Part 2 -AIBU to wonder why so many people assume Johnny Depp is the good guy and Amber Heard is the villain

[StormzyinaTCup]

Just thought I would start a follow on thread for anyone interested in the trial. I have kept it in AIBU so that it is easier for previous posters from Part 1 to find.
We are halfway through and have heard JD's testimony so next week we will hear from AH.

It’s also worth remembering that for Depp it’s a risk to lose money and not gain money as Amber Heard wealth is limited. I think he made it pretty clear that this was to show his truth and show the world who she is.

I agree with you about the truth likely being somewhere inbetween but people aren't going round wildly accusing others of misogyny is not accurate.

There's enty of posts, videos, memes Nd goodness knows what else rolling out plenty of misogyny and the same old commends that have been used to disregard victims in the past. I.e if that was happening why didn't she leave, comments about the number of sexual partners she's had, her mental health and various diagnoses, she hysterical, her clothing choices, the lack of photographic proof of a sexual assault, comments about the poo in the bed whilst ignoring the fact that Depp text an employee once asking him to poo on the floor as a joke on Amber, it seems accepted that Depp "accidently" headbutted Amber despite the fact that there's no contemporaneous evidence to that effect and that the UK judge did not feel that was the case. It could go on and on and on.

This isn't a case about me, and yet all the vile comments I've seen have absolutely triggered me in terms of my experience.

If there was an AIBU saying "my daughter has come home and said she's been sexually assaulted. She's had drug amd alchol issues and I know she lies sometimes but her boyfriend so has drink and drug issues and he does get very volatile" I don't imagine for a second that the comments would be along the lines we've seen here. Even if you added in that the daughter admitted she smacked her boyfriend I can't imagine that everyone would be saying that you shouldn't believe that she was sexually assaulted.

But that's now the message out there. And that is what future victims of sexual/domestic violence will remember when their popular, charismatic abuser does terrible things to them and they don't have video evidence of the act or there's not sufficient bruising down there. The world's handed a golden key tk all those abusers to get away with it and to rip a victim to shreds if they do try to get justice or support.

Don't they have any modern case management in the US system?

The amount of evidence in this case really should have been cut down. The prospect of it going on and on really is taking the proverbial. Perhaps Depp's plan is to bankrupt Heard before it reaches the jury stage?

Not a Heard supporters thanks, I personally think they are both awful peoe and victims. They both need a lot of help.

If you don't trust the UK Judge to do his job properly in a huge media case like this then how can you trust the testimony of any of Depps employees?

The Judge didn't just believe what Amber said. It's even stated in the judgement that's not the case. There's plenty of contemporaneous evidence to support the decision making. You may not think you are biased but perhaps sub consciously the reams and reams of Pro Depp/anto Heard stuff has infiltrated your opinion? It hard to ignore.

@TheKeatingFive The permission of the trial judge is usually needed before an appeal can happen. So basically it could have been a case of as soon as judgement was handed down, Depps legal team would have asked for permission to appeal from that judge and if he said no; they wouldn't have been allowed to. Another aspect of the legal system I do not agree with.

I have read (but not seen the evidence myself so I could be wrong) but Amber's financial accounting that was submitted did not show any legal fees. These lawyers were initially hired by Elon Musk for Amber back in 2018 and there is a belief that he is continuing to bankroll her legal fees. Although given she has now testified that she never loved him...if that is true, it may end!

In the US each side is told how many hours they have total for direct and cross exam before the trial even starts so no one gets to decide how long it will go, they can't draw it out - it is preset. A side can choose to not use all their hours if they call fewer witnesses etc. The date for the closing argument is preset as well. In this case each side was given 61 hours.

www.judiciary.uk › De...PDF
25 March 2021 SUMMARY John Christopher Depp II v News Group ...

With any luck, this should link you to the judgement in regard to the permission to Appeal in which you will see was not from the original judge and which addresses the lack of credibility of Heard as well as the fact that it was not just her word against his. And was heard by 2 further Judges. So are people now seeking to suggest that not 1 but 3 UK judges unable to perform their role/guilty of bias/misconduct or whatever else is going to be suggested next?

No where in my post did I say AH deserves it. Do not misrepresent me. I do not think any women deserves it. The psychologist said AH was a trigger for JD so he became violent after suppressing this against other partners. It was her explanation for why he had not been violent to other partners.

I was just saying that I recognised what these triggers may have been with AH. No where and no way did I say it was ok or it meant she deserved it. Don't put words in my mouth.

@Laaaaslalala I was careful to write that it "could" have happened this way and that it is "usually" the case. I haven't yet read the case from the UK trial but my reply was generic.

Maybe it would have been wise to check rather than making inaccurate assumptions.

Even if you are incorrect, you suggest that the original Judge was not carrying out his role properly.

@Laaaaslalala I am permitted to put my viewpoint across as is the function of an online forum. It is perfectly acceptable to say what usually happens in most cases. I am sorry if you disagree with me having a viewpoint but I am sure you would not have an issue if I agreed with your position.

As I have already pointed out above, the request to appeal was heard by 2 further Judges so are you suggesting not 1, not 2 but 3 Judges are guilty of improper conduct?

I don't belive that Depps legal team submitted that Justice Nichol should not have heard the original case - suggesting that this argument has no weight and is just further part of them trying to win the Court of Public Opinion as opposed to actually having evidence to meet the legal threshold to win.

Yes but who decided whether it was possible to appeal isn't your viewpoint. It's factual and the fact that there have been three Judge's involved is factual and demonstrates that your suggesyion/viewpoint that the UK system is flawed is also likely to be pretty flawed.

Given people are so obsessed with wanting evidence and proof of "facts" I'm not sure why you are so objectionable to having the actual facts on the permission to Appeal pointed out to you.

Also in reading the UK judgement and many of the related documents, the judge just believed everything Amber said

You clearly haven't read the U.K. judgement if you are coming out with this. All of the 12 incidences the judgement is based on include corollary evidence as support. This is obvious in the initial judgement and reiterated again in the answer to the appeal.

@Laaaaslalala in all fairness, I do think the UK legal system is flawed...massively.

All legal systems have flaws. The US system has many, many flaw as well.

However, suggesting that a professional judge has been biases and that Depp has been refused an appeal because of that is incredibly flawed.

@Laaaaslalala Judges can be biased, they are human and humans have bias whether they admit it or not.

Can I ask, what legal background do you have to suggest my position is flawed?

@Laaaaslalala

Not a Heard supporters thanks, I personally think they are both awful people and victims. They both need a lot of help.

??? Both awful, and yet both victims? Odd thing to say!

@Laaaaslalala

Here is the exact information about appeals for the Depp trial. You can see that 1 - there is no right to appeal and 2 - they will not question the finding or evaluaton of the trial judge. The denial of the appeal was process based, not case based.

"First, the losing party in a civil appeal is not entitled to appeal as of right. They can only do so if they can show either that the appeal would have a real prospect of success or that there is some other compelling reason for it to be heard.

Secondly, on an appeal the Court does not hear the evidence again. That means that in a case like the present, where the decision is based on the judge’s findings about disputed questions of fact, it is not easy to overturn those findings on appeal. That is not only because the trial judge has had the advantage of seeing the witnesses giving their evidence. As Lewison LJ put it at para. 114 of his judgment in FAGE UK Ltd v
Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5:

“Appellate courts have been repeatedly warned, by recent cases at the
highest level, not to interfere with findings of fact by trial judges, unless
compelled to do so. This applies not only to findings of primary fact,
but also to the evaluation of those facts and to inferences to be drawn
from them. …"

I absolutely cannot STAND Amber Heard, and am firmly 100% on Johnny Depp's side.

I won't say - in detail - what I really think of her on here, but all I will say is that I agree with what a poster said the other day... that she does a massive disservice to DV victims.

As for the answer to the OP's question..... Probably because that's exactly how it IS.

I didn't realise we are almost done and I wanted to check whether people (well the next four anyway🤣) were interested in a Part 3? I'm happy to start another if people want to continue to chew things over.

Law degree, LPC and worked in practice before moving into in-house practice. Good enough for you? Not that such qualifications are needed to refute the insinuations you are making. Perhaps you'd like to share your legal background as well?

You suggesting that the Permission to Appeal is factually flawed as above. You sought to suggest that the appeal was unfairly denied by the original judge even if you said it in a roundavoyt manner.

Regardless, you don't need a legal background to be able to look up a judgement, read it and not make false assumptions. The fact that there appears to be no official objection by Depp's team as to personal bias on the Judge's part would suggest that this allegation lacks any true evidence.

There is course can be judicial bias and action is taken to com at this. However, there seems little to suggest this allegation is founded and suggesting the Justice Nichol did make such a judgement with bias (and presumably similar allegations to the Judge's who considered the permission to appeal) does seem pretty flawed and let's face it, a little ironic given the subject of the case.

Amber seems to have lost some very important witnesses since the uk trial. Her sister was objected to as she hadn’t completed her deposition, not sure if the objection was accepted. She’s lost Rocky and lost her make up artist - with a double whammy that Depp has witnesses who contradict what they previously said to support Heard in the Uk trial. This is a very different case than the UK

@Laaaaslalala Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to reply to your post in full but I too have a legal background and have done so for the past 10 years in the U.K. however, as you will no doubt be aware, there are variations within the interpretation of the law and one judge can reach a conclusion that another judge would not reach, same as 2 people with a legal background. We all interpret and perceive things differently.

Yes, I'm well aware that there is no right to appeal and how appeals do work. However, as you can see Depp's legal team did raise a number of points in which they felt gave grounds to appeal, this was considered by 2 further Judges and denied. That judgement gives some detail around some of the subjects that crop up regularly around evidence, credibility etc.