Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Standard to prove defamation:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

To prove 1 you need to prove that she herself did not believe she was in an abusive relationship when she wrote that article. And the article did not name him, so you are trying to say that she lied in saying she was in an abusive relationship. This bar is NOT met by JD.

2) This is met by publication in WAPO BUT is irrelevant if you have not proved #1

3/4) You have to prove that she has caused him injury via the op-ed. She may have caused him injury in many OTHER formats, but that op-ed did not cause the injury. Arguably, if you believe his side (and I frankly do not), the actual thing she did that damaged his career is contribute to his hand injury. That set back the production of Pirates 4 by a month and cost disney a crap ton of money and officially made him not just chronically late and occasionally unreliable, but a straight up liability. But that is not what he is suing her for, he's suing her for an op-ed published after their divorce and after the toxicity of their relationship and his substance abuse problems were WELL reported on. The problem with claiming the op-ed caused in injury is that so much injury was caused before.

So the only piece he has in the bag is #2. He does not have 1/3/4 when you consider the fact that what this actual legal case orbits around is the op-ed, not all this extra information they are presenting.

Wrong. The op-ed was damaging. She didn't believe it and knew clearly that the implication was that she was talking about Depp. They'll prove it.

It is extraordinarily difficult to prove that someone did not believe something. Particularly when confronted with video evidence of someone behaving in a way that most sane people would consider abusive. A relationship doesn't need only one abuser to be appropriately labeled abusive. The op-ed is vague and not focused on her abusers but on generally how people who have been abused can recover. It's purpose was CLEARLY not directed at Depp. It references multiple experiences in her life before and after that relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god - what grown ass woman poops in her bed and leaves it on her husbands side as “practical joke”? She’s revolting and crazy.

What grown ass man dips his cut off finger in blood or paint and writes on the walls?

Don't be ridiculous. Amber's act was predetermined and truly disguisting.

That’s why I call her Amber Turd.

#mepoo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god - what grown ass woman poops in her bed and leaves it on her husbands side as “practical joke”? She’s revolting and crazy.

What grown ass man dips his cut off finger in blood or paint and writes on the walls?

Don't be ridiculous. Amber's act was predetermined and truly disguisting.

That’s why I call her Amber Turd.

#mepoo

Things like this take away from the sincerity of the claim he was abused and lean in to the claim that this is all in the goal of humiliating her, FYI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Depp's attys said this psychologist was going to issue a number of damaging opinions (that Heard was lying about having suffered domestic abuse or lying that Depp abused Heard, etc) that she never arrives at or testifies to.

For all the prior complaints about the proliferation of pro-Depp commentary on the internet, this board certainly seems to have a lot of anti-Depp/pro-Amber posters offering pro-Amber spin to everything that happens...

Any comment that isn't dripping with sympathy for Depp is labeled a pro Amber spin.

He has nothing, he lost a defamation suit in the UK. It is much easier to win defamation suits there. It is extremely hard to win them here, especially against public figures. There is almost no chance he prevails.

So?

Is his point to win or to clear his name? We don’t know.

He can't clear his name and he's broke and unemployable. This is a lost case.

The thing is, he’s not unemployable. Hollywood loves him (or used to love him) and they love a redemption story. It’s up to him whether he wants to get serious about getting cleaned up and pursuing it. I don’t think he is. He’s always kind of had this “I don’t care about being an actor” thing that used to be part of his appeal.

He may lose the case but there are a lot more people sympathetic to what he went through and willing to acknowledge he’s not the bad guy. The opportunity for redemption is right there. It won’t even be particularly hares if he cleans up, that is.

When was the last redemption story of someone at his age? Hollywood is youth obsessed. He’s a bloated old man in his late 50s. He’s not RDJ getting over a drug habit in his 20s. He’s a man that was on the tail end of his career who happened to cheat with the wrong crazy at that time. I will never understand why he is pursuing a legal action he can’t win. All of this just continues to force him to be connected to this woman he claims he hates.

First of all, if he cleaned up he’d likely lose some of the weight and bloat. He still has amazing bone structure. Most importantly he is a talented actor. He’s never needed youthful roles to display that talent as he always shied away from leading man roles. One of his best performances was under a bunch of aging prosthetics. He doesn’t need to be Iron Man (those movies were never his bag) and he doesn’t need to be Channing Tatum. He needs a great performance in an acclaimed movie, which is not likely to be a Hollywood blockbuster with lots of explosions and marvel characters anyway. And he is capable of it.

There’s a huge middle ground between “unemployable” and “biggest leading man in Hollywood”. He never wanted the latter in the first place. Jack Sparrow was double-edged for him. It might not ever reach those heights again but he can have a career. Mel Gibson still work, for Christ’s sake. He may not be Lethal Weapon anymore but he can work.

