Poll: This Johnny Depp Stuff

Who wins?

  • Total voters
    361
  • Poll closed .
dLockers said:
Can someone remind me how he lost the UK case (I know it was against the Sun and not Amber but still), and what the $2m was awarded to Amber for?
Click to expand...

The biggest factor was Heard wasn't a defendant in the case and therefor did not need to disclose evidence, Depps team requested she be considered a party to the claim but it was refused.

After the US trial, Heards lawyer kept referring to the UK trial as the true/fair result when in actual fact it was far from it. A large portion of the evidence presented in the US case, including the audio and video were absent, the only evidence heard presented were a handful of text messages, depositions from her friends and a few photos of which we now know were edited and/or completely fake. There is a petition for the case to be reopened in the UK following on from the US trial as appeals in the UK are much harder to get.
 
dLockers said:
Can someone remind me how he lost the UK case (I know it was against the Sun and not Amber but still), and what the $2m was awarded to Amber for?
Click to expand...
or, conversely, how he won the usa case ... jurors consuming the same diatribe of internet memes , clips, many presented in this this thread ..
I still think that a likely attack vector for an appeal,
the chauvin case they told jurors don't use the internet , this may not be a criminal trial, but has lower burden of proof, but equally presidential.
 
jpaul said:
or, conversely, how he won the usa case ... jurors consuming the same diatribe of internet memes , clips, many presented in this this thread ..
I still think that a likely attack vector for an appeal,
the chauvin case they told jurors don't use the internet , this may not be a criminal trial, but has lower burden of proof, but equally presidential.
Click to expand...
Even without internet it was kind of obvious she was lying, they even proved some of the evidence was fake directly in the court room.
www.youtube.com

Making Sense of the Verdict (Depp v. Heard)

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️The verdict is in! ☕️ Sign up for Morning Brew now! https://legaleagle.lin...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
The interesting part is that apparently she has to pay bond to be able to appeal, which is the full awarded amount (10mil+) she doesn't have it.
 
There is no way of reasonable appeal, she can try but it won't go anywhere. Not quite sure how some of you find this hard to understand unless you actually didn't watch the trial throughout?

As a few law experts have stated already, you can only form an accurate view of the case if you have been watching the trial from the start.

Otherwise you're no better than these opinion pieces being published left and right.

As above, unless someone pays her bond, then it's a dead end.
 
mrk said:
There is no way of reasonable appeal, she can try but it won't go anywhere. Not quite sure how some of you find this hard to understand unless you actually didn't watch the trial throughout?

As a few law experts have stated already, you can only form an accurate view of the case if you have been watching the trial from the start.

Otherwise you're no better than these opinion pieces being published left and right.

As above, unless someone pays her bond, then it's a dead end.
Click to expand...

Yep under Virginia Law she has to pay the previous bond before she can appeal the judgement, so unless she has some sugar daddy benefactor, she's out of luck, if the UK case is opened again she could be in for a really rough time. Time for her to realise that you know what, maybe its me and not everyone else, and get the help she needs.
 
jpaul said:
or, conversely, how he won the usa case ... jurors consuming the same diatribe of internet memes , clips, many presented in this this thread ..
I still think that a likely attack vector for an appeal,
the chauvin case they told jurors don't use the internet , this may not be a criminal trial, but has lower burden of proof, but equally presidential.
Click to expand...
Presumably for that approach to lead to a successful appeal, Heard will need to explain why her own legal team didn't raise it as a concern at the start of the trial.
 
jpaul said:
or, conversely, how he won the usa case ... jurors consuming the same diatribe of internet memes , clips, many presented in this this thread ..
Click to expand...
Are you Ambers lawyer undercover per chance? You actually believe that pish and not the fact that Amber torpedoed her own case with her pathetic overacting and being caught out lying numerous times?
 
Last edited:
dLockers said:
Can someone remind me how he lost the UK case (I know it was against the Sun and not Amber but still),
Click to expand...

That's unknown because the trial was conducted away from the public. There wasn't even a jury. The judge was connected to The Sun, though I think it wasn't a direct enough connection for it to be clear that the judge should have recused themself.

dLockers said:
and what the $2m was awarded to Amber for?
Click to expand...

A lawyer made three claims publically. It was ruled that Johnny Depp was responsible for the lawyer's words and the lawyer was not responsible for their own words, presumably on the basis that the lawyer was representing Johnny Depp.

The first claim was that Amber Heard lied and falsified evidence. The jury found that this statement was not defamatory.
The third claim was that Amber Heard was perpetrating a hoax. Which is much the same content as the first claim. The jury found that this statement was not defamatory.

The second claim consisted of several detailed claims about a specific incident. Firstly that Amber Heard called the police and made a false claim, which didn't work. Secondly that she conspired with some friends to mess up a room and claim Johnny Depp did it. Thirdly that she conspired with some friends to create a false story that they would back each other up on. Fourthly that she called the police again and made another false claim, this time backed by the falsified evidence of the room and the falsified story arranged between the friends. Fifthly that she worked with a publicist to publicise it all in as biased a way as possible. The jury found that this combination of claims was defamatory. We don't know which part or parts of it they decided were defamatory or why. The jury also decided that this combination of claims cost Amber Heard $2M in lost earnings. It was solely compensatory damages. No punitive damages.
 
jpaul said:
or, conversely, how he won the usa case ... jurors consuming the same diatribe of internet memes , clips, many presented in this this thread ..
I still think that a likely attack vector for an appeal,
the chauvin case they told jurors don't use the internet , this may not be a criminal trial, but has lower burden of proof, but equally presidential.
Click to expand...

Presidential? I think that wasn't the word you intended to use. Autocomplete being autowrong again? Did you intend to say this case sets a precedent? Legally, it can't. No lawyer can cite this case as a precedent in a case in the USA. Only criminal cases can set a precedent. So it's definitely not equally to the Chauvin case in terms of being a precedent.

The jurors in this case were also told not to look at any form of media about the the same in this case, of course. Offline, online, news, opinion pieces, whatever. Or talk about the case with anyone else. Whether they did or not is unknown.

I think it's more likely that the outcome of the case was affected by the proven untrue statements and the proven falsified evidence from Amber Heard's side. That sort of thing tends to persuade a jury. It removes the credibility of a witness. If they're lying about one thing, there's no reason to believe their unsupported word about anything. There's even a standard phrase for it, in Latin of course because that's how the law is. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Added to the lack of any evidence Depp was guilty of domestic violence and the evidence that Heard was guilty of domestic violence. Including her own confession, which her own side submitted as evidence for some reason.
 
Lots of coverage of this came out today, Heard's Virginia mansion costing $22.5,000 a month - And she said she could not afford the charity donation she "pledged" lol.


imgur.com

imgur.com

Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users.
imgur.com imgur.com
 
Yes they are opinion pieces and there were loads of outlets doing it. It is evidently clear that none of them had been keeping tabs on the trial and only wrote their columns after hearing just the verdict alone. Also you can look up some of the author names to see that they are indeed turbo idiots :p
 
Resident said:
Is it just me or since the verdict have a lot of 'news' outlets constantly tried to undermine it, to push a view that the trial and result was unfair?

One headlie I saw "Judge, Jury & social media trail"
Click to expand...

Many outlets have decided it's the most edgy angle they can push to harvest attention.
 
mrk said:
Lots of coverage of this came out today, Heard's Virginia mansion costing $22.5,000 a month - And she said she could not afford the charity donation she "pledged" lol.

imgur.com

imgur.com

Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users.
imgur.com imgur.com
Click to expand...

Who on Earth paints a cinema room bright white?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom