News I'm watching the Johnny Depp defamation case

fingercuffs said:
I'm sure if you're selected for jury you look at these things, even when you swear under oath that you haven't looked up back history. I know curiosity would get the better of me, I'd just use someone else's device to look it up.
Click to expand...
100%, I’d be willing to bet every juror on this trial is at home right now reading and watching everything they can get their hands on, forming an opinion almost entirely unrelated to the actual facts of the case. It’s going to be interesting.
 
Err said:
100%, I’d be willing to bet every juror on this trial is at home right now reading and watching everything they can get their hands on, forming an opinion almost entirely unrelated to the actual facts of the case. It’s going to be interesting.
Click to expand...
It would be against human nature not to I think.
Do the jury have to present why they've come to the conclusion rather than just opinion?
 
fingercuffs said:
It would be against human nature not to I think.
Do the jury have to present why they've come to the conclusion rather than just opinion?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe so, no. I think the only time judges make inquiries into the workings of a jury are when they’re deadlocked.
 
Err said:
I don’t believe so, no. I think the only time judges make inquiries into the workings of a jury are when they’re deadlocked.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Makes sense.

I love watching courtroom dramas like Bull as an example, but whenever the judge tells the jury they have to ignore what someone has said I get a bit iffy. I'd be easily swayed after hearing it.

I'm thankful I've never done jury service, my other half did and they came to the conclusion that even though the guy was guilty as sin, there weren't enough facts to back it up so they let him off.
 
fingercuffs said:
Gotcha. Makes sense.

I love watching courtroom dramas like Bull as an example, but whenever the judge tells the jury they have to ignore what someone has said I get a bit iffy. I'd be easily swayed after hearing it.

I'm thankful I've never done jury service, my other half did and they came to the conclusion that even though the guy was guilty as sin, there weren't enough facts to back it up so they let him off.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I always find that amusing in courtroom dramas,

Judge, "The jury will disregard the witnesses last statement!"

Jury,
<YeahOKJen>
 
fingercuffs said:
Gotcha. Makes sense.

I love watching courtroom dramas like Bull as an example, but whenever the judge tells the jury they have to ignore what someone has said I get a bit iffy. I'd be easily swayed after hearing it.

I'm thankful I've never done jury service, my other half did and they came to the conclusion that even though the guy was guilty as sin, there weren't enough facts to back it up so they let him off.
Click to expand...

I served on jury, and honestly I was shocked at how forgiving people are in general. And how nobody really wants to feel the responsibility for putting someone in jail. I can only imagine the stress of being a juror on a murder trial or something.

I was a jury and the kid was clearly guilty on multiple counts, BUT he was a young kid and is was 1% chance that he was telling the truth and didn't mean to hit the cop with his car. So we found him guilty on a bunch of stuff but innocent on the most serious crime of hitting a cop with your car and then evading police.

And the whole idea of ignoring what was just said. I didn't take it into account too much at those tiny detail levels. I felt that after 1-2 days of it I was pretty convinced of what the truth was regardless of how the lawyers tried to spin it or use legal-ize to try to confuse the jurors.
 
TheNinja said:
I served on jury, and honestly I was shocked at how forgiving people are in general. And how nobody really wants to feel the responsibility for putting someone in jail. I can only imagine the stress of being a juror on a murder trial or something.

I was a jury and the kid was clearly guilty on multiple counts, BUT he was a young kid and is was 1% chance that he was telling the truth and didn't mean to hit the cop with his car. So we found him guilty on a bunch of stuff but innocent on the most serious crime of hitting a cop with your car and then evading police.

And the whole idea of ignoring what was just said. I didn't take it into account too much at those tiny detail levels. I felt that after 1-2 days of it I was pretty convinced of what the truth was regardless of how the lawyers tried to spin it or use legal-ize to try to confuse the jurors.
Click to expand...
I think my other half's case was ABH or GBH but not anything too serious, the case went on forever though. I would like to hope I'd do my civil duty of not sending someone to prison unless I was 100% but you're really in the hands of the lawyers doing their jobs properly.

I've only been in court once witness wise and I showed up for that late, don't much fancy my chances sitting in a jury for 2 months even though it's a high profile case.
 
And Fairfax is SO boring, I hope they're staying in DC.
 
fingercuffs said:
See this is where it gets murky for me. I believe that they both abused each other. I think her more so because she seems like a conniving manipulative cow, but this case is about her op-ed in The Washington Post where she claims she was abused. Surely, all the proof they need is that he hit her once. Therefore, she was telling the truth. It isn't about who abused the other more, no?

She's already got a counter sue case at the ready, this could take flippin years. At least she's getting the spotlight she so craved.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you except one thing.

The Washington Post Op-ed title said "sexual abuse."

Heard's team attempted to get that line stricken as part of the trial. They argued Heard didn't write the title.

Depp's team successfully argued her name is on the title as author of the article. Plus, she re-tweeted the article as her own experience - thereby "adopting" it as her own words.

So (arguably), Heard has to prove Depp SEXUALLY abused her.

Hence, the new allegations that he penetrated her with a bottle during the finger severing incident. Which is a new allegation.

Additionally, even if Depp was guilty of some "abuse" by defending himself. Heard's own lawyer argued there is such a thing as "reactive abuse." Where one party is just reacting to the abuse of another - so it doesn't really count as abuse. That doctor was trying to apply this as a defense for Amber's abuse. But it will bite them in the ass.

So I think Depp will win.
 
Last edited:
Hog-train said:
I would agree with you except one thing.

The Washington Post Op-ed title said "sexual abuse."

Heard's team attempted to get that line stricken as part of the trial. They argued Heard didn't write the title.

Depp's team successfully argued her name is on the title as author of the article. Plus, she re-tweeted the article as her own experience - thereby "adopting" it as her own words.

So (arguably), Heard has to prove Depp SEXUALLY abused her.

Hence, the new allegations that he penetrated her with a bottle during the finger severing incident. Which is a new allegation.

Additionally, even if Depp was guilty of some "abuse" by defending himself. Heard's own lawyer argued there is such a thing as "reactive abuse." Where one party is just reacting to the abuse of another - so it doesn't really count as abuse. That doctor was trying to apply this as a defense for Amber's abuse. But it will bite them in the ass.

So I think Depp will win.
Click to expand...
*like*
Again it;s all proof though? Him putting his fingers in her in the search for hidden cocaine is sexual abuse?

Fuck this is such a nightmare. I'm not going to be "hooray" whoever wins or loses really. I'm team Depp, but won't take any glory.
 
fingercuffs said:
*like*
Again it;s all proof though? Him putting his fingers in her in the search for hidden cocaine is sexual abuse?

Fuck this is such a nightmare. I'm not going to be "hooray" whoever wins or loses really. I'm team Depp, but won't take any glory.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see any proof any of the sexual stuff happened. She claimed he reached into her poon for a bag of coke. And also that he sexually penetrated her with a bottle. Then showed pics of alcohol bottles and a ping pong table as "proof."

The evidence (that is not part of the trial) proves that bottle shit didn't happen due to the audio right after the finger incident.

So the only way Depp would lose is if any person on the jury believes Amber's testimony without corroborating evidence.

Which could happen - simps gonna simp. They need a unanimous verdict on a charge (defamation) that is notoriously hard to prove. But I still think Depp has a good chance of winning.
 
Last edited:
Hog-train said:
I have yet to see any proof any of the sexual stuff happened. She claimed her reached into her poon for a bag of coke. And also that he sexually penetrated her with a bottle. Then showed pics of alcohol bottles and a ping pong table as "proof."

The evidence (that is not part of the trial) proves that bottle shit didn't happen due to the audio right after the finger incident.

So the only way Depp would lose is if any person on the jury believes Amber's testimony without corroborating evidence.

Which could happen - simps gonna simp. They need a unanimous verdict on a charge (defamation) that is notoriously hard to prove. But I still think Depp has a good chance of winning.
Click to expand...
You are way better than that.
 


First time hearing this short audio of secret meeting in San Francisco, it's after the accusations from Amber Heard. Kinda confirms to me that she still loved him after the divorce for a long time. And some of the things he says to her is really something you would say about a borderline personality. How staying happy is hard for them, and how they push people they love away from them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheNinja said:
This. I'll reiterate my point again. I believe they were both physical with each other on multiple occasions. It was an extremely toxic relationship between 2 pretty messed up people (or at least 1 messed up person and one functional addict). But I believe Amber was probably the worse of the two and had a major temper/crazy side to her that didn't help matters at all. I'm guessing she poked and prodded and nagged and was constantly just on that guy's ass 24/7.
Click to expand...

It wouldnt surprise me at all if Depp go physical with her at least once. Its just that at the moment theres literally zero convincing evidence of him doing that, and loads of evidence that counter it.
 
Hog-train said:
Additionally, even if Depp was guilty of some "abuse" by defending himself. Heard's own lawyer argued there is such a thing as "reactive abuse." Where one party is just reacting to the abuse of another - so it doesn't really count as abuse. That doctor was trying to apply this as a defense for Amber's abuse. But it will bite them in the ass..
Click to expand...

Really that is a pretty well accepted idea to the degree abused partners have even avoided punishment for killing their abuser.
 
Cross examination of Amber set to begin in 10 mins.

giphy.gif
 
Oof, she just threw her legal team under the bus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,448
Messages
58,284,996
Members
175,994
Latest member
Doomer

Share this page

Back
Top