By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Johnny Depp asked to resign from Fantastic Beasts series after court loss, #3 delayed

Bro the jury came to the right conclusion because their conclusion is the one that matters



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network
kirby007 said:

Bro the jury came to the right conclusion because their conclusion is the one that matters

Mods opinions are the ones that matter on VGChartz. So mods are never wrong? I'll let them know they have your undying support.

Also,

https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/juries.html#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%2077%20percent%20agreement,incorrect%20convictions%2C%E2%80%9D%20Spencer%20said.



JWeinCom said:
kirby007 said:

Bro the jury came to the right conclusion because their conclusion is the one that matters

Mods opinions are the ones that matter on VGChartz. So mods are never wrong? I'll let them know they have your undying support.

Also,

https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/juries.html#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%2077%20percent%20agreement,incorrect%20convictions%2C%E2%80%9D%20Spencer%20said.

Yes seeing as any criticism has been locked and met with bans, so ...



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

kirby007 said:
JWeinCom said:

Mods opinions are the ones that matter on VGChartz. So mods are never wrong? I'll let them know they have your undying support.

Also,

https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/juries.html#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%2077%20percent%20agreement,incorrect%20convictions%2C%E2%80%9D%20Spencer%20said.

Yes seeing as any criticism has been locked and met with bans, so ...

Glad to know every decision I made as a mod was correct. Thanks!



JWeinCom said:
kirby007 said:

Yes seeing as any criticism has been locked and met with bans, so ...

Glad to know every decision I made as a mod was correct. Thanks!

me and Amber don't agree but were fucked either way



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
JRPGfan said:

Amber had 0% proof of abuse.
The pictures she had where all after useing makeup (to make her look brused up) + photoshop tools.
She claimed 2 identical pictures (same meta data, timestamps ect), with differnt photoshop levels, where 2 differnt pictures (taken differnt days).
This was proven false.
She claims police that showed up, looked at the scene, exsamed her and the house, lied. (they all said zero signs of abuse, or house damage).

Plus she had claimed bruses, and days after she would show up for some event (like a tv talkshow) and not have any bruses (even with little/no makeup on).
Theres actual proof of this stuff out there. She clearly lieing about all of it.

She was caught in so many proven lies, that you had a hard time believeing anything she said.

Then theres the malice aspect.

She was recorded (with her acknowlegdement) saying "go ahead johnny, tell the world, that I Johnny, a man, too am a victim of abuse. See how many believe you"
This was doing with a sarcastic tone, while doing evil little giggles, and taunting him in various ways.

Meanwhile her recording on him....
Was when he was passed out on drugs, she would like give him icecream cones, that would then melt in his hands and drip down his pants ect.
She took a video, of him being angry after a family death and a arrgument with amber, where he was drunk and banged a few kabinettes while getting a wine glass. Thats the "best proof" she had.

She also recorded a video, where in you hear JD almost OD'ing, and makeing odd survival like sounds (struggling, and clearly not in a good place).
What kind of Wife/GF does that? you almost died, I ll record it, and show it in a court case to shame you! that'll teach you.

Meanwhile theres texts of her taunting him, not to run away from her, like a coward.
(apparently, whenever she got too much, he would go live in other houses (they had like 7-8 homes)).

She admitted to writting the OP-ed about him, under oath (in this case), while previously saying she didnt write it, nor was it about him.
She admitted that it was about removeing his "power", ei. she wanted to damage his character/fame.

also while JD never admitted to useing violence against her, she admitted to punching/kicking/pushing/slapping him.

Like theres stuff about her saying "she didnt deck him, that wasnt a real punch, I hit you, but I didn't deck you".
Also apparently her sister was there, and she felt scared Johnny would push her down a stairs.. so she attacked him.
Because she heard rumors he did that to kate moss.....  (thats not even menting the champagne bottle, she threw at him that exploded right by his hand, and cut off part of one of his fingers)

Kate moss showed up at court, and said that never happend, he never pushed her down a stairs.

It just goes on and on.

Amber comes off looking like she has mental health issues.
Johnny, has drug issues, and apparntly runs away rather than fight back.
(apparently he and his mom got beat by their husband/father, so its just his "go to, way of dealing with issues")

This isnt about #metoo.
There isnt any me too's of Johnnys. No other gf/wifes/lovers have come forwards to claim he has a history of abuse. Actually they all come forwards to say the oppersite (that hes not that person, who does that).

You know who has a history of abuse?
Amber.

this is a good thing.
It proves that men can actually be victims too.
I think something like 1/3 of all domestic abuse victims (or more) are actually men. Meanwhile, society as a whole, doesnt really accept it.
Court is very biased towards men, when it comes to abuse cases. It takes alot more to prove, you got abused by a woman than otherway around.

People don't know what actual malice means in this context. 

It does not mean Amber was mean in general or a terrible person. It refers only to the specific defamatory statement, not her behavior in general. It means in regard to that specific statement, the person knew it was not true. Essentially as George Costanza says "Remember, it's not a lie, if you believe it."

If Amber believed herself to be a victim of abuse, regardless of whether that belief was justified, she should have won, unless the jury interpreted abuse to have a more specific connotation that implied specific acts by Johnny Depp. My intuition is that it's very possible that someone like Amber would perceive herself as a victim, even if no objective person would make the same judgment. Lots of people who are abusive perceive themselves as victims. I haven't heard the testimony, and honestly don't really care that much, so I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not.

If you would have watched the trial in full you would have known that the judge explained, under no uncertain terms, to the jury what malice meant. The jury had specific written instructions as well. And if that wasn't enough the lawyers reminded them of it. Insinuating that everyone but you knows the definition for malice in this context is very insulting. Maybe don't be rude to others before you know all the facts.

Last edited by tsogud - on 02 June 2022

 

tsogud said:
JWeinCom said:

People don't know what actual malice means in this context. 

It does not mean Amber was mean in general or a terrible person. It refers only to the specific defamatory statement, not her behavior in general. It means in regard to that specific statement, the person knew it was not true. Essentially as George Costanza says "Remember, it's not a lie, if you believe it."

If Amber believed herself to be a victim of abuse, regardless of whether that belief was justified, she should have won, unless the jury interpreted abuse to have a more specific connotation that implied specific acts by Johnny Depp. My intuition is that it's very possible that someone like Amber would perceive herself as a victim, even if no objective person would make the same judgment. Lots of people who are abusive perceive themselves as victims. I haven't heard the testimony, and honestly don't really care that much, so I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not.

If you would have watched the trial in full you would have known that the judge explained, under no uncertain terms, to the jury what malice meant. The jury had specific written instructions as well. And if that wasn't enough the lawyers reminded them of it. Insinuating that everyone but you knows the definition for malice in this context is very insulting. Maybe don't be rude to others before you know all the facts.

So what people do you think I was referring to? All people in general? The people on the jury? Or maybe... just maybe... the people in this very topic, including the one I was directly responding to, who were misusing the term actual malice when responding to me? You know, the person I was explaining actual malice to at that very moment? If I meant the jury, wouldn't I say the jury?

What about me saying I don't know whether the jury got it right or not literally 100 times by this point would make you think "He's saying the jury didn't know what actual malice means!" What did I say that would lead anyone to believe  that I was unaware of the concept of jury instructions or what a lawyer does? And why would neither of us mention the jury's knowledge of the term for the rest of the conversation if that's what I was referring to? Did you honestly think I was saying that everyone in the court room just forgot to explain it? Maybe I should have called the judge to remind them so I could defend Amber Heard who I apparently support so very much. XD

And who exactly was I being rude to? The jury? Are you sticking up for them? Cause they're the only person who could've been vaguely offended by them. Thanks for defending their honor I guess. Lol.

I'm not trying to be rude, but if people say dumb shit, I got to call it dumb shit. You just said some dumb shit man. Sorry that you can't use context to figure out an ambiguous pronoun. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing how any reasonable person could take what I said to mean that I think nobody on the jury knew what actual malice means. Walk me through it. I look forward to the non-answer I'll get. While you're at it, explain why it was rude to tell someone they didn't understand something that I had studied and then explain what I understand to them. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 02 June 2022

now now don't act so malicious



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

kirby007 said:

now now don't act so malicious

I wasn't actually.



zero129 said:
JWeinCom said:

So... we all have a common understanding of what abuse is, and nobody has ever believed themselves to be a victim of abuse when others would disagree? O_o...

"I don't know whether or not the jury came to the right conclusion."

"You're defending Amber Heard."

"No... I said I don't know what the right conclusion was."

"You're saying both sides were wrong and nobody should lose."

"No, I'm saying I don't know what the right conclusion was."

"So explain to me why you think Amber heard should have won."

I genuinely don't know to say at this point. Are you doing an Abbott and Costello bit? I'm not going to defend a point I never made. I'll just repeat.

I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not.

You almost sound like her solicitor for real after she is caught out in shit and has nothing else to say.

So... you think her solicitor would say that he thinks she's possibly delusional, abusive, and that they don't know if she should have won the case? I suggest you don't go into the PR business cause you'd be shit at it. Honestly, are you trying to mess with me, or is literally anything but unqualified condemnation considered support? 

People, to be clear I mean specifically the people in this topic that I'm interacting with, just can't seem to grasp the concept that the trial was not about if Amber Heard  was abusive, or if she's a bad person, or if Johnny Depp is a good person, etc (or at least not directly about those things even if they were relevant). Trials aren't places where we decide who is good and who is bad. Sometimes bad guys win, and good guys lose.

Amber Heard could literally be Hitler cloned into a female body, and Johnny Depp could secretly be Super-man and it wouldn't necessarily mean she should have lost. It is about whether specific statements made met the standards of defamation. That has a specific legal meaning, and I thought since I had some expertise on the matter, I'd bring it up. Didn't expect the pitchforks XD. "Law is reason free from passion" and this topic is apparently passion free from reason.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 02 June 2022