This months Trial of the Century Depp v Heard

[Nicole44 22069]

16 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

I find it weird and sad that some many people just keep dunking on a mentally ill woman. I get it, she's a horrible person, but like so many other horrible persons, she's likely had some awful shit happen in her past that partly made her that way.

We would all recoil at a "retard joke", but let's just clown on the mentally unstable lady religitating a divorce ending a messy, unstable, unhealthy partnership for the lulz. Over and over. Yeah she's mentally ill and acts like it. But she's weird, an addict and just crazy enough to be funny without it being clearly so fucked up to be sad. What if she shit the bed then cut her self? Or was so crazy she saved 40 turds and dropped them all at once. Or covered her self in shit in the courtroom? (Settle down scat fans) Her down fall is she isn't quite crazy enough to generate any empathy. Why is that?

(Nicole you post like you have unresolved anger towards a similarly ill past partner. I hope you find healing and compassion. Or simply letting things go.)

Hyperbole Horns in full effect.

Well I do have unresolved anger about the fact my AC is out. So you got me there. Calling me out by name makes me think you know me? If not, my apologies. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Nicole44

[Deej 76847]

Doesn't everyone here call you Nicole? Your username does have Nicole in it. Plus, we all know you a bit more after your post yesterday. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

8 minutes ago, Deej said:

Plus, we all know you a bit more after your post yesterday. 

Did I miss pics?

[Deej 76847]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Did I miss pics?

[BabaYaga 15302]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Did I miss pics?

[JesusSweatDuck 17784]

7 hours ago, Born to Run said:

I find it weird and sad that some many people just keep dunking on a mentally ill woman. I get it, she's a horrible person, but like so many other horrible persons, she's likely had some awful shit happen in her past that partly made her that way.

We would all recoil at a "retard joke", but let's just clown on the mentally unstable lady religitating a divorce ending a messy, unstable, unhealthy partnership for the lulz. Over and over. Yeah she's mentally ill and acts like it. But she's weird, an addict and just crazy enough to be funny without it being clearly so fucked up to be sad. What if she shit the bed then cut her self? Or was so crazy she saved 40 turds and dropped them all at once. Or covered her self in shit in the courtroom? (Settle down scat fans) Her down fall is she isn't quite crazy enough to generate any empathy. Why is that?

(Nicole you post like you have unresolved anger towards a similarly ill past partner. I hope you find healing and compassion. Or simply letting things go.)

Hyperbole Horns in full effect.

[Bevo 13583]

12 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Did I miss pics?

Didn't everyone get a PM?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, Bevo said:

Didn't everyone get a PM?

Just the nightly one from your mom. Must have missed it.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

On 6/6/2022 at 8:10 AM, Laxtonto said:

Lead council consistently got drug for not being able to come up with a non-leading question and both her open and closing arguments were poorly done and more than anything poorly presented. She was not impressive, to say the least.

 

There's a certain kind of lawyer that does litigation, but is terrible in the courtroom.  They are very adept at pretrial motion practice and discovery and dealing with other lawyers and the court on purely legal and procedural matters.

But when it comes to actually being in court, and having to do things "on the fly" and maintain any relatability to or sympathy from the jury, they absolutely fall flat.

Because upward of 80%, and probably closer to 90-95% of civil litigation settles without trial, these lawyers can acquire success and an outsized reputation without ever having their courtroom skills tested.

Some of these lawyers are smart enough and humble enough to bring in an actually skilled advocate for the actual trial.  Many are not.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

7 hours ago, Born to Run said:

I find it weird and sad that some many people just keep dunking on a mentally ill woman. I get it, she's a horrible person, but like so many other horrible persons, she's likely had some awful shit happen in her past that partly made her that way.

We would all recoil at a "retard joke", but let's just clown on the mentally unstable lady religitating a divorce ending a messy, unstable, unhealthy partnership for the lulz. Over and over. Yeah she's mentally ill and acts like it. But she's weird, an addict and just crazy enough to be funny without it being clearly so fucked up to be sad. What if she shit the bed then cut her self? Or was so crazy she saved 40 turds and dropped them all at once. Or covered her self in shit in the courtroom? (Settle down scat fans) Her down fall is she isn't quite crazy enough to generate any empathy. Why is that?

(Nicole you post like you have unresolved anger towards a similarly ill past partner. I hope you find healing and compassion. Or simply letting things go.)

Hyperbole Horns in full effect.

Yeah, that's true.  It's a common theme on things like the Karen thread.  Most of these people don't deliberately or consciously choose to be the assholes that they are, they more or less can't help it.

But, particularly with the wealthy and privileged, they have chosen not to "see" their shortcomings and also not to seek or seriously pursue treatment, so I guess that's blameworthy.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

On 6/2/2022 at 8:59 PM, crash_davis said:

i only perused the last few pages but what i got is....wildcat is seriously objecting to the verdict and fervently defending Amber but he didn't watch the fucking trial? i've seen stupid but it's been pages of stupid. it's like debating about a book he's never read.

I'll defend wildcat a bit.

He's looking at it from the 10,000 foot view.  And that is that defamation should not lie where the defamatory allegations are true, or the person making the allegations at least believed them to be true.  And, in this case, where the public has perhaps a heightened interest in domestic abuse perpetrated by a public figure, this verdict has a chilling effect on future attempts to publish such allegations.

