@@cadebradbury9334 not to mention that Depp, through his over thirty year history in public life, has never been accused of anything that Amber accused him of. You look at someone like Cosby, as soon as the first victim spoke out, dozens followed. When Amber made her accusations, she stood alone
@@RillianGrant It's genuinely impressive, by the looks of things neither of them is an angel and yet everything is pro him, it's the value of a good pr team more than anything else
I wish you’d covered the evidence allowed in the UK case - it’s fascinating exactly what was allowed in the UK case because it wasn’t Heard on trial, it was the Sun, and how that shifted the case’s optics.
@@Howitchewstofeel5gum I can't remember everything but the judge said. They didn't allow testimonies on Depps character, citing his family and friends would be bias but ignored testimonies from law officials and staff members as well. He cited that the call from amber saying she hit him wasn't admissible as evidence that heard was an aggressor and hand waved away the fact that it was contrary to what she said in court. He didn't take into consideration the injuries that Depp had inflicted on him but accepted the alleged injuries that Heard brought forward. He stated that Heard was not doing it for personal gain as she had given the money to charity and that isn't the sort of thing an abuser would do, which is stupid anyway but later proved to be false. I vaguely remember one thing about what Heard had said that he admitted was bad but basically said that he had to as he couldn't think of a way to justify it. not in those words but he sounded very reluctant to do it. The Judges also had personal ties to the sun and Heard too, though I can't remember quite what they were.
@@Edanurus There's an argument to be made in good will that LegalEagle was merely trying to keep the video short but my suspicion is that it was kept out to avoid taking a side on the cultural bias towards women in these kinds of cases.
@@Edanurus That's a whole steaming pile of cobblers. The judge has nothing that was recognisable as a legal tie to the parties in question, those are misinterpretations stated by people on twitter who seem to think they understand events and the law better than Depp's legal team. I think I know who I'd consider the more reliable thinkers on this issue. The character issue is essentially an ad hominem fallacy. If a mate of mine commits a bank robbery, there would be no legal value in my testimony that I had never seen them rob a bank or speak about robbery around me. It's the same reason the trial never considered the many incidents of Depp being verbally and physically abusive to people when drunk, trying to find a verdict based on the incidents themselves, not on other people's assessment of the character of either of them. It would seem to actually be a failing on the courts in Virginia that this meaningless nonsense has been allowed - you might as well ask plane spotters about the contents of an aircraft black box since they weren't on board at the time! The UK trial considered specific incidents. Nothing that wasn't relevant to those exact occasions was considered because it was about the paper demonstrating that they had enough evidence to show that Depp could be described as abusive. The wider picture of the relationship doesn't matter. Compare that to here were there is a concerted effort to extrapolate a few incidents of Heard being the aggressor as being true for every incident in the relationship, rather than looking at the incidents in isolation, probably because Depp's team loses their advantage when that is done. However contrary to the idea of staff members not being allowed to testify, testimony about the exact incidents were allowed to let the judge attempt to corroborate events with Depp's and Heard's testimony (and he found both people to be somewhat shifty on the stand, often relying more on supporting statements and evidence like text messages) The claims about Amber doing it for financial gain were meaningless in the UK trial beyond the general ad hominem strategy that Depp's legal team pursues. If a person tells a lie in situation A (not actually proven either, this is just a hypothetical), and tells the truth in situation B, A doesn't make B a lie, and B doesn't A the truth. You have to look at the incidents in isolation, and the whole argument gets very nebulous in terms of what peole have and haven't disclosed. The big thing though? Amber was only a witness in the UK trial, not a party, so it feeds in to that character assassination thing - attacking the person, not the incidents.
The first lawsuit was against that tabloid paper over in the UK. I think this is the first time Johnny is suing Amber directly. And the first case being heard by an actual jury.
And Depp lost... nobody talking about it, because people likes much more scandal and gossiping and being judgemental... that's why Depp wanted this lawsuit to be on TV. Also, I don't believe in juries, but it could be beneficial in this case for Depp...
It does truly seem like a "what do I have to lose" suit, he probably has been told he isn't likely to win. But at least he can get his side heard and the case of public opinion seems to be going his way.
The court of public opinion is quite the court indeed. It's a good example, in my view ,of the difference and importance even, between "what it is" and "what it looks like"
He's obviously not after the money, just the absolution of the stigma "domestic abuser" and his ability to do his crafts again. I think it's incredibly noble to put himself in the court's hands, bearing all in the name of public opinion.
@@Dmdirmrjr33 That decision is according to a court that would sooner convict a man for trespassing in a house than the child predators said man was trying to protect his daughter from in said house, simply because of the risk of being accused of attacking a religion. In short, I would only take any judgement made by British courts with enough salt to crash the global salt market.
@@Dmdirmrjr33 You really think? I don't doubt that he's done/said awful things, but I know personally how being abused by someone with BPD makes you literally crazy. I will admit that I am biased because I watched my mom do to my dad what JD is claiming AH did to him, and my mom claimed it was my dad. I appreciate other views on this though.
I really look forward to your post-verdict take. While it was clear that the internet had long decided, spending a lot of time dissecting all statements by both sides in ways a secluded jury never could, it's interesting to see that the jury found the evidence to reach the level of actual malice in four charges, three on behalf of Depp and one on behalf of Heard.
Other lawyers have speculated it was a ‘compromise verdict’, where (in this case) a larger number of people siding with Depp conceded the one charge to a smaller group supporting Heard in order to reach a decision. Not saying this is or isn’t the case, just what I’ve heard said.
Well the only reason she won on one of them was Waldman got the sequence of events wrong on the 2nd call to police. And there wasn’t evidence establishing that her friends in LA made the call to police.
You missed the part where as a non party she was not open to full discovery like he was in the UK so it was possible for her to only provide damaging evidence on him not anything damaging to herself
Her abusing him doesn't somehow magically make him not abusive. Both were abusive and toxic; people need to learn how to think and stop jumping on bandwagons and riding JD's D for no reason.
@@doxasticc But a court as already upheld claims that he was abusive. Herd still has her roles in movies and as the face of companies. If both are abusive both need to be punished.
@@shannibeth Idk what you mean by fair, the case was over whether it was a lie to say he was a 'wife-beater.' Evidence that AH was also abusive is irrelevant to that.
Thanks for the LEGAL commentary on this LEGAL matter. For all the commentary I've seen on this, this is the first time I've seen anyone cover the UK lawsuit.
The Virginia trial being called a circus is... the grand understatement of the day, I would think. Odd, framed shots including Heard posing on the stand at random times, Depp laughing in court when she shifts from zero emotional reaction to extreme breakdown in testimony, the lawyer asking and objecting to his own question (like you mentioned), and just... everything else. This is one of those times when the term _batshit_ should be codified into the legal lexicon. This trial is batshit.
That wasn’t a framed shot, she was snorting coke off her finger. The whole trick with the tissues and “oh just allergies” that’s a trick older than bell bottom jeans.
I’m pretty sure he (and myself a bit) laughed because of how fake that “breakdown” looked. That’s not at all how an abuse victim normally behaves especially when they’re trying to give testimony in public view. It just felt like acting.
Nice try! My dad used to beat me and make fun of me when I cry. And yes, I do go from zero to 100 when I start remembering, much to my therapists' discomfort. They don't like it when I talk about it, it makes them uncomfortable. They're not good in that regard tbh. She's telling the truth, sorry that your hero is a sadist
One of the biggest problems with the treatment of this case in the court of public opinion is that most viewers seem unable to understand anything more complex than good guy vs bad guy.
The biggest problem with the treatment of this case is that JD's team had to insist on the trial be televised to make sure people actually believe how vicious and ruthless a beautiful young woman can be and how a man's life can be destroyed based on... hearsay. I'm quite sure he's a difficult, troubled person who needs to shower more, but... with a whiskey bottle??? Really???
@@susivarga7303 hearsay on both sides, though I will say this, the man whose personal hygiene you're making a logical fallacy argument over hasn't committed perjury. The vicious young woman has. That isn't hearsay.
@@susivarga7303 I thought I pointed out the last thing you said was ad hominem fallacy. The fact that Heard has perjured herself on the stand is exactly the reason why this should be in the public forum. Also your straw man argument about Amber's looks somehow being related to her personality and her behaviour is a bit of a stretch. At least JD admits his faults, she hasn't once acknowledged hers. Like every good abuser and narcissist it's always the other person's fault.
@@ceink1802 you are twisting my words. Again. The argument about her looks being related to her personality wasn't mine. If it was, I would have defended her like many did. I made my point clear. Just without any big words.
I would seriously like hearing you live commenting on the case, as it is on going. It would be quite interesting to hear your take on how both Heard's and Depp's lawyers handle this case.
@@Colopty still, that's not the same as live commenting as tge trial is taking place like several other LawTubers have. I will be glad just to see him make another video on the subject either way.
I think this would be interesting, but there is a single reason why not doing it is the correct way, it would be impossible to keep the neutrality needed, this is an analysis about what surrounds the case, but not about giving an opinion about who is right, at this point personally, for what i have seen, because i am seeing the case for shit and giggles, there have been no evidence against him that is at all convincing, in fact, some of the evidence presented by Heard's team can be interpreted against her, plus the things she has said that he did but in fact there is video evidence uploaded by herself in the internet that she was the one that did those things, like endangering a dog.
No, there was an objection for hearsay and another for conjecture What did the neughbour say they heard And If you had spoken to Mrs. herd first wouldn't you have worked for her instead Both objections sustained if I recall
The jury is supposedly 7 male, 3 female-all very young. On the one hand, if those males recognize that men can be victims of DV, he might stand a chance of winning. If they’re more of the macho/men can’t be victims variety, he’s already lost even if all the evidence is on his side. Their age might be the biggest benefit to depps side, the younger generations have a more open mind to equality. The females…it’s a toss up. They may side with heard because of shared experiences (though that was most likely checked for before trial) OR they could be more empathetic to Depps side for, what I believe, is a more authentic/truthful testimony.
@@R.M.3.14 I agree to an extent with that, but I think there is a lot of emphasis on the gender of the jury. I personally think the jury will be less swayed by a stereotypical emotional association, but more so by the evidence and credibility of either's case. Judging by what I've seen so far I can't see how many of the jurors can side with Amber, but you never know.
@@muppet50yago36 yeah she literally admitted to assaulting him it shouldn’t take more than 5 min for them to come to a decision, she’ll be lucky if she’s able to avoid a criminal domestic violence case lol, they already have photo evidence and a confession under oath 😂
An important thing to know about the UK trail and why it came to the conclusion it did was that a lot of evidence was not admitted into that case since it was against the Sun Newspaper and not really AH. But in the US case, a lot of the evidence not used in the UK trail has been admitted into the US case.
Also, the Sun was making claims with the evidence they had, that should be enough to claim that there is no malignant intent from their part, since they werent directly lying, just wrong.
UK case was also down to something like a reasonable probability that JD could be considered abusive. At a judges discretion. All very vague and unfair, tbh.
What's also important to know about the UK case is who the judge was. He had previously worked for the same company that owns the company Depp was suing, his son was currently working for that company. He is a close friend and colleague of a IPV activist whose organisation Heard is a spokeswoman for. (Don't just take my word for any of this, look it up and fact check me, I encourage it) That's all the kind of thing that normally you would think "well maybe this guy shouldnt't be the judge on this case".
Wish i knew about you when my mom got in legal trouble. My sister was underage drug use, and when my mom took her ciggies away, she had a fit and tried to attack my mom. Nothing really happened so my mom took me to work. I got a call later saying that my sister's friend convinced her to call the cops on my mom and said she (mother) kicked her (sister). She was put in jail for 10 days right then and there. I went, somewhere, and gave them my statement that in fact it was my sister who attacked my mom....I dont know exactly what happened, but my mom decided to settle and take blame to get the court stuff finished....I told her that she has no reason to do so because I was right there but apparently it didn't matter. Like I was never called again even though I was a witness. I still hold a grudge against my sister for that.
I can relate to something like this, my family would settle for it to go away too, even if they were in the right. Im sorry that happened to you and your mom.
Appreciate that, it's got to be pushing 7 years now since it happened. It's kinda become a joke with us now. Fortunately my sister called down since then.
wow that's crazy. something similar happened to me but they released me the same day. 10 days in arrest is a lot over something like that, especially with little evidence and no corroborating witnesses.
My family is different we have issues with my sister who kinda did a 180 on us. Theres a part of us that thinks she would try to pull something, especially with her 2 new lovers coercing her but... mom and I are fighters. In all forms. I have a ton of things to bring up on her and have no problem putting her lovers down where they stand. If she goes for a fight, i fight to the death. And she takes flight over fight, so i dont think there will be problems
Video was *seemingly* very thorough.. but I'm curious why you made no mention of the non-disclosure that was made to be signed by Heard as part of the divorce settlement in 2016? It was an NDA created by Depp's legal team that made it so both Heard and Depp agreed to not make negative statements of each other or about their relationship. A big reason she had to re-write her op-ed several times was because her lawyers had to review it in order to ensure it did not violate any part of the NDA.
@@marmar920 if he were to sue for the breach of NDA it would only apply to that article, suing for defamation allows for there to be a way larger scope in terms of evidence and testimony that can be given.
because that would not solve the issue but make it worse. If shes sued for breach of the NDA we would all wonder wwhat he was trying to silence her on and would fuel speculation It's the right move from his team for sure
There was plenty of references to it when the ACLU representative, an attorney, was testifying. I don't know how AH doesn't have a malpractice case against her atty's for approving the op-ed. They're the same ones that drew up the NDA.
Because she didn’t mention his name, they believed they would get around the non-disclosure. However it doesn’t take a rocket scientist and defamation with proven damages has more serious implications than a breach of a non-disclosure.
While I’m sure Depp’s team wants to and is trying hard to win, I think in a way the legal outcome is irrelevant to an extent. The goal of the trial is to clear his name, and by virtue of making this trial public, they’ve ensured the people of the public - the ones with whom his reputation matters - have a chance to act as a jury themselves on the matter. As long as their case is compelling to the public, then whether or not Depp’s name is cleared by the court’s jury it will be in the public sphere anyway, accomplishing the goal they’ve set out to accomplish. So while I do think Depp’s team wants to win, I think they are trying to win in the court of public opinion just as much as the literal court. If everyone wants to see him back in movies and boycotts everything Heard is in, he will have functionally won, whether or not he did formally. Personally I think he and his team have made the more compelling case thus far. There are a lot of perspectives and evidence being brought forward in this case that weren’t in the UK proceedings which frankly makes it feel like those weren’t thorough whatsoever. I find it telling that the “fecal matter in bed” was just dismissed by the UK judge because it doesn’t make sense as a vindictive strategy. This erroneously presumes that every other person is operating on the same rationale as the judge for what makes sense which is laughable. Something making sense to you is not necessary for it to have made sense to, justified by and done by someone else who is less rational and stable. That the UK judge couldn’t understand that undermines how seriously their ruling can be taken in the public sphere.
Hi, just wanted to clarify on what was stated regarding the UK judge's decision. I have not studied the law on defamation yet but I do believe that the law of tort practiced there has an inbred focus on the objective test of a reasonable person (an average joe who you randomly pick from the streets). The key note here is that it will be based off on an objective test and circumstances of a person's character will likely not be put into consideration beyond the circumstances that they are in. As such, under the eyes of UK law, the trial judge's judgment would likely not have been considered erroneous in that sense as a reasonable person that you pick up from the streets is not very likely to assume that the fecal matter in the bed was from a person, especially if the house has a pet. Yeah just wanted to say that. Don't really know why or what purpose this message is meant to achieve. Eh.
I’m not claiming any knowledge of the private situation of complete strangers, but there is a phenomenon called Reactive Abuse. This is where someone with narcissistic personality traits abused someone emotionally and verbally until the victim acts out and then acts as the victim due to the acting out. This is particularly effective on conciliatory and empathic individuals as they will downplay or hide the originating abuse whereas the abuse will up-play and publicize the reaction.
Mmyeah. I'm not much for getting involved in celebrity gossip - but this case hits a little too close to home for me. Constantly being critical of anyone who comes forward with allegations of domestic abuse is harmful toward actual victims of abuse...but I know first-hand that it's an actual thing that real people will lie and scheme ahead of time to win court cases, especially when there's money in it. Or power.
