completely shattered.

Edited June 2, 2022 by JBJ

[chainsaw 10297]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

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

[TexasEd 8266]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

What, if any, potential implications could this have on political speech where one person makes false claims that their opponent is a member of an evil cabal engaged in ritualistic pedophilia, sex trafficking or rigging elections.  The opponent loses their elected position and is now threatened by a group of nutjobs that require additional security measures, maybe even moving.

Could this be used to defend oneself from those false claims and punish the perpetrator? It has all the same elements.

1. The knowingly made false statements - actual malice
2. Other people heard it, believed it and relied upon it
3. It caused damages

  

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

42 minutes ago, 'stache said:

They were abusive to each other.

Yup. But he didn't print and article claiming to be "the poster boy for abuse" in order to jump onto the #metoo movement. 

['stache 22145]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yup. But he didn't print and article claiming to be "the poster boy for abuse" in order to jump onto the #metoo movement. 

I honestly don't give a shit. I think she was both an abused and an abuser. Whatever she wrote had some hints of truth, maybe overstated, and leaving out her role in it, which should have just been forgotten, but no, needed six fucking weeks of jurors time. I would have told them to both get the fuck out of my courtroom with their little spat. And as far as #metoo, I honestly don't even remember this when it happened. Of all the scumbags who got caught up in hit, Depp never came to my mind until this trial was impossible to not see everywhere. I suspect his drug and alcohol problems had maybe a hugely prominent role if he lost out on any work.

Edited June 2, 2022 by 'stache

[BurntOrange&White 41904]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yup. But he didn't print and article claiming to be "the poster boy for abuse" in order to jump onto the #metoo movement. 

Our queen Camille getting her to admit to writing the op-ed during her cross was the sealing deal IMO.

[BurntOrange&White 41904]

Just now, 'stache said:

I honestly don't give a shit. I think she was both an abused and an abuser. I would have told them to both get the fuck out of my courtroom with your little spat.

She literally ruined his career at the time.....she staged photos, videos, and etc of him to try and manipulate the public interest, she altered photos of herself to say he abused her. Fuck her and I'm glad this bitch is going to be bankrupt.

[wildcat09 29591]

8 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yup. But he didn't print and article claiming to be "the poster boy for abuse" in order to jump onto the #metoo movement. 

So you recognize that he was abusive, so she wasn’t lying, but you still think she should have to pay for speaking up.

That’s pretty shitty.

[Moby Ric 2058]

Heard's memaw lawyer said that they are going to appeal cause there is a ton of evidence they were not allowed to admit.  I already thought she was a bad lawyer but now I am sure of it, cause that is not how appeals work.

[BurntOrange&White 41904]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

So you recognize that he was abusive, so she wasn’t lying, but you still think she should have to pay for speaking up.

That’s pretty shitty.

Of the witnesses she's the only one who has reported Depp being an abusive individual. 

[TwiceHorn 32083]

58 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

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

I think what happened here is that Heard's credibility was so thoroughly destroyed that the jury discredited her abuse allegations pretty much altogether, and attributed malice to her "story."

And, even though Amber Heard may not be generally credible, that doesn't mean that she lies about everything.  And, I think juries generally get that.  But they didn't in this case and let themselves be carried away by what a shitheel is Amber Heard.  And in a "cosmic justice" sense, it may be the right decision.  In a strict application of the law, it may be wrong.

['stache 22145]

6 minutes ago, Moby Ric said:

Heard's memaw lawyer said that they are going to appeal cause there is a ton of evidence they were not allowed to admit.  I already thought she was a bad lawyer but now I am sure of it, cause that is not how appeals work.

That's actually one of the only basis on which to appeal a jury verdict. That the court incorrectly precluded the jury from seeing evidence that might have changed their minds. I know nothing on the merits of it, but appealing evidentiary rulings are part of nearly every jury verdict appeal.

Edited June 2, 2022 by 'stache

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So you recognize that he was abusive, so she wasn’t lying, but you still think she should have to pay for speaking up.

That’s pretty shitty.

No, I recognized that they were both toxic. Me and my wife yelling about which way the the toilet paper goes on the roll does not make either of us "abusers".

She's a fraud and tried to hijack the spotlight from ACTUAL abuse victims.

[BurntOrange&White 41904]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

No, I recognized that they were both toxic. Me and my wife yelling about which way the the toilet paper goes on the roll does not make either of us "abusers".

She's a fraud and tried to hijack the spotlight from ACTUAL abuse victims.

She's such a lying bitch she even lied about donating money to charity.

[Moby Ric 2058]

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That's actually one of the only basis on which to appeal a jury verdict. That the court incorrectly precluded the jury from seeing evidence that might have changed their minds. I know nothing on the merits of it, but appealing evidentiary rulings are part of nearly every jury verdict appeal.

I believe she would of had to object to that specifically for it to be looked at in an appeal.  If she did not, she is out of luck.  An appeal court basically just makes sure the judge did a fair job, you can not admit new evidence in an appeal.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Moby Ric

[wildcat09 29591]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think what happened here is that Heard's credibility was so thoroughly destroyed that the jury discredited her abuse allegations pretty much altogether, and attributed malice to her "story."

And, even though Amber Heard may not be generally credible, that doesn't mean that she lies about everything.  And, I think juries generally get that.  But they didn't in this case and let themselves be carried away by what a shitheel is Amber Heard.  And in a "cosmic justice" sense, it may be the right decision.  In a strict application of the law, it may be wrong.

They're both huge shitheels. Johnny Depp the actor used to be pretty great but Johnny Depp the person has always been an enormous dumpster fire.

['stache 22145]

2 minutes ago, Moby Ric said:

I believe she would of had to object to that specifically for it to be looked at in an appeal.  If she did not, she is out of luck.  An appeal court basically just makes sure the judge did a fair job, you can not admit new evidence in an appeal.

Rulings that preclude evidence are usually done before trial through motions in limine. If it happened during the trial, it would have been Depp's attorneys who objected, to which her lawyers would respond, and if the judge rules it inadmissible, it is appealable. 

[wildcat09 29591]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

She's such a lying bitch she even lied about donating money to charity.

Is there seriously confusion over what happened here?

From the link I posted earlier:

Quote

As with all of these gotchas, it looks bad until you show the tiniest shred of human interest in discovering the facts. While it’s true that Heard hasn’t donated the full amount, all evidence indicates that she intends to. In 2016, after her divorce was finalized, she entered into an agreement with the ACLU to give them the full $3.5 million over 10 years. She made the first payment but delayed the rest because Depp started trying to sue her into oblivion (she says she’s spent $6 million on her legal defense so far; who knows how much more it will cost to appeal to Virginia's verdict).

Large charity donations are routinely spread out over longer periods and representatives from the ACLU testified that Heard was transparent with them about her financial circumstances and remains committed to completing her payments. The “proven lie” here amounts to a relatively minor misstatement: She said “I donated” when she should have said, “I pledged.”

Could she have been more precise? Sure. But a minor misstatement — or, at worst, a slight exaggeration of her generosity — doesn’t demonstrate that she’s capable of the kind of sociopathic calculation necessary to fake abuse claims, lie under oath, and convince nearly a dozen people to commit perjury. 

 

[BurntOrange&White 41904]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Is there seriously confusion over what happened here?

From the link I posted earlier:

 

Can't believe your sympathizing and defending a known liar.

[immamac 44380]

@wildcat09 stanning for Amber Heard is fucking hilarious and so broken brained IDK where to even start. 

No one is going to be using this fucking case as precedent for shit, save the woe is me for free speech shit for some other day/thread/topic. 

[wildcat09 29591]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Can't believe your sympathizing and defending a known liar.

Depp lied too:

Quote

His testimony that he was too high on opioids to attack Heard during the airplane incident, for example, contradicts his own text messages (“angry, aggro injun in a fuckin blackout”) from the day after. His absurd denials of his drug problem belie his own contemporaneous communications and bolster Heard’s account. In the final week of the Virginia trial, he bafflingly claimed that he hadn’t sent text messages from his own phone — I guess someone hacked into it and sent texts that sound exactly like him? 

