Depp vs. Heard (Split)

[egg]

13 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

If you had to choose between Vardy and Amber Heard….

You mean the Amber Heard who the High Court found was the victim of all sorts of abuse, or the attention seeking Vardy? I know it's off topic, but I can't get my head around the criticism of a proven victim of domestic abuse. 

[sadoldgit]

5 hours ago, egg said:

You mean the Amber Heard who the High Court found was the victim of all sorts of abuse, or the attention seeking Vardy? I know it's off topic, but I can't get my head around the criticism of a proven victim of domestic abuse. 

If you have been following the current Depp v Heard case it sounds like she gave as good as she got.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If you have been following the current Depp v Heard case it sounds like she gave as good as she got.

If you followed our high court case  you'll find she was proved to be a victim. Does "gave as good as she got" suggest that you think she deserved what she got? The point is that "she got it" so it's not inaccurate to suggest that she was a victim. That Johnny may have "got it" doesn't alter, or justify,  what he did to her.

[egg]

2 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

So Vardy went into this to defend a reputation and has ended up trashing it. Let that be a warning to the stupid rich.

Yep. Litigation should be a last resort. 

[sadoldgit]

20 hours ago, egg said:

If you followed our high court case  you'll find she was proved to be a victim. Does "gave as good as she got" suggest that you think she deserved what she got? The point is that "she got it" so it's not inaccurate to suggest that she was a victim. That Johnny may have "got it" doesn't alter, or justify,  what he did to her.

I am suggesting that perpetrators of domestic violence are not exclusively male. In this case there is a audio recording of Heard admitting that she hit Depp. That would seem to intimate that he has been victim of domestic violence would it not? He has constantly denied assaulting Heard but clearly the relationship was deeply toxic and neither are going to come out of it with any merit. Are you suggesting that there are different levels of accountability in DV cases? Surely it is equally abhorrent no matter which partner (or both) are dishing it out? 

[egg]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I am suggesting that perpetrators of domestic violence are not exclusively male. In this case there is a audio recording of Heard admitting that she hit Depp. That would seem to intimate that he has been victim of domestic violence would it not? He has constantly denied assaulting Heard but clearly the relationship was deeply toxic and neither are going to come out of it with any merit. Are you suggesting that there are different levels of accountability in DV cases? Surely it is equally abhorrent no matter which partner (or both) are dishing it out? 

This case isn't to do with whether Depp was a victim. He's suing cos he says she wasn't, essentially trying to appeal an English high court decision in another jurisdiction. I deal with domestic abuse cases, men are frequent victims, but unless your point is that Depp was justified in treating her like shit cos she was horrible to him, I'm struggling to see what point your trying to make in this particular case. As a former crown prosecutor, I thought you'd know better. 

[ecuk268]

On 13/05/2022 at 11:11, swannymere said:

The rather queer think about Mrs.Vardy is that she gives off the impression she doesn't care what 'the public' think about her, as long as they are thinking about her. 

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, when you're a "celebrity", the only thing worse than people writing about you is people not writing about you

[sadoldgit]

20 hours ago, egg said:

This case isn't to do with whether Depp was a victim. He's suing cos he says she wasn't, essentially trying to appeal an English high court decision in another jurisdiction. I deal with domestic abuse cases, men are frequent victims, but unless your point is that Depp was justified in treating her like shit cos she was horrible to him, I'm struggling to see what point your trying to make in this particular case. As a former crown prosecutor, I thought you'd know better. 

For starters I wasn’t a Crown Prosecutor. They are lawyers. I am not a lawyer. I didn’t say that Depp was justified in treating her like shit. I said that she played a part in a toxic relationship and that he (apparently) was a victim of domestic violence too. You were suggesting that she alone was the victim. Depending on whose testimony you believe (and hers changes constantly) it would appear to be less straightforward. It is quite possible that they both assaulted each other is it not? It is quite possible that she severed his finger, in which case in is a bit ingenuous to single her out as the victim in this case. If you deal with domestic abuse cases you will know that they often are not that straightforward. If both sides are assaulting each other, it shouldn’t just be assumed that the woman instantly becomes the victim. For example, if he did assault her, what if it was only after a long period of provocation from her. Does he then become the “victim” who was fighting back? You make it sound like she was some poor defenceless little flower who was battered by some evil monster when, if you have been following the latest case, it would seem at the very least that both of them behaved very badly towards each other and both of them treated the other like shit.

