Depp’s legal team ‘got into Heard’s credibility’
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2022
- Macedone Legal Principal Sam Macedone says Johnny Depp won his case in the US because his legal team were able to “get into Heard’s credibility”.
“Every allegation that Heard made, they seemed to have an answer for it, they seemed to be able to cross-examine her in such a way that there was some doubt,” Mr Macedone told Sky News Australia.
Mr Macedone also said he personally did not think Amber Heard’s chances at appeal were very good, citing the US court decision being on a factual basis.
“And appeal courts don’t really want to look at whether the facts are correct or not.”
He didn’t lose against Amber in UK it was the sun.. why do people keep saying that?
Exactly, and for journalists to not make that clarification is a testament to the poor journalistic integrity. If you and I know the UK trial was Depp vs the newspaper, they definitely should know that 😏
Annoying isn’t it !
Because the media keeps repeating the lie and people start parroting that lie. You see how this all works now? Just like "Trump Russian Collusion", never happened yet some brain dead ppl still think it did
@@onefabknitternz you 3 have confirmed my thoughts, I can now move on..thankyou
They don't want everyone to know that Sun won the case on the grounds of homeground 🤣
No, her poor acting and lies ruined her credibility.
poor acting? lmao , why would you act on the stand!
her evidence had no credibility , her witness had no credibility. No part of her testimony has any credibility.
She said depp raped her w a Wine bottle to which she bled, she bled from her Vagina and didnt see a doc or could produce a medical record.
So many more jnstances , and calling all the other depp's witnesses from the Cops to the Docs liars on stand? She had no case.
It didn't help her, but it was what she said and the recordings that she made that destroyed her case.
Her poor acting has ruined her whatever remains of her acting career as well
*LOOKS STRAIGHT TO THE JURY IN A CREEPY WAY*
She didn't have truth on her side only the victim card, which her team plays to infinity with the help of deranged journalists
"Believe all women" is the most dangerous creation of all time. It's time that women making false accusations get the full force of the law for destroying a man's life.
You are 100% correct
Absolutely! I’m a woman & that idea of “believe all women” is so awful! There are a lot of vicious women out there. It’s supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. And many women ruin a man’s life because of their petty, vindictive nature. It’s not right.
@@harriettezmalloy7182 Women like yourself and others that don't buy into this BS of "believe all women" are people that need to be cherished. I swear
@@1realtruthrightnow742 Thank you. I’m glad that I’ve seen so many women in support of Johnny Depp here. Abuse happens to both genders, by both genders. Men are not automatic abusers because they are men. Same as women aren’t automatically victims just cuz they’re women. I think all allegations should be taken seriously, but should be investigated to determine the facts, not just believed cuz someone said so.
@@1realtruthrightnow742 of course most women don't buy into this, why else would they have supported Johnny? Believe a victim if there's proof to believe them, and it turns out that most of the cases of domestic violence against women are done by men and both the courts and the police have been able to prove that. And this reality has nothing to with Amber being the liar, the instigator, the bully and the main abuser.
Johnny Depp is the first man that has won a fight against a woman and made her paid for it. 😜 😇
Mel Gibson basically beat Oksana Grigorieva in court. He only had to pay her a small(for him) amount of $375000 in the end.
@@colliric didn’t Paul mc cartney win also ?
@@colliric what was thst about!?
@@onefabknitternz I'm not sure!
@@joannemurdock7899 She constantly violated the settlement agreements and failed to accept the original offer of $15 million dollars.
The UK hearing was against a newspaper, totally different to what went down in the US
THIS! THIS! THIS!
Also in the UK they allow hearsay something in any court in the United States of America is NOT allowed only EVIDENCE is allowed as it should be
@@laurasuri616 they also had conflict of interest with the judges son working at the sun , or vice versa
Finally someone said the UK trial was against a newspaper, no talking head said this.
@@onefabknitternz wait the judge's sun work for sun ?? . why is no one mentioned that before toe lol
She was the one who put this in the public eye, not JD. The fact he cleared his name in the public eye was really poetic justice. We saw the trial & became the jury. He's totally innocent.
