# Why all the hate against Amber Heard? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 27, 2022, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545 "2022-04-27T14:23:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/301 "2022-06-02T16:08:20Z")
> [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](#): > > Firstly, many people say outright that false accusations of abuse almost never happen… No, many people say false accusations of _sexual assault_ almost never happen. Which appears to be supported by statistics, and explained by the terrible way our justice system and our society in general treat survivors of sexual assault. There is no similar claim (nor any similar support) for the idea that accusations of physical abuse are especially rare. ---
**Author:** ![SpacemanSpiff\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19adc/32.png) [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpacemanSpiff_II)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/302 "2022-06-02T16:13:59Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I wonder if Uncle Sam gets a cut in both directions too, or if there is netting for tax purposes? I don’t think damages (actual or punitive) are taxable altogether. > [@Miller](#): > > No, many people say false accusations of _sexual assault_ almost never happen. Which appears to be supported by statistics, and explained by the terrible way our justice system and our society in general treat survivors of sexual assault. There is no similar claim (nor any similar support) for the idea that accusations of physical abuse are especially rare. Well that’s not consistent with what I’ve seen (or with post #268 of this thread, best as I can tell). ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/303 "2022-06-02T16:17:21Z")
> [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](#): > > I don’t think damages (actual or punitive) are taxable altogether. Generally: Punitive damages are taxable. Compensatory damages are not _if caused by physical injury_. I’m not a CPA or tax lawyer, but I would guess all these damages are taxable. Worst, because of the Alternative Minimum Tax, they might be taxed on the gross amount with no deduction for attorney fees. > **[AMT Problems For Attorney Fees Remain](https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2010/12/22/amt-problems-for-attorney-fees-remain/?sh=7c0469c47933)** > > With passage of the AMT Patch as part of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, are all your AMT problems solved? Hardly. In fact, AMT issues for many taxpayers are huge. ---
**Author:** ![SpacemanSpiff\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19adc/32.png) [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpacemanSpiff_II)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/304 "2022-06-02T16:22:42Z")
I stand corrected. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Thing.Fish](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thing.fish/32/9168_2.png) [@Thing.Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing.Fish)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/305 "2022-06-02T18:04:13Z")
Just read an op-ed making the point that the article Heard was sued for didn’t actually claim she had been abused by Depp. She just said that she was a “public figure representing domestic violence”, and it certainly seems inarguable that her public image had become linked with domestic violence, whether you believe she was actually a victim of such violence or not. So just on that basis the verdict seems odd. Does anyone know if Heard’s lawyers tried raising that defense? ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/306 "2022-06-02T18:13:57Z")
Interesting point, I wonder if her testimony in the UK trial precluded using that defense? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/307 "2022-06-02T18:45:57Z")
> [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](#): > > I don’t think that’s true, at least as far as public reaction goes. I will also say that it wasn’t the only thing that mattered, but it should have been. As far as public reaction goes, the ‘public’ is not the jury. It’s easy to be the ‘public’, no responsibility, no real identity, some members of the public don’t even exist, and they haven’t sworn a juror’s oath. Actual jurors are enough of a problem, the ‘public’ should shut up if they think gossip is evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/308 "2022-06-02T18:58:16Z")
> [@Thing.Fish](#): > > Just read an op-ed making the point that the article Heard was sued for didn’t actually claim she had been abused by Depp. She just said that she was a “public figure representing domestic violence”… I read that, and I think it’s completely bogus. Unless there’s any suggestion that somebody other than Depp is publicly known to have abused her, claiming that she is a “public figure representing domestic violence” is obviously equivalent to an explicit claim that Depp abused her _and everyone knows it_. ---
**Author:** ![Thing.Fish](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thing.fish/32/9168_2.png) [@Thing.Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing.Fish)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/309 "2022-06-02T19:09:13Z")
Obviously, she was implicitly making that claim, which she had made explicitly in the past. But if we’re defining libel that broadly, it seems like it would be impossible for her to mention Depp at all in any context, since it would inevitably remind people of the charges she leveled against him. And I haven’t read the op-ed for context, but if her point is that just her reputation has suffered by being associated with a high-profile domestic violence case, that seems pretty obviously true. If whatever point she was making hinged on her accusations actually being true, that’s a different story. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/310 "2022-06-02T19:11:37Z")
> [@Thing.Fish](#): > > But if we’re defining libel that broadly, it seems like it would be impossible for her to mention Depp at all in any context Sure she can. If she says “I am a public figure associated with domestic violence because I am famous for fabricating accusations against Johnny Depp”, I’m pretty sure he isn’t going to sue. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/311 "2022-06-02T19:13:01Z")
> [@Thing.Fish](#): > > Just read an op-ed making the point that the article Heard was sued for didn’t actually claim she had been abused by Depp. She just said that she was a “public figure representing domestic violence” Heard specifically wrote that the abuse she was referring to occurred in 2016. That was when she was married to Depp. She also wrote that the person who abused her was a powerful figure in show business. I don’t think Depp’s lawyers would have had a hard time showing there was nobody else in Heard’s life who fit the description she gave. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/312 "2022-06-02T19:13:55Z")
She wasn’t at trial in the UK–British publications were that had called Depp a “wifebeater”, under UK law they had to demonstrate, essentially, that the claim was true to a civil standard or they could have been liable for libel. The British case was heard by a judge, who said that the claims of spousal abuse in 12 instances met the standard for a civil case. Most legal analysts believe Depp won in the United States entirely because it was a jury trial, a jury is less inclined to really dig into the evidence and more easily distracted and confused by aggressive litigation by high priced counsel. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/313 "2022-06-02T19:14:04Z")
re: UK ruling. I’m going off memory (beware), but there were two different articles written by different people. The UK trial in 2020 was about a British tabloid article (not written by Heard) accusing Depp of being a “wife beater”. Depp sued the tabloid for defamation. You can beat Defamation with truth, or, I can call you a wife beater if you are one. The tabloid won because the Judge did think the tabloid presented some sufficient amount of evidence of abuse (burden of proof is more likely than not)\*\* and thus “wife beater” was not defamatory since there was evidence it was true (ie, the Judge didn’t think the abuse was made up outright and found evidence supporting it = not defamatory to call him a wife beater). The US trial was about a different article Amber Heard wrote and was published by the Washington Post. Depp sued Heard since she wrote the article. It accused Depp of similar things, but here, the jury found the abuse allegations as defamatory (not true). I’m not clear what evidence was presented (or how Depp tried to rebut) at the UK trial. It does appear from the US trial that a lot of the evidence of abuse depends on Heard’s credibility. Like you, Corrections welcome. \*\*The burden of proof is key to understand. For clarity purposes, it’s not deceiving to represent it as math. The UK standard “more likely than not” could be reproduced as the Judge needing to be at least 50.1% certain the evidence was truthful. That means there is a 49.9% chance the Judge could think it was not truthful and still find it “substantially true”. For comparison in criminal cases, reasonable doubt, while harder to quantify, is typically taught as something around 98% certain. Lastly, the US standard for defamation (the Depp trial), definitely at least to find Heard acted with malice, is “clear and convincing” which is above “more likely than not” and “below beyond a reasonable doubt”. Definitely corrections welcome here. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/314 "2022-06-02T19:22:32Z")
There was a good bit of evidence, including police reports from various countries and photographs taken for a number of the claims against Depp made by The Sun in the United Kingdom. Some of them are detailed here: [Johnny Depp libel case verdict - The 12 times actor beat ex-wife Amber Heard (the-sun.com)](https://www.the-sun.com/news/uk-news/1727405/johnny-depp-beat-amber-heard-12-times/) A judge is going to look at something like 8 years worth of evidence and decide, okay–even if Amber Heard has shown herself to be less than perfectly credible, when dealing with a civil standard, is it likely that she literally spent 8 years just entirely fabricating this evidence? It isn’t like she came up with all this in 2019 out of thin air. While it is possible she has told a number of lies, I think a judge is going to be very skeptical that such a long running trail of documented evidence is abjectly false, and when he is only having to decide on a civil standard, would conclude Depp was likely a wife beater, and thus the Sun was not liable for calling him one. If it had been a criminal trial against Depp, he would likely have not been convicted since that requires a much higher burden of proof to be met. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/315 "2022-06-02T19:35:30Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Most legal analysts believe Depp won in the United States entirely because it was a jury trial Sort of “reverse jury nullification” because the jury inuitively think the legal standard is contrary to common sense, even if they have been told clearly what it is. If it’s egregious, obviously the judge can throw out the verdict (at least in a criminal trial - can the judge do that here?). I don’t really know if this is something we should be outraged about, or if this is part of the intended purpose of the jury system. ---
**Author:** ![Thing.Fish](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thing.fish/32/9168_2.png) [@Thing.Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing.Fish)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/316 "2022-06-02T19:38:41Z")
Does anyone remember any other case of someone losing a libel suit in UK courts and then winning a substantially similar suit in US courts? It’s got to be at least extremely rare. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/317 "2022-06-02T19:39:16Z")
Thanks for posting that link. The Sun is who Depp sued, but it’s a fair source of the summary of the events. I followed bits of the US trial, but all/most of those 12 times were covered in the US trial (it looks like it covers 3 years, 2013-2016). There were clearly incidents were things happened (so not made up outright), but what happened exactly is pretty unclear to me even now. That’s the thing. A different Judge or Jury can all come to different conclusions on the same evidence, especially when it’s mostly based on credibility. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/318 "2022-06-02T20:19:53Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > She wasn’t at trial in the UK–British publications were Sure, I understand that, but she _testified_ at the UK trial. I haven’t read her statements, but it’s not hard to imagine that they preclude her claiming in Virginia that ‘I never _said_ I was abused, just that I’d become a public figure for it.’ ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/319 "2022-06-02T21:00:08Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > I wish I could live his “excessive lifestyle”. I hate to admit that if I had Depp’s resources, I’d make him look like The Dalai Lama. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2022, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545/320 "2022-06-02T21:02:40Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > if I had Depp’s resources, I’d make him look like The Dalai Lama And I’d rather watch him in that role than playing a fucking pirate again. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-hate-against-amber-heard/963545.md?page=17)