Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[Moadar]

The year is 2040: The question before being allowed into any social group is, "Did you support #TeamDepp or #TeamHeard". The echos of the monumental legal case continue to reverberate loudly, impacting all aspects of society.

I'm honestly astounded at how a defamation lawsuit between two kinda not great rich people has turned into something where your opinion on it has such wide ranging implications for who you are as a person, and society in general. Seems like...a bit much?

We've turned everything into a team sport.

[PACOX]

Have to say that Ms Heard is not looking well in the clips of her NBC interview.

[Veggie50]

Have to say that Ms Heard is not looking well in the clips of her NBC interview.

Im pretty much wondering how long it’s gonna be for the next defamation suit to come her way…

[Cthulhu 2020]

A lot of the posts on the first few pages of this thread DID NOT age well.

[Ihavewaffles]

Amber: "I haf evidences!"
NBC: "then why ju no shows?"
Amber: "I no a lawyer, lol"

[Edge-]

Amber: "I haf evidences!"
NBC: "then why ju no shows?"
Amber: "I no a lawyer, lol"

Wait...is she arguing that Johnny Depp is a better actor than she is and that's part of why the jury believed him?

That's uh...a new one.

[Endus]

Amber: "I haf evidences!"
NBC: "then why ju no shows?"
Amber: "I no a lawyer, lol"

Jeepers. "I don't know why people are so interested in what was happening in the privacy of my marriage"
Did you . . . forget about the op-ed you wrote? That the whole lawsuit was about? You're the one who made this shit public. Hence the accusation of defamation.

"You can't look me in the eye and tell me this was a fair representation."
I would. You were given every opportunity. And then you hung yourself out to dry. It was your own testimony that cast doubt on your own claims, and that opened the door for witness rebuttals like Kate Moss'.

"How could they not have ruled against me? They saw SO MUCH EVIDENCE, including from 'paid employees' (by which she means, I presume, expert witnesses), and just totally random people for some reason!"
So, err, why did your lawyers rest their case? Why didn't you break down those testimonies, if they were inaccurate? Present additional evidence in your defense?

She can't take any personal responsibility for anything. Frankly, she shouldn't be allowed to talk about this stuff the way she is, as she's essentially accusing the courts of incompetence/malfeasance. If you're gonna appeal, you should keep your mouth shut to not taint the process. And if you're not, this should be classed as a form of contempt of court.

Note that I'm not talking about being unhappy with the decision. She's making pretty specific accusations, here.

[Veggie50]

Jeepers. "I don't know why people are so interested in what was happening in the privacy of my marriage"
Did you . . . forget about the op-ed you wrote? That the whole lawsuit was about? You're the one who made this shit public. Hence the accusation of defamation.

"You can't look me in the eye and tell me this was a fair representation."
I would. You were given every opportunity. And then you hung yourself out to dry. It was your own testimony that cast doubt on your own claims, and that opened the door for witness rebuttals like Kate Moss'.

"How could they not have ruled against me? They saw SO MUCH EVIDENCE, including from 'paid employees' (by which she means, I presume, expert witnesses), and just totally random people for some reason!"
So, err, why did your lawyers rest their case? Why didn't you break down those testimonies, if they were inaccurate? Present additional evidence in your defense?

She can't take any personal responsibility for anything. Frankly, she shouldn't be allowed to talk about this stuff the way she is, as she's essentially accusing the courts of incompetence/malfeasance. If you're gonna appeal, you should keep your mouth shut to not taint the process. And if you're not, this should be classed as a form of contempt of court.

Note that I'm not talking about being unhappy with the decision. She's making pretty specific accusations, here.

I think if she keeps this up, she may well be called on contempt of court. I’m waiting for Emily D. Baker to respond to this…

[Snowfunk]

At some point in this thread, I made a comment about how she keeps digging her hole deeper.

And it seems she isn't done.

[Kumorii]

It's weird... because if she just play down her own perfection (for real, not the fake "i'm not perfect" non-statements) she would save so much more face imo.
If she came out and confronted the lies that she feels so much pressure to be a perfect victim which is why she lied about even the minute things. Couple that with the abuse messed her up a bit.
Not saying I would believe that, but at least it seems like a better strategy.

Wait...is she arguing that Johnny Depp is a better actor than she is and that's part of why the jury believed him?

That's uh...a new one.

makes me think she is acting heavily in this interview, which might explain her completely different voice compared to her trial.
Really tries to sell the "i understand, but this is unfair" stance.

[Nastard]

Wait, she's arguing that the reason people turned against her is because Johnny is a beloved actor? Sure, I guess that makes sense... if you ignore the past six years where they didn't believe him and thought he was an abusive wifebeater. I wonder why opinions have changed after all the facts came out into the open. Hmm, must be because he played Edward Scissorhands.

[Flarelaine]

Wait...is she arguing that Johnny Depp is a better actor than she is and that's part of why the jury believed him?

That's uh...a new one.

Is it? That was my assessment right off the bat.

[Mayhem]

Wait...is she arguing that Johnny Depp is a better actor than she is and that's part of why the jury believed him?

That's uh...a new one.

Not just that, but his lawyers were also better actors than she and her lawyers.

[Doctor Amadeus]

She's right and she is wrong, he is a better actor, but that isn't completely why the jury went with him. Most of that had a lot to do with influence which the judge really made no effort at all to mitigate. But yeah she was screwed going in this despite her council.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Wait...is she arguing that Johnny Depp is a better actor than she is and that's part of why the jury believed him?

That's uh...a new one.

According to Heard, Vasquez convinced the jury that Depp was Edward Scissorhands. I don't know about you, but if I was part of a trial with Edward Scissorhands, I would freaked out to the nth degree and would find in favor of him just to not get cut up.

[Edge-]

According to Heard, Vasquez convinced the jury that Depp was Edward Scissorhands. I don't know about you, but if I was part of a trial with Edward Scissorhands, I would freaked out to the nth degree and would find in favor of him just to not get cut up.

God these lines are so bad. Nobody believed he had scissors for fingers, we know it was a fucking movie.

[Magical Mudcrab]

She can't take any personal responsibility for anything. Frankly, she shouldn't be allowed to talk about this stuff the way she is, as she's essentially accusing the courts of incompetence/malfeasance. If you're gonna appeal, you should keep your mouth shut to not taint the process. And if you're not, this should be classed as a form of contempt of court.

Note that I'm not talking about being unhappy with the decision. She's making pretty specific accusations, here.

If she's doing interviews and doubling down on what she said, and what she said was found to be defamatory, would her statements in these interviews be considered defamatory?

[anveena]

If she's doing interviews and doubling down on what she said, and what she said was found to be defamatory, would her statements in these interviews be considered defamatory?

Depp would have to prove damages from them. So highly unlikely.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Depp would have to prove damages from them. So highly unlikely.

Would they need to show damages? It seems weird that you would be able to face no consequences for repeating defamatory statements after they have been found to be defamatory, just because there was no tangible damages that could found after the trial. If this were the case, wouldn't it give people the green light to continue spreading defamatory statements after they lose a case, regardless of the outcome, because they could now just appeal to the damage having already been done (i.e.: the new statements did no damage because the source is "unreliable"; the statements are already in the public and the damage was already done)? Moreover, if this is true, couldn't Depp's team file for an injunction or something to forcibly stop Heard from making the statements?

[Aurrora]

Not just that, but his lawyers were also better actors than she and her lawyers.

Don’t forget the randos, they were also better actors than her.