Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[Veggie50]

It's a lack of bias, nobody intelligent is cheering this bullshit, nor are they unclear what this means.

The Other Narrative is a Man Near 60 witch Millions, bodyguards and fame is the victim of an article that didn't mention him, he wasn't, whether she was a victim is completely irrelevant to this case.

If I wrote an article in 2017 that an orange guy with a huge comb over living in the whitehouse is a child molester, you believe Trump wouldn’t have a case against me?

Also, one of the requirements for defamation is that the statement is “known to be false”. So yes, wether she was truly abused or not DOES matter, wether you like it or not.

[Magical Mudcrab]

It's a lack of bias, nobody intelligent is cheering this bullshit, nor are they unclear what this means.

The Other Narrative is a Man Near 60 witch Millions, bodyguards and fame is the victim of an article that didn't mention him, he wasn't, whether she was a victim is completely irrelevant to this case.

Yes, clearly you're the intelligent one as you repeatedly demonstrate that you didn't follow the trial, didn't care to understand what was happening, and haven't even done the bare minimum of trying to understand what defamation is while still expressing your (uninformed) opinions about it. If you had even tried doing the bare minimum you would understand something as simple as defamation not requiring you to be explicitly named.

[NotBigzo]

Correct me if I am wrong but what is applicable or not would be decided by the judge before it's presented to the jury.

Thanks dude.

[NED funded]

Correct me if I am wrong but what is applicable or not would be decided by the judge before it's presented to the jury.

Nah. The judge can at best give the jury some guidelines to consider how they should assess the case. It's not like their decision is reviewed by the judge b4 they make it to check if the correct aplicable laws matter. Which is whatever for civil cases not so much for criminal cases where a jury can be racially biased.

That is why the US has an appeal process. In the appeal a judge reviews the case and see if the aplicable laws were correctly applied

[PenguinChan]

It's a lack of bias, nobody intelligent is cheering this bullshit, nor are they unclear what this means.

The Other Narrative is a Man Near 60 witch Millions, bodyguards and fame is the victim of an article that didn't mention him, he wasn't, whether she was a victim is completely irrelevant to this case.

What narrative? You mean the op-ed that Amber admitted she wrote about Johnny. In court. That she was sued over.

Proving the entire point of the trial and you're arguing that, correct?

That is why the US has an appeal process. In the appeal a judge reviews the case and see if the aplicable laws were correctly applied

They can, even before an appeal, also alter or overturn what the Jury decided can they not? If they find the verdict inconclusive to the evidence, or just because they believe it to be the wrong conclusion. The appeal process allows that, but I was under the impression it can be done in court before that.

Kind of like what the clown judge in the UK did.

Something that is clearly overlooked in this thread and online.

[NotBigzo]

In jury systems it's usually that juries decide matters of fact and judges matters of law.
Most of the relevant decisions here were 'matters of fact' (like 'did someone hit someone') not 'matters of law' (what is required for a defamation); and the judge in England clearly decided 'matters of fact' - similarly as Judge Judy does in arbitration (as I understand some civil cases are decided by judges in the US).

I didn't follow that trial in England, so I don't know what happened - and Judge Judy doesn't give me confidence that replacing juries by judges will improve the US judicial system.

It wouldn't.

It would just result in self absorbed power trips deciding matters of fact arbitrarily.

Kind of like what the clown judge in the UK did.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You're literally arguing out ignorance of both trials, frequently making statements that are clearly wrong if you actually watched the trial, then insult other people's intelligence? Fucking hilarious.

You mean did I obsess about the trial and all the irrelevant bullshit, then guilty. As I said once this left the scope of the complaint it became a TV show not a fucking trial

[Daymanmb]

As I understand it he lost his case against the Sun because the judge inexplicably discarded most evidence

Not "inexplicably", the Judge believed Depp was using a DARVOs defense. Can't say I disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

A jury of your peers is the worst system imaginable. You get people who don’t understand the applicable laws deciding whether or not someone broke the law. It’s silly as shit.