Puh-leeaze. He’s not that talented. You’re acting like he was Daniel Day Lewis. He was doing big budget fluff films because he’s not that talented. Mel Gibson had an academy award for best director 10+ years before he was exposed as a POS and his comeback came in making his own movies. Johnny can’t do that because he is not that talented.

Johnny Depp had Brad Pitt level fame/recognition. And hey, Brad Pitt had a nasty episode with alcohol and his family and a prolonged divorce case where the public sentiment was against his ex wife.

Brad Pitt is fine, back to being america's sweetheart, given his second chance (third if you count the aniston debacle), and riding high off a great cameo in a big film and running his own production studio. Despite that family situation appearing quite bad still.

Brad Pitt doesn't cost studios money, he makes them. Brad Pitt tried to keep it all as private as possible and used the press in strategic and calculated ways to influence public opinion. Brad Pitt was never so out of control that there were a bunch of videos of him raging, or absolutely trashed hotel rooms, to fill the papers with.

Depp might not have been oscar talented, but he was/is VERY VERY famous. He is the type of name that gets people to go to the movies, which is type of movie star that is not as common as it was in the 90s/00s. He was a Tim Burton muse and Pirates should have set him up for life and was then even given an in into the Potter franchise to help him recoup all the Pirates money he had blown on drugs.

1. Brad Pitt still looks good and his substance issues never interfered with his work to the extent that Johnny Depp’s did
2. Johnny Depp WAS a box office draw. But who is his fan base now?
3. Does Brad Pitt really star in anything anymore? He seems like it’s pretty much all supporting roles. And he wisely expanded into other ventures, namely producing great films like Moonlight and 12 years a slave, which allows aging actors to maintain relevance and network.

But I do agree that had Johnny Depp not dragged out this whole thing with Amber people would have forgotten it. Every time
He sues her it literally just reminds people of what she said.

I meant he bolded is kind of my point. Brad Pitt held himself together and is now totally fine. JD spiraled out of control and is acting like its her fault when if he could just get it together, he'd be fine too. Rehab, a couple years seeming stable, a sympathetic interview, voila. Brad Pitt is headlining a movie this summer (Bullet Train), has a huge high profile cameo in the big Sandra Bullock/Channing Tatum movie and starred in Ad Astra and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood in 2019. He took a few years off there when his life was going to crap, but is back making and producing movies prolifically now.

Based on this trial he seems to still have plenty of fans. People still buy Chris Brown's music.

Is Brad even divorced yet? So don’t worry he’s got plenty of baggage being thrown out there.

I see Angelina Jolie as an 'Amber Heard'. Crazy, histrionic, borderline personality disorder. She also thought she could play the 'woman victim' and it also turned against her and nobody bought her BS.

She tried her best to smear Brad and turn the kids and public against him. The woman has a history of 'crazy' in past relationships, just like Heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. This whole thing reeks of not believing the woman. Look, is she crazy? Yes. Is he? Yes. Were they both abusive? YES.

But somehow here, and other places, it is Amber bearing the brunt of the criticism, the name-calling, etc. I find this very "interesting."

They both suck. And deserve each other. And neither deserves a single cent from one another. They need to slither off to their respective corners. And I say this as a former HUUUUUGE Johnny Depp fan.

No evidence, at this time that he hit her. So no they are not the same.

The only two who know the answer to that are Johnny and Amber. You don't. I don't. And that sort of thing is very difficult to prove as no one else was there.

And lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means it couldn't be proved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. This whole thing reeks of not believing the woman. Look, is she crazy? Yes. Is he? Yes. Were they both abusive? YES.

But somehow here, and other places, it is Amber bearing the brunt of the criticism, the name-calling, etc. I find this very "interesting."

They both suck. And deserve each other. And neither deserves a single cent from one another. They need to slither off to their respective corners. And I say this as a former HUUUUUGE Johnny Depp fan.

Right, but she defamed him in a very public way. He didnt't do that to her. It's quite cut and dry, really.

You don't know that. So stop acting like you do.

It's about evidence. And the only two privvy to what happened was them. Domestic violence, generally, is very difficult to prove after the fact. She may not be able to prove it. But that's an evidentiary problem. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. They are both #$%#$ crazy.

[Anonymous]

Who is the bald man with the huge white beard who is being questioned live now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Standard to prove defamation:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

To prove 1 you need to prove that she herself did not believe she was in an abusive relationship when she wrote that article. And the article did not name him, so you are trying to say that she lied in saying she was in an abusive relationship. This bar is NOT met by JD.

