celeb news Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial

[NausAllien]

Major publications such as the New York Times are starting to publish articles more sympathetic towards Amber:

 

The New York Post:

https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/the-unfair-vilification-of-amber-heard/

 

Insider:

https://www.insider.com/amber-heard-supporters-hate-comments-social-media-2022-5

 

The Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/05/modern-celebrity-fandom-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial/629887/

 

Vogue:

https://www.vogue.com/article/why-its-time-to-believe-amber-heard

 

 

[Patient Zero]

5 minutes ago, Raiden said:

No she admitted to hitting him AND initiating that particular back and forth

 

 

Basically Amber wants to gaslight us — she wants to say "whatever I did doesn't count as violence — I either didn't do it or if I did (if you guys have busted me with evidence) then it still shouldn't count as violence simply because whatever I did was harmless but whatever he did was dangerous and should count as classic textbook domestic violence so I am a victim hear me roar.

 

 

 

 

I guess a woman hitting a man is not abuse, according to some here.

 

Amber's sanctimonious attitude is just disgusting. And Amber's supporters are hypocrites as well.

[James_Dean]

35 minutes ago, Communion said:

This ignores that such events were shown to the jury as occurring solely because Johnny's former lawyer illegally leaked manipulated audio from evidence files, so much so that he wad kicked off the case. It's directly framed that Depp and his team don't mind breaking the law and disrespecting the court to try and make this more of a mission on harming Amber. 

Doesn't matter. The point is that they've potentially tainted the jury's unbiasedness by bringing in the opinion of the general public

[Redstreak]

How unfortunate that Depps legacy will be providing new ways to try and silence victims

[TasteOfYourLips]

Why is Jonnhy Deep such a liar? He says he has never hit Amber and yet he is caught on tape saying that he had headbutted Amber and that doesn't break a nose? 

[simon_xcx]

Do we know when this ends?? I wanna watch like a live verdict if possible, but I have no clue when it ends 

[Patient Zero]

This testimony..

How is Aquaman the most succesful movie ever?

[TheSoneNavy]

4 hours ago, Buffy said:

Johnny is by no means a saint but it’s very obvious Amber is a bad actor and a LIAR. She speaks to the jury when they aren’t even the ones asking her questions. She can’t even tell her lies straight. Was she sitting on the edge of the bed, on the floor, on the ceiling, on the couch, or where? 

 

3 hours ago, Looolqueen said:

It's funny how the only person on earth who saw Johnny hit Amber was Amber's sister. The same sister who taught Johnny how to snort coke through a tampon holder and who encouraged Amber to get back with the "monster".

 

3 hours ago, kawk said:

also the same sister who encouraged Johnny to hit Amber in a text  

Basically all this.

[Raiden]

58 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

How unfortunate that Depps legacy will be providing new ways to try and silence victims

All of Amber Heard defences are "oh but it's bad for domestic violence victims". Bad for this that and the other person that has nothing to do with this case.

 

I thought the most important thing in cases are the two sides involved in it?

 

And it's also transparently insincere: what kind of twisted thinking is it that the entire fate of US domestic violence now hangs on the balance on just this cockamamie civil case in a random state court (not the supreme court or something)? It's not even remotely the most intriguing or dramatic or iconic case in the history of high profile cases (despite all the mess and the coke sniffing and the poop and vomit flying around). I feel like a large part of the media attention is artificially manufactured and self serving — the big news stations want to use this to distract people from Ukraine, inflation, baby formula crisis and various other hugely important but hugely negative stuff and amuse their audiences with this "bread and circus".

Edited May 19, 2022 by Raiden

[brazil]

Watching the trial now, so basically johnny lied under oath that his tax wasn't filed because he didn't want people to know that he payed to clean up the mess he left in hotel rooms etc and people still defending this guy? 

 

Also, people need to understand that victims of domestic abuse can and do yell and fight back at times. 

[BobBertran1992]

4 hours ago, Buffy said:

Johnny is by no means a saint but it’s very obvious Amber is a bad actor and a LIAR. She speaks to the jury when they aren’t even the ones asking her questions. She can’t even tell her lies straight. Was she sitting on the edge of the bed, on the floor, on the ceiling, on the couch, or where? 

You fool, that jury has to decide if she wrote that op-ed with malice, of course she’s looking at them   

[TheSoneNavy]

12 minutes ago, brazil said:

Watching the trial now, so basically johnny lied under oath that his tax wasn't filed because he didn't want people to know that he payed to clean up the mess he left in hotel rooms etc and people still defending this guy? 

 

Also, people need to understand that victims of domestic abuse can and do yell and fight back at times. 

It’s not that serious 

[Ari29]

8 hours ago, Redstreak said:

You’re supposedly following the trial but don’t realize both cases are about the same thing (defamation) and it’s easier for plaintiffs to win those in the UK?

That has nothing to do with that user saying she, as in Amber Heard, won her case in the UK when the case wasn’t even hers to begin with. You look dumb trying to argue with me over that

Edited May 19, 2022 by Ari29

[NausAllien]

11 minutes ago, Ari29 said:

That has nothing to do with that user saying she, as in Amber Heard, won her case in the UK when the case wasn’t even hers to begin with. You look dumb trying to argue with me over that

Yeah, what that person should have said was that DEPP LOST A SIMILAR CASE IN THE UK because he simply couldn't prove he wasn't a wife beater, and in fact it was proven to a civil standard that he had abused Amber Heard in at least 12 different instances.

[brazil]

9 minutes ago, Ari29 said:

That has nothing to do with that user saying she, as in Amber Heard, won her case in the UK when the case wasn’t even hers to begin with. You look dumb trying to argue with me over that

You're the only one looking dumb here. Ultimately both cases are/were centered on the plaintiff trying to prove Amber Heard was never abused and therefore the accusations against Johnny Depp were defamatory and he should be awarded compensation. Trying to make yourself seem somewhat right on a technicality will not work. 

