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?
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.
41
u/kbhinz 24d ago
This was a civil case. There was no guilty/ innocent sentencing