Johnny Depp Libel Case

[spring-peeper]

Not always that simple though?

How so?

The only social media I use is this place and facebook.

 

[Sue]

This was just a passive impression I picked up, but from the things Depp’s exes had said it seemed like he was reacting under some duress. But then I don’t even know the detail aside from that it didn’t seem like he was a naturally abusive person.

How does a 'naturally abusive person' seem and what are you basing this seeming on?

And what does it have to do with anything anyway?

 

[frogwoman]

I mean not using social media won't make any difference as to whether someone makes memes about the trial? (Possibly influencing the outcome)

How so?

The only social media I use is this place and facebook.

 

[8ball]

How does a 'naturally abusive person' seem and what are you basing this seeming on?

And what does it have to do with anything anyway?

I’m not speaking from a position of knowledge of the case, but it’s not the normal pattern for a man to become violent in his 40’s or 50’s.

Even men who were violent in earlier decades often age out of it. It’s one of those arguments about rehabilitation - did the programmes matter or was it just getting older.

I did read somewhere that Heard had a previous pattern of violence to partners, though, or at least one partner.

 

[cesare]

On what basis does anyone think that the jurors were allowed to follow the progress of the trial via social media? The control and behaviour of the court seemed quite strict to me.

 

[frogwoman]

I thought he was accused of assaulting someone on a film set?

 

[cesare]

I thought he was accused of assaulting someone on a film set?

Ive watched much of the trial but don't remember that. Could have missed it though.

 

[frogwoman]

Johnny Depp Denies Punching Crew Member But Argues Injuries Are Due to 'Self-Defense'

A location manager said in July that Depp punched him twice on set of "City of Lies"

www.thewrap.com

 

[Thora]

On what basis does anyone think that the jurors were allowed to follow the progress of the trial via social media? The control and behaviour of the court seemed quite strict to me.

Were they prevented from access to media/social media in any way? I hadn't read that.

 

[8ball]

On what basis does anyone think that the jurors were allowed to follow the progress of the trial via social media? The control and behaviour of the court seemed quite strict to me.

Must be a bloody nightmare making sure the rules are followed these days.

 

[spring-peeper]

I mean not using social media won't make any difference as to whether someone makes memes about the trial? (Possibly influencing the outcome)

That would be an issue if the proceedings were as public as the Depp case was.

Most of the trials go on without the circus media.

 

[frogwoman]

On what basis does anyone think that the jurors were allowed to follow the progress of the trial via social media? The control and behaviour of the court seemed quite strict to me.

I didn't watch it but the fact that they weren't sequestered, ie went home each day and were allowed to keep their phones? They were instructed not to read about it online TBF and I don't know what the punishment would be if they had been found out. But given the obsessive news coverage of the story it would be hard NOT to see stuff about it pushed into your feed tbh. It would have been massively difficult to stop them or even enforce it tbh

 

[8ball]

I didn't watch it but the fact that they weren't sequestered, ie went home each day and were allowed to keep their phones? They were instructed not to read about it online TBF and I don't know what the punishment would be if they had been found out. But given the obsessive news coverage of the story it would be hard NOT to see stuff about it pushed into your feed tbh. It would have been massively difficult to stop them or even enforce it tbh

Yeah, that makes it impossible to really say that the internet feeding frenzy had no effect on things.

 

[cesare]

Were they prevented from access to media/social media in any way? I hadn't read that.

I think they were advised not to read about the case and restricted re phones. There was also the thing they do with alternate jurors plus unanimous person by person affirmative decision (rather than a spokesperson on behalf of all).

I think the court was very strict with witnesses eg one of Depp's witnesses was excused because she admitted listening to some of the previous testimony. Exit one of his witnesses.

 

[cesare]

Must be a bloody nightmare making sure the rules are followed these days.

Yes! Another thing that I'm interested in is how traditional news agencies are starting to be referred to as "legacy media".

 

[8ball]

Yes! Another thing that I'm interested in is how traditional news agencies are starting to be referred to as "legacy media".

The term has been in use since the late 90’s, I think. Followed on rapidly from the coining of the term “new media”.

 

[frogwoman]

I think they were advised not to read about the case and restricted re phones. There was also the thing they do with alternate jurors plus unanimous person by person affirmative decision (rather than a spokesperson on behalf of all).

I think the court was very strict with witnesses eg one of Depp's witnesses was excused because she admitted listening to some of the previous testimony. Exit one of his witnesses.

Here's an article about the juror selection process. Ive edited my previous post.

How many jurors there are in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial, and how they were chosen

 

[cesare]

The term has been in use since the late 90’s, I think. Followed on rapidly from the coining of the term “new media”.

Perhaps this is the first time its applicability has really sunk in with me

 

[8ball]

Perhaps this is the first time its applicability has really sunk in with me

I’m not 100% on this tbf but “new media” was def late 90’s. I’d guess they would have needed an antonym fairly quickly.

It gets a bit foggy because we didn’t have
really good search engines and archiving til a few years after.

 

[cesare]

I’m not 100% on this tbf but “new media” was def late 90’s. I’d guess they would have needed an antonym fairly quickly.

Yes I expect you're right. I accept I'm behind the times with how they're described.

 

[8ball]

Yes I expect you're right. I accept I'm behind the times with how they're described.

Just trying to rack my brains re: the evolution of internet search algorithms.
I was a fan of Webcrawler til about 2000. Google took over very rapidly about then.
There was an outage in 2001 for an afternoon and it was like the world had ended in the tech world. We’ve been massively dependent on the internet for a couple of decades now.

Then smartphones came and ramped it up a thousandfold.

