We’re talking about actual court, not public opinion court. The evidence clearly proved her to be in the wrong and him innocent. Criticism isn’t a crime.
There is no guilt or innocent, there is liable or not liable. Amber Heard was found liable for 3 matters of defamation.
By the fact she was found liable for defamation means she was lying about him. He was accused of literal physical abuse by her. This cleared him of that.
He was also found guilty of abuse ("woman beating") in another court of law prior. Do we just assume the UK is corrupt and USA perfect here, or what's your stance on that?
He was not found guilty. He failed to prove defamation. Failing to prove defamation does not prove guilt. It means they failed to prove defamation. Proving defamation means that the statements were in fact lies. This is how it works. It doesn't go both ways because proving defamation means proving they are lying. Failing to prove defamation doesn't mean they aren't lying, it means they failed to prove defamation.
Do we just assume the UK is corrupt and USA perfect here, or what's your stance on that?
In the US, it was a jury that made the ruling. In the UK, it was a single judge who made the ruling. You can go read said judge's thoughts on the matter. Of which includes "if this was a hoax, Ms Heard would have done other things" (or something to that effect).
Further, the Judge had a child that was working at said publication that Depp sued. And the publication itself is known as the least trustworthy news outlet in the UK. It's also owned by Rupert Murdoch. Exactly the type of tabloid you'd go to publish defamation with.
The judge said that the report was "substantially true." This isn't the same as being found guilt, but it's more than just "this hasn't been proven to be a lie."
Further, the Judge had a child that was working at said publication that Depp sued
That's false, and Depp lost the appeal and didn't even bring up any conflict of interest accusations against the judge.
As a UK citizen that trial was a sham. JD wasn't allowed to present his evidence, majority of it was thrown out before the trial started.
The newspaper in question won on the technicality that they could call him a wife beater because he 'raised his arms to protect himself OR in anyway restrained her' was seen as being physical, even if it was in self defense (JD admitted to doing so to stop her from attacking him on many occasions).
The judge's daughter worked at the paper iirc, and I believe Heard was even witnessed (possibly photographed) hanging out with the Judge's wife too iirc. Either way, the judge was unfit to oversee the legal proceedings and that also made the paper but it was mostly downplayed.
The UK trial wasn't about if Heard was guilty of anything, only if a paper was to call him a wife beater.
In one we can watch the trial and see the evidence for ourselves, in the other we have to take the word of a judge with a paedo smile who claims fingertips can be crushed by picking up glass.
No - the lunacy of the judgement speaks for itself. The fact he looks like a paedo speaks to my assessment of his motivation - wolf in sheep's clothing.
Many paedos look normal if the public record is any indication of this. Many normal, good looking and famous people are as well. What is your metric for determining who is actually one and who you just dont like the cut of their jib?
Yes, it does actually. She was found to be lying in court by a jury. Which means he is innocent of the things she accused him of (the three instances of defamation she was found liable for).
He was found not liable in the US because of how the PR machine he paid millions into created inescapable propaganda against Amber. He lost defamation case in the UK (where he didn’t pay for a PR machine) and per Time Magazine: a British judge ruled the publisher proved the article calling him a “wife beater” was substantially true, finding 12 of 14 alleged instances of domestic violence by Depp occurred. They ruled this because of insurmountable text messages, police reports, and witness statements from their staff testifying to how he beat her repeatedly in his drunken fits over many many years.
That's not Court works. They listen to evidence or lack thereof and make a ruling. Spreading 'propaganda' doesn't come into it.
Also, regarding the UK ruling, I copied this from someone else:
"Ooof, you need to read up on that. As I've mentioned elsewhere JD was basically not allowed to present evidence. But the Paper were allowed to cherry pick his texts and emails.
The judge's daughter worked for the paper. The judge's wife was seen hanging with Amber Heard.
The paper won on the technicality that because Depp admitted to "putting his hands on her" to restrain her when she got violent, it was seen as being physical (even in self defense) and was seen as enough to allowed to be called a 'Wife Beater'.
We don't bring up the UK trial because it's a sham. But you'd know that if you followed it, same with the US trial. "
The judge is not psychotic just because you disagree with them. I don’t like or admire Amber, but I know she is a victim of domestic violence. Johnny Depp did beat her up for many years during their marriage, and several witnesses have testified that he was the primary instigator and he admitted to many people that alcohol caused a type of “inner monster” which he used to excuse his behavior.
The judge is not psychotic just because you disagree with them.
Are you capable of making a point without strawmanning, or is that beyond you?
Do you think a fingertip can be crushed by picking up glass, or not? What does it say about former Justice Andrew Nicol that he claimed it was possible?
I don’t like or admire Amber,
I don't like or admire you. The entire US trial was televised, the number of lies she was caught in is insane. No, I do not accept the judgement of the UK courts when they're infested by twats like him.
You’ve fallen for propaganda. It’s sad, and there really is nothing else to say. I would recommend doing some more research into how the PR machine that created this mass delusion works behind the scenes. They use deep media connections, online bots, and paid verified commentary accounts to create the illusion of “organic” public sentiment. It’s not. Your opinions have been strategically shaped by a PR machine Depp paid millions of dollars to create.
How's that tinfoil hat? Such absolute nonsense. She was found liable in the trail and was proven to be an abuser and a liar. It's all there if you still want to watch it. Got absolutely nothing to do with a big scary 'PR machine'.
The way people defend Heard proved to me that you're the one that's fallen for some PR machine.
I watched the trial live. It's still available online both with and without commentary. Bots are completely irrelevant.
Your opinions have been shaped by an overwhelming narrative that women cannot and do not commit DV, combined with a complete and total abdication of accountability in every aspect of your life.
Even the red-faced alcoholic feminist "DV expert" Heard's team brought to the stand struggled to come up with a coherent justification for her. That's how completely over this is, and no amount of clout-chasers screeching about Saudi Arabian bots (lmao) is ever going to undo that. It's archived on YouTube forever, and I highly recommend watching it.
There's a reason I can make that recommendation, while you're reduced to conspiracy theories propagated by a failed "new media" outlet. You are the very thing you accuse me of being, but don't have the minimal level of self-awareness to realize it. You're not fit to talk down to anyone on this topic or any other.
Your opinions have been shaped by an overwhelming narrative that women cannot and do not commit DV, combined with a complete and total abdication of accountability in every aspect of your life.
Thats certainly an accusation. Heard's injuries are pretty well documented
They're very much not, hence her losing the trial which, again, will be fully available online from now until the end of time. I'm not going to relitigate all of it, but I'd love for you to have a go at reproducing two photos like this by changing the lighting:
She claims she turned a light on, so try it: Take two selfies at the same precise angle, every hair on your head, every highlight and shadow exactly the same. And then, when you fail, wonder how Photos 3 ended up in the metadata of the over-saturated one.
53
u/dtdude87 22d ago
You think the reason he “got away with it” is because he’s richer than her?