News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Depp v. Heard

Started by Asmodean, June 01, 2022, 12:14:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Asmodean

...So me being all handicapped and whatnot for a few weeks, I sort-of got back into the hobby of watching livestreamed court proceedings, because... Yeah. I'm kinda' sad that way. Also, handicapped, so it's not like I can do too many wholesome, fun activities at the moment. In any case, this "hobby" started with Kyle Rittenhouse trial, which I followed with great fascination. The prosecution got buried by their own witnesses better than in any law drama on TV. And yes, I get it, lives on the line, but who says that deadly serious cannot also be both fascinating and entertaining?

But I'm way off on a tangent here, so back to it. Currently, we are waiting for the verdict in Depp vs. Heard case. Will it be the day Amber almost defamed Captain Jack Sparrow, or will her voice be Heard? (Also, if no-one else has, I hereby lay claim to them there hashtags :smilenod: Pure cleverness, if I do say so myself. Which I do)

I'd say it's a bit of an open question at this point. I followed as much of the case as I could, though skipping over an occasional boring bit or a say-nothing testimony, and from what I saw, the choices the jury is left with, quite in line with Depp's closing argument, are either that Amber is lying, or that Johnny and a whole lot of people who testified are. Possibly both, to a degree where a clear verdict is not possible. However, if we were to shave with the double-bladed razor of Hanlon and Ockham, a person lying is more likely than a large, coordinated conspiracy of often loosely-affiliated individuals against that person.

That said, "Camp Depp" has more or less pinned the statements at the core of Heard's own counter-suit on his former attorney, who just happens to be bound by privilege, which... Yeah. Personally, I believe Johnny did make those statements (as in; he knew what his attorney was doing beforehand and did not try to stop it) but then, their defamatory nature depends on them being false, which... Sort-of falls flat, considering the above paragraph.

Personally, I think Johnny deserves a dollar in damages - and this from a purely personal "casual fan" perspective - his reputation did not take a hit in my book (nor the book of the many millions who "demand" Justice for Johnny - but facts not in evidence) but then I don't "listen and believe," either. I think there may be something to Amber's story, but she may have told one lie too many, so... No dollar for her in my book.

I honestly have no idea why I'm blathering on and on about this, it's just... So damned interesting. I should have been a lawyer. In a country with spicy lawsuits. Come to think of it, may blather more on the media coverage of the case, although it would probably be more interesting to analyse what they had to say in Wisconsin v. Rittenhouse. There were some true gems of poorly-aged bullshit there, even as the trial was ongoing.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Wolfen

I haven't paid close enough attention to the case to form an official opinion, but I just don't see Depp being as bad as Heard seems to be portraying him.

Asmodean

I think there probably were some drugs, alcoholism and bad relationship involved. I doubt physical violence from Depp, in a less-likely-than-not kind of way, but there may have been a occasional episode. Nowhere near enough for her to become a "ambassador for domestic abuse," but that's neither here nor there.

If we look beyond the facts in evidence, I lean towards her being the physically abusive party, possibly the instigator. Like, if you punch a drunk man in the face, you may consider expecting a punch right back. And who abused whom then? The puncher? The drunken counterattacker? Both? Neither?

On the weight of evidence alone, I'd award a symbolic win to Depp (1$, for he was maliciously defamed, but the damages are questionable) and no win to Heard, since I don't see it as more likely than not that she was defamed on several defining points.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Wolfen

It's like you're a mind reader.
Depp wins case

Ecurb Noselrub

Personally, I don't think anyone's reputation can be damaged by millions of dollars, as I don't think anyone's reputation is worth that much, period.

Asmodean

Quote from: Wolfen on June 02, 2022, 12:41:21 AMIt's like you're a mind reader.
Depp wins case
Eh... I am getting kinda' good at it, I think, so better than the crystal ball lady peddling fortunes, but do let us not forget that I did get things wrong.

1. I thought Amber did not prove that Johnny's attorney was defaming AND doing so on Johnny's behalf (though I thought the latter to be likely on a personal level - just not through the evidence presented in court. I wonder if the jury may have used the same reasoning in reaching their conclusion, what with the absence of punitive damages)

So yeah. Wrong about that one.

2. I thought Johnny should have a buck and a symbolic win, and was wrong about that (Wrong on my assessment of damages - going over some relevant material, Johnny did prove that the defamation has cost him a lot in lost revenue) to the point where I wonder if even this pretty massive award does not come close to covering what he has/may have lost.

Still, overall, I am not displeased with my analysis.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 02, 2022, 09:44:11 PMPersonally, I don't think anyone's reputation can be damaged by millions of dollars, as I don't think anyone's reputation is worth that much, period.
Some people trade on their reputation in more direct ways than others. For example, if you spread a vicious lie about an investment banker's ability to invest wisely, that banker may lose customers and thereby vast sums of money.

The reputation itself is... What it is, it's what damaging it in the eyes of certain interests may do that's the issue when it comes to defamation. That's something I've learned newly, while researching what I got wrong in Depp v. Heard, so I may be wrong, but the question in damages is not (or not limited to) whether the general public thinks less of the defamed - it's whether he suffered losses because the defamation has caused someone doing business with him to either pull out or avoid future engagement.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Icarus

Why are the legal or moral circumstances, law suits, and ultimate destiny of celebrities so capable of attracting national press coverage?  Would a marital clash be of interest if the 
 individuals were woeful commoners like us?

That's the long way of asking the question; Who gives a shit?  And Why would we ordinary slobs show enough interest to even discuss it? 

billy rubin

rich people's problems.

only rich people can turn a relationship spat into millions of dollars and still take themselves seriously


more people have been to berlin than i have

Asmodean

Quote from: billy rubin on June 09, 2022, 03:42:14 AMrich people's problems.

only rich people can turn a relationship spat into millions of dollars and still take themselves seriously
One could argue that this case is about more than money. We shall see - maybe - in who appeals what.

Quote from: Icarus on June 09, 2022, 12:38:57 AMWhy are the legal or moral circumstances, law suits, and ultimate destiny of celebrities so capable of attracting national press coverage?  Would a marital clash be of interest if the 
 individuals were woeful commoners like us?

That's the long way of asking the question; Who gives a shit?  And Why would we ordinary slobs show enough interest to even discuss it? 
I suspect if it was the average Joe vs the average Jane, he'd not be able to afford the legal team required to actually make a dent in "believe all women even when they lie."

That said, my interest in it is more of "academic" nature - I find the way actual jury trials work fascinating, so if Joe vs. Jane was broadcast and I had time to do so, I'd probably follow it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.