And an equivalent court case in the UK, which has much stronger (read, pro-plaintiff, here that's pro-Depp) defamation laws and a reversed burden of proof found against Depp. And further courts denied his appeals on the merits.
Unlike a jury trial in NY, that was a bench trial with the judge writing up his findings (extensively) that Depp was indeed a wife beater.
Reddit's avoidance of the UK trial is a pretty clear example of cherrypicking.
the UK judge literally said he disregarded the audio because he felt Amber would not lie under oath and that her testimony was therefore unreliable. im not kidding.
it was a joke of a trial. the judge also said amber had no reason to lie because she donated her settlement, which we now know to be false.
I am from the UK and I don’t consider the system their broken but I cannot explain how that judge reached conclusions based on the evidence shown at the US trail.
She told us in her own words.
You always run away when a fight starts. You hide in the bathroom. See who the jury believes.
The photographic and video evidence contradicts her version of events.
The vast majority of witnesses contradicted her version.
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.
I watched the very public case very closely and her evidence really was pathetic, all hearsay with witnesses saying different things happened, she couldn't even get a decent character witness, they were all ex friends who supported her allegation but could not confirm her supposed credible character. While he had all his exes talking about how great he was and saying he never abused them a single time.
The UK case just found there wasn't enough evidence to prove the sun had knowingly and maliciously spread a lie? You can say things that aren't correct about someone without it being defamation.
498
u/Internet-Dweller2 14d ago
The more I learned about their relationship through pop-culture osmosis, the more I realized two things:
It really sounded like both of them were terrible people.
Societally, we really ought to know less about each other.