It's like ppl don't read the thread before posting, again read what's been posted multiple times in this thread. The UK suit was a defamation suit against the Tabloid newspaper The Sun and not Amber's claims of abuse. The judge decided to throw out any evidence deemed not relevant to the claims against the paper (i.e. if the paper didn't intentionally publish fake info, it wouldn't matter if it was true/false), took Amber's claims at face value because of her charitable donations to ACLU "I recognise that there were other elements to the divorce settlement as well, but her donation of the $ 7 million to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-digger." (even though this ended up not being true at all once testimony/financials proving she didn't make the donations at all were allowed) and did not allow a lot of evidence to counter claims of actual abuse by Amber based on Depp's "multiple substances of abuse" made him less credible/it was not relevant to defamation case against The Sun. Not to mention the Judge's son works directly for Newsgroup, the company named in the lawsuit so is a huge conflict of interest there which should have required him to recuse himself from the proceedings.
Where are you getting the bolded from? The entire defense in the UK trial was a "defense of truth", where in order to win the case they had to prove that the allegations were true, based on a balance of probabilities. That's why they presented evidence of 14 different instances of abuse and the judge ruled on each of them. You're suggesting that their defense was one of unintentional defamation (i.e. the allegations are false, but they didn't intentionally publish false information), but that wasn't what happened at all.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
You can tell who has watched the trial here, and who have read the media narrative of the trial and made their opinions off that narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Seems more that it’s like people are up their own ass about this case for the most bizarre reasons.
I can tell I haven't watched the trail because I don't give a ####, but it is a little amusing to read the knots people tie themselves into to "pick a side".
The Following User Says Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
I can tell I haven't watched the trail because I don't give a ####, but it is a little amusing to read the knots people tie themselves into to "pick a side".
I would like to know - did anyone here actually watch anything more than snippets of the trial? CP doesn't seem to be the target demographic for this.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
Some big ones for me as well - she claimed she was assaulted dozens of times by being hit, and agreed that Depp wears rings all the time. There were zero medical records accounting from any of that, aside therapist records.
She also scored in the 98th percentile for PTSD, which would leave you unable to function as a human being (she would be shell-shocked).
So while you think there might be other evidence of abuse that happened Cole, she has falsely accused him on multiple accounts and that's where the defamation comes in. The other stuff wasn't proven so that's why I think the judge and jury got it right.
Yeah in some of her descriptions she talked about being punched relentlessly in the face. Forgetting count of the multiple blows. If you get punched a half a dozen times in the face by someone wearing rings like that your face would be hamburger. The most she ever showed in a photo looks like slight discoloration.
Also her recount of the Hicksville trailer park incident was torn to shreds by the owner of the trailer park. His story was collaborated by a couple of his employees who didn't testify in the trial, but told their stories online. Had this trial not been public, Heard's testimony of things like the Hicksville incident would have just been Amber's word vs Depp's.
I would like to know - did anyone here actually watch anything more than snippets of the trial? CP doesn't seem to be the target demographic for this.
I watched about two dozen 0.5-2 hour clips of the trial over the month, 98% of the time I just listened. Ended up listening to a lot of Asmongold's react clips, he watched it all live on twitch and uploaded highlights to youtube, it was a major boon for his channel because his editors were fast and he was able to scoop all of legacy media.
I can tell I haven't watched the trail because I don't give a ####, but it is a little amusing to read the knots people tie themselves into to "pick a side".
This isn't about picking a side, it is about following the court proceedings themselves and legal commentary, vs following a media fed narrative about the case and making an opinion based off that narrative. That's not a side, that's informed vs misinformed
The media narrative: Amber Heard is a victim of domestic abuse, a brave woman for speaking out and our misogynist court system's ruling has hurt women from ever speaking out against domestic abuse again and shows the faults of a jury verdict.
The court case reality: Amber Heard faked all testified injuries, found to have altered submitted photo evidence, found to have lied multiple times and caught committing perjury in her own testimony, and was found to be the actual abuser in several of the altercations including the severed finger incident (this particular incident she had claimed to had been raped with a bottle in a weekend of hell). A verdict was reached by a jury that Amber Heard committed defamation with malice on 3 counts based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
They way some have been arguing here, it's as if the court case and what was revealed in it about all of Heard's provided testimony and evidence never happened and the narrative is still being used.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
I would like to know - did anyone here actually watch anything more than snippets of the trial? CP doesn't seem to be the target demographic for this.
Watched over 10 hours worth on Law & Crime and lawyer reaction videos, better then a movie and TV series. Also did catch a few of Asmongold's
streams on it, since it's pretty entertaining as well.
Want to see how a defendant's testimony get destroyed and credibility shot? Best part at 4:00 and 8:00
And there are day's worth of this stuff...it's really hard to have watched this, and still seeing people trying to argue the same narrative as the media.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
The trial was very revealing. Alot of people covering it at the beginning were like 'uhoh, it's going to be hard for Depp because he's going to look like a junkie'. But as the trial progressed it was clear that there was malicious defamation.
Of note as well, Johnny was a bit more realistic as he'd admit faults of his while on the stand. On the other side Amber flat out denied anything that was thrown at her.. it was an almost Trumpian treatment of facts. She wasn't credible.
You guys seriously watched anywhere from 10 to 48 hours of content for a celebrity defamation trial?
I don’t know, Cliff might be right about social media, #### is poisoning brains. Pull the plug before it’s too late.
One season of Big Brother is like 30+ hours of TV and this was way more interesting.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
This trial was a month long clown show that produced some of the best organic comedy I've ever seen. It's not like there's going to be season 2, this was it, a high water mark for celebrity trials, a feat which may not be repeated during our life-times. Remember where you were and who you shared those moments with, let it keep you warm as the melancholy of knowing we'll never reach these heights again sets in.
You guys seriously watched anywhere from 10 to 48 hours of content for a celebrity defamation trial?
I don’t know, Cliff might be right about social media, #### is poisoning brains. Pull the plug before it’s too late.
Seriously. I'm just popping into this thread to see how it's still an ongoing thing. I don't get why people pay so much attention to trials, especially when it's just celebrities suing each other.
The worst thing is even if you've watched 90% of a trial you might still be missing out on crucial information required to make an accurate judgment.
The Following User Says Thank You to DownInFlames For This Useful Post:
You guys seriously watched anywhere from 10 to 48 hours of content for a celebrity defamation trial?
I don’t know, Cliff might be right about social media, #### is poisoning brains. Pull the plug before it’s too late.
You know, sometimes things strike a chord. As someone who has lived with someone that went to lengths to "ruin my life", it's kind of liberating to see a man win in court instead of the judge just handing her the kids and handing the man a giant monthly bill. Yes, I know this isn't the same, but for a lot of people, especially seeing that woman lie through her teeth and for the general public to FINALLY see that some women are malicious liars, it was something worth watching the reddit clips. Can't say I put "10 to 48 hours" into it, but I did actually watch at least 20 2-5 minute clips, where she blatantly lied / got caught lying.
Sounds like your life is just fine and that this trial was completely inconsequential to you. Why are you bothering to chime in repeatedly, scolding people? How about that age old adage about STFU and stay out of threads that don't matter to you?
The Following User Says Thank You to Roger For This Useful Post:
