Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Johnny Depp Libel Case

Agent Sparrow said:
That’s not how I took Cloo ‘s post. I thought it was more critiquing both the ideas of false allegations being a common occurrence (a frequent claim), and being used as a way of furthering a career.

And given the crappy way women who try and secure convictions for rape and DV are treated by the police, the courts and if it’s high profile enough, the media; every case is both irrelevant and highly relevant to one another. These cases aren’t brought forward in a vacuum and to go back to my first point, whatever the precise details of this case Heard was doubly, unofficially tried within this context.
.
Click to expand...
Women do have agency though, and we don't know the extent of unreported male DV victims.
 
cesare said:
Women do have agency though, and we don't know the extent of unreported male DV victims.
Click to expand...
We don’t and there are some horrible societal views around that too. But was Depp subject to any of those stereotypes in the media circus surrounding the case? That’s not a combative challenge btw - I missed any denigration of Depp’s character based on being the recipient of DV but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t any.
 
Agent Sparrow said:
We don’t and there are some horrible societal views around that too. But was Depp subject to any of those stereotypes in the media circus surrounding the case? That’s not a combative challenge btw - I missed any denigration of Depp’s character based on being the recipient of DV but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t any.
Click to expand...
Before this trial, yes I do think he was subject to those stereotypes in the legacy and social media circus. He was vilified and lost his film contracts. I don't agree with how he chose to clear his name, but the guilty until proved innocent was one of the motivations he talked about.

But I don't think he was vilified as much as AH is now being and what she has gone through in the past 6weeks or so. What's happened to AH in the social media (not necessarily the legacy media which seems less vitriolic) is appalling.

Edit to add: I don't think he suffered stereotypical abuse as a male DV victim before this trial.
 
cesare said:
David Clapson

It's true that the jury found against Adam Waldman as Depp's agent. They literally believed the four police officers called to the scene that found AH wasn't injured as alleged and the premises not roughed up, so not accepting what AW alleged happened later. Fair enough.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the jury had no problem with JD's agent (Waldman) calling the AH story a "hoax". (Isn't that what all American attorneys do?)

The element the jury agreed as defamatory was the accusation by Adam Waldman (Depp's attorney) that AH and / or friends fabricated evidence, then called the police a second time. The suggestion was they staged evidence that a ruckus had occurred. Spilled wine, etc. The jury found this defamatory. With no specific evidence that this was true, other than circumstantial inference, it was the correct conclusion by the jury.

Frankly, I'm impressed the jury managed to sift through the logical conundra to reach this conclusion.
 
Limejuice said:
Interestingly, the jury had no problem with JD's agent (Waldman) calling the AH story a "hoax". (Isn't that what all American attorneys do?)

The element the jury agreed as defamatory was the accusation by Adam Waldman (Depp's attorney) that AH and / or friends fabricated evidence, then called the police a second time. The suggestion was they staged evidence that a ruckus had occurred. Spilled wine, etc. The jury found this defamatory. With no specific evidence that this was true, other than circumstantial inference, it was the correct conclusion by the jury.

Frankly, I'm impressed the jury managed to sift through the logical conundra to reach this conclusion.
Click to expand...
Yes I'm still confused by it to an extent. There was no evidence of a second call to the police that I'm aware of: 2 cops attended the first call and said no evidence of injury/ruckus then a second set of cops turned up (but no evidence of second call) and said the same as the first set of cops.

Then there's evidence of ruckus after all of this and AW saying that AH and her friends made it all up. Like you I have no idea how the jury managed to navigate all of this but I'm fine with them finding in her favour. Another aspect I dislike about all of this is AW being Depp's agent, IE Depp never makes the allegations personally
 
Agent Sparrow said:
We don’t and there are some horrible societal views around that too. But was Depp subject to any of those stereotypes in the media circus surrounding the case? That’s not a combative challenge btw - I missed any denigration of Depp’s character based on being the recipient of DV but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t any.
Click to expand...
There are some stats available here from ONS.. don't ask me how it's calculated/estimated.

