• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Movies/TV Shows

zeke said:
wait what happened here?

Click to expand...


This is a tweet from someone who obviously didn't watch the trial, isn't interested in looking at a 6-week long trial objectively, and is 100% biased coming in. Here is another instance of such bias on CNN.

So here is what I believe happened. I'll put it in the context of my prediction, posted on the weekend. Full comments can be found here.

CTheBigPicture said:
Predictions:
  • Counter claim: I am 100% sure that Amber will not win her claim. I am 90% sure the verdict will be unanimously not guilty. Reasons: seemed like a lawsuit for the sake of one. I did not hear evidence tied together with the claim.
  • Depp's Defamation case: I believe Depp will win his case and be awarded somewhere along half of what he's asked for. My confidence level is 70% for the win because there could always be a juror who would have reasonable doubt (and justifiably so I should add). Reasons 1- Amber came off as bender of truth throughout the trial. In fact, at one point, she submitted the same photo for two different alleged incidents 2- Despite having multiple chances before, she had never mentioned incidents like her rape allegations until this trial. Seems like something that she would have brought up before if true 3- The TMZ allegations were noteworthy. It certainly seemed like she set up the release of the video 4- for her to be right, there must be so many witnesses lying or wrong. Seems hard to believe 5- quite frankly, and unfortunately so, the way he handled herself in court will have an impact. Sobbing without tears makes it look like she was putting on an act. 6- Some of her evidence was suspect. Photo of the mirror, but not her actual injury.
Click to expand...

- Counter claim: I was wrong in my prediction. However, I understand it. Amber did not receive this in her favour because "oh yeah so what she is saying is a hoax, but also isn't a hoax" line that tweet implied. Amber Heard got a favourable verdict in 'one' of the counts. This count was specifically about a comment Depp's lawyer had made about her; and it wasn't a simple comment. It described an elaborate scheme pulled off by Heard. Lawyer said she conspired with friends, talked to lawyers and PR people, roughed up the place, called the cops twice, etc. all for an episode out of a 'gone girl' movie. It makes perfect sense that that whole alleged story, without proof presented in court, was judged to be defamatory. The reasonn I thought counter claim would not be successful, was that I didn't think a clear monetary damage to Amber was proved in court. The jury obviously thought otherwise.

- Depp's Defamation case: All 'yes' across the board. In my original post I outlined many inconsistencies in Amber's story. Photos being submitted twice for two different allegations; stories not lining up; new stories brought forth just for this trial; witness after witness disputing her account and timelines; doctored photos; and for a DV victim sooo terrified of her partner, she sure was aggressive and confrontational in all the tapes released. Additionally, there was direct proof that she was the abuser, while there was no proof that Johnny Depp abused her physically. She was simply not credible at all. And once you are caught in a lie once, and she was caught on multiple occasions, then I the Jury will think you are lying throughout, unless you provide proof.


- "believe all women": This was a dumb thought any ways. The correct way is to believe 'most' women, because research has proven that most, not all, women are truthful in such allegations. In fact, the problem is not women not being truthful; it is to create an environment where they are able to and willing to step forward. There are, however, plenty of falsified accounts. If this case means 'believe all women' is dead, then so that's a good thing.

-Right wingers and fall out for women: Unfortunately, right wingers will use this as another evidence for their anti-women sentiment. This is the worst part of this trial. A powerful man on trial, millions of people watching live, and worst of all a woman who is an abuser and a liar as the defendant. She had portrayed herself as a leader in the me 2 movement, and that leader has turned out to be a narcissist who has a history of violence. Right wingers will now paint all women as such.

This is the main issue here, not the ruling. Depp by in large won this case, and deservedly so. He is an awful person sure, but evidence did not show he is also a domestic abuser. The main issue here is those on the right using it to advance their anti-woman crusade; and (those on the left, using it to show that they are willing to not be objective just to advance their agenda).

- The me 2 movement: One good thing about this is that Amber was so obviously not credible, and there is a good reason she lost. Had this woman be genuine, with genuine stories, genuine body language etc. and yet she lost, then the me 2 movement would have been dead. Women, and men, who have been victim of abuse should rejoice in this decision. In fact, If Amber had won, despite her performance on the stands, the movement would have had a great set back.


- My issue with the ruling: The dollars awarded do not make sense. Based on what did Depp's lawyer cost Amber $2 million? I mean why $2 and not ten million? On the other hand, why $10mm for Depp? dollars should be aligned with 'something'. Loss of Pirates 6 for instance, which had a price tag of $20 million.

One issue was that the Jury awarded Johnny $5 million in punitive damages (while awarding Amber nothing). They did not know that Virginia caps that to $350k. I think had they known that, they would've increased that $10mm award.
 
CTheBigPicture said:
This is a tweet from someone who obviously didn't watch the trial, isn't interested in looking at a 6-week long trial objectively, and is 100% biased coming in. Here is another instance of such bias on CNN.

So here is what I believe happened. I'll put it in the context of my prediction, posted on the weekend. Full comments can be found here.



