Johnny Depp Vs Amber Heard verdict discussion
03 Jun 2022, 6:18 am
I can't confirm whether this is true or not.
I will say, however, that it sounds plausible, and I do recall hearing one of the lawtube people who was in the gallery saying that a juror had acted in the way described by the person claimed to be a jury member in the video... Not sure that I want to watch through all those hours of video to track down which number the juror was and compare to the table they created of the jurors to see if they fit the likely age range for this person - once was probably more than enough:
03 Jun 2022, 6:25 am
Matrix Glitch wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Matrix Glitch wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
so is heard being financially harmed at all?
She was awarded $2 million, had $10.35 million awarded against her, so is down $8.35 million.
Her lawyer on "Today" on NBC stated she couldn't afford to pay, either.
She also amassed $3 million in legal fees. So it seems she's in way over her head.
Maybe she'll simply "donate" the money to them
I hope her lawers had a signed contract and weren't doing the case on a contingency basis.
There's always go-fund-me.
I believe there's also a site named GiveSendGo which does the same job, but also take a smaller cut... I seem to recall their name mentioned during the Canadian "bring your truck to town" event\informal "truck shows" earlier this year.
03 Jun 2022, 9:26 am
The_Walrus wrote:
As said in the previous thread, an utterly awful decision that seems likely to be overturned on appeal.
Firstly it is completely bizarre that a trial related to domestic abuse was televised. That just shouldn’t be done for such sensitive trials. We need to protect victims, not expose them to mass scrutiny.
We’ve seen the internet discussion of the topic utterly dominated by misogynists. The jury was not sequestered. Lots of completely false representations of Heard have gone viral. Given that judges have already determined that Depp beat Heard, it seems the most likely explanation is that the jury were influenced by that online misogyny, as well as some people who just have a blind spot when it comes to Depp (who after all is extremely charismatic).
It’s very important that we allow victims of domestic abuse to speak out about the abuse they have suffered. Depp of course will still be shunned by polite society, anyone who gets involved with him will know about his history of violence, but what about the next powerful person who abuses their partner? Unfortunately even if justice does eventually prevail, which hopefully it will, this will have a chilling effect upon free speech generally.
Firstly it is completely bizarre that a trial related to domestic abuse was televised. That just shouldn’t be done for such sensitive trials. We need to protect victims, not expose them to mass scrutiny.
We’ve seen the internet discussion of the topic utterly dominated by misogynists. The jury was not sequestered. Lots of completely false representations of Heard have gone viral. Given that judges have already determined that Depp beat Heard, it seems the most likely explanation is that the jury were influenced by that online misogyny, as well as some people who just have a blind spot when it comes to Depp (who after all is extremely charismatic).
It’s very important that we allow victims of domestic abuse to speak out about the abuse they have suffered. Depp of course will still be shunned by polite society, anyone who gets involved with him will know about his history of violence, but what about the next powerful person who abuses their partner? Unfortunately even if justice does eventually prevail, which hopefully it will, this will have a chilling effect upon free speech generally.
Since when does free speech give you the right to defame others? Of course victims of domestic violence should be free to speak out. However, all the evidence in trial actually pointed to Depp being the victim of domestic abuse, not the perpetrator and Amber Heard lied about being the victim when she was the perpetrator. None of the evidence supported her story and she was caught lying a number of times on the stand.
03 Jun 2022, 9:46 am
Jono wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
As said in the previous thread, an utterly awful decision that seems likely to be overturned on appeal.
Firstly it is completely bizarre that a trial related to domestic abuse was televised. That just shouldn’t be done for such sensitive trials. We need to protect victims, not expose them to mass scrutiny.
We’ve seen the internet discussion of the topic utterly dominated by misogynists. The jury was not sequestered. Lots of completely false representations of Heard have gone viral. Given that judges have already determined that Depp beat Heard, it seems the most likely explanation is that the jury were influenced by that online misogyny, as well as some people who just have a blind spot when it comes to Depp (who after all is extremely charismatic).
It’s very important that we allow victims of domestic abuse to speak out about the abuse they have suffered. Depp of course will still be shunned by polite society, anyone who gets involved with him will know about his history of violence, but what about the next powerful person who abuses their partner? Unfortunately even if justice does eventually prevail, which hopefully it will, this will have a chilling effect upon free speech generally.
