celeb news Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial

[brazil]

1 minute ago, Ari29 said:

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? 

You're still trying to win arguments through technicalities. I never said she won her case. I said "No case yet she won in the UK where the threshold for Depp to win was lower "

 

Regardless of the Sun being a defendant, Johnny losing in the UK was still an undeniable win for Amber (even her lawyers celebrated that), so yeah, she did win in the UK  and there is nothing wrong with my original comment. And I'm not sure why you're so obssesed with me being a lawyer, when I simply commented that to comment on Camille Vasquez and have said I don't practice law in either country and this is not my area of expertise.

[Communion]

14 minutes ago, Ari29 said:

Maybe you should actually follow the discussion before jumping in? 
 

I quoted a lawyer who wrongly stated Amber won her case in the UK

People are following along - we're telling you that you're resorting to semantics to try and hold an argument and that refusing to drop this weird trolling everyone sees you doing is counter-intuitive; that it really benefits no one to keep trying to deny the reality that Depp lost against The Sun's reporting that Amber's op-ed makes him a wife-beater.

 

This is the issue with most Depp defenders - you don't actually believe in anything. There's no articulation of some rallying cause. If you were concerned for men who faced abuse, you'd at least recognize that he has no chance to win since he factually abused her while arguing that such (the inevitable loss) doesn't change that the convo around male victims is still largely unfair in society and needs to change or something.

 

Neither you or anyone else frantically watching along and convincing yourselves that somehow "Johnny's already won!" are motivated by some pro-Depp force but, truthfully, an anti-Amber motivation, which is why all these posts by y'all devolve into sounding like people getting off on the trial ("her tears!!! I love it!!!" ) and a continued theme that Amber not being the perfect victim somehow makes her culpable not only to some abuse but to all of it. Depp fans are not advocates for victims of abuse - they're advocates for the idea that an improper response to abuse thus makes someone deserving of even further and harsher abuse. "She had it coming!!!!".

Edited May 19, 2022 by Communion

[brazil]

Just now, Ari29 said:

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.

The fact that the burden of proof lied with the Sun doesn't mean that the plaintiff was not actively trying to prove that the article was defamatory and the accusations were false, do you think Depp's lawyers were just sitting there playing puzzles?

[Ari29]

14 minutes ago, brazil said:

You're still trying to win arguments through technicalities. I never said she won her case. I said "No case yet she won in the UK where the threshold for Depp to win was lower "

 

Regardless of the Sun being a defendant, Johnny losing in the UK was still an undeniable win for Amber (even her lawyers celebrated that), so yeah, she did win in the UK  and there is nothing wrong with my original comment. And I'm not sure why you're so obssesed with me being a lawyer, when I simply commented that to comment on Camille Vasquez and have said I don't practice law in either country and this is not my area of expertise.

I’m not trying to win anything, I quoted you once on that where, in my opinion, you misspoke…you replied to me and I left it alone. After that you and several other people have quoted me about that same comment trying to argue with me. I’m not the problem here. 
 

I keep mentioning you being a lawyer because one, you misspoke on her winning in the UK and two, you said there’s no difference in The Sun being a defendant in the UK compared to Amber being a defendant in the US when that’s clearly not true. Also, in your comment about Camille you agreed with someone who said Camille made an assumption about something in her cross of Amber…as a lawyer you would know that another lawyer wouldn’t ask a question they don’t already know the answer to. So I did find that odd..but again you said this isn’t your area of expertise so there’s that.

[Ari29]

14 minutes ago, Communion said:

People are following along - we're telling you that you're resorting to semantics to try and hold an argument and that refusing to drop this weird trolling everyone sees you doing is counter-intuitive; that it really benefits no one to keep trying to deny the reality that Depp lost against The Sun's reporting that Amber's op-ed makes him a wife-beater.

 

This is the issue with most Depp defenders - you don't actually believe in anything. There's no articulation of some rallying cause. If you were concerned for men who faced abuse, you'd at least recognize that he has no chance to win since he factually abused her while arguing that such (the inevitable loss) doesn't change that the convo around male victims is still largely unfair in society and needs to change or something.

 

Neither you or anyone else frantically watching along and convincing yourselves that somehow "Johnny's already won!" are motivated by some pro-Depp force but, truthfully, an anti-Amber motivation, which is why all these posts by y'all devolve into sounding like people getting off on the trial ("her tears!!! I love it!!!" ) and a continued theme that Amber not being the perfect victim somehow makes her culpable not only to some abuse but to all of it. Depp fans are not advocates for victims of abuse - they're advocates for the idea that an improper response to abuse thus makes someone deserving of even further and harsher abuse. "She had it coming!!!!".

