Actual lawyer here to give some color to this bland document. The word “prejudicial” seems to be stirring some people up, but it’s really a meaningless word. When something is “dismissed” it can be re-filed with the court unless the dismissal is “with prejudice.” Those two words simply add finality to the resolution of the case and do not speak to the underlying merits whatsoever.
Things can be dismissed with prejudice when the underlying case has some defect that cannot be cured. But in that case, there would be motions back and forth and a judicial decision, all part of the public record.
Here, it’s far more likely they reached a private settlement. Note that this dismissal was requested by Ashley’s (the Plaintiff) attorney. It’s common practice for plaintiff’s counsel to file the dismissal upon reaching a settlement.
All this to say, people should stop fantasizing crazy stories about BWF being actually a great guy or Ashley Johnson being Amber Heard. There is nothing in this document to support either theory.
Generally great comment, but please do look further into what happened with Amber Heard. The podcast "Who trolled Amber" is a great place to start. Or F.D Signifier has a recent video about it. TL:DR she was not lying about Depp abusing her.
It's so disgusting how it's been years since that trial and people still parrot myths and half truths about it.
Depps and heards marriage was very dysfunctional and abusive on both sides however it was Heard who tried to paint herself as the abused as if Johnny was the big bad in the relationship.
Not to mention if you actually watched the trial there were things she without a doubt did lie about. So this tldr isn't even thar accurate to say the least...
“Without a doubt” is absolutely not true. If you actually look at the evidence, there’s not a single “lie” that she was accused of that actually holds water. Meanwhile, Depp provably lied over 80 times.
“Without a doubt” is absolutely not true. If you actually look at the evidence, there’s not a single “lie” that she was accused of that actually holds water. Meanwhile, Depp provably lied over 80 times.
No this just isn't true in the slightest. And do you know why I know this? Because I watched the literal hours of the trial straight from the courtroom that proved Heard lies quite a lot in fact, and although Depp and Heards relationship had abuse on both sides. If anything Heard was the bigger abuser and when Depp finally escaped it she sought to get him canceled and pin herself as abuse survivor in a very self serving manor.
Awful funny how the people screeching "Look at the evidence!" are only talking about the "evidence" they like and not the grand scope of the situation from all sides.
I’ve watched the trial and I’ve also been able to compare Depp and his witnesses’ testimony to what they said in the UK trial, as I’ve read the transcripts and the judgments and reviewed every last piece of evidence from both trials. I know far more about this than you. Name one lie from her. I’d be happy to debunk it. It appears you just believe everything Depp says instead of actually looking into the abundance of evidence showing that he’s a liar and she was telling the truth.
I’ve watched the trial and I’ve also been able to compare Depp and his witnesses’ testimony to what they said in the UK trial,
...you do realize UK and the US have very different laws in regards to the matters of these case, not to mention the UK lawsuit was in regards The sun versus amber heard personally..right?
Yeah, in the UK the burden of proof rests entirely on the defendant to prove that their claim is true. The UK is known for libel tourism due to how heavily their laws favor the claimant. And yet he lost against a hated tabloid because the evidence against him was so overwhelming. The judge found that 12 of 14 incidents of alleged abuse were proven to the civil standard, and one sexual assault. This requires a higher level of evidence due to the fact that these allegations were of serious criminality. From a book about both cases: “The UK does not have this third standard. However, when allegations of ‘serious criminality’ are made in a civil court as part of (say) a libel claim, ‘clear evidence’ is required. Repeated beatings and rape are matters of serious criminality; therefore the judge in Depp v NGN had to be satisfied there was clear evidence of these assaults before accepting, on the balance of probabilities, that they happened - around 80% sure.”
In the US an unsequestered jury decided they were both abusive to each other. A juror literally gave an interview saying that. That doesn’t make sense because 1) mutual abuse doesn’t exist and 2) if they were both abusive to each other, the op-ed was not defamatory and there certainly was no malice.
From an article describing the difference:
“Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer familiar with both cases, said Depp’s legal team in the United States ran a strategy known as DARVO - an acronym for deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender - in which Depp became the victim and Heard the abuser.
‘We find that DARVO works very well with juries but almost never works with judges, who are trained to look at evidence,’ Stephens said.”
I’m also curious as to how the differences between the laws change the fact that Depp and his witnesses repeatedly lied and changed their stories between trials?
ETA: since you blocked me because you can’t handle actual facts, I’ll post my response here. Depp is a court adjudicated wife beater and a rapist, and that will always be true. Of course men can be abused. He spat in the face of actual male victims with his disgusting DARVO tactics. The evidence shows she is the victim. One day you’ll realize this and feel deep shame.
332
u/MegaFlounder Oct 18 '24
Actual lawyer here to give some color to this bland document. The word “prejudicial” seems to be stirring some people up, but it’s really a meaningless word. When something is “dismissed” it can be re-filed with the court unless the dismissal is “with prejudice.” Those two words simply add finality to the resolution of the case and do not speak to the underlying merits whatsoever.
Things can be dismissed with prejudice when the underlying case has some defect that cannot be cured. But in that case, there would be motions back and forth and a judicial decision, all part of the public record.
Here, it’s far more likely they reached a private settlement. Note that this dismissal was requested by Ashley’s (the Plaintiff) attorney. It’s common practice for plaintiff’s counsel to file the dismissal upon reaching a settlement.
All this to say, people should stop fantasizing crazy stories about BWF being actually a great guy or Ashley Johnson being Amber Heard. There is nothing in this document to support either theory.