Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[korijenkins]

If Johnny Depp could prove that 1, The Washington Post Article clearly was about him and that the statements where verifiably false regardless of Amber Heard telling and 2, Johnny Depp could prove that it caused direct harm to himself or his person meaning his career, then my opinion he won.


That didn't happen, and what this trial became was about Johnny Depp and his lawyers doing exactly what they were complaining about out of revenge. That isn't what courts are for, that's what Op-Eds and Trash Magazines are for.

What universe are you living in where you think he didn't prove either of those two things? Not only was it proven, it was proven by Heard's own testimony when she stated outright that it was about him and stated outright that she wrote it to take away his power. Depp's team proved those two things by merely cross-examining Amber Heard.

[Doctor Amadeus]

What universe are you living in where you think he didn't prove either of those two things? Not only was it proven, it was proven by Heard's own testimony when she stated outright that it was about him and stated outright that she wrote it to take away his power. Depp's team proved those two things by merely cross-examining Amber Heard.

The Universe where when someone commits a crime like domestic assault the only way to determine that is through a process of fact finding called a criminal investigation. Which didn't happen, so how the fuck could Johnny Depp have been verifiably harmed by an unsubstantiated claim made in a OP-Ed that didn't mention him?

And where was that damage proven?

Answer: it didn't and it wasn't

[Endus]

Because the judge allowed testimony not relevant to the complaint.

This is not the case.

[Mayhem]

This is not the case.

What is and was seems to matter very little in mallcops world.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This is Mallcop's M.O.

And Role playing The Daily Show and saying stupid shit unchecked with no argument and insults is yours.

[Calfredd]

And Role playing The Daily Show and saying stupid shit unchecked with no argument and insults is yours.

Didn't realize hypocrites could afford such high horses. Is the view great up there?

[Doctor Amadeus]

This is not the case.

Really? I'm accused of not watching every detail of this trial so tell me.

Where was the Police report and Officers called as witnesses for anybody?

How about statements from the District Attorney or anybody?

Doctors who treated anybody?

I'll save you time, There isn't any, because this circus wasn't about any truth finding. It was a parade of hearsay and influence.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Like I think I said pretty early on, there really wasn't an evidentiary path that would lead Depp to win on what he could present. It was Heard's trial to lose, and she did so, between her inconsistent testimony, apparent perjury, and referencing witnesses like Kate Moss who would then categorically refute her claims. It all made it that much more difficult to believe anything else she testified to, and that was essentially her entire defense; her own testimony.

Good sir, you clearly were not watching the same trial as the rest of us. Her riveting account of how her dog stepped on a bee shows us how acutely she was abused. She had ingrained not only her abuse of Depp, but her heightened, Daredevil-like senses gave her the ability to memorize minutia of situations like this. How could she possibly be lying?

[Endus]

Really? I'm accused of not watching every detail of this trial so tell me.

Where was the Police report and Officers called as witnesses for anybody?

How about statements from the District Attorney or anybody?

Doctors who treated anybody?

I'll save you time, There isn't any, because this circus wasn't about any truth finding. It was a parade of hearsay and influence.

Not sure what you think those potential witnesses could testify to, here. Heard didn't seek medical attention for any supposed domestic abuse she claimed, nor did she report it to any authorities to have charges filed, so there wouldn't be any such individuals to call as witnesses to that effect. If she had, they absolutely could have been, and her team would have been remiss to not call them.

You're pointing to the lack of evidentiary support for Heard's claims as if it's somehow supportive of Heard's defamatory accusations, and the reverse is true.

Also, that's a comment about fictional evidence you wish had existed so it could have been presented, rather than evidence you think shouldn't have been presented, which was your original claim that I contested.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Didn't realize hypocrites could afford such high horses. Is the view great up there?

Yeah well, I don't spend all day on the forums here doing the exact same shit as your Partner there for pages, I mean have you honestly fucking said anything new in any of this thread yourself besides circle jerk comments and whatever else the fuck you do?

I unlike you and a handful who do like to make shit up the only ones guilty of what I stated are clearly the people proven to have made 70+ pages of the exact same shit LOL!

[Mayhem]

Where was the Police report and Officers called as witnesses for anybody?

Police Officers testified on April the 27th.

[Calfredd]

Yeah well, I don't spend all day on the forums here doing the exact same shit as your Partner there for pages, I mean have you honestly fucking said anything new in any of this thread yourself besides circle jerk comments and whatever else the fuck you do?

I unlike you and a handful who do like to make shit up the only ones guilty of what I stated are clearly the people proven to have made 70+ pages of the exact same shit LOL!

I mean, when other people have already tried to explain to you that the Earth is round and not flat only for you to berate them, say they are wrong, then insist that the Earth is actually flat without trying to offer up evidence, what more could I possibly add that hasn't already been said that would convince you? Heck between you and Hammerfest I might actually have more of a chance to convince him that the Earth is round than you.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Not sure what you think those potential witnesses could testify to, here. Heard didn't seek medical attention for any supposed domestic abuse she claimed, nor did she report it to any authorities to have charges filed, so there wouldn't be any such individuals to call. If she had, they absolutely could have been, and her team would have been remiss to not call them.

You're pointing to the lack of evidentiary support for Heard's claims as if it's somehow supportive of Heard's defamatory accusations, and the reverse is true.

Wait am I confused or are YOU now, Johnny Depp claims his career was ruined by an Op-Ed, that accused him of unsubstantiated claims of criminal domestic violence. Why the fuck wouldn't the validity of that be important if the effect is that people honestly believed it to a point where JD wasn't even named and they canceled him.


Yes, I understand nuance is fucking difficult for you like so many people here especially in this thread who as I said already made up their minds despite purported whatever evidence.

But Yes, Amber Heard's statements in a Op-Ed are Germaine here. If people seriously acted on that reasonably because of claims of a perspective she made, then YES, Johnny would need for that to be established.

In a Criminal Court or valid in some way as I said.

Now whether or no the shit on his Pillow matches the weight high, and smell of whomever.

- - - Updated - - -

Police Officers testified on April the 27th.

Did they, and what did they say?

You don't need to copy and paste, what did they swear to, and then what did they during the course of taking the complaint?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, when other people have already tried to explain to you that the Earth is round and not flat only for you to berate them, say they are wrong, then insist that the Earth is actually flat without trying to offer up evidence, what more could I possibly add that hasn't already been said that would convince you? Heck between you and Hammerfest I might actually have more of a chance to convince him that the Earth is round than you.

Yeah nice try this isn't about whether the fucking earth is round or flat, and this argument isn't an equivalent. You are basically just talkin shit, and taking up sides and pile on anyone who disagrees or whoever the hell else with you spends day and night on the forums doing the same thing.

Dude Talk and Text is cheap and the evidence of what I said is TRUTH, not an insult. So you are free to keep spinning your wheels and losing whatever face by each reply you make to me.

Because UNLIKE you, I don't say shit to pile on agree, or disagree with anyone, whether I like or dislike them and I don't use the Forums here for my personal crusade to keep it clear of arguments you aren't capable of having.

- - - Updated - - -

Good sir, you clearly were not watching the same trial as the rest of us. Her riveting account of how her dog stepped on a bee shows us how acutely she was abused. She had ingrained not only her abuse of Depp, but her heightened, Daredevil-like senses gave her the ability to memorize minutia of situations like this. How could she possibly be lying?

She can lie, and none of those other failings are relevant.

[Endus]

Wait am I confused or are YOU now, Johnny Depp claims his career was ruined by an Op-Ed, that accused him of unsubstantiated claims of criminal domestic violence.

Not "ruined". "Harmed". Which it was. And they were.

Why the fuck wouldn't the validity of that be important if the effect is that people honestly believed it to a point where JD wasn't even named and they canceled him.

It absolutely would be valid; a concrete defense against a claim of defamation is demonstrating that the statement was true.

Heard was not able to demonstrate the claims in that op-ed were in any way true.

Yes, I understand nuance is fucking difficult for you like so many people here especially in this thread who as I said already made up their minds despite purported whatever evidence.

If you bother to read back, I started out on Heard's side, shifted to thinking both were awful, before finally coming to where I'm at now. The reason for that transition was the evidence (and lack thereof) provided by both sides in the suit.

I did not in any way have "my mind made up". In fact, the course of the case changed my mind.

But Yes, Amber Heard's statements in a Op-Ed are Germaine here. If people seriously acted on that reasonably because of claims of a perspective she made, then YES, Johnny would need for that to be established.

In a Criminal Court or valid in some way as I said.

This is just factually incorrect. There were no criminal convictions relevant to the case on either side, and if there had been, they would've been called as relevant. The lack of such does not mean there was no defamation, however.

The only party here who might have benefited from there being criminal convictions against their opponent on this issue would've been Heard. It's entirely irrelevant to Depp's case, and bringing that up demonstrates you either do not understand what defamation and civil courts even are, or you're not engaging honestly in the first place.

[Calfredd]

Yeah nice try this isn't about whether the fucking earth is round or flat, and this argument isn't an equivalent. You are basically just talkin shit, and taking up sides and pile on anyone who disagrees or whoever the hell else with you spends day and night on the forums doing the same thing.

Dude Talk and Text is cheap and the evidence of what I said is TRUTH, not an insult. So you are free to keep spinning your wheels and losing whatever face by each reply you make to me.

Because UNLIKE you, I don't say shit to pile on agree, or disagree with anyone, whether I like or dislike them and I don't use the Forums here for my personal crusade to keep it clear of arguments you aren't capable of having.

All bark and no bite and you know what they say? The smallest dog barks the loudest. You don't know anything about the trail, you don't know civil and criminal matters, you don't know your habeas from your corpus, yet have the gall to tell every one they are wrong on matters you know nothing about.

[unfilteredJW]

And Role playing The Daily Show and saying stupid shit unchecked with no argument and insults is yours.

Aww shucks. Thanks for the compliment.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Not "ruined". "Harmed". Which it was. And they were.

That is a REALLY low bar "Harmed" Late Nigh Talk Shows say all kinds of things that HARM arguably whether Critic or Comedy, but many blur if not rush across that line almost all the time, most aren't sued and for good reason, and that is because Opinion is protected speech, as is ridicule, no reasonable person is expected to take it as fact.

In this case Amber gave her story from her perspective and omitted JD name, was that good enough, maybe, but it sure as shit has nothing to do with the vality or truthfulness of the statement that was unsubstantiated.

It absolutely would be valid; a concrete defense against a claim of defamation is demonstrating that the statement was true.

Heard was not able to demonstrate the claims in that op-ed were in any way true.

She wouldn't have to, it's her perspective, nobody is suggesting an Op-Ed is True it is by it's nature an opinion

If you bother to read back, I started out on Heard's side, shifted to thinking both were awful, before finally coming to where I'm at now. The reason for that transition was the evidence (and lack thereof) provided by both sides in the suit.

I did not in any way have "my mind made up". In fact, the course of the case changed my mind.

Alright coming from you I believe that, because the evidence by everything you post and everything I have ever seen you post makes that in my Opinion credible.

But I really don't see how you came to the conclusion that this was defamation everything else I agree with you about

But I really am having a hard time finding that Amber Heard is a fucking Shit Human Being and a Liar relevant to anything other than the complaint at hand.

This is just factually incorrect. There were no criminal convictions relevant to the case on either side, and if there had been, they would've been called as relevant. The lack of such does not mean there was no defamation, however.

The only party here who might have benefited from there being criminal convictions against their opponent on this issue would've been Heard. It's entirely irrelevant to Depp's case, and bringing that up demonstrates you either do not understand what defamation and civil courts even are, or you're not engaging honestly in the first place.

Alright then I am wrong, Because I am not seeing I am not seeing the burden here in the first place that any Claims ever made in a Op-Ed can or should be taken as Fact.

[Mayhem]

Did they, and what did they say?

You don't need to copy and paste, what did they swear to, and then what did they during the course of taking the complaint?

The same things they said back in 2016. Also, there was video footage played provided by the police. You know, maybe just maybe you should've watched the trial before making such a fool out of yourself.

[Endus]

That is a REALLY low bar "Harmed" Late Nigh Talk Shows say all kinds of things that HARM arguably whether Critic or Comedy, but many blur if not rush across that line almost all the time, most aren't sued and for good reason, and that is because Opinion is protected speech, as is ridicule, no reasonable person is expected to take it as fact.

In this case Amber gave her story from her perspective and omitted JD name, was that good enough, maybe, but it sure as shit has nothing to do with the vality or truthfulness of the statement that was unsubstantiated.

You're comparing apples to M-11 Abrams tanks, here. If a late-night host made accusations that a celebrity was violently physically abusive to their wife, and couldn't justify that comment, they'd absolutely get sued. They're careful not to do that. "Opinion" is not protected speech when it crosses over into defamatory speech. You can't use free speech protections like that.

She wouldn't have to, it's her perspective, nobody is suggesting an Op-Ed is True it is by it's nature an opinion

That's just an objectively false statement. And opinions absolutely can be defamatory, when they're about actual events, as this op-ed was.

Alright then I am wrong, Because I am not seeing I am not seeing the burden here in the first place that any Claims ever made in a Op-Ed can or should be taken as Fact.

Heard claiming she was a victim of domestic abuse is not stating an opinion. It's a claim of fact; that there was domestic abuse, and she was the victim of said abuse.

And that's over and above the fact that you're completely wrong about "opinion" being universally protected speech; it is not, and literally never has been.

[Doctor Amadeus]

- There was testimony from police -- Heard refused to speak with them and they said they found no evidence of domestic violence.

- There was testimony from the doctors that treated Johnny's finger and reviewed his x-rays -- Heard never went to any doctors for her claimed abuse and sexual assault.

- There was testimony from mental health doctors -- both spoke to Amber and both had different opinions and diagnoses.

The problem with the first point is that doesn't conclude anymore her claims didn't happen, then you pleading the fifth, in fact the entire sentiment everyone gets hit with is "Believe All Victims" which I do and I think most do also honestly, which doesn't mean everything they say is the truth, but the validity of whatever claims they are making should require respect and hearing.

Case and point say when someone makes and allegation but maybe there isn't enough evidence to convict so nothing happens, I am not one to assume something DID happen or that something didn't happen. Meaning that testimony should be moot.

Johnny Depp or Amber Heard.


As for the mental health doctors, my personal opinion is that if they are paid witnesses and not independent witnesses, of either side I am going to consider their statements as that of advocates rather then simply experts in their academic discipline's.

But going back to my main argument None of the above is relevant. Not because it may or may not be True, but also because none of that determines what I said.


Which for Johnny Depp as I said it shouldn't be necessary. If The Op-Ed could be established about him based on NO CLEAR criminal conviction for her claims IF that is what the Jury would find, then all that matters is that he was Identified and that her was harmed.


That's it, I still don't see that, but if that is what was found and how it was found, then I wouldn't protest.

- - - Updated - - -

The same things they said back in 2016. Also, there was video footage played provided by the police. You know, maybe just maybe you should've watched the trial before making such a fool out of yourself.

Again which established what, video proved Amber Lied about Domestic Assault, sounds like a Crime. NOT Defamation.

- - - Updated - - -

You're comparing apples to M-11 Abrams tanks, here. If a late-night host made accusations that a celebrity was violently physically abusive to their wife, and couldn't justify that comment, they'd absolutely get sued. They're careful not to do that. "Opinion" is not protected speech when it crosses over into defamatory speech. You can't use free speech protections like that.

Yes you are right because the Late Night host is in no way aware of that fact and situation they weren't personally involved, and as such under the guise of Comedy or Criticism it's protected.

Amber was a party in the events she described without mentioning Johnny Depp in the Op-Ed, there for her opinion because of perspective as a party in that would or my understanding makes that protected. Obviously I can be wrong but that is how I understand that.

Example that I gave already such as Autobiographical Movies or Books.

That's just an objectively false statement. And opinions absolutely can be defamatory, when they're about actual events, as this op-ed was.

Depends on the source of opinion as I stated above. Always exceptions to the rule provided circumstances, but I am not aware of any off the top of my head that apply besides maybe this case, which seems off, because I am not seeing how the Jury got there the way they did.

Not because I simply disagree, but because of the elements I said.

Heard claiming she was a victim of domestic abuse is not stating an opinion. It's a claim of fact; that there was domestic abuse, and she was the victim of said abuse.

And that's over and above the fact that you're completely wrong about "opinion" being universally protected speech; it is not, and literally never has been.

I am open to this last Point because of the elements I haven't mentioned or seen here especially so far or many other places.

The #METOO movement, the influence that had in the wave of others facts concerning JD and AH history. But Unless I missed it, I didn't see those elements part of the trial.