Reply to Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. [b]WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it[/b] and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.

The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.[/quote]

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?[/quote]
This entire post makes clear that you have zero understanding of the legal issues on the oped title.[/quote]

Oh I'm perfectly clear. I'm just pointing out that Amber didn't think that the WaPo headline was inaccurate as she did spin a tale of horrific abuse to corroborate the oped's claim of sexual violence
[/quote]

Yeah, you don’t understand the legal issues.  She had a couple of potential defenses to that defamation count, and her best strategy was to present all of them.  If the first defense that her retweet was not actionable as defamation failed, a second line of defense would be to prove that the headline was accurate. Just proving emotional or verbal abuse wouldn’t have done it.  But the defamation claim based on the headline meant she essentially was forced to put up every bit of evidence of sexual abuse that she could once the court refused to dismiss the count as a matter of law.

But none of this means she would have approved that headline if it had been shown to her before publication. [/quote]

I'm perfectly clear on why she had to come up with stories of sexual violence to fight the defamatory accusations since her retweeting the headline might be considered defamatory. My point still stands that as soon as she mentioned instances of sexual violence, she is essentially agreeing that the WaPo headline was accurate.[/quote]
Is truth defamatory?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics