Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you approached this trial with a truly open mind, listened to all of the testimony, weighed the evidence presented by both sides and based on that came to the conclusion that you did not believe Ms. Heard you are discrediting ALL victims of DV?

Think that one through. I believe DV is a horrific crime. My heart hurts for any victim of it and I believe that anyone guilty of DV should be punished. That said, each case has to be faced without prejudice for our legal system to work. Every single victim of DV should be heard and they deserve justice, but not everyone who claims DV is telling the truth. That's a sad fact and, as I said, we can't presume anything--we have to weigh the facts of every single case, every single time.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could understand the legal issues at play, listen to this entire trial, come to the conclusion that Johnny Depp is a blameless victim, and not be a misogynist.

Because they didn’t. So much evidence against Depp. Heard countered every gotcha moment the plaintiffs threw at her. This isn’t a case about who lied the most or at all. If it was, then every witness testimony would be questionable. This isn’t a DV case, although it certainly will influence the jurors. The jury must decide a few very simple line items:

1. Did Heard REPUBLISH the Op Ed with any edits changing the original WAPO Op Ed? No
2. Did the original OP Ed cause Depp to lose income and job offers? No, testimony on both sides provided evidence that Depp was a risk years prior to Op Ed
3. Did Depp file the defamation case in retaliation? Yes, “global humiliation”, “ruin her”, “karma should take the breath out of her body”, “set her corpse on fire and f**k her to make sure she’s dead”

If the jury decides no to 1 or 2, Depp loses. If the jury decides yes to 3, Depp loses. They then determine damages.

You forgot the most important fact: is he abusive? If she republished it AND are those 3 statements from article false, then…

If she didn’t republish the article with new info OR if he is an abuser, he loses.

Pp above you responding. Since it’s not a domestic violence case (as hard as this is to believe), they first must rule on the defamation suit— did the OP Ed do harm to Depp’s career. He didn’t file a DV suit against her, only a defamation suit. Then the jury proceeds from there. If they rule in favor of Depp, they’ll determine damages awarded to him. What happens after that, I just don’t know. Her counterclaim may circle the drain. Maybe an attorney can help here. If they rule against Depp’s defamation claim, then I think Heard will win the counterclaim that Depp intended to harm her emotionally, psychologically, and physically or he didn’t. If the former, she will be awarded damages. I don’t think this is gonna be a wash, and if the verdict is in fact happening today, this was a cut and dry case for the jury.

No, you’re incorrect. They do NOT first make a finding as to whether the piece harmed him. The reason is this: truth is an absolute defense to defamation. They don’t even get to harm and damages if the republishing of the article is true. Period, end of story. His case ends.

Ok. So if I understand correctly, you are saying they rule solely on whether or not her claims of abuse are true? If so, republication is moot and he loses?

responsible for the headline right?

DP. I would suggest reading the jury instructions as a starting point to understand what the jury had to decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the relatively short deliberation time is good news for AH. The facts do not help him much, so unless a couple people were really digging in their heels because they sided with him emotionally, it seems clear he should definitely lose. I think it is doubtful she will win her countersuit, but considering she only filed that as a response to the suit, a loss for him in any respect is a win for her.

You have spammed this thread literally hundreds of times. Are you the AH friend who was kicked out of the courthouse?

WTF are you talking about lol. I have literally NOT spammed this thread hundreds of times. I have posted that I think he's gross here and there, but I have done no trolling. And this is the first time I have said anything like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you approached this trial with a truly open mind, listened to all of the testimony, weighed the evidence presented by both sides and based on that came to the conclusion that you did not believe Ms. Heard you are discrediting ALL victims of DV?

Think that one through. I believe DV is a horrific crime. My heart hurts for any victim of it and I believe that anyone guilty of DV should be punished. That said, each case has to be faced without prejudice for our legal system to work. Every single victim of DV should be heard and they deserve justice, but not everyone who claims DV is telling the truth. That's a sad fact and, as I said, we can't presume anything--we have to weigh the facts of every single case, every single time.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could understand the legal issues at play, listen to this entire trial, come to the conclusion that Johnny Depp is a blameless victim, and not be a misogynist.

Because they didn’t. So much evidence against Depp. Heard countered every gotcha moment the plaintiffs threw at her. This isn’t a case about who lied the most or at all. If it was, then every witness testimony would be questionable. This isn’t a DV case, although it certainly will influence the jurors. The jury must decide a few very simple line items:

1. Did Heard REPUBLISH the Op Ed with any edits changing the original WAPO Op Ed? No
2. Did the original OP Ed cause Depp to lose income and job offers? No, testimony on both sides provided evidence that Depp was a risk years prior to Op Ed
3. Did Depp file the defamation case in retaliation? Yes, “global humiliation”, “ruin her”, “karma should take the breath out of her body”, “set her corpse on fire and f**k her to make sure she’s dead”

If the jury decides no to 1 or 2, Depp loses. If the jury decides yes to 3, Depp loses. They then determine damages.

You forgot the most important fact: is he abusive? If she republished it AND are those 3 statements from article false, then…

If she didn’t republish the article with new info OR if he is an abuser, he loses.

Pp above you responding. Since it’s not a domestic violence case (as hard as this is to believe), they first must rule on the defamation suit— did the OP Ed do harm to Depp’s career. He didn’t file a DV suit against her, only a defamation suit. Then the jury proceeds from there. If they rule in favor of Depp, they’ll determine damages awarded to him. What happens after that, I just don’t know. Her counterclaim may circle the drain. Maybe an attorney can help here. If they rule against Depp’s defamation claim, then I think Heard will win the counterclaim that Depp intended to harm her emotionally, psychologically, and physically or he didn’t. If the former, she will be awarded damages. I don’t think this is gonna be a wash, and if the verdict is in fact happening today, this was a cut and dry case for the jury.