Not guilty yes. Innocent no!
@@georgesebastian6306 Innocent. Fax
Keep quiet
@@georgesebastian6306 Innocent, there is no evidence of abuse. But please, do enlighten me if you have any evidence the rest of the world isn't privy to buddy :)
@@charlethemagne5466 WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "INNOCENT" AND "NOT GUILTY"?
In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”.
Thank God this case was televised. Otherwise, we would never have known the truth, and Johnny would never have been truly vindicated.
That was very wise of him televising the trial. I also think he has a great PR advisory person or team. Look at the tiktok video post trial. That was brilliant.
This case has been a setback for LIARS everywhere! 👍 Also: the jury DID decide the case! They weren't listening to other people. Why did he say that?
Cause he is a talking head and has no idea what he is talking about
Because as always, the media lies and distorts the truth. I like Sky News Australia, but they are even guilty of false narrative and truth distortion
They're idiots
Some of Heard's fans were trying to bank on the fact that the juries weren't sequestered.
The problem is, Heard's own team DID show them millions of negative Amber Heard tweets on the court. They did that themselves and it didn't matter if they were sequestered.
✅💯
I was not a fan of Mr. Depp until the trial. Ms. Heard's testimony changed my mind.
👏
I am still not a fan, I don't 'do' fan. But I am pleased he won the case.
I too am not a great fan. Little to eccentric for me. But..... what Ms Heard has done is pretty bad. She has wayyyy hurt ALL DV's!
Sky news and the SUN are owned by the same person so don’t expect this channel to be impartial !!!! Yup …. I wouldn’t trust anything coming from this guys ….
Thanks for bringing our attention to the medias' ownership. Now we know!
The UK trial was tainted from the start because ( allegedly ) the judge was best friends with the owner of The Sun so Johnny had no chance of winning
And the judge and owner of the sun own part of Tesla. Elon Musk played a part in Depp losing in the UK trial.
The judges son works for rupert Murdoch who of course owns the Sun
Thanks for that pertinent pointer.
No surprise that Amber was with Elon then …
It was disgusting how the Judge was allowed to be on that case
The trial being televised was exactly the right thing to do. Amber publicly ruined Johnny’s reputation in the “court of public opinion”. He just got vindicated in that same “court”, and through the legal system.
In the UK, Johnny didn't sue Amber, he sued the news paper, so not the same thing. Plus why did the UK judge retired soon after the case, a bit suspicious to me.
The judges son worked for MGM Group, Rupert Murdock, The Sun newspaper. The Judge, his wife, his co-author and Amber Heard are known to each other and attended events together in England during the MGM Group v Johnny Deep trial. He had to retire with haste because it didn’t look good at all.
From what I’ve heard the judges son worked for said paper being sued!
@@myhubbyislouisvuitton4218 yeah & exactly, he knows a lot more than he's letting on.
All the media does is distort the truth
Probably one of the main reason why he wanted the case to be telivised to begin with not only will this ensure no further obvious bias stay hidden but it also brings into light certain irregularities from his case in the UK
Actually, televising the court case was the best way to expose AH's lies and to show how biased against men the mainstream media are...
They are a lot of dyed in the wool Commies aiming to destroy the white Males position in Western society using a lot of nasty women's help.
She really can't get enough
Her fans will be naive enough to donate their money to fund it.
@@neighborhoodwatch470 i think dumb is a better word.
She still hasn't learned.......Barbie's head is hollow.
If the trial had not been televised , we would have to rely on the media for information . They have been shown to be very pro Amber . The world was able to see amber on the stand and that she was not believable
Sweet, sweet justice was served!
it is hard to decipher which is the biggest liar, amber turd or the mainstream media...
Spot on!
Spot on!
Glad it was televised as some media are still believing Amber Turd so Johnny Depp won out right Johnny Depp wouldn't care about more work it was about his reputation and for his kids He has his music to go too Amber Turd has nothing ,she and her friends will have to free load off someone else 😂😂
She doesn't have the money to bankroll an appeal 😁
Her fans will fund her appeal.
@@neighborhoodwatch470
😂😂😂 Seriously??
@@lesleygurnick4050 lol yes for real. All those sloppy homely angry crazy haired chick's in court room don't even know her. Theu just worship her.
She pledge on her porn future career
@@maria.whiddon
Lol...delusional 🤣
JD insisted on it being public for good reason. He wanted the world to see the truth.
Actually, it was Judge Azcarate who allowed it to be publicized. AH's team was totally against it but JD's team welcomed it 😉
@@SweetTea742 ok wow that’s really awesome
@@SweetTea742 I wonder why she was against it! (Rhetorical)
No they didn’t. She did it ALLLLLLL herself.
Maybe JD won because AH lied?
No. He won because he was able to PROVE her actions were defamatory.
Amber's chances of appealing the decision is a big fat ZERO
The fact Amber and her vile attorneys still are making a mockery of domestic violence! As a REAL DV SURVIVOR, I am disgusted by turd and her whole team! They should be hiding under a rock after lying for six weeks straight to everyone
Elaine is now doing the talk show shuffle continuing the lies. She makes me sick
The most damaging effect on Heard's credibility was Amber Heard herself.
I thought she didn't have a right to appeal since the jury agreed that she had malicious intent.
🤔
Maybe on the quality of her legal counsel? They did really suck. There's no defense against her constant lies tho
everyone has the right to appeal.
malice is a component of defamation of a public figure that means knowledge of the falsity, or reckless disregard for the truth.
@@jaqssmith1666 not what the lawyers are saying
98% of the entire world believe she is at fault, no matter whether she gets an appeal or not that still means 98% of potential jurors will agree with the ruling
She needs to just STOP , she lied constantly and the world witnessed it all , she’s just vile the UK was a joke she perjured herself in the uk and needs to be held accountable for it , this has done nothing to stop real victims being taken seriously, she’s a liar
Fact is she thinks the public are a ship of fools.
I thought I read that she can’t appeal without putting up a substantial amount of money.
I read that too.
She will most likely borrow that money and pledge to pay it back. Or has something over someone to give her that money.
Maybe Sores with back her he seems to like anything that destroys the West's social mores and morals.
Its an appeal bond. She has to post an amount of the verdict's fine- probably 1M USD or 10%. That's fairly standard.
When is Australia gonna hold Amber to task for lying about her dogs entry
And for using glass as a weapon.
@@macmcleod1188 Cops in Australia there nothing but cowards , they walked away soon as they knew who they were..
Truth is same for anyone, man or women, who ever deserves it should receive it, no bias. You deserve this Jonny Depp
I found it incredible how tame Johnny has been through this entire thing, it's rare he actually spoke out in person about all the abuse he suffered, to him, this was more about clearing his name as an abuser, not dragging her down as one, she did that herself.
😌
He remained calm to make sure Information was out there & if he reacted a certain way, it might have given Amber & lawyers ammunition and ruin his case, which is understandable as he wanted everyone to see that he's innocent and Amber is the abuser.
@@emmahowells8334 oh yeah certainly I understand that, it's just impressive his restraint.
This is why the Waldman ruling is a massive boot in the face, it's evident that JD tried to stay out of the online public drama, he knew he would have his opportunity on the stand.
The most powerful part for me was when he was asked ''how does watching miss heards testimony make you feel''
@@ManMang0 indeed definitely impressive to say the least. Exactly it was Powerful.
I feel he thought just bringing his case to court as a man he had opened himself up to painful scrutiny it was enough to handle.
Looks like they are desperately trying for a mistrial too. Good Lord Amber just go home and move on ffs.
THIS! THIS! THIS!
Nooooo! Because then? There'll be silence. She could't stand it. Drama, drama, DRAMA is life blood.
Everyone should be heard & you shouldn’t just believe someone without cause & or proof. This is a win for all victims!!
No cause and proof? Clearly you haven't been following the case
@@inkwyvern5171 you shouldn’t believe someone without cause or proof. Not meaning if they have no proof, but only if they do. Geeze.
Delusional.
