Johnny Depp Jury Finds That Amber Heard Defamed Him in Op-Ed

[Waggles]

Yup. It had me questioning myself. What could they have seen in the trial that gave them such a different understanding?

And yet, time and time again, the most outspoken critics of the verdict all say that they didn't watch the trial. I can't speak to 100 percent of them, but the vast majority are simply parroting what others in their sphere are saying without doing any research or due diligence themselves. It's disheartening, and if I'm being honest, makes me question their credibility on all other topics as well.

Click to shrink...

This, right here, has been an watershed moment for me, personally.

It's irrefutable evidence that the majority of progressive leaning people are just… the exact same as conservatives. Like they pretend to hold themselves to a higher standard than rednecks, and racists, and transphobes, and whoever. But when the chips are down, they literally go for the exact same argument.

Literally - "do your own research!".

Like… why was I ever going to bat with these people. Sure, you could argue that the worst progressives are going to be better than the average conservative, but, like… that's not what i'm seeing and hearing.

 

[Mancha]

Camille Vasquez is a rock star.

 

[SinnyIndonesian]

I will quote myself from the community thread:

Click to shrink...

I've seen people mention it a few times, but what is it that people refer to as the "community thread"?

 

[Mancha]

Stephanopoulos also asked the pair about criticism that the verdict will have, as he paraphrased victims' advocate groups, "a chilling effect on domestic violence victims and it's a blow to the #MeToo movement."

"I think our response to that is we encourage any victim to come forward," Vasquez said. "Domestic violence doesn't have a gender." When pressed further, she continued, saying, "We do not [think is has any negative impact to the #MeToo movement]. We believe that the verdict speaks for itself, the facts are what they were, the jury made a unanimous decision based on those facts."

Click to shrink...

 

[Tiny Chihuahueño]

Still getting people on twitter saying Depp is an abuser, that UK court dictaminated the abuse was real, that this is super bad for women, and that anyone who says otherwise is antifeminist.
What do i tell these people.

 

[Damien1990]

Still getting people on twitter saying Depp is an abuser, that UK court dictaminated the abuse was real, that this is super bad for women, and that anyone who says otherwise is antifeminist.
What do i tell these people.

Click to shrink...

If they've been tweeting all that and their timelines have a history of tweeting about the trial/liking tweets about the trial, ultimately there's probably nothing you can say that will change their mind or anything they haven't heard of before.

 

[Shemhazai]

Still getting people on twitter saying Depp is an abuser, that UK court dictaminated the abuse was real, that this is super bad for women, and that anyone who says otherwise is antifeminist.
What do i tell these people.

Click to shrink...

Not sure there is much you can say at the moment. Twitter is an awful place for this kind of debate since it's hard to provide detailed and sourced evidence in the character limit. Even if you could you might not even change their mind. I suppose you could ask them to source their arguments appropriately and then point out why they aren't correct, but then you're likely to get attacked for "just asking questions".

 

[MamaSpaghetti]

Still getting people on twitter saying Depp is an abuser, that UK court dictaminated the abuse was real, that this is super bad for women, and that anyone who says otherwise is antifeminist.
What do i tell these people.

Click to shrink...

Have to nope out of that one, you cannot logic someone out of a position they arrived to without logic.

 

[Tiny Chihuahueño]

If they've been tweeting all that and their timelines have a history of tweeting about the trial/liking tweets about the trial, ultimately there's probably nothing you can say that will change their mind or anything they haven't heard of before.

Click to shrink...

Their answer most of the time seems to be "depp won in the us because the trial was ruled by a jury, they fell for it". They seem to be perfectly fine with Amber's lies though

 

[LauraLaMer]

Click to shrink...

Glad they're saying the right things.

 

[Shemhazai]

Their answer most of the time seems to be "depp won in the us because the trial was ruled by a jury, they fell for it". They seem to be perfectly fine with Amber's lies though

Click to shrink...

I suppose you could mention that most of the hard evidence (i.e. non-testimonial) pointed to her being the abuser, and that some of that evidence was recorded by herself so it wasn't like Depp was fishing with a recorder to cherry pick the arguments that make him look good. The photos she provided didn't match the timelines provided by her own testimony, and she basically lied on the stand saying that two pixel perfect photos weren't identical. All of this was spelled out for the jury repeatedly and no reasonable excuse was provided by the defense as to the issues surrounding her evidence.