Yes, it certainly applies, no matter who is the original perpetuator. Now, although this evidence may not be admitted due to both parties' stipulation, Amber Heard was in fact arrested for DV (although not prosecuted), while none of Johnny Depp's previous partners even accused him.
I have experienced this myself. Reactively abusing after so much emotional and mental abuse was given to me. It's not right, but it happens. I was wondering if thar ended up being the case with Johnny.
I've experienced this. She'd do something absurdly violent and when I held her down to stop her it would be that I'd somehow kicked her ass. It's nuts. At a certain point shut emotions down, don't take anything they do personally. Everything gets easier once you just do what is right and realize you are not dealing with a sane person. She went on to have failed after failed relationship. The three months of nice person act doesn't secure you a punching bag it turns out.
Congratulations on being one of the only people on the internet that covered this case in the most unbiased way possible. You earned my sub from that alone.
@@ABoxIsMyHome Yea, I started a business while in law school and I'm making x10 the money that I would have made as a lawyer, but that applies to my country mostly (I'm from EU)
I know most people say this, but I’m not someone who’s often hooked on gossip. I don’t want anyone to be in a toxic relationship, but beyond that I really do not spend much time thinking about Depp or Heard. I’ve long since detached on screen ability and a genuine positive personality. Having said all that, I cannot stop watching the trial. It is captivating in the weirdest way. I have to know how closely it follows a “typical” court case because man, it ain’t like the movies.
I think trials are compelling because everyone watching is just as qualified to analyze it as the jury is. That's the whole point of a jury, they're regular people. I'm lost watching a Magnus Carlsen chess match. I don't understand the scoring system of tennis. But a trial is meant to be watched by anyone.
I couldn't agree more with the better things in the world to focusing on, and like thats not even a current thing that is an always thing. but @makerinmotion that response has really made me recontextualise things. you've explained it so perfectly and captured something important about its appeal.
@@ramon3897 Because regardless of whether Depp's or Heard's claims are true or false, anyone of any gender could be and have been sued and jailed even though the alleged attacker was telling the truth while others have been sued and released/exonerated because others havr lied about abuse/rape/etc. Men have lied about women, women have lied about men, men have lied about men and women have lied about women, and everybody has lied over money, ego, control, fame, spite, etc. It's interesting because it's real people, regardless of whether their testimonies are truthful or dishonest.
I found it funny that he used US court stock footage for the UK court. They wear funny little wigs & stuff over there, so the footage in this just didn't fit at all. Cool you got to see yourself though :)
18:10 Hill: What does "SPEECH" stand for? Ward: Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Hill: And what does that mean to you? Ward: It means someone really wanted the initials to spell out 'speech'
Having been a victim of the type of abuse Johnny described, and with Amber's own words from the tapes where she talks about hitting because he walked away from her, I am confident that the "headbutt" could have been an accident. When you're being attacked while walking away and are forced to defend yourself while trying all you can to keep a wild animal off of you, it is almost impossible not to accidentally hurt them even if you are trying your hardest not to. They attack you, force you to defend yourself, and then say you abused them because something happened. You're basically stuck in a nightmare where you're a victim who's being blamed as the perpetrator.
Depp even rebuttled under redirect Examination that "I was trying to stop her, it's possible our foreheads collided as they do in an altercation, but it wasn't a headbutt." going on later to say "After she dispensed of the tissue, I inspected it very closely and found it was nail polish." Not to mention When Johnny tried to figure out what went wrong, she refused any sort of help or examination.
As an English lawyer, impressive explanation of English concepts, except JD didn’t appeal to the highest court. He appealed from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. Above that is the Supreme Court (to which he didn’t appeal). Otherwise, lots of ticks. Great summary.
Objection. The UK trial was weird, by any standard. The judge, on several occasions, elected to ignore Depp's witnesses because they were under his employment. Then he proceed to believe Heard's claims simply because they were, to him, believable. On the other hand, the Judge failed to disclose that his son, Robert Palmer, worked for talkRADIO, owned by Rupert Murdoch, the Sun's owner, while Daniel John William Wootton, the journalist who authored the Sun's article in question, is also a talkRADIO host. The conflict of interests is clear, and LE would do well to explore the UK judgement in detail before accepting the judgement as fair. EDIT: Several notes here. 1. The employees are witnesses under oath, under the penalty of perjury. There's no "rule against employee" in the US court system, and there's a very good reason for that. Even in this case, all expert witnesses are paid witnesses, some are very, very well paid, still they should not automatically be discounted simply because they got paid. 2. Appeals can fail for any reason, including bad lawyering. They did not know about the conflict of interests at the time since they can't cross examine the Judge, they can't argue on the reasoning of the Judge, which is his sole discretion, so they tried to argue on "disputed fact", which the appellate court did not find compelling enough. So, case closed. 3. There's a lot of ad-hoc reasoning in the UK judgement, not just those I listed. The judge even rejected sworn testimonies of two police officers, submitting himself as a better IPV injuries expert by looking at Miss Heard's photos than two trained professional law enforcement officers who were personally there, and then essentially accused them of committing perjury without explicitly saying so. Like I said, it's beyond weird, so look at the judgement yourself. 4. It's ok for witnesses to be biased, because any such biases can be shown to the jury on cross. When a Judge is biased, especially when he does so subtly as the Judge Nichol, there is no recourse for the defense team, as such it is really important for the judge to disclose any conflict of interests and recuse him/herself from a trial when any such conflict does arise.
He would still maybe loose the UK case, even if the judge wasn't bias. It was against The Sun and given that the only available information at that time was Miss Heard's article, that would probably be considered a sufficient ground for them to publish their article.
@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942 Depends on how individually-minded the employee is, how the employee has been treated, numerous factors. There's no such thing as a black-and-white explanation to a group or kind of people. Anything could happen - in fact, this very court case has taught me that much.
And the appeal court that upheld the ruling? Also in the pocket of talkRADIO? Or are you going into this with the idea that the UK case was unjust and working backwards from there?
A subtopic for your inevitable follow-up video: how does jury sequestration work in high-profile cases like these that invariably get dragged onto social media? (In general, I know how it works in theory, but I'm curious on specifics and logistics of such.)
@@sl3966 Then a follow-up question/topic for him: How do you prevent spoiling of a jury because of a headline passing their eyeballs? How do you prove it? :)
@@Genesis8934 You really can't. It's an honor system thing. Just like the juror on the Floyd trial that later came out and said he knew all about the case and had been to protests about Floyd. He also said that "we need to start getting on these juries to effect change" in direct opposition to what he wrote on his jury questionnaire. We just have to trust that they take jury duty seriously I guess.
@@sl3966 Personally, I think that jury nullification is not a mark of unseriousness. I'd certainly consider it if abortion became outlawed, if Roe falls, for example.
@@sl3966 That's actually something that feels like a huge gap in the legal system. You can't appeal a jury getting something wrong, even though it's never established how well they understand the laws and nuances, or how they've interpreted the testimony and evidence. In a case with a judge, they have to validate their reasoning (so the verdict in the London case here ran to 600 paragraphs). Meanwhile the jury deliberations are never evaluated, they're not even recorded. The sequestering thing here is interesting, especially in light of there being a weeks break while Heard has barely starting presented evidence and testimony. It feels like the jury will get extra time to ruminate on Depp's team's evidence, while also being exposed to the social media which (as is typically the case) is biased toward the bigger star. I know that there are arguments that part of the issue with the OJ trial is the jury just wanted to get it over with, but there should be some kind of half way house.
Having this whole trial televised is a massive win for Depp in the public court (which is what is important to him). The world being able to actually see Amber testifying is enough to destroy any credibility she might have formerly been given.
Yeah, I hadn’t been following it closely at all and figured the UK ruling was likely the truth, but since then I’ve watched several dives into the details, especially including the video Matt Orchard did here on YT, and my opinion has done a 180.
It's the biggest win for sure. People outside of that courtroom would only see the photos where she posed holding a tissue to her nose, as opposed to actually watching the whole performance. It really makes a huge difference in the public's perception.
The UK courts are going to be embarrassed if Depp wins in the US. The judges in the UK case should be ashamed for not allowing evidence and just going along with AH.
Watching Amber going from full emotional breakdown face to a passive face and then return to the full emotional breakdown face exactly when an objection is raised and then emotions return when its her moment to testify again. Its almost like someone is saying "cut" and "action" and not "objection" and sustained"
It's so telling when actual abuse victims, FBI investigators, behavior specialists, victim advocates, and so many more that work for abuse survivors are saying something isn't right with her story. It's gut wrenching to realize the abuse victim was portrayed as the abuser, but I suspect that we will find it's happened way more than we expected. I grew up in a household where my mother is the aggressor and perpetrator of abuse and violence, and she has used the female victim facade to her benefit. JD doesn't realize how lucky he is to have gotten free of her.
I've been avoiding this on social media this whole time, and this video tells me I was wise to do so. I also learned quite a bit about both of these two I didn't already know.
Oh part of why he lost the sun case was because she claimed she donated the full 7 million, but in reality she has only ever donated 1 million under her name. only $300,000 of which being her and not JD or Elon Musk.
It can still be difficult for women who speak out. However, I think the wrath Amber is experiencing has more to do with the fact that Johnny is the one who ended up in an ER. Johnny is the one who has no history of abusing other partners. Amber has a history of arrest for precious physical assault on a partner. To me the evidence is clear. I think the judge in the UK was biased. Will Johnny win in the US? I worry he won’t simply because the bar is so high in proving defamation. But his main goal is clearing his name. As far as I am concerned, he has.
The sad part is that there's also a cultural bias in general, (which might well be why the UK judge decided against Depp), in that people are a lot more willing to believe and get upset about a woman being abused, than they are a man getting abused. That makes these sort of cases significantly harder to win for men both in the court of public opinion, and in actual court. It doesn't help either that she made the accusations first, and especially in today's culture, where there are indeed a lot of assholes out there, people are quick to jump in defense of female "victims" without actually looking at the evidence and the character of the people involved to see if they are indeed victims or if they have ulterior motives. In many cases they are telling the truth, but there's also plenty of people who play the role of victim in order to garner sympathy or attention, knowing that even if evidence proves them to be lying, the public will already have sided with them.
I think the UK judge made the right call from a free speech perspective. After all, new evidence has since come out-evidence that The Sun's editors didn't have, but evidence that Heard, as the author of the WaPo op-ed, absolutely would know about, being the first party. So in terms of malicious intent, it's way different.
@@Gamer3427 yeah, many people straight up don't believe men can be abused by a women. It's quite sad, because it hurts those men. Seeing people support your abuser and hate you bc they think you abused her is upsetting to say the least. I think this is a trait of "toxic masculinity", the idea that men can't be abused (by men or women) bc they HAVE to be "stronger then them" and "you're weak if you can't defend yourself." Which can be said to a women too, but it's mostly said to men. What a shame. :(
@@rjmunster9600 If you cover the case more thoroughly than the UK case handled it (their analysis was pretty superficial) you find that he lied to the doctor to protect her AND the tapes actually reveal this fact - he presses that they need help by essentially saying in the tapes 'we have to change' 'isn't it true you start the physicial fights' (Amber literally says 'yes I start physical fights), and follows it up with 'I lost a finger man', implying that the injury was not his own doing, but was due to her attack.
I’ve gotta say, after hearing the phone calls where Heard is extremely demeaning and abusive towards Depp, it really does support his case. I have dealt with numerous domestic violence cases and there is typically a primary aggressor. Sometimes you get two crazy parties that just brawl it out, but most times there is one party that clearly pushes the conflicts into abusive territory. The tone, aggression, vitriol and choice of language by Heard in those recordings is all typical of a primary aggressor. That obviously doesn’t prove anything one way or another in a court situation, but in the court of public opinion it goes a long way. Anyone that is familiar with domestic violence will immediately identify Heard as the primary aggressor and will judge the case accordingly, regardless of the verdict. And before I get accused of dismissing Heard’s side because she is a female, I am fully on board with the understanding that in a majority of cases, the primary aggressor is the male. We can all acknowledge that fact while still recognizing that this is not a one way street and women can and do act as the primary aggressor as well.
I think we're often led to believe that the primary aggressor is male, but it's also true that domestic abuse against men is severely underreported. And this idea that women are automatically disbelieved is just outrageous. I disbelieve Heard for good reasons, not because of her sex.
Amber Heard being the "primary aggressor" unfortunately has no bearing on this case. All her defense has to do is convince the jury of just one credible instance of verbal or physical abuse directed at Heard. Their former couples therapist testified that there was mutual abuse during their marriage, and whilst she stated that Heard instigated violence against Depp much more frequently, Depp still sometimes initiated physical confrontations.
@@stevesteves945 That's why I said it likely won't have much impact in the court case but it will have an impact in the court of public opinion. Anyone intimately familiar with domestic violence will recognize her as the primary aggressor in those recordings. That understanding will generate empathy towards Depp, even if there was abuse on his part as well.
@@TheCommonS3Nse Oh I think he won in the court of public opinion long ago when those recording were revealed to the public demonstrating just who the primary abuser was. I do hope this will rightfully tank Amber Heard's acting career though, regardless of the outcome of the case.
Well, in the case of public accusations of abuse, there are certain people who have a vested interest in reflexively taking the man's side, and due to the fact that Depp is a more popular actor than Heard, it's inevitable that some people aren't even going to consider that the allegations could be true. I, however, don't have such an emotional investment, not do I have any bias against Johnny Depp such that I wouldn't hear him out too. Given the evidence has been shown, I believe that both parties contributed to the general toxicity of their relationship, they both bare a degree of responsibility. But where it comes to physical aggression, I agree that it appears that Heard is the primary aggressor at least in that respect, and it seems as if Depp's role in physical confrontation is mainly reactionary, and while a person should never keep a fight going, one does have a right to defend themselves, even if the assailant is smaller or weaker. You shouldn't do anything more than what is necessary to fend off an assault, though. At this time, there's no evidence suggesting that his response was in excess of that. In her own words, his response to her hitting him was to push her. I think pushing someone away who is trying to hit you is acceptable, as long as it stops at some point.
very true, it's proven so many times in the past court result is not equal justice throughout the history of humankind. Justice is a concept that carries through time, culture, social norms.
I think JD's team is playing a bigger and diffrentent game than just a defamation lawsuit. Defamation cases can be pretty ugly, cause the other team will try to expose any dirt, related or unrelated, on you to dehumanize you. It's like wrestling with a pig. Even if he loses the lawsuit, if he can make AH as dirty, or even more, as himself he can win the public opinion. Already biases has been formed, and they are hard to change.
I was thinking the same thing. He's not looking to be compensated for any loss made by the op-ed. He's looking to cause equal or greater damage to her in the public's eyes - and it's working. In the end, the court of public opinion won't have the power to sway the legal system - hopefully - but one can assume that Amber's career is as good as dead.
What public opinion? That he's a violent drunken maniac who has done horrific things? If that's the public perception he wants to cement then he's done a great job!
@@brody5409 Experts have proven that Amber is the one who's lying. Plus there's no evidence of Johnny abusing her. But there is evidence of her abusing him.
The problem with The Sun UK trial is this: The Judge in that case heavily weighted Amber Heard's testimony over Johnny Depp's almost entirely on the basis of his substance issues. This really bothered me. As to who should win this defamation case, I don't really have a dog in the fight either way. However, I *REALLY* wish courts would start moving away from these particularly disgusting tropes regarding people with substance dependencies/addictions being inherently violent and/or uncredible (which, unfortunately, is what AH's legal team has been constantly insisting).
Cool, then maybe Johnny's team should stop using a questionable diagnosis of BPD to smear people with mental illness as being prone to violence against others and a danger to society when most of them are more likely to hurt or kill themselves than anyone else. Ain't nobody smelling like roses here. Depp does have a *very* long history of being prone to violence whether he's dealing with substance abuse or not though. I'm not sure why everyone developed amnesia about that, because it was all I ever heard about him through much of the 90s.
Plus the judge in the UK trial has ties to both amber Heard's legal team, he worked for the same law firm that amber's lawyer works for, & the sun as his (the judges) son works for talkradio. The same company that employs Wootten who wrote the article...
Whats interesting. Heard actually has a history of domestic violence. And one things for sure. Thats generally something the abuser doesnt change. They will do it to someone else. The UK trail was a sham whole heartedly
Regardless of the financial outcome, I think JD has certainly done quite a lot of reputation revitalization here. There's a groundswell of folks who believe him over Heard now, which wasn't the case before (at least not to this degree).