Having been the victim of domestic assault myself in my first marriage (by my ex wife and my mother in law) I can tell you categorically that no matter what the evidence, it is the man who is immediately treated as if guilty and it is the man who has to fight harder to get his side of the story over. The East Sussex police confirmed to me that they always remove the man from the scene in DV cases when children are involved. The police weren’t interested in what I had to say and allocated a PC to liaise with my ex wife and made sure she was supported.

 

[egg]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

For starters I wasn’t a Crown Prosecutor. They are lawyers. I am not a lawyer. I didn’t say that Depp was justified in treating her like shit. I said that she played a part in a toxic relationship and that he (apparently) was a victim of domestic violence too. You were suggesting that she alone was the victim. Depending on whose testimony you believe (and hers changes constantly) it would appear to be less straightforward. It is quite possible that they both assaulted each other is it not? It is quite possible that she severed his finger, in which case in is a bit ingenuous to single her out as the victim in this case. If you deal with domestic abuse cases you will know that they often are not that straightforward. If both sides are assaulting each other, it shouldn’t just be assumed that the woman instantly becomes the victim. For example, if he did assault her, what if it was only after a long period of provocation from her. Does he then become the “victim” who was fighting back? You make it sound like she was some poor defenceless little flower who was battered by some evil monster when, if you have been following the latest case, it would seem at the very least that both of them behaved very badly towards each other and both of them treated the other like shit.

Having been the victim of domestic assault myself in my first marriage (by my ex wife and my mother in law) I can tell you categorically that no matter what the evidence, it is the man who is immediately treated as if guilty and it is the man who has to fight harder to get his side of the story over. The East Sussex police confirmed to me that they always remove the man from the scene in DV cases when children are involved. The police weren’t interested in what I had to say and allocated a PC to liaise with my ex wife and made sure she was supported.

 

I never suggested that she alone was the victim.

I'm not judging him. Our High Court have and they found that he abused her. Despite that, she's portrayed as the bad one. I struggle to comprehend why anyone would side with the proven abuser.

Sure he may have been a victim too, but that does not alter the accuracy of her saying that she was a victim, which is the solitary issue in the current case. 

Your comment "For example, if he did assault her, what if it was only after a long period of provocation from her. Does he then become the “victim” who was fighting back?" completely misunderstands the law and issue. If he was upset at being treated badly and had a pop at her, that's an assault. If he used reasonable self defence in the moment, it's not an assault. Again, the High Court heard evidence and found in her favour.

I'll debate the issue no more and would invite you to read the High Court judgment. The findings are clear. 

I'm sorry what you've been through, but you can't let that cloud your judgment of actual the findings that have already been made against Depp. 

[hypochondriac]

On 14/05/2022 at 09:54, egg said:

You mean the Amber Heard who the High Court found was the victim of all sorts of abuse, or the attention seeking Vardy? I know it's off topic, but I can't get my head around the criticism of a proven victim of domestic abuse. 

Erm that isn't what the high court found. 

[hypochondriac]

On 14/05/2022 at 15:51, egg said:

If you followed our high court case  you'll find she was proved to be a victim. Does "gave as good as she got" suggest that you think she deserved what she got? The point is that "she got it" so it's not inaccurate to suggest that she was a victim. That Johnny may have "got it" doesn't alter, or justify,  what he did to her.

Did you watch her testimony last week? Did you consider it credible? 

[hypochondriac]

On 15/05/2022 at 12:25, sadoldgit said:

I am suggesting that perpetrators of domestic violence are not exclusively male. In this case there is a audio recording of Heard admitting that she hit Depp. That would seem to intimate that he has been victim of domestic violence would it not? He has constantly denied assaulting Heard but clearly the relationship was deeply toxic and neither are going to come out of it with any merit. Are you suggesting that there are different levels of accountability in DV cases? Surely it is equally abhorrent no matter which partner (or both) are dishing it out? 

Blimey I agree with soggy!

[hypochondriac]

23 hours ago, egg said:

This case isn't to do with whether Depp was a victim. He's suing cos he says she wasn't, essentially trying to appeal an English high court decision in another jurisdiction. I deal with domestic abuse cases, men are frequent victims, but unless your point is that Depp was justified in treating her like shit cos she was horrible to him, I'm struggling to see what point your trying to make in this particular case. As a former crown prosecutor, I thought you'd know better. 

That isn't what he's doing at all. He's suing to challenge the article that she contributed to that essentially called him a domestic abuser and ended his career. During the court case so far there has been no one beyond Amber herself who can corroborate the claims that she is a victim of domestic abuse (although Depp is clearly a pretty messed up individual.) The court case is the UK was not public, was in front of a judge and the judge alone decided that Amber's testimony was "credible" (although we never got to see that testimony.) That doesn't make him guilty of domestic abuse. 

[egg]

20 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Did you watch her testimony last week? Did you consider it credible? 

I didn't. 

The High Court made findings against Depp. Do you think that we should ignore those? 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

I didn't. 

The High Court made findings against Depp. Do you think that we should ignore those? 

Serious suggestion I'd have a look at some of that testimony. In my opinion it's pretty damning and also very clear which one of them is being truthful and which is fabricating a narrative.  I watched with an open mind and I felt that at the start she came across quite well but later on it just descends into farce. Depp might still fail to win the case because the standard he has to meet is very high but IMO he's going to win in the court of public opinion.

Edited 16 May, 2022 by hypochondriac

[egg]

18 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

That isn't what he's doing at all. He's suing to challenge the article that she contributed to that essentially called him a domestic abuser and ended his career. During the court case so far there has been no one beyond Amber herself who can corroborate the claims that she is a victim of domestic abuse (although Depp is clearly a pretty messed up individual.) The court case is the UK was not public, was in front of a judge and the judge alone decided that Amber's testimony was "credible" (although we never got to see that testimony.) That doesn't make him guilty of domestic abuse. 

He is saying he was defamed by an article which all but singled him out as a domestic abuser. He is denying that he is. Heard says that he was. The High Court found that he was - a finding of fact is essentially a guilty verdict in the civil court. That you don't like the process, doesn't change what has happened. Depp essentially seeks to reverse those findings and show himself not to be an abuser of Heard. 

 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

He is saying he was defamed by an article which all but singled him out as a domestic abuser. He is denying that he is. Heard says that he was. The High Court found that he was - a finding of fact is essentially a guilty verdict in the civil court. That you don't like the process, doesn't change what has happened. Depp essentially seeks to reverse those findings and show himself not to be an abuser of Heard. 

 

I'd genuinely be surprised if you watched the testimony from Amber Heard and believed it to be true.  Some things we already know to be lies for definite such as claiming she had multiple cuts on her body and her back when she was pictured numerous times the next day with no marks on her. 

Edited 16 May, 2022 by hypochondriac

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd genuinely be surprised if you watched the testimony from Amber Heard and believed it to be true.  Some things we already know to be lies for definite such as claiming she had multiple cuts on her body and her back when she was pictured numerous times the next day with no marks on her. 

I respect our High Court. They heard evidence and decided the matter. I have no interest in a trial by media, and certainly won't judge either of them myself based on snippets. As matters stand, she said he'd abused her and findings have been that he did. 

[Whitey Grandad]

42 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Did you watch her testimony last week? Did you consider it credible? 

She's an actress. It looked to me like acting, not genuine.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

She's an actress. It looked to me like acting, not genuine.

Indeed. It wasn't credible in the slightest. 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

I respect our High Court. They heard evidence and decided the matter. I have no interest in a trial by media, and certainly won't judge either of them myself based on snippets. As matters stand, she said he'd abused her and findings have been that he did. 

How unfortunate. I watched the evidence with my own eyes and drew my own conclusions. I'd suggest always doing that if you get the opportunity rather than trusting in the infallibility of a single judge. I haven't yet seen anyone who has watched her testimony and believed it to be true. 

Edited 16 May, 2022 by hypochondriac

[egg]

52 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How unfortunate. I watched the evidence with my own eyes and drew my own conclusions. I'd suggest always doing that if you get the opportunity rather than trusting in the infallibility of a single judge. I haven't yet seen anyone who has watched her testimony and believed it to be true. 

So you think that your judgement from watching a bit on the telly is more credible than a high court judge who sat through the evidence?!?

I know who I have more respect for.

I'll leave the discussion there mate. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

So you think that your judgement from watching a bit on the telly is more credible than a high court judge who sat through the evidence?!?

I know who I have more respect for.

I'll leave the discussion there mate. 

I'd say the fact that possibly thousands but certainly multiple hundreds of people have watched hours of testimony from both parties and almost none believe what Heard has said during her testimony is worth paying attention to. Who you have respect for is irrelevant and maybe you'd have a different opinion if you were a bit less close minded and made your own mind up by listening to the unaltered testimony which is freely available. 

[egg]

19 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd say the fact that possibly thousands but certainly multiple hundreds of people have watched hours of testimony from both parties and almost none believe what Heard has said during her testimony is worth paying attention to. Who you have respect for is irrelevant and maybe you'd have a different opinion if you were a bit less close minded and made your own mind up by listening to the unaltered testimony which is freely available. 

There's nothing close minded about respecting the considered judgement of a high court judge who sat through the evidence.

Frankly, it beggars belief that you feel that your opinion from watching some of the USA media circus trial should count for more than that of the high court judge. 

As to the legal processes, in the USA witnesses are coached and, in this case, literally play to the cameras. In our high court there can be no coaching and people don't play to the cameras. Thus, I'd take the evidence in our court much more at face value than what is being shown on the telly.

 

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, egg said:

I never suggested that she alone was the victim.

I'm not judging him. Our High Court have and they found that he abused her. Despite that, she's portrayed as the bad one. I struggle to comprehend why anyone would side with the proven abuser.

Sure he may have been a victim too, but that does not alter the accuracy of her saying that she was a victim, which is the solitary issue in the current case. 

Your comment "For example, if he did assault her, what if it was only after a long period of provocation from her. Does he then become the “victim” who was fighting back?" completely misunderstands the law and issue. If he was upset at being treated badly and had a pop at her, that's an assault. If he used reasonable self defence in the moment, it's not an assault. Again, the High Court heard evidence and found in her favour.

I'll debate the issue no more and would invite you to read the High Court judgment. The findings are clear. 

I'm sorry what you've been through, but you can't let that cloud your judgment of actual the findings that have already been made against Depp. 

I haven’t made a judgement but with all due respect to a High Court judge, the only people who know exactly what happened are Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. He has formed an opinion based on the evidence in front of him. It is entirely possible that he made a mistake. This case is being heard by a jury. The jurors will have an opinion as you and I do. They will come to a verdict which you and I might agree with or we might not. Like you I have no idea what Johnny Depp did or didn’t do to her. Unlike you, I have formed an opinion that Amber Heard is not a credible witness. Her evidence is inconsistent and she lies. If you have dealt with DV cases you will know that alleged victims do not always tell the truth. It is possible that Amber Heard has either a narcissistic personality disorder or a borderline personality disorder. If this is the case you will have encountered people with this condition in DV cases. Their version of reality often differs from what you and I understand as the truth. They often create their own reality and end up believing it. Personally I would not trust anything that Amber Heard presents as truth without some solid evidence to back it up.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

There's nothing close minded about respecting the considered judgement of a high court judge who sat through the evidence.

Frankly, it beggars belief that you feel that your opinion from watching some of the USA media circus trial should count for more than that of the high court judge. 

As to the legal processes, in the USA witnesses are coached and, in this case, literally play to the cameras. In our high court there can be no coaching and people don't play to the cameras. Thus, I'd take the evidence in our court much more at face value than what is being shown on the telly.

 

In what way is hours of testimony from a US court discredited because there's a lot of media attention from it? I didn't say my opinion counted more than a singular judge in a British court, what I will say is that thousands of people all have the same opinion having watched the testimony about who is obviously lying and if you weren't so set in your ways and close minded you would watch it as well. How could you possibly know that people have played to the camera or been coached if you haven't watched any of it? 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I haven’t made a judgement but with all due respect to a High Court judge, the only people who know exactly what happened are Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. He has formed an opinion based on the evidence in front of him. It is entirely possible that he made a mistake. This case is being heard by a jury. The jurors will have an opinion as you and I do. They will come to a verdict which you and I might agree with or we might not. Like you I have no idea what Johnny Depp did or didn’t do to her. Unlike you, I have formed an opinion that Amber Heard is not a credible witness. Her evidence is inconsistent and she lies. If you have dealt with DV cases you will know that alleged victims do not always tell the truth. It is possible that Amber Heard has either a narcissistic personality disorder or a borderline personality disorder. If this is the case you will have encountered people with this condition in DV cases. Their version of reality often differs from what you and I understand as the truth. They often create their own reality and end up believing it. Personally I would not trust anything that Amber Heard presents as truth without some solid evidence to back it up.