- Counter claim: I was wrong in my prediction. However, I understand it. Amber did not receive this in her favour because "oh yeah so what she is saying is a hoax, but also isn't a hoax" line that tweet implied. Amber Heard got a favourable verdict in 'one' of the counts. This count was specifically about a comment Depp's lawyer had made about her; and it wasn't a simple comment. It described an elaborate scheme pulled off by Heard. Lawyer said she conspired with friends, talked to lawyers and PR people, roughed up the place, called the cops twice, etc. all for an episode out of a 'gone girl' movie. It makes perfect sense that that whole alleged story, without proof presented in court, was judged to be defamatory. The reasonn I thought counter claim would not be successful, was that I didn't think a clear monetary damage to Amber was proved in court. The jury obviously thought otherwise.

- Depp's Defamation case: All 'yes' across the board. In my original post I outlined many inconsistencies in Amber's story. Photos being submitted twice for two different allegations; stories not lining up; new stories brought forth just for this trial; witness after witness disputing her account and timelines; doctored photos; and for a DV victim sooo terrified of her partner, she sure was aggressive and confrontational in all the tapes released. Additionally, there was direct proof that she was the abuser, while there was no proof that Johnny Depp abused her physically. She was simply not credible at all. And once you are caught in a lie once, and she was caught on multiple occasions, then I the Jury will think you are lying throughout, unless you provide proof.


- "believe all women": This was a dumb thought any ways. The correct way is to believe 'most' women, because research has proven that most, not all, women are truthful in such allegations. In fact, the problem is not women not being truthful; it is to create an environment where they are able to and willing to step forward. There are, however, plenty of falsified accounts. If this case means 'believe all women' is dead, then so that's a good thing.

-Right wingers and fall out for women: Unfortunately, right wingers will use this as another evidence for their anti-women sentiment. This is the worst part of this trial. A powerful man on trial, millions of people watching live, and worst of all a woman who is an abuser and a liar as the defendant. She had portrayed herself as a leader in the me 2 movement, and that leader has turned out to be a narcissist who has a history of violence. Right wingers will now paint all women as such.

This is the main issue here, not the ruling. Depp by in large won this case, and deservedly so. He is an awful person sure, but evidence did not show he is also a domestic abuser. The main issue here is those on the right using it to advance their anti-woman crusade; and (those on the left, using it to show that they are willing to not be objective just to advance their agenda).

- The me 2 movement: One good thing about this is that Amber was so obviously not credible, and there is a good reason she lost. Had this woman be genuine, with genuine stories, genuine body language etc. and yet she lost, then the me 2 movement would have been dead. Women, and men, who have been victim of abuse should rejoice in this decision. In fact, If Amber had won, despite her performance on the stands, the movement would have had a great set back.


- My issue with the ruling: The dollars awarded do not make sense. Based on what did Depp's lawyer cost Amber $2 million? I mean why $2 and not ten million? On the other hand, why $10mm for Depp? dollars should be aligned with 'something'. Loss of Pirates 6 for instance, which had a price tag of $20 million.

One issue was that the Jury awarded Johnny $5 million in punitive damages (while awarding Amber nothing). They did not know that Virginia caps that to $350k. I think had they known that, they would've increased that $10mm award.
Click to expand...

Eh.....tweet size plz.
 
zeke said:
Eh.....tweet size plz.
Click to expand...
TLDR: Amber was NOT credible whatsoever. In fact, evidence proved she is the abuser. Had she won, the me 2 movement would have been mocked as she was obviously lying. The ruling makes sense because that one count described a specific instance of Amber faking a crime scene on a specific night; no proof was presented to that effect.

The ruling is consistent; in fact, it shows that the jury really looked at the evidence objectively. The monetary damages though do not make much sense to me.
 
"believe all women": This was a dumb thought any ways. The correct way is to believe 'most' women, because research has proven that most, not all, women are truthful in such allegations. In fact, the problem is not women not being truthful; it is to create an environment where they are able to and willing to step forward. There are, however, plenty of falsified accounts. If this case means 'believe all women' is dead, then so that's a good thing.

I think they need to change this to "Take all such claims by women seriously". Take the allegations seriously, investigate them and act on them if there looks to be something credible there. But believe all women or men is a stupid tactic and denies the fundamental truth about people regardless of gender: that literally everybody lies. If "believe all women" is the hill you choose to die on you will die quickly, just as quickly as if you follow the mantra "believe all men". You don't have to believe anyone who has no proof to back up their allegations but you do have to at least take the allegations seriously enough to do the requisite due diligence. The problem in the past has been that such allegations have been shrugged off, ignored or dismissed by people who choose not to take women seriously.

Of course the usual right wing shitbags will be taking a victory lap today and declare the #metoo movement dead but I doubt that any law enforcement or judicial body thinks that they can go back to the old days of patting women on the head and ignoring their allegations. They know that won't fly anymore and they know that people will lose their jobs if an allegation they choose to ignore today is shown to be true tomorrow.
 
CTheBigPicture said:
TLDR: Amber was NOT credible whatsoever. In fact, evidence proved she is the abuser. Had she won, the me 2 movement would have been mocked as she was obviously lying. The ruling makes sense because that one count described a specific instance of Amber faking a crime scene on a specific night; no proof was presented to that effect.

The ruling is consistent; in fact, it shows that the jury really looked at the evidence objectively. The monetary damages though do not make much sense to me.
Click to expand...

A little shorter tia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top