Page 81 of 85 FirstFirst ...
31
71
79
80
81
82
83
... LastLast
  1. #1601
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    No there 100% is truth. But we don’t there by supposing or leaping to conclusions when tools and processes exist to confirm it.

    However, failure to prove is not an indication of a lie.

    Big foot not being proven to exist. Is not because people who say otherwise are lying. It’s because there’s not enough evidence or compelling evidence to prove it does.

    That is also not proof he doesn’t exist.

    Whoever makes a claim has to prove it. This trial was not about her proving anything
    Let’s be excessively clear here.

    Amber Heard has explicitely, under oath, testified those two pictures were taken at different times, under different lighting. An image analysis expert demo’d the overlay in court, where it is clear that it’s a pixel perfect match. Also, by the meta data in the file he showed it had gone through a foto editor.

    Still not convinced she lied on that?

    She also stated at numerous occasions that “I have donated the money” even during cross examination. When being pushed further, she said “well I use pledged and donated synonomously”.

    That doesn’t qualify as a lie to you?

  2. #1602
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflakesz View Post
    Wait, what? Not about her proving anything?

    The trial was about her claims that Johnny Depp raped her, and mauled her with his fists, on multiple occasions.
    And she failed to produce even a single shred of evidence, to support any of her claims...
    The Trial was about an Op-Ed an opinion piece where she didn't name Johnny Depp. This Trial was about defamation that is all that is important. Johnny Depp didn't prove that in my view, and his celebrity and money bought him a trial.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie50 View Post
    Let’s be excessively clear here.

    Amber Heard has explicitely, under oath, testified those two pictures were taken at different times, under different lighting. An image analysis expert demo’d the overlay in court, where it is clear that it’s a pixel perfect match. Also, by the meta data in the file he showed it had gone through a foto editor.

    Still not convinced she lied on that?

    She also stated at numerous occasions that “I have donated the money” even during cross examination. When being pushed further, she said “well I use pledged and donated synonomously”.

    That doesn’t qualify as a lie to you?

    No, because she wasn't there to answer for whether she did or didn't donate money, and it has nothing to do with whether or not she defamed Johnny Depp.

    It paints her as a liar certainly for those seeking anything and everything to make this about indicting her and convicting her for fraud.

    So again no it doesn't qualify her as a liar.

    The evidence suggest she is LIKELY a Liar or extremely confused about pledge vs donated.

    However through the trial I recall reports she has donated some not all and claimed she was in the process of honoring that pledge. I could be wrong, but I don't how that influenced he testimony.
    #ANTIFA "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  3. #1603
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    The Trial was about an Op-Ed an opinion piece where she didn't name Johnny Depp. This Trial was about defamation that is all that is important. Johnny Depp didn't prove that in my view, and his celebrity and money bought him a trial.

    - - - Updated - - -




    No, because she wasn't there to answer for whether she did or didn't donate money, and it has nothing to do with whether or not she defamed Johnny Depp.

    It paints her as a liar certainly for those seeking anything and everything to make this about indicting her and convicting her for fraud.

    So again no it doesn't qualify her as a liar.

    The evidence suggest she is LIKELY a Liar or extremely confused about pledge vs donated.

    However through the trial I recall reports she has donated some not all and claimed she was in the process of honoring that pledge. I could be wrong, but I don't how that influenced he testimony.
    Your inability to understand why her credibility is an important part of a defamation trial (in which you have to prove the defamer lied) makes arguing with you moot. I would be served aswell explaining this to a pidgeon.

  4. #1604
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie50 View Post
    Your inability to understand why her credibility is an important part of a defamation trial (in which you have to prove the defamer lied) makes arguing with you moot. I would be served aswell explaining this to a pidgeon.
    Credibility as it pertains to the case of defamation absolutely. But they needed to get there first nothing about that first step had ever been established. It was an Op-Ed piece OPINION that in no way cost him anything
    #ANTIFA "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  5. #1605
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Credibility as it pertains to the case of defamation absolutely. But they needed to get there first nothing about that first step had ever been established. It was an Op-Ed piece OPINION that in no way cost him anything
    Let me guess, you also haven't read the op-ed, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  6. #1606
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    The Trial was about an Op-Ed an opinion piece where she didn't name Johnny Depp. This Trial was about defamation that is all that is important. Johnny Depp didn't prove that in my view, and his celebrity and money bought him a trial.
    Well, the Jury concluded the Op-Ed was in fact about Johnny Depp. Which is why she was found guilty of defamation.
    But if your willing to simply disregard the justice system, then I think we are at an impasse.

    And while I will agree, that Johnny definitely had the better counsel (probably more expensive), that's not why he won.
    Amber Heard lost all on her own, she failed to provide even the slightest, credible evidence of her claims.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennisace View Post
    You will eventually realize nobody takes you seriously.
    Quote Originally Posted by derpkitteh View Post
    i am no weeb. i am just a connoisseur of fine waifus.
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    And lootboxes are awesome

  7. #1607
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    I could be wrong
    I think a lot of people will confirm this to be true (mostly the people who actually followed the trail).

    I'm sure glad you were not around when lynching was more of a thing!
    Quote Originally Posted by sircaw View Post
    Credibility, Stuff you and the horse you rode in, why would i want to be seen as credible in your eyes, you people, "Extreme left nutta's " are the worst of what this forum has to offer.

  8. #1608
    Pit Lord Magical Mudcrab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    All across Nirn.
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    The Trial was about an Op-Ed an opinion piece where she didn't name Johnny Depp. This Trial was about defamation that is all that is important. Johnny Depp didn't prove that in my view, and his celebrity and money bought him a trial.
    It has been said time, and time, and time again that this is not how defamation works. Defamation by implication is a thing, and this pigheadedness in spite of that is not doing you any favors. So, for the last and final time, you do not need to explicitly name someone to defame them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflakesz View Post
    Well, the Jury concluded the Op-Ed was in fact about Johnny Depp. Which is why she was found guilty of defamation.
    But if your willing to simply disregard the justice system, then I think we are at an impasse.

    And while I will agree, that Johnny definitely had the better counsel (probably more expensive), that's not why he won.
    Amber Heard lost all on her own, she failed to provide even the slightest, credible evidence of her claims.
    I defense of Heard's team, they weren't given much to work with. They did the best they could with what they ha and, in spite of everything, Rottenborn did a good job overall for his examinations and cross.
    Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief

  9. #1609
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflakesz View Post
    Well, the Jury concluded the Op-Ed was in fact about Johnny Depp. Which is why she was found guilty of defamation.
    But if your willing to simply disregard the justice system, then I think we are at an impasse.

    And while I will agree, that Johnny definitely had the better counsel (probably more expensive), that's not why he won.
    Amber Heard lost all on her own, she failed to provide even the slightest, credible evidence of her claims.
    Amber Heard herself, on the stand, admitted it was about Johnny Depp, so not sure why there’s any doubt. It was like the first questioned asked:

    AH Lawyer: Why are you here today, Ms. Heard?
    AH: I’m here today because of an Op-Ed that I wrote about my ex-husband.

    Everything else was about proving if what was said in the Op-Ed was true, which Jurors found it not to be based on the evidence and witness testimony.
    Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten. -G. K. Chesterton & Neil Gaiman

  10. #1610
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab View Post
    It has been said time, and time, and time again that this is not how defamation works. Defamation by implication is a thing, and this pigheadedness in spite of that is not doing you any favors. So, for the last and final time, you do not need to explicitly name someone to defame them.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I defense of Heard's team, they weren't given much to work with. They did the best they could with what they ha and, in spite of everything, Rottenborn did a good job overall for his examinations and cross.
    I get what you’re saying and I’ll say this again you’re right. The problem is what you’re arguing and others are arguing isn’t exactly the same. Even though I disagree with you on the overall outcome.

    If the arguments made were laid out and concise to what you said mostly everywhere all over this trial then I’d not protest.

    But it isn’t this trial became about a lot more than defamation and seem to over shadow it.

    I see and agree with where you’re coming from.

    I just don’t see that as the consensus argument.

    As for her attorneys I don’t know either I know I’m not an attorney I don’t know what they could or couldn’t do.

    But it seems like so much bullshit should have been shut down or on the record for objections. This trial seemed so far off track.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    Amber Heard herself, on the stand, admitted it was about Johnny Depp, so not sure why there’s any doubt. It was like the first questioned asked:

    AH Lawyer: Why are you here today, Ms. Heard?
    AH: I’m here today because of an Op-Ed that I wrote about my ex-husband.