Have you gone back to being a lawyer again now?

[The Left Back]

2 hours ago, egg said:

So you think that your judgement from watching a bit on the telly is more credible than a high court judge who sat through the evidence?!?

I think @hypochondriacmight be invoking, whether consciously or not, the concept know as the wisdom of crowds.  At a county fair it was noticed that the weight of an ox was more accurately assessed by taking an average of the hundreds of ordinary folk who had a guess, compared to the various butchers who cast their eye.  Substitute judge for butchers, Amber Heard for Ox, credibility for weight  and court case watchers for fair-goers and there might actually be some merit in the argument being put.   

[egg]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

In what way is hours of testimony from a US court discredited because there's a lot of media attention from it? I didn't say my opinion counted more than a singular judge in a British court, what I will say is that thousands of people all have the same opinion having watched the testimony about who is obviously lying and if you weren't so set in your ways and close minded you would watch it as well. How could you possibly know that people have played to the camera or been coached if you haven't watched any of it? 

This discussion began on a thread about Rooney/Vardy. That's being heard in the High Court by a single judge. That judge is hearing the evidence and will determine it by the civil standard. I suspect most people will respect the judgement, bar the loser. The Depp libel case was also heard in the High Court by a single judge, yet your view is that we should forget that judges finding. Instead you prefer your own analysis from watching on the telly. No disrespect, but you've got a bloody high opinion of your judgement.

I have no need to watch it. I'm no amateur judge, and an experienced High Court judge has done the job already. It's you that wants to judge these two, not me.

American lawyers coach their clients. They're allowed to and do so. English lawyers can't and don't. It's pretty obvious that an actor / actress will play to the audience in a TV trial. 

I'll stick to accepting the analysis of the evidence of a high court judge rather than a bloke on a football forum. 

Edited 16 May, 2022 by egg

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, The Left Back said:

I think @hypochondriacmight be invoking, whether consciously or not, the concept know as the wisdom of crowds.  At a county fair it was noticed that the weight of an ox was more accurately assessed by taking an average of the hundreds of ordinary folk who had a guess, compared to the various butchers who cast their eye.  Substitute judge for butchers, Amber Heard for Ox, credibility for weight  and court case watchers for fair-goers and there might actually be some merit in the argument being put.   

That would have more merit if the opinions about the case weren't shared by a number of lawyers and judges about the case who are also seeing all the evidence for themselves. It's not like it's just a bunch of novices viewing this. 

[hypochondriac]

15 minutes ago, egg said:

This discussion began on a thread about Rooney/Vardy. That's being heard in the High Court by a single judge. That judge is hearing the evidence and will determine it by the civil standard. I suspect most people will respect the judgement, bar the loser. The Depp libel case was also heard in the High Court by a single judge, yet your view is that we should forget that judges finding. Instead you prefer your own analysis from watching on the telly. No disrespect, but you've got a bloody high opinion of your judgement.

I have no need to watch it. I'm no amateur judge, and an experienced High Court judge has done the job already. It's you that wants to judge these two, not me.

American lawyers coach their clients. They're allowed to and do so. English lawyers can't and don't. It's pretty obvious that an actor / actress will play to the audience in a TV trial. 

I'll stick to accepting the analysis of the evidence of a high court judge rather than a bloke on a football forum. 

Sorry but you're a fool if you think I'm suggesting my analysis of the evidence is more credible than a high court judge. No point engaging with you further if you going to misrepresent my position. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Sorry but you're a fool if you think I'm suggesting my analysis of the evidence is more credible than a high court judge. No point engaging with you further if you going to misrepresent my position. 

That's exactly what you are suggesting. You said "I watched the evidence with my own eyes and drew my own conclusions. I'd suggest always doing that if you get the opportunity rather than trusting in the infallibility of a single judge".

That's you saying that your judgement is the right one rather than a judge who heard the evidence. 

No misinterpretation from me. Just backtracking from you.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

That's exactly what you are suggesting. You said "I watched the evidence with my own eyes and drew my own conclusions. I'd suggest always doing that if you get the opportunity rather than trusting in the infallibility of a single judge".

That's you saying that your judgement is the right one rather than a judge who heard the evidence. 

No misinterpretation from me. Just backtracking from you.

 

I thought you were "leaving it there?" No point discussing with you further, you're on a wind up. 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I thought you were "leaving it there?" No point discussing with you further, you're on a wind up. 

No wind up mate. Genuinely non plussed with blokes who feel qualified to say that a high court judge must be wrong and that Amber Heard must be wrong and Johnny Depp correct. Anyway, you get back to playing judge, I'll go walk the dog.

[Lighthouse]

Whatever your views on this case, you have to agree this probably wasn't the best choice of outfit.

 

[Weston Super Saint]

34 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Whatever your views on this case, you have to agree this probably wasn't the best choice of outfit.

 

Is she the one on the left?

[Lighthouse]

40 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is she the one on the left?

No, that’s Rebekah Vardy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

48 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is she the one on the left?

No that’s Soggy’s ex mother in law. 

[hypochondriac]

Some very interesting cross examination today. Worth checking out for anyone with an interest in the case. 

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, egg said:

No wind up mate. Genuinely non plussed with blokes who feel qualified to say that a high court judge must be wrong and that Amber Heard must be wrong and Johnny Depp correct. Anyway, you get back to playing judge, I'll go walk the dog.

After you walked the dog perhaps watch the trial? You might find it interesting. It is very easy to make accusations, not so easy to substantiate them in court if you have little to back them up. For example, Depp is supposed to have sexually assaulted Heard with a bottle. If you were her, wouldn’t you file a complaint with the police? Wouldn’t you make sure you went to the hospital and got medical evidence? Wouldn’t you at least get photographic evidence of the damage it must have done? Yet nothing other than her testimony. She has told a number of lies already, why should the court believe her over that? It is a very serious accusation to throw at someone and she doesn’t seem to have any evidence to substantiate her claim. What if she is lying? She didn’t do very well under cross examination today. Perhaps watch tomorrow and at least you will have a more informed opinion.

[egg]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

After you walked the dog perhaps watch the trial? You might find it interesting. It is very easy to make accusations, not so easy to substantiate them in court if you have little to back them up. For example, Depp is supposed to have sexually assaulted Heard with a bottle. If you were her, wouldn’t you file a complaint with the police? Wouldn’t you make sure you went to the hospital and got medical evidence? Wouldn’t you at least get photographic evidence of the damage it must have done? Yet nothing other than her testimony. She has told a number of lies already, why should the court believe her over that? It is a very serious accusation to throw at someone and she doesn’t seem to have any evidence to substantiate her claim. What if she is lying? She didn’t do very well under cross examination today. Perhaps watch tomorrow and at least you will have a more informed opinion.

It's pointless asking me hypothetical questions about evidence I've not heard. In any event, I've said that i have no interest in dipping my toe and playing judge in this trial. I'll leave that to you and Hypo.

Who is right or wrong here I don't care. All I know is that there's been one trial and Depp lost. Bizarrely you and Hypo seem to think that a High Court verdict, after hearing all the evidence should be ignored. Odd imo, unless you don't respect our judicial system.

Here's a good article on the issue. People throwing flowers at the bloke after he was found to have headbutted the woman ffs. Perhaps consider some of the findings that have actually been made against Depp, then explain why you're so keen on defending him.

 https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/amber-heard-johnny-depp-fans-memes-reddit-b2076329.html

 

[buctootim]

My missus made me sit through half an hour of the cross examination. Heard had a really odd demeanour and looked very puffy. Depp appears to have lost the ability to look up or at anything apart from a laptop. This is my final judgement. No appeal

Edited 25 May, 2022 by buctootim

[buctootim]

 

Duplicate

Edited 17 May, 2022 by buctootim

[sadoldgit]

11 hours ago, egg said:

It's pointless asking me hypothetical questions about evidence I've not heard. In any event, I've said that i have no interest in dipping my toe and playing judge in this trial. I'll leave that to you and Hypo.

Who is right or wrong here I don't care. All I know is that there's been one trial and Depp lost. Bizarrely you and Hypo seem to think that a High Court verdict, after hearing all the evidence should be ignored. Odd imo, unless you don't respect our judicial system.

Here's a good article on the issue. People throwing flowers at the bloke after he was found to have headbutted the woman ffs. Perhaps consider some of the findings that have actually been made against Depp, then explain why you're so keen on defending him.

 https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/amber-heard-johnny-depp-fans-memes-reddit-b2076329.html

 

I didn’t say that the previous High Court verdict should be ignored. It is possible that it was wrong though. I don’t know what evidence was presented to prove he physically abused Heard in that case but if it is the same as here then I am amazed the verdict went her way. Apparently a lot of sway was given when she said she would give the proceedings of the divorce settlement ($7m). To charity. The judge said that it showed that she was “a good person.” In the meantime she has not paid a penny to charity and is now saying that she thinks “pledge” and “donate” mean the same thing. In the cross examination her evidence is all over the place. She has even thrown in another accusation of a sexual assault from nowhere. After the alleged headbutt there are pictures of her that show no sign of trauma to the nose that may or may not have been broken (depending on what version of her evidence you read). From what I have seen so far, there is more substantial evidence that Heard assaulted Depp than Depp assaulted Heard. You can believe which version of events you like Egg, I suppose there are still people around who think that O.J. Is innocent because of the initial acquittal.

[hypochondriac]

57 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I didn’t say that the previous High Court verdict should be ignored. It is possible that it was wrong though. I don’t know what evidence was presented to prove he physically abused Heard in that case but if it is the same as here then I am amazed the verdict went her way. Apparently a lot of sway was given when she said she would give the proceedings of the divorce settlement ($7m). To charity. The judge said that it showed that she was “a good person.” In the meantime she has not paid a penny to charity and is now saying that she thinks “pledge” and “donate” mean the same thing. In the cross examination her evidence is all over the place. She has even thrown in another accusation of a sexual assault from nowhere. After the alleged headbutt there are pictures of her that show no sign of trauma to the nose that may or may not have been broken (depending on what version of her evidence you read). From what I have seen so far, there is more substantial evidence that Heard assaulted Depp than Depp assaulted Heard. You can believe which version of events you like Egg, I suppose there are still people around who think that O.J. Is innocent because of the initial acquittal.

There is no substantial evidence presented so far that Depp assaulted Heard. There might be some later but none so far. 

[egg]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I didn’t say that the previous High Court verdict should be ignored. It is possible that it was wrong though. I don’t know what evidence was presented to prove he physically abused Heard in that case but if it is the same as here then I am amazed the verdict went her way. Apparently a lot of sway was given when she said she would give the proceedings of the divorce settlement ($7m). To charity. The judge said that it showed that she was “a good person.” In the meantime she has not paid a penny to charity and is now saying that she thinks “pledge” and “donate” mean the same thing. In the cross examination her evidence is all over the place. She has even thrown in another accusation of a sexual assault from nowhere. After the alleged headbutt there are pictures of her that show no sign of trauma to the nose that may or may not have been broken (depending on what version of her evidence you read). From what I have seen so far, there is more substantial evidence that Heard assaulted Depp than Depp assaulted Heard. You can believe which version of events you like Egg, I suppose there are still people around who think that O.J. Is innocent because of the initial acquittal.

Blimey SOG, the OJ reference is desperate.

I deal with court findings and domestic abuse cases for a living. I know the burden of proof. I know the mental gymnastics performed by the Judge to arrive at a verdict. 

We have a really strong court system. I've yet to meet a High Court Judge who doesn't have a brain the size of a small city. Sure, the Depp decision could have been wrong, but it hasn't been appealed, thus it stands and must be respected. On one hand you say that it shouldn't be ignored, but on the other hand you are saying exactly that. You're all over the place in your desperation to support Depp and condemn Heard, and frankly I have no time for anyone who tries hard to argue the case for someone who's been found to have abused a woman. 

There's been talk of Heard lying and/or exaggerating. I can't speak for the USA court, but over hear that doesn't necessarily matter. I'll give you a bit of actual English law and after that I'll leave it. 

Lying - It is not uncommon for witnesses to tell lies in the course of a fact-finding investigation and a court hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (R v Lucas [1981] QB 720).

Exaggeration - The court must be vigilant to the possibility that one or other party may be seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other. This does not mean that allegations are false, but it does increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration, or fabrication (Re W (Children)(Abuse: Oral Evidence) [2010] UKSC 12).

I could go on but this is boring AF and I know that you'll come back and defend Depp, for whatever reason.

