Depp vs. Heard (Split)

[Turkish]

Looks like Herd was lying about Depp knocking Kate Moss around 

[egg]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

Looks like Herd was lying about Depp knocking Kate Moss around 

Heard says she heard a rumour I believe. Either way, in every case of this sort, not everyone can be telling the truth. 

[whelk]

Sorry to be all high brow but why the fuck does anyone care about these two people? 

[egg]

20 minutes ago, whelk said:

Sorry to be all high brow but why the fuck does anyone care about these two people? 

I don't. There's been a few people on here having a pop at Heard and at least one supporting Depp. The question for me is why the fuck anyone cares about him after the high court findings against him. I'm more bothered about those people than the 2 celebs.

[Mosin]

43 minutes ago, egg said:

I don't. There's been a few people on here having a pop at Heard and at least one supporting Depp. The question for me is why the fuck anyone cares about him after the high court findings against him. I'm more bothered about those people than the 2 celebs.

high court case was depp v the sun? and not depp v heard. Just thought you should know that.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Mosin said:

high court case was depp v the sun? and not depp v heard. Just thought you should know that.

It was depp Vs news group newspapers, but the findings in the case related to incidents between heard and depp. 

[Turkish]

56 minutes ago, egg said:

I don't. There's been a few people on here having a pop at Heard and at least one supporting Depp. The question for me is why the fuck anyone cares about him after the high court findings against him. I'm more bothered about those people than the 2 celebs.

Well one person who has a history of defending people found guilty of domestic violence 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Heard says she heard a rumour I believe. Either way, in every case of this sort, not everyone can be telling the truth. 

No idea don’t really care. They both sound a bits nuts and shouldn’t be together 

[Mosin]

1 minute ago, egg said:

It was depp Vs news group newspapers, but the findings in the case related to incidents between heard and depp. 

Not exactly, alot of the evidence at this court case wasnt heard in the high court battle, They refused it......  some of what heard said in the high court case has also been proven since to be a lie, which questions the rest of her statements that she and her sister gave.

Im not personally interested, But unlucky for me that my misses is very intrested in this...

[Mosin]

19 minutes ago, Turkish said:

No idea don’t really care. They both sound a bits nuts and shouldn’t be together 

This is my thoughts on it lol.

Looking forward to it ending so the other half stfu.....

[hypochondriac]

Amazing result for Depp. Total vindication for him. Hopefully means that male victims of abuse are believed more in future. 

[Baird of the land]

The usual spin happening on the guardian opinion when something doesn't play out the way they wanted. It's an orgy of misogny apparently. Very dull and predictable.

[hypochondriac]

19 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

The usual spin happening on the guardian opinion when something doesn't play out the way they wanted. It's an orgy of misogny apparently. Very dull and predictable.

Pathetic. Thank goodness this was televised so that everyone could see it all for themselves. 

[sadoldgit]

58 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

The usual spin happening on the guardian opinion when something doesn't play out the way they wanted. It's an orgy of misogny apparently. Very dull and predictable.

The article in The Guardian regarding the verdict is well balanced. The separate article that you are referring to was written by an American columnist and is not a “Guardian opinion”. It is her opinion.

I am  no supporter of Amber Heard but I have been following the trial on another social media site and the abuse aimed at her has been horrendous, and mostly from women too. 

Edited 1 June, 2022 by sadoldgit

[Lighthouse]

33 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

The usual spin happening on the guardian opinion when something doesn't play out the way they wanted. It's an orgy of misogny apparently. Very dull and predictable.

Stuff like that is usually written by some sap who is himself trying to get female attention but does it in a way which shows how incredibly in touch and aware of women’s issues he is.

Ironically the small handful of people I know who seem to care about this are all women and fervently in Camp Depp. 

[kyle04]

The jury was 5 men and 2 women, Depp won $15M, Heard got $2M in a counterclaim about something his lawyers said during the trial, I haven't been following this that closely as I find celebrities quite tedious really. So she lied then, made the whole thing up cos she was bored. That's that then.

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, kyle04 said:

The jury was 5 men and 2 women, Depp won $15M, Heard got $2M in a counterclaim about something his lawyers said during the trial, I haven't been following this that closely as I find celebrities quite tedious really. So she lied then, made the whole thing up cos she was bored. That's that then.

You can't just dismiss it so carelessly.  This and the Vardy case are some of the most high profile cases of our time.

[Matthew Le God]

Johnny Depp now plays the winner of Coleen Rooney vs Rebekah Vardy in the final

[Tank]

I hope it puts to bed the argument that wimmin never lie about being abused.

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, Tank said:

I hope it puts to bed the argument that wimmin never lie about being abused.

That should have happened when Ched Evans was stitched up. 

[Toadhall Saint]

11 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You can't just dismiss it so carelessly.  This and the Vardy case are some of the most high profile cases of our time.

Just like the trial of the great train robbers! 😂

[Baird of the land]

21 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The article in The Guardian regarding the verdict is well balanced. The separate article that you are referring to was written by an American columnist and is not a “Guardian opinion”. It is her opinion.

I am  no supporter of Amber Heard but I have been following the trial on another social media site and the abuse aimed at her has been horrendous, and mostly from women too. 

I don't really see the Guardian's view as particularly balanced.

As for social Media i consider it as as a medium to be pretty toxic in regards everything.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-depp-v-heard-an-abusive-spectacle

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Speaking of balance, this by the beeb indicated that Depp won because juries are not clever enough to see through the tactics of lawyers, unlike his last case which just had a judge.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676

I caught a BBC bulletin yesterday, and came away with the impression that a lot of those interviewed felt he should have been found guilty, because that supports women bringing charges in the future, rather than the evidence in the case.

The beeb did balance it up by stating some details of Depp's win, a view from one of his supporters and a clip from his lawyer. But that didn't seem to be the main point they were trying to make.

I'd want to see victims of any crime supported, and there are discussions to be had regarding reporting rates through charges and outcomes. But this coverage seems more about getting an outcome that suits their narrative, than anything connected to the evidence or individual case.

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, Baird of the land said:

I don't really see the Guardian's view as particularly balanced.

As for social Media i consider it as as a medium to be pretty toxic in regards everything.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-depp-v-heard-an-abusive-spectacle

I was referring to their reporting of the verdict, not the opinion piece you have quoted. And yes, I completely  agree that social media is often toxic. And regarding misogyny, the saddest thing on social media (and in general) is how misogynistic women can be towards their own gender.

[sadoldgit]

18 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That should have happened when Ched Evans was stitched up. 

She didn’t lie in the Ched Evans case. Just to remind you she was totally incapacitated through drink/drugs and had no recollection of what happened that night. In this country you cannot consent to sex if you are incapacitated by drink or drugs. It is rape. He wasn’t “stitched up.” He performed a sex act on a woman who was proven to be incapacitated. Whatever you think of either verdict, the CPS decided that there was a case to answer. The fact that he was originally found guilty should be a hint to you that there was clearly a case to answer. For someone who gets all high and mighty about drink driving it is a shame your moral compass doesn’t also include sexual assault on near comatose women. Still, it is only a “chick” isn’t it Duckie. You must miss the good old days when it was perfectly acceptable to get women drunk in order to have sex with them.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

She didn’t lie in the Ched Evans case. Just to remind you she was totally incapacitated through drink/drugs and had no recollection of what happened that night. In this country you cannot consent to sex if you are incapacitated by drink or drugs. It is rape. He wasn’t “stitched up.” He performed a sex act on a woman who was proven to be incapacitated. Whatever you think of either verdict, the CPS decided that there was a case to answer. The fact that he was originally found guilty should be a hint to you that there was clearly a case to answer. For someone who gets all high and mighty about drink driving it is a shame your moral compass doesn’t also include sexual assault on near comatose women. Still, it is only a “chick” isn’t it Duckie. You must miss the good old days when it was perfectly acceptable to get women drunk in order to have sex with them.

So she was 'totally incapacitated' and had 'no recolletion of what happened' and definitely, 100% didn't lie when she accused him of rape, which he was found not guilty of commiting.

Your definition of a 'lie' seems to be different to the rest of the world's.

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

So she was 'totally incapacitated' and had 'no recolletion of what happened' and definitely, 100% didn't lie when she accused him of rape, which he was found not guilty of commiting.

Your definition of a 'lie' seems to be different to the rest of the world's.

To be fair, just because he was found not guilty doesn’t necessarily mean she lied, just means it cannot be proven.

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, aintforever said:

To be fair, just because he was found not guilty doesn’t necessarily mean she lied, just means it cannot be proven.

He stated she was incapacitated and had no recollection of what happened. If that is true, then her claiming she was raped has to be a lie.

The rape claim implies recollection.

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, aintforever said:

To be fair, just because he was found not guilty doesn’t necessarily mean she lied, just means it cannot be proven.

As usual he has got it wrong. She didn’t bring the case. The CPS decided to prosecute after her friend said she should go to the police. They looked into it and took their evidence to the CPS who took the decision on her behalf to prosecute. It is a particularly unpleasant case. Evans’s mate found her in a kebab shop ( She claims her drink had been spiked earlier) in a very inebriated state. Instead of putting her in a taxi and making sure she got home ok he took her to a hotel room that Evans had on the standby for such opportunities  and had sex with her. He texted Evans to say that he had found a girl. Evans turned up ((via the fire escape so as not to be recognised) and performed a sex act with her then left without uttering a single word to her. Their mates were outside the window and filmed the whole thing on camera phones. Somehow Duckie thinks this is ok and that Evans was “stitched up.” Perhaps the stitching up was done when Evans’s fiancée’s dad offered cash for people to come forward to discredit the victim which is what happened and why he was acquitted upon an eventual appeal (which was turned down on several occasions previously). If he bothered to read up about the case he would see that the “new evidence” that the fiancée’s dad effectively bought should not have been allowed according to the CPS because previous sexual history should not been considered in rape cases, but the judge ruled otherwise. So no she did not lie and for those who think it is perfectly ok to sexually assault incapacitated women, justice was served. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

He stated she was incapacitated and had no recollection of what happened. If that is true, then her claiming she was raped has to be a lie.

The rape claim implies recollection.

Not really, there have been many cases where people have been drugged and raped without having any recollection of what happened. They simply knew someone had had sex with them after they have come round. She may well have lied in this case, I wasn’t at the trial so don’t know, but the fact that someone has not been convicted, doesn’t in itself mean that the alleged victim was lying - these sort of cases are very hard to prove.

[sadoldgit]

14 hours ago, aintforever said:

Not really, there have been many cases where people have been drugged and raped without having any recollection of what happened. They simply knew someone had had sex with them after they have come round. She may well have lied in this case, I wasn’t at the trial so don’t know, but the fact that someone has not been convicted, doesn’t in itself mean that the alleged victim was lying - these sort of cases are very hard to prove.

It is not a hard concept to grasp, but clearly he is having problems with it. She did not claim she was raped. The CPS did. Both Evans and his mate admitted performing sexual acts with her. The argument was about consent. Under the law you cannot consent to sex if you are incapacitated by drunk or drugs. The fact that she had no recollection of what happened to her that night should a pointer for the hard of thinking. There is CCTV footage of her earlier staggering around and clearly out of it. She lost her bag on the kebab shop. The decent thing to do when Evans mate found her would have been to make sure she got home safely, not take her to a prebooked hotel room, shag her, get your mate round to have a go to and have other mates film it from outside the window. He was convicted originally. His various appeals were turned down but eventually his fiancées Dad bought some dodgy evidence which probably should not have been allowed in the eventual appeal and his was acquitted in the appeal trial. Once again, she did not lie. Her claim through is that she had zero recollection of what happened to her that night, including have “consensual” sex with two complete strangers.

Anyway, back to the subject of this thread. So a Hollywood superstar is accused of beating up his ex wife and sexually assaulting her with the thick end of a whiskey bottle and his ex wife is accused of taking a dump in his bed. Hmmmm, why would anyone be remotely interested in a court case like that? 🤔

Personally, I followed the case because my ex wife has similar personality traits to Amber Heard and also involved me in a DV court case so I was interested to see how it played out. Like Heard, my ex wife produced fake evidence and was caught out providing conflicting evidence. There are big issues about how differently men and women are treated in DV cases. There is pressure to believe the women even if the evidence is weak. I think most of us would think that it shouldn’t be about gender, it should be about the evidence presented in court. There was massive interest in the case, not just because it featured two Hollywood actors, but for what it means in the DV “me too” movement. Depp’s victory was seen as a victory for men who are abused in domestic relationships. Heard’s defeat is being spun as another reason to believe that men hold all the power still and that women are not heard (no pun intended). It was a big case. I would have been more surprised if there had been no media interest in it.

[Weston Super Saint]

16 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It is not a hard concept to grasp, but clearly he is having problems with it. She did not claim she was raped. The CPS did. Both Evans and his mate admitted performing sexual acts with her. The argument was about consent. Under the law you cannot consent to sex if you are incapacitated by drunk or drugs. The fact that she had no recollection of what happened to her that night should a pointer for the hard of thinking. There is CCTV footage of her earlier staggering around and clearly out of it. She lost her bag on the kebab shop. The decent thing to do when Evans mate found her would have been to make sure she got home safely, not take her to a prebooked hotel room, shag her, get your mate round to have a go to and have other mates film it from outside the window. He was convicted originally. His various appeals were turned down but eventually his fiancées Dad bought some dodgy evidence which probably should not have been allowed in the eventual appeal and his was acquitted in the appeal trial. Once again, she did not lie. Her claim through is that she had zero recollection of what happened to her that night, including have “consensual” sex with two complete strangers.

Anyway, back to the subject of this thread. So a Hollywood superstar is accused of beating up his ex wife and sexually assaulting her with the thick end of a whiskey bottle and his ex wife is accused of taking a dump in his bed. Hmmmm, why would anyone be remotely interested in a court case like that? 🤔

Personally, I followed the case because my ex wife has similar personality traits to Amber Heard and also involved me in a DV court case so I was interested to see how it played out. Like Heard, my ex wife produced fake evidence and was caught out providing conflicting evidence. There are big issues about how differently men and women are treated in DV cases. There is pressure to believe the women even if the evidence is weak. I think most of us would think that it shouldn’t be about gender, it should be about the evidence presented in court. There was massive interest in the case, not just because it featured two Hollywood actors, but for what it means in the DV “me too” movement. Depp’s victory was seen as a victory for men who are abused in domestic relationships. Heard’s defeat is being spun as another reason to believe that men hold all the power still and that women are not heard (no pun intended). It was a big case. I would have been more surprised if there had been no media interest in it.

Doesn't sound like you want it to be about evidence presented in court.  Sounds more like you want it to be about evidence you agree with being presented in court.

Why do you want some evidence allowed and some not allowed?  Surely your own experience has shown you that 'fake' and 'conflicting' evidence can catch someone out, so why not allow all of it?