2) This is met by publication in WAPO BUT is irrelevant if you have not proved #1

3/4) You have to prove that she has caused him injury via the op-ed. She may have caused him injury in many OTHER formats, but that op-ed did not cause the injury. Arguably, if you believe his side (and I frankly do not), the actual thing she did that damaged his career is contribute to his hand injury. That set back the production of Pirates 4 by a month and cost disney a crap ton of money and officially made him not just chronically late and occasionally unreliable, but a straight up liability. But that is not what he is suing her for, he's suing her for an op-ed published after their divorce and after the toxicity of their relationship and his substance abuse problems were WELL reported on. The problem with claiming the op-ed caused in injury is that so much injury was caused before.

So the only piece he has in the bag is #2. He does not have 1/3/4 when you consider the fact that what this actual legal case orbits around is the op-ed, not all this extra information they are presenting.

Judge did not dismiss the case at the close of JD's case; therefore judge disagrees with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that Depp can't form a coherent sentence and an answer?
It is beyond painful to watch him mumble like a drugged person.

He probably IS a drugged person. His bodyguard just testified that he saw Depp use marijuana “daily.”

I simply cannot get over the chaotic way these people lived. They seem so miserable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that Depp can't form a coherent sentence and an answer?
It is beyond painful to watch him mumble like a drugged person.

He probably IS a drugged person. His bodyguard just testified that he saw Depp use marijuana “daily.”

I simply cannot get over the chaotic way these people lived. They seem so miserable.

Is the bodyguard the bald man with the long white beard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amber switched her PR rep…I guess she realize how damaging the trial has been to her.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/01/amber-heard-fires-pr-team-days-before-shes-set-to-testify-after-tons-of-bad-press/

Amber didn't have a choice in this. She obviously knew how damaging it would be. And since he has no chance at winning on the merits, that makes it clear he's bankrupting himself to humiliate her.

But he does have a chance, as the judge didn't rule to dismiss the case. It's up to the jury. Juries can be unpredictable, and we don't know who's on there.

He has no chance on the merits. You are correct that juries can be unpredictable, but he will not win this on the merits of a defamation suit tied to an op ed that did not name him.

Then why didn't the judge dispose of the case summarily before the trial? Apparently there are issues of fact for the jury to decide. Therefore, unless she wins on a directed verdict, there is a chance for him to prevail. There is also a chance for her to prevail on her counterclaims. I will be interested in seeing the jury instructions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that Depp can't form a coherent sentence and an answer?
It is beyond painful to watch him mumble like a drugged person.

He probably IS a drugged person. His bodyguard just testified that he saw Depp use marijuana “daily.”

I simply cannot get over the chaotic way these people lived. They seem so miserable.

I don't know how he lived before Heard, but the two of them together seemed to result in a lot of chaos, arguments, wasted time, and wasted energy. Time could have been better spent with his kids...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Standard to prove defamation:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

To prove 1 you need to prove that she herself did not believe she was in an abusive relationship when she wrote that article. And the article did not name him, so you are trying to say that she lied in saying she was in an abusive relationship. This bar is NOT met by JD.

2) This is met by publication in WAPO BUT is irrelevant if you have not proved #1

3/4) You have to prove that she has caused him injury via the op-ed. She may have caused him injury in many OTHER formats, but that op-ed did not cause the injury. Arguably, if you believe his side (and I frankly do not), the actual thing she did that damaged his career is contribute to his hand injury. That set back the production of Pirates 4 by a month and cost disney a crap ton of money and officially made him not just chronically late and occasionally unreliable, but a straight up liability. But that is not what he is suing her for, he's suing her for an op-ed published after their divorce and after the toxicity of their relationship and his substance abuse problems were WELL reported on. The problem with claiming the op-ed caused in injury is that so much injury was caused before.

So the only piece he has in the bag is #2. He does not have 1/3/4 when you consider the fact that what this actual legal case orbits around is the op-ed, not all this extra information they are presenting.

Judge did not dismiss the case at the close of JD's case; therefore judge disagrees with you.

The reasoning to bring the suit was legally sound, but they still need to prove it. The judge did not agree it was provable, just that it was a legitimate complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amber switched her PR rep…I guess she realize how damaging the trial has been to her.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/01/amber-heard-fires-pr-team-days-before-shes-set-to-testify-after-tons-of-bad-press/

Amber didn't have a choice in this. She obviously knew how damaging it would be. And since he has no chance at winning on the merits, that makes it clear he's bankrupting himself to humiliate her.

Amber didn’t have a choice in changing her PR firm in the middle of a trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god - what grown ass woman poops in her bed and leaves it on her husbands side as “practical joke”? She’s revolting and crazy.

What grown ass man dips his cut off finger in blood or paint and writes on the walls?

Don't be ridiculous. Amber's act was predetermined and truly disguisting.

That’s why I call her Amber Turd.

#mepoo