You could also point out that the UK Judge's son works for the same organisation that Depp was suing, which is a pretty clear conflict of interest. Also that the judge discounted audio evidence because (as I understand it, mind you) they decided that testimony under oath is more likely to be true than actual recordings of the events in question (which is a bit of a wtf).

 

[M.Bluth]

The photos she provided didn't match the timelines provided by her own testimony, and she basically lied on the stand saying that two pixel perfect photos weren't identical.

Click to shrink...

More importantly, I think, the pictures just don't match her testimony.
I think people just see the pictures on twitter under a pro-Heard thread, where usually it says here's some of the pictures showing injuries he inflicted on her. And I get believing that if you're not following the whole thing.

But put that picture next to her description of how she got the alleged bruises.
They don't match. They simply don't. I find it difficult to believe that any reasonable person would listen to her describe getting punched so many times in her face she lost count and then see the picture that is supposed to confirm these injuries and come out thinking yeah that totally happened like she said it did.

And if they're still not sure, look up what getting punched a few times in the face did to Rihanna so you know what that actually looks like.

 

[Crayon]

This, right here, has been an watershed moment for me, personally.

It's irrefutable evidence that the majority of progressive leaning people are just… the exact same as conservatives. Like they pretend to hold themselves to a higher standard than rednecks, and racists, and transphobes, and whoever. But when the chips are down, they literally go for the exact same argument.

Literally - "do your own research!".

Like… why was I ever going to bat with these people. Sure, you could argue that the worst progressives are going to be better than the average conservative, but, like… that's not what i'm seeing and hearing.

Click to shrink...

It's not even two sides, in a sense. A mix of manipulative ideologues and a mad crowd that can do anything. It doesn't really matter what politics you subscribe to when you are going to deny reality to justify whatever. We often ask how so many people can believe the election was stolen in the face of all the evidence and the answer is this. You can block out reality on certain things and still otherwise lead a functional life, which seems strange because the natural inclination is to think that these people have screws loose or be too stupid to live.

The reason to block out certain things? Because in the dark corners of your mind you know that admitting that thing will cause an avalanche. Look again at the example of people here shook about their favorite opinion dispensors having the wool pulled over their eyes- "Wow lindsey ellis ate this one hook line a sinker" on it's own shouldn't be a big deal but realizing that has a little knock-on effect because it naturally means that all these revered commentators can be not just be wrong but completley backwards at times. Now you can't trust everything they say all the time >> you can't neccesarily trust super popular retweets >> you might end up with opinions against the grain >> now you have to choose to speak against the grain and face the wrath of your own crowd or hold your toungue and be an imposter. An avalanche from a seemingly innocuous revelation.

Of course, workaday conservatives are "using" this phenomenon to justify dismantling democracy to themselves, which is about the worst thing going on out there. That's beside the point though, which is that it's pretty easy to lock yourself in a cognitave prison and justify anything in the face of facts if the motivation runs deep if not subconciously. That's why I'm generally going easier on the ones who seem deepest in the bullshit and clueless. I see it like they're in mind jail.

 

[Con-Amalgamate]

I've seen people mention it a few times, but what is it that people refer to as the "community thread"?

Click to shrink...

A good question. The Constructive Community Discussion thread existed for me up until a couple of months ago, and then all of a sudden, 'thread not found', as it was for another poster earlier in this thread.

Post count doesn't seem to have anything to do with it - I've got very few, some others have thousands and still can't see it.

Quelle strange.

 

[M.Bluth]

A good question. The Constructive Community Discussion thread existed for me up until a couple of months ago, and then all of a sudden, 'thread not found', as it was for another poster earlier in this thread.

Post count doesn't seem to have anything to do with it - I've got very few, some others have thousands and still can't see it.

Quelle strange.

Click to shrink...

Might be they changed the permissions to access the Announcements subforum, which is where that thread is.
Possible you might need to have more posts to access it, but I don't know.