Johnny is looking great in all this. She looks insane and her experts and lawyers look terrible. People are supporting Johnny and raging against her and mocking her. Saw video the other day she holds a tissue to her face for a few seconds to pose for a photo.
Keep an eye on the US trial.... she's testified to such crazy crazy things without any proof of most of them other than a few pictures of bruises but none of her bloody footprints, no swelling of the nose from the broken nose, no medical examination from the alleged bottle being shoved into her vagina and a few days later she's sitting fine on a flight with the house manager on a flight back to the US from AUS while Johnny's at the hospital getting his finger re-attached??? If she kept things more believable I think she might def win but originally I thought Johnny would only win in the court of public opinion and now I'm thinking he's got a real shot to really win this since she's saying such crazy crazy things with no medical records to prove it. Even her forensic psychiatrist who sounded SO biased against men was saying she sought medical care after a fight and then they played the nurse testifying to her notes from that exam and there was no bruising, nothing! So so so crazy.
I like how we look at Johnny's previous relationship as him being a good partner. But no one addressed how Amber's previous relationship with a female partner was all about abuse where she accused an officer of being homophobic. At the same time, the officer was also a lesbian who intervened in one of the domestic abuse calls.
Amber's prior arrest for domestic violence was never prosecuted and convicted so "technically" its not admissible court evidence. But we all know she probably did it lol. Amber is taking the stand saying how the cops was called several times on Depp. If we apply the same logic Depp should be able to point out her prior arrests. Not saying she was guilty or anything....wink wink.
I really hope during the cross examination for Heard, they'll bring this up to show that she has a history of abuse (also, she used to beat up her sister and her mother was scared of her)
@@SourDonut99 yeah i know it 100% something they can’t bring in court. Whenever I see these videos referencing one sides previous relationship I wish they at least mention both parties relationship.
It would be really interesting to know what you think of Depp's lawyers strategy during Amber Heards testimony. They seemed to be closing down any of her testimony that included 3rd parties by objecting to the testimony as hearsay, but then didn't when Heard was recounting a story involving Depp's children. Depp seemed to smile and his attorney gave a subtle fist pump. Did they heard Heard into a trap? And what was it?
One of the fist bumps (I don't know if there were multiple) was because Amber contradict her statements and lied in court. Originally she said she heard rumours JD threw one of her ex girlfriends off the stairs, but now she said it like it was true even tough the ex girlfriend said "JD was the first man she felt secure with" and denied this event from happening
Thank you!!!! I literally sent a tweet just days ago asking for this! Thank you! Great news to here you’ve expanded your team! Looking forward to future content!
Thanks for covering this- most coverage I've seen assumes you've been following the issue and have already taken a side- and gives very little explanation of what is even going on.
People who has already taken a clear side, has no respect for the law or justice. For there is not much evidence of either side being a victim of abuse here, and plenty of evidence that they have both behaved bad.
@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution I am pretty sure an audio recording of AH telling Johnny she was hitting him and that no one would "believe Johnny, a man, of being abused," as well as photo of him with black eyes, photo of him in the hospital, and numerous witnesses testifying he had visible injuries, would count as "evidence" of domestic violence. Regardless of outcome, there is evidence violence took place.
Check out Legal Bytes, another UA-cam lawyer, she's uploaded both a full live stream of the trial every day (with commentary) as well as a 15-20 minute video at the end of each day summarising what happened and who said/did what. Definitely a good analysis of the trial thus far :) Nick Rikeita is another good option for UA-cam lawyers, though he doesn't have summary videos of each day's events, which is why I recommend Legal Bytes.
"I endured excessive emotional, verbal and physical abuse from Johnny, which has included angry, hostile, humiliating and threatening assaults to me WHENEVER I QUESTIONED HIS AUTHORITY OR DISAGREED WITH HIM." all of the recordings presented during the trial have been to the contrary.
I think what bothers me the most about this is how his substance abuse and mental health issues are being spun to look like proof for him being abusive, when, looking at the facts, it's for more likely that it made him vulnerable to becoming a victim of abuse. Depp has always been open about his flaws, his substance abuse problems, his mental health issues, etc, but doesn't have a history of being abusive towards partners. Heard does have that history, but she's exploiting negative stereotypes about addiction and mental health to paint herself as a victim. It's so disgusting. I'm sure Depp has done and said questionable things in their relationship, but going by the facts we have, it seems far more likely that Heard pushed him to his limits and caused him to lash out, than that he is an abusive person. I've seen that happen myself with people I've known and loved, who were troubled, but good people. Then they found a partner who was abusive, and that abuse turned them into a worse version of themselves. As soon as the relationship ended, that side of them disappeared. Some people really are toxic.
It doesn't help Amber when her costars (see Jason Mamoa) come out and throw her under the bus for being an abusive dirtbag, and Depp's ex's (which one would think would have the most to emotionally gain by smearing thei ex) have been very positive about him. Even Depp's daughter has come out in defense of her father as not being abusive.
The issue is "far more likely" is how the UK court put it. They claim it's far more likely that Depp's accusations of libel are untrue. I like probability and all that, but I know that it's not good to depend on it, especially when that probability varies widely by perspective cuz it's subjective. Idk who's right/wrong, but I do know that the case was pretty amusing.
Also, its wild that theyre painting johnny as an addicted alcoholic druggy. Amber spent something like 10k a month on wine, admitted to using other drugs multiple times and even in an audio clip tried to use her being on drugs as an excuse for physically abusing johnny.
He literally brought a psychologist in to testify that she's got Borderline and Histrionic Personality Disorders, two very stigmatized mental illnesses. If that's not spinning mental health issues to look like proof that someone's abusive and exploiting negative stereotypes to do so, I don't know what is!
@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942 Wait til they cross examine her. She said a few things in her testimony that they can pick at or even prove untrue. For instance claiming Kate Moss was pushed down the stairs when Kate Moss denies that happened.
I don't know what the truth is in this case one way or the other, but I do know that domestic abuse against men is badly under-reported, and usually not taken seriously by people because everyone just assumes that it's only men who abuse women... which is one of the big reasons why it's so under-reported.
Yea I had told people that my ex was beating me, literally showing people the bruises and cuts, and they'd say "Whaaat? From tiny little her? Against you? It couldn't have been that bad." Like, what? You know how much effort it took her to bruise someone my size and build? If you see a big burly man with a bunch of bruises on their shoulders, just imagine how hard that dude had to be hit to get that mark.
if it's true (and the evidence seems to point to the fact Amber was the one absuing Johnny) then this case could have much more impact than few milions for johnny
@@AceHufflepuff "Depp says he has nothing left..." with a current net worth of about 150 million dollars. 🤣😂🤣 Their joint statement after her initial claims of being abused by Depp, he stated "neither side has made false allegations to secure a financial judgement"... but if that weren't enough to substantiate her words... this has already been litigated in the UK. A court of law has already weighed the testimony and evidence, and found that at 12 of her 14 accounts of violence were credible. That is why Depp lost that libel suit against The Sun UK
You forgot to mention the fact that the judge in the US case has stated on the record that she feels that the British court did not give Debb a fair trial.
No, what she stated was that it wasn't fair to deny Depp a trial since Heard was not a party in the UK decision. She actually goes out of her way to make it clear she is not expressing an opinion about the UK system in her 14 page ruling which can be found online. Have to ask the question why a case involving a couple who lived in California arguing over an argument published in DC is being held in Virginia, a state notoriously friendly to SLAPP suits if you're really interested in trial fairness...
@@br2k Why does that matter? He's suing Heard for defamation, not the Washington Post. Who cares where they are headquartered? Also, online it says they are headquartered in DC and publish all of their stuff in DC. They have some operations in Virginia but are clearly mostly in DC.
@@frizzzx86 The HQ of the Washington post is 1301 K Street NW Washington. They have a bureau in Virginia, but that is tenuous given all editorial decisions will occur in DC
Love the comment about Depp becoming an Expert in Hearsay. Saw the moment you were talking about, i laughed then and I laughed now, when you made me remember it
@@Chiny_w_Pigulce Yes but he also says in the video, "How can Johnny Depp Sue Amber Heard Twice?" He could have just missed that part of the video where he said otherwise.
@@Verskil1412 I figured he would address it eventually, but a large portion of people are not going to listen to the whole thing and won't get the real information when the video begins that way.
@@Chiny_w_Pigulce I figured he would address it eventually, but a large portion of people are not going to listen to the whole thing and won't get the real information when the video begins that way.
I love legal eagles non biased information on very important legal cases. I always turn to this channel when I'm curious about something going on. Thank you legal eagle for helping someone like me who doesn't quite understand legal things, to see that side and explaining it. In terms to this case it's such a messy mess. I feel Depp is in the right here but I do agree with someone else's comment that the take away is once you realize the relationship is toxic, to try and get away before it gets even worse.
Thanks you for your videos. In your next video on this case I would love for you to clarify hearsay verbal vs. written. As Depp pointed out, if Depp says “Amber said Johnny Depp is an abusive husband,” it is stricken from the record for hearsay. But if someone writes an article that says “Amber said Johnny Depp is an abusive husband,” it is submitted into evidence. I would love clarity on that! I look forward to your video.
Wasn't it also revealed that the judge that ruled on the case against the Sun had ties to them through his son being employed there? I remember there was a big stink online over it at one point, pointing out that there could be no possible way the judge could be trusted to not have a bias when he had familial connections to either side. There was also claims that the judges wife met with Amber prior to the hearing. Only stating what I've heard a while back and cannot fully remember where I had come across it.
Nope. Those are fake claims made y someone on twitter, then dropped in to an echo chamber so now everyone is citing an incorrect assessment of events like it's some sort of fact, despite Depp's legal team being a bit more qualified in finding, evaluating and presenting evidence than random troll on social media...
@@CaptLoquaLacon Welp, that's the nature of how things end up on the internet. Happens on all sides and only ends up with muddied waters, resulting in more confusion.
Thanks for this, the first commentary I've come across that speaks to the legal issue that's being heard. Thank goodness we aren't tried in the court of public opinion where charisma, wealth and popularity seem to count for more than actual evidence. From my perspective, neither party is particularly likeable, but that doesn't, nor should it, influence the jury and the quality of the evidence presented.
If you want good commentary on this trial, try the UA-cam channel "Legal Bytes", run by a lawyer who is live streaming the trial every day, as well as uploading a 15-20 minute summary of each day of the trial. Definitely a recommended analysis of the trial.
@@MrAsmontero completely agree. Depp has already lost his UK libel case and he'll also lose this one based on the evidence presented. Thankfully, like Brent said, the court of public opinion won't make those legal decisions.
@@rudyarness8317 sorry. Legal bytes is not unbiased. They should be on JDs payroll (except Uncivil) since they defend him so hard. I am a lawyer and I can tell you the "legal" analysis by LegalBytes and friends is pretty thin. Legal Eagle has not forgotten actual legal analysis for cheap subs and super chats.
From the very first episode of Agents of SHIELD: Hill: What does "S.H.I.E.L.D." stand for, Agent Ward? Ward: Strategic Homeland Intervention Enforcement and Logistics Division. Hill: And what does that mean to you? Ward: It means someone really wanted our initials to spell out "SHIELD."
I've always been bewildered and amused by the fact that America feels compelled to always make their abbreviations acronyms that are actual words for some reason. It's the exact opposite here in Germany: Laws are either just a bunch of letters that are not pronouncable (SGB, TKG, TzBfG), the first couple of letters of each word that are sometimes semi-pronouncable (EntgTranspG) and sometimes not (KrPflG), or when they are pronouncable, it's never, ever a word (BAFög, BIlmog, MiLoG).
I was indifferent to this whole thing when I first started popping up in the news. But after hearing the audio where Heard says nobody will believe Depp just because he's a man has put me on Depp's side. While the notion that women are usually the ones abused in a toxic relationship is true, it makes male victims of abuse less likely to come forward because most people will never believed that a man can be abused.
You are quite with the "usual" part. That is the sad stereotype. However basically all studies suggest that over 40% of domestic abuse victims are male.
Don't worry. It's taken out of context. Johnny was claiming it was a "fair fight" (putting equal responsibility is something abusers do btw), while Amber told him to go tell a judge and jury that and see what people think.
@@NaNa-ou1sg okay but why does she constantly lie then? why has no one ever seen any of the things she mentioned, and why are they not in the trial as witnesses? no medical records, a bunch of contradictions, he is this cunning monster who always does things so nobody can find out, and somehow he is also always drunk on drugs, blacking out and shitting his pants yet somehow avoids getting found out, also all her pictures does not match her story at all.
Question: Right after a sustained objection for leading, the attorney usually rephrases the question. But wouldn't the leading question still be on the witness's mind, especially if the attorney was pushing for a certain answer? Why isn't that an issue?
@@donnieparris4684 Elaine: "Did Mr. Depp horribly violate you with this bottle pictured here?" Camille: "Objection: leading" Elaine: "What if any time did Mr. Depp horribly---" Camille: "Objection: leading" Elaine: "Your honor, what if any..."
Idk if a lot of people are going to say this, but it would be really interesting to hear you break down the recently leaked decision that may overturn Roe v Wade in detail
Personally, I hope it wakes people up to how corrupt and two-faces a lot of SC Justices are. Life tenure for the Supreme Court was easily to framers’ worst idea.
I appreciate you keeping this video fairly neutral. The number of random people on the internet who are suddenly law, behavioral, and body language experts while watching this trial is insanity. It’s nice to see a video just talking about the facts and law procedure.
THANK YOU! I don't understand randos, and celebs who don't know either party personally, express support for one party or the other so confidently, and speculate as to who is right and who is wrong. I doubt either party is beyond reproach.
I don't watch the celebrities like you do, there are some body language experts out there that work on cases, you need to seperate facts from fiction. There's also a lot of amber supporters still...surprisingly
You know, I actively set out to ignore this whole story until some sanity could be brought to you. You, Devin, brought as much as could be found, and the rest just reaffirms why I ignored it. A mighty effort, though, so thanks for that.
You and I both, pal. I'm not against other people being fixated on it--my sister who survived DV from her ex-boyfriends (two separate guys, same shittiness) and my best friend (no major trauma or painful experience; she's just invested), but I really hate shifting sands and chaotic drama and clout-chasers adding their commentary.
They're writing in blood and pooping in beds their beds. I've seen their like. Animal people. They deserve each other. But because our system sucks, they get to soak up countless hours of the justice system's time and manpower because they once pretended to be a pirate and/or an aquaperson.
i tried to avoid it too, but my mom was watching it and I just became fascinated by the lawyers. I love court, and once I saw the insanity and incompetence the lawyers were laying out... well... now i'm invested, unfortunately. It really is an entertaining case, but not for the reason most people are interested in it.
I get that too but the case has actually been an unfortunate revelation on how our culture doesn’t take male survivors of domestic abuse seriously. The power amber heard had with just making a DV claim (with little to no evidence) with no effect on her career but damage to Depp’s was truly disgusting.
This is totally off subject, but I must compliment you on the production quality of your videos. The lighting and color are spot on. The graphics are visually appealing, and the way you present the information is really engaging too. Really enjoyed watching this.
As someone who was sat trough all the 40 something odd hours of the trial so far I feel this time around JD has a lot more solid evidence this time around. And not only that but his team also gathered a lot of information that directly contradicts AH's testimony, and with her testimony including direct quotes from movies and the absolute wild claims with no evidence at all paints a very clear picture. Like for example on the Australia incident, she claims she was literally beaten to an inch of her life and JD has notes from her PERSONAL NURSE that saw her the day after saying that she did not have a single bruise or cut on her body. (Also the fact that Amber "Cried" for literally 6 hours without shedding a single tear or getting puffy eyes or a runny nose also speak VOLUMES, not to mention her supposedly relieving the worst assault she's ever received, including brutal SA and laughing 5 minutes later when leaving the courtroom for the break)
To add, as the audio of their argument after she assaulted him played, Depp was crying listening to Heard abuse him. Heard, at the same time, was smiling.
@@benjamincarmona5883 Yeah, but Amber Heard was never that good at acting in the first place. What makes you think she's going to suddenly be as good as her paycheck suggests?
Also, that judge was so unreliable and biased the whole courtcase was a joke. Not hearing witnesses for Depp but taking Heards allegations at face value, like he already made his mind up before things even started.