  • The Office for National Statistics figures show every year that one in the three victims of domestic abuse are male equating to 757,000 men (1.561m women).
  • One in 6-7 men and one in 4 women will be a victim of domestic abuse in their lifetime.
  • Of domestic abuse crimes recorded by the police, 26% were committed against men. This equates to c155,000 offences per year.
  • Only 4.4% of victims of domestic abuse being supporting by local domestic services are men according to SafeLives data. This highlights how few men are being supported for local domestic abuse services
  • Over the pandemic period, the charity saw an increase of calls to its helpline by one quarter and visits to its website by 75%.
  • 61% of the men who call the ManKind Initiative helpline have never spoken to anyone before about the abuse they are suffering and 64% would not have called if the helpline was not anonymous.
  • There are 39 organisations with 238 spaces in refuges or safe houses for men – with only 58 of those places are dedicated for men.
  • Half of male victims (49%) fail to tell anyone they are a victim of domestic abuse and are two and a half times less likely to tell anyone than female victims (19%).
  • 11% of male victims (7.2% women) have considered taking their life due to partner abuse. The charity has seen an increase in calls regarding suicide ideation over the pandemic period.
  • Over the past five years (April 2015 to March 20), on average 12 men per year had been killed by a partner or ex-partner (74 women per year).
Media -

https://www.mankind.org.uk/wp-conte...-Partner-Abuse-Final-Published-April-2021.pdf
 
On the why would anyone do it, well some people lie about having cancer don't they, despite the likelihood of being found out and despite the stigma. It's vanishingly rare but it does happen. I don't think that's necessarily what happened here (iirc depp admitted some of the stuff he did even) and it doesn't excuse the cesspit that social media became around this. Its pretty scary that a tweet saying that depp had the right to kill her got over 120,000 likes. Even if she did lie about everything and does end up face criminal charges for perjury etc on some of it (unlikely imo) the role of these ppl is fucking despicable
 
cesare said:
Another aspect I dislike about all of this is AW being Depp's agent, IE Depp never makes the allegations personally
Click to expand...
I think you've hit a rich seam of debate here.

AH never personally made any statements about JD (or domestic / sexual violence) as such.

The ACLU wrote the article. The ACLU lawyers finagled the story to avoid defamation. (Not well enough.) The Washington Post wrote the headline. I think the ACLU should have their lawyers' arses kicked for incompetence. And someone should ask Jeff Bezos's paper about liability. Just saying.

Also JD never uttered any of the statement that AH's suit complained of. It was his lawyer, allegedly acting as an agent. The court was denied the chance to open the lid on attorney/client privilege.

So both sets of defamation rely on inferred authorship.

While we can be a fans of drama and celeb-crisis, it's a legal construct that both defamed the other. And they probably did. So much crap; so much damage.

The only aspect worth a fuck is whether a party lost real money.

AH's argument was weak. JD's was better.

And I think the damages awarded reflect the jury's opinion on the matter.
 
D'wards said:
Cos Cloo asked what would motivate a false allegation and this was a case i could recall which was a proven false allegation
Click to expand...
I might be remembering wrongly but I'm pretty sure it wasn't proven false. Accepting several thousand pounds from a tabloid to say something certainly doesn't count as proof.
 
frogwoman said:
On the why would anyone do it, well some people lie about having cancer don't they, despite the likelihood of being found out and despite the stigma. It's vanishingly rare but it does happen. I don't think that's necessarily what happened here (iirc depp admitted some of the stuff he did even) and it doesn't excuse the cesspit that social media became around this. Its pretty scary that a tweet saying that depp had the right to kill her got over 120,000 likes. Even if she did lie about everything and does end up face criminal charges for perjury etc on some of it (unlikely imo) the role of these ppl is fucking despicable
Click to expand...
Abso-fucking-lutely. Honestly I don’t know the ins and outs of what happened in their relationship and I don’t think anyone on here can, no matter how closely they think they’ve followed the case. However, we can all see the takes on social media; the memes, the tweets, the “suggested” videos. To agree with a quote in that NYTimes article, I also don’t feel I followed the case but it followed me.
 
Limejuice said:
I think you've hit a rich seam of debate here.

AH never personally made any statements about JD (or domestic / sexual violence) as such.

The ACLU wrote the article. The ACLU lawyers finagled the story to avoid defamation. (Not well enough.) The Washington Post wrote the headline. I think the ACLU should have their lawyers' arses kicked for incompetence. And someone should ask Jeff Bezos's paper about liability. Just saying.

Also JD never uttered any of the statement that AH's suit complained of. It was his lawyer, allegedly acting as an agent. The court was denied the chance to open the lid on attorney/client privilege.

So both sets of defamation rely on inferred authorship.

While we can be a fans of drama and celeb-crisis, it's a legal construct that both defamed the other. And they probably did. So much crap; so much damage.

The only aspect worth a fuck is whether a party lost real money.

AH's argument was weak. JD's was better.

And I think the damages awarded reflect the jury's opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
The ACLU's part was reprehensible, fuck their part of AH's "donation".

I agree with so much of what you say on this.

I approach this from a DV pov, and the adverse impact of this abusive and selfish pair on those suffering in the real world with little money to help fight their cause.

But there's entertainment in it and money to be exploited, and the rich end up richer, and many of us quietly despair.
 
Dystopiary said:
I might be remembering wrongly but I'm pretty sure it wasn't proven false. Accepting several thousand pounds from a tabloid to say something certainly doesn't count as proof.
Click to expand...
You see I'm pretty sure it was. It was nearly 30 years ago though and there's scant info left on the Internet, apart from a report in the Independent stating the verdict and that the CPS got criticised for bringing such a thin case to trial.
Also anecdotally my aunty knew the "victim", and it was just accepted she made the whole thing up
 
Agent Sparrow said:
Abso-fucking-lutely. Honestly I don’t know the ins and outs of what happened in their relationship and I don’t think anyone on here can, no matter how closely they think they’ve followed the case. However, we can all see the takes on social media; the memes, the tweets, the “suggested” videos. To agree with a quote in that NYTimes article, I also don’t feel I followed the case but it followed me.
Click to expand...
I kept on trying to avoid that stuff but I couldn't avoid seeing it all the same especially on fb and twitter, it was even worse on a desktop with the 'recommended videos' and ads. I do listen to true crime podcasts but the ones I like haven't discussed it and certainly not in a sensationalised way. It was such a high profile case on such a sensitive topic and I don't buy that it was all just Depp's lawyers and their PR firms creating this stuff. Loads of people were cashing in on it, not just Depp supporters although they were the most visible and often the nastiest.
 
Hollis said:
I think Jeff Beck's wife took him to the wildlife sanctuary inbetween gigs.. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
Jeff Beck is well into animal rights, I believe.

Edit: Google says he is patron of a rescue centre in Kent, and this photo was taken at a rescue centre in Kent. Join the dots, and you will see that Jeff Beck and his wife must have installed some sort of remote control technology in Johnny Depp and made him beat up Amber Heard, all with this PR objective in mind.
 
Last edited:
cesare said:
Aye, those lovely and strong creatures aren't into hugs and being turned into a circus.
Click to expand...
I absolutely hate the trend of doing that with animals, iirc I might have had that conversation with badgers too.

Theres a badger in my road, I'd hate for Johnny Depp or Amber Heard for that matter to come and pick it up for a photo opportunity
 
frogwoman said:
I absolutely hate the trend of doing that with animals, iirc I might have had that conversation with badgers too.

Theres a badger in my road, I'd hate for Johnny Depp or Amber Heard for that matter to come and pick it up for a photo opportunity
Click to expand...
If I were a woodland creature, I would invite
those two to have a long slow look at their behaviour before trying to collude with or against their woodland friends
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PR1Berske
Johnny Mercer's witness statement
Replies
15
Views
783
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
PTK
Colonel B, the ABC case, and The Leveller
Replies
6
Views
385
The39thStep
The39thStep
editor
Basic libel law in the UK: please read before posting your latest witty comment about the ongoing BBC presenter 'scandal'
Replies
3
Views
713
StoneRoad
StoneRoad
l'Otters
Joint Enterprise case in Manchester - Life sentences for text messages?
Replies
16
Views
942
hitmouse
hitmouse
hitmouse
Glouchestershire/Herefordshire website case
Replies
27
Views
2K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Back
Top Bottom