Firstly it is completely bizarre that a trial related to domestic abuse was televised. That just shouldn’t be done for such sensitive trials. We need to protect victims, not expose them to mass scrutiny.
We’ve seen the internet discussion of the topic utterly dominated by misogynists. The jury was not sequestered. Lots of completely false representations of Heard have gone viral. Given that judges have already determined that Depp beat Heard, it seems the most likely explanation is that the jury were influenced by that online misogyny, as well as some people who just have a blind spot when it comes to Depp (who after all is extremely charismatic).
It’s very important that we allow victims of domestic abuse to speak out about the abuse they have suffered. Depp of course will still be shunned by polite society, anyone who gets involved with him will know about his history of violence, but what about the next powerful person who abuses their partner? Unfortunately even if justice does eventually prevail, which hopefully it will, this will have a chilling effect upon free speech generally.
Since when does free speech give you the right to defame others? Of course victims of domestic violence should be free to speak out. However, all the evidence in trial actually pointed to Depp being the victim of domestic abuse, not the perpetrator and Amber Heard lied about being the victim when she was the perpetrator. None of the evidence supported her story and she was caught lying a number of times on the stand.
That’s not true. The evidence suggests that Depp was abusing Heard. That’s why a judge ruled that it was not defamation to call Depp a “wife-beater”. There are recordings of Depp admitting to abusing Heard, for example. There are photographs, witness accounts, text messages - it’s not in doubt.
See:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61673676
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2 ... appall-you
https://www.vox.com/culture/23150632/jo ... o-backlash
Again, this doesn’t mean that Heard is the “perfect victim”, merely that the things she said (particularly that she is widely seen as a representative of the victims of domestic violence) are true.
Personally, I am viscerally committed to the idea that people should not be punished for telling the truth. Unfortunately in the Virginia case the jury have made a severe blunder. That seems to be a combination of Depp being able to afford better lawyers and the jury being exposed to the tide of misogyny that has been pouring Heard’s way in recent weeks. Telling the truth is not defamation and hopefully the judgement is overturn before the wife-beater sees any of the money.
Are you really happy to live in a world where anyone who ever says “I was abused” can be sued and forced to pay their abuser millions?
03 Jun 2022, 10:45 am
The_Walrus wrote:
Jono wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
As said in the previous thread, an utterly awful decision that seems likely to be overturned on appeal.
Firstly it is completely bizarre that a trial related to domestic abuse was televised. That just shouldn’t be done for such sensitive trials. We need to protect victims, not expose them to mass scrutiny.
We’ve seen the internet discussion of the topic utterly dominated by misogynists. The jury was not sequestered. Lots of completely false representations of Heard have gone viral. Given that judges have already determined that Depp beat Heard, it seems the most likely explanation is that the jury were influenced by that online misogyny, as well as some people who just have a blind spot when it comes to Depp (who after all is extremely charismatic).
It’s very important that we allow victims of domestic abuse to speak out about the abuse they have suffered. Depp of course will still be shunned by polite society, anyone who gets involved with him will know about his history of violence, but what about the next powerful person who abuses their partner? Unfortunately even if justice does eventually prevail, which hopefully it will, this will have a chilling effect upon free speech generally.
Firstly it is completely bizarre that a trial related to domestic abuse was televised. That just shouldn’t be done for such sensitive trials. We need to protect victims, not expose them to mass scrutiny.
We’ve seen the internet discussion of the topic utterly dominated by misogynists. The jury was not sequestered. Lots of completely false representations of Heard have gone viral. Given that judges have already determined that Depp beat Heard, it seems the most likely explanation is that the jury were influenced by that online misogyny, as well as some people who just have a blind spot when it comes to Depp (who after all is extremely charismatic).
It’s very important that we allow victims of domestic abuse to speak out about the abuse they have suffered. Depp of course will still be shunned by polite society, anyone who gets involved with him will know about his history of violence, but what about the next powerful person who abuses their partner? Unfortunately even if justice does eventually prevail, which hopefully it will, this will have a chilling effect upon free speech generally.
Since when does free speech give you the right to defame others? Of course victims of domestic violence should be free to speak out. However, all the evidence in trial actually pointed to Depp being the victim of domestic abuse, not the perpetrator and Amber Heard lied about being the victim when she was the perpetrator. None of the evidence supported her story and she was caught lying a number of times on the stand.