I can pretty easily believe that you sympathize and defend him, though.

[BurntOrange&White 41904]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Depp lied too:

I can pretty easily believe that you sympathize and defend him, though.

Are those the messages she sent to try and make him look bad?

[wildcat09 29591]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Are those the messages she sent to try and make him look bad?

They're consistent with the nature of plenty of other texts he sent to people, like the one where he said he wanted to kill her and fuck her burnt corpse.

Stanning for either of these two is stupid. But she didn't defame him and imma is 100% fucking wrong that this won't have any shitty side effects.

[Deej 77845]

1 hour 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.

 

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Both I think are plots from movies. 

Maybe she was remembering a past life where she was partying with Fatty Arbuckle?

[Brisketexan 106919]

18 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They're both huge shitheels. Johnny Depp the actor used to be pretty great but Johnny Depp the person has always been an enormous dumpster fire.

That is almost certainly true.  Depp is a garbage pile of a person -- a narcissist substance abuser with shitty judgment, among many other flaws.

But in a relationship where both parties shit all over each other -- which the evidence made pretty clear was the case here -- 99%of human beings aren't going to be particularly sympathetic to one party's cries of abuse.  They're going to be even LESS sympathetic when it's apparent that many of those allegations are being used as weapons to hurt the other party, because that's what those two people do -- they hurt each other.

This case does not stand as a setback for women who have been abused.  In fact, when it comes to an issue that is so important, it's actually really important NOT to lie or use allegations of assault as a weapon.  Just like child abuse is serious as shit, it's even worse when a party in a divorce makes that allegation to hurt the other party/get a strategic advantage.

A case of "we're two dysfunctional narcissists who treat each other like shit, but I'm gonna amp it up by accusing Depp of violent physical abuse, when making that allegation is utterly consistent with my shitheel conduct" is what we had here.  Both parties would have been wise to back away early, conclude "we're shitty to each other, it's probably best if we completely disconnect and move on."  But they didn't.   Because they're spoiled toddlers.

I shed not a tear for any of them.

[JBJ 3828]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think what happened here is that Heard's credibility was so thoroughly destroyed that the jury discredited her abuse allegations pretty much altogether.

It's this.  She couldn't stop lying on the stand.  Things like whether she had donated money to charity or not.  Things like whether JD threw a Red Bull can or she did.  Things like how much damage was done to a rented cabin. 

This wasn't a who is lying between Amber and Johnny trial.  This was a who is lying between Amber and everyone else trial.  She would have argued with photographs if they could talk back.

She forced the jury into the position where they couldn't believe anything she said because she kept lying about obvious things.

Edited June 2, 2022 by JBJ

[wildcat09 29591]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That is almost certainly true.  Depp is a garbage pile of a person -- a narcissist substance abuser with shitty judgment, among many other flaws.

But in a relationship where both parties shit all over each other -- which the evidence made pretty clear was the case here -- 99%of human beings aren't going to be particularly sympathetic to one party's cries of abuse.  They're going to be even LESS sympathetic when it's apparent that many of those allegations are being used as weapons to hurt the other party, because that's what those two people do -- they hurt each other.

This case does not stand as a setback for women who have been abused.  In fact, when it comes to an issue that is so important, it's actually really important NOT to lie or use allegations of assault as a weapon.  Just like child abuse is serious as shit, it's even worse when a party in a divorce makes that allegation to hurt the other party/get a strategic advantage.

A case of "we're two dysfunctional narcissists who treat each other like shit, but I'm gonna amp it up by accusing Depp of violent physical abuse, when making that allegation is utterly consistent with my shitheel conduct" is what we had here.  Both parties would have been wise to back away early, conclude "we're shitty to each other, it's probably best if we completely disconnect and move on."  But they didn't.   Because they're spoiled toddlers.

I shed not a tear for any of them.

This wasn't a divorce case though. She didn't choose any of this. Her statement was even vetted by ACLU lawyers to ensure compliance with the NDA she'd signed in her divorce. Depp chose to start this circus, not her. I don't like to see shitty behavior get rewarded and I don't like seeing a bunch of people glorify an asshole like Depp just to shit on a woman (even if she does indeed suck). It's the type of gross shit everyone looks back on ten years later and goes "oh man, can you ever believe so many people acted like that?" I don't have any real sympathy for her, but this trial reaffirmed that some really ugly aspects of American culture are alive and well.

[Brisketexan 106919]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Depp chose to start this circus, not her.

That's just wrong.  He didn't publish an editorial that went world-wide that clearly painted him as a violent abuser.  Two people who are generally shitty to each other should walk away.  When one of them tries to claim some moral high ground and -- and this is important -- in connection with that, destroy the other person (and that was her intent, come on, don't be naive), then yes, someone started this particular circus.  Amber's contempt for Johnny (maybe well-earned and well-deserved) and her desire to inflict pain on him led her to get out over her skis.  That was a mistake.

[crash_davis 23470]

My father always said a jury trial is not just about the law. It's about "assigning blame". Johnny Depp's career shit tanked when Amber released that Op-Ed. These nine people are going to insist that someone be "blamed" for that. Her lawyers are going to say it was not her fault. We're going to remind the jury that she shit his bed. This is about a sales pitch. It's not going to won by the law, It's gonna be won by the lawyers. So remember, poker faces.

[wildcat09 29591]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's just wrong.  He didn't publish an editorial that went world-wide that clearly painted him as a violent abuser.  Two people who are generally shitty to each other should walk away.  When one of them tries to claim some moral high ground and -- and this is important -- in connection with that, destroy the other person (and that was her intent, come on, don't be naive), then yes, someone started this particular circus.  Amber's contempt for Johnny (maybe well-earned and well-deserved) and her desire to inflict pain on him led her to get out over her skis.  That was a mistake.

This is not a random sample or anything, but I just searched for "Amber Heard" on Surly and there were literally zero posts about her op-ed or anything related to it until this trial began. Someone upthread said they didn't even remember her accusing him of abuse and that's why. Nobody read it at the time. It didn't blow up like Cosby or Weinstein. Depp's career was already dying because he'd been in a bunch of flops and people hated working with him. The studio didn't even know about her op ed when they decided not to offer him a role for the sixth Pirates of the Caribbean.  

I'd agree with your position a lot more if she'd specifically named him. Then it probably would've been a bigger story at the time. But she didn't and it wasn't. Depp made this a world-wide front page story, not her.

[BurntOrange&White 41904]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is not a random sample or anything, but I just searched for "Amber Heard" on Surly and there were literally zero posts about her op-ed or anything related to it until this trial began. Someone upthread said they didn't even remember her accusing him of abuse and that's why. Nobody read it at the time. It didn't blow up like Cosby or Weinstein. Depp's career was already dying because he'd been in a bunch of flops and people hated working with him. The studio didn't even know about her op ed when they decided not to offer him a role for the sixth Pirates of the Caribbean.  

I'd agree with your position a lot more if she'd specifically named him. Then it probably would've been a bigger story at the time. But she didn't and it wasn't. Depp made this a world-wide front page story, not her.

When it came out it made the news all over the world. Just because surly didn't talk about it doesn't mean it's not a big deal. She initially denied that she wrote the damn hit article then that was proven to be a false when the cross got her to admit to writing it.

 

Like did you watch or read anything on this case until after it was over?

Edited June 2, 2022 by BurntOrange&White

[JesusSweatDuck 18121]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is not a random sample or anything, but I just searched for "Amber Heard" on Surly and there were literally zero posts about her op-ed or anything related to it until this trial began. Someone upthread said they didn't even remember her accusing him of abuse and that's why. Nobody read it at the time. It didn't blow up like Cosby or Weinstein. Depp's career was already dying because he'd been in a bunch of flops and people hated working with him. The studio didn't even know about her op ed when they decided not to offer him a role for the sixth Pirates of the Caribbean.  

I'd agree with your position a lot more if she'd specifically named him. Then it probably would've been a bigger story at the time. But she didn't and it wasn't. Depp made this a world-wide front page story, not her.

