Althouse: "Verdict: Johnny Depp wins defamation case against Amber Heard."

June 1, 2022

"Verdict: Johnny Depp wins defamation case against Amber Heard."

The NY Post reports.

55 comments:

Lem Vibe Bandit said...: There’s still justice in this land!; 6/1/22, 2:42 PM
Curious George said...: Bitch be crazy.; 6/1/22, 2:51 PM
Quaestor said...: Huzzah! Avast! Uuh, Kemosabe!

Finally, some justice.; 6/1/22, 3:10 PM
Dave Begley said...: Will he collect any money? Or will she go BK? Going BK would have to be a Chapter 11 as she certainly has future royalties coming to her from the movie business.; 6/1/22, 3:12 PM
Dave Begley said...: Another question. The ACLU put her up to this and supposedly wrote the defamatory language.

Will the ACLU pay up? Did the ACLU agree to indemnify Amber Heard?

Lawyer questions!; 6/1/22, 3:13 PM
Joe Bar said...: At last, the great national nightmare is over....; 6/1/22, 3:16 PM
Howard said...: Oh Happy Days. Finally a spot of terrific news for Men's Rights! From now on, Ladies, you can no longer get away with shitting the bed.

Since poor besotted Jonny has lost his Disney franchise, might I recommend his taking over as the next Hercules Poirot.; 6/1/22, 3:26 PM
Quaestor said...: Fox News says Amber Heard is "heartbroken"...

Oh, my giddy aunt... Come clean, you ridiculous sow. Salvage what remains of your honor and reform -- no more lies, no more veiled accusations, no more of those Close Cover Before Striking School of Fine Acting stertorous sobs. Confess to the hoax and we will welcome you back to a career befitting your talents, dinner theater in Branson, Missouri, for instance.; 6/1/22, 3:28 PM
Rob said...: They seemed like such a nice young couple.; 6/1/22, 3:38 PM
Scott said...: Are the media reporting this story because people care about it?; 6/1/22, 3:38 PM
MadisonMan said...: Two very rich and famous (and damaged) people sue each other. One wins, mostly.
My reaction? Why should this concern me?; 6/1/22, 3:55 PM
TWWren said...: Peter Pan beats Snow White.; 6/1/22, 4:02 PM
stunned said...: Cheers!; 6/1/22, 4:05 PM
Chris Lopes said...: This is one of those "our long national nightmare is over" things.; 6/1/22, 4:13 PM
Iman said...: Bizarre… and so grotesque!; 6/1/22, 4:14 PM
Big Mike said...: Believe no women.; 6/1/22, 5:00 PM
Lurker21 said...: Powerlineblog compares Amber Heard with Meghan Markle.; 6/1/22, 5:01 PM
John Althouse Cohen said...: Not too surprising after Amber Heard so brazenly lied about a number of topics at the trial.

She claimed she took two photos of her face (with alleged injuries) at different times with different real-life lighting, when they were actually taken at the exact same second, and they were obviously two versions of the same photo that had been edited to change how her face looked.

She claimed she had already donated her entire $7 million divorce settlement to 2 specific charities in the past; then when pressed about this on cross-examination, she eventually admitted that she hadn't gotten around to donating about $6 million of that money yet. She said the delay was because of the lawsuit — but she made the claim long before Depp sued her. And even if she had a good reason to delay the donation, that's no reason to lie about whether she had already done it.

