Where are people to go if the mainstream media abrogates its responsibility to desminate the truth, as it has done in the Depp/Heard soap opera?

 

Doesn’t it seem that a day cannot pass without a new story line to the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard soap opera, no matter how trivial or merely a new wrinkle on an old issue? It seems as if the “mainstream media” is leaping hungrily on every tiny morsel to throw the Depp verdict into “chaos,” which of course leads to new social media posts refuting those claims.There are "exceptions," naturally; at "r/DeppDelusion," as I tried to warn those delusional people before I was "cancelled," it was delusional to believe that the trial result would be "cancelled" based on their delusional "interpretation" of the facts.

The latest “chaos” is the story concerning Juror 15, who is claimed to be an improperly seated juror. Don’t hold yourself breathlessly, blind Amber Heard diehards; at worst what occurred here was that the 77-year-old father living at the residence didn’t want to be bothered with being vetted for jury duty, so his 52-year-old son who also lived at the same address went in his place, and probably did not expect to be seated. This man was vetted throughout the entire process by both sides and still seated on the jury. Heard’s team as much as admitted they knew this, but we can suspect that they didn’t think it “mattered” until they lost the case. Verdict: no case for a mistrial on that one. (update: today Judge Penney Azcarate rejected that and all other arguments the Heard team presented for a mistrial, and the $10 million judgment stands)

Now we are learning that NBC News is producing a so-called “documentary” on the trial that will “expose” pro-Depp social media’s effect on public opinion—which means that it will dispense with any pretense of hiding its bias upfront. The truth, of course, is of secondary importance. I was probably like a lot of people who didn’t even know a trial was going on until the MSM began reporting “lurid” details from Heard’s testimony; for the most part, it completely ignored the testimony of Depp and his witnesses.

But even as the MSM ratcheted-up its pro-Heard bias, it was countered by social media that took seriously the Depp case, and poked holes in the testimony of Heard and her witnesses (her sister was the only “friend” who testified in court); the MSM seemed completely oblivious to the fact that Heard and especially her so-called “expert witnesses” were exposed on cross examination to be liars or buffoons. Interestingly no one wants to "defend" Heard by bringing up the diagnosis of her having borderline personality disorder, which would suggest that Heard isn't so much "lying" but has the overactive imagination of  someone who is "touched" in the head. 

Social media didn’t make that stuff up; it was there to be seen or heard by anyone who bothered to have an open mind about the quality of the testimony. What the MSM was describing and what was actually being revealed in court seemed to be two different realities. Hell, even anti-Depp Howard Stern went suddenly silent following Heard’s testimony, realizing just how embarrassing it was now to back her after attacking Depp for his alleged “performance.”

If you are looking for a “balanced” overview of the trial,  Law & Crime—which covered and commented on the trial from day one, has a 45-minute YouTube video which sums-up the trial in the most appropriate  manner—the audio of Heard taunting Depp about a jury believing that a man could be the victim of domestic violence. Well this jury did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnMcVOAzYz8

A UK lawyer who calls himself the “Black Belt Barrister” who illuminates points of law on a variety of subjects has also poked holes in the MSM’s and the Heard team’s claims that the UK libel verdict “proved” Depp’s “guilt.” The barrister revealed that the judge's son was employed by The Sun, which should have been reason enough to have recused himself from the case. The barrister also examined the trial judge’s final ruling  and found it to be deeply flawed; the judge seemed to take Heard’s “word” at face value, dismissed contrary witness testimony as “biased”—and worse, found that evidence of clear perjury by Heard and attempts to secure perjured testimony for her benefit was “irrelevant” to the case. The problem for Heard and her attorneys in the Virginia trial, of course, was that Heard’s “word” was now the subject of the opinion of seven people who were less likely to be swayed by societal pressure, and rule on the actual evidence.

Claims of largely “misogynistic” social media commentary favoring Depp falls apart like a house of cards when just a general perusal of social media accounts reveal that many, and probably more, of those dissecting the evidence are women; the ones who receive the most traffic typically are professionals in the legal or psychology field. Why are they roasting Heard? Because women are better “qualified” to sense deception in other women? Makes perfect sense to me. I’m sure many women found Heard’s “performances” on the stand and the obvious instances of lying to be embarrassing and took personal affront to. 

The continuing lies and the commentary that is certain to follow on it should be reason for Heard and her team to do some self-examination, but there is no indication that they are capable of doing that. The latest exposed lie was revealed in the lawsuit involving Travelers Insurance Company, New York Marine, Heard and her lawyers over who is responsible for paying Heard's legal fees, if at all given that Heard was found to have acted with actual malice. At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ1Lkt_j60g attorney Andrea Burkhart shows Heard and Elaine Bredehoft no mercy exposing their perjury in court in claiming that Heard was unable to pay her “pledged” donations because Heard personally had to pay $6 million of “own  money” in legal fees. 

This was an absolutely false statement; Travelers--which is seeking a "refund"--has already paid $5 million in Heard's legal fees. Other than the insurance premiums, Heard has actually paid zero dollars in legal fees with her own money. Some have speculated that when Camille Vasquez appeared to be looking to the judge as Bredehoft repeated this claim in her closing statement…

 

 

…that it was known that this was a false statement. In any case, the implication is that Heard always intended to keep for herself the $7 million in her divorce settlement that she claimed she only wanted to “donate” to “prove” to the world that she wasn’t just some golddigger or freeloader like her friends and family who were draining Depp’s bank account.

It is probably too much to expect the MSM to be objective or provide a balanced perspective on the Depp case, which is why we need the honest and straightforward examination of the facts that we can only seem to get from legal professionals offering their perspectives on various social media platforms, especially on YouTube. To be frank, the MSM has been losing its “balance” on social issues (mainly of the gender variety) for years by bringing politics into the discussion instead of allowing justice to run its course. How can the MSM be trusted to disseminate the truth when for the sake of politics it continues to present lies as “truth”?