Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Depp/Heard Trial Verdict

145791015

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 20,053 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,103 ✭✭✭✭spookwoman


    You will notice most of these articles have the comments turned off. The amount of sh*te that's coming out of the militant feminist side is not doing themselves any favours.



  • Posts: 4,575 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    "This trial will have a chilling effect on free speech and the right of victims to speak up."

    Defamation is not protected by the right to free speech.

    You can speak. But you cannot lie. Heard lied.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭kirk.


    Good point I reckon

    He probably had to take the case



  • Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    And you sir/madam are either wrong to the point of delusion, or you are simply looking for a reaction.

    This will be the last one you get from me.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,616 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    Both were abusive in their own way, but for the Jury to decide that Depp was NEVER abusive even once to Heard is laughable .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    What was defamatory about what Heard wrote in the December 2018 Washington Post op-ed?

    Bearing in mind that the UK courts accepted she had proved that Depp had committed 12 counts of assault against her?

    Is it defamatory to write something the UK courts rule as true, as having been proved?

    Even this jury found that Heard's allegations, which were proved true by the UK courts, were not a hoax, and that Depp had defamed Heard when he alleged such?

    So how can it be defamatory?

    Explain in your own words, please.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    After Depp initially denied having headbutted Heard, he had to literally admit doing so when Heard produced audio evidence of him admitting it.

    Isn't that perjury?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,542 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    The BBC and RTE websites have this rubbish as their lead story.

    Sad day for supposedly serious news organisations.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,027 ✭✭✭✭Giblet


    The UK Judge did not allow most of the evidence from Johnny's team to be heard, very one-sided.


    Secondly, you must be deliberately ignoring what the Jury said was defamation, which was that she and her friends had damaged the apartment and spilled wine to "perpetrate the hoax". As there was no evidence to the effect that they did damage the apartment, it had to be taken as defamation. You seem to forget the other two claims of defamation, which were not upheld by the Jury. i.e: That the abuse was a hoax, the Jury seems to agree.



  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    While I didn't like the story either as all it did was fuel divisive, abusive sh*te about two vulnerable people, it was one of the most talked about trials around the world and the verdict is significant.

    It's a massive news story.



  • Posts: 4,575 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Didn't you watch the trial? I'm not interested in making all the arguments made by the legal teams made all over again. The verdict is in. Accept it or not.

    But, on the count that Depp was found to be defamatory, it was actually his lawyer that made a claim that was found to have defamed Heard (specifically that her accusations were a hoax) - it was not made Depp himself, but because the lawyer was representing Depp, Deep was found defamatory purely "by association".

    I hope that clears that point up for you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    The jury in this case ruled that Depp defamed Heard on the following.

    image.png

    You're celebrating the fact that the jury in this case ruled for Depp in three counts.

    Yet you dismiss the verdict of the UK courts that say Heard had proved abuse?

    Even Depp's own words damn him. He denied having headbutted Heard before being forced to admit he did.

    Again, how can it be defamatory to have written something alludes in vague terms what a UK court found to be true?

    This trial was about money, celebrity, power and influence arising from such, and perpetuation of abuse by Depp, and sadly, it has largely worked.

    Depp is a wife beating scumbag.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,027 ✭✭✭✭Giblet




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 305 ✭✭Fallout2022


    $15M.

    An expensive dump.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    So the "hoax" allegation was found to be defamatory?

    Yes?

    So it makes no sense how what Heard wrote can be defamatory.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,542 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    It's not a massive story for anyone other than the people involved. A celebrity rubbish story leading RTE and the BBC.

    You'd expect it to lead less serious news organisations like CNN and Fox, but not our own RTE or the BBC.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    Juries get things wrong all the time.

    Do you accept the jury's verdict of acquittal against OJ Simpson as being just?

    What about the jury verdict against the Birmingham Six?

    Depp's cult made great play before the verdict of the important thing being "the court of public opinion".

    Depp's cult never had any intention of accepting the verdict had it gone against them. We've already seen here that they don't accept the UK court's verdict.

    So why now renounce the court of public opinion when that's what the Depp cult was mostly targeting all along?

    Its because the Depp cult never cared about the truth - they only cared about only the cult of glorification of a celebrity wife beater.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Snooker Loopy


    Thanks for that considered contribution. Insults, how typical of a Depp cultist.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,027 ✭✭✭✭Giblet


    Well you said "The jury in this case ruled that Depp defamed Heard on the following.", referencing three statements, "a", "b" and "c".

    They did not.

    They only ruled "b", was defamatory. So either you cannot read, or you are a troll being deliberately obtuse. Which is it?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,374 ✭✭✭Heckler


    By that rationale juries get things right all the time too. So maybe they were right here.



  • Posts: 4,575 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,977 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    bea04418-72eb-4732-b352-e9489d97e00a.jpeg

    😁.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,374 ✭✭✭Heckler


    To accuse someone of raping you with a bottle is horrendous. No medical report, no evidence. Shes a loon. But yeah I'm a "Depp cultist".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,048 ✭✭✭EltonJohn69


    Amber Heard is a very dangerous person. She beat up her ex girlfriend, she beat up JD, I wouldn’t be surprised if she is arrested for for domestic violence again in the future.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,616 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    DOes Depp really believe that everyone will come running back to him, that Disney will be calling tomorrow, ha, no chance, this whole witch hunt orchestrated by him is just more abuse.



  • Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No. I don’t think anyone believes that. He’s said himself he’d never do another Pirates. He’s more into the independent arty movies and I’d say that he’s still got the pull with audiences that he’d get plenty of opportunities



  • Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I doubt that he does. After all, he's lived for months, even years, under the label of a abuser due to Heard's accusations and disclosures to the media.. before this last trial even started. He's a celeb. He knows and understands the way the public will view him, especially those on the internet, who will swing both ways.

    Secondly, what witch hunt? Heard was shown to be verbally and physically abusive in their relationship, along with being manipulative. That's not a witch hunt.. that's revealing his side of the relationship.

    Now, I understand you believe Depp to be an awful person. TBH I wouldn't put him up for any prizes for the way he's lived his life, both with or without Heard. However, believing Depp to be a bad person, doesn't mean that you have to work so hard to ignore/dismiss the rather strong evidence that Heard was abusive. Not in reaction to what Depp did, but under her own steam, and by her own choices. Just as both of them have used the media, social media and other forms of public expression to manipulate sympathy with variable success. Heard did really well initially, especially before/during/after the UK trial, and again, just before the US trial, whereas Depp has done extremely well during and after the US trial. Both are manipulators, and neither of them are angels.

    I always find these cases interesting because posters seem to assume a particular side, almost unwilling to accept that their side did bad ****. They both did. Neither was completely innocent, but at least now, Heard is no longer the poster child for domestic abuse victims, and claiming society was against her, all the while the media bent over backwards to support her claims.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,120 ✭✭✭...Ghost...


    The UK case was very different and was not against AH, but about what they published and called him. There was no jury and the judge was directly connected with the owner of the newspaper. Hardly a neutral party. The USA case was against AH and the jury saw through her lies and malice. AH is done, finished. She is as good as the crispy gift she left on her marital bed.

    Maybe she has found a niche market though. If Gwyneth can sell candles that smell like vaj, Amber can sell ornaments for bed sheets.

    Stay Free



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,120 ✭✭✭...Ghost...


    He abused drink, drugs and kitchen cabinets. Nothing to show he abused Amber. But let's just ignore the facts and cheer #ibelieveher

    Stay Free



Advertisement