See You in Court

It’s been a busy week with so many important things going on. My daughter has been doing her GCSEs, the conflict in Ukraine continues. War in Europe seems more possible than at any other point in my life. NATO is expanding to the Russian boarder. Households are being hammered due to inflation, hospital waiting lists are increasing. Work continues to be full on. Lots going on.

So I have decided to write about 2 things that I’ve been really engrossed by this week.

1. The Depp v Heard defamation trial in the US

2. The Wagatha Christie libel trial in London.
   

Wagatha Christie

This is a libel case brought by a premierships footballers wife Rebecca Vardy (a WAG) against another footballers wife, Coolen Rooney for accusing her on a Instagram of selling stories to the Sun newspaper Which Vardy claims is not only false, but libellous and damaging to her reputation.

A reputation is important to a WAG. If you make money from endorsements of brands that people buy your brands need your to be likeable and wholesome to appeal to the widest range of consumers.

During the trial an analysis of Vardys WhatsApp messages reveal that she was constantly gossiping with her agent Caroline Watt about stories that could be leaked to the Sun. However, an IT expert said that the messages that were deleted had to have been done manually. Destruction of evidence by Vardy.

Caroline Watts phone was requested for evidence. Shortly after it fell overboard from a boat in the North Sea. Caroline herself could not testify due to stress.

Wayne Rooney testified under oath that he has asked Jamie Vardy to calm his wife down. Jamie Vardy was not called by his wife’s legal team to rebut this statement under oath, instead standing outside court and saying it was a lie.

The difficulty for Coleen is that to prove it’s not libel under English law she has to show that it was Vardy who leaked the information. Vardy is already suggesting that others had access to her account so in reality, Coleen cannot actually prove it. However her lawyers say that as with hiring a hit man, if you arrange a venture, it’s as good as doing it yourself. Im not sure the judge will allow this.

Judgement is due later in the year.

My Judgement: Vardy is god awful. Coleen much more balanced and palatable. Less attention seeking. Coleen should be found not guilty of libel. Vardy should be publicly vilified and dropped from all her income producing deals. She’s a money grabbing attention seeking spiteful individual and her biggest mistake has been bringing this trial.

Depp v Heard

This one has been broadcast live daily on YouTube. Due to the US time difference it starts around 5pm in the U.K. it’s far better than anything on Netflix or linear Tv right now.

Jonny Depp, major A list star in Disneys Pirates of the Caribbean franchise is suing his ex wife, younger model Amber Heard, a lower key starlet who became bigger due to association with him, for defamation of character and loss of earnings after she wrote an article in a US paper saying she was a victim of domestic violence at his hands. As a result, family friendly Disney dropped him and his ability to work has been reduced.

You would think these are the main players in this trial, but there are others.

Camille Vasquez, one of Depps attorneys, young, attractive, already with a big reputation in defamation cases, has shown herself to be shit hot and savage. In addition to which her tactile approach to Depp during the trial is either because of a possible romantic friendship between them, or just savage mind games in front of his ex.

Vasquez managed to object to around 30 questions asked by Heards lawyer with only 2 being over ruled making Heards lawyers look like utter amateurs.

Another is the Judge. A mild looking woman who has taken no shit, been totally unimpressed by anyones fame

level, and has presided coldly and dispassionately over proceedings including when lawyers have called her biased.

Dr Curry, Depps hired shrink who was asked to analyse Heard, concluding that she was an utter attention seeking and violent lunatic. On the stand under cross example for a few days, also very pleasant to look at but totally professional and unflappable. Had to explain to Heards lawyers about muffins with the legendary line “may I clarify what happened so we can stop talking about muffins“ 😂😂😂.

Contrast that to Heards shrink, a woman who has to look at her notes during trial (not allowed) and who was called Dr Curry by mistake BY HEARDS OWN LAWYER!

Heards lawyer, a man with the surname Rottenborn, and a woman the Internet calls Elaine. Both being torn to shreds online at their stumbling and failure to demonstrate anything of substance.

Along side them, the villain of the piece. Amber Heard.

Why is Heard the villain? Because in my view equality for woman has been a long hard fight, during which woman have died. But the discussion about men being victims of abuse and domestic violence is one that remains under developed and subject to ridicule. Even more so when there is a difference in physical size between the two. This seems to imply to me, “how can he be abused by her given that he’s big enough to physically batter her”. But as physically battering somone is not an option most men do not even contemplate, this is gender based prejudice that discounts and dismisses the mental and verbal abuse received by the man in comparison to a woman. So when a woman who has equal power in a relationship to mentally and verbally abuse a man, but who uses the blanket of feminism to pretend she is a victim, it’s doubly wrong.

My Judgement: Heard is wrong to claim she was a victim of domestic violence. Therefore the piece was defamation. However, in terms of damages, I would say that Heard was a joint and equal party to a toxic and unpleasant relationship. She could have written about this and this could have led to Depp losing Disney. Therefore I would limit the damages to a smaller amount. Maybe $10m. I would also force Heard to pay the $7m she pledged to charity from her divorce. Both sides would be banned from claiming either is a “victim” within the relationship and if at all possible never refer to each other in public again.