This months Trial of the Century Depp v Heard

[wildcat09 29355]

Just now, Rimbo said:

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

You didn't watch the trial, did you?

Of course not. I've already wasted way too much time just discussing it today. Anyone who actually watched even half of it should probably seek therapy.

[Rimbo 25994]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

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?

Johnny Depp can shove a broken jar up his ass and shit it back out for all I care.

What's with you, simping for Amber, without having paid any attention to anything that happened over the past month?

[Rimbo 25994]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Of course not. I've already wasted way too much time just discussing it today. Anyone who actually watched even half of it should probably seek therapy.

So you're fine to just tell lies that you don't even know are lies because you don't know any better, while doing so in front of an audience that actually does?

Your statements here alone prove that Depp was right. By coming here in your ignorance and continuing to spread what those of us who watched -- and especially the jury -- know are easily provable lies, you're proving that she did in fact defame him.

Get the fuck out of here with your ignorant simpering white knight bullshit. Go try to score with Amber somewhere else.

[Sawbonz 27580]

16 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

https://youtu.be/mmspY9YZjgc

What. The. Fuck. 
 

and what were they talking about finding his finger somewhere?

[Rimbo 25994]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

. I was specifically discussing the actual malice requirement because I think it's insane that they found actual malice. 

But you didn't watch the trial, so how would you know better than the jury, who actually did watch it?

[wildcat09 29355]

Just now, Rimbo said:

Johnny Depp can shove a broken jar up his ass and shit it back out for all I care.

What's with you, simping for Amber, without having paid any attention to anything that happened over the past month?

I don't really care about Amber, but I think it's bad when a man can physically abuse a woman and later prevail in a lawsuit against her when she publicly says he abused her. I also think its bad when a shitload of others stan for the abusive guy.

Maybe it's politically incorrect, but I sympathize more with an abused woman than an abused man.

[wildcat09 29355]

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

So you're fine to just tell lies that you don't even know are lies because you don't know any better, while doing so in front of an audience that actually does?

Your statements here alone prove that Depp was right. By coming here in your ignorance and continuing to spread what those of us who watched -- and especially the jury -- know are easily provable lies, you're proving that she did in fact defame him.

Get the fuck out of here with your ignorant simpering white knight bullshit. Go try to score with Amber somewhere else.

Rimbo, you seem to be taking this very personally and should probably take a break.

[Rimbo 25994]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I don't really care about Amber, but I think it's bad when a man can physically abuse a woman and later prevail in a lawsuit against her when she publicly says he abused her. I also think its bad when a shitload of others stan for the abusive guy.

And if that's what actually happened, I'd be lining up to agree with you.

But that's not what happened. What did happen, in a court of law, is that it was proven not to have happened. It was proven to have been made up. It was pretty to have been made up on purpose, knowingly, and with the intent to ruin a man's career.

[Bogeywon 2519]

They’re both assholes. My .02

[wildcat09 29355]

1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

And if that's what actually happened, I'd be lining up to agree with you.

But that's not what happened. What did happen, in a court of law, is that it was proven not to have happened. It was proven to have been made up. It was pretty to have been made up on purpose, knowingly, and with the intent to ruin a man's career.

Do you believe OJ killed Nicole?

[Laxtonto 12090]

Most of AHs problem stem strictly from Amber Heard.

The first big one was she was insistent on filling a counter suite, which actually ran off at least one potential set of council. No counter suite, no emotional state and none of the rest of the circus that went with it. She could have crafted a pretty basic narrative put on a few witnesses and either got the win or at worse a hung jury that way. Hubris made that impossible.

Then she was driving the narrative of what she wanted to show and then changing her story as she went. There were several instances in her initial testimony that her counsel literally stopped a line of questioning because it was obvious that the answers she was giving now didn’t match what she said prior.

Then you have her inability to actually come across as sympathetic or even remotely as a victim. She was probably one of the worst “survivor” testimonies I have ever seen. It didn’t help that she would try to turn on the water works (which she never actually succeeded in doing) and then all of that “emotion” would disappear at a drop of a hat.