    Everything else was about proving if what was said in the Op-Ed was true, which Jurors found it not to be based on the evidence and witness testimony.
    That was only really known after the fact and at trial.

    As for the rest most was not relevant or appropriate. The Judge and the Court had no authority to determine if her criminal claims were false. Not that they needed to.

    Because for defamation to be met it doesn’t have to be proven untrue. It just has to be proven not established as True if you believe the Op-Ed A, it was about Johnny Depp before the trial and B, it damaged him.

    That’s all that needed to be met. What specifically to that do you find compelling enough to side with Johnny Depp?
    Last edited by Doctor Amadeus; 2022-06-17 at 11:20 PM.
    #ANTIFA "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  11. #1611
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post

    That was only really known after the fact and at trial.

    As for the rest most was not relevant or appropriate. The Judge and the Court had no authority to determine if her criminal claims were false. Not that they needed to.

    Because for defamation to be met it doesn’t have to be proven untrue. It just has to be proven not established as True if you believe the Op-Ed A, it was about Johnny Depp before the trial and B, it damaged him.

    That’s all that needed to be met. What specifically to that do you find compelling enough to side with Johnny Depp?
    A defamation trial is about false statements causing harm to your reputation. Meaning, Depp’s team needed to show that what was said was false, and Heard’s team had to show that it wasn’t. The abuse had to be brought into the case because that’s what the Op-Ed was about and what damaged Depp’s reputation.
    Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten. -G. K. Chesterton & Neil Gaiman

  12. #1612
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    No they aren’t. Pledge is a promise to give. Donated is paste tense meaning already gave.

    Her pledge to give I’m not sure is legally binding the way she gave it. If it was it doesn’t mean she wasn’t in the process of doing that.

    Again not proof she lied.
    She said she donated the money in an interview then under oath lied about it saying she uses pledged and donated as synonyms. Please tell me you aren't dumb enough to buy an excuse that pathetic. That's what I meant by lies that not even a 4 year old would try because they know what words are.

  13. #1613
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    No they aren’t. Pledge is a promise to give. Donated is paste tense meaning already gave.

    Her pledge to give I’m not sure is legally binding the way she gave it. If it was it doesn’t mean she wasn’t in the process of doing that.

    Again not proof she lied.
    They showed video of her (on a TV show) saying that she donated all the money.

    Not that Musk paid a portion.
    Not that she was in the process of paying them.

    That she had donated all of the money to these charities because it wasn’t her goal to keep it.
    Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten. -G. K. Chesterton & Neil Gaiman

  14. #1614
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    A defamation trial is about false statements causing harm to your reputation. Meaning, Depp’s team needed to show that what was said was false, and Heard’s team had to show that it wasn’t. The abuse had to be brought into the case because that’s what the Op-Ed was about and what damaged Depp’s reputation.
    Which they couldn’t do. Because assault charges are processed by a criminal court for investigation.

    It didn’t matter what the defamation was about concerning it’s Truthfulness because that couldn’t be determined here.

    You didn’t answer my question

    How did he or you know the Op-Ed was about him and what damage did he incure?

    He’s a public figure people say things about him all the time.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    She said she donated the money in an interview then under oath lied about it saying she uses pledged and donated as synonyms. Please tell me you aren't dumb enough to buy an excuse that pathetic. That's what I meant by lies that not even a 4 year old would try because they know what words are.
    What she did with the money has nothing to do with defamation.

    What part of the case proved defamation. Somebody who also disagrees with me has already said it. Yet you’re focusing on her charger.


    Here is some help. People lie both of these people are despicable. None of that has to do with the argument of if JD was defamed.

    I don’t care what you conclude she lied about outside of defamation.

    How did she defame him and what damage was established she did?
    #ANTIFA "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  15. #1615
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Which they couldn’t do. Because assault charges are processed by a criminal court for investigation.

    It didn’t matter what the defamation was about concerning it’s Truthfulness because that couldn’t be determined here.

    You didn’t answer my question

    How did he or you know the Op-Ed was about him and what damage did he incure?

    He’s a public figure people say things about him all the time.
    Cause she flied for divorce and requested a restraining order, saying that Depp was abusive, only for her to drop the request and issuing a statement, saying the relationship was "volatile, but was always bound by love".

    Because of Heard’s divorce statement and because she showed up to court with a bruise on her face, which was proved to be set up by her, the newspaper in UK wrote an article about Depp, claiming him to be a wife beater. Depp brought a lawsuit against them, which Heard volunteered to be a witness at, where she continued to say that Depp abused her. Depp lost that case.

    Shortly after the UK case (same year), Heard wrote the Op-Ed about surviving abuse.

    Now, do you honestly think that she wasn’t talking about Depp?
    Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten. -G. K. Chesterton & Neil Gaiman

  16. #1616
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    Cause she flied for divorce and requested a restraining order, saying that Depp was abusive, only for her to drop the request and issuing a statement, saying the relationship was "volatile, but was always bound by love".

    Because of Heard’s divorce statement and because she showed up to court with a bruise on her face, which was proved to be set up by her, the newspaper in UK wrote an article about Depp, claiming him to be a wife beater. Depp brought a lawsuit against them, which Heard volunteered to be a witness at, where she continued to say that Depp abused her. Depp lost that case.

    Shortly after the UK case (same year), Heard wrote the Op-Ed about surviving abuse.

    Now, do you honestly think that she wasn’t talking about Depp?

    Oh no she was indeed talking about Depp. She didn’t name him but it’s pretty fucking clear and if that’s your argument then ok.

    How was he then specifically damaged?
    #ANTIFA "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  17. #1617
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    What she did with the money has nothing to do with defamation.

    What part of the case proved defamation. Somebody who also disagrees with me has already said it. Yet you’re focusing on her charger.


    Here is some help. People lie both of these people are despicable. None of that has to do with the argument of if JD was defamed.

    I don’t care what you conclude she lied about outside of defamation.

    How did she defame him and what damage was established she did?

    She accused him of sexual assault, her accusations cost him his acting career. We have all seen what these accusations do in the metoo era, so whether she lied is the crux of everything. The entire case is about who you find more credible because the damages are undeniable, the fact that she lies about something as simple as pledged and donated are the same thing cost her.

    I am not legal expert here but although Depp had good lawyers the biggest reasons she lost the case was herself. There were plenty of ways she could have played this entire situation and come out smelling like roses but she over reached. Two people with their backgrounds no doubt there was emotional perhaps even physical abuse but her stories don't match with the evidence or her own words.

  18. #1618
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Oh no she was indeed talking about Depp. She didn’t name him but it’s pretty fucking clear and if that’s your argument then ok.

    How was he then specifically damaged?
    That was a large portion of the trial, where you listened to testimony and had to decide if Heard’s allegations are what caused Depp to be dropped from movies (Pirates and Fantastic Beasts) and if it affected his reputation within the movie business.

    And as we all know, major companies, especially Disney, don’t want to be associated with hiring an actor that was accused of not only verbal abuse, but also physical and sexual.
    Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten. -G. K. Chesterton & Neil Gaiman

  19. #1619
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    That was a large portion of the trial, where you listened to testimony and had to decide if Heard’s allegations are what caused Depp to be dropped from movies (Pirates and Fantastic Beasts) and if it affected his reputation within the movie business.

    And as we all know, major companies, especially Disney, don’t want to be associated with hiring an actor that was accused of not only verbal abuse, but also physical and sexual.
    And that was proven. With evidence and testimony from the company’s?

    I mean alright they fired others too for their image but if those two points convinced you. I’ll disagree but understand your argument.


    If I found that I would agree.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    She accused him of sexual assault, her accusations cost him his acting career. We have all seen what these accusations do in the metoo era, so whether she lied is the crux of everything. The entire case is about who you find more credible because the damages are undeniable, the fact that she lies about something as simple as pledged and donated are the same thing cost her.

    I am not legal expert here but although Depp had good lawyers the biggest reasons she lost the case was herself. There were plenty of ways she could have played this entire situation and come out smelling like roses but she over reached. Two people with their backgrounds no doubt there was emotional perhaps even physical abuse but her stories don't match with the evidence or her own words.

    I don’t think the trial proved those things didn’t happen. Only that Amber couldn’t substantiate they did.

    There is a huge difference.
    #ANTIFA "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  20. #1620
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    I don’t think
    You guys need to stop engaging with him, he isn't interested in the facts just expressing his half-baked, ill-informed nonsense.
    Quote Originally Posted by sircaw View Post
    Credibility, Stuff you and the horse you rode in, why would i want to be seen as credible in your eyes, you people, "Extreme left nutta's " are the worst of what this forum has to offer.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •