How is it his fault, if he doesn't want to be, if he isn't, falsely accused of being a wife beater?
Because he hit her. There is enough evidence that a judge confirmed that a newspaper can call him a wife beater in 12 out of 14 presented incidents. That's the issue that some want to ignore. He did it and then asked a judge to confirm he did it and the judge did.
Tell me where there is a judge saying Heard abused Depp? We have a judge saying Depp abused Heard, which is why he was fired. So many want to talk about the legal system and proof. We Depp got that, and that is why he is out of a job. Maybe Heard will be as well, but it would be a bad look to fire a battered woman. Which is what Depp got a judge to say she is.
What does most of the bottom part have to do with anything, in the situation? I didn't accuse Johnny Depp, here, of being a saint or even a great guy, or even a classy guy, a good husband, a good dad, etc. But there's a fine line between that and wife beater. And there's also a fine line between he hit her and he is a wife beater. I don't know all the details of this situation, but in a hypothetical situation: A woman is hitting a man, and a man hits back. Does that make him a wife beater and does that mean he'd want to be, if he isn't, falsely accused of being one?Because he hit her. There is enough evidence that a judge confirmed that a newspaper can call him a wife beater in 12 out of 14 presented incidents. That's the issue that some want to ignore. He did it and then asked a judge to confirm he did it and the judge did.
But for some reason, the guy who blew off a decade plus relationship with a woman he had kids with and kept him sober by having an affair, to have his little midlife crisis that involved all the alcohol and drugs and has a judge telling us he most likely abused his wife, is getting the MRA treatment by a lot of people on the interwebs.
Unfortunate to see him go, I love his Grindelwald; mysterious, persuasive, charismatic and enigmatic.
I waited for his interaction with Dumbledore and their legendary duel, but, oh well.
Besides reshoot of ZSJL, there is a possibility that Amber won't reprise her role. During trial, it was alluded that Amber lost her role.
I won't repeat my other findings again (I wrote them before), but it seems that she was either gone or at least her contract is not yet renewed.
- - - - -
I also won't repeat why I'm baffled with J. Nicol's judgement. Let's say that I followed the trial, read the court documents and the judgement itself (100+ pages) to arrive at where I stand now. But again, my memory is pretty weak.
If you're interested with the case, or super duper bored like I was, you can find the docs in here:
https://www.nickwallis.com/depp-trial
If you're want to see some abridged analysis of the judgement from a lawyer, you can watch this.
She also analyzed the trial, step by step, in her other videos.
If you think that she seems to pro Depp, yes she is now. But from what I've seen, her view at explaining things is neutral and evidence-based. She even confessed that she actually believed in Amber in the beginning up until she actually follow the case and the trial ---> which is basically my own experience. Plus, she's amazing talker and can convey well to laymen.
I don't think I need to cited other lawyer (who was also baffled) because he's anonymous and his whole analysis is a very law heavy, e.g. 'Re H & McCann Manchester', 'Bokhova', 'stricter approach', 'law on burdens of proof is destabilized as a consequence' etc and whatnot. Bless him, I learned a lot and all, but my weak brain just went cripple by that to make a summary out of them.
I don't think 'Depp played himself'. He wants to clear his name with evidence. If I was him, I won't go to the court because I'm too chicken, no matter how innocent I am. He believe in his innocence, The Judge is different. Remember, this is a civil law trial (libel), not a criminal, and a civil law judge can't convict a person in area outside of his expertise.
There's still appeal (which involve grounds, usually like: mistake of law, bias, incorrect process, overreach, misapprehension of evidence, misapplied or ignored the relevant authorities, mistake of fact, unjust outcome, etc depending on what his team think will fit and what route will they take. Again, bless the anonymous lawyer) and the Virginial trial next year.
Also, I don't buy 'conflict of interest' theory yet. I do have some thoughts about this (too long), but let's say that I don't see anything damning yet especially for grounds to appeal. For me right now, they're still conspiracy theories.
Oh, it varied. I saw people who liked him and people who don't. Normal stuff. I happened to be in the first group.
Because that is the case as presented. That Depp is some sort of gentle soul, caught up by a evil woman who beat him up all the time. That is the case as presented in court by Depp and his attorneys. They actually tried to argue for a hot second, he doesn't abuse substances. My point of course is, he is a liar, so why believe him on this one subject? Don't believe Heard, fine. Why believe him? Even his evidence is given a privilege of being unimpeachable, while hers is treated as impossible to believe. Both of them are liars though, so why?
Unfortunate to see him go, I love his Grindelwald; mysterious, persuasive, charismatic and enigmatic.
I waited for his interaction with Dumbledore and their legendary duel, but, oh well.
Besides reshoot of ZSJL, there is a possibility that Amber won't reprise her role. During trial, it was alluded that Amber lost her role.
I won't repeat my other findings again (I wrote them before), but it seems that she was either gone or at least her contract is not yet renewed.
- - - - -
I also won't repeat why I'm baffled with J. Nicol's judgement. Let's say that I followed the trial, read the court documents and the judgement itself (100+ pages) to arrive at where I stand now. But again, my memory is pretty weak.
If you're interested with the case, or super duper bored like I was, you can find the docs in here:
https://www.nickwallis.com/depp-trial
If you're want to see some abridged analysis of the judgement from a lawyer, you can watch this.
She also analyzed the trial, step by step, in her other videos.
If you think that she seems to pro Depp, yes she is now. But from what I've seen, her view at explaining things is neutral and evidence-based. She even confessed that she actually believed in Amber in the beginning up until she actually follow the case and the trial ---> which is basically my own experience. Plus, she's amazing talker and can convey well to laymen.
I don't think I need to cited other lawyer (who was also baffled) because he's anonymous and his whole analysis is a very law heavy, e.g. 'Re H & McCann Manchester', 'Bokhova', 'stricter approach', 'law on burdens of proof is destabilized as a consequence' etc and whatnot. Bless him, I learned a lot and all, but my weak brain just went cripple by that to make a summary out of them.
I don't think 'Depp played himself'. He wants to clear his name with evidence. If I was him, I won't go to the court because I'm too chicken, no matter how innocent I am. He believe in his innocence, The Judge is different. Remember, this is a civil law trial (libel), not a criminal, and a civil law judge can't convict a person in area outside of his expertise.
There's still appeal (which involve grounds, usually like: mistake of law, bias, incorrect process, overreach, misapprehension of evidence, misapplied or ignored the relevant authorities, mistake of fact, unjust outcome, etc depending on what his team think will fit and what route will they take. Again, bless the anonymous lawyer) and the Virginial trial next year.
Also, I don't buy 'conflict of interest' theory yet. I do have some thoughts about this (too long), but let's say that I don't see anything damning yet especially for grounds to appeal. For me right now, they're still conspiracy theories.
I'm not talking about that though. I'm not speaking on, automatically believing either side, as a whole. I'm speaking on the idea that if he isn't a wife beater, why is it his fault for not wanting to be called one? I'm a Christian, and as a Christian, I understand that I don't have the right to state guilt. I may have a bias, but that doesn't mean that bias is fact.
I do not believe either side as a whole, nor have I said that during this current discussion. I am talking about the fundamental realities of the situation. Depp asked a court to decide is his guilt or innocence by the legal standard set out in civil court. That is what the lawsuit basically boiled down to him asking whether a judge believed he is a wife beater or not. The judge, who knows more about this case then any individual here or on the internet, said yes, there was enough merit to calling Johnny Depp a wife beater.
Without taking any sides, even if we were to look at this whole case logically, we have to ask a few questions, which will indicate who was using all the available resources to gain upper hand in the case.
Both of these things are his fault.