What killed her with the charity stuff was when it was pointed out that there was a 14 month window from when she received the last payment of the divorce settlement until she got sued by Depp, and still she never made a single payment. You can’t claim Depp is keeping this from happening when you had 14 months and never even started fulfilling your “pledge”.

Then you have the actual tape recordings of her repeatedly talking about hitting Depp and Depp constantly trying to retreat or get away.

And then you had the consistent claims of everyone else is mistaken, I’m telling the truth. And no one on her side ever told a consistent story that completely backed her version. 

And then you have her version of these events getting torched by rebuttal witnesses that not just catch her in a slight misstatement but instead hammering her on out and out falsehoods.

And then you have pictures on top of pictures that are blatantly edited. Some where even the same picture that she claimed was of 2 separate events days apart, but obviously it was just cropped. In all of those pictures you never see any cuts (even with every picture she shows Depp he is wearing multiple gaudy rings that would shred her flesh). This would have been ok except her new set of allegations (that were not included in the UK testimony) was about these horrific beatings and breaking her nose and what not, then pictures in the media at events with Depp that night or the next day with any cuts.

Then you had AH on the stand saying, yes of course this was about Johnny. 

On top of this you had some of the worst experts I have ever seen. The lady that did her comparatives for future earrings should never be allowed back into a courtroom.  Her twitter guy was a disgrace and actually got “Amber Turd” to become a trending topic on Twitter during his testimony. They were one of the worst groups of just unlikable experts I’ve seen for this high of a profile type of setting.

AH made a case that should have been impossible to lose into pretty much a slam dunk for Depp’s side almost all on her own. That in itself is a hell of an accomplishment.

 

Outside of ever writing it, in my view the biggest mistake she did was writing the Op Ed and releasing it somewhere that allowed Depp to sue her outside of California. In California this is dead and gone and her lawyer and the ACLU all approached their viewpoint on the legality of the piece in that manner. Unfortunately she released it and disseminated it on Twitter through a link that originates in Virginia and so instead of a slam dunk California dismissal, you now have a much different arena.

[Fudge Nuggets 19208]

Just now, Laxtonto said:

Most of AHs problem stem strictly from Amber Heard.

The first big one was she was insistent on filling a counter suite, which actually ran off at least one potential set of council. No counter suite, no emotional state and none of the rest of the circus that went with it. She could have crafted a pretty basic narrative put on a few witnesses and either got the win or at worse a hung jury that way. Hubris made that impossible.

Then she was driving the narrative of what she wanted to show and then changing her story as she went. There were several instances in her initial testimony that her counsel literally stopped a line of questioning because it was obvious that the answers she was giving now didn’t match what she said prior.

Then you have her inability to actually come across as sympathetic or even remotely as a victim. She was probably one of the worst “survivor” testimonies I have ever seen. It didn’t help that she would try to turn on the water works (which she never actually succeeded in doing) and then all of that “emotion” would disappear at a drop of a hat.

What killed her with the charity stuff was when it was pointed out that there was a 14 month window from when she received the last payment of the divorce settlement until she got sued by Depp, and still she never made a single payment. You can’t claim Depp is keeping this from happening when you had 14 months and never even started fulfilling your “pledge”.

Then you have the actual tape recordings of her repeatedly talking about hitting Depp and Depp constantly trying to retreat or get away.

And then you had the consistent claims of everyone else is mistaken, I’m telling the truth. And no one on her side ever told a consistent story that completely backed her version. 

And then you have her version of these events getting torched by rebuttal witnesses that not just catch her in a slight misstatement but instead hammering her on out and out falsehoods.

And then you have pictures on top of pictures that are blatantly edited. Some where even the same picture that she claimed was of 2 separate events days apart, but obviously it was just cropped. In all of those pictures you never see any cuts (even with every picture she shows Depp he is wearing multiple gaudy rings that would shred her flesh). This would have been ok except her new set of allegations (that were not included in the UK testimony) was about these horrific beatings and breaking her nose and what not, then pictures in the media at events with Depp that night or the next day with any cuts.

Then you had AH on the stand saying, yes of course this was about Johnny. 

