Poll: This Johnny Depp Stuff

Who wins?

  • Total voters
    361
  • Poll closed .
jpaul said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're still presuming Depp is guilty, despite the trial and despite the evidence being publically available. Why?

That's what the infamous darvo thing is for - an attempt to shore up the presumption of guilt despite the trial and despite the evidence. Along with the usual attempt to spread fear amongst women and the usual identity politics (which is, of course, the reason for the presumption of guilt in the first place) of pretending all men are the same entity and all women are the same entity, a complete denial of the existence of individuals.

If you're bringing the idea of darvo in, why are you applying it to the person proven to be a victim (Depp) rather than to the person proven to be an abuser (Heard)?

There is a big difference between having a trial without a jury because the subject matter requires specialised knowledge that randomly chosen people wouldn't have and therefore couldn't judge and having a trial without a jury because guilt has been presumed. It's not the same thing at all. Defamation isn't a complex matter that requires specialised knowledge, as some financial trials are. Nor is it a matter of national security, which is sometimes another valid reason for a trial without a jury.

I think that without a very good reason a trial should be open to the public in order to make the process transparent and harder to abuse.
 
Well there wasn't any 'evidence' for Nichols either but he believed her account versus the USA jury.,
where she was caught in a few lies, he wasn't forthright in his cross-examination either, recollections hazy on both sides,
even if she was abusive too, that doesn't exonerate him.
 
Hades said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think their best (for them) course of action is to continue as they're currently doing - appeal politically rather than legally. Media appearances. Better done by a representative, her lawyer, rather than personally because her lawyer is far better at it(*). Opinion pieces masquerading as news. Plenty of social media. All pushing the same message - because women are innately superior to men, any man (who are all the same - identity politics) accused by any woman (who are all the same - identity politics) must be presumed guilty and punished without a trial, without an investigation and without a chance to defend himself (i.e. the standard demand of feminism in general and metoo in particular) and anything other than that is abuse of all women and a clear and present danger to all women and is utterly heinous and all women should be in constant fear for their lives. The usual message, in other words.

Even if she could appeal legally, she'd be silly to do so because she'd lose again because the evidence is overwhelming. Appealing politically will be far more effective.


* I thought her lawyer was perhaps going a bit far in political terms by publically accusing the judge of either incompetence or corruption, but nothing seems to have come of that. Which is odd. A lawyer would usually need a lot of evidence to back up such a claim. It's no small thing. The lawyer did make that claim when they claimed (on TV, therefore publically) that large amounts of relevant and admissable evidence was suppressed in the trial. The only person who could do that was the judge. If they did so (which I very much doubt) then either they didn't understand the evidence was relevant and admissable (which makes them incompetent) or they did it anyway (which makes them corrupt). The word 'suppression' makes it an accusation and a very serious one.
 
Angilion said:
You're still presuming Depp is guilty, despite the trial and despite the evidence being publically available. Why?

That's what the infamous darvo thing is for - an attempt to shore up the presumption of guilt despite the trial and despite the evidence. Along with the usual attempt to spread fear amongst women and the usual identity politics (which is, of course, the reason for the presumption of guilt in the first place) of pretending all men are the same entity and all women are the same entity, a complete denial of the existence of individuals.

If you're bringing the idea of darvo in, why are you applying it to the person proven to be a victim (Depp) rather than to the person proven to be an abuser (Heard)?

There is a big difference between having a trial without a jury because the subject matter requires specialised knowledge that randomly chosen people wouldn't have and therefore couldn't judge and having a trial without a jury because guilt has been presumed. It's not the same thing at all. Defamation isn't a complex matter that requires specialised knowledge, as some financial trials are. Nor is it a matter of national security, which is sometimes another valid reason for a trial without a jury.

I think that without a very good reason a trial should be open to the public in order to make the process transparent and harder to abuse.
Click to expand...

Are you saying a trial without a jury isn’t public?
 
Angilion said:
I think their best (for them) course of action is to continue as they're currently doing - appeal politically rather than legally. Media appearances. Better done by a representative, her lawyer, rather than personally because her lawyer is far better at it(*). Opinion pieces masquerading as news. Plenty of social media. All pushing the same message - because women are innately superior to men, any man (who are all the same - identity politics) accused by any woman (who are all the same - identity politics) must be presumed guilty and punished without a trial, without an investigation and without a chance to defend himself (i.e. the standard demand of feminism in general and metoo in particular) and anything other than that is abuse of all women and a clear and present danger to all women and is utterly heinous and all women should be in constant fear for their lives. The usual message, in other words.

Even if she could appeal legally, she'd be silly to do so because she'd lose again because the evidence is overwhelming. Appealing politically will be far more effective.


* I thought her lawyer was perhaps going a bit far in political terms by publically accusing the judge of either incompetence or corruption, but nothing seems to have come of that. Which is odd. A lawyer would usually need a lot of evidence to back up such a claim. It's no small thing. The lawyer did make that claim when they claimed (on TV, therefore publically) that large amounts of relevant and admissable evidence was suppressed in the trial. The only person who could do that was the judge. If they did so (which I very much doubt) then either they didn't understand the evidence was relevant and admissable (which makes them incompetent) or they did it anyway (which makes them corrupt). The word 'suppression' makes it an accusation and a very serious one.
Click to expand...
Elaine baadermeinhof needs to shut her trap, she's doing noting but make herself look more and more stupid and desperate. the videos by other lawyers and body language guys ripping her apart are hilarious. she's making herself look as stupid and petulant as Turd - seriously, she must be doing a load of damage to her firm; not only did they make themselves look like chumps all through the trial, they lost resoundingly and are now bleating in public like some whiny brat. looking seriously inept and unprofessional IMO
 
Angilion said:
Trial by jury ensures that at least some members of the public are involved. I'm referring to trials in general, not any specific trial.
Click to expand...

Then surely any trial open to the public is by definition public? A jury of your peers doesn't make it more "public" or "transparent". Transparency comes from an open courtroom and provision of publicly accessible reasonings with all key factors and reasonings involved which is what you get with a trial by judge. A jury trial, which by the E&W system is confidential, is less transparent than a trial by judge as you don't know what factors were and weren't taken into account when coming to the decision.

Edit: and it's also worth pointing out that a trial by jury allows a decision to be made on irrelevant considerations, or ones which have no legal basis. I refer you to the UK case recently where BP protesters were acquitted of criminal damage despite being informed they had no defence in law in the strict legal sense.

Edit2: for what it's worth, my opinion is that a trial by judge is most likely to give you an objective decision, whereas a trial by jury will more likely to be a subjective decision. Each type has their own pros and cons and are better suited for different circumstances.
 
Last edited:
jpaul said:
Well there wasn't any 'evidence' for Nichols either but he believed her account versus the USA jury.,
where she was caught in a few lies, he wasn't forthright in his cross-examination either, recollections hazy on both sides,
even if she was abusive too, that doesn't exonerate him.
Click to expand...
Two possibilities, either you're ignoring me or you've blocked me.

james.miller said:
BBB talks to Andy Signore about the Uk case. @jpaul you should watch this.

Click to expand...


[FnG]magnolia said:
The rabids in this thread don't support Depp in the way they think they're supporting him.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to gaslight.

wolfie138 said:
Elaine baadermeinhof needs to shut her trap, she's doing noting but make herself look more and more stupid and desperate. the videos by other lawyers and body language guys ripping her apart are hilarious. she's making herself look as stupid and petulant as Turd - seriously, she must be doing a load of damage to her firm; not only did they make themselves look like chumps all through the trial, they lost resoundingly and are now bleating in public like some whiny brat. looking seriously inept and unprofessional IMO
Click to expand...

There were rumours she was hauled in before Judge A but i can't find any proof of that. It would explain why she cancelled the rest of her pr tour though.
 
Last edited:
i hope it's true. incredibly unprofessional to publicly **** the judge, jury, janitors and guy who fills the vending machines just cos you didn't get the result you wanted. if she had valid points you might cut her some slack but if you've seen the breakdown on youtube, eg
www.youtube.com

Criminal Lawyer Reacts to Amber Heard's Attorney's Post-Verdict Shenanigans on Talk Shows

Criminal Lawyer Bruce Rivers Reacts to Amber Heard's Attorney on Talk Shows Stop Self Snitchin' Hat: https://clr-bruce-rivers.myshopify.com/products/stop-sel...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
you realise she's talking utter BS. be interesting how vocal her support is when Turd fails to pay her bill after spending £22k a week on a house etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom