Have to say that Ms Heard is not looking well in the clips of her NBC interview.
Resident Cosplay Progressive
A lot of the posts on the first few pages of this thread DID NOT age well.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
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.
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.
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.
Error 404 - Signature not found
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.
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.
Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis
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.
Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief
Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief
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?
Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief