Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
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.
|
While the UK bit is correct there, the US part isn't quite right. To prove there was defamation in the WAPO OP-ED, Depp's legal team had to prove that Amber's allegations of sexual/physical abuse outlined in the OP-ED were both false, damaging to Depp's career, and done so with malice... So while it is about what was said, it is also about the abuse.