a jury decision cannot set a precedent in any case
Poll: This Johnny Depp Stuff
- Thread starter Dirk Diggler
- Start date
entirely the wrong colour scheme for someone who **** on beds.
Last edited by a moderator:
Man of Honour
Probably part of the furnished package, it's a rented mansion after all.
yes - I meant precedential - in the sense of the televising of the trials and the influence of social media (even if jurors weren't meant to consult it or hear friends opinions) on the outcome, also the defence strategy for Depp, a pattern for future trials ? - the infamous DARVO (earlier paper I'd linked with some stats Perpetrator Responses to Victim Confrontation: DARVO and Victim Self-Blame) .
In same manner that some UK financial trial are deemed too complex for jury trial , at what point do you extend that to this/Depp kind of trial, to circumvent darvo.
By televising, as well, you have the feedback to both defence and prosecution from onlookers to modify/optmise their questioning strategies, a luxury non-televised does not give.
Man of Honour
There is no darvo, the evidence was there all along and in favour of Depp. Again, what is so hard to understand that excuses keep being brought up?
There is evidence to support Depp's claim, as the Jury have found. The jury were also instructed to only give their verdict based on the evidence presented and the testimonies heard during trial, nothing else.
There is zero evidence to support Heard's claims, but heck let's go a bit further, the evidence submitted by Heard actually ended up implicating her and she got caught in her own lies as the stories got more fantastical as the trial went on. When you lose credibility in a trial like this, there's no going back, anything you say after that point is unreliable. Televising or not, would have made zero difference given the evidence at hand. televising how since shown the entire world that lying and taking advantage of actual victims will get you globally hated and now, cancelled. Which is exactly how things should be.
It is a win for Depp and an own goal for Heard. She believed she would win because of the whole MeToo thing and Believe All Women motto. That sort of tunnel vision gets you nowhere when you can't control your own lies and the evidence is out there for all to see at the end of it.
There is evidence to support Depp's claim, as the Jury have found. The jury were also instructed to only give their verdict based on the evidence presented and the testimonies heard during trial, nothing else.
There is zero evidence to support Heard's claims, but heck let's go a bit further, the evidence submitted by Heard actually ended up implicating her and she got caught in her own lies as the stories got more fantastical as the trial went on. When you lose credibility in a trial like this, there's no going back, anything you say after that point is unreliable. Televising or not, would have made zero difference given the evidence at hand. televising how since shown the entire world that lying and taking advantage of actual victims will get you globally hated and now, cancelled. Which is exactly how things should be.
It is a win for Depp and an own goal for Heard. She believed she would win because of the whole MeToo thing and Believe All Women motto. That sort of tunnel vision gets you nowhere when you can't control your own lies and the evidence is out there for all to see at the end of it.
do you believe they did that - if the prince andrew interview was not televised and we had just seen a transcript do you think the views on him would be so polarised,
also for the chauvin trial with the social media perceived weight of the BLM organisation on jury shoulders, did that not influence the outcome.;
... this is subliminal like coca cola advertising.
Soldato
Did you watch the video on the uk trial, jpaul? Why are you continuing to try to find fault in a fair (US) trial when the UK trial was so rife with problems? Did you watch the US trial at all?
Man of Honour
I think we know the answer to this one.
Yes, otherwise why would they ask the extra question during deliberations about whether the Op Ed focus was on the content of the article or just the headline? Plus, if you had been watching the trial you would know the a number of jurors were swapped out for what is suspected to be bias towards Depp, yet he still won because the evidence and trial itself showed there to be only one clear winner of this case.
Soldato
No the video of Chauvin kneeling on his neck not only until he was dead but long after got a guilty verdict there and he was guilty. I know there were plenty of posters on here that thought he should have been found not guilty, how they thought that remains a mystery to me to this day.
Associate
The Jury didn't need to see social media, anyone who actually watched the trial could see AH for what she is, a liar and manipulator.
This thread has crossovers with the vegan thread lol. There are the enlightened ones, and then the ones that "aren't smart enough to get it".
Y'all appearing like some kind of Depp cult. And yes I watched the trial, but I don't need to go full on militant about the outcome.
Y'all appearing like some kind of Depp cult. And yes I watched the trial, but I don't need to go full on militant about the outcome.
She can paint her new trailer white.
Man of Honour
It needs to be put bluntly when people propose that Heard could be in the right, even a bit. Because that's not accurate at all and goes against all of the actual evidence on virtually every claim made against the man.
And that's before you even consider the fabricated evidence and constant lies that were brought up during cross.
A reasonable person simply would not even hint at a chance for Heard's side on this case. By doing so says that you support actual abusers, it's as simple as that.
It'd be slightly more palatable if we stuck to 'the evidence presented was fake' or 'she demonstrably lied' - but saying she had no evidence is bait for folk to say anyone in instances of no evidence must be liars. I know I'm not the moderator of English but it is how some of the Depp followers have started to sound to others.
Man of Honour
Well technically there was no evidence as the evidence she submitted could not be verified so fell down to credibility and reliability. We know some evidence was faked anyway (a number of photos claimed to be taken at different times but were the exact same photo with a filter applied for example). Other photos were screenshots of photos submitted as photo evidence....
You say you watched the trial, it doesn't sound like it!
A unanimous verdict was reached by a jury and punative damages awarded. That doesn't come easily on these sort of cases. And then the countless lawyers and legal experts who watched and commented the same thoughts afterwards.
You say you watched the trial, it doesn't sound like it!
A unanimous verdict was reached by a jury and punative damages awarded. That doesn't come easily on these sort of cases. And then the countless lawyers and legal experts who watched and commented the same thoughts afterwards.
Caporegime
I'd rather give my money to a more deserving cause.
So where does Amber Heard go from here? If I understand correctly she can only appeal if she pays a bond equivalent to the ~$10k loss. She doesn't have that money even in assets (where did her divorce payoff go?). She also can't write the debt off through bankruptcy due to a federal clause which prevents it being written off if an award for malice was made.
With little hope of high paying roles in the near future she must be hoping for someone like Musk to come to her aid?
With little hope of high paying roles in the near future she must be hoping for someone like Musk to come to her aid?
Dude come on, help me help you here. Your first sentence is there was no evidence. Your second sentence was some of the evidence was faked. Y'all so far into the red pill that you're scaring regular (i.e. those not privileged enough to watch tens of weeks of trials) off.
Man of Honour
False evidence isn't evidence though that's the point I was making which I thought was clear enough.
The verdict also didn't find any grounding on her claims (other than the statements made by Waldman).
If any of her evidence was legitimate then at least some of her claims would have had a Yes attached to the jury verdict. They didn't.
And that's why we're here today in this discussion.
It's not scaring anyone away either. That statement alone is attempting to add hope to Heard's case when there is none. I'm still amazed that some are still giving her a glimmer of such hope even after everything seen and heard.
The verdict also didn't find any grounding on her claims (other than the statements made by Waldman).
If any of her evidence was legitimate then at least some of her claims would have had a Yes attached to the jury verdict. They didn't.
And that's why we're here today in this discussion.
It's not scaring anyone away either. That statement alone is attempting to add hope to Heard's case when there is none. I'm still amazed that some are still giving her a glimmer of such hope even after everything seen and heard.