Looks like we found one of AH's family members.

 

Also, on the lying part, don't forget submitting the same picture for two supposedly different incidents.  Then claiming she couldn't recall after testifying earlier.  There are just so many cases of her getting caught lying that it didn't really matter, the jury couldn't trust a single thing she said.

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

39 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They're consistent with the nature of plenty of other texts he sent to people, like the one where he said he wanted to kill her and fuck her burnt corpse.

Stanning for either of these two is stupid. But she didn't defame him and imma is 100% fucking wrong that this won't have any shitty side effects.

Note: I need to delete all of my posts in the "Wives and the Stupid shit they say/do" thread.

['stache 22145]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's just wrong.  He didn't publish an editorial that went world-wide that clearly painted him as a violent abuser.  Two people who are generally shitty to each other should walk away.  When one of them tries to claim some moral high ground and -- and this is important -- in connection with that, destroy the other person (and that was her intent, come on, don't be naive), then yes, someone started this particular circus.  Amber's contempt for Johnny (maybe well-earned and well-deserved) and her desire to inflict pain on him led her to get out over her skis.  That was a mistake.

He was violent and an abuser. She seems to have overstated it, and of course left out her own abusive conduct, but again, they are both huge pieces of shit. Nobody should have been awarded anything. His career sucked already, he was a drug abuser and alcoholic. What's making me sick are the fanbois glorifying Depp as though he's some hero or victim. Even if the jury got it right, and maybe they did, he doesn't deserve to be placed on any fucking pedestal. The reverse is true. The implications from the op-ed may have been misleading, but we now know details of what a piece of shit he is, even if it is different than the op-ed. He was on stage partying after the trial and people cheered him on, like he's some savior. He shouldn't work again. Neither of them should. They should each die separately, alone, and miserable. 

[TwiceHorn 32083]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's just wrong.  He didn't publish an editorial that went world-wide that clearly painted him as a violent abuser.  Two people who are generally shitty to each other should walk away.  When one of them tries to claim some moral high ground and -- and this is important -- in connection with that, destroy the other person (and that was her intent, come on, don't be naive), then yes, someone started this particular circus.  Amber's contempt for Johnny (maybe well-earned and well-deserved) and her desire to inflict pain on him led her to get out over her skis.  That was a mistake.

Yeah, that's the thing here that takes this somewhat out of the realm of the straight-up defamation case and makes the "cosmic justice" rectitude of the verdict appropriate even if it isn't a strict application of the law.

They were pretty in pari delicto as substance-abusing, deranged, abusive people who said and did shitty stuff to each other.  Amber took it up a notch after the dust should have been settled.

Edited June 2, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

He was violent and an abuser.

Amazing that her lawyers never entered the evidence to prove what you seem to know as fact. 

[Deej 77845]

I think if Amber appeals, her lawyers really need to make it know that Surly/Shaggy never discussed the op/ed until this trial. No way she doesn't win that appeal with that on the record. 

 

[wildcat09 29591]

14 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

When it came out it made the news all over the world. Just because surly didn't talk about it doesn't mean it's not a big deal. She initially denied that she wrote the damn hit article then that was proven to be a false when the cross got her to admit to writing it.

 

Like did you watch or read anything on this case until after it was over?

I'd be curious to see a transcript of the part of the trial you're describing. Because the ACLU has also admitted to writing the article. My guess is they ghostwrote it with input from her and I know their general counsel also had input. I suspect you're misstating what was actually said at trial, much as she probably didn't do a great job describing how the article was written. People actually rarely say what is 100% literally true all the time, that's just not really how human communication works. It seems like she's not generally a trustworthy person, but I've read enough to know that a lot of what people are saying are "proven lies" from the trial are pretty far from that (like the whole "SHE LIED ABOUT DONATING HER DIVORCE SETTLEMENT" nonsense).  

Some of you guys need to work on just having the same standards for Depp that you do for her. 

[Sawbonz 28229]

8 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Amazing that her lawyers never entered the evidence to prove what you seem to know as fact. 

