Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so conflicted on this, and admittedly didn't watch much but read a lot about this trial. So I was essentially always seeing an interpretation and not for myself. I just don't think there are any good actors here. I don't disagree that men can be abuse victims, and I don't automatically side with women. But in this case, they are both toxic, abusive people. She's as bad as he is with the bad and humiliating behavior. She gave as good as she got, and he gave as good as he got. In the DV world, that's called mutual combat abuse, and while it's abusive in terms of its being violent, there's no "victim." It's both. They both had power over each other in that relationship; it's not (in my opinion) at all one sided that's the hallmark of domestic violence. I see no primary aggressor. At various times they were equal aggressors. And she seems to have objectively lied her a$$ off. If there's a disservice to domestic violence victims, it was done by her in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter. It's just my opinion.

There was a recording where she admits to starting "physical fights." If you believe that she "objectively lied her a$$ off," as you stated, it's probably not too great of a stretch for the jurors to believe that she was lying about him physically abusing her, too.

Agreed. I'm conflicted only because he's so objectively a douche as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard’s lawyer Elaine is doing the morning tv show rounds trying to make this all about how they’ve let down other women and the metoo movement. She also admitted Heard is unable to pay the judgement. I wonder if she is working for Heard pro bono for her 15 minutes of fame that has turned into a nightmare.

I agree with her.

She also makes the assertion that the jury was influenced by tiktok and is blaming memes and social media. Hope she has proof the jury didn’t listen to instructions.

I agree with that also. Given the degree of media and social media attention on this trial, I think it was a mistake not to have the jury sequestered. I realize that’s a very high burden to place on a jury for a trial lasting this long, but there will never be certainty the jury wasn’t influenced by outside sources, and our legal system is supposed to make its best efforts to avoid even the air of impropriety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

Like what, specifically? Also, that's not exactly what "the UK court found."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to love the casual misogyny of people referring to Ben Rottenborn as “Rottenborn” and Elaine Charlson Bredehoft as “Elaine.”

After introducing her they keep referring to her as Elaine in the interviews. Never Ms. Bredehoft. Chill.

I was talking about people in this thread.

[Anonymous]

AH should never have put herself in the position of “whose a better actor” against Depp. Depp played the reasonable man and AH played the hysterical victim. Know your opponent. Or rather who you are trying to con.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

Like what, specifically? Also, that's not exactly what "the UK court found."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

Like what, specifically? Also, that's not exactly what "the UK court found."

The judge excluded testimony from seven medical professionals that Heard reported the abuse to them contemporaneously. She also excluded texts from Stephen Deuters acknowledging that Depp abused Heard on the plane. And then Depp’s legal team used the lack of this evidence in the record to argue that Heard must be lying because she never reported the abuse or sought medical attention at the time, all while knowing evidence did exist that Heard did report it and did seek medical attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

Like what, specifically? Also, that's not exactly what "the UK court found."

The judge excluded testimony from seven medical professionals that Heard reported the abuse to them contemporaneously. She also excluded texts from Stephen Deuters acknowledging that Depp abused Heard on the plane. And then Depp’s legal team used the lack of this evidence in the record to argue that Heard must be lying because she never reported the abuse or sought medical attention at the time, all while knowing evidence did exist that Heard did report it and did seek medical attention.

why does stuff like that get excluded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so conflicted on this, and admittedly didn't watch much but read a lot about this trial. So I was essentially always seeing an interpretation and not for myself. I just don't think there are any good actors here. I don't disagree that men can be abuse victims, and I don't automatically side with women. But in this case, they are both toxic, abusive people. She's as bad as he is with the bad and humiliating behavior. She gave as good as she got, and he gave as good as he got. In the DV world, that's called mutual combat abuse, and while it's abusive in terms of its being violent, there's no "victim." It's both. They both had power over each other in that relationship; it's not (in my opinion) at all one sided that's the hallmark of domestic violence. I see no primary aggressor. At various times they were equal aggressors. And she seems to have objectively lied her a$$ off. If there's a disservice to domestic violence victims, it was done by her in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter. It's just my opinion.

PP again. I also don't think this trial will have any lingering effect on "mainstream" domestic violence allegations or the overall believability of survivors. This trial was oozing in financial privilege for them both to call out every expert to throw their ridiculously privileged lifestyles and efforts at manipulating each other into focus. The standard of proof for defamation is so much higher for public figures so they went for it and had to to meet that threshold. The average DV survivor won't have the WaPo at their disposal so it's not even applicable in terms of other DV survivors "coming out and speaking their truth." This level of coming out simply doesn't happen to 99.99% of the population, so it's apples and oranges.

This side show emboldened Depp’s buddy Marilyn Manson to file a similar lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood. The more this happens, the more it will seep into “mainstream” domestic violence cases. Don’t speak up about abuse, because you’ll get slapped with a ruinous lawsuit and no one will protect you from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so conflicted on this, and admittedly didn't watch much but read a lot about this trial. So I was essentially always seeing an interpretation and not for myself. I just don't think there are any good actors here. I don't disagree that men can be abuse victims, and I don't automatically side with women. But in this case, they are both toxic, abusive people. She's as bad as he is with the bad and humiliating behavior. She gave as good as she got, and he gave as good as he got. In the DV world, that's called mutual combat abuse, and while it's abusive in terms of its being violent, there's no "victim." It's both. They both had power over each other in that relationship; it's not (in my opinion) at all one sided that's the hallmark of domestic violence. I see no primary aggressor. At various times they were equal aggressors. And she seems to have objectively lied her a$$ off. If there's a disservice to domestic violence victims, it was done by her in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter. It's just my opinion.

PP again. I also don't think this trial will have any lingering effect on "mainstream" domestic violence allegations or the overall believability of survivors. This trial was oozing in financial privilege for them both to call out every expert to throw their ridiculously privileged lifestyles and efforts at manipulating each other into focus. The standard of proof for defamation is so much higher for public figures so they went for it and had to to meet that threshold. The average DV survivor won't have the WaPo at their disposal so it's not even applicable in terms of other DV survivors "coming out and speaking their truth." This level of coming out simply doesn't happen to 99.99% of the population, so it's apples and oranges.

This side show emboldened Depp’s buddy Marilyn Manson to file a similar lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood. The more this happens, the more it will seep into “mainstream” domestic violence cases. Don’t speak up about abuse, because you’ll get slapped with a ruinous lawsuit and no one will protect you from it.

But again, those are two famous people with axes to grind, a pulpit to preach from, and massive amounts of money to throw into legal suits that the rest of us don't have. It's just another dog and pony show that bears no resemblance to mainstream anything. The vast majority of us aren't filing defamation cases against our exes because our exes also don't have the exposure these two women do.

[Anonymous]

Let's also not act like this tarnishes a squeaky clean system of believing survivors of domestic violence. It sucked before, and it will continue to suck, but it will have nothing to do with this ridiculousness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

Like what, specifically? Also, that's not exactly what "the UK court found."

The judge excluded testimony from seven medical professionals that Heard reported the abuse to them contemporaneously. She also excluded texts from Stephen Deuters acknowledging that Depp abused Heard on the plane. And then Depp’s legal team used the lack of this evidence in the record to argue that Heard must be lying because she never reported the abuse or sought medical attention at the time, all while knowing evidence did exist that Heard did report it and did seek medical attention.

What?? Impeach the judge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

Like what, specifically? Also, that's not exactly what "the UK court found."

The judge excluded testimony from seven medical professionals that Heard reported the abuse to them contemporaneously. She also excluded texts from Stephen Deuters acknowledging that Depp abused Heard on the plane. And then Depp’s legal team used the lack of this evidence in the record to argue that Heard must be lying because she never reported the abuse or sought medical attention at the time, all while knowing evidence did exist that Heard did report it and did seek medical attention.

Where are you getting this? I heard AH state more than once on the witness stand that she did not seek medical attention at the time. If from the Wash Post article, there is a pay wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

Like what, specifically? Also, that's not exactly what "the UK court found."

The judge excluded testimony from seven medical professionals that Heard reported the abuse to them contemporaneously. She also excluded texts from Stephen Deuters acknowledging that Depp abused Heard on the plane. And then Depp’s legal team used the lack of this evidence in the record to argue that Heard must be lying because she never reported the abuse or sought medical attention at the time, all while knowing evidence did exist that Heard did report it and did seek medical attention.

AH should appeal on mistrial based on that. That is absurd. If the jurors had access to TikTok also, there should be a mistrial