Current Events > How did Amber win the one count she did?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I saw a good bit of this case but not the whole thing, can anyone remember what Amber's team proved to be untrue about the lawyers statement about Amber setting up Johnny between the two 911 calls?

nicklebro posted...

I saw a good bit of this case but not the whole thing, can anyone remember what Amber's team proved to be untrue about the lawyers statement about Amber setting up Johnny between the two 911 calls?

From TMZ...

"Now here's the thing ... Amber won her defamation countersuit and was awarded $2 million. The defamation was based on Johnny's lawyer accusing Amber and her friends of concocting a story for the cops under the direction of her lawyer and publicist."

I think the idea was that Johnny's lawyer said what he said with the intention of defamation regardless of whether what he was claiming to be a hoax was actually a hoax or not?

Damn, so Johnny really flex on her hard. She beat his lawyer not him

Cocytus posted...

From TMZ...

"Now here's the thing ... Amber won her defamation countersuit and was awarded $2 million. The defamation was based on Johnny's lawyer accusing Amber and her friends of concocting a story for the cops under the direction of her lawyer and publicist."

Yeah I know, I'm asking specifically what was proved to be untrue about that accusation, cuz it seemed to me like that's what really did happen.

Darkprince21 posted...

Damn, so Johnny really flex on her hard. She beat his lawyer not him

The big part is that they clearly didn't believe any of her abuse allegations.

Johnnys lawyer made a printed assertion he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You cant do that. So the jury awarded her 2 million for his lawyers hyperbole but zilch for anything else.

CreekCo posted...

Johnnys lawyer made a printed assertion he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You cant do that. So the jury awarded her 2 million for his lawyers hyperbole but zilch for anything else.

But he does not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. He doesn't have to prove anything, she was the one filing the claim. Amber had to prove that it was false by a preponderance of evidence, basically prove there is at least a 51% chance that it's untrue. This came up in the deflategate case against Tom Brady. The phrase they use is "more likely than not" but I hesitate to use that because whenever that was brought up here everyone would misquote it as "more than likely" which obviously means something else entirely and led everyone to inaccurate conclusions.

There had to be some specific part of his quote that ended up being untrue, like maybe they didn't plan it with their lawyer or maybe her friends weren't involved, but I just really want to know what specific thing he got wrong.

Regardless, justice ftw. An iota of faith has been restored in our justice system, I'm very happy we actually got the right result. Amber is disgusting, Johnny deserves this massive victory.

nicklebro posted...

Regardless, justice ftw. An iota of faith has been restored in our justice system, I'm very happy we actually got the right result.

We?

CyricZ posted...

We?

Yes, America. The US justice system served us all by not getting this wrong.

Dude this was a civil court case between two rich white people.

CyricZ posted...

Dude this was a civil court case between two rich white people.

And? You're not explaining how their case is somehow insulated from affecting the rest of the country. I mean even if you ignore things like precedence, you don't think seeing an obvious liar get away with destroying an innocent man's reputation would lead to distrust of the judicial system? You don't think more women like Amber would be emboldened to do exactly what she did? I don't get how someone could think that way...

I get what you were trying to say, yeah "we" didn't get awarded 15 million dollars. But that's not what I was saying. I was talking about the actual positive effect this verdict will have going forward. Regardless of how big or small that effect ultimately turns out to be I'm still happy we got a just verdict instead of losing faith in our justice system.

The lawyer did defame her. Thats without question. Its a separate issue and the jury got it 100% right. If you really think about it, they gave her about what she deserves her two cents. She was awarded exactly 2% of what she asked for.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Are you sure? Cuz that doesn't seem to fit the context at all. But on the other hand it is at least a fair distinction.

I just don't see how that fits with the initial "We?" Response.

CreekCo posted...

The lawyer did defame her. Thats without question. Its a separate issue and the jury got it 100% right. If you really think about it, they gave her about what she deserves her two cents. She was awarded exactly 2% of what she asked for.

Ok can you explain how it's "without question"he defamed her? I just don't know what Amber's team proved was untrue in that statement. I was under the impression that that night went exactly as he described it in that quote. What specific thing did he get wrong?

Just to be clear, I'm not challenging you, I believe you, I just want to know what you know so I can fully understand why that was the right verdict rather than just trusting that it was.

I explained it earlier. You cannot make an allegation in a public setting with malice that you cannot subsequently prove.