And theyre super susceptible to DARVOs defense strategies.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yes, clearly you're the intelligent one as you repeatedly demonstrate that you didn't follow the trial, didn't care to understand what was happening, and haven't even done the bare minimum of trying to understand what defamation is while still expressing your (uninformed) opinions about it. If you had even tried doing the bare minimum you would understand something as simple as defamation not requiring you to be explicitly named.

Intelligence has nothing to do with this, this is just stupidity, people who know better but argue and spin bullshit because of personal bias, not because of the law or the case in front of the world.

This was about an Op-Ed whether that article defamed JD, I can accept even if I disagree the Jury or anyone getting there, what I have a BIG problem with is how the JURY based on the facts got there, and the fact the verdict reflects their complete ignorance and stupidity on their part. The majority of JD fans seem to think this is some vindication.

It's not.

Defamation in the U.S Requires one of two avenue, either Slander, or Libel. Slander meaning something was said with malicious intent whether true o not. Libel requires something to be something that causes harm, regardless to intent. Period FULL STOP!

Neither of which as you pointed out HAVE to mean she mentioned Johnny Depp, but outside of that there is a pretty important burden to clearly establish that however a statement was made it falls under Slander or Libel.

It DIDN'T!

I don't say this because I Hate JD or Love Amber, I say this because this was clearly a pissing contest between to very stupid people, neither of whom should be rewarded and neither of which should drag the justice system down with them.


As to the Truth beyond the Defamation NONE of that had been tested in court, SO there is nothing to discuss.

If that should happen on either side THEN that might be something to discuss.

[Mayhem]

Nah. The judge can at best give the jury some guidelines to consider how they should assess the case. It's not like their decision is reviewed by the judge b4 they make it to check if the correct aplicable laws matter. Which is whatever for civil cases not so much for criminal cases where a jury can be racially biased.

That is why the US has an appeal process. In the appeal a judge reviews the case and see if the aplicable laws were correctly applied

I don't really know what they are talking about anyway, how would the jury decide which laws would be applicable? Especially in this case, there were no questions about which laws are applicable, the jury received notes upon consultation with the judge on how to assess the evidence and questions and how to answer them.

The UK has an appeal process in cases without a jury.

[Doctor Amadeus]

What narrative? You mean the op-ed that Amber admitted she wrote about Johnny. In court. That she was sued over.

Proving the entire point of the trial and you're arguing that, correct?.

No he sued to get even, he sued to clear his name, That is NOT what this trial should ever have been allowed to be about. Not unless he proved Defamation which he DIDN'T.

Nothing in the Op Ed, Defamed him or caused him any damage, at least not in the scope or purview of anything that can me administered in the court. Private Company's can hire and fire anyone for GOOD or Bad Reasons if they feel it might hurt their business.

People are Free to infer association or lack of it though rumor, gossip or innuendo it sucks, it's bullshit, but it's also human nature. Nothing about this trial fixed that.


If Amber Heard had been found guilty, and the argument was purely because of what was inferred rather than what was explicitly stated, well then while I or anyone may or may not agree, that is justice.

The problem is this trial became about more than that, it was a fucking circus and more importantly it was theater allowed to be betrayed as justice because well Johnny Depp is such a Great Guy who visits Hospitals and shit as Captain Jack.


Guess what none of that should have anything to do with he case at hand.

[PenguinChan]

No he sued to get even, he sued to clear his name, That is NOT what this trial should ever have been allowed to be about. Not unless he proved Defamation which he DIDN'T.

Nothing in the Op Ed, Defamed him or caused him any damage, at least not in the scope or purview of anything that can me administered in the court. Private Company's can hire and fire anyone for GOOD or Bad Reasons if they feel it might hurt their business.

People are Free to infer association or lack of it though rumor, gossip or innuendo it sucks, it's bullshit, but it's also human nature. Nothing about this trial fixed that.


If Amber Heard had been found guilty, and the argument was purely because of what was inferred rather than what was explicitly stated, well then while I or anyone may or may not agree, that is justice.

