Depp v. Heard

[Keith Houchen]

38 minutes ago, Nick James said:

Tweets saying that it just shows how wrong you can be about someone after the Depp case and the like

Depps bestie, Marilyn Manson is now suing Evan Rachel Wood for saying she was abused by him. Wonder where he got that idea from. However, he won’t be able to sway they public like funny pirate man was able to. 

[Loki]

Depp-Heard trial: Why Johnny Depp lost in the UK but won in the US https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676

 

Really interesting article about why the US trial went differently to the UK one.

Spoilet because I don’t know how to make Quote from my phone..

Spoiler

In both the UK and the US trial, Mr Depp's lawyers argued that Ms Heard was lying - to make their case, they attacked her character and claimed that she was in fact the abusive partner.

 

This is a common defence tactic in sexual assault and domestic violence trials called "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender" or "Darvo", said Mr Stephens.

"They deny that they did anything, they deny they're the real perpetrator, and they attack the credibility of the individual calling out the abuse, and then reverse the roles of the victim and the offender," Mr Stephens said.

In the UK trial, Mr Stephens said the judge recognised that strategy, and dismissed a lot of the evidence that did not directly address whether Mr Depp committed assault or not. 

"Lawyers and judges tend not to fall for it, but it's very, very effective against juries," he said. Men are more likely to believe Darvo arguments, but female jurors are also susceptible. 

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Loki

[Keith Houchen]

9 minutes ago, Loki said:

In the UK trial, Mr Stephens said the judge recognised that strategy, and dismissed a lot of the evidence that did not directly address whether Mr Depp committed assault or not. 

This is something the Depp fans point to as to why it wasn’t a fair trial, and why he lost. Usually when asked, they can’t point to what evidence was dismissed because it had no bearing on the case. From what I gather, the most crucial bit of evidence that was excluded was one that had Depp in a bad light, but because there was other people in the recording it could be classed as heresay so the defence couldn’t use it. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

15 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

This is something the Depp fans point to as to why it wasn’t a fair trial, and why he lost. Usually when asked, they can’t point to what evidence was dismissed because it had no bearing on the case. From what I gather, the most crucial bit of evidence that was excluded was one that had Depp in a bad light, but because there was other people in the recording it could be classed as heresay so the defence couldn’t use it. 

That’s also why the audio of Amber admitting she cut off his finger wasn’t heard in either trial, because anyone else featured in the recording other then those named in the court case must give there authorisation and they wouldn’t. 

[Keith Houchen]

19 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

That’s also why the audio of Amber admitting she cut off his finger wasn’t heard in either trial,

Got a link to the audio? I’ve never heard her say she admits cutting off his finger?

[Hannibal Scorch]

29 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Got a link to the audio? I’ve never heard her say she admits cutting off his finger?

The whole Audio from the time is here from around 3.30 if you want to hear the whole thing

 

[Keith Houchen]

She doesn’t say she cut off his finger there?

[Hannibal Scorch]

9 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

She doesn’t say she cut off his finger there?

Your right. They say she did (as in the doctor), she apologised, and they say they’ll protect her.  But she’s also told at least 2 different accounts of what happened on tape and the stand, so does anything really matter. She’s guilty, he’s guilty, both horrible people to each other in what was clearly an abusive relationship. 

[Keith Houchen]

3 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Your right.

And you’re wrong. 

 

3 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

she’s also told at least 2 different accounts of what happened

And Depp has sent texts and said he cut off his finger, although I reckon that more a turn of phrase like “I broke my leg”. 

 

5 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

so does anything really matter

I think it does. It’s powerful wealthy men shutting down the people they abuse, even if they aren’t named. 
 

 

6 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

he’s guilty, both horrible people to each other in what was clearly an abusive relationship.

And that’s why in my opinion he wasn’t defamed because he is a wifebeater, you’ve even said there he is. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

9 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

And that’s why in my opinion he wasn’t defamed because he is a wifebeater, you’ve even said there he is. 

No I didn’t. I said it was an abusive relationship, none of her evidence proved it was physical on his part. 
 

And from that audio, and what people said at the trial they tried to cover up what happened which is where the accordion  door excuse was mentioned. Or Amber saying he cut it with a smashed up phone. 

[Keith Houchen]

Just now, Hannibal Scorch said:

No I didn’t. I said it was an abusive relationship, none of her evidence proved it was physical on his part. 

Not all abuse is physical, the part of the op-ed that led to the lawsuit didn’t mention physical violence, it mentioned domestic abuse. 
 

As I’ve always said, confirmation bias is what fascinates me about this. The Deppford Wives point to this verdict as vindication for an unjust verdict in London. The verdict for the US trial was delivered on a tick sheet. The UK trial had a 129 page document explaining the findings. One hundred and twenty nine pages! But no, the judge got it wrong. 
 

That in itself asks questions. If the judge got it wrong did he get everything wrong? Did he get the two instances right where he said they couldn’t be proved but got the other 12 where he concluded Depp is a wifebeater wrong? If he got everything wrong does that mean Depp abused her twice out of fourteen?

And of course, it isn’t just Pro Depp people, it’s anti Heard people and misogynists in general. We’re seeing a backlash against MeToo, we’re seeing people saying she didn’t act like a victim should. Anything to discredit woman speaking out against violent and abusive men. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

30 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

We’re seeing a backlash against MeToo, we’re seeing people saying she didn’t act like a victim should. Anything to discredit woman speaking out against violent and abusive men. 

