The Verdict

So the Depp v Heard trial verdict has come in, I can finally move on from being absorbed in this event. Something I have been watching and following live on YouTube!

I am going to deal with the following points in this blog:

• Should we be watching this stuff?

• What was the verdict?

• Is this damaging for Domestic Abuse victims?

• What about the UK Libel trail?

Should we be Watching?

The trial was dealing with some very private moments and at times it was difficult to listen to some of the stuff said. Some of the stories told by Amber were difficult to listen to. His messages were exposed and some of his language was very awkward and embarrassing to read. There was nothing from her because she had refused to let her electronic communication be subject to the same scrutiny.

In my opinion, watching this trial is the modern equivalent of old fashioned ‘people interest’ the fodder of every magazine and tabloid publication. We are fascinated in other peoples lives, thats human nature. Plus the trial became the modern equivalent of Roman Gladiators, put on to entertain the mob.

People can turn their nose up at whatever they like, and I turn my nose up as lots of aspects of the UK tabloid culture which has now morphed into click bait to earn big money for big companies at our expense and at the expense of quality, but ultimately, we all at various times get fascinated by peoples lives. Plus I enjoy the legal side. Plus I couldn't stop watching.

The Verdict

The jury were being asked to find if Heard had defamed Depp on 3 statements she had made. She countersued him for defamation on 3 counts.

On all 3 counts they found she had defamed him.

They awarded Depp $15 million compensation.

The jury rejected 2 of her counts but found that he had defamed her on 1 count.

They awarded her $2 million.

There were various instructions given to the jury, mainly around being sure the statements were made by Depp or Heard but the key instructions that are worth noting are these:

1. To be sure it was defamation, they had to be sure that the other person way lying about the claim’ and

2. That they lied deliberately to damage the other person.

The 3 statements picked by Depp all said he was abusive towards Heard. The jury said she was lying on all 3 counts and that she was lying to damage Depp.

The 1 statement Heard won that defamed her was a story about her calling 911 to set him up. The Jury found that he was lying (via his ex-lawyer) about that story and that he was lying to damage Heard.

You can see that the jury thought that he made up a story about her calling the police to set him up which they couldn’t find to be true. Thats significantly different to her making up the key claim that he is an abuser.

So overall, this verdict is a massive win for Depp.

And I think that verdict reflected the evidence that I sat through. No one is saying that their relationship wasn’t full of toxic moments, arguments, shouting, horrible words. And no one is saying that he didn’t engage in relationship arguments and poor behaviour. In fact, on the stand he admitted that his behaviour was of a low standard at times (she never admitted that despite overwhelming evidence of her admitting on recordings of physically attacking him). But being guilty of being a joint party to a toxic relationship is significantly different to being guilty of physically abusing the other Person.

Unfortunately, straight after the verdict, Heard released a preprepared statement repeating the same statements that caused the defamation, saying that she was a victim, and that this was a case for all women against the power of men, which appears to be very disconnected from what the jury had just decided.

She said that she thought that Americans had freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution, failing to spot the fact that it refers to speaking the truth. You are not free to speak lies about another person which then damages that other person.

Is this damaging for Domestic Abuse Victims? On balance I don’t think this is. If you didn’t follow this case, and don’t know much about the couple, it may look like a woman who is a victim of physical abuse who has been mocked and disbelieved. But in reality this is far from that.

If there was evidence, any evidence, of physical abuse by Depp in this case I believe that not only would the jury have sided with her, but after the defamation trial there would be calls for criminal charges. I think he would have been destroyed by the public. But the problem for Heard seems to be that there isn’t a scrap of evidence to say that he physically abused her in anyway at all. As I said above, they argued in a nasty way, but there was no physical abuse By him.

There was however a large amount of evidence to show that Amber is fragile emotionally and has abandonment issues. There is evidence that Depp had enough of the relationship and the arguing and that he said he was going to divorce her.

