Why all the hate against Amber Heard?

Cafe Society
141

I think we’re getting off track here. Earlier, you mentioned that you wouldn’t believe anything she said. My next post began with ‘If you think she’s lying…’. IOW, my point was that IF she was lying, he’d win the case and ISTM it wouldn’t be all that difficult to show that her lies have cost him movie roles.

It is interesting that everything about him losing roles very strongly implies, but never explicitly state that he was dropped due to Amber’s claims. I’m curious if that was done so if he loses all these cases and Amber’s claims are legally considered true, there’s not a direct correlation between them. Both sides can deny the connection.
OTOH, if Johnny can prove that she was lying about everything, the studios can release/leak something explicitly stating he lost these roles because of her false allegations [and list how much those contracts were worth].

142

Ok, I get you. I do think she’s lying, at least on the stand, but proving damages is another step. First they have to find that she’s lying, and then Depp has to have proven that he lost movie roles because of the lies Heard told. He needs positive proof of to seek damages on that basis. I don’t know what else he might ask for in damages to his personal reputation, but nothing is defaulted, there won’t be assumptions. Warner Bros. might say they wanted to drop him anyway because he was old and did something stupid with his dog in Australia. If he wants to prove that kind of damages he needs someone from a studio to testify about why they dropped him, or possibly show written proof if the studio was dumb enough to write such a thing down.

143

If somebody made up something false about me I wouldn’t try to prove it by pointing out a lawsuit that I lost about the matter. YMMV

144

Especially an English case, since unless I’m mistaken, libel and slander is generally easier to prove in English courts (due to a difference in the standards of proof for those torts).

145

Why would WB lie about it, though?

146

If he proves that Heard’s statements about his abuse were lies then he also lost that case because she lied. So the harm is caused by her lying about him. None of that harm would have happened but for her defamation.

147

Why would the studio lie? And why would ir have been dumb for them to put on record the reason for firing him? On the contrary, they bear no fault here. They don’t have a reason to lie about it.

148

By the way, the main harm in a defamation case is reputational harm. He doesn’t have to prove that he lost a specific amount of money in acting jobs. He only has to show that the defamatory statements are of the kind that would tend to harm his reputation. That will be more than easy to show.

And by the way, I don’t have any idea who is telling the truth or who is lying. I don’t see how casual observers could come to a conclusion at this point.

To me, the English court’s conclusions about the evidence are pretty damn good for Heard. It’s very hard to defend a defamation case under English law. That she won so decisively suggests more to me than anything I’ve seen in this trial.

149

I read an opinion piece by a psychologist (?) who has analyzed “body language” and according to his analysis, Heard is a stinking liar, Depp worthy of sainthood (IIRC). I really just skimmed the article, did anyone else read it?

150

Heard violated a legal agreement when she published an article with false statements attacking Depp. Depp sued her, and here we are. Now years later we’re finding out that Depp was not the person she claimed he was and she keeps getting caught up in lies, never mind the fake crying that doesn’t shed a tear or change her skin tone, makeup or not, and the recent fascination of her possibly doing a hit of a controlled substance.

151

Who says they did? Has there been testimony about this from Warner Bros.?

But beyond that, it’s a movie studio. They might face consequence for lying under oath, but otherwise they will freely lie if they believe it’s to their advantage.

152

That may be all that he cares about. If he wins damages from Heard she’ll never pay it anyway. I said before he may want to hear a court say that she lied more than anything.

153

I thought your whole argument was, “WB could make up any reason they want to explain firing Depp.” Wasn’t that the point of that thing about Depp “doing something in Australia to his dog” that you postulated?

154

He did do something with his dog in Australia and I have no idea whether Warner Bros. ever told Depp anything about this at all. I looked at an article above that didn’t have a statement from the studio for any reason that Depp was recast. It doesn’t even say that Depp specifically said it had something to do with Heard, he just said it was due to recent events. And then the publication contained this statement of fact about the sequence of events which is not in question, “The move follows the Pirates of the Caribbean actor losing a libel suit against a British newspaper.”.

What kind of evidence is that to prove Depp lost film work because Amber Heard lied about him?

155

Which brings me to the other point I was making (separate from this tangent). It seems to me to be odd that in both roles that he was dropped from (Pirates/Fantastic Beasts), the statements that were made heavily implied the reason he was dropped was because of Amber’s statements, but never explicitly said it. Either studio could have said ‘due to the developing situation between Depp and Heard, we have chosen to to remove Depp from this project’. Essentially like one of those vague press release from a business/school/police dept that they’ve placed someone on “Administrative Leave”.

For Fantastic Beasts, following him losing the UK suit:
WB said “Johnny Depp will depart the Fantastic Beasts franchise. We thank Johnny for his work on the films to date. Fantastic Beasts 3 is currently in production, and the role of Gellert Grindelwald will be recast. The film will debut in theaters worldwide in the summer of 2022.”
Depp said “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.” and “Finally, I wish to say this. The surreal judgement of the court in the U.K. …”

For Pirates, a few days Amber’s article in The Sun:
Actually, I can’t readily find statements from Depp or Disney. I think I was just seeing opinions that sounded like statements.

In any case. Maybe they [WB in this case] were just trying to be diplomatic and distance themselves from the case by not even bringing it up. But I still wonder if it was to give them the ability to walk back the statement (if all the charges are dropped) without having to wade into the toxic mess that is their relationship. They’d also have the ability to say (as a favor?) ‘yup we dropped him from this project because of the allegations, but now that it’s proven she made the whole thing up, we’re hiring him back. BTW, he lost an $xx,xxx,xxx paycheck over this’, and now we have a statement showing he lost out on, at least, this much income due to her statements.

Wasn’t part of the problem there that, even though we all knew that article was about Depp, he was never mentioned by name and it (apparently successfully) gave her plausible deniability?

Semi related question: If she made these accusations/released this article while they were still married, and he was dropped from these movies while they were still married, would she still be entitled to any compensation from it that, had they amicably divoreced she would have received based on their prenup or various laws on dividing marital assets?
Does that make sense?
For example, lets say he signed a contract for $20m. She then called him a wife beater, the studio dropped him and then they got divorced. He wins the defamation case by proving she made everything up and is awarded $20m. Does he have to give her half (or whatever he’d have to give her if they just ‘grew apart’ and got divorced.

156

It doesn’t seem odd to me at all. Corporations don’t make explicit statements about personnel matters unless they really have to. They don’t want to be subject to defamation claims either.

It’s perfectly good evidence. The law allows you to make logical deductions and draw inferences from indirect evidence.

In this kind of case it’s not hard at all to establish that everyone knew who was being referred to.

Again, the main hurdle that Depp faces is proving that she lied. If he can do that then the rest is much easier.

157

It’s not evidence at all. It’s hearsay upon hearsay.

158

Okay I’m done.

159

Good. I take that to mean you’ve learned not to take gossip for the truth of things.

160

Would the be subject to defamation claims if they said something to the extent of 'We fired him because of Heard’s accusations". That, ISTM, isn’t the same as saying “We fired him because he physically abused Heard”. They’re not making a claim (WRT him abusing her). But rather saying something more along the lines of ‘we’re gonna see how this plays out’. Now, I’m not a PR person, but that, I’d think, would let them play both sides of the eventual result of the trial. If she wins, the studio can claim they were acknowledging her accusations from the beginning. If he wins, they can be “thrilled to have Mr Depp back in the studio” or some other bs like that.

Turns out I was mistaken on that point. I do remember discussing how much plausible deniability she had, but I think that only happened in the court of public opinion. From what I quickly glanced at, he lost the UK case because the judge believe almost all the claims in the article to be true.