On top of this you had some of the worst experts I have ever seen. The lady that did her comparatives for future earrings should never be allowed back into a courtroom.  Her twitter guy was a disgrace and actually got “Amber Turd” to become a trending topic on Twitter during his testimony. They were one of the worst groups of just unlikable experts I’ve seen for this high of a profile type of setting.

AH made a case that should have been impossible to lose into pretty much a slam dunk for Depp’s side almost all on her own. That in itself is a hell of an accomplishment.

 

Outside of ever writing it, in my view the biggest mistake she did was writing the Op Ed and releasing it somewhere that allowed Depp to sue her outside of California. In California this is dead and gone and her lawyer and the ACLU all approached their viewpoint on the legality of the piece in that manner. Unfortunately she released it and disseminated it on Twitter through a link that originates in Virginia and so instead of a slam dunk California dismissal, you now have a much different arena.

I feel sorry for the client that you wind up billing for all the time it took to make this post. 

[Rimbo 25994]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Rimbo, you seem to be taking this very personally and should probably take a break.

I don't like people who lie. You are spreading a lie, and when people try to tell you you're doing so, you mock them for the crime of paying attention to the facts.

I also am quite enjoying that you get to be my punching bag, you colossal twit. You have earned that rare privilege of my unmitigated scorn. I don't have to bother with being polite, because you have chosen to deal with your wrongness by doubling down in it. You deliberately ignorant shitstain. You're a taco bell bean burrito and beer fart in a crowded elevator. With your pimples freshly popped, you rush in to save your princess Amber on your shiny 1984 K-car steed. "Oh Amber, you poor thing, let me simp for you! I'll give you my undying love and repeat ALL the things you want me to!" Grow a damn spine, you unevolved chordate wannabe. Grow a brain, you living, breathing, neurological curiosity. Do you need photos of Amber naked to drool, or does drool just... happen?

Now go away or I'll begin to actually insult you. Right now, I'm just describing the evidence.

[Laxtonto 12090]

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I feel sorry for the client that you wind up billing for all the time it took to make this post. 

I’m sitting at home trying to get my 2 year old to take a nap after being at the zoo… I’ve got time for once…

 

And the funny part that is the short version of the just absolute stupidity from AH’s side from this trial. Like who the fuck convinced her to go with the HRC/Kim Jong pants suite look?

This trial was a train wreck and was glorious to watch.

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

3 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

Most of AHs problem stem strictly from Amber Heard.

The first big one was she was insistent on filling a counter suite, which actually ran off at least one potential set of council. No counter suite, no emotional state and none of the rest of the circus that went with it. She could have crafted a pretty basic narrative put on a few witnesses and either got the win or at worse a hung jury that way. Hubris made that impossible.

Then she was driving the narrative of what she wanted to show and then changing her story as she went. There were several instances in her initial testimony that her counsel literally stopped a line of questioning because it was obvious that the answers she was giving now didn’t match what she said prior.

Then you have her inability to actually come across as sympathetic or even remotely as a victim. She was probably one of the worst “survivor” testimonies I have ever seen. It didn’t help that she would try to turn on the water works (which she never actually succeeded in doing) and then all of that “emotion” would disappear at a drop of a hat.

What killed her with the charity stuff was when it was pointed out that there was a 14 month window from when she received the last payment of the divorce settlement until she got sued by Depp, and still she never made a single payment. You can’t claim Depp is keeping this from happening when you had 14 months and never even started fulfilling your “pledge”.

Then you have the actual tape recordings of her repeatedly talking about hitting Depp and Depp constantly trying to retreat or get away.

And then you had the consistent claims of everyone else is mistaken, I’m telling the truth. And no one on her side ever told a consistent story that completely backed her version. 

And then you have her version of these events getting torched by rebuttal witnesses that not just catch her in a slight misstatement but instead hammering her on out and out falsehoods.

And then you have pictures on top of pictures that are blatantly edited. Some where even the same picture that she claimed was of 2 separate events days apart, but obviously it was just cropped. In all of those pictures you never see any cuts (even with every picture she shows Depp he is wearing multiple gaudy rings that would shred her flesh). This would have been ok except her new set of allegations (that were not included in the UK testimony) was about these horrific beatings and breaking her nose and what not, then pictures in the media at events with Depp that night or the next day with any cuts.