That’s not true. The evidence suggests that Depp was abusing Heard. That’s why a judge ruled that it was not defamation to call Depp a “wife-beater”. There are recordings of Depp admitting to abusing Heard, for example. There are photographs, witness accounts, text messages - it’s not in doubt.
See:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61673676
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2 ... appall-you
https://www.vox.com/culture/23150632/jo ... o-backlash
Again, this doesn’t mean that Heard is the “perfect victim”, merely that the things she said (particularly that she is widely seen as a representative of the victims of domestic violence) are true.
Personally, I am viscerally committed to the idea that people should not be punished for telling the truth. Unfortunately in the Virginia case the jury have made a severe blunder. That seems to be a combination of Depp being able to afford better lawyers and the jury being exposed to the tide of misogyny that has been pouring Heard’s way in recent weeks. Telling the truth is not defamation and hopefully the judgement is overturn before the wife-beater sees any of the money.
Are you really happy to live in a world where anyone who ever says “I was abused” can be sued and forced to pay their abuser millions?
Unfortunately, it actually is true. I have no idea what happened in the UK trial and have not read the court script but I watched the recent trial live and all the evidence presented at that trial suggested that Amber Heard was the abuser/primary aggressor. If you're concerned about victims not being believed because they're not "perfect victims" then the same could said about Johnny who is not perfect either. This case is not "perfect victim" narrative, the jury made that verdict because the evidence shown to them actually showed that she was the abuser and then lied to public saying that she was the victim after the relationship was, thus defaming him. I am all for abuse victims coming forward but as far as defamation suits go, this ruling should not discourage them from coming forward. It's far from a typical defamation suit, usually they would succeed if such a defamation suit ever goes to trial as they are notoriously hard to prove, with standard actually being higher in the US than the UK. This makes the fact that he won in the US but lost in the UK even more unusual.
As with those news articles, they are not giving you the whole story. I can link other news articles that actually support Johnny Depp's side.
03 Jun 2022, 12:01 pm
From what they said about The Sun when I listened to the trial and why he lost that case, The Sun is not a reliable source. They are not news. So therefore they won because they are not a reliable source site, it is believed people won't follow what they say. But the truth is there are stupid people out there that will believe everything they read in The Sun. Similar thing happened in the US when someone sued Tucker Carlson and he won because Fox News is not reliable source for news. But sadly people use him for news source.
Anyone who is not a reliable news source can say anything they want and they will win in court if they got sued. I am pretty sure Blaire White would win too if she said something untrue about a user online and it caused them damages so they sue her and she would no doubt win too because she is not a news source.
So that is why Depp lost the case. Also Heard admitted in the trial her op-ed was about Depp.
_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.
Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.
03 Jun 2022, 2:14 pm
Karma:
https://nypost.com/2022/06/02/amber-hea ... SocialFlow
https://www.newsweek.com/amber-heard-un ... er-1712359
She may lose her house and lose everything now and will now me poor like an average American.
I am aware what Newsweek says but this contradicts what she did in the court room and evidence that was shown against her. So I can understand why people will side with Amber if there are sources saying Amber was being truthful and there was evidence that she was not allowed to use in the courtroom. Even one Jury came out anonymous online and mentioned how he never cared for Depp or Heard so he felt he would be good for the jury since he would be unbias since he cares for neither celebrity and didn't know much about them. He expressed how put off he was by Heard and had bad instincts about her so he trusted his gut. He already knew she was lying by how she acted in the court room.
_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.
Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.
03 Jun 2022, 2:49 pm
Jono wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Jono wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
As said in the previous thread, an utterly awful decision that seems likely to be overturned on appeal.
Firstly it is completely bizarre that a trial related to domestic abuse was televised. That just shouldn’t be done for such sensitive trials. We need to protect victims, not expose them to mass scrutiny.
We’ve seen the internet discussion of the topic utterly dominated by misogynists. The jury was not sequestered. Lots of completely false representations of Heard have gone viral. Given that judges have already determined that Depp beat Heard, it seems the most likely explanation is that the jury were influenced by that online misogyny, as well as some people who just have a blind spot when it comes to Depp (who after all is extremely charismatic).
It’s very important that we allow victims of domestic abuse to speak out about the abuse they have suffered. Depp of course will still be shunned by polite society, anyone who gets involved with him will know about his history of violence, but what about the next powerful person who abuses their partner? Unfortunately even if justice does eventually prevail, which hopefully it will, this will have a chilling effect upon free speech generally.