The problem is this trial became about more than that, it was a fucking circus and more importantly it was theater allowed to be betrayed as justice because well Johnny Depp is such a Great Guy who visits Hospitals and shit as Captain Jack.


Guess what none of that should have anything to do with he case at hand.

So if I'm reading you right (And I don't disagree with his motives, he explicitly stated this was to clear his name, but irrelevant to the justice system), you disagree that the justice system was used correctly here? That's what I'm reading.

And, presuming as such, I have to disagree.

The jury wasn't aware of the entire circus going on outside of the court room. Sure - there was a lot of clowning going ON in the court room, but that was on the lawyers and witnesses. The jury was still doing their duty and what they had to do. There is no debating this - at least from our perspective. We don't know if they had outside information, but if an appeal does go through to investigate this AND find that to be true, then yes. I agree with you - it's invalid.

But, until such truths come to light the Jury found what Amber wrote to be defamatory. Why? Because Amber was unable to prove that Johnny abused her, and that she was completely uncredible in almost every regard. She was lying all the time, she was committing perjury not only in this trial but the UK trial. All of her witnesses were clearly biased or IN FAVOR OF JOHNNY in many regards. A lot of her experts had done improper care or lack thereof and so they weren't really reliable either.

And don't catch me as ignorant, I know a decent amount Johnny's witnesses are going to be biased, too. They even proved that (And kind of admitted to it).

Johnny, on the other hand, had everything on his side and that's why he won. Experts? Credible, and well informed. Witnesses? A ton of them, all of which account for similar stories. People who aren't even RELATED to recent incidents or them even testified for Johnny, even if they didn't like him or Amber.

So... While yes, I do agree that the motive he used wasn't purely in line with 'justice', I don't think trying to clear your name while using a legal process is 'bad' either. Do you? I mean, if you were in this same position and you had the chance to clear your name while proving your abuser (Allegedly, which it seems that way here) was a liar, what then?

And this isn't even to mention the fact of, what do you think of Amber purposefully lying and slandering Johnny? This is hard to debate, she admitted to writing the op-ed, and if you watched the trial (Or read transcripts - I don't know if those are out yet / will be out), it's very clear what she had said there is completely false (Or proved to be false enough, which is this civil case.)

[Magical Mudcrab]

Intelligence has nothing to do with this, this is just stupidity, people who know better but argue and spin bullshit because of personal bias, not because of the law or the case in front of the world.

But you're the one who brought "intelligence" in.

It's a lack of bias, nobody intelligent is cheering this bullshit, nor are they unclear what this means.

You essentially said that anyone who is disagreeing with you is an idiot.

This was about an Op-Ed whether that article defamed JD, I can accept even if I disagree the Jury or anyone getting there, what I have a BIG problem with is how the JURY based on the facts got there, and the fact the verdict reflects their complete ignorance and stupidity on their part. The majority of JD fans seem to think this is some vindication.

It's not.

Defamation in the U.S Requires one of two avenue, either Slander, or Libel. Slander meaning something was said with malicious intent whether true o not. Libel requires something to be something that causes harm, regardless to intent. Period FULL STOP!

Neither of which as you pointed out HAVE to mean she mentioned Johnny Depp, but outside of that there is a pretty important burden to clearly establish that however a statement was made it falls under Slander or Libel.

It DIDN'T!

This argument of "well, she didn't mention him, therefore it's just a grey area" is a non-starter. The article referenced specific dates relevant to public events between her and Depp and referenced her previous allegations, therefore the court found it reasonable for people to believe that the article was about Depp. Even if this were a difficult distinction to make, she explicitly said it was about him. Moreover, it was found she had published the article in her tweet with the express intent of spreading the information to a new audience.

The trial was focused on the credibility of her allegations because who the article was about and whether she published the article were never really in question. If she had made the allegation with a reasonable amount of evidence, at least enough to leave some benefit of the doubt for the jury, she would not have been found guilty of defamation. Instead, the jury unanimously found in favor of Depp. This is not the jury being "stupid", this is the consequence of Heard making a bad case, clearly perjuring herself, and having repeatedly gone after Depp with this accusation in the past.

I don't say this because I Hate JD or Love Amber, I say this because this was clearly a pissing contest between to very stupid people, neither of whom should be rewarded and neither of which should drag the justice system down with them.


As to the Truth beyond the Defamation NONE of that had been tested in court, SO there is nothing to discuss.

If that should happen on either side THEN that might be something to discuss.

The trial was her moment to have the allegations tested in court, and she failed. Her allegations were found to be so lacking credulity by the jury that she was not just found guilty of defamation, was hit was a bafflingly high punitive damage amount which needed to be reduced by the judge to the state's cap.

[Doctor Amadeus]

So if I'm reading you right (And I don't disagree with his motives, he explicitly stated this was to clear his name, but irrelevant to the justice system), you disagree that the justice system was used correctly here? That's what I'm reading.

And, presuming as such, I have to disagree.

The jury wasn't aware of the entire circus going on outside of the court room. Sure - there was a lot of clowning going ON in the court room, but that was on the lawyers and witnesses. The jury was still doing their duty and what they had to do. There is no debating this - at least from our perspective. We don't know if they had outside information, but if an appeal does go through to investigate this AND find that to be true, then yes. I agree with you - it's invalid.

But, until such truths come to light the Jury found what Amber wrote to be defamatory. Why? Because Amber was unable to prove that Johnny abused her, and that she was completely uncredible in almost every regard. She was lying all the time, she was committing perjury not only in this trial but the UK trial. All of her witnesses were clearly biased or IN FAVOR OF JOHNNY in many regards. A lot of her experts had done improper care or lack thereof and so they weren't really reliable either.

And don't catch me as ignorant, I know Johnny's witnesses are going to be biased, too. They even proved that (And kind of admitted to it).

Johnny, on the other hand, had everything on his side and that's why he won. Experts? Credible, and well informed. Witnesses? A ton of them, all of which account for similar stories. People who aren't even RELATED to recent incidents or them even testified for Johnny, even if they didn't like him or Amber.

So... While yes, I do agree that the motive he used wasn't purely in line with 'justice', I don't think trying to clear your name while using a legal process is 'bad' either. Do you? I mean, if you were in this same position and you had the chance to clear your name while proving your abuser (Allegedly, which it seems that way here) was a liar, what then?

The Circus was inside the court and the Judge was the Head Clown.

We don't agree, but I can respect your perspective. I am not a Free Speech say anything you want with zero consequences and as I said if the Jury decided to make a statement of close but no cigar on the defamation even though JD wasn't clearly named as I said, that is their prerogative.

It's how they arrived at that based on everything that happened in this trial, and their judgements to award damages for both. Both should have lost, but if someone was going to win it should have been made clear based on the preponderance of evidence as it pertained specifically to the case.


I argue there is no way in fuck they could have arrived at that, and nobody with any amount of intelligence would say otherwise because it's plan bullshit. The theater surrounding this bullshit has hurt both of these individuals, not a completely forgettable article by a relative nobody.

Regardless to any unreasonable person who would ever accept the Op-ED Even if they assumed it was Johnny Depp as any conviction of anything.


If there was or is an argument for Johnny Depp that should be it PERIOD.


And the Idea that anything as serious as Domestic Violence can ever be determined by anything but a Criminal court needs to be but to an end, this trial only supports otherwise.


I also want to be clear as fucking Crystal about something else because Yes, I DO recognize some SOME people are upset because of Ambers behavior, I have ZERO pity for this woman and any of the shit coming her way anymore than I was for Johnny Depp, both of these people in my view are fucked in the head.

That stated, Yes Men absolutely can be victims of Domestic Violence, and So can Women, neither of them requires the Other to Prove it happened per say.


HOWEVER, when there is EVIDENCE and I haven't especially seen any of felt it was valid here, I DO find it disturbing and fuck what came to light, and frankly Fuck Money Amber Heard should be in PRISON, IF what she did was made up.

