Legal victory for Johnny Depp after he and Amber Heard found liable for defamation

[Bluespunk]

3 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

How to spin yarn; or is it how to spin a yarn?  Hope she makes money though so she can pay Johnny Depp the money. I'm betting she moves to Florida near O.J. so they can't get at her money.

simpson lives in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

[CharlieH]

Heards lawyer now doing the TV  rounds !

 

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSdgVJTSF/?k=1

[spidermike007]

9 hours ago, Meat Pie 47 said:

Amber Heard’s lawyer says there was “so much evidence” the jury in her defamation trial didn’t see, including a text message from Johnny Depp’s assistant saying her ex-husband was sorry he “kicked” her.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/amber-heards-lawyer-reveals-the-evidence-to-support-her-claims-that-the-jury-didnt-see/news-story/d8f4a5b60c43bce247449fbeca2d67de

 

 

What he might have really meant, was that he was sorry he had not kicked her out of the house, once he found out who and what she truly was. 

[CharlieH]

Well Heard is stuck with the debt ! She can't lose it in bankruptcy. Elon might cover it though...555

 

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSdgqY3bN/?k=1

[mikeymike100]

15 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

True, but looking back at that verdict, I can't quite believe that a judge made some of the statements that he did.

 

For instance, the UK judge stated that:

 

Now, I watched some parts of the latest trial and when it came to the Australia incident, even Amber Heard's own lawyers could provide no evidence of Depp assaulting her, apart from her own testimony. There were also multiple witnesses (albeit mostly employees of Johnny Depp) who testified under oath that Depp never assaulted Heard in Australia. 

 

Justice Nicol seems to have simply accepted Amber Heard's word, for everything. In fact he pretty much stated that was what he was doing, as follows:

 

I actually agree with Depp's lawyers that it is "perverse" that a supposedly experienced jurist could simply accept one person's version of events without corroboration, in what was obviously a, "He said, she said" situation.

 

The judge seemed to have been strangely swayed by the fact that Depp scrawled angry messages all over the walls using his own blood (and then paint) but this, while it might be evidence of some kind of mental breakdown or aberrant mental behavior is not evidence of him having physically assaulted Heard.

 

The judge actually said that this was "a sign of the depth of his rage," but as far as I can tell it could just as easily be a sign of his mental anguish when after a lengthy and emotionally abusive argument he had the tip of his finger severed by a vodka bottle thrown at him by Amber Heard (if Depp's version of events is true).

 

In any event I still can't quite figure out why the judge would blindly accept Heard's version of the events in Australia over Depp's.

Totally agree, Problem is we didn't see what happened in the UK court and what Depps legal team were like, in the US everyone saw that AH lied about pretty much everything, his legal team and witnesses s proved that. One can only assume Depps legal council the UK were inept or the Judge was biased!

[mikeymike100]

18 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I regard the Guardian as fair and balanced.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/02/depp-heard-trial-verdict-me-too-sexual-violence-women

This article is definitely not!

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/02/depp-heard-trial-verdict-me-too-sexual-violence-women

This article is definitely not!

The guardian is fair and balanced. 
 

No doubt at all. 
 

The fact it upsets both hard left and right wingers proves this is so. 

[OneMoreFarang]

9 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/02/depp-heard-trial-verdict-me-too-sexual-violence-women

This article is definitely not!

I am a regular Guardian reader. What I find interesting that even they know and indirectly admit that it is one-sided. With many of their articles they allow comments. Those comments are moderated, but not too much. 

But for some articles they don't allow any comments. I guess they have a pretty good idea what the comments would be. I read in the last day or two at least 3 one-sided stories about that trial - all without comments... 

[mikeymike100]

16 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The guardian is fair and balanced. 
 

No doubt at all. 
 

The fact it upsets both hard left and right wingers proves this is so. 

I'm glad you like sarcasm, as do I!

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

I'm glad you like sarcasm, as do I!

I do and when I use it I always add an alert when I employ it, as so many fail to distinguish between it and stating the truth. 

[spidermike007]

40 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am a regular Guardian reader. What I find interesting that even they know and indirectly admit that it is one-sided. With many of their articles they allow comments. Those comments are moderated, but not too much. 

But for some articles they don't allow any comments. I guess they have a pretty good idea what the comments would be. I read in the last day or two at least 3 one-sided stories about that trial - all without comments... 

I like the Guardian too. But when I am reading it, I do bear in mind their political slant. And some of their articles and especially some of their editorials are a bit too "woke" for me. And a bit too PC too. Then again, that is the zany world we live in now. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

14 hours ago, Meat Pie 47 said:

Amber Heard’s lawyer says there was “so much evidence” the jury in her defamation trial didn’t see, including a text message from Johnny Depp’s assistant saying her ex-husband was sorry he “kicked” her.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/amber-heards-lawyer-reveals-the-evidence-to-support-her-claims-that-the-jury-didnt-see/news-story/d8f4a5b60c43bce247449fbeca2d67de

 

I don't see that this text, even if taken at face value us actually probative of anything. 

 

It doesn't constitute Depp admitting to kicking Heard. Saying he was sorry, allegedly in response to his assistant saying he kicked her, could mean all kinds of things. It could for instance, mean Depp was sorry the assistant thought that.

 

Also, it's a 3rd party recounting what he says Johnny Depp said to him. Pretty sure that makes it hearsay (which is probably why it was excluded).

[mikeymike100]

5 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I do and when I use it I always add an alert when I employ it, as so many fail to distinguish between it and stating the truth. 

I understand, so the link to the article I posted earlier from the Guardian, you thought was fair and balanced?

If it had been more one sided it would have tipped over! LOL

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, mikeymike100 said:

I understand, so the link to the article I posted earlier from the Guardian, you thought was fair and balanced?

If it had been more one sided it would have tipped over! LOL

The guardian itself is fair and balanced.

[mikeymike100]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The guardian itself is fair and balanced.

The article I linked to was not! The guardian published it, so I totally disagree

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, mikeymike100 said:

The article I linked to was not! The guardian published it, so I totally disagree

LOL.

 

You judge a newspaper in it's entirety on one article.

 

Absolutely ludicrous.

 

But thanks for giving me the laugh of the day, even better than reading johnson was booed as he arrived to celebrate something or other linked to the current jubileefest in the uk.

 

Again...LOL

[transam]

14 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

LOL.

 

You judge a newspaper in it's entirety on one article.

 

Absolutely ludicrous.

 

But thanks for giving me the laugh of the day, even better than reading johnson was booed as he arrived to celebrate something or other linked to the current jubileefest in the uk.

 

Again...LOL

Right on cue, UK PM bashing on an American film star's court case.... 

How boring and unnecessary....Gawd...????

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Right on cue, UK PM bashing on an American film star's court case.... 

How boring and unnecessary....Gawd...????

You would know all about boring and unnecessary…it is your jam after all.  
 

Oh and I wasn’t bashing the uk. Those citizens who booed johnson have my admiration.
 

Kudos to them. 
 

 

[transam]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

You would know all about boring and unnecessary…it is your jam after all.  
 

Oh and I wasn’t bashing the uk. Those citizens who booed johnson have my admiration.
 

Kudos to them. 
 

 

Your lefty clan......?  ????

[Bluespunk]

27 minutes ago, transam said:

Your lefty clan......?  ????

Yeah, cause ardent royalists who  queue up all night to see a royal event tend to be hard left. 
 

LOL-just listen to yourself.

 

LM*O

 

Now care to get back on topic?

[mikeymike100]

18 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

LOL.

 

You judge a newspaper in it's entirety on one article.

 

Absolutely ludicrous.

 

But thanks for giving me the laugh of the day, even better than reading johnson was booed as he arrived to celebrate something or other linked to the current jubileefest in the uk.

 

Again...LOL

Glad I cheered you up, but if you refer to previous posts you will see I was referring specifically to one article, not the entirety of the newspaper at that point. I also said sometimes it is fair and balanced!

 

On 6/3/2022 at 11:25 AM, mikeymike100 said:

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/02/depp-heard-trial-verdict-me-too-sexual-violence-women

This article is definitely not!

18 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

I understand, so the link to the article I posted earlier from the Guardian, you thought was fair and balanced?

If it had been more one sided it would have tipped over! LOL

The rest of your blurb about johnson is meaningless to me!

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Glad I cheered you up, but if you refer to previous posts you will see I was referring specifically to one article, not the entirety of the newspaper at that point. I also said sometimes it is fair and balanced!

 

The rest of your blurb about johnson is meaningless to me!

As I said. LOL. 
 

You are judging an entire entity on one article. 
 

The guardian is fair and balanced. 

[Rimmer]

A baiting post has been removed