I think this case will actually make liars think twice about lying and fabricating against the innocents....for either gender. It's not about who has more clout or influence in society. This has led people to understand the importance of character, credibility and the consequences of the opposite.
This guy is not an expert. His comments are so not on par with real lawyers’ commentaries in the state. He should never have compared the UK trial to the US one because the point of contention was completely different. So disappointed in you Sky News. Should have found someone who actually knew what he was talking about rather join in spreading wrong information
he own a legal firm.
@@richardlobo88 who cares he was wrong...He doesn't know the USA legal system.
@@celestecarrera2963 true. but he got the mindset right.
That's right sometime truth hurts she lied he won by telling the whole story of truth and documented everything she had none
You might’ve seen it in Australia…once. Australians used to be fiercely outspoken and had spines, and a person wrongly accused, vilified, and cancelled, finally being vindicated after a public trial would’ve been celebrated. Getting one’s reputation back is neatly impossible after a character assassination, and after years of BELIEVE ALL ACCUSERS it is uplifting to see someone, anyone, overcome that insanity.
Juries DO NOT take notes of what other people think! At least not in America. If it weren’t televised, you’d be out of a job, but more importantly, the media openly lied and misrepresented the trial. Daily their reporting and commentary did not represent what actually happened, and millions of people noticed.
Amber is a liar. It is undeniably obvious and immediately apparent to anyone that actually listens to her claims contrasted with her actions and evidence.
Of course she's gonna appeal her net worth as approximately 2.5 million she owes around 12 million to 13 million she does not have the money to pay Johnny!!!
Perhaps Mr. Musk will rescue her again. 🤔
don't forget the $7,000,000.00 she said she already paid to charity but hasn't paid yet b/c she kept it once she received it and of course she lied saying she didn't marry Johnny Depp for money, like she didn't poop in their bed on his side.
All important court cases should be televised. Even after the verdict, many online news sites are biased and writing stuff like "AH, a victim of domestic abuse, lost her case against JD". People would ask "How could that be? The case must have been rigged". But seeing them both on the stand, including their behavior, their body language, all the details that have been brought forward by the witnesses, the questions asked by the lawyers, listening to all the audio recordings, etc. completely changes the situation. People would never have gotten all these insights, the media could just present the verdict as a misjudgment, and JD still wouldn't be vindicated. So yes, televising this case gave people the opportunity to see the real personalities and the evidence of the involved parties which is extremely important for the court of public opinion. Had the trial not been shown on TV, production companies and movie studios might say "OK, Johnny officially won the case, but who knows what went on in that court room? Maybe he did what he was accused of nonetheless", and his career would still be destroyed forever.
Exactly! Well said.
And the media did try to spin what happened in the court room. So anyone who wasn’t watching the trail saw AH friendly headlines! That’s exactly the reason JD fought for the cameras. So glad he did!!
If she appeal’s not only is she not afraid de herself. She claims she is getting death threats. Really Amber??? Just get your daughter and keep your head down until it fades away. People hate you
Given the way she abused her sister, I fear of Mommy Dearest situation with her daughter. I hope CPS keeps an eye on the situation.
JD lost in the UK because he sued the newspaper and he couldn't prove the newspaper was at fault but he won in the US because he sued Amber directly
Amber has lied repeatedly.
She should have accepted that she alerted TMZ and about unpaid donation. She lied about those things even though it's literally obvious she was lying 🤥. Things like that made the jurors hard to beleive anything she says about the actual abuse.
Only two of the many many ...ms/dus information
The UK case was heavily based on AH’s credibility and the unsubstantiated belief that she had donated the $7M. In the US, JD’s team were able to query it. Dr Curry’s evaluation was supported by AH’s own actions and I’m glad the trial was conducted in an open court so that the evidence could be shared and her lies and instability could be exposed. AH’s lies have made it harder for women. JD’s willingness to let the world see his flaws and vulnerability in order to get to the truth now makes it a little easier for men, women and other orientations who experience DV, etc, to be believed.
Yes, indeed. Well said!
All I have to say is THANK GOD it was televised. It was great watching something without the corrupt media narrative spin
Hopefully the court just denies her a frivolous appeal based on the facts.