She claimed that she only ever hit him in self-defense. But here's what she said when she was talking to him privately:

"I can't promise I won't get physical again. God, I … sometimes get so mad, I lose it!" (19:19 in this video — that's a public Facebook post)

"I was hitting you.… I did start a physical fight." (22:57-23:14 in that video)

She also tried to slip in the impression that she knew Johnny Depp had pushed Kate Moss down stairs, but Moss testified at trial that he never did that; what really happened is that Moss slipped and fell on her own, and Depp rushed over to help her.; 6/1/22, 5:02 PM
Stephen St. Onge said...: Hmm, if someone wants to award me $10,350,000.00 dollars, and then immediately make me give $2,000,000.00 back, I think I can deal with that.; 6/1/22, 5:35 PM
Quaestor said...: Oh! the humanity!.; 6/1/22, 5:38 PM
Andy said...: Justice; 6/1/22, 5:38 PM
n.n said...: "Heard"-say is plausible but improbable and defamatory.; 6/1/22, 5:56 PM
gspencer said...: I wonder if she's good for the money.

What a skank way to build your reputation for the rest of your life; 6/1/22, 6:21 PM
john said...: This was interesting:

His attorney, Ben Chew, added: “We are also most pleased that the trial has resonated for so many people in the public who value truth and justice,”

Yea right. Playing to the crowds, that's what this whole trial seemed to be about. Was the jury sequestered?

Also that remark brought back funny memories of the trial scenes in "Roxie Hart" (the great 1942 movie, not the play "Chicago") but with the sexes switched. Is Ben Chew Billy Flynn?; 6/1/22, 6:30 PM
Joe Smith said...: Good luck getting paid.; 6/1/22, 6:30 PM
The Vault Dweller said...: I'm seeing lots of #MeToo advocates decry this is an assault on all women. Believe all Women is not a moral strategy. It seems the jury didn't ascribe to that viewpoint either.; 6/1/22, 7:29 PM
cubanbob said...: Winning and collecting are two very different things. The only ones for sure who got paid are the lawyers and the expert witnesses. Depp himself isn't all that flush so after he finally pays off the lawyers ( no doubt there will be an appeal)and that Amber isn't exactly in the position to pay, I see two huge losers.

Depp is past his sale date for Pirates type movies. Disney was probably going to dump him because a 58 year old pirate just doesn't cut it and Amber helped Disney out. Amber is a beautiful woman but she is 36, not 26 and although she will be a beautiful woman as she ages the roles she was getting are going to dry soon.She isn't a great actress so I doubt she will get a second acting career. Depp can act and he will get roles, just not the big roles he was getting and not in the major blockbuster funded movies. They are both crazy.; 6/1/22, 7:29 PM
Michael said...: Great career move for Depp. Whatever he appears in next will be a blockbuster.; 6/1/22, 7:37 PM
Stephen St. Onge said...: Scott said...
Are the media reporting this story because people care about it?

I say yes. Lots of people seem to have followed it obsessively.; 6/1/22, 7:45 PM
Lloyd W. Robertson said...: I haven't followed the details, but the overall logic escapes me. She writes an op-ed saying abuse of women is a problem, and she speaks from personal experience. Her being a celebrity probably helped get this piece published, and many people thought: she's talking about Johnny Depp. At trial she seems to agree she was talking about Depp. But why was that a rational assumption at the beginning? Their marriage didn't last long, surely she has dated other celebrities including Elon Musk?

I guess on the old "absence of malice" test, it could be said she actually did have malicious intent toward Depp. But don't a lot of divorcing couples get into this: you abused me, you abused the kids? Are they all encouraged to sue for libel or defamation? I thought celebrities had less of a case if they are claiming defamation, not more. I did see Depp asked: weren't there lots of negative comments about you "in the world" before Heard's op ed? He said well, I've been in this business since 1984, so that's a yes. Well then how can anyone be sure the op ed caused any significant increase in negative commentary?; 6/1/22, 7:46 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: I'm wondering what the story line would be right now, if instead of having the trial live streaming for all to see, instead we could only learn about the trial what the press wanted to share with us; 6/1/22, 7:55 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: Joe Smith said...
Good luck getting paid.

He doesn't need to get paid by Amber. What he needed, and should now be able to get, is film jobs.

Because he's no longer "that guy who abused Amber"; 6/1/22, 7:56 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: The Vault Dweller said...
I'm seeing lots of #MeToo advocates decry this is an assault on all women

People who do that really ARE "assaulting all women".

She was an obvious liar. If you tie #MeToo to obvious liars, what that tells the rest of us is that #MeToo is a morally wretched movement made up of liars, not of women who've been abused.

Someone who falsely claims to be a victim of abuse is engaging in "Stolen Valor", and cheapening the actual abuse that women who were really abused went through

They should be tossing her under the bus, not whining about the decision; 6/1/22, 7:59 PM
Fredrick said...: Amber Heard will always remember this as the day she almost caught Captain Jack Sparrow.; 6/1/22, 8:15 PM
Kai Akker said...: ---Will the ACLU pay up? Did the ACLU agree to indemnify Amber Heard? [dave B]

The ACLU -- once a noble organization, annoying as they might have eemed at times -- has been finished for years. If they go under with Amber, good. But it doesn't matter one way or the other. The real ACLU hasn't existed for a long time.

Dave Begley, do you agree with my characterization of the ACLU in its past?; 6/1/22, 8:29 PM
John Althouse Cohen said...: Lloyd W. Robertson, you're leaving out that Heard's December 2018 op-ed specified: "two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse." Anyone reading that could easily do a quick Google search of [Amber Heard domestic abuse] to figure out that she was referring to the time she got a restraining order against Depp in May 2016 — "two years" before she published her op-ed.

You say, "I thought celebrities had less of a case if they are claiming defamation, not more." A better way to put it than "celebrities have less of a case" (which makes it sound like they inherently don't have a strong case just because they're famous) would be to say that a public figure claiming defamation needs to establish one additional element by a higher burden of proof. They need to prove "actual malice" by "clear and convincing evidence," in addition to the same elements of defamation that anyone else would need to prove. "Actual malice" just means knowing that the statement is false, or at least with a "reckless disregard" as to whether it's false. "Clear and convincing" evidence is a higher standard than the burden of proof that typically applies in civil cases ("preponderance of the evidence" — meaning "more likely than not"), but it's a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt," which applies in all criminal cases in the US. So it's a lower standard than what prosecutor needs to meet in order to prove someone guilty of stealing a pack of gum!; 6/1/22, 9:18 PM
William said...: I didn't follow the case, but it was impossible to escape. I don't follow Kim Kardashian's love life either, but I know a lot about it. These are intrusive celebrities. Even if you don't care about them, you know who they are and what their problems are. Even as a cautionary tale, there's not much value to their sad story. These are romantic problems none of us are ever likely to face....I wonder if either one of them will recover from all the bad publicity. Mutually assured destruction. I wonder if they'll go crazier or find some way to pull out the tailspin.; 6/1/22, 9:42 PM
MayBee said...: But why was that a rational assumption at the beginning?

Because in the OpEd she said "two years ago", which aligns with her relationship with Johnny. She had also already made public allegations against Depp. having gotten a TRO against him due to alleged domestic violence. So everybody knew what she was talking about when she and the ACLU wrote her oped.; 6/1/22, 10:22 PM
RigelDog said...: My cat Harvest Moon was very attached to me but didn't care much for anyone else. She tolerated our standard poodle and other cats, but when a new puppy came into our home some sort of line was crossed in her mind---and she would not be IGNORED!

So she got into our bedroom and took a crap on my husband's pillow.
Amber, how do you come back from that?; 6/1/22, 10:29 PM
readering said...: I'd like to see a comparison between the US and UK defamation cases.; 6/2/22, 2:09 AM
TRISTRAM said...: Two toxic people, with drug and mental problems. This was sad all the way around. I do hope they both get help and get victory over their demons. This is not a moral equivalence, or a pox on both houses. I do think they both are broken in fundamental ways, and the 'justice' system isn't a solution. It may be able to address / add consequences to abysmal behaviors, but it isn't going to really help either one. And even catching some of the lurid details in passing just mad me sad.; 6/2/22, 5:15 AM
Brian said...: Or will she go BK?
I've read that civil judgements such as this are not dis-chargeable in BK under Virginia law. YMMV.

Depp is past his sale date for Pirates type movies.

My kids love him. They will totally cast him in the next one (if there is one). He's no longer radioactive. He's been vindicated.

I've seen estimates of Depp's net worth as between 100-200 million dollars with a yearly income of 25 million. This wasn't about money for him. Depp is a total winner out of this.; 6/2/22, 5:35 AM
Leland said...: I'm glad that truth won.; 6/2/22, 6:48 AM
Guimo said...: Never heard of either one of them.; 6/2/22, 7:29 AM
Maynard said...: The lesson here is that women with Borderline Personality Disorder will make your life miserable.; 6/2/22, 8:07 AM
Tank said...: MadisonMan said...

Two very rich and famous (and damaged) people sue each other. One wins, mostly.
My reaction? Why should this concern me?"

Couple of thoughts:

1. Another hole poked in the nonsense that is "believe all women."

2. Another look at how the ACLU, once a valuable entity, has lost all credibility and become a tool of the left.; 6/2/22, 8:18 AM
ConradBibby said...: The ACLU has certainly abandoned its original mission of protecting free speech and other civil liberties. Now it's just another advocacy group for the standard leftist fare of anti-freedom policies.

Given the above, can anyone point me to another organization that aims to take over the space that the ACLU used to occupy in our society? I know there are ones that are focused on campus free speech, for example, but is there one that seeks to defend civil liberties across the board in the way that the ACLU used to?; 6/2/22, 8:30 AM
Narayanan said...: are such cases to be taken as examples/tests of RULE OF LAW?

or is that NOTION to be applied to issue only for CRIMINAL CASES; 6/2/22, 9:27 AM
Iman said...: Depp de-depp de-depp de-depp
Don’t. Know. Why. She. Love. Him. Like. She. Do.; 6/2/22, 9:37 AM
Moondawggie said...: Greg The Class Traitor said...
He doesn't need to get paid by Amber. What he needed, and should now be able to get, is film jobs.
Because he's no longer "that guy who abused Amber"

You nailed it, Bro! Strong work.; 6/2/22, 9:50 AM
Lurker21 said...: Depp played Hunter S. Thompson. They have the same gonzo, wacko appeal. Maybe the appeal is not so much the transgressive "bad boy" as the hapless victim, who undercuts himself at every turn. Anyway, people do feel that appeal, and it's part of Captain Jack Sparrow's attractiveness.

Depp played a similar out of control, self-sabotaging nutjob in The Professor, a minor part of his oeuvre. I saw the DVD at the library and am a little tempted to rewatch it some time, even though (or because) I don't remember what happened in it.; 6/2/22, 10:01 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "The ACLU -- once a noble organization, annoying as they might have eemed at times -- has been finished for years. If they go under with Amber, good. But it doesn't matter one way or the other. The real ACLU hasn't existed for a long time"

Off topic, but rich in irony, one of the ACLU's founders, Justice Felix Frankfurter, is seen as an arch-conservative these days. 'Cause anyone who wants to limit the power of government must be a fascist.; 6/2/22, 11:20 AM
Readering said...: WaPo article says difference with UK libel case against The Sun, at which Heard testified, was bench trial v jury. Judge found many instances of wife-beating by Depp. Trial more tightly controlled than Va.; 6/2/22, 11:33 AM
LibertarianLeisure said...: The audio where Amber Heard taunts Johnny Depp about his 21 Jump Street acting, and cackles af nauseum did it for me. She was never afraid of him.; 6/2/22, 8:24 PM
Bunkypotatohead said...: "Great career move for Depp. Whatever he appears in next will be a blockbuster."

He can play Johnny Depp in the Lifetime channel movie, "The Amber Heard Story".; 6/2/22, 11:02 PM