It will take a while to fact check but she seems to be quoting movie lines while on the stand? The Reddit crowd thinks she grabed a chunk of The Talented Mr Ripley.
Snopes already did. It’s a bullshit claim based on doctored testimony quotes.
An interesting article about the whole Heard/Depp mess.
Oops. Sorry I didn’t catch this before.
That entire paragraph was about how people are assuming that Heard made it up. The anti-MeToo side uses this as proof that accusations like hers tend to be made up. While the MeToo is concerned that such a high profile example of someone making it up would lead to that exact same conclusion.
So what’s (relatively) rare are false accusations.
Thank you for the explanation. And in hindsight: I think there’s some disturbing accounts in that article I linked. Could a mod add a disclaimer?
An interesting video about the whole Heard/Depp mess.
I ignored everything about this trial until now. There are any number of articles and no doubt videos, blogs, web pages, etc. that are busy assassinating the character of either Depp or Heard with absolutely no regard for actual evidence so it was easy to ignore.
So over the past couple days I took a look and listen to Amber Heard’s testimony. OMG she is an awful actress. She’s done herself no good here, I wouldn’t believe a thing that woman has to say. Maybe her lawyers set her up for this by rehearsing her testimony beforehand, or maybe she’s just a liar, or maybe she’s just such a terrible actress that she sounds like she’s lying when she tells the truth.
Based on nothing else I’d say Depp should win this case and be given damages in the amount of $1. Ok, I don’t really know what the damages should be, but it’s difficult to see his personal reputation could be damaged more than that.
If you think Amber is lying, she’s responsible for Johnny being dropped from multiple movies. You don’t think that’s worth more than one dollar?
For one thing, her lying wouldn’t be the entirety of the case. If he is successful then he doesn’t deserve much for damage to his reputation in general. If he can show that this did have an affect on his movie career, and I have no idea if he can prove that, and there are no other reasons he should not prevail, then I suppose he would be due more money.
I don’t know what they’ve covered so far in the case, but I imagine their will be a fight over whether he did have a movie career left and how much it was worth. Heard’s lawyers touched on this area asking someone if they had actually seen a contract for another Pirates movie, and the way Hollywood works it will be difficult to prove he has lost movie deals as a result of Heard’s OP ED piece.
“In light of recent events … I wish to let you know that I have been asked to resign by Warner Bros. from my role as Grindelwald in Fantastic Beasts and I have respected and agreed to that request,” Depp said.
That is not going to be the hard part of Depp’s case. It’s not like he is a washed up has-been who has been absent from the screen for a decade. He has significant roles in two ongoing franchises—as Grindelwald and Jack Sparrow.
And arguably, Depp’s removal from the franchise has crippled the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. His was by far the most popular character.
First, assuming his self serving statements can be proven out it makes it more difficult for him, he’ll have to prove that Amber Heard started a chain of events leading to Depp’s loss in a libel suit in England. I think he’ll probably try to convince the court with better evidence than that.
Has there been testimony that studios cancelled these deals because of Amber Heard’s OP ED piece? The court might not simply accept gossip headlines as credible evidence.
This … doesn’t make sense.
The hard part of this case is going to be showing that Heard’s statements about his abuse were false.
The loss in England suggests that he has an uphill battle to fight. In a general sense, a plaintiff on a defamation case has a much easier time of it in England as opposed to in the United States.
However, the coverage of this case has been ectremely sympathetic toward Depp. I don’t know whether that will carry over into the jury.
It might not but he could lose the case and get his career back based on his narrative.
I haven’t been watching the trial closely enough to say whether he has adequately proved it or not as of yet, but this would not be difficult in this case. I am also not sure during what phase of the trial this will be addressed. If his lawyers fail on this aspect of the case then they are incompetent.
Wouldn’t that, by default, be the case if she was lying about everything?
I was shown a statement that says Depp was dropped from a movie because he lost his defamation suit in England. A suit he brought against a newspaper or some such. That’s a not a good way to claim you were damaged by Amber Heard.
No. That case said she was telling the truth. If the court here says she’s lying that doesn’t change anything about the case in England and the courts won’t make any assumptions about it. If the studios dropped him from movie roles because he lost his case in England it’s a muddle he doesn’t want to get into. I’m sure he has actual evidence that he lost movie roles directly because of Amber Heard’s lies in an OP ED piece, or maybe he doesn’t even care about the damages and wants a court to say that she was lying.
And if the reason for the suit against the paper was due to it reporting on claims that Heard had made? In that scenario, would this make more sense to you?
Upthread a little bit, someone posted a LegalEagle video that could explain some of these things, if you want to catch up on it.