They will bribe a Judge
I believe that is what's going to happen.
I also read a legal document somewhere that indicates it was the JUDGE who permitted this case to be televised due to the media interest. She said yes to only one stream for all media services. JD did not oppose the motion. AH did oppose the motion. I think we all know why!!!!!!
Domestic abuse and harassment against men has been ignored for too long which is why this case matters. 🤔 I guess this would only happen in the states, thanks for acknowledging that 😆.
When you start prosecuting the tyrants for taking away human rights during covid lockdowns, then some legal expert from Australia might have something worth listening to.
Our legal system in America works well. This is a defamation case which is based on a person's reputation having been damaged in the community. The televising of the trial was in effect a public review of the facts which would help to re-establish that person's reputation in the community, or be a confirmation of the accusations of the accuser. Televising the trial did more to give Johnny Depp his life back, then any amount of money would.
This "expert" person commenting on the case has NFI what the UK case was about with these answers he's spouting. UK case was not about whether JD was guilty of DV. It was whether The Sun Newspaper believed AH when she spouted "HER truth", which led them to publish the Op-ed, which is very different to "THE truth". This USA case was whether JD was guilty of abusing AH which led to the Op-ed, and AH was found guilty of acting with malice and defamation. Thank God this case was televised to the masses or we'd still only be hearing MSM biased reporting.
Yes and doesn't it sicken one to know it is possibly the opinion of just two people the owner of the news outlet and the editor why do so many people think the news outlets are untouchable? Making two men accountable for their words cannot be that hard can it? Oh yes of course but then it depends on just who is the power behind them? Sad but true.
Narcissism is one hell of a drug
The jury is strictly forbidden from any information outside the walls of the courtroom. Generally, jurors take their duty VERY seriously, will tell on each other for breaking the rules, and to call that into question isn't on. In fact, it's highly insulting to the entire legal system.
She published an OP-ed to get attention and severely damage Johnny's reputation. So, yes, this case was rightfully publicized.
Yes probably because she discovered without Depp no body was even interested in her, so she decided to go all out Miss do goody two shoes and the ME TOO movement was her best bet.
Men need protecting against false claims which ruin their lives. It is well know lawyers advise divorce clients to make false claims against their husbands as a SOP.
So she is lying again. I remember AH saying she just wanted to get on with her life!
It was televised because in Virginia its a allowed, he wanted the world to see it so they see it all good or bad and for his name to be cleared and get his reputation back. If this was not televised and won, he would not be allowed back to do work due to public opinion and not knowing what truths were uncovered
I understand Washington post HQ in Virginia?
His being accused and judged by her lies was World Wide it's only right his vindication be World Wide.b
I know it seems weird that the trial was televised, however now Ambers lawyers can’t say the judge was on Johnny’s side or she didn’t do her job properly because we have evidence of the whole trial 😌 it was a smart move on the judges part
The press shifted the narrative in Amber's favor ! Even after she lost and was very unpopular!
Imagine if we hadn't see her atrociously lie!
I listened to the whole trial. Heard is seriously disturbed. She was shown to be a liar. She even contradicted her own testimony.
This case did an amazing service for victims of DV. I am so glad that a man who was a victim of DV had his day in court and WON. Not because he was a man, but in spite of being a man....justice is blind.
In the US, court cases are consider open to the public so that everyone can see the process being done properly. Very rarely do they make the cases closed door sessions. For a long time, many higher profile cases they keep media from filming in the court, but since there has been a surge in showing recorded media (police cam on dash board, body cam on officers) and many courts had to go virtual during lock down, more high profile cases are being available online for all to see
The reason why Johnny wanted cameras in the courtroom was so that the media did not twist things that the public did not see so there was no lies on what happened
It was the Judge actually.
Australia likes to inject its own opinion on American justice. Note to jurors, that you are not able to make an independent judgment.
This was a civil defamation suit. Not a trial with freedoms hanging in the balance.
She said the why I wrote it because of johnny and power men. So she lose how you can't believe that.
I disagree..if this trial was not televised we would have never knew the truth .
This trial is not about social media or Johnny's fans, it's about Amber's deceptive claims.
They didn't just get into it, they absolutely gutted her credibility. ☠️ ☠️
Macedone failed to mention many things regarding why Johnny lost the UK trial, Sky News Australia. I'll explain...
The UK trial was NOT again Amber, it was against The Sun newspaper and Amber was just a witness. Because Amber was a witness, Johnny was not able to used much of the evidence he accumulated at that time. On top of that, Judge Nichol, the judge that was involved in the case, stepped above and beyond reasons to shunt Johnny from supplying key witnesses and evidence to the case. Nichol based the victory to The Sun by saying Amber couldn't have been a Gold digger and henous to the numerous crimes she claimed against Johnny because she donated the money to the charities. Nichol mentioned this as the "core pillar" of his entire Verdict Breakdown. It's funny he failed to mention the fact that he BLOCKED JOhnny from providing key evidence that proved Amber did not donated the money, the same key evidence that we all saw in the Virginia trial.
Another key pillar for the verdict in favour of The Sun was Judge Nichol putting all his eggs in believing Josh Drew, Amber's friend. He believed EVERYTHING he said as opposed from the LAPD that the Nichol BLOCKED from testifying (how insane is that, he believe Amber's friend as oppose from Law Enforcement?). Funny how Josh Drew had his deposition testimony COMPLETELY DEBUNKED via ONE SINGLE PHOTO that was taken on the 28th May 2016, proving that he conspired the entire hoax with Amber and lied throughout he deposition. All that evidence and tons more were all blocked by Judge Nichol. But wait! There's more! The icing on the cake is that Judge Nichol's son worked in a company that belongs to Ruperb Murdock (The Sun Newspaper also belong to Rupert Mordock). Lastly, another icing on the cake is Judge Nichol's wife had a dinner party with Amber and her lawyers before the case. This all points to the fact that Judge Nichol should have recused himself from the case as he was incredibly biased, but he didn't do that. He didn't do that and ended up running and judging a trial with a non-sensical verdict that Judge Penny (the viriginia judge) officially stated that Johnny didn't not get a fair trial in the UK (the cherry on top of the cake).
These are all the essential things Macedone failed to mentioned to make everyone understand that Johnny's UK trial was DoA for it wasn't difficult to win, it was IMPOSSIBLE to win.
That's the full story, Sky News Australia. I hope you all and everyone that read s this point fully understands now why Amber couldn't use the UK case in the Virginia trial.
Televising a trial makes it far more transparent to the public, unlike main stream media reporting on the trial with a predetermined narrative. Just imagine what stories we would have heard about the Depp/Heard trial if it was not televised.
People seem to think she’ll get a new trial because she’s appealing.
I think the appeal is for what they consider incorrect rulings by the judge. Heard testified that she turned over everything and her lawyers didn’t put it into evidence.
Who’s fault is that ?
Remember this is the legal team that objected to their own question 🤔.
To call what he did a "domestic violence claim" is giving her way too much credit. Lets try instead BLATANT OBVIOUS PROVEN LIES!!!!!
I'm glad it was televised so that we could all see her lies.
This finding may have a positive affect on men who are abused to come forward. Furthermore, trials in the USA are supposed to be public. Our Fore Fathers did not not want secretive courts. Hence, about half of the original ten Amendments to the US Constitution dictate what the government CAN NOT do when it comes to courts and trials because individual freedoms have more value than the Crown.
I heard she is such a lousy actress she couldn't play herself in a movie about this trial! 🤣
The reason it was televised was because of the UK trial. Johnny wanted his voice heard because of the corrupt judge in the UK. He deserved to have his point heard.
Heard tried to lump JD with the recent high profile trials of abusers but her lying was caught out left right and center.
you mean JDs lawyers caught her lies and how dare they do that? they should of believed everything that came out of her mouth oooooo ok! Lol
Is that what truth and evidence does? Just curious if that’s how it works. When one lies and tries to destroy some one. I mean seems like a political play book. Whistles.
Read the letter addressed to Amber's sister Whitney from her great friend Jennifer Howell and you'll be in no doubt that Amber is the abuser. According to the letter, Whitney told people in Jennifer's office, including Jennifer, that it was Amber who tried to push Whitney down the stairs - not Johnny who tried to push Amber - and that it was Amber who cut Johnny's finger off. These two sisters are trying to fleece Johnny for all he has with nothing but lies.
Johnny knew exactly what he was doing by getting this trial televised. He knew she be caught in so many lies, that honestly I can't believe a single thing that comes out of her mouth now. I really didn't know much about Amber at all before this trial, but this woman is a piece of work. Her career is over, and the damage is done. She will most likely work again, but not in any big blockbuster type movies. Maybe lesser films and independent films perhaps, but there were SO......many things that she lied about that anyone could see it. If she is in Aquaman II even a second, I'm not going to see it in the theatre.
🤣🤣🤣
If it was not televised she could have continued spewing her lies and the media would have put their bias spin on it like they have been doing for the past 6/7 years now and JD would not have his justice. This woman is deplorable for what she did to JD and she needed to be called out on it so justice finally was done
Truth and therefore credibility now become the most important issues in domestic violence, as it should be in all matters. What a brilliant result!
she was never credible - even from the beginning. The man's ex' partners spoke highly of him. She has arrogance stamped in her forehead, the way she talk, tilting her head chin forward and always seem to look down on someone, the facial expressions. The creepy switching of moods in old interviews - why people believed her is always gonna puzzle me
"Speak up and you'll be heard!" The irony of that statement.
Absolutely incorrect about people being allowed to see the trial. We all know that the media doesn’t tell us the truth. This way, we got to watch and decide for ourselves
One thing this nice gentleman forgot to mention was that Heard was only a witness in UK. Depp team wasn't allowed to challenge her on her evidence. She also wasn't subject to any discovery rule.
Depp also wasn't allowed to show all his evidence in UK since the case wasn't against Heard.
Her being defendant at VA meant she was obligated to turn over evidence for proper reviews & examination.
She presented same evidence in US as she did in UK. JD on the other hand brought far more evidence in US, experts, doctor & nurses notes, & far more eye witnesses.
Bottom line, Sun in UK had far more advantage b/c all they needed was for a Judge to believe in AH'S words w/o them having to worry abt JD'S lawyers challenging it much.
if it wasn't televised, Amber could claim whatever she wanted afterwards about how everyone was so unfair and how great her evidence was. She can't wiggle out of it because we all saw it
If the case wasn't public the world wouldn't know why Johnny won and Amber's lies would still ring truer today than they do now.
One of the jurors is making comments and answering questions.
Well worth a look.
The jury had her sussed early in the trial.
In the UK a lot of evidence from JD was suppressed.
This was made public so that it was transparent, if everyone sees what is happening in the court than nobody can deny the facts and evidence or lack of evidence
Justice was served.
The case in the UK was against the sun newspaper of which Amber Heard was a Witness. So ultimately two different lawsuits that people keep on confusing.
We need a retrial in the UK. Or at least a legal reform for these cases in the UK.
Amber does not understand she's digging a big hole that will trap her
No there’s actually really good reason why we put our trials on TV. It’s for public transparency we have a right to see the trial process. Trials are public record otherwise the media controls the narrative you should know that Australia is no stranger to that concept.
Excellent legal expert! This guy was directly on point. Overturning jury verdicts, on factual determinations, are extremely rare. Heard is appealing because her insurance company is paying the legal bills and she might lower the judgment by doing so in exchange for her dropping the appeal. If she loses the appeal, she could wind up having to reimburse her insurance company for her legal fees that were paid, because of its intentional acts exclusion in its policy.
the UK trial was very different.
also, I'm glad the U.S. trial was televised. JOHNNY had the right to show the world exactly what was going on. and jury isn't supposed to pay attention to outside influences so that's no excuse to not televise it.
She’s not a victim!
When you tell fibs? C'mon, just say it. Lies. When you tell LIES.
Amber alert ⚠️
There's a turd in the bed