Says Depp, and his legal team, and definitely through their online smear campaign against Heard which he probably paid a ton of money for. "Reality can be whatever I want". He purchased people's support for him through an online misinformation campaign, that's so low! You'd have to be a very disturbing person to resort to it. And I'm quoting an Avengers movie because this online campaign has been as extensive as the online marketing for an Avengers movie... Cost millions of dollars..
@@ltlbuddha But he's the Judge hes suppose to be impartial. The fact that he wasn't shows bias. Its one thing for us, as outsiders to do so, its another for someone in legislation to do so.
Two independent judges looked at his ruling as part of the appeals process. There is no evidence that he took one person more at face value than the other given that he highlights bits where both of them lied. No informed opinion claims he is biased
Amber did not allege abuse when the cops were called to their penthouse, and in fact a friend in New York who was on the phone is the person who called the police. Also this is the first time Johnny is suing Amber for defamation, the UK case was against The Sun, a “paper” for defamation for calling him a wife beater.
1. He's reporting on the court transcripts themselves, which Heard did allege in court (regardless of not having done so before, as you stated). 2. Semantics
@@foegettergames252 uh there’s a huge difference between suing an individual and suing a company. That’s not semantics. That’s like saying “he murdered that man” “his car wheel fell off and he had an accident crashing into the dude” “Meh semantics”
So, he explained very clearly that Depp sued the parent company of the Sun. Maybe you didn’t make it to that part of the video where Legal Eagle stated this specifically???
In my opinion, the UK judicial system does not follow the rules. There’s another recent court case in which all the evidence was there against the prosecutor (including perjury) and yet all of it was ignored and ruled in favor of the prosecutor.
I think this case hits home for a lot of people because like me, a male presenting person, (trans fem, born male) its often that I'm told that I couldn't have been abused in my relationship because I'm bigger or stronger. So I end up not being able to talk to people about my own abusive relationship.
It’s a bit of a reach to call Depp innocent imo. Majority of the abuse was definitely heard, but it’s more than likely that as an addict he did some pretty unsavoury stuff when high or drunk he wouldn’t have done otherwise
@@rydenkaye9735 That is a really shortsighted statement. Him being an addict doesn't just mean it's more than likely he abused his wife. What an absurd statement to make.
Man I hope he covers the Kate Moss incident. Because oh boy, when Amber Heard used that in court, she totally forgot Kate Moss said that never happened.
This is not a trial just about celebrities, its also a trial about how far the metoo thing has been taken. Its about whether "believe all women" is a credible defense and whether a man can be a victim of physical and emotional abuse. Metoo was really good at the start, got rid of some rotten apples, but the debate now is, has it gone too far?
Johnny depp's PR team has made an extremely conscious effort to keep the UK trial *out* of the narrative. Like, you could hardly find anything about it at all.
There was, but a corrupt judge sorted it so quickly, it wasn't breaking news. You know, when you are a judge in a case JD vs Sun and your own son works for the Sun's owner...
Great video - I'd love it if he also did a video on the trial itself - adding any insights about legal strategies, objections, etc. Especially given Ethan is a trial lawyer himself
If you are interested in lawyers discussing this, try Legal Bytes or Rikeita Law. Both have live streams of the trial throughout the day. Legal Bytes also has a 15-20 minute summary video at the end of each day highlighting the main talking points from the day. Nate the Lawyer has also put out a couple of videos worth watching....
When I first heard (heh) about this case, I thought it would just be something TMZ would cover and that'd be the end of it; like most celebrity gossip. I never expected it to appear in all my social media feeds. I can't seem to escape from this trial, not on UA-cam, Twitter, TikTok, etc. It's everywhere.
True. The worst part was the algorithm seemed to think that because we saw it on a youtube that we like and trust to be unbiased, the algorithm though we had full interest on the case and throw endless court hearing by low effort youtubers that only add funny sound effect.
@@lsh7098 No, not in everyone's life. I'm sorry if it happens in yours, but most people don't have to deal with mental disorders or domestic abuse. Dishonesty does happen on a small scale to almost everyone. But not the other two.
That's because it's a huge breakthrough in the issue of male victims of domestic abuse. You have to be a real whiney baby if serious issues are finally moving the right way and you can't stand a few weeks of videos being thrown at you. I don't even get that much recomended and I've been following the case.
@@lsh7098 I'm not apathetic. I'm just aware of the reality that not everyone is dealing with mental disorders or abusers. 1/5 people deal with mental disorders (major and minor). That means 4/5 people DON'T deal with mental disorders which is BY DEFINITION the majority of people. As far as domestic abuse, 1/4 women deal with it and 1/9 men deal with it. That means 3/4 women and 8/9 men don't. Again, my point stands.
Please, PLEASE collaborate with Plainly Difficult at some point! I'd love to see you cover the legal aspects of a tragedy or morally iffy science experiment!
And her goading him, calling him a "coward" because he'd always walk away & didn't "fight". No woman whose is beaten,abused & had her life threatened as she claims, would behave like that. Plus it's odd she's actually using lines from movies in her testimony..
@@wayln2591 that's incredibly callous to say and also entirely wrong. Have you considered that there is a possibility that male victimization cases are being underreported due to the exact same biases that the above comment is pointing out? It's a self-sustaining bias: if you don't believe that male victimization happens, then it won't get reported, then you won't believe that it happens.
@@contramuffin5814 how do you know that if the cases are underreported???? U know men say the same thing about women when they try to talk about female sexual assault victims. Men are always like why she didn't leave earlier or why she took drugs. Why was she with the abuser????? But no such thing is said to Johnny depp. The thing is most victims are women and even the male victims are mostly abused by MEN.
Who do you think looks like winning this case from your point of view and what you have seen. I find it crazy that all 4 of Depps ex wives have all said that he never ever touched them and chose to walk away and leave during fights.
It makes sense though when you learn his mother was abusive and his father either just took it or would just leave the area. So he grew up learning to do this around his mother... which he then carried forward into later relationships as a way to deal with conflict. We often either imitate our parents' methods of dealing with issues or learn to deal with conflict differently in hopes of a different outcome. Especially if someone grew up in an abusive home, we see that behavior come out more. As far as why this de-escalation tactic stopped working... walking away to cool off doesn't work if the other party follows you and won't let you exit the situation. If you can't escape the argument... it's kinda hard for things to cool off. But even then... there's a lot of evidence that says that one person was the aggressor... and it wasn't the person who has a history of de-escalation via removing themselves from a heated situation. Hell, even excluding evidence, just the claim that someone who has a core trait of walking away to de-escalate conflict suddenly stopped doing that to do the exact opposite and instead escalate conflicts constantly with violence is at the least questionable. At the worst, it's an indication that you should be looking at the medical history to find some trigger like a major head injury.
@@AppleStrawberryLove You literally contradicted yourself. They can imitate their parents OR try to do it differently and expect a different outcome. That's what you said. Yet there's no way to tell which way Depp is adhering to, if any at all, other than his own testimony. So the only real pattern of evidence we can go by is the testimony of his past wives. His upbringing should have absolutely no relevance.
@@aoikemono6414 It's not a contradiction; it's an acknowledgment that different people deal with trauma in different ways. There is no one standard for how someone copes with trauma/abuse/poor home lives. That said, we can see trends with how people cope (technically, any individual can have bits and pieces of all these factors in various degrees but we do see a typical response that they choose primarily). That usually falls into two categories: imitate the behavior or doing the opposite. Usually those who do the opposite are aware of what they dislike about the household they were raised in and so avoid it by being the opposite. Those who imitate usually pick a parent and repeat those behaviors in future relationships (both platonic and romantic). In such cases, if a child was in an abusive household, they'll imitate the victimized parent (if there is one) or the aggressive parent. By examining the behavior that they exhibit throughout their life, you can see the trend they fall into. His own testimony coincides with all the ex-partners' testimonies of how he deals with conflict. By looking into his upbringing, you see the seed of the behavior and see that he likely falls into the imitate category and imitates his father's methods of coping. He learned to leave the area to avoid the conflict. His background absolutely is relevant as it helps establish a pattern of behavior and a baseline of what is normal for a particular person. Your base personality traits are a mix of both inherent and learned behavior. Nature and nurture. Trauma (like from an abusive household) severely impacts those neural pathways that create our personalities, as some put it, "reprogramming" the brain to favor certain routes. Your childhood affects how you learn to cope with the world. Example: my father was verbally abusive. To this day, I will flinch and shy away from male voices if they're raised and visible signs of anger from males, even if I know I'm safe. It's involuntary, but my past with my father has made my brain have this response to this trigger. There's a reason why you'll frequently see past trauma come up in trials: it can affect how you react and view the world around you. So, again, yes, his past experience with abuse is absolutely relevant because it can reveal what he learned to do to cope with certain triggers. In this case, the trigger of anger and arguments has been engrained as a flight response in him. We can look at his own testimony and Amber's too to see that she will even admit that he would try to leave the area, leave the argument. Tie that into the previous partners' and we have a very clear pattern of what his response is going to be whenever possible: flight.
⚖ Should I summarize the American case?
🍋 Get 16 free meals with Hello Fresh using code LEGALEAGLE16 legaleagle.link/hellofresh
YES!
YES!
Yes, please.
YES!!!
definitely
This trial taught me a lot of legal jargon. Mostly: “hearsay”.
Objection! Hearsay to your hearsay.
Objection! That's a Mega Pint of hearsay!
@@chrisheretic7 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I am a bigger fan of speculative
Objection: lack of foundation
This case is about keeping yourself out of crazy. Man or woman, a toxic person in your life can tear you apart
No one is coming out of this pretty let's be honest
@@cadebradbury9334 It does seem that Depp had managed to massively rehabilitate his image through the recent trial
@@cadebradbury9334 not to mention that Depp, through his over thirty year history in public life, has never been accused of anything that Amber accused him of. You look at someone like Cosby, as soon as the first victim spoke out, dozens followed. When Amber made her accusations, she stood alone
@@RillianGrant It's genuinely impressive, by the looks of things neither of them is an angel and yet everything is pro him, it's the value of a good pr team more than anything else
@@cadebradbury9334 get this, it's more important to be RIGHT than to look pretty.
"Depp sued the sun" is a way cooler statement without context
Sunlight is a hell of a drug.
it kinda sounds like something Chuck Norris would do
Yeah they gave him skin cancer, ofc he's going to sue
I wish you’d covered the evidence allowed in the UK case - it’s fascinating exactly what was allowed in the UK case because it wasn’t Heard on trial, it was the Sun, and how that shifted the case’s optics.
Could you elaborate on that? Or point me to a source that does?
@@Howitchewstofeel5gum I can't remember everything but the judge said.
They didn't allow testimonies on Depps character, citing his family and friends would be bias but ignored testimonies from law officials and staff members as well.
He cited that the call from amber saying she hit him wasn't admissible as evidence that heard was an aggressor and hand waved away the fact that it was contrary to what she said in court.
He didn't take into consideration the injuries that Depp had inflicted on him but accepted the alleged injuries that Heard brought forward.
He stated that Heard was not doing it for personal gain as she had given the money to charity and that isn't the sort of thing an abuser would do, which is stupid anyway but later proved to be false.
I vaguely remember one thing about what Heard had said that he admitted was bad but basically said that he had to as he couldn't think of a way to justify it. not in those words but he sounded very reluctant to do it.
The Judges also had personal ties to the sun and Heard too, though I can't remember quite what they were.
@@Edanurus There's an argument to be made in good will that LegalEagle was merely trying to keep the video short but my suspicion is that it was kept out to avoid taking a side on the cultural bias towards women in these kinds of cases.
@@Edanurus That's a whole steaming pile of cobblers. The judge has nothing that was recognisable as a legal tie to the parties in question, those are misinterpretations stated by people on twitter who seem to think they understand events and the law better than Depp's legal team. I think I know who I'd consider the more reliable thinkers on this issue.
The character issue is essentially an ad hominem fallacy. If a mate of mine commits a bank robbery, there would be no legal value in my testimony that I had never seen them rob a bank or speak about robbery around me. It's the same reason the trial never considered the many incidents of Depp being verbally and physically abusive to people when drunk, trying to find a verdict based on the incidents themselves, not on other people's assessment of the character of either of them. It would seem to actually be a failing on the courts in Virginia that this meaningless nonsense has been allowed - you might as well ask plane spotters about the contents of an aircraft black box since they weren't on board at the time!
The UK trial considered specific incidents. Nothing that wasn't relevant to those exact occasions was considered because it was about the paper demonstrating that they had enough evidence to show that Depp could be described as abusive. The wider picture of the relationship doesn't matter. Compare that to here were there is a concerted effort to extrapolate a few incidents of Heard being the aggressor as being true for every incident in the relationship, rather than looking at the incidents in isolation, probably because Depp's team loses their advantage when that is done. However contrary to the idea of staff members not being allowed to testify, testimony about the exact incidents were allowed to let the judge attempt to corroborate events with Depp's and Heard's testimony (and he found both people to be somewhat shifty on the stand, often relying more on supporting statements and evidence like text messages)
The claims about Amber doing it for financial gain were meaningless in the UK trial beyond the general ad hominem strategy that Depp's legal team pursues. If a person tells a lie in situation A (not actually proven either, this is just a hypothetical), and tells the truth in situation B, A doesn't make B a lie, and B doesn't A the truth. You have to look at the incidents in isolation, and the whole argument gets very nebulous in terms of what peole have and haven't disclosed. The big thing though? Amber was only a witness in the UK trial, not a party, so it feeds in to that character assassination thing - attacking the person, not the incidents.
@@CaptLoquaLacon You have no concept of injuries inflicted in self-defense, do you?
The first lawsuit was against that tabloid paper over in the UK. I think this is the first time Johnny is suing Amber directly. And the first case being heard by an actual jury.
And Depp lost... nobody talking about it, because people likes much more scandal and gossiping and being judgemental...
that's why Depp wanted this lawsuit to be on TV.
Also, I don't believe in juries, but it could be beneficial in this case for Depp...
Correct.
"justice" Andrew Niccol also has some verrrry Sus connections, and has since retired...
Yep, he sued 'The Sun'
@@JulioLeonFandinho tell me you know nothing about UK law and how the UK trial went without actually saying it
It's not an easy case to win for Depp. But I think he simply wants to clear his image, which he pretty much did so far
I think he's won in the court of public opinion.
@@KR-bv5og he definitely won in court of public opinion, especially with the whole bed feces situation
Exactly.
@@KR-bv5og definitely, pretty much everyone is on his side. He's cleared his name with pretty much everyone because the case is so popular
@@KR-bv5og no he hasn’t. A lot of people like myself just don’t spend a lot of time online advocating for celebrities we don’t know.
It does truly seem like a "what do I have to lose" suit, he probably has been told he isn't likely to win. But at least he can get his side heard and the case of public opinion seems to be going his way.
The court of public opinion is quite the court indeed. It's a good example, in my view ,of the difference and importance even, between "what it is" and "what it looks like"
He's obviously not after the money, just the absolution of the stigma "domestic abuser" and his ability to do his crafts again. I think it's incredibly noble to put himself in the court's hands, bearing all in the name of public opinion.
@@jenerin905 he’s an abuser
@@Dmdirmrjr33 That decision is according to a court that would sooner convict a man for trespassing in a house than the child predators said man was trying to protect his daughter from in said house, simply because of the risk of being accused of attacking a religion.
In short, I would only take any judgement made by British courts with enough salt to crash the global salt market.
@@Dmdirmrjr33 You really think? I don't doubt that he's done/said awful things, but I know personally how being abused by someone with BPD makes you literally crazy. I will admit that I am biased because I watched my mom do to my dad what JD is claiming AH did to him, and my mom claimed it was my dad. I appreciate other views on this though.
I really look forward to your post-verdict take. While it was clear that the internet had long decided, spending a lot of time dissecting all statements by both sides in ways a secluded jury never could, it's interesting to see that the jury found the evidence to reach the level of actual malice in four charges, three on behalf of Depp and one on behalf of Heard.
Other lawyers have speculated it was a ‘compromise verdict’, where (in this case) a larger number of people siding with Depp conceded the one charge to a smaller group supporting Heard in order to reach a decision.
Not saying this is or isn’t the case, just what I’ve heard said.
Same, I hope Devin would comment on it
Yep! I'm excited to hear his breakdown of it all now that it's over.
