3:00 Fantastic Beasts
5:00 Justice for men
6:00 Trump
7:00 NAFTA
9:00 Amber Heard flicking her hair
13:00 Stripper
14:00 Feminism
15:00 The Virginia case
16:00 Bruises
17:00 Looking radiant
18:00 Funeral dress
19:00 Lesbian, post nup and Elon Musk
21:00 Being convicted of a crime on the balance of probabilities
22:00 Amber Heard attacked her ex-wife at Seattle Airport.
23:00 Arresting officer accused of homophobia was a lesbian.
24:00
27:00 Accidentally headbutting Amber Heard
Cable Guy
34:00 Justice Nicol
34:00 Homeland Security
37:00 Counterclaim
38:00 Worth $9M
42:00 Not all witnesses called.
44:00 Balance of probabilities
45:00 Amber's Angels
46:00 Brian McPhearson - Incredibly Average
48:00 Warner Brothers
49:00 Not marrying again
50:00 Boot on foot
53:00 Restraining order on account of an alleged bruise
54:00 Isaac Farouk
55:00 Eastern Columbia Building
56:00 Penthouse
57:00 20 feet away from her
58:00 Justice for men
59:00 Extortion letters
1:01:00 Bruise on the side of her face
1:01:00 Face needs to be prepped with moisturiser and primer for the lights
1:04:00 Hearsay
1:05:00 No new evidence for the appeal.
1:07:00 Stephen Lawrence's murderers were not convicted.
1:08:00 The balance of probabilities and the criminal standard of proof
1:09:00 Amber Heard head in chambers.
1:10:00 Jury at Virginia trial
1:11:00 Sally Bercow's tweet about Lord McAlpine
1:16:00 Meghan and Harry
1:19:00 The Royal Wedding
1:20:00 Blackmail
1:21:00 Justice Nicol
1:26:00 Elon Musk
1:27:00 Polyamory
1:28:00 Interior decorator
1:29:00 James Murdoch
1:30:00 Warners Brothers
1:31:00 Fantastic Beasts
1:32:00 James Bond
1:33:00 Piers Brosnan
1:34:00 The Joker
1:37:00 Dumb, fat and washed up
1:37:00 The principle of the thing
1:39:00 Mirroring your prey
1:41:00 Domestic violence in 2009
1:43:00 Marriage contract and a Friend of the Marriage and an Arbitrator of Matrimonial Disputes
1:44:00 Renegotiating the marriage contract and voluntary varying its terms
1:46:00 The abolition of no fault divorce
1:48:00 "his usual shy self"
1:50:00 Not a gold digger because she gave $7M to charity. apparently
1:52:00 Liar
1:55:00 Emails
1:57:00 Losing the job at Warners Brothers would make it more likely for his appeal to succeed.
Amber Heard reportedly had a party with high-profile women
There is speculation that The Sun may be blackmailing Justice Nicol because his judgment against Depp was so perverse.
21 comments:
The judgment was not perverse. The speculation is absurd. Suggest you read the judgment.
It can't be denied that Justice Nicol convicted Depp of a criminal offence he was never charged with or tried for, let alone convicted of, because he believed a beautiful woman over that of the claimant, a middle aged man. That's British "justice" for you. I can't understand why any married man would approve of this. If Depp with all his fame and fortune cannot get justice in British courts, the rest of us should be very very afraid indeed.
You have not read the judgment and do not understand and the law. There was a small army of witnesses corroborating Heard’s account of events along with violent and vile material emanating from Depp
Was this "small army of witnesses corroborating Heard's account of events" members of her entourage?
I notice you didn't say violent and vile *behaviour*.
May I suggest that rather than demonstrating ignorance and poor judgment you first read the judgment and then set out why you think it’s wrong. Then you can wait to see if the Court of Appeal agree with you.
I have already told you what I think is wrong with the judgement: because for perverse reasons Justice Nicol decided to ignore all of Depp's evidence to convict him of a crime he was never charged with. Do you deny that this was the effect of the judgement against Depp?
Until you have read the judgment you views at of no interest to me - or I suspect- anyone else.
My understanding is this:
1. Depp sued Heard for libel.
2. Libel can be justified by truth.
3. In English law, a man has a right to be treated as innocent until found guilty after a fair trial.
4. Depp was found guilty of a crime at the behest of an ex-wife who was a stripper before she met him, took $7M from him as a divorce settlement but, not content with this, decided to destroy her ex-husband's reputation by calling him a wife-beater in the Washington Post.
5. Justice Nicol preferred Heard's evidence to Depp who himself claimed that Heard was violent to him and supplied the court with compelling audio and photographic evidence of this.
6. You agree with Justice Nicol's decision.
I am a libel lawyer and have read the judgment. I agree with it . You can claim neither basis to opine.
You are not a lawyer. You did not attend the trial. You have not read the judgment. Your claims that you are right and the judge is wrong are therefore absurd.
So you think Depp should be convicted of a crime on the balance of probabilities and be made to suffer economic loss without redress as a result of being libelled by his ex-wife because his ex-wife's evidence was preferred to his because of #MeToo?
Unless I am mistaken...Depp wasn't convicted of anything as it wasn't a criminal trial...it was a libel case against the Sun.
I do understand that it was not a criminal trial but a libel trial. Depp claimed he ex-wife had libelled him by claiming n the Washington Post that he beat her. Obviously, any man's reputation would be damaged by being called a wife-beater. Libel can be justified by truth. Justice Nicol chose to believe his ex-wife. After Depp's claim failed, he was asked to resign by Warner Brothers. https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/johnny-depp-asked-to-resign-by-warner-bros-from-fantastic-beasts-franchise/article33046638.ece
Reputational and economic damage has been suffered by Depp on the basis of an accusation of a crime for which he was not even charged with, let alone tried for or convicted of.
I get that...but it was Depp that chose to sue the Sun for libel. His lawyers would I’m sure have warned him of the pros and cons. Chances are had he not sued none of the details of his life would have been made public. He made a choice and lost.
So you do not think Depp was libelled or you think he was but should not have sued?
The Judge heard all the evidence and has the expertise...the judgement was he was not libelled! I’m not hugely knowledgeable about libel however a lawyer who I respect wrote a great article about this case. If you cannot afford to lose then don’t sue!
Libel can be justified by truth, of course, because truth is a complete defence to libel. How do you feel about men being vulnerable to accusations of historic wife-beating and sexual offences without having the criminal standard of proof insisted upon?
1. He chose to sue for libel.
2. It was a civil not a criminal trial.
3. Since you have not read the judgment you make assertions which prove only your vanity and ignorance.
You seem to be saying Depp was not entitled to seek a legal remedy. I know it was a civil trial in which Depp was supposed to prove his innocence of a crime he was accused of while there was evidence that his ex-wife had been violent towards him on more than one occasion.
I am plainly not saying that. He was entitled to seek a remedy. A judge who knows the law and heard all the evidence was also entitled to find against him. You who are not a lawyer, has neither seen nor heard any of the evidence and has not even read this judgment have no basis to contradict the judge.
Since you have read the judgement, could you tell me the basis on which Justice Nicol preferred the evidence of Amber Heard to that of Depp?
JC, you are assuming that Claire has not read the judgement which is readily available to everyone and anyone who wishes to read, lawyer or not. Secondly, Justice Nichol disregarded much of Depp's evidence and his reasoning for this is irrational at best. Nichol stated that because Amber have testimony under oath, all she said he believed to be true. Depp's witnesses also have depositions under oath so they should not be discounted. Not to mention the fact that many of Depp's witnesses are not close friends.
Post a Comment