 

[sadoldgit]

I am not defending Depp. I am simply saying that from the evidence presented so far that I don’t think that Heard has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt. I said originally that it looks like she gave as good as she got which you took issue with. Again, from the evidence presented it looks like she was a nightmare to live with. I have never said that that made any DV perpetrated by Depp ok (if it happened). The Spectator ran a good article recently and made the point that many will probably agree on, that it was a very toxic relationship and neither of them comes out of it well. It would appear that she has mental health issues and he struggled with alcohol and drugs - not a healthy  The trial has become a source of entertainment for many and it probably isn’t ideal that it has been televised. Many people will have been through similar experiences within toxic relationships (male and female) and will know how deeply debilitating it is.  Despite what you keep posting, I am not defending Depp, but if her claims that he sexually assaulted her with a bottle, amongst other. Claims, are not true, I am sure you would agree, to defame someone like that is not acceptable. I feel for the jury. How you get to the bottom of the truth in this shot show I don’t know. As said, they have clearly behaved very badly towards each other, but I am still not convinced that he has done many of the things claimed. This has nothing to do with my feelings towards either of them but is based on evidence presented. As someone who has worked in this field, I am sure you will appreciate that, if she has lied about the various claims of violence and abuse, it makes it harder for others like her who do experience that abuse to be believed and to make their cases successfully in court. You have accused me of supporting Depp no matter, what but it would seem that you are doing the same with Heard.

[egg]

11 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I am not defending Depp. I am simply saying that from the evidence presented so far that I don’t think that Heard has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt. I said originally that it looks like she gave as good as she got which you took issue with. Again, from the evidence presented it looks like she was a nightmare to live with. I have never said that that made any DV perpetrated by Depp ok (if it happened). The Spectator ran a good article recently and made the point that many will probably agree on, that it was a very toxic relationship and neither of them comes out of it well. It would appear that she has mental health issues and he struggled with alcohol and drugs - not a healthy  The trial has become a source of entertainment for many and it probably isn’t ideal that it has been televised. Many people will have been through similar experiences within toxic relationships (male and female) and will know how deeply debilitating it is.  Despite what you keep posting, I am not defending Depp, but if her claims that he sexually assaulted her with a bottle, amongst other. Claims, are not true, I am sure you would agree, to defame someone like that is not acceptable. I feel for the jury. How you get to the bottom of the truth in this shot show I don’t know. As said, they have clearly behaved very badly towards each other, but I am still not convinced that he has done many of the things claimed. This has nothing to do with my feelings towards either of them but is based on evidence presented. As someone who has worked in this field, I am sure you will appreciate that, if she has lied about the various claims of violence and abuse, it makes it harder for others like her who do experience that abuse to be believed and to make their cases successfully in court. You have accused me of supporting Depp no matter, what but it would seem that you are doing the same with Heard.

I'm supporting nobody. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that the High Court has heard evidence and made findings in favour of Heard and against Depp. That was after hearing a shitload of evidence on Depp's behalf. 

I don't get why you're so keen for a proven domestic abuser to be vindicated. Even if he gets the verdict after the US show trial, it's essentially one all and the High Court findings still stand. 

Here's the High Court findings. The allegations are on the same page, ditto the witness list. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depp_v_News_Group_Newspapers_Ltd#Alleged_domestic_abuse_incidents_perpetrated_by_Depp

Respond if you want, but I've said my piece.

[sadoldgit]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm supporting nobody. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that the High Court has heard evidence and made findings in favour of Heard and against Depp. That was after hearing a shitload of evidence on Depp's behalf. 

I don't get why you're so keen for a proven domestic abuser to be vindicated. Even if he gets the verdict after the US show trial, it's essentially one all and the High Court findings still stand. 

Here's the High Court findings. The allegations are on the same page, ditto the witness list. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depp_v_News_Group_Newspapers_Ltd#Alleged_domestic_abuse_incidents_perpetrated_by_Depp

Respond if you want, but I've said my piece.

If the jury finds for Depp in this case, where does that leave the first judgement?

As for judges having the brain of a small planet, when I worked for the CPS there was a High Court judge on the Kent circuit who had the brain of a small pea.

[AlexLaw76]

25 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If the jury finds for Depp in this case, where does that leave the first judgement?

As for judges having the brain of a small planet, when I worked for the CPS there was a High Court judge on the Kent circuit who had the brain of a small pea.

Surely he is guilty until such time the Legal system says otherwise - like Ched the footballer?