 

[sirap]

More importantly, I think, the pictures just don't match her testimony.
I think people just see the pictures on twitter under a pro-Heard thread, where usually it says here's some of the pictures showing injuries he inflicted on her. And I get believing that if you're not following the whole thing.

But put that picture next to her description of how she got the alleged bruises.
They don't match. They simply don't. I find it difficult to believe that any reasonable person would listen to her describe getting punched so many times in her face she lost count and then see the picture that is supposed to confirm these injuries and come out thinking yeah that totally happened like she said it did.

And if they're still not sure, look up what getting punched a few times in the face did to Rihanna so you know what that actually looks like.

Click to shrink...

I'm still baffled by Heard's strategy going into this trial. What was the point of creating lies so easily disproven by their own evidence? Does no one on her team know what a split lip and broken nose look like? No amount of ice or makeup can hide the swelling from a broken nose, and you do not recover from a lip injury that quickly (and without any medical treatment??!!)

 

[Siggy-P]

Like… why was I ever going to bat with these people. Sure, you could argue that the worst progressives are going to be better than the average conservative, but, like… that's not what i'm seeing and hearing.

Click to shrink...

Well if you didn't go to bat for them you got jumped. Nuance brands you a "fake leftist".

Thus not questioning them becomes second nature. Instinctual. And eventually with time the primary thing you stand for because like Moby Dick you've already come so far, can't about turn otherwise you look weak.

 

[Era of not Yakuza]

Rottenborn said that lying about the injuries and going to parties in the next day would be so dumb that she obviously didn't do that.

 

[M.Bluth]

I'm still baffled by Heard's strategy going into this trial. What was the point of creating lies so easily disproven by their own evidence? Does no one on her team know what a split lip and broken nose look like? No amount of ice or makeup can hide the swelling from a broken nose, and you do not recover from a lip injury that quickly (and without any medical treatment??!!)

Click to shrink...

Probably banked on defamation cases being hard to win for plaintiffs and strongly believed the argument "all you need is to suspect that he abused her once, whether verbally, physically, or sexually to find in her favor" then spent the rest of their time fantasizing how good it'll be for their careers to say they beat Johnny Depp's very expensive fancy lawyers, even if the case was a total lock!

 

[Mancha]

LOL, Ben Chew, Camille Vasquez and Depp's legal team were playing Monopoly when they got the news that the jury reached a verdict. There is something about how the ways that Chew sometimes stutters that I sympathize with. He seems like a great attorney.

 

[Mancha]

 

[Mancha]

 

[Sam Bridges]

Still getting people on twitter saying Depp is an abuser, that UK court dictaminated the abuse was real, that this is super bad for women, and that anyone who says otherwise is antifeminist.
What do i tell these people.

Click to shrink...

You don't tell them anything, because they aren't listening. It's one thing to come to a different conclusion about this case than someone else; that's bound to happen, only Amber Heard and Johnny Depp know exactly what happened throughout their marriage.

But anyone who ever goes the route of saying "If you disagree with me, you are Bad Thing X", that person is not interested in a conversation, or even a debate. They are interested in letting you know that they are morally and intellectually superior to you, and you'll never convince them to listen to you if you're not agreeing with them.

It's not worth the time.

 

[A.M.R]

Chew is such a genuine soul. 🥲
There's no deception in his tone or what he says, only facts!

 

[Dreams-Visions]

cool interviews. Both of Depp's attorneys were exceptional. I imagine they won't be making a habit of taking on celebrity cases, but they put on a performance for the ages.

 

[MrCibb]

Watching Elaine vs Ben is such a stark difference in how they conduct themselves in these interviews and how they speak about the trial, and same with Camille. Very professional and respectful. Elaine was dreadful during the trial too tbf, I'm surprised she's even out there talking. When she rambled on and on during the closing remarks and left Rottenborn with like a few minutes to wrap it all up, that was so bad..

 

[Shemhazai]

Watching Elaine vs Ben is such a stark difference in how they conduct themselves in these interviews and how they speak about the trial, and same with Camille. Very professional and respectful. Elaine was dreadful during the trial too tbf, I'm surprised she's even out there talking. When she rambled on and on during the closing remarks and left Rottenborn with like a few minutes to wrap it all up, that was so bad..