Then you had AH on the stand saying, yes of course this was about Johnny. 

On top of this you had some of the worst experts I have ever seen. The lady that did her comparatives for future earrings should never be allowed back into a courtroom.  Her twitter guy was a disgrace and actually got “Amber Turd” to become a trending topic on Twitter during his testimony. They were one of the worst groups of just unlikable experts I’ve seen for this high of a profile type of setting.

AH made a case that should have been impossible to lose into pretty much a slam dunk for Depp’s side almost all on her own. That in itself is a hell of an accomplishment.

 

Outside of ever writing it, in my view the biggest mistake she did was writing the Op Ed and releasing it somewhere that allowed Depp to sue her outside of California. In California this is dead and gone and her lawyer and the ACLU all approached their viewpoint on the legality of the piece in that manner. Unfortunately she released it and disseminated it on Twitter through a link that originates in Virginia and so instead of a slam dunk California dismissal, you now have a much different arena.

Jury had no choice. 
 

ATurd: Johnny always wears five rings. He punched me in the face at least 20 times. 
 

Yes that is a picture of me less than 24hrs later with no visible markings. I’m great at makeup. 
 

Not to mention always secretly recording and taking photographs throughout the marriage clearly for divorce evidence. Very telling in all of the videos and audio recordings, that she never captured any physical abuse, and not for a lack of trying. 
 

Then there is her personal publicist who hid from the trial who would have proved more Turd lies in regards to the leaking of the Video with copyright ownership to TMZ and the tipping off of reporters.   
 

She couldn’t tell the truth for 5 mins. Why should anything she says be taken credibly?

[wildcat09 29355]

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I don't like people who lie. You are spreading a lie, and when people try to tell you you're doing so, you mock them for the crime of paying attention to the facts.

I also am quite enjoying that you get to be my punching bag, you colossal twit. You have earned that rare privilege of my unmitigated scorn. I don't have to bother with being polite, because you have chosen to deal with your wrongness by doubling down in it. You deliberately ignorant shitstain. You're a taco bell bean burrito and beer fart in a crowded elevator. With your pimples freshly popped, you rush in to save your princess Amber on your shiny 1984 K-car steed. "Oh Amber, you poor thing, let me simp for you! I'll give you my undying love and repeat ALL the things you want me to!" Grow a damn spine, you unevolved chordate wannabe. Grow a brain, you living, breathing, neurological curiosity. Do you need photos of Amber naked to drool, or does drool just... happen?

Now go away or I'll begin to actually insult you. Right now, I'm just describing the evidence.

You definitely need to seek therapy.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Do you believe OJ killed Nicole?

OJ said he was innocent and was going to find the real killer. They were both in an abusive relationship so therefore OJ is innocent. 

[Rimbo 25994]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Do you believe OJ killed Nicole?

Oh God, somewhere someone got away with something, therefore all trials everywhere are wrong and we can determine this without even paying attention to any of the evidence!

What a brilliant person you must be, that you can know things without bothering to look at the relevant facts. Of course! You can't believe that the jury, who had to listen to all the facts, could possibly know more than you, who listened to... Let's see, exactly none of them? Clearly your Divine Intellect is beyond God's!

I mean, this is clearly what you believe. Or, there's a simpler explanation: You don't know shit, and are wrong because of it, because of the very reasons why this case was filed in the first place. Because dumbasses in love are easily deceived.

[Rimbo 25994]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You definitely need to seek therapy.

Ahhh, so we're moving on from "colossal wrongness derived from ignorance" and into "every accusation is a confession." Well done!

[wildcat09 29355]

I've already made it clear that I think it's ridiculous to believe she secretly plotted it all out over years to ruin his career. A lot of posters seem to agree with me about that.  You obviously don't and are throwing one hell of a temper tantrum over that disagreement. That's fine, I guess. Knock yourself out.

