Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
The first trial didn’t find that Depp abused Heard, it found that he couldn’t prove that he didn’t.
Just because something is considered a common defence tactic doesn’t mean the party using that tactic isn’t telling the truth.
You claim the trial was about narrative not facts but ironically your post to defend that argument could also be described as such.
|
This is the thing that gets me. Neither trial was about who abused who (I think they are both spoiled rich narcissist's).
The UK trial was about the UK Sun calling him a 'wife beater' without putting 'alleged' in front of it. There is a different burden of proof there, so the Sun (not Heard) only had to prove that they believed Heard when she said Johnny committed DV on her. Not whether or not he actually did.
The US trial was not about whether or not one party was abusive the other, but whether or not Heard's op-ed defamed Depp. It can be conclusively proven (and was) that that op-ed was the source of a significant downturn in Depp's career.
Neither trial was ever about whether or not one party in the relationship abused the other (as, I believe, DV charges have never been filed by either party on either party). The trials were all about things being said.