Click to shrink...

Er, it's more the reverse. Rottenborn took over an hour to do his little "AMERICA, FREEDOM, OORAH, IF HE LOOKED AT HER FUNNY THEN YOU MUST FIND FOR AMBER" routine, leaving Elaine with barely any time to run through the closing for the counter claim.

 

[blacklotus]

I don't want to be dismissive of anything, because It's really not the case: the worth of the Depp's Lawyers is evident.
But at the same time the torrent of lies that were known and the ones that kept coming kinda made everything easier, no?

 

[Mivey]

I don't want to be dismissive of anything, because It's really not the case: the worth of the Depp's Lawyers is evident.
But at the same time the torrent of lies that were known and the ones that kept coming kinda made everything easier, no?

Click to shrink...

If anything, I think it just shows how unique this case is. Despite having some amazing lawyers, it really came down to the fact that a person's own words, and people testifying from "her" side all consistently contradicted their own statements. It's so hard to prove defamation against a public figure, that you need basically a sea of lies that you can prove to be lies beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Mancha]

I don't want to be dismissive of anything, because It's really not the case: the worth of the Depp's Lawyers is evident.
But at the same time the torrent of lies that were known and the ones that kept coming kinda made everything easier, no?

Click to shrink...

My understanding is that it wasn't about the quality of lawyers, but strategy. There was only so much that the best lawyers that money could possibly pay that would have a different verdict. Amber Heard would come out believable as a victim of verbal abuse, as a victim that admitted that she was in a toxic relationship and that she did more than saying "awful things" to Depp. She admitted on tape that she punched / hit / haymaker him in several circumstances, mocks him from "running from the solution" even if it gets physical and flat out says to him that she can't promise that it won't get physical. If she actually stopped trying to paint herself as the perfect victim, the one that was devastated by the monster Johnny Depp and instead just admitted to her flaws like him did, I think that the jury would be a lot more sympathetic. Problem was that she started a snowball that she couldn't stop, she couldn't backtrack, or she would indeed get caught committing perjury. None of this would have happened if she didn't kept going. I firmly believe that if after their divorce settlement she had just move on, this lawsuit was never going to happen. Depp would let her have the narrative. But she didn't stop, and here we are.

My point is, even if she had the best attorneys in the world, the facts and her own words worked against her. Even if her lawyers could advice her to tone down her allegations, I'm not sure if she could get away with it with the amount of things she had already claimed either in the UK trial or through her TRO and divorce settlement. She was stuck with her original narrative, and since dialing back wasn't an option, she could have at least not have doubled down as much as she did, but she couldn't escape from her own previous allegations, her own audios and the evidence that was against her.

 

[Idde]

I don't want to be dismissive of anything, because It's really not the case: the worth of the Depp's Lawyers is evident.
But at the same time the torrent of lies that were known and the ones that kept coming kinda made everything easier, no?

Click to shrink...

It was certainly a lot easier to be Depp's lawyer in this trial than to be Heard's.

 

[El Bombastico]

I don't want to be dismissive of anything, because It's really not the case: the worth of the Depp's Lawyers is evident.
But at the same time the torrent of lies that were known and the ones that kept coming kinda made everything easier, no?

Click to shrink...

Heard's lawyers were no slouches either.

But even Johnny fucking Cochran could have only done so much when Heard is not only a pathological liar, but there is tons of objective evidence catching her lying.

 

[Era of not Yakuza]

I have seen lawyers defending Amber's team saying that some decisions are obviously a choice made by the client there is little that can be done in that situation.

 

[Nickle]

God it's so disappointing reading through social media and seeing all the "they both were abusive" posts, especially from places that I browse often. I don't mind the pro-Amber crowd as much because they are obviously just delusional idiots that I can ignore, but the "both sides" people are fucking everywhere.

 

[M.Bluth]

LOL, Ben Chew, Camille Vasquez and Depp's legal team were playing Monopoly when they got the news that the jury reached a verdict. There is something about how the ways that Chew sometimes stutters that I sympathize with. He seems like a great attorney.

Click to shrink...

Good interview... Though it's really annoying they didn't just post one longer video lol
This specific segment is useful. Really sums it up imo, will definitely use to reply to people still confused how come she lost.

Er, it's more the reverse. Rottenborn took over an hour to do his little "AMERICA, FREEDOM, OORAH, IF HE LOOKED AT HER FUNNY THEN YOU MUST FIND FOR AMBER" routine, leaving Elaine with barely any time to run through the closing for the counter claim.

Click to shrink...

I disagree.
Obviously their whole "protect the 1st amendment" is cringe for people like us. But his closing was coherent, clear, and that 'Murica bullshit could sway some people.

Bredehoft was all over the place. She was literally just rambling and misstating testimonies left and right. By the time she was done everyone was just confused and afraid and wants it to stop.

I think Rottenborn definitely grossed some jurors out with his "if you think he abused her once, that's all it takes, just once, then you must find for Amber", but he still actually communicated his side to the jury.
I have no idea what Elaine was trying to do up there with her closing.

I have seen lawyers defending Amber's team saying that some decisions are obviously a choice made by the client there is little that can be done in that situation.

Click to shrink...

Totally. Her copious notetaking and passing post-it notes back and forth towards the end of the trial showed how much she was trying to control her team's strategy.
And it fits everything else we know about her. She always thinks she knows better. And it must be extremely hard representing a client like that.

You add the overexaggeration and blatant gaslighting... It's the recipe for losing a case you could have won because the law favors you right out of the gate.

 

[Shemhazai]

Good interview... Though it's really annoying they didn't just post one longer video lol
This specific segment is useful. Really sums it up imo, will definitely use to reply to people still confused how come she lost.


I disagree.
Obviously their whole "protect the 1st amendment" is cringe for people like us. But his closing was coherent, clear, and that 'Murica bullshit could sway some people.

Bredehoft was all over the place. She was literally just rambling and misstating testimonies left and right. By the time she was done everyone was just confused and afraid and wants it to stop.

I think Rottenborn definitely grossed some jurors out with his "if you think he abused her once, that's all it takes, just once, then you must find for Amber", but he still actually communicated his side to the jury.
I have no idea what Elaine was trying to do up there with her closing.

Click to shrink...

The problem is that Rottenborn used up the majority of their closing statements on that whole spiel. He didn't need to use 70 minutes on what was basically empty rhetoric. Elaine had 40 minutes to get through what was probably an hour's worth of closing statements, I'm not surprised she ended up rambling.

 

[Hecht]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/constructive-community-discussion.270630/post-87993582

If y'all have any questions about posting in here, refer to this thread.

Also, if you are posting in here without any context of the previous posts in the thread, well...maybe read this.

Also this extends to other threads like the Giant Bomb thread, where people cannot seem to help themselves in bleeding the same arguements over there.

 

[SilentPanda]

A Lawyer and Journalist Are Auctioning Off Johnny Depp Trial Wristbands, Notebook to Raise Money for Children's Hospital of Los Angeles

A Kentucky lawyer and a journalist who attended the trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are auctioning off their wristbands and a notebook on eBay to raise money for the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles (CHLA). The pair's decision to set up the auction came after trial testimony revealed Heard failed to fulfill her public pledge to donate half of her $7 million divorce settlement to the hospital.

Click to shrink...

Goldbronn said she contacted Heard's publicist and White in June 2019 to see whether Heard intended to fulfill the pledge. Goldbronn said she never received a response from Heard's publicist. Heard has maintained she couldn't fulfill the pledge to CHLA or the ACLU because Depp sued her. However, Depp's lawyers have pointed out that Heard had the entire divorce settlement—free of tax liability —well before the suit was filed. Heard's team says she intends to fulfill the pledge.

Click to shrink...

"While others have failed to keep their promises, we are here for you. We stand by you and we support you. It is our deepest hope that our proceeds from the memorabilia auction from the Depp v. Heard trial will bring assistance and sustenance to all in need. We stand with CHLA," said Vanessa Blair, a news producer who covered the case and organized the auction.

Click to shrink...

A Lawyer and Journalist Are Auctioning Off Johnny Depp Trial Wristbands, Notebook to Raise Money for Children's Hospital of Los Angeles

A Kentucky lawyer and a journalist who attended the trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are auctioning off their wristbands and a notebook on eBay to raise money for the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.

lawandcrime.com

 

[Mancha]

 

[DinkyDev]

Johnny Depp’s Lawyer Camille Vasquez to Appear in ‘Johnny vs. Amber’ Doc Series Sequel for Discovery+

Both Vasquez and fellow Depp legal team member Benjamin G. Chew will give extensive interviews in the two-part series.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[GarbColle]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/constructive-community-discussion.270630/post-87993582

If y'all have any questions about posting in here, refer to this thread.

Also, if you are posting in here without any context of the previous posts in the thread, well...maybe read this.

Also this extends to other threads like the Giant Bomb thread, where people cannot seem to help themselves in bleeding the same arguements over there.

Click to shrink...

I would gladly read it, if I could:

Oops! We ran into some problems.

You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.

Click to shrink...

Is all I see when I try to open that thread.

Maybe you could move that information to a separate (announcement?) thread that is visible for everyone? It's a bit hard to follow rules/suggestions you aren't allowed to read.

 

[Firmus_Anguis]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/constructive-community-discussion.270630/post-87993582

If y'all have any questions about posting in here, refer to this thread.

Also, if you are posting in here without any context of the previous posts in the thread, well...maybe read this.

Also this extends to other threads like the Giant Bomb thread, where people cannot seem to help themselves in bleeding the same arguements over there.

Click to shrink...

How am I to understand this, Hecht?

So if someone says stuff that's blatently false and is spreading misinformation, I don't get to call those people out anymore? Because they don't like the verdict?

When has this ever been the precedent around here?

Why is acknowledging Johnny Depp as a victim (which he is) so damn hard?

I genuinely hope I've misunderstood you.

 

[Hecht]

How am I to understand this, Hecht?

So if someone says stuff that's blatently false and is spreading misinformation, I don't get to call those people out anymore? Because they don't like the verdict?

When has this ever been the precedent around here?

Why is acknowledging Johnny Depp as a victim (which he is) so damn hard?

I genuinely hope I've misunderstood you.

Click to shrink...

It's more like - just don't be an asshole. If there's misinfo and people are trying to spread FUD or being dismissive, report them. Just trying to keep the thread more, uh, in line, rather than just people dogpiling and derailing things to the point where everyone is screaming at each other instead of just talking

 

[Firmus_Anguis]

It's more like - just don't be an asshole. If there's misinfo and people are trying to spread FUD or being dismissive, report them. Just trying to keep the thread more, uh, in line, rather than just people dogpiling and derailing things to the point where everyone is screaming at each other instead of just talking

Click to shrink...

I can roll with that.

We had multiple derails on the other thread (and somewhat this one), which rightfully got those people banned. People react to misinformation lies - I've been guilty of it too. It gets incredibly tiresome to have to repeatedly refute said lies. The most damaging part is that a bystander (who hasn't seen anything) might actually start believing/spreading them.

No one's demanding that people watch the trial. I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather not have an opinion about something I know fuck-all about or worse, spread misinformation based on a trial I haven't even watched.

I get the message though - Don't respond, simply report.

 

[MathChief]

Being banned for a week for calling out some both-sider in this thread as Trump supporter...well, lesson learned...finally back.

After researching the mainstream media coverage of the verdict, I came to the conclusion that (1) many reporters or influencers do not even know in this case JD is the victim of IPV in this relationship, and it is actually JD who came forward to face his abusers, (2) this is a defamation case, not a DV case.

Many of them just got the impression that this case was "AH came publicly about JD abusing her, and got suppressed by the court, the jury, the power of a white man, and the social media". Then, these people started to add their own "logical" reasonings to fill in the gap, instead of inferring based on evidence (the trial itself).


Some of them even are puzzling why most IPV/DV victims are support JD.

For example:

Is Amber Heard’s Trial The End Of Believing Women? | Zerlina.

New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg says Amber Heard is the perfect object of Me Too backlash. » Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeToms...

www.youtube.com

A more astonishing take (time-stamped):

The Curious Case Of Depp V. Heard | NBC News NOW Special

Highlights from the real-life court drama of the $50M defamation suit lodged by Johnny Depp against former spouse Amber Heard explained.» Subscribe to NBC Ne...

youtu.be

"DV survivors are making fun of AH, because people do not want to deal with their own feelings...they are gonna afraid now than ever to speak".

 

[I_love_potatoes]

Turns out, even though Amber Heard lost, there's a version of Aquaman 2 that went into test screening with AH having 20-25 mins of airtime which I believe is double (or more) than what she previously had.

 

[Akira86]

I don't think it's insignificant that there are actual public relations\media relations firms involved now, and that those people are in business of inspiring new articles and opinion pieces. And no doubt countless youtube and twitter posts from the medium influencer 'experts'.

And also that media continues to play by different rules, in that they still only need that allowable possibility of believability of Depp as the abuser, to allow them to have any takeaway or opinion with shielding. Just like the Sun, basically.

 

[SilentPanda]

He Deserves a Jury': Roy Moore's Lawyer Compares Client to Johnny Depp in Bid to Revive Lawsuit Over Sacha Baron Cohen's 'Pedophile Detector' Sketch

Former Alabama Judge Roy Moore's attorney compared his client to Johnny Depp in a federal appeals court on Friday, in a bid to revive his $95 million defamation suit against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen over a sketch lampooning the would-be politician as a pedophile.

Click to shrink...

Moore has been trying to overturn a federal judge's ruling from last July dismissing his suit, after finding Cohen's sketch was "clearly a joke."

U.S. Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler, a Bill Clinton appointee, opined that the sketch "wasn't very funny."

Click to shrink...

U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan, a Donald Trump appointee, found that any reasonable viewer would have known it was a comedy program, rather than news.

Moore signed a waiver before the taping began.

Judge Cronan found that waiver enforceable and that the First Amendment protected Cohen's satire. He dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning that Moore could not file it again.

Click to shrink...

U.S. Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch, a Barack Obama appointee, targeted his initial questions on the waiver. Klayman argued that any ambiguity in the waiver should be resolved in his client's favor before the trial.

Klayman argued that Judge Cronan violated his own statement of the applicable standard when Judge Lynch interrupted him.

"No, he didn't," Lynch replied, adding that Cronan found that Moore failed to meet the permissive standard.

"Don't tell me that Judge Cronan went back on something that he promised you," Lynch added.

Click to shrink...

'He Deserves a Jury': Roy Moore's Lawyer Compares Client to Johnny Depp in Bid to Revive Lawsuit Over Sacha Baron Cohen's 'Pedophile Detector' Sketch

Former Alabama Judge Roy Moore's attorney compared his client to Johnny Depp in a federal appeals court, in a bid to revive his $95 million defamation suit against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen.

lawandcrime.com

 

[M.Bluth]

Found myself watching a bunch of the leaked audios/photos and analysis of Heard's and friends' testimonies for the TRO/divorce proceedings.

I'm not gonna link to them, since I'm not sure about the accounts posting them, but considering that we've ended up hearing those clips and seeing the photos during the trial I'd say it's unnecessary to do so... I just found it astonishing how much of this stuff was out there, sometimes for over 3 years now, if not longer.

No wonder the online pro-Depp crowd was so large, this has been simmering and gaining traction for a long while, and so many of us had no idea about it.

He Deserves a Jury': Roy Moore's Lawyer Compares Client to Johnny Depp in Bid to Revive Lawsuit Over Sacha Baron Cohen's 'Pedophile Detector' Sketch

'He Deserves a Jury': Roy Moore's Lawyer Compares Client to Johnny Depp in Bid to Revive Lawsuit Over Sacha Baron Cohen's 'Pedophile Detector' Sketch

Former Alabama Judge Roy Moore's attorney compared his client to Johnny Depp in a federal appeals court, in a bid to revive his $95 million defamation suit against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen.

lawandcrime.com

Click to shrink...

lol, lots of bad lawyers are gonna pull this shit for their clients now, even if the cases aren't remotely similar.
Looking forward to watching him lose badly.

 

[Crayon]

I've got a mind to sue a few of you guys for defamation.