Firstly it is completely bizarre that a trial related to domestic abuse was televised. That just shouldn’t be done for such sensitive trials. We need to protect victims, not expose them to mass scrutiny.
We’ve seen the internet discussion of the topic utterly dominated by misogynists. The jury was not sequestered. Lots of completely false representations of Heard have gone viral. Given that judges have already determined that Depp beat Heard, it seems the most likely explanation is that the jury were influenced by that online misogyny, as well as some people who just have a blind spot when it comes to Depp (who after all is extremely charismatic).
It’s very important that we allow victims of domestic abuse to speak out about the abuse they have suffered. Depp of course will still be shunned by polite society, anyone who gets involved with him will know about his history of violence, but what about the next powerful person who abuses their partner? Unfortunately even if justice does eventually prevail, which hopefully it will, this will have a chilling effect upon free speech generally.
Since when does free speech give you the right to defame others? Of course victims of domestic violence should be free to speak out. However, all the evidence in trial actually pointed to Depp being the victim of domestic abuse, not the perpetrator and Amber Heard lied about being the victim when she was the perpetrator. None of the evidence supported her story and she was caught lying a number of times on the stand.
That’s not true. The evidence suggests that Depp was abusing Heard. That’s why a judge ruled that it was not defamation to call Depp a “wife-beater”. There are recordings of Depp admitting to abusing Heard, for example. There are photographs, witness accounts, text messages - it’s not in doubt.
See:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61673676
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2 ... appall-you
https://www.vox.com/culture/23150632/jo ... o-backlash
Again, this doesn’t mean that Heard is the “perfect victim”, merely that the things she said (particularly that she is widely seen as a representative of the victims of domestic violence) are true.
Personally, I am viscerally committed to the idea that people should not be punished for telling the truth. Unfortunately in the Virginia case the jury have made a severe blunder. That seems to be a combination of Depp being able to afford better lawyers and the jury being exposed to the tide of misogyny that has been pouring Heard’s way in recent weeks. Telling the truth is not defamation and hopefully the judgement is overturn before the wife-beater sees any of the money.
Are you really happy to live in a world where anyone who ever says “I was abused” can be sued and forced to pay their abuser millions?
Unfortunately, it actually is true. I have no idea what happened in the UK trial and have not read the court script but I watched the recent trial live and all the evidence presented at that trial suggested that Amber Heard was the abuser/primary aggressor. If you're concerned about victims not being believed because they're not "perfect victims" then the same could said about Johnny who is not perfect either. This case is not "perfect victim" narrative, the jury made that verdict because the evidence shown to them actually showed that she was the abuser and then lied to public saying that she was the victim after the relationship was, thus defaming him. I am all for abuse victims coming forward but as far as defamation suits go, this ruling should not discourage them from coming forward. It's far from a typical defamation suit, usually they would succeed if such a defamation suit ever goes to trial as they are notoriously hard to prove, with standard actually being higher in the US than the UK. This makes the fact that he won in the US but lost in the UK even more unusual.
As with those news articles, they are not giving you the whole story. I can link other news articles that actually support Johnny Depp's side.
Jono, the simple fact is that the evidence does not match up with what you are claiming. Again, there is ample evidence, including that presented in court, that Depp was abusing Heard. There are witnesses, recordings, texts, and of course the testimony of both Heard and Depp. Whether he was also being abused isn't particularly relevant, because this is not the prosecution of Amber Heard for domestic violence. This isn't a judgement about whether either party is good or bad. This is whether Heard claiming that she became a face associated with domestic violence defamed Depp. Given that everything she said was objectively true, the answer should have been "no, this isn't defamation, and Depp has to pay the legal fees".
I would advise you to read the articles I linked, where multiple experts say that they fear this will lead to more victims being afraid to speak out - even in the vague, indirect way that Heard spoke out - for fear of being sued, particularly if their abusers are rich and powerful. This is the mainstream view of the trial. You'll find similar analysis in most mainstream outlets. Please do feel free to produce any articles of similar quality that make the case that Depp was defamed, but frankly I haven't seen any - the apologist pieces out there tend to be driven purely by bias and emotion, rather than substance.
I do understand that you might have a close emotional attachment to Jonny Depp. That is fine, and I don't want to insinuate for a second that anyone who admires his acting ability is wrong to do so. But the question is whether he was defamed, and the answer is that yesterday's verdict is outrageously bad and if upheld will set an extremely damaging precedent for free speech in America.