Well the only reason she won on one of them was Waldman got the sequence of events wrong on the 2nd call to police. And there wasn’t evidence establishing that her friends in LA made the call to police.
You missed the part where as a non party she was not open to full discovery like he was in the UK so it was possible for her to only provide damaging evidence on him not anything damaging to herself
Her abusing him doesn't somehow magically make him not abusive. Both were abusive and toxic; people need to learn how to think and stop jumping on bandwagons and riding JD's D for no reason.
@@doxasticc But a court as already upheld claims that he was abusive. Herd still has her roles in movies and as the face of companies. If both are abusive both need to be punished.
@@doxasticc I'm just saying that it is not particularly fair if one side gets to pick and choose evidence whilst the other has to give everything.
@@doxasticc I mean where they both abusive? What did Depp do that you would you define as abuse?
@@shannibeth Idk what you mean by fair, the case was over whether it was a lie to say he was a 'wife-beater.' Evidence that AH was also abusive is irrelevant to that.
Thanks for the LEGAL commentary on this LEGAL matter. For all the commentary I've seen on this, this is the first time I've seen anyone cover the UK lawsuit.
Lol? There's a lot of prominent channels doing this. Not being so cynic like this one.
@@kasiazdrojewska3616 cynic? Do you mean critical and trying to be objective? Lol
@@kasiazdrojewska3616
I've yet to find objective commentary.
@@m.n152 No, there is a difference, and I know it. Critical and objective I value. Cynical... Not really.
@@kasiazdrojewska3616 what's the difference here? genuinely asking, trying to find out
The Virginia trial being called a circus is... the grand understatement of the day, I would think. Odd, framed shots including Heard posing on the stand at random times, Depp laughing in court when she shifts from zero emotional reaction to extreme breakdown in testimony, the lawyer asking and objecting to his own question (like you mentioned), and just... everything else.
This is one of those times when the term _batshit_ should be codified into the legal lexicon. This trial is batshit.
That wasn’t a framed shot, she was snorting coke off her finger. The whole trick with the tissues and “oh just allergies” that’s a trick older than bell bottom jeans.
I’m pretty sure he (and myself a bit) laughed because of how fake that “breakdown” looked. That’s not at all how an abuse victim normally behaves especially when they’re trying to give testimony in public view. It just felt like acting.
@@RyanBreaker very bad acting considering what her profession is.
Objection Hearsay
Nice try! My dad used to beat me and make fun of me when I cry. And yes, I do go from zero to 100 when I start remembering, much to my therapists' discomfort.
They don't like it when I talk about it, it makes them uncomfortable. They're not good in that regard tbh.
She's telling the truth, sorry that your hero is a sadist
One of the biggest problems with the treatment of this case in the court of public opinion is that most viewers seem unable to understand anything more complex than good guy vs bad guy.
The biggest problem with the treatment of this case is that JD's team had to insist on the trial be televised to make sure people actually believe how vicious and ruthless a beautiful young woman can be and how a man's life can be destroyed based on... hearsay.
I'm quite sure he's a difficult, troubled person who needs to shower more, but... with a whiskey bottle??? Really???
@@susivarga7303 hearsay on both sides, though I will say this, the man whose personal hygiene you're making a logical fallacy argument over hasn't committed perjury. The vicious young woman has.
That isn't hearsay.
@@ceink1802 thank God you got stuck at the shower stuff, disregarding everything I said before and after.
@@susivarga7303 I thought I pointed out the last thing you said was ad hominem fallacy.
The fact that Heard has perjured herself on the stand is exactly the reason why this should be in the public forum.
Also your straw man argument about Amber's looks somehow being related to her personality and her behaviour is a bit of a stretch. At least JD admits his faults, she hasn't once acknowledged hers. Like every good abuser and narcissist it's always the other person's fault.
@@ceink1802 you are twisting my words. Again. The argument about her looks being related to her personality wasn't mine. If it was, I would have defended her like many did.
I made my point clear. Just without any big words.
I would seriously like hearing you live commenting on the case, as it is on going. It would be quite interesting to hear your take on how both Heard's and Depp's lawyers handle this case.
It did kinda sound like he's going to make at least one more video on this covering the actual case, this was just to establish the background.
@@Colopty still, that's not the same as live commenting as tge trial is taking place like several other LawTubers have. I will be glad just to see him make another video on the subject either way.
That sounds extremely interesting. I'd be interested to see him do that for other famous cases as well.
@@Colopty Objection! Leading, your honor!
I think this would be interesting, but there is a single reason why not doing it is the correct way, it would be impossible to keep the neutrality needed, this is an analysis about what surrounds the case, but not about giving an opinion about who is right, at this point personally, for what i have seen, because i am seeing the case for shit and giggles, there have been no evidence against him that is at all convincing, in fact, some of the evidence presented by Heard's team can be interpreted against her, plus the things she has said that he did but in fact there is video evidence uploaded by herself in the internet that she was the one that did those things, like endangering a dog.
I'm surprised that no one in this case has said "What we've got is hearsay and conjecture... those are KINDS of evidence."
This people thinks that homicides are just based on DNA testing and before that all homicides were unsolved
Inadmissible kinds, but they are kinds 😂
No, there was an objection for hearsay and another for conjecture
What did the neughbour say they heard
And
If you had spoken to Mrs. herd first wouldn't you have worked for her instead
Both objections sustained if I recall
@@GrifoStelle More than just one objection for each.
Mt. Hutz
Thank you for being unbiased and not stating a side. Just stating facts, which i really appreciate
I also think the fact that a jury will be responsible for the ultimate decision will be a massive difference.
The jury is supposedly 7 male, 3 female-all very young. On the one hand, if those males recognize that men can be victims of DV, he might stand a chance of winning. If they’re more of the macho/men can’t be victims variety, he’s already lost even if all the evidence is on his side. Their age might be the biggest benefit to depps side, the younger generations have a more open mind to equality. The females…it’s a toss up. They may side with heard because of shared experiences (though that was most likely checked for before trial) OR they could be more empathetic to Depps side for, what I believe, is a more authentic/truthful testimony.
@@R.M.3.14 I agree to an extent with that, but I think there is a lot of emphasis on the gender of the jury. I personally think the jury will be less swayed by a stereotypical emotional association, but more so by the evidence and credibility of either's case. Judging by what I've seen so far I can't see how many of the jurors can side with Amber, but you never know.
as opposed to...?
@@muppet50yago36 yeah she literally admitted to assaulting him it shouldn’t take more than 5 min for them to come to a decision, she’ll be lucky if she’s able to avoid a criminal domestic violence case lol, they already have photo evidence and a confession under oath 😂
@@jowbabadook8530 As opposed to the UK trial that did not have jurors but only Justice Nicol as sitting judge.
An important thing to know about the UK trail and why it came to the conclusion it did was that a lot of evidence was not admitted into that case since it was against the Sun Newspaper and not really AH. But in the US case, a lot of the evidence not used in the UK trail has been admitted into the US case.
Exactly so. The two trials are very much different. So the argumentation that "he lost in UK so he will lose in US" is a bad reasoning.
Also, the Sun was making claims with the evidence they had, that should be enough to claim that there is no malignant intent from their part, since they werent directly lying, just wrong.
UK case was also down to something like a reasonable probability that JD could be considered abusive. At a judges discretion.
All very vague and unfair, tbh.
What's also important to know about the UK case is who the judge was. He had previously worked for the same company that owns the company Depp was suing, his son was currently working for that company. He is a close friend and colleague of a IPV activist whose organisation Heard is a spokeswoman for. (Don't just take my word for any of this, look it up and fact check me, I encourage it)
That's all the kind of thing that normally you would think "well maybe this guy shouldnt't be the judge on this case".
@@gabriel1205 yep, Judge was corrupt and biased.
So, to be clear, the first lawsuit was NOT vs Amber Heard. She was a witness, not a defendant.
I commented the same
He sued The Sun not her
It was a bit confusing when he said, in the beginning of the video, that Depp sued Heard twice for the same thing is all.
I would sue the sun too. Son of a bitch made everything hot and is annoying in summer, to boot.
Hmm, seems like something Legal Eagle should've known, yeah?
Wish i knew about you when my mom got in legal trouble. My sister was underage drug use, and when my mom took her ciggies away, she had a fit and tried to attack my mom. Nothing really happened so my mom took me to work. I got a call later saying that my sister's friend convinced her to call the cops on my mom and said she (mother) kicked her (sister). She was put in jail for 10 days right then and there. I went, somewhere, and gave them my statement that in fact it was my sister who attacked my mom....I dont know exactly what happened, but my mom decided to settle and take blame to get the court stuff finished....I told her that she has no reason to do so because I was right there but apparently it didn't matter. Like I was never called again even though I was a witness.
I still hold a grudge against my sister for that.
I can relate to something like this, my family would settle for it to go away too, even if they were in the right. Im sorry that happened to you and your mom.
I’m so sorry you and your mother had to deal with that. I hope both of you are recovered and OK.
Appreciate that, it's got to be pushing 7 years now since it happened. It's kinda become a joke with us now. Fortunately my sister called down since then.
wow that's crazy. something similar happened to me but they released me the same day. 10 days in arrest is a lot over something like that, especially with little evidence and no corroborating witnesses.
My family is different we have issues with my sister who kinda did a 180 on us. Theres a part of us that thinks she would try to pull something, especially with her 2 new lovers coercing her but... mom and I are fighters. In all forms. I have a ton of things to bring up on her and have no problem putting her lovers down where they stand. If she goes for a fight, i fight to the death. And she takes flight over fight, so i dont think there will be problems
Video was *seemingly* very thorough.. but I'm curious why you made no mention of the non-disclosure that was made to be signed by Heard as part of the divorce settlement in 2016? It was an NDA created by Depp's legal team that made it so both Heard and Depp agreed to not make negative statements of each other or about their relationship. A big reason she had to re-write her op-ed several times was because her lawyers had to review it in order to ensure it did not violate any part of the NDA.
@@marmar920 if he were to sue for the breach of NDA it would only apply to that article, suing for defamation allows for there to be a way larger scope in terms of evidence and testimony that can be given.
@@marmar920 criminal court requiers mutch more evidence then they have as ppl say reason why both have stick to civil court
because that would not solve the issue but make it worse. If shes sued for breach of the NDA we would all wonder wwhat he was trying to silence her on and would fuel speculation
It's the right move from his team for sure
There was plenty of references to it when the ACLU representative, an attorney, was testifying. I don't know how AH doesn't have a malpractice case against her atty's for approving the op-ed. They're the same ones that drew up the NDA.
Because she didn’t mention his name, they believed they would get around the non-disclosure. However it doesn’t take a rocket scientist and defamation with proven damages has more serious implications than a breach of a non-disclosure.
While I’m sure Depp’s team wants to and is trying hard to win, I think in a way the legal outcome is irrelevant to an extent. The goal of the trial is to clear his name, and by virtue of making this trial public, they’ve ensured the people of the public - the ones with whom his reputation matters - have a chance to act as a jury themselves on the matter. As long as their case is compelling to the public, then whether or not Depp’s name is cleared by the court’s jury it will be in the public sphere anyway, accomplishing the goal they’ve set out to accomplish. So while I do think Depp’s team wants to win, I think they are trying to win in the court of public opinion just as much as the literal court. If everyone wants to see him back in movies and boycotts everything Heard is in, he will have functionally won, whether or not he did formally.
Personally I think he and his team have made the more compelling case thus far. There are a lot of perspectives and evidence being brought forward in this case that weren’t in the UK proceedings which frankly makes it feel like those weren’t thorough whatsoever. I find it telling that the “fecal matter in bed” was just dismissed by the UK judge because it doesn’t make sense as a vindictive strategy. This erroneously presumes that every other person is operating on the same rationale as the judge for what makes sense which is laughable. Something making sense to you is not necessary for it to have made sense to, justified by and done by someone else who is less rational and stable. That the UK judge couldn’t understand that undermines how seriously their ruling can be taken in the public sphere.
Yes, and there is at least one witness in this trial that claims that Amber stated that the fecal matter was "a bad practical joke gone wrong".
All I know is Depp’s team are throwing a shit ton of money on PR
@@laxjs So does Amber Heards team, haven't you seen the recent articles they bought for her or how they are trying to use Twitter to attack Depp?
@@laxjs SURE, with Nypost, reuter and the sun and various media trying to help AH.
Hi, just wanted to clarify on what was stated regarding the UK judge's decision. I have not studied the law on defamation yet but I do believe that the law of tort practiced there has an inbred focus on the objective test of a reasonable person (an average joe who you randomly pick from the streets). The key note here is that it will be based off on an objective test and circumstances of a person's character will likely not be put into consideration beyond the circumstances that they are in. As such, under the eyes of UK law, the trial judge's judgment would likely not have been considered erroneous in that sense as a reasonable person that you pick up from the streets is not very likely to assume that the fecal matter in the bed was from a person, especially if the house has a pet.
Yeah just wanted to say that. Don't really know why or what purpose this message is meant to achieve. Eh.
I’m not claiming any knowledge of the private situation of complete strangers, but there is a phenomenon called Reactive Abuse. This is where someone with narcissistic personality traits abused someone emotionally and verbally until the victim acts out and then acts as the victim due to the acting out. This is particularly effective on conciliatory and empathic individuals as they will downplay or hide the originating abuse whereas the abuse will up-play and publicize the reaction.
i think you've hit the nail on the head.
Mmyeah. I'm not much for getting involved in celebrity gossip - but this case hits a little too close to home for me. Constantly being critical of anyone who comes forward with allegations of domestic abuse is harmful toward actual victims of abuse...but I know first-hand that it's an actual thing that real people will lie and scheme ahead of time to win court cases, especially when there's money in it. Or power.
Yes, it certainly applies, no matter who is the original perpetuator. Now, although this evidence may not be admitted due to both parties' stipulation, Amber Heard was in fact arrested for DV (although not prosecuted), while none of Johnny Depp's previous partners even accused him.
I have experienced this myself. Reactively abusing after so much emotional and mental abuse was given to me. It's not right, but it happens. I was wondering if thar ended up being the case with Johnny.
I've experienced this. She'd do something absurdly violent and when I held her down to stop her it would be that I'd somehow kicked her ass. It's nuts. At a certain point shut emotions down, don't take anything they do personally. Everything gets easier once you just do what is right and realize you are not dealing with a sane person. She went on to have failed after failed relationship. The three months of nice person act doesn't secure you a punching bag it turns out.
Congratulations on being one of the only people on the internet that covered this case in the most unbiased way possible. You earned my sub from that alone.
I never thought that I would watch something related to law again, after wasting 4 years in law school, but eh were go again
4 years??
@@ABoxIsMyHome Law school is usually a 4 or 5 year degree outside of the US.
@@hotpotato9149 all that for nothing?
@@ABoxIsMyHome Yea, I started a business while in law school and I'm making x10 the money that I would have made as a lawyer, but that applies to my country mostly (I'm from EU)
@@WalkinChristum You sound like my father. After graduating Loyola, he never even took the Bar anywhere.
I know most people say this, but I’m not someone who’s often hooked on gossip. I don’t want anyone to be in a toxic relationship, but beyond that I really do not spend much time thinking about Depp or Heard. I’ve long since detached on screen ability and a genuine positive personality. Having said all that, I cannot stop watching the trial. It is captivating in the weirdest way. I have to know how closely it follows a “typical” court case because man, it ain’t like the movies.
It feels like the weirdest version of law and order and judge Mathis.
I think trials are compelling because everyone watching is just as qualified to analyze it as the jury is. That's the whole point of a jury, they're regular people. I'm lost watching a Magnus Carlsen chess match. I don't understand the scoring system of tennis. But a trial is meant to be watched by anyone.
@@ramon3897 and yet here you are.
I couldn't agree more with the better things in the world to focusing on, and like thats not even a current thing that is an always thing. but @makerinmotion that response has really made me recontextualise things. you've explained it so perfectly and captured something important about its appeal.
@@ramon3897 Because regardless of whether Depp's or Heard's claims are true or false, anyone of any gender could be and have been sued and jailed even though the alleged attacker was telling the truth while others have been sued and released/exonerated because others havr lied about abuse/rape/etc. Men have lied about women, women have lied about men, men have lied about men and women have lied about women, and everybody has lied over money, ego, control, fame, spite, etc. It's interesting because it's real people, regardless of whether their testimonies are truthful or dishonest.