Then there is evidence showing that as soon as she knew it was over, she went to court without telling him, filed for divorce first to make it look like it was her leaving him, at the same time filed for a restraining order because he was violent (the first time she had ever mentioned this) and turned up at court with a bruise on her cheek whilst tipping off a paparazzi to capture this picture. She was also photographed the day after without a bruise.

During the whole trial there was no other evidence that could be corroborated to show he had abused her physically. On the other hand, he was able to show that she had physically abused him on a number of occasions.

There is also voice recordings of her agreeing with him that she physically abused him and that if he ever told anyone, no one would believe him as she goaded him on to sit in court and claim that she abused him,

It seems to me that the actions she took in a moment of high emotions, during a divorce (which is never the best time for cool headed decision making) put her into a role, and one which she has not been able to reverse from.

Outside of the trial, there is also a lot of other information available which does not cast Heard in a good light. This information is not gossip, but sworn testimony in other legal cases from individuals who claim Heard abused and mistreated them, and in another case, that her father did the same. When one mechanic refused to return her car because she wouldn’t pay his bills, her father told him he was going to shoot Depp for destroying Ambers career…. Not for hitting her, but because she is losing money.

It was still noticeable in this trial that male victims of domestic violence still have a higher bar to jump to get people to believe them. There was an assumption that because Depp is physically larger and stronger he shouldn’t be a victim. Essentially saying ‘why didn’t you hit her’ which in itself is sexist and discounts the victims position based on his gender. He is also a powerful (white) man so he had to fight against the general belief that men in that position can’t be a victim of anything. But despite all the historical events that give rise to that belief, sometimes a woman can physically abuse a man, a man who may have more power in his workplace, or a man with more physical strength, and he can still be a victim and this should be noted.

I think domestic abuse victims can draw comfort from this trial. When evidence is presented showing abuse, a jury will believe them.

What about the UK Libel Trial?

Libel in the UK is a rich persons sport. The trial in the UK was between Depp and The Sun, not Depp and Heard.

The UK has a tradition of gutter tabloid press. They write stories and gossip and they put salacious headlines on the articles. Judges know this and judges are familiar with this.

The UK does not have a freedom of speech constitution, but we have a tradition where newspapers are allowed to print what they like as long as its broadly correct.

Judges will not shut down or silence a tabloid if they can help it. Gossip, rubbish, trash and click bait is printed daily and UK courts should be full of libel cases, but they’re not. The bar is set high so that any ordinary Brits cannot use this law, it reserved for the rich and powerful, and even then, its still a high bar, especially if you’re trying to restrict a newspaper.

The Washington Post (the paper which printed the Amber Heard article which Depp claimed was defamation) wrote a mildly defensive piece saying that in the UK the case was decided on the evidence by a Judge as if that is somehow of a better standard than a jury. Its surprising that an American paper is willing to run down their own legal system, but they are probably making defensive manoeuvres trying to control the narrative in their favour.

But the judge in the UK case would have heard about the arguing and the toxic relationship. That was never in dispute and for a British judge, thats enough for a newspaper to use the phrase ‘wife beater’. Its a signpost that says Depp was horrible to his wife. And he was at times. He admitted as much in the US trial.

The UK judge would have listened to Amber saying “he hit me on multiple occasions”. Depp saying he didn’t, but the judge would be left thinking; he’s agreeing that he was horrible to her, she says he hit her, he’s saying he didn’t, but on balance, a man being horrible to a woman is probably lying about not hitting her, and that is enough weight to allow a paper to print shitty headlines.

The Judge doesn’t have to work out if he really did hit her. It’s not a criminal case, just, do I think there is enough for the newspaper to attach.a shiitty but attention grabbing headline, and the judge thought there was. So Depp lost.

In the US, the jury wanted evidence to show she was a victim of domestic violence. But it wasn’t there. She didn’t bring it. So Amber lost.

Love Island 2022 starts Monday! Phew.