Comments

Johnny Depp wins — 37 Comments

1. May they both fade into oblivion

2. Will Depp follow up with a lawsuit against the WaPo? If a recent post in The Federalist is correct, Heard did not write the op-ed published in the WaPo: “In a carefully orchestrated operation, extensive documentation of which I’ve detailed on Substack, we now know from testimony and email evidence that the communications, ‘development,’ ‘artist engagement,’ and legal teams of the ACLU crafted, wrote, lawyered, and placed the salacious 765-word Washington Post ‘op-ed’ that implied Depp was a wife-beater . . . .”

   https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/09/how-the-washington-post-and-aclu-helped-amber-heard-attack-johnny-depp/

   If Depp does sue the WaPo, it couldn’t happen to a nicer group of presstitutes.

3. The proper response to this sordid melodrama is probably “a pox on both their houses.” What is most curious is that so many women would seem to have favored Depp (perhaps because he was, once upon a time, handsome, albeit now looking haggard and dissipated); the actor, who has squandered countless millions over the years, was clearly abusive and violent (and often in some kind of drunken or drug-induced stupor) towards a woman who was also often drunk or drugged or violent, but a man’s superior strength renders him somewhat more culpable in such a toxic relationship, nor was either, in all likelihood, entirely truthful in testifying.

4. Amber Heard was put up by the ACLU to write that op-ed. I should say, the ACLU wrote it for Amber Heard. Big question: Did the ACLU agree to indemnify Heard for damages? If not, why not? Where was Heard’s lawyers?

   Regardless of the legal agreements between the ACLU and Heard (if any), the ACLU should pay a portion of that verdict. Or maybe that’s the next case: Heard v. ACLU for indemnification.

5. Thank God it’s over. Taking up waaay too much bandwidth. I hated having to bypass one article after another on this trial.

6. low rent gossip, is about the wheelhouse of most of the press, but yes the aclu and bezos should pay part of the bill

7. I missed the part where I was captured.

8. Taking up waaay too much bandwidth.

   At least it kept Brandon’s coverage at a discreet level.

9. Neo read some of the articles? While I don’t take any interest in the persons involved, I do find this category of entanglement a little interesting.

   I agree with Cornhead and disagree with j e.
   Depp is, I think, a garden variety privileged Hollywood cad. He talked an abusive game, but I think the actual physical violence on his part was tiny to none. Unlike Heard, who I think is something of a real life toxic femme fatale.

   A bit of our fictional understanding of the femme fatale comes from the author James M. Cain who actually spent a great deal of time watching courtroom trials of spouses and lovers who tried to, or did, kill each other over money during the great depression. So it isn’t all fiction.

   That Elon Musk had dated Heard for some time and ended up paying some of the bills incurred by her excesses doesn’t reflect well on Mr. Musk, IMO.

10. A huge victory for the Believe All Men movement today!

    But seriously, only women describe their personal battles as a fight FOR ALL WOMEN!

11. the actor, who has squandered countless millions over the years, was clearly abusive and violent (and often in some kind of drunken or drug-induced stupor) towards a woman who was also often drunk or drugged or violent, but a man’s superior strength renders him somewhat more culpable in such a toxic relationship,

    So what you are saying is that if two violent people have a relationship, then the man should be punished and the woman not?

    That doesn’t seem entirely fair.

    It seems like a license for woman to be violent and abusive, with any retaliation being explicitly punishable.

12. TommyJay:

    A relative of mine was fascinated with the trial. This is a man who doesn’t usually take an interest in such things, so I became curious for that reason as well as the fact that trials and legal issues tend to be of at least some interest to me. My take away was that this trial did not interest me, for whatever reason.

13. j e:

    Apparently there was no corroborative evidence for Heard’s charges that Depp was violent or abusive.

14. The ONLY thing that—only slightly—interested me about this furious case of copious post-abuse abuse (meta-abuse? Recursive, refractive S&M? On their very own all-the-world’s-a-stage?), this ridiculous emotional pornography, is WHY DID THEY FEEL THEY HAD TO DO THIS TO THEMSELVES?

    Unless they simply love to pick at their scabs in full public view. And/or feel they have to enrich their lawyers…(though “Biden”‘s likely gonna garnish those earnings at some point soon in any event—if not by taxation then by inflation.

    Frankly, this whole “Why can’t y’all just get along?” nightmare is pretty awful on all levels.
    But it does beg the question: will they decide to play themselves in the upcoming bio-pic? (I’m certain the contracts are already drawn up…and, after all, the screen-play just wrote itself.)

    File under: Yuck.

15. Barry Meislin:

    If you were publicly and falsely accused of spousal abuse (by a spouse who had in fact abused you), and you had lost your livelihood and reputation because of the false accusations, wouldn’t you consider fighting back with a lawsuit? And if you would, I don’t see why Depp shouldn’t have tried to clear his name. It appeared he did so to the satisfaction of the jury, anyway.

16. Lawtube Reacts to Amber Heard Cross-examination (part 1): https://youtu.be/FmfBIDkbBp8

    (part 2): https://youtu.be/0erzsXFqAT8

    (part 3): https://youtu.be/Rs4x3RLZ4Wo

17. I understand he walks away with ONLY 8.5 mil because Judge reduced punitive damages to VA statute limit and Heard “won” 2 mil from him. Yes, glad it is over so I don’t have to scroll down fast.

18. If Depp does sue the WaPo, it couldn’t happen to a nicer group of presstitutes.

    The house organ for the Swamp would never lose a case to a DC jury. Note the Sandman kid sued in Kentucky.

19. the actor, who has squandered countless millions over the years, was clearly abusive and violent (and often in some kind of drunken or drug-induced stupor) towards a woman who was also often drunk or drugged or violent, but a man’s superior strength renders him somewhat more culpable in such a toxic relationship,

    IOW, women have options; men have obligations.

20. Peter Drucker once said, “If a job has defeated two or three men in succession, the job is undoable and should be abolished”. I’d say both Heard and Depp have reached the time when the single life is all they should consider.

21. Heard’s statement after the verdict is that this is a loss for all women, and that she has lost her freedom of speech. Depp’s says that all people, men and women alike, deserve to be assumed innocent of ugly charges unless proven guilty.

    Heard is still free to say anything she wants, but not to defame people unless she’s willing to pay the penalty. I wonder if she’ll pay up?

    https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-and-amber-heards-responses-to-the-ruling-are-telling-n573441

22. “Thank God it’s over….”

    Yeah, now we can focus on the really important stuff:
    “Crackhead MILF And Incest Porn: Hunter Biden Search History Revealed; Texted Pornhub Link To ‘Dad'”—
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/crackhead-milf-and-incest-porn-hunter-biden-search-history-revealed-texted-pornhub-link

    Oh, wait…
    – – – – – – – –
    “…but not to defame people…”

    No, that right is reserved for our Moral Betters(TM) and the Ultra-Corrupt Media that amplifies their sordid message and protects them….
    – – – – – – – –
    “…the single life is all they should consider…”

    I’ve never seen you so optimistic about human nature….

23. “. . . he walks away with ONLY 8.5 mil . . .”

    I suspect that after he pays his lawyers he “walks away” with $0.00 and a giant hole in his bank account.

24. sdferr:

    He was dropped like a hot potato from roles because of her accusations and apparently lost many many millions because of it. So I think his main financial goal in this lawsuit was to regain his reputation and obtain future jobs that might be lucrative, rather than to get any big payout directly from Heard.

25. To be sure neo. His lawyer told the jury Depp was not concerned with getting money from a victory, straight out.

26. The state of affairs in Hollyweird: If you’re a known drunk and an habitual drug abuser, you’re good. If you are accused of abusing your wife, you’ll never work in this town again. On the scale of personal reputations, how is one so much worse than the other? I’m just a knuckle dragger from the boondocks, but neither description is a reputation I would want.

    This trial, of which I watched maybe an hour, exposed the underbelly of rot afoot in our culture – particularly among our elites. It’s just one of many harbingers of the same kind of decay that the Roman Empire experienced.

27. @ JJ >”exposed the underbelly of rot afoot in our culture – particularly among our elites”

    Forget it, JJ; it’s Swamptown.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/04/the_larger_message_of_the_appalling_johnny_deppamber_heard_trial.html
    Andrea Widburg writes:

    Because I like reading about the old movies, I know that many of the old-time actors were people who had horrific childhoods, failed at most activities before drifting into Hollywood, were uneducated, engaged in distasteful habits (sexual perversions and substance abuse), and often ran afoul of the law. However, under the old studio system, these matters were kept secret, only emerging decades later, often after the star had died.

    Beginning in the early 1930s, after the morality police started taking a whack at Hollywood studios for their decadent movies, Hollywood worked hard to align itself with American values. In the movies, the bad were punished and the good rewarded. Marriage and family were celebrated. America was presented as a virtuous country. Men were manly and women were feminine, except for the handful of character actors who played against the norms, always for laughs. Most importantly, the studio made sure that their actors were presented as avatars of American virtues: hard-working, family-oriented, and moral. The truth was irrelevant. It was the image that mattered.

    When the studio system broke up in the 1960s, that tight control over the stars ended. The counterculture encouraged actors to present themselves as edgy and progressive. Now, of course, Hollywood actors, the majority of whom are marginally educated, try desperately to present themselves as intellectual heavyweights. The easiest way to do that is to ape the leftist politics on college campuses. “I may not have credentials but I can be every bit as crazily leftist as an actual college graduate.”

    However, when you start reading about so many of the actors, you discover that they’re exactly like the people who drifted into Hollywood in the early years of the industry: horrible childhoods, broken homes, failed educations, failed work histories, distasteful habits (sexual perversions and substance abuse), and problems with the law. If they were your next-door neighbors, you’d do your best to keep your children far away from them. But because they’re “stars,” they’re admired. Worse, impressionable children fail to understand that their lifestyle choices are awful.

    And that gets me to Johnny Depp. Over the years, he’s been politically innocuous. He’s also shown himself to be a talented actor. He gets points for both those things.

    However, poor Depp is also the perfect star stereotype: Horrible childhood, limited education, substance abuse, and sexually perverse relationships. On-screen, he’s in control, even if his character is not; off-screen, he married a woman who was famously crazy and vicious and then suffered horribly at her hands because he’s weak and lacks internal resources.

    The headlines tell the story: drunken binges, screaming fights, physical violence, severed fingers, drugs, fecal matter, and an atmosphere of paranoia and hatred. It made me think that, back in the old days, when ordinary people viewed actors with deep suspicion as immoral, they may have been on to something.

    One day, we’ll look back on the second and third decades of the 21st century as the “great revealing” because we’re finally seeing past the shiny surfaces our institutions presented.

    We’ve learned that our American government bears little relationship to its constitutional guidelines and is scarily close to a third-world dictatorship. We’ve learned that our federal law enforcement agencies are dangerously corrupt. We’ve learned that those institutions to which we’ve entrusted our children, whether schools or corporate entertainment (Disney, Nickelodeon, etc.), aggressively indoctrinate our children into leftist politics and dangerous gender lunacy. And we’ve learned that the people who have a disproportionate amount of control over American culture are truly awful, second-rate human beings.

    Dennis Prager is fond of saying “I prefer clarity to agreement.” Well, we’re getting our clarity and I think a lot of Americans are reaching an agreement: Our institutions are broken and must change. And getting back to Depp v. Heard, one way to start that change is to withdraw our money from Hollywood. These people really don’t deserve it.

28. Neo, your response to Barry at 5:58 is what interested me in the trial. Most false allegations like this are not fought because doing so brings attention to the allegation and proving the negative is a hard and ugly thing to do. Yet Depp had the means and motive to attempt to prove the negative, and he did. Good on him.

    It helped that Heard doubled down on specific allegations of physical abuse rather than generally allege abuse along the lines of mental anguish. Her allegations would normally result in obvious injury and she claimed such injury that no third party seemed to confirm. This made it easier for Depp to win.

29. The Narrative takes a hit….

    Another indication that the political winds have changed.

30. Strictly anecdotally speaking…

    I have known several San Francisco women who swooned for Johnny Depp as the ultimate male catnip. I wonder how this plays out.

    Well, Depp is a weirdo, beyond a doubt, but he’s also a solid actor.

    I watched “Don Juan DeMarco” a few weekends ago and thought Depp was the only actor of his time who could have pulled off that role — a hyper-romantic young man who imagines he is Don Juan — while playing opposite Marlon Brando.

31. The ninth gate was an entiresting role as a adaptation of perez riverte that was anbiguos about the ending of the story.

32. “The six-week-long trial that captured the nation is finally over. ”

    No. It captured the press, not the nation. Most of us, though we have heard of the trial, (how could we not), don’t give a diddly damn about it, or its outcome.

33. Roy:

    I didn’t watch it, you didn’t watch it, but enormous numbers of people watched it.

    Someone I know who doesn’t usually watch that sort of thing found it fascinating. I have heard commentary from lawyers saying the same thing. Plus of course you have the celebrity angle.

34. If the trial “captured” the press (it didn’t: the action was the other way round) the “press” largely used the trial to lie along with Miss Heard (and the ACLU) in an attempt to bolster #MeToo another few months or years. People who actually saw the trial apart from the lying press learned something else altogether.

35. Jonathan Turley on the decline of the ACLU in the Depp affair:

    https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/02/the-depp-trial-and-the-demise-of-the-aclu-how-a-celebrity-trial-exposed-the-collapse-of-a-celebrated-civil-liberties-group/#more-189466

36. For thems who enjais th’OzzyMan doin’ ‘is Ozzyreviewy thingy, cheers: https://youtu.be/Ky_ZyjXY_SU

37. sdferr:

    Amber seems to be a very wicked “Shelia.”

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>