03 Jun 2022, 4:03 pm
^ One of those posts that evoke the question "What are you on?"
Not to mention you seem to be correcting someone's opinion with a personal (and also very wrong) opinion as a moderator. Post debatable opinions as a regular user account instead.
The fact of the matter in this case is that so long as Amber Heard is also a perpetrator herself, it disqualifies her from labeling herself a victim. Therefore, whether she really experienced any abuse herself is irrelevant. That's the reason she lost the defamation lawsuit.
03 Jun 2022, 4:14 pm
League_Girl wrote:
From what they said about The Sun when I listened to the trial and why he lost that case, The Sun is not a reliable source. They are not news. So therefore they won because they are not a reliable source site, it is believed people won't follow what they say.
That is not why the Sun won their case. They won because the judge deemed that it was true.
The Sun did not attempt the "Tucker Carlson" defence, and it is unlikely it would have worked if they had - they are not a parody site like the Onion. The Sun has lost or settled defamation claims in the past - for example, it recently settled one against an immigration lawyer.
03 Jun 2022, 4:18 pm
r00tb33r wrote:
Not to mention you seem to be correcting someone's opinion with a personal (and also very wrong) opinion as a moderator. Post debatable opinions as a regular user account instead.
That would seem rather unethical.
r00tb33r wrote:
The fact of the matter in this case is that so long as Amber Heard is also a perpetrator herself, it disqualifies her from labeling herself a victim. Therefore, whether she really experienced any abuse herself is irrelevant. That's the reason she lost the defamation lawsuit.
Again, this is inaccurate on multiple fronts. It is inaccurate to suggest that perpetrators cannot be victims (they absolutely can). It is inaccurate to say that Heard labelled herself a victim. It is inaccurate to say that is the reason she lost the suit - she lost the suit because Depp had better lawyers, and because the jury messed up.
03 Jun 2022, 4:21 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
From what they said about The Sun when I listened to the trial and why he lost that case, The Sun is not a reliable source. They are not news. So therefore they won because they are not a reliable source site, it is believed people won't follow what they say.
That is not why the Sun won their case. They won because the judge deemed that it was true. . .England no longer rules America.
03 Jun 2022, 6:51 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
Jono wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Jono wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
As said in the previous thread, an utterly awful decision that seems likely to be overturned on appeal.
Firstly it is completely bizarre that a trial related to domestic abuse was televised. That just shouldn’t be done for such sensitive trials. We need to protect victims, not expose them to mass scrutiny.
We’ve seen the internet discussion of the topic utterly dominated by misogynists. The jury was not sequestered. Lots of completely false representations of Heard have gone viral. Given that judges have already determined that Depp beat Heard, it seems the most likely explanation is that the jury were influenced by that online misogyny, as well as some people who just have a blind spot when it comes to Depp (who after all is extremely charismatic).
It’s very important that we allow victims of domestic abuse to speak out about the abuse they have suffered. Depp of course will still be shunned by polite society, anyone who gets involved with him will know about his history of violence, but what about the next powerful person who abuses their partner? Unfortunately even if justice does eventually prevail, which hopefully it will, this will have a chilling effect upon free speech generally.
Firstly it is completely bizarre that a trial related to domestic abuse was televised. That just shouldn’t be done for such sensitive trials. We need to protect victims, not expose them to mass scrutiny.
We’ve seen the internet discussion of the topic utterly dominated by misogynists. The jury was not sequestered. Lots of completely false representations of Heard have gone viral. Given that judges have already determined that Depp beat Heard, it seems the most likely explanation is that the jury were influenced by that online misogyny, as well as some people who just have a blind spot when it comes to Depp (who after all is extremely charismatic).
It’s very important that we allow victims of domestic abuse to speak out about the abuse they have suffered. Depp of course will still be shunned by polite society, anyone who gets involved with him will know about his history of violence, but what about the next powerful person who abuses their partner? Unfortunately even if justice does eventually prevail, which hopefully it will, this will have a chilling effect upon free speech generally.
Since when does free speech give you the right to defame others? Of course victims of domestic violence should be free to speak out. However, all the evidence in trial actually pointed to Depp being the victim of domestic abuse, not the perpetrator and Amber Heard lied about being the victim when she was the perpetrator. None of the evidence supported her story and she was caught lying a number of times on the stand.
That’s not true. The evidence suggests that Depp was abusing Heard. That’s why a judge ruled that it was not defamation to call Depp a “wife-beater”. There are recordings of Depp admitting to abusing Heard, for example. There are photographs, witness accounts, text messages - it’s not in doubt.
See:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61673676
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2 ... appall-you
https://www.vox.com/culture/23150632/jo ... o-backlash
Again, this doesn’t mean that Heard is the “perfect victim”, merely that the things she said (particularly that she is widely seen as a representative of the victims of domestic violence) are true.
Personally, I am viscerally committed to the idea that people should not be punished for telling the truth. Unfortunately in the Virginia case the jury have made a severe blunder. That seems to be a combination of Depp being able to afford better lawyers and the jury being exposed to the tide of misogyny that has been pouring Heard’s way in recent weeks. Telling the truth is not defamation and hopefully the judgement is overturn before the wife-beater sees any of the money.
Are you really happy to live in a world where anyone who ever says “I was abused” can be sued and forced to pay their abuser millions?
Unfortunately, it actually is true. I have no idea what happened in the UK trial and have not read the court script but I watched the recent trial live and all the evidence presented at that trial suggested that Amber Heard was the abuser/primary aggressor. If you're concerned about victims not being believed because they're not "perfect victims" then the same could said about Johnny who is not perfect either. This case is not "perfect victim" narrative, the jury made that verdict because the evidence shown to them actually showed that she was the abuser and then lied to public saying that she was the victim after the relationship was, thus defaming him. I am all for abuse victims coming forward but as far as defamation suits go, this ruling should not discourage them from coming forward. It's far from a typical defamation suit, usually they would succeed if such a defamation suit ever goes to trial as they are notoriously hard to prove, with standard actually being higher in the US than the UK. This makes the fact that he won in the US but lost in the UK even more unusual.
As with those news articles, they are not giving you the whole story. I can link other news articles that actually support Johnny Depp's side.
Jono, the simple fact is that the evidence does not match up with what you are claiming. Again, there is ample evidence, including that presented in court, that Depp was abusing Heard. There are witnesses, recordings, texts, and of course the testimony of both Heard and Depp. Whether he was also being abused isn't particularly relevant, because this is not the prosecution of Amber Heard for domestic violence. This isn't a judgement about whether either party is good or bad. This is whether Heard claiming that she became a face associated with domestic violence defamed Depp. Given that everything she said was objectively true, the answer should have been "no, this isn't defamation, and Depp has to pay the legal fees".
I would advise you to read the articles I linked, where multiple experts say that they fear this will lead to more victims being afraid to speak out - even in the vague, indirect way that Heard spoke out - for fear of being sued, particularly if their abusers are rich and powerful. This is the mainstream view of the trial. You'll find similar analysis in most mainstream outlets. Please do feel free to produce any articles of similar quality that make the case that Depp was defamed, but frankly I haven't seen any - the apologist pieces out there tend to be driven purely by bias and emotion, rather than substance.
I do understand that you might have a close emotional attachment to Jonny Depp. That is fine, and I don't want to insinuate for a second that anyone who admires his acting ability is wrong to do so. But the question is whether he was defamed, and the answer is that yesterday's verdict is outrageously bad and if upheld will set an extremely damaging precedent for free speech in America.
You obviously did not watch the same trial that I did. Before this, I was actually neutral on the issue and absolutely everything that I saw in the trial, watching it live, suggested that either she was lying or everyone else was. Multiple witnesses (including witnesses brought by her side) and all the other evidence shown at the trial seemed to of corroborated Johnny Depp's story more than hers. She was also caught red-handed lying on the stand on multiple occasions, none of the photographs from the Australia incident corroborated what she claimed happened but did appear to corroborate Johnny Depp's version of events, with the blood consistent with his finger being severed. No, what you're suggesting is that jury wasn't conscientious in their decision. If you're so convinced that Johnny Depp was the abuser because of the UK trial verdict then anyone could easily claim the same about the US one. I don't understand what evidence you think contradicts what I'm claiming because I actually watched the entire trial live, so I saw everything that the jury did.
Most of the photographs as well as the audio recordings suggest that Amber Heard was the primary aggressor, and in the audio recordings she even calls him a monster for running away to the bathroom every time she starts a physical fight with him. The strongest evidence against him that the AH legal team really offered in trial was a few texts that he sent to Paul Bettany, it wasn't even her directly. So, tell me. Where was this mountain of evidence that proved she was telling the truth?