I remember being in the stock courtroom footage used in this video! Nothing like watching Legal Eagle and shouting out, "Hey! That's me!"
I found it funny that he used US court stock footage for the UK court. They wear funny little wigs & stuff over there, so the footage in this just didn't fit at all.
Cool you got to see yourself though :)
@@mehere8038 wait they really wear funny wigs there?
Lol.
Cool
FINALLY. An ACTUAL LAWYER weighing in on this. I'm sick and tired of the court of public opinion.
tons of lawyer already covering this. There's a corner of the internet called Lawtuber, those are law practitioners lol.
@@giannabrown867 Yeah although this guy may be the most entertaining to watch
There`s been almost 50 lawyers following the trial and given their wisdom and opinions...
@@007GoldenLion I would love to watch him too but I don't think he would given the nature of this trial.
18:10
Hill: What does "SPEECH" stand for?
Ward: Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage
Hill: And what does that mean to you?
Ward: It means someone really wanted the initials to spell out 'speech'
Having been a victim of the type of abuse Johnny described, and with Amber's own words from the tapes where she talks about hitting because he walked away from her, I am confident that the "headbutt" could have been an accident. When you're being attacked while walking away and are forced to defend yourself while trying all you can to keep a wild animal off of you, it is almost impossible not to accidentally hurt them even if you are trying your hardest not to.
They attack you, force you to defend yourself, and then say you abused them because something happened. You're basically stuck in a nightmare where you're a victim who's being blamed as the perpetrator.
Depp even rebuttled under redirect Examination that "I was trying to stop her, it's possible our foreheads collided as they do in an altercation, but it wasn't a headbutt." going on later to say "After she dispensed of the tissue, I inspected it very closely and found it was nail polish."
Not to mention When Johnny tried to figure out what went wrong, she refused any sort of help or examination.
sounds just like my mother
You just described a shocking number of domestic violence claims
@Dominic Gallegos I agree with you.
Projecting onto a case isn’t a good idea if you want to form an unbiased opinion.
5 things i learn from this trial:
- objection lack of foundation
- hearsay
- speculation
- muffin
- acting doesnt need skill just beauty/sugar daddy
You can also add: - lawyers aren't actually all smart
Edit: MEGAPINT! 🤣
OBJECTION!!!
And amber has a time machine she uses to buy make up
@@nicolereadstarot loreal had timemachine, selling future makeup product to amber in the pass. (speculation meme)
As an English lawyer, impressive explanation of English concepts, except JD didn’t appeal to the highest court. He appealed from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. Above that is the Supreme Court (to which he didn’t appeal). Otherwise, lots of ticks. Great summary.
I wish Devin would do a bit more in depth in the UK trial because imo, the case was a bit shady.
Objection.
The UK trial was weird, by any standard.
The judge, on several occasions, elected to ignore Depp's witnesses because they were under his employment.
Then he proceed to believe Heard's claims simply because they were, to him, believable.
On the other hand, the Judge failed to disclose that his son, Robert Palmer, worked for talkRADIO, owned by Rupert Murdoch, the Sun's owner, while Daniel John William Wootton, the journalist who authored the Sun's article in question, is also a talkRADIO host.
The conflict of interests is clear, and LE would do well to explore the UK judgement in detail before accepting the judgement as fair.
EDIT:
Several notes here.
1. The employees are witnesses under oath, under the penalty of perjury. There's no "rule against employee" in the US court system, and there's a very good reason for that. Even in this case, all expert witnesses are paid witnesses, some are very, very well paid, still they should not automatically be discounted simply because they got paid.
2. Appeals can fail for any reason, including bad lawyering. They did not know about the conflict of interests at the time since they can't cross examine the Judge, they can't argue on the reasoning of the Judge, which is his sole discretion, so they tried to argue on "disputed fact", which the appellate court did not find compelling enough. So, case closed.
3. There's a lot of ad-hoc reasoning in the UK judgement, not just those I listed. The judge even rejected sworn testimonies of two police officers, submitting himself as a better IPV injuries expert by looking at Miss Heard's photos than two trained professional law enforcement officers who were personally there, and then essentially accused them of committing perjury without explicitly saying so. Like I said, it's beyond weird, so look at the judgement yourself.
4. It's ok for witnesses to be biased, because any such biases can be shown to the jury on cross. When a Judge is biased, especially when he does so subtly as the Judge Nichol, there is no recourse for the defense team, as such it is really important for the judge to disclose any conflict of interests and recuse him/herself from a trial when any such conflict does arise.
He would still maybe loose the UK case, even if the judge wasn't bias. It was against The Sun and given that the only available information at that time was Miss Heard's article, that would probably be considered a sufficient ground for them to publish their article.
Duh. An employee is going to side with his boss. Are you new here?
@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942 that isn't enough imo to completely invalidate them as witnesses
@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942 Depends on how individually-minded the employee is, how the employee has been treated, numerous factors. There's no such thing as a black-and-white explanation to a group or kind of people. Anything could happen - in fact, this very court case has taught me that much.
And the appeal court that upheld the ruling? Also in the pocket of talkRADIO? Or are you going into this with the idea that the UK case was unjust and working backwards from there?
A subtopic for your inevitable follow-up video: how does jury sequestration work in high-profile cases like these that invariably get dragged onto social media?
(In general, I know how it works in theory, but I'm curious on specifics and logistics of such.)
This jury is not sequestered.
@@sl3966 Then a follow-up question/topic for him: How do you prevent spoiling of a jury because of a headline passing their eyeballs? How do you prove it? :)
@@Genesis8934 You really can't. It's an honor system thing. Just like the juror on the Floyd trial that later came out and said he knew all about the case and had been to protests about Floyd. He also said that "we need to start getting on these juries to effect change" in direct opposition to what he wrote on his jury questionnaire. We just have to trust that they take jury duty seriously I guess.
@@sl3966 Personally, I think that jury nullification is not a mark of unseriousness. I'd certainly consider it if abortion became outlawed, if Roe falls, for example.
@@sl3966 That's actually something that feels like a huge gap in the legal system. You can't appeal a jury getting something wrong, even though it's never established how well they understand the laws and nuances, or how they've interpreted the testimony and evidence. In a case with a judge, they have to validate their reasoning (so the verdict in the London case here ran to 600 paragraphs). Meanwhile the jury deliberations are never evaluated, they're not even recorded.
The sequestering thing here is interesting, especially in light of there being a weeks break while Heard has barely starting presented evidence and testimony. It feels like the jury will get extra time to ruminate on Depp's team's evidence, while also being exposed to the social media which (as is typically the case) is biased toward the bigger star. I know that there are arguments that part of the issue with the OJ trial is the jury just wanted to get it over with, but there should be some kind of half way house.
Having this whole trial televised is a massive win for Depp in the public court (which is what is important to him).
The world being able to actually see Amber testifying is enough to destroy any credibility she might have formerly been given.
Yeah, I hadn’t been following it closely at all and figured the UK ruling was likely the truth, but since then I’ve watched several dives into the details, especially including the video Matt Orchard did here on YT, and my opinion has done a 180.
It's the biggest win for sure. People outside of that courtroom would only see the photos where she posed holding a tissue to her nose, as opposed to actually watching the whole performance. It really makes a huge difference in the public's perception.
The UK courts are going to be embarrassed if Depp wins in the US. The judges in the UK case should be ashamed for not allowing evidence and just going along with AH.
Watching Amber going from full emotional breakdown face to a passive face and then return to the full emotional breakdown face exactly when an objection is raised and then emotions return when its her moment to testify again. Its almost like someone is saying "cut" and "action" and not "objection" and sustained"
It's so telling when actual abuse victims, FBI investigators, behavior specialists, victim advocates, and so many more that work for abuse survivors are saying something isn't right with her story. It's gut wrenching to realize the abuse victim was portrayed as the abuser, but I suspect that we will find it's happened way more than we expected. I grew up in a household where my mother is the aggressor and perpetrator of abuse and violence, and she has used the female victim facade to her benefit. JD doesn't realize how lucky he is to have gotten free of her.
I've been avoiding this on social media this whole time, and this video tells me I was wise to do so. I also learned quite a bit about both of these two I didn't already know.
Oh part of why he lost the sun case was because she claimed she donated the full 7 million, but in reality she has only ever donated 1 million under her name. only $300,000 of which being her and not JD or Elon Musk.
Exactly, i perfer to avoid and wait out the media and wait for the testimony.
nah social media had more accurate reporting than the MSM lol
It can still be difficult for women who speak out. However, I think the wrath Amber is experiencing has more to do with the fact that Johnny is the one who ended up in an ER. Johnny is the one who has no history of abusing other partners. Amber has a history of arrest for precious physical assault on a partner. To me the evidence is clear. I think the judge in the UK was biased. Will Johnny win in the US? I worry he won’t simply because the bar is so high in proving defamation. But his main goal is clearing his name. As far as I am concerned, he has.
The sad part is that there's also a cultural bias in general, (which might well be why the UK judge decided against Depp), in that people are a lot more willing to believe and get upset about a woman being abused, than they are a man getting abused. That makes these sort of cases significantly harder to win for men both in the court of public opinion, and in actual court.
It doesn't help either that she made the accusations first, and especially in today's culture, where there are indeed a lot of assholes out there, people are quick to jump in defense of female "victims" without actually looking at the evidence and the character of the people involved to see if they are indeed victims or if they have ulterior motives. In many cases they are telling the truth, but there's also plenty of people who play the role of victim in order to garner sympathy or attention, knowing that even if evidence proves them to be lying, the public will already have sided with them.
I think the UK judge made the right call from a free speech perspective. After all, new evidence has since come out-evidence that The Sun's editors didn't have, but evidence that Heard, as the author of the WaPo op-ed, absolutely would know about, being the first party. So in terms of malicious intent, it's way different.
@@Gamer3427 yeah, many people straight up don't believe men can be abused by a women. It's quite sad, because it hurts those men. Seeing people support your abuser and hate you bc they think you abused her is upsetting to say the least.
I think this is a trait of "toxic masculinity", the idea that men can't be abused (by men or women) bc they HAVE to be "stronger then them" and "you're weak if you can't defend yourself." Which can be said to a women too, but it's mostly said to men.
What a shame. :(
Yes, fans of Mr. Depp have certainly taken heavily to his side of the story and are very defensive of him. As you have demostrated.
@@rjmunster9600 If you cover the case more thoroughly than the UK case handled it (their analysis was pretty superficial) you find that he lied to the doctor to protect her AND the tapes actually reveal this fact - he presses that they need help by essentially saying in the tapes 'we have to change' 'isn't it true you start the physicial fights' (Amber literally says 'yes I start physical fights), and follows it up with 'I lost a finger man', implying that the injury was not his own doing, but was due to her attack.
I’ve gotta say, after hearing the phone calls where Heard is extremely demeaning and abusive towards Depp, it really does support his case. I have dealt with numerous domestic violence cases and there is typically a primary aggressor. Sometimes you get two crazy parties that just brawl it out, but most times there is one party that clearly pushes the conflicts into abusive territory. The tone, aggression, vitriol and choice of language by Heard in those recordings is all typical of a primary aggressor. That obviously doesn’t prove anything one way or another in a court situation, but in the court of public opinion it goes a long way. Anyone that is familiar with domestic violence will immediately identify Heard as the primary aggressor and will judge the case accordingly, regardless of the verdict.
And before I get accused of dismissing Heard’s side because she is a female, I am fully on board with the understanding that in a majority of cases, the primary aggressor is the male. We can all acknowledge that fact while still recognizing that this is not a one way street and women can and do act as the primary aggressor as well.
I think we're often led to believe that the primary aggressor is male, but it's also true that domestic abuse against men is severely underreported.
And this idea that women are automatically disbelieved is just outrageous. I disbelieve Heard for good reasons, not because of her sex.
Amber Heard being the "primary aggressor" unfortunately has no bearing on this case. All her defense has to do is convince the jury of just one credible instance of verbal or physical abuse directed at Heard. Their former couples therapist testified that there was mutual abuse during their marriage, and whilst she stated that Heard instigated violence against Depp much more frequently, Depp still sometimes initiated physical confrontations.
@@stevesteves945
That's why I said it likely won't have much impact in the court case but it will have an impact in the court of public opinion. Anyone intimately familiar with domestic violence will recognize her as the primary aggressor in those recordings. That understanding will generate empathy towards Depp, even if there was abuse on his part as well.
@@TheCommonS3Nse Oh I think he won in the court of public opinion long ago when those recording were revealed to the public demonstrating just who the primary abuser was. I do hope this will rightfully tank Amber Heard's acting career though, regardless of the outcome of the case.
Well, in the case of public accusations of abuse, there are certain people who have a vested interest in reflexively taking the man's side, and due to the fact that Depp is a more popular actor than Heard, it's inevitable that some people aren't even going to consider that the allegations could be true. I, however, don't have such an emotional investment, not do I have any bias against Johnny Depp such that I wouldn't hear him out too. Given the evidence has been shown, I believe that both parties contributed to the general toxicity of their relationship, they both bare a degree of responsibility. But where it comes to physical aggression, I agree that it appears that Heard is the primary aggressor at least in that respect, and it seems as if Depp's role in physical confrontation is mainly reactionary, and while a person should never keep a fight going, one does have a right to defend themselves, even if the assailant is smaller or weaker. You shouldn't do anything more than what is necessary to fend off an assault, though. At this time, there's no evidence suggesting that his response was in excess of that. In her own words, his response to her hitting him was to push her. I think pushing someone away who is trying to hit you is acceptable, as long as it stops at some point.
Honestly, I came here a week ago to hear what you were thinking about this case. I'm glad you've finally delivered
Thank you Mr. Legal Eagle for condesing years of information into a short digestable video
"The court is not a justice system, it is a legal system"
- some judge somewhere
Department of Justice officially rebrands to "Department of Legality." Everyone is upset but not surprised.
very true, it's proven so many times in the past court result is not equal justice throughout the history of humankind. Justice is a concept that carries through time, culture, social norms.
I think JD's team is playing a bigger and diffrentent game than just a defamation lawsuit.
Defamation cases can be pretty ugly, cause the other team will try to expose any dirt, related or unrelated, on you to dehumanize you. It's like wrestling with a pig.
Even if he loses the lawsuit, if he can make AH as dirty, or even more, as himself he can win the public opinion.
Already biases has been formed, and they are hard to change.
He's already won the public opinion.
I was thinking the same thing. He's not looking to be compensated for any loss made by the op-ed. He's looking to cause equal or greater damage to her in the public's eyes - and it's working. In the end, the court of public opinion won't have the power to sway the legal system - hopefully - but one can assume that Amber's career is as good as dead.
What public opinion? That he's a violent drunken maniac who has done horrific things? If that's the public perception he wants to cement then he's done a great job!
@@brody5409 Experts have proven that Amber is the one who's lying. Plus there's no evidence of Johnny abusing her. But there is evidence of her abusing him.
@@eeveequeen15 So is it loose birdseed in your skull or? What's like the situation up there?
The problem with The Sun UK trial is this: The Judge in that case heavily weighted Amber Heard's testimony over Johnny Depp's almost entirely on the basis of his substance issues. This really bothered me. As to who should win this defamation case, I don't really have a dog in the fight either way. However, I *REALLY* wish courts would start moving away from these particularly disgusting tropes regarding people with substance dependencies/addictions being inherently violent and/or uncredible (which, unfortunately, is what AH's legal team has been constantly insisting).
Good point. And I agree.
Cool, then maybe Johnny's team should stop using a questionable diagnosis of BPD to smear people with mental illness as being prone to violence against others and a danger to society when most of them are more likely to hurt or kill themselves than anyone else.
Ain't nobody smelling like roses here. Depp does have a *very* long history of being prone to violence whether he's dealing with substance abuse or not though. I'm not sure why everyone developed amnesia about that, because it was all I ever heard about him through much of the 90s.
Plus the judge in the UK trial has ties to both amber Heard's legal team, he worked for the same law firm that amber's lawyer works for, & the sun as his (the judges) son works for talkradio. The same company that employs Wootten who wrote the article...
UK is so backwards on drugs you gotta find a medieval village to get some weed
Whats interesting. Heard actually has a history of domestic violence. And one things for sure. Thats generally something the abuser doesnt change. They will do it to someone else. The UK trail was a sham whole heartedly
It will probably end with both losing . Johnny probably knew this so he did this to win the court of public opinion which I think he did
Agree
Is this what we want our courts to be used for? Knowing you're going to lose yet doing so anyway?
