That the UK court got it wrong is your opinion.
Yes it is. And do you believe Amber Heard is a credible witness?
Hey, they wear wigs!
The UK court had nothing but a judge’s opinion. The US trial was decided on facts, not to mention a lot of fiction on the defendant’s part.
This is not accurate, the UK court judgement, which I have read, had tons of evidence on something like 14 different allegations, including testimony from a bevy of non-Amber Heard witnesses, including police officers etc.
I frankly find the UK court’s opinion fairly reasonable with the evidence provided–the UK court didn’t find that Depp committed a crime to a criminal standard, just like in the U.S. a criminal trial and a civil trial have different burdens of proof. The UK court simply found that to the civil standard, there was enough evidence supporting the assertion that Depp was a wife beater to mean that Depp’s defamation case against the British newspapers could not be allowed to proceed.
Note that Amber Heard was not the defendant in the British case, which makes it somewhat different than the American case. The American case also simply found that Heard had defamed Depp, it did not arrive at any legal conclusion on the issue at hand in the British case–with whether “to a civil standard” it is fair for a newspaper to call Depp a wife beater.
Frankly I find it highly unlikely to think that Heard was able to successfully manufacture all the evidence of wife beating that was present in the British case, including some witnesses going back almost 10 years. There is pretty decent evidence Amber Heard is a liar and was an abusive spouse. There is also pretty good evidence Johnny Depp was both of those things as well. Unless you have a vested interest in one of these two actors, which I do not, I find that it’s frankly more likely than not that this was a co-abusive relationship by two deeply unstable and irrational people with a number of substance abuse and emotional issues. Why some people have seemed to pick sides on this like it’s two sports teams, is confusing and bizarre to me.
I’m not saying you’re wrong (though I do wonder why that “evidence” was not admitted in the US trial) but I read parts of it and didn’t see any of this evidence.
The parts I read were just the judge summing up Heard’s claims, various inconsistencies, her lawyer’s excuses for these inconsistencies, and him summing up that he finds those excuses valid and her claims credible. After a while of this I just gave up (it’s a long read).
Can you perhaps present some of the most compelling pro-Heard evidence that was presented in that trial?
Why? We’ve seen that Amber Heard had no trouble lying about the circumstances, and the witnesses from the UK trial conveniently failed to show up in the US trial.
Because I simply don’t think it likely that she was able to successfully plan to screw Depp over for 10 years or whatever while Depp is purely innocent. Read the entire judgement of the UK trial and maybe you will come to different conclusions.
You need to read the UK judgement in full as I did, I am not interested in preparing a summary.
Also at the end of the day, I trust a judge far more than I trust a jury. Juries are much more easily manipulated. I have seen a number of legal analyses of the comparative cases that have summed it up as “the judge evaluated the evidence, the jury evaluated the narrative the lawyers put forth”, i.e. Depp’s American lawyers simply made a compelling argument. I find the most conservative and reasonable view of the totality of the evidence across the two trials is that both people are abusive and dishonest. Nothing here is being discussed “to a criminal standard”, but to the level of “is it likely this is true or not”, that of course means it’s possible one thing or the other is really true. However I don’t find it persuasive based on any evidence we have access to that I should be picking a “side” and that the “side” should be Johnny Depp’s.
The UK judgement in full is a massive document. I didn’t ask for a summary, I asked for you to pick “some of the most compelling pro-Heard evidence”.
IMO, if you have a case to make, you should be able to make it yourself. Telling people the only way to see the truth of your position is to read the entirety of very long documents doesn’t add anything of value from a practical standpoint and is hard to take seriously.
I don’t have a case to make. I’ve simply said based on the totality of the evidence I see no need to pick a side, and I think both of them are flawed, narcissistic, abusive people, and at least in Depp’s case also a drug addict. My position is that I don’t have a side.
This is confusing.
I didn’t say you had a “side”. But you have a position. You’ve stated this position many times in this thread, including in this very post. Your position is and has been that “both of them are flawed, narcissistic, abusive people”, and in particular that there is ample credible evidence that Heard’s allegations about Depp were essentially true. But you are unwilling to state the actual evidence for this position other than by reference to a very long document that you say people have to read in its entirety to appreciate.