[NausAllien]

Just now, brazil said:

You're the only one looking dumb here. Ultimately both cases are/were centered on the plaintiff trying to prove Amber Heard was never abused and therefore the accusations against Johnny Depp were defamatory and he should be awarded compensation. Trying to make yourself seem somewhat right on a technicality will not work. 

The biggest difference between the UK trial and this trial is that in the UK the burden of proof falls on the defendants. The Sun needed to prove that their claim that Depp was a "wife beater" wasn't defamatory. On the other hand, in the US the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. It is Depp this time that has to prove that he didn't abuse Amber. And in this case, the abuse wasn't specified. The Sun's article called him a "wife beater" so they needed to prove physical abuse. Amber's article doesn't refer to any particular form of abuse or any particular incident, so as long as the jury believes she was abused in any way (physical, verbal, psychological, etc), she will win. That's why it's virtually impossible for Depp to win this case.

[brazil]

12 minutes ago, NausAllien said:

The biggest difference between the UK trial and this trial is that in the UK the burden of proof falls on the defendants. The Sun needed to prove that their claim that Depp was a "wife beater" wasn't defamatory. On the other hand, in the US the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. It is Depp this time that has to prove that he didn't abuse Amber. And in this case, the abuse wasn't specified. The Sun's article called him a "wife beater" so they needed to prove physical abuse. Amber's article doesn't refer to any particular form of abuse or any particular incident, so as long as the jury believes she was abused in any way (physical, verbal, psychological, etc), she will win. That's why it's virtually impossible for Depp to win this case.

That's true, but I'm not that familiar with the jury system, in the UK if I believe correctly it was a judge that decided, so although I think it's unlikely that Depp will win, I'm not gonna dismiss it entirely.

[Ari29]

47 minutes ago, NausAllien said:

Yeah, what that person should have said was that DEPP LOST A SIMILAR CASE IN THE UK because he simply couldn't prove he wasn't a wife beater, and in fact it was proven to a civil standard that he had abused Amber Heard in at least 12 different instances.

Hmmm in the UK didn’t the burden of proof rest on The Sun proving they had reason to believe their headline wasn’t a lie vs Depp proving he wasn’t a wife beater. There is a difference.

[Ari29]

52 minutes ago, brazil said:

You're the only one looking dumb here. Ultimately both cases are/were centered on the plaintiff trying to prove Amber Heard was never abused and therefore the accusations against Johnny Depp were defamatory and he should be awarded compensation. Trying to make yourself seem somewhat right on a technicality will not work. 

 

Seems you’ve already been corrected. But this is why you guys should chill out with the insults because now it’s you, the lawyer, who looks dumb.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Ari29

[rzal]

5 hours ago, Looolqueen said:

It's funny how the only person on earth who saw Johnny hit Amber was Amber's sister. The same sister who taught Johnny how to snort coke through a tampon holder and who encouraged Amber to get back with the "monster".

It's even funnier that the only person who saw Amber hit Johnny was also her sister after he hit HER  

[Communion]

1 hour ago, Ari29 said:

That has nothing to do with that user saying she, as in Amber Heard, won her case in the UK when the case wasn’t even hers to begin with. You look dumb trying to argue with me over that

The Sun was sued for reporting about her op-ed. The Sun was far more inflammatory in language than Amber in a country where it is easier to sue for defamation. The UK found it was truthful for The Sun to call Depp a wife beater because he categorically is; now please tell us why you're pretending to be confused why most people can easily deduce that such findings in the UK makes it very clear Amber will likely win in the US?

Edited May 19, 2022 by Communion

[brazil]

18 minutes ago, Ari29 said:

 

Seems you’ve already been corrected. But this is why you guys should chill out with the insults because now it’s you, the lawyer, who looks dumb.

When have I been corrected? That's still central in both cases, whether the burden of proof lied with the defendant or plaintiff. 

 

 

[Redstreak]

1 hour ago, NausAllien said:

Yeah, what that person should have said was that DEPP LOST A SIMILAR CASE IN THE UK because he simply couldn't prove he wasn't a wife beater, and in fact it was proven to a civil standard that he had abused Amber Heard in at least 12 different instances.

Thanks for the correction, I’ll do better next time ❤️

[Ari29]

10 minutes ago, Communion said:

The Sun was sued for reporting about her op-ed. The Sun was far more inflammatory in language than Amber in a country where it is easier to sue for defamation. The UK found it was truthful for The Sun to call Depp a wife beater because he categorically is; now please tell us why you're pretending to be confused why most people can easily deduce that such findings in the UK makes it very clear Amber will likely win in the US?

Maybe you should actually follow the discussion before jumping in? 
 

I quoted a lawyer who wrongly stated Amber won her case in the UK, when she never had one in the UK which makes it impossible for her to have won a case there. And somehow from that you got that I’m pretending to be confused about something? 

[Ari29]

10 minutes ago, brazil said:

When have I been corrected? That's still central in both cases, whether the burden of proof lied with the defendant or plaintiff. 

 

 

How can a case be centered on a plaintiff trying to prove something when the burden of proof rests on the defendant? 
 

This is the reason there’s a huge difference in the case now that it’s in the US. Now that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff you can clearly see the difference playing out in front of you. The entire narrative of this case has been completely shifted now that Johnny Depp’s side has to prove that Amber lied.
 

Are you seriously telling me you don’t see a difference now that the plaintiff is carrying the burden of proof that Amber lied? Majority of the world watching this is siding with the plaintiff, that wasn’t the case before.