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I've already made it clear that I think it's ridiculous to believe she secretly plotted it all out over years to ruin his career. A lot of posters seem to agree with me about that.  You obviously don't and are throwing one hell of a temper tantrum over that disagreement. That's fine, I guess. Knock yourself out.

After going nuclear when Depp approached her about a pre nup, is it hard to believe she was plotting her divorce and settlement from day one?  Totally normal for newlyweds to secretly record each other and take photos while the other is sleeping or passed out. For the gram!

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I've already made it clear that I think it's ridiculous to believe she secretly plotted it all out over years to ruin his career. A lot of posters seem to agree with me about that.  You obviously don't and are throwing one hell of a temper tantrum over that disagreement. That's fine, I guess. Knock yourself out.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

3 minutes ago, RatJuul said:

I think a big portion of the blowback that AH is receiving (and received from the jury) is because the ramifications and consequences for being an abuser are so very serious that taking lying about it and false accusations around it, whether it be overstating and exaggerating to outright bold-faced lies and everything in between, is one of the sorriest things you can do.

Imagine the story was the other way. Depp said "I didn't punch you, I was hitting you".

There would be no lawsuit, he'd be in jail. Double standard, indeed.

[Rimbo 25994]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I've already made it clear that I think it's ridiculous to believe she secretly plotted it all out over years to ruin his career. A lot of posters seem to agree with me about that.  You obviously don't and are throwing one hell of a temper tantrum over that disagreement. That's fine, I guess. Knock yourself out.

What's ridiculous to believe is that you still think you know more than the jury does, without having seen any of the trial. That you think your opinions aren't shit. You actually believe you have a valid point to make! How... cringe.

[Rimbo 25994]

45 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not conflating anything 

"I don't know what that word means"

[Sawbonz 27580]

40 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

but I think it's bad when a man can physically abuse a woman

Did she present evidence of this at trial? Or was there evidence that the jury was not allowed to view?

[wildcat09 29355]

9 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

After going nuclear when Depp approached her about a pre nup, is it hard to believe she was plotting her divorce and settlement from day one?  Totally normal for newlyweds to secretly record each other and take photos while the other is sleeping or passed out. For the gram!

The only theory I've heard as to why she'd plot for years to frame him for domestic violence is to help promote her career. I'm not aware of any actress whose career has ever been boosted by accusing a man of physical or sexual assault.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Did she present evidence of this at trial? Or was there evidence that the jury was not allowed to view?

Super secret evidence that only a few Twitter/Surly experts know about. Just believe them. 

[Nicole44 22069]

44 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Do you believe OJ killed Nicole?

I’m not dead. 

[The Dog 44067]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The only theory I've heard as to why she'd plot for years to frame him for domestic violence is to help promote her career. I'm not aware of any actress whose career has ever been boosted by accusing a man of physical or sexual assault.

It's more that she resents the fact that she needed his help to get a gig (Aquaman) and therefore went nuclear. 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

2 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I’m not dead. 

At least on the outside 

[utee94 15835]

14 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I’m not dead. 

 

[DigglerontheHoof 21205]

White knighting AH?  Bring diapers. 

[JBJ 3660]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

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. 

You really need to listen to her testimony before you keep posting. She told the jury several times that she donated the money even after the ACLU testified and everyone was aware of the circumstances, and those facts seemingly weren't in dispute.  It's that level of ludicrous.

[wildcat09 29355]

19 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

White knighting AH?  Bring diapers. 

Don't kink shame.

[HOOKEM4 5039]

I am having trouble keeping up with all the white knights who didn't watch any of the trial providing their hot takes. Can you scat lovers start a thread so we can see who to throw on ignore?

[mchookem 16338]

one thing for sure, she would have been better off if@wildcat09 had been her lawyer.

[Deej 76849]

1 hour ago, Nicole44 said:

I’m not dead. 

Sam's lack of playing time will kill you. 

['stache 21825]

2 hours ago, Bogeywon said:

They’re both assholes. My .02

I've spent way to many words here to just say this. Fuck them both.

[Brisketexan 105161]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

The only theory I've heard as to why she'd plot for years to frame him for domestic violence is to help promote her career.

Huh.

Dude.  Don't overthink it.  The parties here are two dysfunctional, selfish narcissists.  She wanted to hurt Depp because Depp is a fucking asshole, was a dick to her, and she ended up hating him.  As noted above 100 times, they were each shitty to the other.  When the relationship ended, he walked away (not because he was noble; it's likely because he didn't have the attention span to pay attention any longer).  She did not.  She was still pissed, and wanted to hurt him.  Not to gain anything.  Just to hurt him, because he's an asshole and fuck him (a sentiment I can understand, as a vengeful bastard myself).  That was a poor choice.  And her means of doing so appears to have overstated the issue in a meaningful way.  Depp may be an asshole.  He may be a substance abusing shitheel.  But she painted a picture of a guy who hits her, she did so in a very public "look at me" piece, and she couldn't back it up.

I'm sorry, but saying a man beats women is as defamatory as it gets.  That's a helluva slam.  If you're going to say it PUBLICLY, then you best back it up.  That has nothing to do with whether she could or should have reported any violence to the police, or couldn't have sought a safe shelter, or anything like that.  She chose to take a horrific allegation public.  That allegation understandably damaged the target.  She did not have the proof to back it up (that is, the "truth is a defense to defamation claims").  When she repeatedly demonstrated herself to be untrustworthy, that made her case even worse.  That's all this case stands for -- this particular set of circumstances.  That's it.

[chainsaw 9872]

Imagine you're in a car accident. You're at fault but so is the other driver. You're driving a custom McLaren F1, and she's driving a used Audi.

I think that more or less summarizes this case. The jury found both sides were liable to each other, and did the same thing to each other (defamatory articles), but Depp's career was far more valuable than Amber Heard's, so his "compensatory damages" are larger since the repair bill (or the value of the loss) is that much bigger.

[ohchaucer 1443]

Imagine you're in a car accident. You're at fault but so is the other driver. You're driving a custom McLaren F1, and she's driving a used Audi.
I think that more or less summarizes this case. The jury found both sides were liable to each other, and did the same thing to each other (defamatory articles), but Depp's career was far more valuable than Amber Heard's, so his "compensatory damages" are larger since the repair bill (or the value of the loss) is that much bigger.

Uhhhh, wut?

[TwiceHorn 31510]

2 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

And the funny part that is the short version of the just absolute stupidity from AH’s side from this trial. Like who the fuck convinced her to go with the HRC/Kim Jong pants suite look?

 

I wonder if they hired a jury consultant?

Because you could tell that someone, probably Amber, thought her outfits made her look like srs business instead of a piece of hollywood fluff.

She wound up looking like a variant of insane Joan Crawford plus Nurse Ratchet.

[wildcat09 29355]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Huh.

Dude.  Don't overthink it.  The parties here are two dysfunctional, selfish narcissists.  She wanted to hurt Depp because Depp is a fucking asshole, was a dick to her, and she ended up hating him.  As noted above 100 times, they were each shitty to the other.  When the relationship ended, he walked away (not because he was noble; it's likely because he didn't have the attention span to pay attention any longer).  She did not.  She was still pissed, and wanted to hurt him.  Not to gain anything.  Just to hurt him, because he's an asshole and fuck him (a sentiment I can understand, as a vengeful bastard myself).  That was a poor choice.  And her means of doing so appears to have overstated the issue in a meaningful way.  Depp may be an asshole.  He may be a substance abusing shitheel.  But she painted a picture of a guy who hits her, she did so in a very public "look at me" piece, and she couldn't back it up.

I'm sorry, but saying a man beats women is as defamatory as it gets.  That's a helluva slam.  If you're going to say it PUBLICLY, then you best back it up.  That has nothing to do with whether she could or should have reported any violence to the police, or couldn't have sought a safe shelter, or anything like that.  She chose to take a horrific allegation public.  That allegation understandably damaged the target.  She did not have the proof to back it up (that is, the "truth is a defense to defamation claims").  When she repeatedly demonstrated herself to be untrustworthy, that made her case even worse.  That's all this case stands for -- this particular set of circumstances.  That's it.