No, you’re incorrect. They do NOT first make a finding as to whether the piece harmed him. The reason is this: truth is an absolute defense to defamation. They don’t even get to harm and damages if the republishing of the article is true. Period, end of story. His case ends.

Ok. So if I understand correctly, you are saying they rule solely on whether or not her claims of abuse are true? If so, republication is moot and he loses?

responsible for the headline right?

DP. I would suggest reading the jury instructions as a starting point to understand what the jury had to decide.

I did read it and also watched entire trial (in binges). Rottenborn explained it well. If jury believes overwhelmingly that Heard was abused one time, they do not have to rule on anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the relatively short deliberation time is good news for AH. The facts do not help him much, so unless a couple people were really digging in their heels because they sided with him emotionally, it seems clear he should definitely lose. I think it is doubtful she will win her countersuit, but considering she only filed that as a response to the suit, a loss for him in any respect is a win for her.

You have spammed this thread literally hundreds of times. Are you the AH friend who was kicked out of the courthouse?

DP. Huh? Why are accusing this poster of spamming the thread hundreds of times?

Because the Johnny stans have a collective screw loose, the two or three of them who have spammed the thread hundreds of times.

+1

BSC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you approached this trial with a truly open mind, listened to all of the testimony, weighed the evidence presented by both sides and based on that came to the conclusion that you did not believe Ms. Heard you are discrediting ALL victims of DV?

Think that one through. I believe DV is a horrific crime. My heart hurts for any victim of it and I believe that anyone guilty of DV should be punished. That said, each case has to be faced without prejudice for our legal system to work. Every single victim of DV should be heard and they deserve justice, but not everyone who claims DV is telling the truth. That's a sad fact and, as I said, we can't presume anything--we have to weigh the facts of every single case, every single time.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could understand the legal issues at play, listen to this entire trial, come to the conclusion that Johnny Depp is a blameless victim, and not be a misogynist.

Because they didn’t. So much evidence against Depp. Heard countered every gotcha moment the plaintiffs threw at her. This isn’t a case about who lied the most or at all. If it was, then every witness testimony would be questionable. This isn’t a DV case, although it certainly will influence the jurors. The jury must decide a few very simple line items:

1. Did Heard REPUBLISH the Op Ed with any edits changing the original WAPO Op Ed? No
2. Did the original OP Ed cause Depp to lose income and job offers? No, testimony on both sides provided evidence that Depp was a risk years prior to Op Ed
3. Did Depp file the defamation case in retaliation? Yes, “global humiliation”, “ruin her”, “karma should take the breath out of her body”, “set her corpse on fire and f**k her to make sure she’s dead”

If the jury decides no to 1 or 2, Depp loses. If the jury decides yes to 3, Depp loses. They then determine damages.

You forgot the most important fact: is he abusive? If she republished it AND are those 3 statements from article false, then…

If she didn’t republish the article with new info OR if he is an abuser, he loses.

Pp above you responding. Since it’s not a domestic violence case (as hard as this is to believe), they first must rule on the defamation suit— did the OP Ed do harm to Depp’s career. He didn’t file a DV suit against her, only a defamation suit. Then the jury proceeds from there. If they rule in favor of Depp, they’ll determine damages awarded to him. What happens after that, I just don’t know. Her counterclaim may circle the drain. Maybe an attorney can help here. If they rule against Depp’s defamation claim, then I think Heard will win the counterclaim that Depp intended to harm her emotionally, psychologically, and physically or he didn’t. If the former, she will be awarded damages. I don’t think this is gonna be a wash, and if the verdict is in fact happening today, this was a cut and dry case for the jury.

No, you’re incorrect. They do NOT first make a finding as to whether the piece harmed him. The reason is this: truth is an absolute defense to defamation. They don’t even get to harm and damages if the republishing of the article is true. Period, end of story. His case ends.

Ok. So if I understand correctly, you are saying they rule solely on whether or not her claims of abuse are true? If so, republication is moot and he loses?

responsible for the headline right?

DP. I would suggest reading the jury instructions as a starting point to understand what the jury had to decide.

I did read it and also watched entire trial (in binges). Rottenborn explained it well. If jury believes overwhelmingly that Heard was abused one time, they do not have to rule on anything else.

Previously you said the jury starts by deciding if the op-Ed hurt Depp’s reputation, which is different from what you’re saying now. Both are elements of the e claim, but neither is the entire inquiry.

[Anonymous]

Amber arrived at courthouse. Court TV most impartial if you’re hopping on. One analyst thinks that there was too much testimony and info for jury to rehash. He nbelieves 12 hours not enough time which leans toward a Heard win.

[Anonymous]

Won’t Tim Burton always hire him?

[Anonymous]

🚩🚩🚩🚩VERDICT IS IN 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

[Anonymous]

📣📣📣📣 ANNOUNCED AT 3PM 📣📣📣📣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Won’t Tim Burton always hire him?

Not in 10 years since Dark Shadows, which was pretty meh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:📣📣📣📣 ANNOUNCED AT 3PM 📣📣📣📣

Sorry I'm just excited

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:📣📣📣📣 ANNOUNCED AT 3PM 📣📣📣📣

Way to be late to the party.

[Anonymous]

And Depp is yucking it up in London. With one of the trial witnesses no less.

So much disrespect for the court system and the jurors. And generally everyone.

You suckers.

[Anonymous]

They should have required Depp to be at the court house. He disrupted the juror’s life for weeks and now can’t be bothered to show up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should have required Depp to be at the court house. He disrupted the juror’s life for weeks and now can’t be bothered to show up.

wow, yeah. that should be a default judgment. wtf.