The lawsuit against The Sun, not Amber Heard, where the judge's son turned out to be working for Talkradio. And have you read all 129 pages?

Anyway, as to the part I have quoted, most of the backlash seems to have come from Amber Heard's legal team and her fans from what I have seen. Exclusive? I doubt it because we all know the horrible 'erberts we see on twitter. But I haven't seen a massive backlash. Though, to your point I have seen people say it's why people shouldn't automatically believe a woman victim which is of course problematic.

What is also interesting is the angle of he won with a jury because he is popular. That didn't work for Bill Cosby and he was regarded as a national treasure. Can that be a part of it? Who knows, I guess we'll never know for sure. That is the angle that Amber Heard is using in her interview with NBC this week though which is interesting. Especially as she said she hoped once the trial finished that they could both move on and leave it in the past.  I guess my view is skewed on this because there was one line said to me once that was awfully similar to something she said to Depp. Tell them. No one will believe you. So I guess I do think she's abusive in more than one way, and I don't think he was physically abusive but he absolutely was emotionally abusive. And I don't feel I am a Deppford Wife for having that view, because as I have said time and again, neither looks good from this. And both will no doubt have a career comeback in the next few years, because like Wrestling, if someone can make money from you, they will.

[Keith Houchen]

15 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

The lawsuit against The Sun, not Amber Heard, where the judge's son turned out to be working for Talkradio. And have you read all 129 pages?

Are you suggesting a conspiracy? Because that’s an incredibly tenuous link, The Sun and Talkradio are owned by completely different subsidies of News Corp, which itself has about 25,000 employees. Where do the panel of judges who decided there was absolutely no basis for appeal fit into the conspiracy? Yes, I’ve read it all. 
 

 

16 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

What is also interesting is the angle of he won with a jury because he is popular. That didn't work for Bill Cosby and he was regarded as a national treasure

The two aren’t comparable as one was a civil trial and one a criminal trial. And it’s not that he was popular, a jury trial gave him the opportunity to win over a jury, which he did. That’s why he wanted a jury trial as he had a better chance of winning. Plus Cosby admitted he’d drugged his victims. 

 

20 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Anyway, as to the part I have quoted, most of the backlash seems to have come from Amber Heard's legal team and her fans from what I have seen

They’re the ones saying you shouldn’t believe women and that women lie?  What I also meant is the countless lawyers saying how since the verdict, hundreds of women have dropped their cases because they won’t be believed after a man got away with domestic abuse despite the absolute stacks of evidence showing he did it. 

 

23 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I guess my view is skewed on this because there was one line said to me once that was awfully similar to something she said to Depp. Tell them. No one will believe you. So I guess I do think she's abusive

The thing is though, as has been said time and again, what she did or didn’t do wasn’t the subject of the trial. What he did was. It’s DARVOing to the nth degree and it’s working. 

[Mr_Danger]

@Hannibal ScorchWhat is it about Johnny Depp that makes you think he wouldn’t physically abuse his partner if she said he did? I’m not saying he has but I’ve been around abusive addicts, some of the kindest nicest sober people you’ll ever meet and the shit they do when they’re off it is crazy. Shit they wouldn’t even believe they did even if you shown them it on tape. I certainly wouldn’t go out on a limb to say Johnny Depp hasn’t physically harmed Amber Heard, even despite the he said she said bollocks and it being fairly obvious she was abusive too.

[Hannibal Scorch]

45 minutes ago, Mr_Danger said:

@Hannibal ScorchWhat is it about Johnny Depp that makes you think he wouldn’t physically abuse his partner if she said he did? I’m not saying he has but I’ve been around abusive addicts, some of the kindest nicest sober people you’ll ever meet and the shit they do when they’re off it is crazy. Shit they wouldn’t even believe they did even if you shown them it on tape. I certainly wouldn’t go out on a limb to say Johnny Depp hasn’t physically harmed Amber Heard, even despite the he said she said bollocks and it being fairly obvious she was abusive too.

I’m only going by what I saw in the trial. I’ve never met him, seen all his films or anything like that. I’ve liked him in stuff but wouldn’t say I’m a fan. My feelings on what did or didn’t happen are based on the evidence at the trial, which both sides claim KEY EVIDENCE was denied to strengthen their cases.

I was a juror on a trial about DA which included graphic acts of sexual violence. The thing that stood out for me with her testimony/evidence is that for all the extreme violence there was no evidence. As Keith will tell you, you can’t evidence all of this stuff which is absolutely true. But if you thought you had a broken nose, if you had been assaulted with a bottle as she had said, you would be going to hospital, you would be seeing a doctor. The fact eyewitness said there was no visible evidence of bruising and no make up used.
 

The fact the photos were “doctored” and all the key ones had no metadata and the fact TMZ were told where and when to be and where the bruise was, followed by photos the day before wearing no make up and no bruise. there were too many things that felt off. It’s extremely possible he was physically abusive as that happens in these relationships sometimes. And I’m not trying to suggest he isn’t guilty. But based on everything I saw (and due to working hours I saw a lot!) of the trial, there wasn’t enough for me to refer to him in the way Keith does. 
 

What will be interesting now is what she does next. She already said she wanted to leave it in the courtroom and she’s now blaming the jury and accusing everyone witness he bought in as being paid of (which I guess means the LAPD as well), so this looks like it will be ongoing for a long while to come.