I have no problem if Johnny Depp presses Charges either.

But non of that had anything to do with this trial, and everyone celebrating should be ashamed of themselves. This was theater not Justice in any event.

- - - Updated - - -

But you're the one who brought "intelligence" in.

Stupid has nothing to do with intelligence.

Stupid is when you KNOW better and act contrary too that knowledge. A Genius can be stupid, EVERYONE is stupid or has a weakness for something, and it's that bias that always reveals stupidity.

Which is also why it can't be cured, It's particularly why we are supposed to have those of decipline who have intellegence and bodies of policy act, when individuals maybe shouldn't or can't.

You essentially said that anyone who is disagreeing with you is an idiot.

Depends on the argument and it depends on why someone has arrived at a conclusion, if it's sincere ignorance than that's one thing.


But when it someone who should know better, it's not only stupid it's evil.

This argument of "well, she didn't mention him, therefore it's just a grey area" is a non-starter. The article referenced specific dates relevant to public events between her and Depp and referenced her previous allegations, therefore the court found it reasonable for people to believe that the article was about Depp. Even if this were a difficult distinction to make, she explicitly said it was about him. Moreover, it was found she had published the article in her tweet with the express intent of spreading the information to a new audience.

The trial was focused on the credibility of her allegations because who the article was about and whether she published the article were never really in question. If she had made the allegation with a reasonable amount of evidence, at least enough to leave some benefit of the doubt for the jury, she would not have been found guilty of defamation. Instead, the jury unanimously found in favor of Depp. This is not the jury being "stupid", this is the consequence of Heard making a bad case, clearly perjuring herself, and having repeatedly gone after Depp with this accusation in the past.



The trial was her moment to have the allegations tested in court, and she failed. Her allegations were found to be so lacking credulity by the jury that she was not just found guilty of defamation, was hit was a bafflingly high punitive damage amount which needed to be reduced by the judge to the state's cap.

Valid Argument there in bold, but again, nothing in her article in my view rises to the defamation or damages.

[Captain Proton]

You mean did I obsess about the trial and all the irrelevant bullshit, then guilty. As I said once this left the scope of the complaint it became a TV show not a fucking trial

Yeah you said it once and you were as wrong then as you are now.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I mean, defamation cases are all about clearing your name, reputation and receiving money from the person that defamed you cause what they said/wrote hurt you financially, etc.

And as others have mentioned (repeatedly), it seems you didn't regularly follow the trial if you think he didn't prove that he was defamed.

Maybe they can be, but hey clearly have to be established as such, like I can't say Winter Blossom is a Serial Killer, more importantly and I can submit bullshit whether I think it's true to implicate you either.


I can say, I think Winter Blossom is a Serial Killer, look at the kind of coat she wears. If your best friend or loose friend said, she/he thinks you are a Serial Killer because you eats your steak and with the knife and fork in the wrong hands, that would also NOT be defamation especially if she/he reveals information that could only conclude that it's you especially if she omits your name.

I didn't need to regularly follow the trial, and there are for sure reports this way and that way floated around about the trial that may or may not have been accurate. In any event none of that matters.

The ONLY interest I had at all was to relevancy of the complaint, this was not a rape trial, this was a criminal proceeding where Amber was being Prosecuted, whether you like one or the other.

[Nurasu]

Yeah you said it once and you were as wrong then as you are now.

This has essentially boiled down to "anyone who knows what they're talking about is an idiot." If you watched the trial, you're an idiot. If you disagree with someone who didn't watch the trial, you're an idiot.

[Mayhem]

No he sued to get even, he sued to clear his name, That is NOT what this trial should ever have been allowed to be about. Not unless he proved Defamation which he DIDN'T.

Nothing in the Op Ed, Defamed him or caused him any damage, at least not in the scope or purview of anything that can me administered in the court. Private Company's can hire and fire anyone for GOOD or Bad Reasons if they feel it might hurt their business.