Regardless of the financial outcome, I think JD has certainly done quite a lot of reputation revitalization here. There's a groundswell of folks who believe him over Heard now, which wasn't the case before (at least not to this degree).
Johnny is looking great in all this. She looks insane and her experts and lawyers look terrible. People are supporting Johnny and raging against her and mocking her. Saw video the other day she holds a tissue to her face for a few seconds to pose for a photo.
Keep an eye on the US trial.... she's testified to such crazy crazy things without any proof of most of them other than a few pictures of bruises but none of her bloody footprints, no swelling of the nose from the broken nose, no medical examination from the alleged bottle being shoved into her vagina and a few days later she's sitting fine on a flight with the house manager on a flight back to the US from AUS while Johnny's at the hospital getting his finger re-attached??? If she kept things more believable I think she might def win but originally I thought Johnny would only win in the court of public opinion and now I'm thinking he's got a real shot to really win this since she's saying such crazy crazy things with no medical records to prove it. Even her forensic psychiatrist who sounded SO biased against men was saying she sought medical care after a fight and then they played the nurse testifying to her notes from that exam and there was no bruising, nothing! So so so crazy.
I like how we look at Johnny's previous relationship as him being a good partner. But no one addressed how Amber's previous relationship with a female partner was all about abuse where she accused an officer of being homophobic. At the same time, the officer was also a lesbian who intervened in one of the domestic abuse calls.
Amber's prior arrest for domestic violence was never prosecuted and convicted so "technically" its not admissible court evidence.
But we all know she probably did it lol. Amber is taking the stand saying how the cops was called several times on Depp. If we apply the same logic Depp should be able to point out her prior arrests. Not saying she was guilty or anything....wink wink.
To this point they haven't been able to discuss that in court, for some unknown reason
I really hope during the cross examination for Heard, they'll bring this up to show that she has a history of abuse (also, she used to beat up her sister and her mother was scared of her)
@@SourDonut99 yeah i know it 100% something they can’t bring in court. Whenever I see these videos referencing one sides previous relationship I wish they at least mention both parties relationship.
@@lvnar_27 Just checking is there a source for that info? That should really be brought up as it would show she has a history of violence.
It would be really interesting to know what you think of Depp's lawyers strategy during Amber Heards testimony. They seemed to be closing down any of her testimony that included 3rd parties by objecting to the testimony as hearsay, but then didn't when Heard was recounting a story involving Depp's children. Depp seemed to smile and his attorney gave a subtle fist pump. Did they heard Heard into a trap? And what was it?
One of the fist bumps (I don't know if there were multiple) was because Amber contradict her statements and lied in court. Originally she said she heard rumours JD threw one of her ex girlfriends off the stairs, but now she said it like it was true even tough the ex girlfriend said "JD was the first man she felt secure with" and denied this event from happening
They're happy cause it means they can bring more Depp friendly witnesses to the stand
Part of it is because the 3rd parties involved were her mother, who has since passed away thus can not be called upon to testify
They also fist bumped when she mentioned Kate Moss. They were waiting for that apparently. I wonder how that will play out.
great pun m8
Thank you!!!! I literally sent a tweet just days ago asking for this! Thank you! Great news to here you’ve expanded your team! Looking forward to future content!
I get genuine fear when you say "I'll see you in court".
Why what did you do 🤔
Thanks for covering this- most coverage I've seen assumes you've been following the issue and have already taken a side- and gives very little explanation of what is even going on.
People who has already taken a clear side, has no respect for the law or justice. For there is not much evidence of either side being a victim of abuse here, and plenty of evidence that they have both behaved bad.
Exactly. A ton of ppl have already taken Depp's side after Day 1 and not even willing to hear her side. The hivemind out there is crazy.
@@slickspidey
Nuance requires effort.
@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution I am pretty sure an audio recording of AH telling Johnny she was hitting him and that no one would "believe Johnny, a man, of being abused," as well as photo of him with black eyes, photo of him in the hospital, and numerous witnesses testifying he had visible injuries, would count as "evidence" of domestic violence. Regardless of outcome, there is evidence violence took place.
Check out Legal Bytes, another UA-cam lawyer, she's uploaded both a full live stream of the trial every day (with commentary) as well as a 15-20 minute video at the end of each day summarising what happened and who said/did what. Definitely a good analysis of the trial thus far :) Nick Rikeita is another good option for UA-cam lawyers, though he doesn't have summary videos of each day's events, which is why I recommend Legal Bytes.
"I endured excessive emotional, verbal and physical abuse from Johnny, which has included angry, hostile, humiliating and
threatening assaults to me WHENEVER I QUESTIONED HIS AUTHORITY OR DISAGREED WITH HIM."
all of the recordings presented during the trial have been to the contrary.
People seems to only have read the headline to her article. It's not just that part that matters and all the claims in that article is under trial.
shshhshshshs facts.
Who recorded them?
Why would she shit in the bed if he was so violent?
@@reaceness Amber Heard herself.
I think what bothers me the most about this is how his substance abuse and mental health issues are being spun to look like proof for him being abusive, when, looking at the facts, it's for more likely that it made him vulnerable to becoming a victim of abuse. Depp has always been open about his flaws, his substance abuse problems, his mental health issues, etc, but doesn't have a history of being abusive towards partners. Heard does have that history, but she's exploiting negative stereotypes about addiction and mental health to paint herself as a victim. It's so disgusting. I'm sure Depp has done and said questionable things in their relationship, but going by the facts we have, it seems far more likely that Heard pushed him to his limits and caused him to lash out, than that he is an abusive person. I've seen that happen myself with people I've known and loved, who were troubled, but good people. Then they found a partner who was abusive, and that abuse turned them into a worse version of themselves. As soon as the relationship ended, that side of them disappeared. Some people really are toxic.
It doesn't help Amber when her costars (see Jason Mamoa) come out and throw her under the bus for being an abusive dirtbag, and Depp's ex's (which one would think would have the most to emotionally gain by smearing thei ex) have been very positive about him.
Even Depp's daughter has come out in defense of her father as not being abusive.
The issue is "far more likely" is how the UK court put it. They claim it's far more likely that Depp's accusations of libel are untrue. I like probability and all that, but I know that it's not good to depend on it, especially when that probability varies widely by perspective cuz it's subjective. Idk who's right/wrong, but I do know that the case was pretty amusing.
Also, its wild that theyre painting johnny as an addicted alcoholic druggy. Amber spent something like 10k a month on wine, admitted to using other drugs multiple times and even in an audio clip tried to use her being on drugs as an excuse for physically abusing johnny.
He literally brought a psychologist in to testify that she's got Borderline and Histrionic Personality Disorders, two very stigmatized mental illnesses. If that's not spinning mental health issues to look like proof that someone's abusive and exploiting negative stereotypes to do so, I don't know what is!
It's a good thing Amber's lawyers are very incompetent, this seems like a W for Johnny.
Even if he doesn't win inside the court he is pretty much the winner in people's eyes
@@suhas1054 that's because you hate women
But Amber is winning
@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942 Wait til they cross examine her. She said a few things in her testimony that they can pick at or even prove untrue. For instance claiming Kate Moss was pushed down the stairs when Kate Moss denies that happened.
@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942 According to who? Have you been talking to the Jury?
I don't know what the truth is in this case one way or the other, but I do know that domestic abuse against men is badly under-reported, and usually not taken seriously by people because everyone just assumes that it's only men who abuse women... which is one of the big reasons why it's so under-reported.
Yea I had told people that my ex was beating me, literally showing people the bruises and cuts, and they'd say "Whaaat? From tiny little her? Against you? It couldn't have been that bad."
Like, what? You know how much effort it took her to bruise someone my size and build? If you see a big burly man with a bunch of bruises on their shoulders, just imagine how hard that dude had to be hit to get that mark.
if it's true (and the evidence seems to point to the fact Amber was the one absuing Johnny) then this case could have much more impact than few milions for johnny
Depp himself said he already lost everything. He has nothing left. So yeah, I agree this is to redeem himself. Success.
This; however, is not a domestic violence case. This is a Defamation case.
@@AceHufflepuff "Depp says he has nothing left..." with a current net worth of about 150 million dollars. 🤣😂🤣
Their joint statement after her initial claims of being abused by Depp, he stated "neither side has made false allegations to secure a financial judgement"... but if that weren't enough to substantiate her words... this has already been litigated in the UK. A court of law has already weighed the testimony and evidence, and found that at 12 of her 14 accounts of violence were credible. That is why Depp lost that libel suit against The Sun UK
Got here faster than Amber’s lawyers could say hearsay
Unfortunately, they already objected to their own motion.
😅
You are exaggerating your statement to make you appear excessively fast. 😆
Objection: no one can possibly be that fast!
@@warlordofbritannia Objection, speculation.
I'm surprised you haven't posted much on the Depp v. Heard trial! I was really hoping to get your take on all this!
It's about bloody time! I was desperately waiting for a Legal Eagle video on this case - I wasn't keeping up with it before now.
Can't wait for the follow up video about this case.
Well it's not about the case just yet, just the appetizer.
More will come... there is always more...
You forgot to mention the fact that the judge in the US case has stated on the record that she feels that the British court did not give Debb a fair trial.
No, what she stated was that it wasn't fair to deny Depp a trial since Heard was not a party in the UK decision. She actually goes out of her way to make it clear she is not expressing an opinion about the UK system in her 14 page ruling which can be found online.
Have to ask the question why a case involving a couple who lived in California arguing over an argument published in DC is being held in Virginia, a state notoriously friendly to SLAPP suits if you're really interested in trial fairness...
@@CaptLoquaLacon other legal channels like Legal Bytes determined that Virginia is where the publisher of the article AH wrote is headquartered
@@CaptLoquaLacon because the Washington Post is headquartered there and that is where the article was published.
@@br2k Why does that matter? He's suing Heard for defamation, not the Washington Post. Who cares where they are headquartered? Also, online it says they are headquartered in DC and publish all of their stuff in DC. They have some operations in Virginia but are clearly mostly in DC.
@@frizzzx86 The HQ of the Washington post is 1301 K Street NW Washington. They have a bureau in Virginia, but that is tenuous given all editorial decisions will occur in DC
Love the comment about Depp becoming an Expert in Hearsay. Saw the moment you were talking about, i laughed then and I laughed now, when you made me remember it
I'd love to see another video as a follow up to this one breaking down the results of the trial.
To be fair, he didn't sue Amber the first time. He sued the tabloid for Libel in the UK case.
It was said in the video
Tell me you didn't watch the whole video, without telling me you didn't watch it.
@@Chiny_w_Pigulce Yes but he also says in the video, "How can Johnny Depp Sue Amber Heard Twice?" He could have just missed that part of the video where he said otherwise.
@@Verskil1412 I figured he would address it eventually, but a large portion of people are not going to listen to the whole thing and won't get the real information when the video begins that way.
@@Chiny_w_Pigulce I figured he would address it eventually, but a large portion of people are not going to listen to the whole thing and won't get the real information when the video begins that way.
I love legal eagles non biased information on very important legal cases. I always turn to this channel when I'm curious about something going on.
Thank you legal eagle for helping someone like me who doesn't quite understand legal things, to see that side and explaining it.
In terms to this case it's such a messy mess. I feel Depp is in the right here but I do agree with someone else's comment that the take away is once you realize the relationship is toxic, to try and get away before it gets even worse.
Thanks you for your videos. In your next video on this case I would love for you to clarify hearsay verbal vs. written. As Depp pointed out, if Depp says “Amber said Johnny Depp is an abusive husband,” it is stricken from the record for hearsay. But if someone writes an article that says “Amber said Johnny Depp is an abusive husband,” it is submitted into evidence. I would love clarity on that! I look forward to your video.
Was waiting for you to cover this
Wasn't it also revealed that the judge that ruled on the case against the Sun had ties to them through his son being employed there? I remember there was a big stink online over it at one point, pointing out that there could be no possible way the judge could be trusted to not have a bias when he had familial connections to either side. There was also claims that the judges wife met with Amber prior to the hearing. Only stating what I've heard a while back and cannot fully remember where I had come across it.
Nope. Those are fake claims made y someone on twitter, then dropped in to an echo chamber so now everyone is citing an incorrect assessment of events like it's some sort of fact, despite Depp's legal team being a bit more qualified in finding, evaluating and presenting evidence than random troll on social media...
@@CaptLoquaLacon Welp, that's the nature of how things end up on the internet. Happens on all sides and only ends up with muddied waters, resulting in more confusion.
@@CaptLoquaLacon Besides, most of us are just spectators trying to make sense of this three-ringed circus of a court case.
Wait "he?" isn't the judge a woman?
@@kristoferkennethlladones5172 Current judge is. This isn't Depp's first attempt in a courtroom
Thanks for this, the first commentary I've come across that speaks to the legal issue that's being heard. Thank goodness we aren't tried in the court of public opinion where charisma, wealth and popularity seem to count for more than actual evidence. From my perspective, neither party is particularly likeable, but that doesn't, nor should it, influence the jury and the quality of the evidence presented.
The important thing is what the evidence says as well as the impartial witnesses.
If you want good commentary on this trial, try the UA-cam channel "Legal Bytes", run by a lawyer who is live streaming the trial every day, as well as uploading a 15-20 minute summary of each day of the trial. Definitely a recommended analysis of the trial.
@@MrAsmontero completely agree. Depp has already lost his UK libel case and he'll also lose this one based on the evidence presented. Thankfully, like Brent said, the court of public opinion won't make those legal decisions.
@@rudyarness8317 sorry. Legal bytes is not unbiased. They should be on JDs payroll (except Uncivil) since they defend him so hard. I am a lawyer and I can tell you the "legal" analysis by LegalBytes and friends is pretty thin. Legal Eagle has not forgotten actual legal analysis for cheap subs and super chats.
@@jadedspades Please point out specific examples and don't play to authority by saying "I am a lawyer"
I honestly wouldn't mind a 5 hour long breakdown of the trial. I know that's even hard to compress down to, but man...
I love how you put your personal ad break at the end of the video instead of in the middle like most youtubers.
18:19 OBJECTION: Congress needs to stop naming laws like this. This madness needs to end.
From the very first episode of Agents of SHIELD:
Hill: What does "S.H.I.E.L.D." stand for, Agent Ward?
Ward: Strategic Homeland Intervention Enforcement and Logistics Division.
Hill: And what does that mean to you?
Ward: It means someone really wanted our initials to spell out "SHIELD."
Remembers me in Naked Gun 2 1/2, the advocative of atomic energy, "Key Atomic Benefits Office Of Mankind".... KABOOM xD
I clicked on this time stamp and got an ad for a Bleach RPG like I was back in ‘05
@@RadioactiveKetchup i am sorry to hear that this happened to u
I've always been bewildered and amused by the fact that America feels compelled to always make their abbreviations acronyms that are actual words for some reason. It's the exact opposite here in Germany: Laws are either just a bunch of letters that are not pronouncable (SGB, TKG, TzBfG), the first couple of letters of each word that are sometimes semi-pronouncable (EntgTranspG) and sometimes not (KrPflG), or when they are pronouncable, it's never, ever a word (BAFög, BIlmog, MiLoG).
You’re a bold soul for diving into this cesspool.
I was indifferent to this whole thing when I first started popping up in the news. But after hearing the audio where Heard says nobody will believe Depp just because he's a man has put me on Depp's side. While the notion that women are usually the ones abused in a toxic relationship is true, it makes male victims of abuse less likely to come forward because most people will never believed that a man can be abused.
You are quite with the "usual" part. That is the sad stereotype. However basically all studies suggest that over 40% of domestic abuse victims are male.
Don't worry. It's taken out of context. Johnny was claiming it was a "fair fight" (putting equal responsibility is something abusers do btw), while Amber told him to go tell a judge and jury that and see what people think.
@@NaNa-ou1sg It's really not taken out of context, tho
@@bestbeloved2704 Yes it is. His lawyer got kicked off the Sun case for leaking it and why would he need to do that 🤔
@@NaNa-ou1sg okay but why does she constantly lie then? why has no one ever seen any of the things she mentioned, and why are they not in the trial as witnesses? no medical records, a bunch of contradictions, he is this cunning monster who always does things so nobody can find out, and somehow he is also always drunk on drugs, blacking out and shitting his pants yet somehow avoids getting found out, also all her pictures does not match her story at all.
Question: Right after a sustained objection for leading, the attorney usually rephrases the question. But wouldn't the leading question still be on the witness's mind, especially if the attorney was pushing for a certain answer? Why isn't that an issue?
Lol was just talking about this today with coworkers
@@MichaelSmith-lm6xl Yeah, it really showed up this week with Depp v Heard. Heard's lawyer tried about 15 ways to ask the same question.
Well if the witness starts to answer the question in a leading way it can be objected and requested to be striked from the record
@@donnieparris4684
Elaine: "Did Mr. Depp horribly violate you with this bottle pictured here?"
Camille: "Objection: leading"
Elaine: "What if any time did Mr. Depp horribly---"
Camille: "Objection: leading"
Elaine: "Your honor, what if any..."
It is an issue. The justice system just can't be bothered to treat it like one.
Idk if a lot of people are going to say this, but it would be really interesting to hear you break down the recently leaked decision that may overturn Roe v Wade in detail
He posted a short about it, though I suppose you want a full twenty minute video
Personally, I hope it wakes people up to how corrupt and two-faces a lot of SC Justices are. Life tenure for the Supreme Court was easily to framers’ worst idea.
Would make for an entertaining comment section.
@@dallastexas5653 could see him having to turn off comments. American politics is going into full meltdown right now.
@@Nostripe361 When isn't it going into a meltdown?
I appreciate you keeping this video fairly neutral. The number of random people on the internet who are suddenly law, behavioral, and body language experts while watching this trial is insanity. It’s nice to see a video just talking about the facts and law procedure.
THANK YOU! I don't understand randos, and celebs who don't know either party personally, express support for one party or the other so confidently, and speculate as to who is right and who is wrong. I doubt either party is beyond reproach.
@@Mic-Mak Tbh, this trial should be a giant case study on confirmation bias.
I don't watch the celebrities like you do, there are some body language experts out there that work on cases, you need to seperate facts from fiction. There's also a lot of amber supporters still...surprisingly
@@guardian.angle.22 FACTS
It is insanity, and it has brought out the vileness in a lot of people.
finally I've been waiting for you to do an in-depth analysis of the case
greeting from Libya ❤️🇱🇾
Mr. Gibbs... You may throw my hat.
Justice has been served.
You know, I actively set out to ignore this whole story until some sanity could be brought to you. You, Devin, brought as much as could be found, and the rest just reaffirms why I ignored it. A mighty effort, though, so thanks for that.
You and I both, pal. I'm not against other people being fixated on it--my sister who survived DV from her ex-boyfriends (two separate guys, same shittiness) and my best friend (no major trauma or painful experience; she's just invested), but I really hate shifting sands and chaotic drama and clout-chasers adding their commentary.
They're writing in blood and pooping in beds their beds. I've seen their like. Animal people. They deserve each other. But because our system sucks, they get to soak up countless hours of the justice system's time and manpower because they once pretended to be a pirate and/or an aquaperson.
i tried to avoid it too, but my mom was watching it and I just became fascinated by the lawyers. I love court, and once I saw the insanity and incompetence the lawyers were laying out... well... now i'm invested, unfortunately. It really is an entertaining case, but not for the reason most people are interested in it.
I get that too but the case has actually been an unfortunate revelation on how our culture doesn’t take male survivors of domestic abuse seriously. The power amber heard had with just making a DV claim (with little to no evidence) with no effect on her career but damage to Depp’s was truly disgusting.
This is totally off subject, but I must compliment you on the production quality of your videos. The lighting and color are spot on. The graphics are visually appealing, and the way you present the information is really engaging too.
Really enjoyed watching this.
As someone who was sat trough all the 40 something odd hours of the trial so far I feel this time around JD has a lot more solid evidence this time around.
And not only that but his team also gathered a lot of information that directly contradicts AH's testimony, and with her testimony including direct quotes from movies and the absolute wild claims with no evidence at all paints a very clear picture.
Like for example on the Australia incident, she claims she was literally beaten to an inch of her life and JD has notes from her PERSONAL NURSE that saw her the day after saying that she did not have a single bruise or cut on her body.
(Also the fact that Amber "Cried" for literally 6 hours without shedding a single tear or getting puffy eyes or a runny nose also speak VOLUMES, not to mention her supposedly relieving the worst assault she's ever received, including brutal SA and laughing 5 minutes later when leaving the courtroom for the break)
To add, as the audio of their argument after she assaulted him played, Depp was crying listening to Heard abuse him.
Heard, at the same time, was smiling.
Also the one time she did reach for a tissue she used her hands to wiper her face. Weird
One would expect an actor to be better at, you know... acting.
@@benjamincarmona5883 Yeah, but Amber Heard was never that good at acting in the first place. What makes you think she's going to suddenly be as good as her paycheck suggests?
You think this acting is bad, you should look at the deposition videos from the uk trail :-/
In light of this case reaching a verdict recently, can you do a video on the result of the case as well?
Also, that judge was so unreliable and biased the whole courtcase was a joke. Not hearing witnesses for Depp but taking Heards allegations at face value, like he already made his mind up before things even started.
Says Depp, and his legal team, and definitely through their online smear campaign against Heard which he probably paid a ton of money for.
"Reality can be whatever I want".
He purchased people's support for him through an online misinformation campaign, that's so low! You'd have to be a very disturbing person to resort to it.
And I'm quoting an Avengers movie because this online campaign has been as extensive as the online marketing for an Avengers movie...
Cost millions of dollars..
Yeah, like anyone who's made their evaluation outside of the courts have not done that very thing
@@ltlbuddha But he's the Judge hes suppose to be impartial. The fact that he wasn't shows bias. Its one thing for us, as outsiders to do so, its another for someone in legislation to do so.
@@Chareddragon People claim he was partial without significant evidence. I don't have an opinion on it, precisely because I know I don't know.
Two independent judges looked at his ruling as part of the appeals process. There is no evidence that he took one person more at face value than the other given that he highlights bits where both of them lied. No informed opinion claims he is biased
Amber did not allege abuse when the cops were called to their penthouse, and in fact a friend in New York who was on the phone is the person who called the police. Also this is the first time Johnny is suing Amber for defamation, the UK case was against The Sun, a “paper” for defamation for calling him a wife beater.
1. He's reporting on the court transcripts themselves, which Heard did allege in court (regardless of not having done so before, as you stated).
2. Semantics
@@foegettergames252 uh there’s a huge difference between suing an individual and suing a company. That’s not semantics.
That’s like saying “he murdered that man” “his car wheel fell off and he had an accident crashing into the dude”
“Meh semantics”
He said that this is the first time JD sues Heard and previously she was just a witness and the trial was against the sun? 17:38
So, he explained very clearly that Depp sued the parent company of the Sun.
Maybe you didn’t make it to that part of the video where Legal Eagle stated this specifically???
yeah, he says this in the video
When you said "suit and counter suit" you missed a beautiful moment to include Johnny and Amber's matching suits🤣
In my opinion, the UK judicial system does not follow the rules. There’s another recent court case in which all the evidence was there against the prosecutor (including perjury) and yet all of it was ignored and ruled in favor of the prosecutor.
What a crazy toxic relationship it shows. We d’like violence to be simple but it’s rarely the case.
I think this case hits home for a lot of people because like me, a male presenting person, (trans fem, born male) its often that I'm told that I couldn't have been abused in my relationship because I'm bigger or stronger. So I end up not being able to talk to people about my own abusive relationship.
@@LeafHasLeft Yuuuuuup same here. The world is too filled with trolls. Heard literally abused the MeToo movement to attack an innocent person.
It’s a bit of a reach to call Depp innocent imo. Majority of the abuse was definitely heard, but it’s more than likely that as an addict he did some pretty unsavoury stuff when high or drunk he wouldn’t have done otherwise
@@rydenkaye9735 How is it more than likely? Most addicts are not abusive or violent even under the influence.
@@rydenkaye9735 That is a really shortsighted statement. Him being an addict doesn't just mean it's more than likely he abused his wife. What an absurd statement to make.
Man I hope he covers the Kate Moss incident. Because oh boy, when Amber Heard used that in court, she totally forgot Kate Moss said that never happened.
The Sun should sue itself for defamation by calling itself a newspaper
👍😂 Chance would be a fine thing! Handy when you run out of 🚽 paper though. ( Pity Amber was unaware of it’s other uses 😏)
Murdoch Rag
Can't wait for the next video about this case.
So much material to watch and so little expertise, thus I'm glad you explain it.
It shows how little attention I pay to celebrity news that I didn't even know there had been a UK trial.
This is not a trial just about celebrities, its also a trial about how far the metoo thing has been taken. Its about whether "believe all women" is a credible defense and whether a man can be a victim of physical and emotional abuse. Metoo was really good at the start, got rid of some rotten apples, but the debate now is, has it gone too far?
Johnny depp's PR team has made an extremely conscious effort to keep the UK trial *out* of the narrative. Like, you could hardly find anything about it at all.
I didn't even know this was happening much less trials
There was, but a corrupt judge sorted it so quickly, it wasn't breaking news.
You know, when you are a judge in a case JD vs Sun and your own son works for the Sun's owner...
I was hoping you would cover this case and why it went to trial again. This whole court battle has been a circus..
Thanks for clearing this up. I've heard a lot of gossip from fans, and it sounds like two completely different situations based on who's talking.
We have hard and fast evidence from one side that DIRECTLY contradicts the other who only has what they are saying with no backing really.
Seriously! I feel like I’m taking crazy pills looking at how the public is portraying this.
I was soooo waiting for you to cover this issue!!
Great video - I'd love it if he also did a video on the trial itself - adding any insights about legal strategies, objections, etc. Especially given Ethan is a trial lawyer himself
If you are interested in lawyers discussing this, try Legal Bytes or Rikeita Law. Both have live streams of the trial throughout the day. Legal Bytes also has a 15-20 minute summary video at the end of each day highlighting the main talking points from the day. Nate the Lawyer has also put out a couple of videos worth watching....
When I first heard (heh) about this case, I thought it would just be something TMZ would cover and that'd be the end of it; like most celebrity gossip. I never expected it to appear in all my social media feeds. I can't seem to escape from this trial, not on UA-cam, Twitter, TikTok, etc. It's everywhere.
True. The worst part was the algorithm seemed to think that because we saw it on a youtube that we like and trust to be unbiased, the algorithm though we had full interest on the case and throw endless court hearing by low effort youtubers that only add funny sound effect.
It is very relatable tho, mental disorders, domestic abuse, and dishonesty are things that are pretty common in our own life.
@@lsh7098 No, not in everyone's life. I'm sorry if it happens in yours, but most people don't have to deal with mental disorders or domestic abuse. Dishonesty does happen on a small scale to almost everyone. But not the other two.
That's because it's a huge breakthrough in the issue of male victims of domestic abuse. You have to be a real whiney baby if serious issues are finally moving the right way and you can't stand a few weeks of videos being thrown at you. I don't even get that much recomended and I've been following the case.
@@lsh7098 I'm not apathetic. I'm just aware of the reality that not everyone is dealing with mental disorders or abusers.
1/5 people deal with mental disorders (major and minor). That means 4/5 people DON'T deal with mental disorders which is BY DEFINITION the majority of people.
As far as domestic abuse, 1/4 women deal with it and 1/9 men deal with it. That means 3/4 women and 8/9 men don't. Again, my point stands.
Judge (re: the bed): "For what it is worth, I consider it unlikely that Ms. Heard or one of her friends was responsible."
Ms. Heard: I did it.
The most clear and concise breakdown of this case. Free of bias.
Finally man everyone's been waiting for this video forever
Please, PLEASE collaborate with Plainly Difficult at some point! I'd love to see you cover the legal aspects of a tragedy or morally iffy science experiment!
I can’t get over the fact there’s audio of Heard literally admitting to abusing Johnny. It’s wild
And her goading him, calling him a "coward" because he'd always walk away & didn't "fight". No woman whose is beaten,abused & had her life threatened as she claims, would behave like that. Plus it's odd she's actually using lines from movies in her testimony..
If it was a recording of JD admitting to abuse, the case is done. There is still a misconception that men are abuser, never victim.
@@HarharMahadev-bb1hi because that's what mostly happens but in very few cases it's the opposite
@@wayln2591 that's incredibly callous to say and also entirely wrong. Have you considered that there is a possibility that male victimization cases are being underreported due to the exact same biases that the above comment is pointing out? It's a self-sustaining bias: if you don't believe that male victimization happens, then it won't get reported, then you won't believe that it happens.
@@contramuffin5814 how do you know that if the cases are underreported???? U know men say the same thing about women when they try to talk about female sexual assault victims. Men are always like why she didn't leave earlier or why she took drugs. Why was she with the abuser????? But no such thing is said to Johnny depp. The thing is most victims are women and even the male victims are mostly abused by MEN.
This very serious allegation case: *exists*
Me and my lazy sense of humor: don’t say it. Don’t say it. Amber Heard? What did she hear?
Who do you think looks like winning this case from your point of view and what you have seen. I find it crazy that all 4 of Depps ex wives have all said that he never ever touched them and chose to walk away and leave during fights.
It makes sense though when you learn his mother was abusive and his father either just took it or would just leave the area. So he grew up learning to do this around his mother... which he then carried forward into later relationships as a way to deal with conflict. We often either imitate our parents' methods of dealing with issues or learn to deal with conflict differently in hopes of a different outcome. Especially if someone grew up in an abusive home, we see that behavior come out more.
As far as why this de-escalation tactic stopped working... walking away to cool off doesn't work if the other party follows you and won't let you exit the situation. If you can't escape the argument... it's kinda hard for things to cool off. But even then... there's a lot of evidence that says that one person was the aggressor... and it wasn't the person who has a history of de-escalation via removing themselves from a heated situation. Hell, even excluding evidence, just the claim that someone who has a core trait of walking away to de-escalate conflict suddenly stopped doing that to do the exact opposite and instead escalate conflicts constantly with violence is at the least questionable. At the worst, it's an indication that you should be looking at the medical history to find some trigger like a major head injury.
@@AppleStrawberryLove You literally contradicted yourself. They can imitate their parents OR try to do it differently and expect a different outcome. That's what you said. Yet there's no way to tell which way Depp is adhering to, if any at all, other than his own testimony. So the only real pattern of evidence we can go by is the testimony of his past wives. His upbringing should have absolutely no relevance.
@@aoikemono6414 It's not a contradiction; it's an acknowledgment that different people deal with trauma in different ways. There is no one standard for how someone copes with trauma/abuse/poor home lives. That said, we can see trends with how people cope (technically, any individual can have bits and pieces of all these factors in various degrees but we do see a typical response that they choose primarily). That usually falls into two categories: imitate the behavior or doing the opposite. Usually those who do the opposite are aware of what they dislike about the household they were raised in and so avoid it by being the opposite. Those who imitate usually pick a parent and repeat those behaviors in future relationships (both platonic and romantic). In such cases, if a child was in an abusive household, they'll imitate the victimized parent (if there is one) or the aggressive parent. By examining the behavior that they exhibit throughout their life, you can see the trend they fall into.
His own testimony coincides with all the ex-partners' testimonies of how he deals with conflict. By looking into his upbringing, you see the seed of the behavior and see that he likely falls into the imitate category and imitates his father's methods of coping. He learned to leave the area to avoid the conflict. His background absolutely is relevant as it helps establish a pattern of behavior and a baseline of what is normal for a particular person.
Your base personality traits are a mix of both inherent and learned behavior. Nature and nurture. Trauma (like from an abusive household) severely impacts those neural pathways that create our personalities, as some put it, "reprogramming" the brain to favor certain routes. Your childhood affects how you learn to cope with the world. Example: my father was verbally abusive. To this day, I will flinch and shy away from male voices if they're raised and visible signs of anger from males, even if I know I'm safe. It's involuntary, but my past with my father has made my brain have this response to this trigger. There's a reason why you'll frequently see past trauma come up in trials: it can affect how you react and view the world around you. So, again, yes, his past experience with abuse is absolutely relevant because it can reveal what he learned to do to cope with certain triggers. In this case, the trigger of anger and arguments has been engrained as a flight response in him. We can look at his own testimony and Amber's too to see that she will even admit that he would try to leave the area, leave the argument. Tie that into the previous partners' and we have a very clear pattern of what his response is going to be whenever possible: flight.