This is what I keep coming back to. “He’s just the type to be an abuser” yet no exhibits entered in the trial showing the abuse? Were her lawyers that shitty? If so can she sue them for malpractice?

[BurntOrange&White 41904]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'd be curious to see a transcript of the part of the trial you're describing. Because the ACLU has also admitted to writing the article. My guess is they ghostwrote it with input from her and I know their general counsel also had input. I suspect you're misstating what was actually said at trial, much as she probably didn't do a great job describing how the article was written. People actually rarely say what is 100% literally true all the time, that's just not really how human communication works. It seems like she's not generally a trustworthy person, but I've read enough to know that a lot of what people are saying are "proven lies" from the trial are pretty far from that (like the whole "SHE LIED ABOUT DONATING HER DIVORCE SETTLEMENT" nonsense).  

Some of you guys need to work on just having the same standards for Depp that you do for her. 

https://youtu.be/mmspY9YZjgc

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This is what I keep coming back to. “He’s just the type to be an abuser” yet no exhibits entered in the trial showing the abuse? Were her lawyers that shitty?

Or maybe. Juuuuuust maybe.

She's lying.

[Rimbo 27036]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

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. 

Yet again, tell me you didn't watch the trial without telling me you didn't watch the trial. "Did she know her claims were false when she made them?" is a separate question, is part of the jury findings, and one that the jury found in favor of, unanimously, on all three counts.

It took ten minutes to read the jury verdict, because the jury had to find in favor of 6-7 different questions for each and every alleged count. You're conflating two of those questions and trying to act like they weren't both considered.

[Rimbo 27036]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

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

Yes. The abusive ones in abusive relationships say that all the time. Not the abused.

[The Dog 44861]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

In 2016, after her divorce was finalized, she entered into an agreement with the ACLU to give them the full $3.5 million over 10 years. She made the first payment but delayed the rest because Depp started trying to sue her into oblivion (she says she’s spent $6 million on her legal defense so far; who knows how much more it will cost to appeal to Virginia's verdict).

 

The question was "have you paid what you agreed to the ACLU?" If she had said "no, I entered into an installment plan where I would pay $350k a year over 10 years. Once Johnny sued me I was unable to continue to make the payments due to my legal fees" then she would have been in the clear and would have made Johnny look bad. 

But she didn't say that. She dodged the question instead and implied that she'd already paid the entire donation.  She later admitted she couldn't continue paying because of the trial, but it contradicted her earlier testimony. 

I point this out as this is just one example where Amber herself torpedoed her credibility. This happened over and over again throughout the trial.

She couldn't keep her story straight and then witness after witness contradicted her testimony. 

If what you are attesting to is accurate then nearly all of Johnny's witnesses - and Johnny himself - committed perjury. 

Whether you realize it or not that is what you are saying. 

Edited June 2, 2022 by The Dog

[Rimbo 27036]

3 hours ago, Homercles said:

That tardigrade isn't a very good cellist. The bow goes on the other side of the bridge, and it's holding the bow all wonky.

[wildcat09 29591]

Just now, Rimbo said:

Yet again, tell me you didn't watch the trial without telling me you didn't watch the trial. "Did she know her claims were false when she made them?" is a separate question, is part of the jury findings, and one that the jury found in favor of, unanimously, on all three counts.

It took ten minutes to read the jury verdict, because the jury had to find in favor of 6-7 different questions for each and every alleged count. You're conflating two of those questions and trying to act like they weren't both considered.

I'm not conflating anything and I honestly don't understand how you think I am. Of course "was the claim false?" and "was it made with actual malice?" are two separate questions. I was specifically discussing the actual malice requirement because I think it's insane that they found actual malice. 

[Rimbo 27036]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

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

Other than that she admitted, on the stand, under oath, that it was about Johnny.

You didn't watch the trial, did you?

[wildcat09 29591]

3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Yes. The abusive ones in abusive relationships say that all the time. Not the abused.

You seriously think Johnny Depp is an innocent victim? 

Did you have some really special attachment to one of Depp's movies that she's ruined for your entire life or something?