Did Amber have a case in the UK to win, yes or no? Don’t type out a long message of filler just answer that simple yes or no question. 
 

Quote one post of mine that fits the bolded? You can’t just come at people making wild accusations so prove it!!

 

 

 

[gloamingtheplain]

 

Not her slipping up by revealing she actually used a bruise kit  

 

She blinked like 200 times when she realised she ****** up

[brazil]

13 minutes ago, gloamingtheplain said:

 

Not her slipping up by revealing she actually used a bruise kit  

 

She blinked like 200 times when she realised she ****** up

Wow more out of context videos from social media, she actually explained what it was and said that that she called it her bruise kit.

 

If she wanted to make bruises with make up she could've made much worse ones, given most of johnny supports claim she doesn't even look bruised in the released pictures.

 

I'm actually scared for our future if edited tiktok videos is what people are using to form opinions

Edited May 20, 2022 by brazil

[Communion]

6 minutes ago, Ari29 said:

Did Amber have a case in the UK to win

Again, this is semantics. We can do the same thing to your posts:

 

 

In this post you quite literally try and suggest that the US judge going forward with the case here had something to do with the quality of evidence and findings of the UK case - your post trying to downplay the objectivity of the UK case.

 

Clearly, you actually knew all along that the sole reason for the US case going forward was because The Sun was the defense and thus Amber vs Depp had not yet been hashed out in a court of law, and thus the judge didn't find it repetitious to go forward. Why would you phrase it one way and not the other despite one way of articulating it being clearly more accurate than the other? An innocent mistake or something more nefarious? 

 

Again, you thus far have tried to fight semantics with people or point out distinctions without differences while bragging that "most people are going to look real dumb soon for believing Amber". 

[brazil]

34 minutes ago, Ari29 said:

I keep mentioning you being a lawyer because one, you misspoke on her winning in the UK and two, you said there’s no difference in The Sun being a defendant in the UK compared to Amber being a defendant in the US when that’s clearly not true. Also, in your comment about Camille you agreed with someone who said Camille made an assumption about something in her cross of Amber…as a lawyer you would know that another lawyer wouldn’t ask a question they don’t already know the answer to. So I did find that odd..but again you said this isn’t your area of expertise so there’s that.

First, you're right this is not my area of expertise, the field I work in involves mainly providing legal advice to corporations and conducting internal investigations. I haven't been to a courtroom since I was in law school. 

 

Second, the burden of proof lying with the defendant doesn't mean the plaintiff isn't providing documents and arguing his case. In Brazil, for labor cases the burden of proof lies with the employeers, it doesn't mean a wrongly terminated employee when filing the case won't try to prove they were wrongly terminated

 

Last, i dont remember ever agreeing to that and no as a lawyer I wouldn't know that.

Edited May 20, 2022 by brazil

[brazil]

10 minutes ago, Communion said:

Again, this is semantics. We can do the same thing to your posts:

 

 

In this post you quite literally try and suggest that the US judge going forward with the case here had something to do with the quality of evidence and findings of the UK case - your post trying to downplay the objectivity of the UK case.

 

Clearly, you actually knew all along that the sole reason for the US case going forward was because The Sun was the defense and thus Amber vs Depp had not yet been hashed out in a court of law, and thus the judge didn't find it repetitious to go forward. Why would you phrase it one way and not the other despite one way of articulating it being clearly more accurate than the other? An innocent mistake or something more nefarious? 

 

Again, you thus far have tried to fight semantics with people or point out distinctions without differences while bragging that "most people are going to look real dumb soon for believing Amber". 

[Ari29]

23 minutes ago, Communion said:

Again, this is semantics. We can do the same thing to your posts:

 

 

In this post you quite literally try and suggest that the US judge going forward with the case here had something to do with the quality of evidence and findings of the UK case - your post trying to downplay the objectivity of the UK case.

 

Clearly, you actually knew all along that the sole reason for the US case going forward was because The Sun was the defense and thus Amber vs Depp had not yet been hashed out in a court of law, and thus the judge didn't find it repetitious to go forward. Why would you phrase it one way and not the other despite one way of articulating it being clearly more accurate than the other? An innocent mistake or something more nefarious? 

 

Again, you thus far have tried to fight semantics with people or point out distinctions without differences while bragging that "most people are going to look real dumb soon for believing Amber". 

So basically you can’t answer a straightforward question and couldn’t find a post of mine that made fun of Amber?

[Ari29]

20 minutes ago, brazil said:

 

 

Last, i dont remember ever agreeing to that and no as a lawyer I wouldn't know that.

The post you quoted and agreed with made mention of Camille making the assumption that Johnny got Amber the role in Aquaman being misogynistic. She’s experienced in litigation, a lawyer like her wouldn’t ask a question during cross they didn’t already know the answer to…that’s why I ended by acknowledging that you said this isn’t your area of expertise.

[gloamingtheplain]

39 minutes ago, brazil said:

Wow more out of context videos from social media, she actually explained what it was and said that that she called it her bruise kit.

 

If she wanted to make bruises with make up she could've made much worse ones, given most of johnny supports claim she doesn't even look bruised in the released pictures.

 

I'm actually scared for our future if edited tiktok videos is what people are using to form opinions

No one calls it a bruise kit  

 

she even says “not a bruise kit” after calling it a “bruise kit” 

 

there’s nothing out of context, she called it what it was, messed up, corrected herself, and tried to justify what she said. 
 

People are grasping at straws, she knows what a bruise kit is and that’s why she IMMEDIATELY saId “not a bruise kit” 

 

if she actually called her colour correction a bruise kit, she wouldn’t have automatically corrected her mistake. 
 

 

[Headlock]

6 hours ago, Patient Zero said:

How many times has she been caught lying? I'm not saying she lied about her abuse. But when people lie a lot, they tend to lie about many things.

 

Nice try though.

 

That has nothing to do with how she looks 

And newsflash: her not lying about her abuse means Depp will lose the case 

[Headlock]

3 hours ago, Communion said:

People are following along - we're telling you that you're resorting to semantics to try and hold an argument and that refusing to drop this weird trolling everyone sees you doing is counter-intuitive; that it really benefits no one to keep trying to deny the reality that Depp lost against The Sun's reporting that Amber's op-ed makes him a wife-beater.

 

This is the issue with most Depp defenders - you don't actually believe in anything. There's no articulation of some rallying cause. If you were concerned for men who faced abuse, you'd at least recognize that he has no chance to win since he factually abused her while arguing that such (the inevitable loss) doesn't change that the convo around male victims is still largely unfair in society and needs to change or something.

 

Neither you or anyone else frantically watching along and convincing yourselves that somehow "Johnny's already won!" are motivated by some pro-Depp force but, truthfully, an anti-Amber motivation, which is why all these posts by y'all devolve into sounding like people getting off on the trial ("her tears!!! I love it!!!" ) and a continued theme that Amber not being the perfect victim somehow makes her culpable not only to some abuse but to all of it. Depp fans are not advocates for victims of abuse - they're advocates for the idea that an improper response to abuse thus makes someone deserving of even further and harsher abuse. "She had it coming!!!!".

Edited May 20, 2022 by Headlock

[suburbannature]

The goal posts keep changing...first it was that no one saw bruises, then it was that no one saw him hit her, and now it's that all of the witness accounts are a coordinated lie.

 

So, now we have a makeup artist who spoke in detail to covering her bruises, a witness to an instance of Johnny physically attacking Amber, someone who heard her scream over the phone and also witnessed her bruises after, an ex-friend with no current ties who observed verbal abuse and bruises, people who have recounted her disclosing the abuse as far back as 2013, genuine emotion from three or four of these witnesses while testifying, a psychologist who said her reactive aggression is consistent with being a victim of abuse...and the Internet is still convinced this is all a hoax. I honestly hate society.

 

The man who collected data about Twitter trends was a fantastic witness. That was quite damning. And Ellen Barkin just provided an independent account of his controlling and jealous behavior, substance abuse, and an aggressive episode. They even had two expert witnesses yesterday testify to his career tanking due to pronounced unprofessionalism rather than the op-ed - one of the many tenants of the case that Depp had to prove. Defense is really picking up steam.

 

Edit: Oh, and Adam Waldman admitting to leaking the edited audio and informing the press on numerous occasions. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by suburbannature

[BobBertran1992]

7 hours ago, Communion said:

People are following along - we're telling you that you're resorting to semantics to try and hold an argument and that refusing to drop this weird trolling everyone sees you doing is counter-intuitive; that it really benefits no one to keep trying to deny the reality that Depp lost against The Sun's reporting that Amber's op-ed makes him a wife-beater.

