advertisement


Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard

Interesting and understandable response from gagged journalist Carole Cadwalladr who has been going through a slow-motion legal hell for an an absolute eternity now (Twitter).
 
rbrown said:
No the judge found in The Sun’s favour.
Click to expand...

Precisely. no Jury.

That "Royal Court of inJustice" is well known for its biased opinions rulings!

I speak from experience and trod the same path as Johnny and Amber, Michael Douglas / Catherine Zeta Jones leaving through the discreet side exit.

Magnificent Hall and Entrance though,

I gained some serious stares when I asked for directions once inside to find my way to the "Master of the Rolls court."

"Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Phillips,_Baron_Phillips_of_Worth_Matravers

Disgusting ruling, the lard and his two side kicks sitting up on high mis-understood and twisted caselaw deliberately ffs.

Case Law states, "The Correct Dates must be Entered,"
extracted straight out of the "Red Book" a reference "Law Bible" fyi.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/h...-your-tenancy/if-you-get-a-section-21-notice/

I do not see how you can argue that one away.

They did.

:mad:
 
rbrown said:
No the judge found in The Sun’s favour.
Click to expand...

Sorry, did that not 'favour' AH. The Sun accused Depp of knocking his wife about, Depp took the Sun to court for defamation and lost, because m'lud agreed that Depp had indeed beaten his ex. That result might well have encouraged other women to come forward.

Or have I got it all wrong? I admit to having taken no interest in either case.
 
eternumviti said:
Sorry, did that not 'favour' AH. The Sun accused Depp of knocking his wife about, Depp took the Sun to court for defamation and lost, because m'lud agreed that Depp had indeed beaten his ex. That result might well have encouraged other women to come forward.

Or have I got it all wrong? I admit to having taken no interest in either case.
Click to expand...

No, you are quite correct.

Mr Depp suffered serious damage to his standing and career, his work was cancelled after that single judge ruling in London.

Gave him good reason to defend his position in the USA when defamed again by Ms Heards op-ed published in the NYT...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/01/arts/depp-heard-trial.html
 
Tony L said:
<moderating>

For clarity I don’t care about anyone’s “my own relationship was bad, therefore…” straw man arguments. I don’t care about what perception people have about one side of this case vs. another. I don’t care about either party. They mean nothing to me. This attempts to be an intelligent website, if you want celebrity gossip or parasocial stanning please go to Hello magazine, the Daily Mail etc. pfm is not getting involved in this.

My only interest here at this stage is in assessing whatever damage these two people have caused to the whole process of domestic abuse being taken seriously. My fear is a lot of people will now feel the process is so impossible it is not even worth coming forward.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a case of how the legal system and legals can cause damage. A relentless strategy to turn Heard into the antagonist that worked almost flawlessly. It just left me uneasy. I hope it was the right decision.
 
Del monaco said:
I think it’s a case of how the legal system and legals can cause damage. A relentless strategy to turn Heard into the antagonist that worked almost flawlessly. It just left me uneasy. I hope it was the right decision.
Click to expand...
As has been noted, Heard’s legal team was more than a bit pants. Given she surely has the resources to appoint a top notch team, I wonder why that was. I find myself asking whether, perhaps, the raw materials they had to work with were a bit sketchy, so they threw up a lot of chaff. I don’t know, obvs, but it might explain the strategy and tactics, which don’t make sense if they had a strong case.

And then there’s that bizarre claim by Heard that she’d given the divorce settlement to charity, when she had not. That might have fatally undermined her credibility in the court’s eyes.
 
The legal systems involved here are deeply adversarial in their nature so they are bound to inflame an incendiary situation. Some form of investigation focused on finding the truth would work better.
 
‘This is a common defence tactic in sexual assault and domestic violence trials called "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender" or "Darvo", said Mr Stephens.

The strategy turns the tables on the alleged victim, shifting the conversation away from "did the accused commit abuse" to "is the alleged victim believable".

"They deny that they did anything, they deny they're the real perpetrator, and they attack the credibility of the individual calling out the abuse, and then reverse the roles of the victim and the offender," Mr Stephens said.’

From a recent BBC article.
 
Del monaco said:
‘This is a common defence tactic in sexual assault and domestic violence trials called "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender" or "Darvo", said Mr Stephens.

The strategy turns the tables on the alleged victim, shifting the conversation away from "did the accused commit abuse" to "is the alleged victim believable".

"They deny that they did anything, they deny they're the real perpetrator, and they attack the credibility of the individual calling out the abuse, and then reverse the roles of the victim and the offender," Mr Stephens said.’

From a recent BBC article.
Click to expand...
He-said, she-said. Kind of tough when there’s no official/independent documented evidence. Then we have the adversarial legal system so it becomes whoever wins the argument, not finding the truth…if in this case that would even be possible.
 
Del monaco said:
‘This is a common defence tactic in sexual assault and domestic violence trials called "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender" or "Darvo", said Mr Stephens.

The strategy turns the tables on the alleged victim, shifting the conversation away from "did the accused commit abuse" to "is the alleged victim believable".

"They deny that they did anything, they deny they're the real perpetrator, and they attack the credibility of the individual calling out the abuse, and then reverse the roles of the victim and the offender," Mr Stephens said.’

From a recent BBC article.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, one quite common MO for domestic abusers is a form of gaslighting where the victim is portrayed as the villain. It's not uncommon, AIUI, in cases where men are physically abused by women, and eventually resort to force to defend themselves. That force is portrayed as the violent abuse, committed by the man. Similarly, women can be gaslit into thinking they bring the abuse upon themselves by their behaviour. So perhaps it isn't always easy to decide which party is wearing the white hat.

In cases where there is no strong evidence one way or the other, the court will have to decide which side it finds more credible. So if one side can be shown to have said something which turns out not to be true (such as giving away a divorce settlement to charity) that's going to undermine their case, perhaps fatally. It doesn't really matter to a US court what a UK court found in a related event, any more than a higher court in the UK has to give credence to the findings of a lower one if it decides differently.
 
Am I being really dumb here or what, if it has already been deemed by a judge that he has assaulted her on numerous occasions how can it be defamation her saying that?
 
matt j said:
Am I being really dumb here or what, if it has already been deemed by a judge that he has assaulted her on numerous occasions how can it be defamation her saying that?
Click to expand...

Because the first finding was by a British judge in the UK high court. You can read that judgement, including all the evidence, here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html

The defamation case was in a US court where the jury found Heard's statements to be defamatory from which we can infer that they did not believe Heard's allegations.
 
I think a lot of these libel trials aren't really in the public interest, see the recent 'Wagatha Christie' case for instance. It seems money can buy you anything, including demeaning the role of courts in our justice system.
 
Last edited:
I saw Johnny Depp with Jeff Beck last night, he appeared happy enough. Especially when a lady of a certain age handed him a red envelope which I can only assume was a “congratulations on your divorce” card.

I suspect her contact details were in it as well should he wish to thank her......maybe later..... in his hotel room:D:D:D
 
Rizo said:
I think a lot of these libel trials aren't really in the public interest, see the recent 'Wagatha Christie' case for instance. It seems money can buy you anything, including demeaning the role of courts in our justice system.
Click to expand...
These cases are civil claims, such as you or I would have a right to bring if we had a grievance. Public interest just doesn’t come into it.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
These cases are civil claims, such as you or I would have a right to bring if we had a grievance. Public interest just doesn’t come into it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. People are reacting as though these are criminal cases with prosecutions brought by the state. They are two people having a tiff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top