Whoah, I feel old.

 

[cesare]

I didn't watch it but the fact that they weren't sequestered, ie went home each day and were allowed to keep their phones? They were instructed not to read about it online TBF and I don't know what the punishment would be if they had been found out. But given the obsessive news coverage of the story it would be hard NOT to see stuff about it pushed into your feed tbh. It would have been massively difficult to stop them or even enforce it tbh

I agree that the juror system is fallible but I'd still rather have it than not.
Someone more on it than me will be able to put me straight on this, but isn't the decision on jurors quite a big deal in terms of US litigation? More so than here?

 

[cesare]

Just trying to rack my brains re: the evolution of internet search algorithms.
I was a fan of Webcrawler til about 2000. Google took over very rapidly about then.
There was an outage in 2001 for an afternoon and it was like the world had ended in the tech world. We’ve been massively dependent on the internet for a couple of decades now.

Then smartphones came and ramped it up a thousandfold.

Whoah, I feel old.

That sends me back to the turn of the century when we didn't have the meltdown predicted so I think an afternoon outage in 2001 possibly went unnoticed

I also feel old

 

[Lurdan]

I listened to a podcast discussing the case saying that one of the ways Depps lawyers had made his case more believable is that they'd got her to admit lying about donating money to charity, saying that she had claimed to donate money to DV charities whereas in reality she had only 'pledged' to do so and not done it yet. If this is true it makes her look pretty bad and I wondered whether this is what happened? I don't really want to watch any of the videos and memes etc.

The barrister Matthew Scott has written a blog post suggesting this was a significant moment in her cross examination.

Depp v. Heard: Why did an American jury reach a different decision than the English judge? – BarristerBlogger

He quotes the transcript. The evidence she gave during the UK trial that, quote, "the entire amount of my divorce settlement was donated to charity" was put to her. She had just agreed that she hadn't actually done this yet.

It is very hard to see how Ms Heard’s assertion in her evidence in the English libel trial that she had donated the entire divorce settlement to charity was anything other than perjury. (...) I have never been anywhere near a celebrity libel trial, but I can confirm that any jury will always sit up and take notice if it can be shown that an important witness has lied on oath. It doesn’t happen very often, but when it does you know that the liar’s case is on the rocks and can only be refloated with the greatest of difficulty. Whatever view the Virginian jury may have had of Ms Heard’s case before it listened to that evidence, after this their confidence would have been shaken in everything else she said.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

.

 

[two sheds]

That bit of her US testimony was strange. She first said that Depp's case against her had prevented her from giving the money, then admitted that she'd had chance to give the money before then. The lawyer repeatedly asked her whether she'd given the money and she repeatedly said that she'd committed to giving it, and finally said giving it and committing to giving it were the same thing to her.

Her lawyers didn't do her any favours either - one objected to a lot of questions because of hearsay and at one point he asked one of the witnesses a question and as the witness was replying he interrupted saying "Objection, hearsay". The judge had to point out that he was the one asking the question.

 

[Athos]

The whole issue around donating her divorce settlement obliterated her credibility to the jury. His legal team exploited thr fact she'd painted herself into a corner, to the fullest. She had to stick to the line that pledging and donating are the same thing, despite it being ridiculous and making her look shifty; anything else and she'd have effectively admitted perjuring herself in the English proceedings.

 

[Graymalkin]

The whole issue around donating her divorce settlement obliterated her credibility to the jury. His legal team exploited thr fact she'd painted herself into a corner, to the fullest. She had to stick to the line that pledging and donating are the same thing, despite it being ridiculous and making her look shifty; anything else and she'd have effectively admitted perjuring herself in the English proceedings.

I have to wonder if it negates to some extent the judge vs jury question with this case. Surely a judge would have to, purely on procedural grounds, treat her as an unreliable witness as well.

 

[D'wards]

I’m not speaking from a position of knowledge of the case, but it’s not the normal pattern for a man to become violent in his 40’s or 50’s.

Even men who were violent in earlier decades often age out of it. It’s one of those arguments about rehabilitation - did the programmes matter or was it just getting older.

I did read somewhere that Heard had a previous pattern of violence to partners, though, or at least one partner.

You see this i have the problem with. This is a man who has lived a life, had several long term partners who all testified he'd never laid a finger on them.
A man who seemingly was beloved by his staff and friends and colleagues would suddenly turn and do the most horrendous things Heard accused him of out of the blue.
He was very good friends/ drug buddies with Heard's dad, who loved Johnny (now deceased)
After a question from bimble I gave it a bit of thought and I have always very much liked Depp, mainly from the fact that whenever in a city he gets into costume as Jack Sparrow and visits the local Cancer hospitals and spends the afternoon there chatting to the patients in character, children and adults.
Its an incredibly sweet thing to do and he doesn't have to do it.

Heard has been caught in a lie more than once- the divorce payment thing but also she claimed he cut the end of his finger with a phone iirc, he states she threw a vodka bottle at him.
The operating surgeon testified saying the laceration was caused by a sharp object like broken glass.

This really is a credibility thing.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

After a question from bimble I gave it a bit of thought and I have always very much liked Depp, mainly from the fact that whenever in a city he gets into costume as Jack Sparrow and visits the local Cancer hospitals and spends the afternoon there chatting to the patients in character, children and adults.
Its an incredibly sweet thing to do and he doesn't have to do it.

Not wishing to go down a side road, but Jimmy Savile did that sort of thing, you know.

I'm neutral on the whole thing btw, my only observation from the little attention I paid is that they both seem highly dysfunctional and probably both carry some 'fault'. I've witnessed those sort of relationships close-up IRL.