I don’t need to state the evidence when I already provided a link to a huge word document full of evidence. You’re simply saying you aren’t willing to read it, and want me to expend time, energy and effort to create a summary. I have said I am not willing to do that. I am not arguing before a court here, I have explained why I think what I do, and I’ve given a pretty hilariously complete documentation of why by linking to the actual British decision, which contains I think hundreds of exhibits of evidence. My lack of desire to spend what would likely be hours re-reading and preparing more easily consumed nuggets of information for you does not mean I am unwilling to state the evidence.
Sure, going back through the whole thing would be a lot of work. But can you name some examples that you remember off the top of your head?
I’d say that’s better than telling people they need to go do all the work. If it’s too much work for you, surely it’s too much work for them. You’re the one who is making a claim, and thus would be more motivated to convince people you are right than they would be to try and convince themselves they are wrong.
I don’t know if there’s a formal name for this concept, but I call it the “burden of work.” And there is a tactic where people put that burden on the other person hoping they won’t do the work. I’m not saying you’re doing that, but surely you can see why it isn’t a very good idea to just believe someone when they put the burden of work on you.
(Disclaimers only below, feel free to skip if you’re not offended, as always.)
And let me repeat that I’m not in any way accusing you of doing anything wrong. I’m just explaining/arguing why, if you don’t include some examples and expect the other person to do the work, then people are less likely to believe you, and suggesting you do otherwise.
And, yes, it’s possible you already know some or all of this stuff. I don’t see what’s so wrong in explaining something people already know. Better to overexplain than underexplain.
…the actual evidence is right there for you to read it, if you want. Nobody is forcing you to not read it.
You are choosing not to read it. That’s your problem, not anyone else’s. You can’t demand someone else paraphrase something for you. That isn’t the way that the real world works.
I mean: I’d do the work. But my rate is $150 + GST per hour. Payable upfront.
Or perhaps it means you haven’t read it either and are hiding behind a long document that you know nobody wants to have to read. Tell you what: can you cut to the chase and just give one solid piece of evidence from that trial that points to Depp’s domestic violence?
Depp was suing Heard for defamation - causing financial damage to him by an article that she wrote in the Washington Post in 2018.
As the British Judge said:
I have found that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have
been proved to the civil standard (bearing in mind what has been said about the evidence
necessary to satisfy that standard when serious allegations are in issue). The exceptions
are Incidents 6, 11 and the additional confidential allegation regarding Hicksville. I do
not regard the Defendants’ inability to make good these allegations as of importance in
determining whether they have established the substantial truth of the words that they
published in the meanings which I have held those words to bear.
No one has ever said anything in this case was proven beyond a civil standard for either party (i.e. not to a criminal standard.) A trained jurist looked at over 500 items of evidence and considered a huge number of claims and came to this conclusion.
Further in his final summation:
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’ – presumably in the event that the
marriage broke down. Mr Sherborne commented in his closing submissions that Ms
Heard had said that she recorded some of her conversations with Mr Depp to show him
what he was capable of doing when the Monster prevailed and yet many of these were
never played to or shown to Mr Depp. She was, according to this scenario, nothing
more than a gold-digger. I have in the course of this judgment given reasons why I do
not accept this characterisation of Ms Heard. Looking at the evidence as a whole, I
come to the same conclusion. There is a multiplicity of emails, texts and messages and
diary entries in the papers before me. I have quoted some. Some, but by no means all,
are from Ms Heard. I recognise, of course, that previous statements by her are not
independent evidence of the truth of the allegations, yet they are not, on the other hand,
inadmissible or irrelevant for that reason. There are also as I have shown sometimes
statements from third parties which do corroborate her.
As Ms Wass said in her closing submissions, if Ms Heard had been constructing a hoax
there are various measures which she might have taken, but which she did not (see
paragraph 91 of the Defendants’ closing submissions). I agree that those points add
further force to the conclusion I would anyway have reached, which is to reject the
‘hoax’ or ‘insurance policy’ thesis.
The simple reality is a jury of Americans is more prone to believe Jack Sparrow and hate his evil wife, because Jack Sparrow had a better lawyer. A person more familiar with the law came to a different conclusion.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Ms Heard’s testimony in the UK case was much more compelling than her testimony in the US case, because how anyone could consider her a credible witness is beyond me.
I stand by my characterization that Depp was found guilty in the UK because the judge believed Amber Heard.
I recommend reading the comments in the Wapo piece.