 

This is the issue with most Depp defenders - you don't actually believe in anything. There's no articulation of some rallying cause. If you were concerned for men who faced abuse, you'd at least recognize that he has no chance to win since he factually abused her while arguing that such (the inevitable loss) doesn't change that the convo around male victims is still largely unfair in society and needs to change or something.

 

Neither you or anyone else frantically watching along and convincing yourselves that somehow "Johnny's already won!" are motivated by some pro-Depp force but, truthfully, an anti-Amber motivation, which is why all these posts by y'all devolve into sounding like people getting off on the trial ("her tears!!! I love it!!!" ) and a continued theme that Amber not being the perfect victim somehow makes her culpable not only to some abuse but to all of it. Depp fans are not advocates for victims of abuse - they're advocates for the idea that an improper response to abuse thus makes someone deserving of even further and harsher abuse. "She had it coming!!!!".

Depp fans are like Gamergate followers (Gamergaters?) or Qanon: they don’t care about either of the things they say they care about (journalism or kids, in the two previous cases). The way they’re laughing at Amber Heard could be used (and has been used) to mock other victims of DV, of all genders.

 

By the way men’s rights activists, if you care about men, hope to see you this October, when Anthony Rapp faces off Kevin Spacey in court.

Edited May 20, 2022 by BobBertran1992

[Looolqueen]

2 hours ago, suburbannature said:

The man who collected data about Twitter trends was a fantastic witness. That was quite damning.

Please explain how THAT was quite damning, cause if anything, it's the opposite.

[Looolqueen]

2 hours ago, suburbannature said:

And Ellen Barkin just provided an independent account of his controlling and jealous behavior, substance abuse, and an aggressive episode.

Omg yes, he is controlling and jealous and does drugs! this is a pattern of behavior that we have already establishes and about which he was honest himself and testified! It's nothing new! Bringing in his **** buddy from 30 years ago was just a big waste of the jury's time and not helpful in any way.

[suburbannature]

6 minutes ago, Looolqueen said:

Please explain how THAT was quite damning, cause if anything, it's the opposite.

Now that’s delusion  

[Looolqueen]

1 minute ago, suburbannature said:

Now that’s delusion  

Is that your answer, really? i asked an honest question.

[Looolqueen]

Now the jurors know what the general public is thinking in real time, which can't be good for her.

[NausAllien]

2 hours ago, suburbannature said:

So, now we have a makeup artist who spoke in detail to covering her bruises, a witness to an instance of Johnny physically attacking Amber, someone who heard her scream over the phone and also witnessed her bruises after, an ex-friend with no current ties who observed verbal abuse and bruises, people who have recounted her disclosing the abuse as far back as 2013, genuine emotion from three or four of these witnesses while testifying, a psychologist who said her reactive aggression is consistent with being a victim of abuse...and the Internet is still convinced this is all a hoax. I honestly hate society.

 

The man who collected data about Twitter trends was a fantastic witness. That was quite damning. And Ellen Barkin just provided an independent account of his controlling and jealous behavior, substance abuse, and an aggressive episode. They even had two expert witnesses yesterday testify to his career tanking due to pronounced unprofessionalism rather than the op-ed - one of the many tenants of the case that Depp had to prove. Defense is really picking up steam.

 

 

[NausAllien]

35 minutes ago, Looolqueen said:

Please explain how THAT was quite damning, cause if anything, it's the opposite.

Okay, I'll explain it to you. Amber countersued Depp in relation to the statements released by Depp's lawyer Adam Waldmann. Her counterclaim is that those statements led to an online harassment campaign that affected her emotionally and professionally. 

 

The expert analyzed tweets that were negative and use some key hashtags and determined that every time Waldmann would issue a statement to the Daily Mail, there was a rise in the amount of negative tweets and the use of those hashtags. This is key for Amber's counterclaim, as she was able to establish a correlation between Waldmann's statements and the amount of "hate" she'd get online (on Twitter specifically).

 

It shouldn't affect the case at all since the jury is instructed to ignore outside opinions. The only facts they ought to take into account are the ones presented in court. Furthermore, if you actually look at the data analyzed is NOT contemporaneous.

 

The expert analyzed up to January 2022, and only for the purpose of clearly showing the spikes whenever Waldmann would release a statement (or in the case of February 2020, when he released the edited tapes; which he admitted to under oath yesterday):

 

[Looolqueen]

Thank you for the explanation @NausAllien!