For instance, if his lawyer said it looks almost like someone went back and messed up the place then that would have been a sketch thing to say but still within speculation. He said something to the effect of accusing them of doing something and he could not prove this with either a witness testimony or video footage. So it was a baseless allegation. This does not speak to the veracity of the statement. He just couldnt prove it and as a lawyer should have known better.

The real winners are all of us, because we will soon no longer have to hear about this case every day.

tl;dr
"no u"

@nicklebro I get that its a fuzzy concept because people do this all the time on here, including staff. I think theres only been once or twice that they were called to task about it.

If he got mad enough, he could go after Ambers lawyer for her statements this morning on the talk shows. Actually, just depending the judge may get mad enough to sanction her as well. There was a lot of reckless talk on both sides of this case.

nicklebro posted...

I mean even if you ignore things like precedence, you don't think seeing an obvious liar get away with destroying an innocent man's reputation would lead to distrust of the judicial system? You don't think more women like Amber would be emboldened to do exactly what she did?

So that's what "we" won?

CreekCo posted...

I explained it earlier. You cannot make an allegation in a public setting with malice that you cannot subsequently prove.

For instance, if his lawyer said it looks almost like someone went back and messed up the place then that would have been a sketch thing to say but still within speculation. He said something to the effect of accusing them of doing something and he could not prove this with either a witness testimony or video footage. So it was a baseless allegation. This does not speak to the veracity of the statement. He just couldnt prove it and as a lawyer should have known better.

Um idk if this case is just out of the ordinary or something but I'm just going to have to disagree with you here cuz they plainly said the exact opposite of what you're saying. Have you listened to the verdict? If you just listen to the actual verdict you hear them say they had to prove ALL the elements of defamation of which there are seven I believe, one of those being that the statement was untrue. They explained this during the trial. Listen to the reading of the actual verdicts and you'll hear that the jury determined she proved that statement to be false. Here, I'll get it.
https://youtu.be/8LzGWvL3ugg
Skip to 7:46, you'll hear all of the elements of defamation that one must prove, and the falsity of the statement is indeed one of them. Really it was the only one up for debate for that specific count.

And I don't get why you'd think the onus would be on Johnny to prove anything when Amber is the one filing the claim... You're innocent until proven guilty, not a liar until proven honest lol.

I really don't wanna argue with you bro, tbh idk if you know far more than I do or far less, but it just seems pretty clear what you're saying contradicts what was said in the trial and what actually ended up happening.

I have a question and it seems to me that you're giving a bad answer, like ambers testimony it just doesn't fit with the facts. And I really really want a good answer. So I have your input, and I thank you for it, and maybe it'll shake out to some how actually be true, but there's nothing to be gained by arguing so let's agree to disagree for now.

CyricZ posted...

So that's what "we" won?

Oh man... just realized how right you are, lol thanks for pointing out my error, now I see things much clearer. Much appreciated.

To get to the heart of the matter, the jury basically gave her the bare minimum they could to not give her anything resembling an excuse on appeal.

CreekCo posted...

To get to the heart of the matter, the jury basically gave her the bare minimum they could to not give her anything resembling an excuse on appeal.

Oh wow, that's interesting, I hadn't even thought of that. Yeah so since she "won" on one count she can't claim she wasn't treated fairly as easily.

Ok I also heard that there was a $350k cap on the damages that could be awarded but Idk if that was for compensatory damages or punitive, do you have any idea? Cuz I've heard people say both but I think it's just one of them. It'd make sense to me if it was the compensatory damages but I just don't know. That'd wipe out almost all of that 10 mill for Johnny, but he'd still get the full 5.

Tbh I don't think he cares about collecting, but I just want to know.

Depp's attorneys said she lied about calling the cops / lied WRT the story she gave the cops except those things actually happened.

nicklebro posted...

Oh wow, that's interesting, I hadn't even thought of that. Yeah so since she "won" on one count she can't claim she wasn't treated fairly as easily.

Ok I also heard that there was a $350k cap on the damages that could be awarded but Idk if that was for compensatory damages or punitive, do you have any idea? Cuz I've heard people say both but I think it's just one of them. It'd make sense to me if it was the compensatory damages but I just don't know. That'd wipe out almost all of that 10 mill for Johnny, but he'd still get the full 5.

Tbh I don't think he cares about collecting, but I just want to know.

The cap was for the punitive damages. The judge even said as such.

@nicklebro He gets the whole 10 but the 5 was capped to 350K. So he gets 10.35 M minus the 2 M he has to refund to her, basically.

The jury didnt fill in numbers at first and had to go back to chambers to do so. They came back almost immediately so this was likely their logic.

What's WRT mean?

And what things "actually happened"? Specifically, in his lawyers quote, what part did he get wrong? You can hear the quote in the link I posted above, it starts at 7:46. Which part was untrue?

I've seen people completely misunderstand the count she won and using it as proof he abused her, even though it had nothing to do with abuse.

nicklebro posted...

What's WRT mean?

With regard to.

nicklebro posted...

And what things "actually happened"? Specifically, in his lawyers quote, what part did he get wrong? You can hear the quote in the link I posted above, it starts at 7:46. Which part was untrue?

She called the police and didn't lie about anything when they got there. The attorneys called it a hoax. It wasn't. All that stuff actually happened.

Srk700 posted...

The cap was for the punitive damages. The judge even said as such.

CreekCo posted...

@nicklebro He gets the whole 10 but the 5 was capped to 350K. So he gets 10.35 M minus the 2 M he has to refund to her, basically.

The jury didnt fill in numbers at first and had to go back to chambers to do so. They came back almost immediately so this was likely their logic.

Nice! Thanks guys. I was getting conflicting info from different sources. Yeah I was waiting for the verdict when they had to go back and fill out the damages sheet, I think that's probably where they decided to give Amber 2 mill yeah? I wonder if that was more of a compromise like maybe if there were a couple pro Heard jurors or something. Nice so Johnny gets 8 mill from Amber, one million more than he had to give up in the divorce! Sweet sweet justice.

No worries mate. This is a rare constructive thread here that I dont regret posting in. Cheers.

He gets his entire divorce settlement back and more. It's rather funny.

nicklebro posted...

What's WRT mean?

uh... those Linksys routers?

Tyranthraxus posted...

With regard to.

She called the police and didn't lie about anything when they got there. The attorneys called it a hoax. It wasn't. All that stuff actually happened.

So Johnny was the one that tore the place up? As he was abusing Amber and gave her a bruise? Um That doesn't make sense broski. Obviously I know the quote, and I know something must be untrue about it, but don't just tell me the whole thing was false cuz I know that's not true. There had to be one specific part that wasn't totally true. Doesn't seem like anyone knows.

nicklebro posted...

So Johnny was the one that tore the place up? As he was abusing Amber and gave her a bruise? Um That doesn't make sense broski. Obviously I know the quote, and I know something must be untrue about it, but don't just tell me the whole thing was false cuz I know that's not true. There had to be one specific part that wasn't totally true. Doesn't seem like anyone knows.

No. The statement is about what she told the police, not what actually happened. They lied in their claim about what Amber told the police.

CreekCo posted...

No worries mate. This is a rare constructive thread here that I dont regret posting in. Cheers.

You're welcome in my thread any time homie! Lol tho this is like the second time I've posted here in the last 4 or 5 years, but I used to be a regular. I didn't know where else to go to ask these questions cuz I already tried Facebook and Twitter.

Tyranthraxus posted...

No. The statement is about what she told the police, not what actually happened. They lied in their claim about what Amber told the police.

Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops, but the first attempt didnt do the trick. The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911."

This is the quote that was found to be untrue, exactly which part is false?

nicklebro posted...

Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops, but the first attempt didnt do the trick. The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911."

This is the quote that was found to be untrue, exactly which part is false?

No evidence of a second call being made.

KainFourteh posted...

No evidence of a second call being made.

Where did Amber's team prove that? I thought they all acknowledged there was a second call...

Again it would have to be "proof there was no second call," not "no evidence of a second call, " because the onus is on heard's team

Not sure. I missed that part but I would guess phone records?

nicklebro posted...

Where did Amber's team prove that? I thought they all acknowledged there was a second call...

Again it would have to be "proof there was no second call," not "no evidence of a second call, " because the onus is on heard's team

Depp's team is the one who made the claim there was a hoax. They had to prove it.

nicklebro posted...

But he does not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. He doesn't have to prove anything, she was the one filing the claim.

I think that's backwards (Johnny filed this specific claim, she countered it) but I'm not 100%.

DrizztLink posted...

I think that's backwards (Johnny filed this specific claim, she countered it) but I'm not 100%>

Amber made the claim it was defamation, Johnny's team never filed that as a claim they only said it on a publication.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Amber made the claim it was defamation, Johnny's team never filed that as a claim they only said it on a publication.

Alright, I'm screwing up my terminology then.

So if Johnny made the claim, Amber countered, burden of proof could arguably go both ways in my head but obviously that doesn't matter to reality.