It's not that the donation was relevant. The appeal judge ruled that it wasn't. But what it portrayed was that the UK judge took Amber Heard's word as proof of the deed happening. Of course it was only after the court case that Depps lawyers were informed indirectly by the charities that it wasn't true. And in fact at the appeal, The Suns lawyers claimed that AH had arranged a 10 year payment plan with both charities. That information must have come from AH and was another lie. The children's hospital said that they were expecting the whole lot to be paid and had never been told it would be spread over 10yrs.
Also on count #3 in the UK trial, Judge Nicol found Depp guilty of trashing a trailer in Hicksville.
Mr Justice Nicol concludes that in the course of Mr Depp and Ms Heard’s argument, the actor “caused significant damage to the trailer”.
He says “the argument and damage to property are symptomatic of Mr Depp’s manner when ‘the monster’ side of his personality was dominant”.
But we know now this didn't happen. A light fitting got broken and the bill for the "trashed trailer" was $62. So when depp said he hadn't done something ab0nd Heard said he had, the judge believed Heard. Another incident that happened at Hicksville was heard in closed court and was dismissed. We now know that was a sexual assault. So the judge found Depp did not sexually assault her but that he did trash the caravan. We now know he didn't do either.
I've scanned the other rulings the judge made which evidence, including that of her own sister, would not back up now.
So I understand your argument that the judge is a professional at listening to evidence so wouldn't get it wrong. But he ruled quite a lot of Depps evidence as inadmissible as it was against the sun and not AH. So what can be heard in this case is quite different. I used to do work in the UK court system and I wouldn't be so sure if I were you that judges in courts are always right or unbiased. Not saying the uk judge, despite his connections, was, though.
I believe that Depp lied when he said he'd never struck a woman. But I have no evidence of it. But I do have evidence that she has lied over quite a few things. She made a claim over an incident of sexual assault in Hicksville where Depp trashed the caravan. But because it was a televised court, the owner of the said trashed caravan heard about it and contradicted her in court yesterday. That wouldn't/couldn't have happened within the uk court system. Of course, Depp, despite bring found innocent if that in the uk trial,
could still have assaulted her. But the fact that she lied about the state of the caravan undermines her credibility. As do other lies
I do believe he assaulted her. But there are all sorts of things that she's lied about, that it's difficult to know what is a lie and what is the truth. Which, of course, doesn't change my mind that he assaulted her, but it weakens her case.
Unlike other posters I didn't want to believe her. Nor did I want to believe him. I was just interested in why he'd bring another case that would humiliate him and not let it lie. And I still thought that when the case started but within a few days in it became clear there was a lot more to the situation between them than Judge Nicols ruling had implied. I can understand why he felt maligned that she was coming out with plaudits and he was being condemned. So although I feel sure he'll lose his case, he might think it worth it because he'll have been rehabilitated in many people's eyes.
It's ironic, though, that people condemn the abuse in the marriage but are then abusive to other people who disagree with them.