People are Free to infer association or lack of it though rumor, gossip or innuendo it sucks, it's bullshit, but it's also human nature. Nothing about this trial fixed that.


If Amber Heard had been found guilty, and the argument was purely because of what was inferred rather than what was explicitly stated, well then while I or anyone may or may not agree, that is justice.

The problem is this trial became about more than that, it was a fucking circus and more importantly it was theater allowed to be betrayed as justice because well Johnny Depp is such a Great Guy who visits Hospitals and shit as Captain Jack.


Guess what none of that should have anything to do with he case at hand.

You know, you could take the time, while ignoring this tv circus, and read some of the past articles, about what amber accused JD of and how this case revealed that her lies started 6 years ago when filing for the restraining order.

Here have a read 6yo wapo article

some highlights:

"Heard, 30, who filed for divorce from Depp last week, accused the 52-year-old actor of repeated domestic violence. The filing was apparently fueled by an alleged incident on May 21 at Depp’s home, in which the Los Angeles police were called to a domestic dispute. Heard declined to press charges, and, according to the Associated Press, the cops determined “a crime did not occur.”

“Amber did not provide a statement to the LAPD in an attempt to protect her privacy and Johnny’s career,” Heard’s attorneys Samantha Spector and Joseph Koenig said in a statement. “In domestic violence cases, it is not unusual for the perpetrator’s playbook to include miscasting the victim as the villain.”

The attorneys reiterate that Heard wanted to keep everything private and that it was a third party who called the police to Depp’s apartment on May 21. They say the cops indeed saw “physical injuries” to Heard’s face. And, the lawyers add, Heard purposefully did not serve Depp with divorce papers until after his premiere of “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” two days later, and filed the restraining order when he was already out of the country.

“In reality, Amber acted no differently than many victims of domestic violence, who think first of the harm that might come to the abuser, rather than the abuse they have already suffered,” they wrote, adding that Heard wants to give Los Angeles police an opportunity to conduct “an accurate and complete investigation” into what happened that night.""

and here's what the police had to say about it back then:

"“On May 21, 2016, officers responded to a domestic incident radio call…” LAPD Sgt. Marlon Marrache says. “The person reporting the crime [Heard] did not insist on a report and no report was warranted. There was no evidence of any crime. A crime did not occur so the officers left the scene and left a business card.”

Marrache adds that if there had been any signs of abuse, officers would have conducted an investigation, regardless of what Heard said had happened."

So AH wanted to give the police time to investigate while also keeping the police from investigating which wouldn't have worked anyway because the police would've investigated regardless if they had reason to believe a crime occurred.

Some tidbits, JDs mother died may 20th 2016, and his daughters birthday is on may 27th, so the alleged abuse the police found no evidence for happened the day after his mother died and AH filed the restraining order on his daughters birthday. What a wonderful person.

Oh and since I am not sure if you know this because why would you, the wapo oped came 2 years prior to the sun article. So the article was based on the claims in the wapo oped, you know the one that according to you had no influence on anything whatsoever. Fun fact the incident on may 21st wasn't part of the 14 alleged assaults that were part of the UK trial, neither was the part when he cut his finger off and violently attacked her with a bottle.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yeah you said it once and you were as wrong then as you are now.

I am not wrong about shit, but if you want to argue otherwise GO FOR IT!

But I don't care about her shitting on his bed, or his cut finger, nor about he said she said shit. The scope of their of their characters is also irrelevant.


If you can establish that the Op-Ed in and of itself, explicitly mentioned JD AND that is harmed him in any reasonable way. I would freely admit I am wrong, I don't think I am infallible.

But I am not going to make up my mind and decide something like a defamation case based on WHO I LIKE BETTER!


That is what is going on here.

[Nurasu]

The ONLY interest I had at all was to relevancy of the complaint, this was not a rape trial, this was a criminal proceeding where Amber was being Prosecuted, whether you like one or the other.

This was absolutely not a criminal proceeding. This was a civil trial.