Depp court case against the Sun
- Thread starter BobUpnDown
- Start date
C
Cooper671
Guest
Yes that is my vies, unless i stated it wrong I didn't mean he has been convicted it is my view due to civil ruling its more likely than not that he did.
My point being many posters dismissed her and believed he had never done that act. A judge found it acceptable to publish them stories about him. Do you not agree reading back on the first page how easily people can dismiss domestic abuse as she sounds abit wacky and he seems a good guy.
1finny
Well-known member
I think it is frickin awful how victims of domestic abuse (male and female) struggle.
And, agree, one of the huge problems is that when it comes into the public domain there will be those saying 'nahhh, he/she is lovely'
On a side note BBC are advertising this Oscar Pistorius 4 part series as a guy who had his sport taken away from him.
In the trailer there isn't one mention of him brutally killing Reeva.
C
Cooper671
Guest
Christ, I actually forgot all about him. Can't believe there is going to be any documentary about him unless it's about how he killed Reeva not his sporting life
Lefty
Well-known member
I'm a little uncomfortable with the verdict.
It wasn't Heard who was being sued, it was the newspaper for labelling Depp a wife beater. He hasn't been convicted of any criminal offence, there wasn't any conclusive forensic evidence or any eye-witness accounts of people seeing him strike Heard or any of his previous loves, so it came down to the credibility of Heard as to whether on the balance of probabilities she had been struck, and the credibility of Depp.
She didn't have much credibility at all from what I could see. There was certainly evidence Depp was violent against property, when in a drug and booze fuelled argument and therefore his credibility is also very questionable. There was better evidence of Heard being violent to Depp and evidence of her lying about many things.
But is it really the right verdict that the Sun can label someone anything based on allegations only, from someone with little credibility? There must surely have to be more than that? Somewhere a presumtion of innocence must be the starting point, here it seems Depp didn't prove he couldn't be a wife beater.
If the wording of the article had been less certain eg "Gone Potty: How can JK Rowling be 'genuinely happy' casting Johnny Depp, a man who has been accused of domestic abuse by an ex wife, in the new Fantastic Beasts film?" that would be fine.
But "Gone Potty: How can JK Rowling be 'genuinely happy' casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?" seems far too certain a pronouncement to me.
Still, the judge was the one in court who heard all the evidence, not me, so he at least must think Heard was more credible than Depp. I'd rather the judgement was made by three or more people, not one, mind you.
I wonder if there could be an appeal?
It wasn't Heard who was being sued, it was the newspaper for labelling Depp a wife beater. He hasn't been convicted of any criminal offence, there wasn't any conclusive forensic evidence or any eye-witness accounts of people seeing him strike Heard or any of his previous loves, so it came down to the credibility of Heard as to whether on the balance of probabilities she had been struck, and the credibility of Depp.
She didn't have much credibility at all from what I could see. There was certainly evidence Depp was violent against property, when in a drug and booze fuelled argument and therefore his credibility is also very questionable. There was better evidence of Heard being violent to Depp and evidence of her lying about many things.
But is it really the right verdict that the Sun can label someone anything based on allegations only, from someone with little credibility? There must surely have to be more than that? Somewhere a presumtion of innocence must be the starting point, here it seems Depp didn't prove he couldn't be a wife beater.
If the wording of the article had been less certain eg "Gone Potty: How can JK Rowling be 'genuinely happy' casting Johnny Depp, a man who has been accused of domestic abuse by an ex wife, in the new Fantastic Beasts film?" that would be fine.
But "Gone Potty: How can JK Rowling be 'genuinely happy' casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?" seems far too certain a pronouncement to me.
Still, the judge was the one in court who heard all the evidence, not me, so he at least must think Heard was more credible than Depp. I'd rather the judgement was made by three or more people, not one, mind you.
I wonder if there could be an appeal?
Lefty
Well-known member
Not sure. There is one pending in the United States, but that is a defamation suit over an article of Heard's in which she didn't actually name Depp, so quite a different task.
BobUpnDown
Well-known member
I think the Sun is absolute garbage & would always look elsewhere for news - it is just junk.
I don't hold actors in high moral regard, indeed I think many - construct & fake a persona that is projected towards their fans & media... I was intrigued by the case & seeing the statements, plus two of Depps ex-wives being called as character witnesses.. the independent witness testimonies & the contradictions in some of AH's statements v witness accounts... I just didn't think Depp would lose the case - maybe I was thinking too much it was AH v JD... not JD v Sun....
via the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54779430
Jenny Afia of Schillings law firm, who represented Mr Depp, said: "This decision is as perverse as it is bewildering.
"Most troubling is the judge's reliance on the testimony of Amber Heard, and corresponding disregard of the mountain of counter-evidence from police officers, medical practitioners, her own former assistant, other unchallenged witnesses and an array of documentary evidence which completely undermined the allegations, point by point."
"The judgement is so flawed that it would be ridiculous for Mr Depp not to appeal this decision," she added.
Do I think JD & AH had a problem relationship, 100%.. was their abuse involved - more than probable (so Sun got the result in this case) however... I think the abuse probably went both ways.... just a toxic relationship it seems, maybe individually ok.. or with other people.. just not together..
I don't hold actors in high moral regard, indeed I think many - construct & fake a persona that is projected towards their fans & media... I was intrigued by the case & seeing the statements, plus two of Depps ex-wives being called as character witnesses.. the independent witness testimonies & the contradictions in some of AH's statements v witness accounts... I just didn't think Depp would lose the case - maybe I was thinking too much it was AH v JD... not JD v Sun....
via the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54779430
Jenny Afia of Schillings law firm, who represented Mr Depp, said: "This decision is as perverse as it is bewildering.
"Most troubling is the judge's reliance on the testimony of Amber Heard, and corresponding disregard of the mountain of counter-evidence from police officers, medical practitioners, her own former assistant, other unchallenged witnesses and an array of documentary evidence which completely undermined the allegations, point by point."
"The judgement is so flawed that it would be ridiculous for Mr Depp not to appeal this decision," she added.
Do I think JD & AH had a problem relationship, 100%.. was their abuse involved - more than probable (so Sun got the result in this case) however... I think the abuse probably went both ways.... just a toxic relationship it seems, maybe individually ok.. or with other people.. just not together..
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
Lefty’s changed his view
Lefty
Well-known member
Ok, I've confused you so I'd best be a little clearer.
The judge heard all the evidence, I didn't, so I'm sure he is right that Depp, on the balance of probabilities, has physically struck Heard. He has certainly been violent towards furniture and vocally abusive to Heard. He also went on drug and booze benders, which are known for producing psychotic episodes with memory loss. All of this makes that extra step towards physical violence much more likely than the average member of the public.
That said, I am still a little uncomfortable with the verdict, because of the potential wider repercussions, but I'd best read the full judgement. Up to now everything I've seen has been filtered through commentators. Also, I may not appreciate the law correctly.
It is also fair to say I would have found some things uncomfortable if the verdict had gone the other too.
Laughing
Well-known member
Left the judgement said nothing about Depps guilt or innocence, only that the sun did not break any laws publishing the story.