[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I guess my question is - what is your source the UK judge issues and should have recused himself?

I mean it may be true what you are saying - I have no idea. But I worry about people just getting biased views based off what is clearly a one-sided social media pull.

You didn't pay attention at all. UK judge accepted Amber's "evidence" about being abused at face value and there wasn't the scrutiny to it because she was "basically good for donating to charity". All of which were proven false in the US case in both cross and Amber's own statements and expert testimony. The judge threw out almost all evidence presented of domestic abuse against Depp because he was a drug user. Both central decision points against Depp in the UK case were shown to be false when the evidence was allowed. Judge made a personal decision on who he thought was more believable without allowing evidence presented that Amber had lied, there's gotta be some bias there.

Of the 14 alleged assaults heard in the court, the judge found 12 incidents of domestic violence had occurred.

Judge Justice Nicol had said on 2 November 2020 that The Sun had proved what was in the article to be “substantially true”.

“I accept her evidence of the nature of the assaults he committed against her. They must have been terrifying,” the judge had said.

Justice Nicol had said that “a recurring theme in Mr Depp’s evidence was that Ms Heard had constructed a hoax and that she had done this as an ‘insurance policy’,” and the actress was a “gold-digger”. He concluded that he did not accept that “characterisation” of Heard.

Speaking on her YouTube live stream, the former LA District Attorney said she believed several factors could explain why Depp won his UK case, but lost his action in the UK.

One of the most telling is the fact that Baker believes the judge in the UK case put “great weight” in Heard’s testimony that she’d donated her entire divorce settlement from Depp to two different charities.

In the US case, Heard admitted that this was not true.

“The UK has a different system of law, with a different judge, with a different burden, with a different question,” Baker said.

“The evidence in the UK ... the judge disregarded a lot of Johnny Depp’s evidence and the judge took into great weight that the money was donated.”

Baker added: “This jury saw evidence that was narrowly tailored and constructed based on our system of law. A different system of law than in the UK.

“In the UK, the judge seemed to disregard a lot of what Johnny Depp said because he was using substances. This jury was not swayed by that.

“This jury seemed to believe Johnny Depp based on their verdict.

“And I realise that is probably disappointing to Amber Heard. But I don’t think this is a setback [for people who allege domestic violence].

“I think it shows that a jury can sit down and look at the evidence and decide what the facts are.”

https://7news.com.au/entertainment/c...rial-c-7023188