Dead Pool 2024

[viper37]

I saw some clips of the Depp/Heard trial but I have no opinion on who was right.  I did however get the distinct impression that Johnny Depp is a tool.

Sometimes, there are dysfunctional relationships were no one is right.

One can be a tool, an unfaithful spouse, an addict but not necessarily violent toward the other. Which was the core issue at the trial.  Imho, both ended up looking like fools at their trial.

[Barrister]

I saw some clips of the Depp/Heard trial but I have no opinion on who was right.  I did however get the distinct impression that Johnny Depp is a tool.

Sometimes, there are dysfunctional relationships were no one is right.

One can be a tool, an unfaithful spouse, an addict but not necessarily violent toward the other. Which was the core issue at the trial.  Imho, both ended up looking like fools at their trial.

Or, someone can look like a fool and still be the victim of domestic violence.


Edit:

I should be clear I didn't follow the trial.  It was just from social media it seemed like most people were on "Team Johnny" almost certainly because of his much greater fame.  But I have no particular insight on his guilt or innocence.

[viper37]

Or, someone can look like a fool and still be the victim of domestic violence.

It's possible.

Looking at the trial evidence as reported by the medias, it seems both had a tendency toward abuse to the other.  In the end, it was judged defamation that Depp physically mistreated Miss Heard in this trial.  In another, he lost.  

Different rules, different evidence too, I suppose?  I don't really know.

Depp strike me as human wreck, but none of his exes testified he ever was abusive toward them.  Usually, such people tend to not limit themselves to one victim.  But maybe it did happen as she said.

[grumbler]

Actually, Heard did not claim in the editorial Depp sued over that Depp had assaulted her.  He just said that she had been domestically assaulted and described its impact on her.  Depp, amazingly, won the defamation suit on the basis that everyone knew that Heard was writing about him, even though she did not name him.

[Sheilbh]

It's possible.

Looking at the trial evidence as reported by the medias, it seems both had a tendency toward abuse to the other.  In the end, it was judged defamation that Depp physically mistreated Miss Heard in this trial.  In another, he lost. 

Different rules, different evidence too, I suppose?  I don't really know.

Depp strike me as human wreck, but none of his exes testified he ever was abusive toward them.  Usually, such people tend to not limit themselves to one victim.  But maybe it did happen as she said.

It wasn't Depp v Heard here, but against News Group who I think relied on truth as a defence. Heard gave a witness statement. Also libel cases are now largely heard by a civil judge (like all other civil cases) not juries on a balance of probabilities.

All of which probably had some impact. I think the gap between a successful truth defence here and, I believe, "actual malice" in the US trial is striking though.

[Razgovory]

Daniel Dennett died.

[grumbler]

Daniel Dennett died.

Lived a full life and made a difference in the world. People should check out his TED talks.

[Syt]

RIP Terry Carter, age 95.

[Solmyr]

RIP Theoden King. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68962192

[Sheilbh]

Oh RIP

[grumbler]

He goes now to his fathers, and even in their mighty company he shall not now be ashamed.

[Eddie Teach]

OJ Simpson sort-of reminds me of Michael Jackson.  MJ went through a big child sex abuse trial in (googles - 2005).  He was acquitted.  People seemed quite happy about that.  In the years since then the reputation of MJ has completely shifted though and people recognize he was a serial child sex abuser.

Maybe - with Jackson. I mean there's a biopic coming out next year starring his nephew but also with, say, Colman Domingo and Miles Teller in it.

I don't know what that will or won't cover.

Ive gotten the opposite impression, that Jacksons reputation has been largely rehabilitated with the general public. 

[Barrister]

OJ Simpson sort-of reminds me of Michael Jackson.  MJ went through a big child sex abuse trial in (googles - 2005).  He was acquitted.  People seemed quite happy about that.  In the years since then the reputation of MJ has completely shifted though and people recognize he was a serial child sex abuser.

Maybe - with Jackson. I mean there's a biopic coming out next year starring his nephew but also with, say, Colman Domingo and Miles Teller in it.

I don't know what that will or won't cover.

Ive gotten the opposite impression, that Jacksons reputation has been largely rehabilitated with the general public. 

I don't think so.

I mean I think where we went through a phase where people weren't sure if it was okay to play his music, and now that's gone away, but I don't think anyone's views on MJ himself have improved.

[PDH]

RIP Steve Albini

[crazy canuck]

It's possible.

Looking at the trial evidence as reported by the medias, it seems both had a tendency toward abuse to the other.  In the end, it was judged defamation that Depp physically mistreated Miss Heard in this trial.  In another, he lost. 

Different rules, different evidence too, I suppose?  I don't really know.

Depp strike me as human wreck, but none of his exes testified he ever was abusive toward them.  Usually, such people tend to not limit themselves to one victim.  But maybe it did happen as she said.

It wasn't Depp v Heard here, but against News Group who I think relied on truth as a defence. Heard gave a witness statement. Also libel cases are now largely heard by a civil judge (like all other civil cases) not juries on a balance of probabilities.

All of which probably had some impact. I think the gap between a successful truth defence here and, I believe, "actual malice" in the US trial is striking though.

A few corrections.  All civil trials are decided on the same evidentiary basis whether heard by jury or judge alone.  In the US and Canada Newspapers (and news outlets) don't have to establish the truth of what they are reporting.  But malice will defeat their defence.

So it's not so much as there being a gap so much as the defences are different.