Depp V Heard (Defamation lawsuit)

Gern Blansten · May 2022

Heard is believable. I am interested to see Depp's attorney question her.

Spiritual_Chaos · May 2022

Gern Blansten said:

Heard is believable. I am interested to see Depp's attorney question her.

Seems she has the entire internet against her, including the entire "Laywers on youtube community".

But I find it hard to believe someone would make up that crazy of a story. As in, take it to that extreme. And also tell stories involving other people like his security staff, an airplane full of people etc. If one would lie to lie, wouldn't one keep the lies in settings where it would have been just the two of them?

At the same time, why would Depp sue her if "guilty", knowing all of this would be told in front of the world? A Hail Mary to get the court of public opinion on his side again (Which he seems to be winning)?

mickeyrat · May 2022

Apparently this thread wants this again. It will not go away from my post a comment box

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5021252/uploads/editor/m1/vg2k93gq32fp.jpg

Gern Blansten · May 2022

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Gern Blansten said:

Heard is believable. I am interested to see Depp's attorney question her.

Seems she has the entire internet against her, including the entire "Laywers on youtube community".

But I find it hard to believe someone would make up that crazy of a story. As in, take it to that extreme. And also tell stories involving other people like his security staff, an airplane full of people etc. If one would lie to lie, wouldn't one keep the lies in settings where it would have been just the two of them?

At the same time, why would Depp sue her if "guilty", knowing all of this would be told in front of the world? A Hail Mary to get the court of public opinion on his side again (Which he seems to be winning)?

Yeah that is why I am really interested in hearing Depp's attorney question her.

I always thought that her secret video of him in the kitchen slamming doors was interesting in that he did not physically threaten her at all and she did not appear afraid. It would seem like a situation where she would be begging him to "please settle down" knowing that she was going to get punched if he kept going.

Spiritual_Chaos · May 2022

Gern Blansten said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Gern Blansten said:

Heard is believable. I am interested to see Depp's attorney question her.

Seems she has the entire internet against her, including the entire "Laywers on youtube community".

But I find it hard to believe someone would make up that crazy of a story. As in, take it to that extreme. And also tell stories involving other people like his security staff, an airplane full of people etc. If one would lie to lie, wouldn't one keep the lies in settings where it would have been just the two of them?

At the same time, why would Depp sue her if "guilty", knowing all of this would be told in front of the world? A Hail Mary to get the court of public opinion on his side again (Which he seems to be winning)?

Yeah that is why I am really interested in hearing Depp's attorney question her.

I always thought that her secret video of him in the kitchen slamming doors was interesting in that he did not physically threaten her at all and she did not appear afraid. It would seem like a situation where she would be begging him to "please settle down" knowing that she was going to get punched if he kept going.

Maybe it's me growing up three brothers, but I don't see anything out of the ordinary with Depp in that kitchen. He kicks some cabinets and throws some stuff when angry? Lucky people have not seen my and my brothers play GoldenEye 64...

Also, that video is owned by TMZ. And who can sell the video rights to that video to TMZ other then the one who shot the video (?).

HughFreakingDillon · May 2022

that nothing else matters clip is brilliant.

PJPOWER · May 2022

Man, the trial analysts are ripping Heard apart for her “performance” on the stand. The cross exam will be…interesting.

Spiritual_Chaos · May 2022

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

mickeyrat · May 2022

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

Spiritual_Chaos · May 2022

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

dankind · May 2022

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

I am a US citizen, and I agree.

I will never serve on a jury.

And it’s not because I’m too lazy or too busy or too important; it’s because I don’t have any faith in the way our justice system is structured.

lastexitlondon · May 2022

When you look at it . Its a little odd to do all that then let just some ordinary people decide

F Me In The Brain · May 2022

Most strange is that we allow assholes in movies with the highest priced lawyers to argue their cases, essentially in public.
Fuck this guy. I hope he pays.

Also, civil trials have different rules than criminal ones. Different levels / burdens of proof as well as many other differences.

I hate (wish there was a stronger word) that people pay so much attention to this shit when the world is burning all around us in so many ways.

Poncier · May 2022

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

I am a US citizen, and I agree.

I will never serve on a jury.

And it’s not because I’m too lazy or too busy or too important; it’s because I don’t have any faith in the way our justice system is structured.

I've always thought we should have a system of paid, professional jurors. Folks who are trained in the way the court system and trials work, so they have a solid understanding of evidence, reasonable doubt etc. I've been empaneled on a jury twice. Hated it both times.

dankind · May 2022

Poncier said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

I am a US citizen, and I agree.

I will never serve on a jury.

And it’s not because I’m too lazy or too busy or too important; it’s because I don’t have any faith in the way our justice system is structured.

I've always thought we should have a system of paid, professional jurors. Folks who are trained in the way the court system and trials work, so they have a solid understanding of evidence, reasonable doubt etc. I've been empaneled on a jury twice. Hated it both times.

I’ve always just told the person behind the counter exactly how I feel about the US justice system and been sent home.

I’m not lying to get out of it; I telling my truth to get out of it.

oftenreading · May 2022

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

Unfortunately, in practice they absolutely do interpret the law due to their imperfect understanding of those instructions from the judge as well as misunderstanding of the reliability of different types of evidence. Jury decisions can be baffling.

cblock4life · May 2022

Poncier said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

I am a US citizen, and I agree.

I will never serve on a jury.

And it’s not because I’m too lazy or too busy or too important; it’s because I don’t have any faith in the way our justice system is structured.

I've always thought we should have a system of paid, professional jurors. Folks who are trained in the way the court system and trials work, so they have a solid understanding of evidence, reasonable doubt etc. I've been empaneled on a jury twice. Hated it both times.

I loved jury duty! I would definitely attempt to be a paid professional juror if that job existed.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2022

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

sure they do. they ask questions about the law to the judge all the time while in deliberations. they have to decide if someone is guilty based on the law of the land. their entire job is interpreting the law and if the person broke it or not. (at least in criminal trials)

HughFreakingDillon · May 2022

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

but it's the only system we have. honestly, you could have a jury made up of all legal experts and they'd still get it wrong and/or disagree all the time. it's law interpretation AND deciding if someone broke it or not based on testimony. it's half legal expert and half living lie detector test.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2022

i personally don't give two shits (or even one) about this trial. to me this is just entertainment. the people who seem to be taking this as seriously as the OJ trial or any other legitimate criminal trial, well, maybe sign out or something.

Depp V Heard (Defamation lawsuit)

Comments

Categories