I should’ve clarified. In the post you quoted, I was referring specifically to the theory that it was some grand evil plan she commenced before they ever married.

Her wanting to hurt him I can believe. I also believe he did physically abuse her and that while she and her counsel may have done a shitty job proving that, the finding of malice is still absurd.

[chainsaw 9872]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I should’ve clarified. In the post you quoted, I was referring specifically to the theory that it was some grand evil plan she commenced before they ever married.

Her wanting to hurt him I can believe. I also believe he did physically abuse her and that while she and her counsel may have done a shitty job proving that, the finding of malice is still absurd.

She doesn't strike me as the kind of person who wouldn't have the presence of mind to thoroughly document physical abuse.

[Brisketexan 105161]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I also believe he did physically abuse her

And the jury believed otherwise.  The credibility of testimony and evidence offered is one of the main things a jury weighs.  AH did herself no favors in that regard.  When you are trying a "truth is the defense" case, your honesty and integrity are front and center.  You best do nothing to impair those.  She failed, hard, in that respect.  That's how trials go.  You can say a lot of shit, but if the jury doesn't believe you, it doesn't matter what you said.  And yeah, if the jury thinks you're a liar, they are going to stack that conclusion and find malice.

Lesson for all: don't lie on the stand.  It really hurts your case.

[HOOKEM4 5039]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I should’ve clarified. In the post you quoted, I was referring specifically to the theory that it was some grand evil plan she commenced before they ever married.

Her wanting to hurt him I can believe. I also believe he did physically abuse her and that while she and her counsel may have done a shitty job proving that, the finding of malice is still absurd.

Jesus christ. Sit down and shut up.

[Brisketexan 105161]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

She doesn't strike me as the kind of person who wouldn't have the presence of mind to thoroughly document physical abuse.

Also this.  She documented the shit out of a million other things that showed Depp to be a drunk drugged asshole.  The absence of evidence, when there is a practice of gathering lots of evidence, is telling to a jury.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Her wanting to hurt him I can believe. I also believe he did physically abuse her and that while she and her counsel may have done a shitty job proving that, the finding of malice is still absurd.

Also, it occurs to me that the legal definition of malice is geared, again, toward journalistic entities and is therefore couched in terms of disregard for truth.

And this may be one of those cases where the jury is collectively smarter than the law.  You admit that she probably acted with malice according to more traditional definitions -- a desire to harm.  And it seems that the jury detected that malice and somewhat disregarded the legal definition.  And, that seems rather appropriate here.  While the public has an interest in hearing information about public figures, that interest is outweighed when the information is false or exaggerated and published with an intent to harm.  That can be reconciled with the First Amendment, if not the current conception/definition of the law.

[Sawbonz 27580]

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Huh.

Dude.  Don't overthink it.  The parties here are two dysfunctional, selfish narcissists.  She wanted to hurt Depp because Depp is a fucking asshole, was a dick to her, and she ended up hating him.  As noted above 100 times, they were each shitty to the other.  When the relationship ended, he walked away (not because he was noble; it's likely because he didn't have the attention span to pay attention any longer).  She did not.  She was still pissed, and wanted to hurt him.  Not to gain anything.  Just to hurt him, because he's an asshole and fuck him (a sentiment I can understand, as a vengeful bastard myself).  That was a poor choice.  And her means of doing so appears to have overstated the issue in a meaningful way.  Depp may be an asshole.  He may be a substance abusing shitheel.  But she painted a picture of a guy who hits her, she did so in a very public "look at me" piece, and she couldn't back it up.

I'm sorry, but saying a man beats women is as defamatory as it gets.  That's a helluva slam.  If you're going to say it PUBLICLY, then you best back it up.  That has nothing to do with whether she could or should have reported any violence to the police, or couldn't have sought a safe shelter, or anything like that.  She chose to take a horrific allegation public.  That allegation understandably damaged the target.  She did not have the proof to back it up (that is, the "truth is a defense to defamation claims").  When she repeatedly demonstrated herself to be untrustworthy, that made her case even worse.  That's all this case stands for -- this particular set of circumstances.  That's it.

Women these days. This is how she should’ve handled it