Will she poo on the bed for $5?
Poll: This Johnny Depp Stuff
- Thread starter Dirk Diggler
- Start date
Man of Honour
You're still presuming Depp is guilty, despite the trial and despite the evidence being publically available. Why?
That's what the infamous darvo thing is for - an attempt to shore up the presumption of guilt despite the trial and despite the evidence. Along with the usual attempt to spread fear amongst women and the usual identity politics (which is, of course, the reason for the presumption of guilt in the first place) of pretending all men are the same entity and all women are the same entity, a complete denial of the existence of individuals.
If you're bringing the idea of darvo in, why are you applying it to the person proven to be a victim (Depp) rather than to the person proven to be an abuser (Heard)?
There is a big difference between having a trial without a jury because the subject matter requires specialised knowledge that randomly chosen people wouldn't have and therefore couldn't judge and having a trial without a jury because guilt has been presumed. It's not the same thing at all. Defamation isn't a complex matter that requires specialised knowledge, as some financial trials are. Nor is it a matter of national security, which is sometimes another valid reason for a trial without a jury.
I think that without a very good reason a trial should be open to the public in order to make the process transparent and harder to abuse.
Well there wasn't any 'evidence' for Nichols either but he believed her account versus the USA jury.,
where she was caught in a few lies, he wasn't forthright in his cross-examination either, recollections hazy on both sides,
even if she was abusive too, that doesn't exonerate him.
where she was caught in a few lies, he wasn't forthright in his cross-examination either, recollections hazy on both sides,
even if she was abusive too, that doesn't exonerate him.
Sign the Petition
Re-open Appeal (UK) of Johnny Depp defamation case, following unanimous US Jury Verdict
www.change.org
started by a UK barrister who thinks the UK decision was *****. it's going up over 2k sigs an hour since i last looked.
Man of Honour
I think their best (for them) course of action is to continue as they're currently doing - appeal politically rather than legally. Media appearances. Better done by a representative, her lawyer, rather than personally because her lawyer is far better at it(*). Opinion pieces masquerading as news. Plenty of social media. All pushing the same message - because women are innately superior to men, any man (who are all the same - identity politics) accused by any woman (who are all the same - identity politics) must be presumed guilty and punished without a trial, without an investigation and without a chance to defend himself (i.e. the standard demand of feminism in general and metoo in particular) and anything other than that is abuse of all women and a clear and present danger to all women and is utterly heinous and all women should be in constant fear for their lives. The usual message, in other words.
Even if she could appeal legally, she'd be silly to do so because she'd lose again because the evidence is overwhelming. Appealing politically will be far more effective.
* I thought her lawyer was perhaps going a bit far in political terms by publically accusing the judge of either incompetence or corruption, but nothing seems to have come of that. Which is odd. A lawyer would usually need a lot of evidence to back up such a claim. It's no small thing. The lawyer did make that claim when they claimed (on TV, therefore publically) that large amounts of relevant and admissable evidence was suppressed in the trial. The only person who could do that was the judge. If they did so (which I very much doubt) then either they didn't understand the evidence was relevant and admissable (which makes them incompetent) or they did it anyway (which makes them corrupt). The word 'suppression' makes it an accusation and a very serious one.
Are you saying a trial without a jury isn’t public?
Soldato
OnlyFans.
Along with becoming a cam girl, she'd probably be popular.
Man of Honour
Not necessarily not public at all (though it can be), but less public than a trial by jury and much less public than a televised trial.
How is a trial by jury more public? Televised would be (I’m assuming you’re referencing UK verdict).
Man of Honour
Trial by jury ensures that at least some members of the public are involved. I'm referring to trials in general, not any specific trial.
Soldato
Has AH made any appearances/interviews since the verdict? Or just her lawyer?
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
The rabids in this thread don't support Depp in the way they think they're supporting him.
Elaine baadermeinhof needs to shut her trap, she's doing noting but make herself look more and more stupid and desperate. the videos by other lawyers and body language guys ripping her apart are hilarious. she's making herself look as stupid and petulant as Turd - seriously, she must be doing a load of damage to her firm; not only did they make themselves look like chumps all through the trial, they lost resoundingly and are now bleating in public like some whiny brat. looking seriously inept and unprofessional IMO
Caporegime
Just LOL if the astonishingly bad life outcomes for pretty much everyone is the bit in the film that gives your life meaning.
Then surely any trial open to the public is by definition public? A jury of your peers doesn't make it more "public" or "transparent". Transparency comes from an open courtroom and provision of publicly accessible reasonings with all key factors and reasonings involved which is what you get with a trial by judge. A jury trial, which by the E&W system is confidential, is less transparent than a trial by judge as you don't know what factors were and weren't taken into account when coming to the decision.
Edit: and it's also worth pointing out that a trial by jury allows a decision to be made on irrelevant considerations, or ones which have no legal basis. I refer you to the UK case recently where BP protesters were acquitted of criminal damage despite being informed they had no defence in law in the strict legal sense.
Edit2: for what it's worth, my opinion is that a trial by judge is most likely to give you an objective decision, whereas a trial by jury will more likely to be a subjective decision. Each type has their own pros and cons and are better suited for different circumstances.
Last edited:
Soldato
Two possibilities, either you're ignoring me or you've blocked me.
Stop trying to gaslight.
There were rumours she was hauled in before Judge A but i can't find any proof of that. It would explain why she cancelled the rest of her pr tour though.
Last edited:
i hope it's true. incredibly unprofessional to publicly **** the judge, jury, janitors and guy who fills the vending machines just cos you didn't get the result you wanted. if she had valid points you might cut her some slack but if you've seen the breakdown on youtube, eg
www.youtube.com
you realise she's talking utter BS. be interesting how vocal her support is when Turd fails to pay her bill after spending £22k a week on a house etc.
Criminal Lawyer Reacts to Amber Heard's Attorney's Post-Verdict Shenanigans on Talk Shows
Criminal Lawyer Bruce Rivers Reacts to Amber Heard's Attorney on Talk Shows Stop Self Snitchin' Hat: https://clr-bruce-rivers.myshopify.com/products/stop-sel...
www.youtube.com
Soldato
Quite a few lawyers were commenting during the trial that her cross examinations were career making, if she wasn't made partner it would have been a real injustice. They also said that she could very easily double or triple her hourly rates without batting an eye lid.