That doesn't require him to "stan" for Amber Heard personally.

[DigglerontheHoof 21205]

The most depressing thing about this trial is there's a 21 page thread on surly about it.  A website composed mostly of men has a 21 page thread on a soap opera. 

[Bevo 13583]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's a certain kind of lawyer that does litigation, but is terrible in the courtroom.  They are very adept at pretrial motion practice and discovery and dealing with other lawyers and the court on purely legal and procedural matters.

But when it comes to actually being in court, and having to do things "on the fly" and maintain any relatability to or sympathy from the jury, they absolutely fall flat.

Because upward of 80%, and probably closer to 90-95% of civil litigation settles without trial, these lawyers can acquire success and an outsized reputation without ever having their courtroom skills tested.

Some of these lawyers are smart enough and humble enough to bring in an actually skilled advocate for the actual trial.  Many are not.

I have a feeling that I would fall into this category. I try too hard thinking five steps ahead which then gives me some anxiety and impacts what I'm saying at the moment. It doesn't impact presentations so much but I think it would be a negative in a trial setting.

[Bevo 13583]

dp by about 2 hours

[TwiceHorn 31510]

3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I have a feeling that I would fall into this category. I try too hard thinking five steps ahead which then gives me some anxiety and impacts what I'm saying at the moment. It doesn't impact presentations so much but I think it would be a negative in a trial setting.

There is so much shit going on during a trial that if you have the slightest bit of control freak in you, it will potentially become disastrous.

A real trial lawyer is the epitome of cool under pressure and able to think on their feet.  You also have to be able to delegate and trust your co-counsel and underlings, because there is too damn much information for one person to master.

[Born to Run 6569]

Well I do have unresolved anger about the fact my AC is out. So you got me there. Calling me out by name makes me think you know me? If not, my apologies. 

I'm not calling you out in particular, you have just been extremely vocal in this thread.

[Bevo 13583]

29 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

7 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

Well I do have unresolved anger about the fact my AC is out. So you got me there. Calling me out by name makes me think you know me? If not, my apologies. 

I'm not calling you out in particular, you have just been extremely vocal in this thread.

She likes this kind of stuff.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

30 minutes ago, Bevo said:

She likes this kind of stuff.

[washparkhorn 9939]

Trial by TikTok from the BBC News:

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp's 'Trial by TikTok' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61649522

The author suggests there may be a chilling effect on victims coming forward with genuine abuse complaints. 

Frankly, I believe the judge made a mistake allowing this trial to be televised. 

[Laxtonto 12090]

19 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Trial by TikTok from the BBC News:

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp's 'Trial by TikTok' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61649522

The author suggests there may be a chilling effect on victims coming forward with genuine abuse complaints. 

Frankly, I believe the judge made a mistake allowing this trial to be televised. 

It’s funny how so many in the media think this will have a chilling effect on people coming forward when the lone person that actually has proof in this case, Depp, won in court. 

The problem is that regardless of your claims regarding abuse, proof is required in the court of law. We have seemed to gone away from that concept a bit in the media and in truth the televising of more trials would do quite a bit to help people understand what is needed to in a court of law.

The real chilling aspect isn’t the tv in the court, but AH making false claims and then having those claims shown to everyone and so people have lost faith in the “me too” cause. 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Laxtonto
Fuck you autocorrect

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Chilling effect when only the media can tell us what happens in the court rather than seeing it with our own eyes, right?

Fuck 'em.

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

Disagree. It was good for the world to see and learn from. Lots of stuff to choose from. 
 

1. if you are a real victim, go to the authorities, or a doctor, or a friend, or family. Take long videos solo, multiple photos etc etc. Document it somewhere, even if you don’t tell someone.  
 

The trial showed AH’s evidence, and they like most of the viewers determined it was fraud. 
 

2. We learned that blind belief is just as bad as disregarding an allegation. 

[Laxtonto 12090]

I do find it interesting that they are saying that instead of the standard 5% engagement rate of bots, this trial is seeing 11%,which is generally a number you see for politics not entertainment (which can be tied to all sorts of fascinating arguments  for why).

Part of it may be that public interest leads to grift and part may be that though their is an entertainment aspect of this trial, the me too aspect means there is a significant overlap with certain political leanings.
 

How much of the amplification is on Depps side vs AHs side? That is what I am more interested in. Is the Depp side the grifters and the AHs side the politically leaning bot accounts? Is it more split? Or is this purely engagement amplification due to massive user interest and therefore bots are picking up the commonly repeated hashtags to boost their account engagement numbers for future use.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Laxtonto

[washparkhorn 9939]

I am more concerned with the societal repercussions - as expressed in this journal article - and the right to a fair trial. 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20563051211021378

While online harassment is recognized as a significant problem, most scholarship focuses on descriptions of harassment and its effects. We lack explanations of why people engage in online harassment beyond simple bias or dislike. This article puts forth an explanatory model where networked harassment on social media functions as a mechanism to enforce social order. Drawing from examples of networked harassment taken from qualitative interviews with people who have experienced harassment (n = 28) and Trust & Safety workers at social platforms (n = 9), the article builds on Brady, Crockett, and Bavel’s model of moral contagion to explore how moral outrage is used to justify networked harassment on social media. In morally motivated networked harassment, a member of a social network or online community accuses a target of violating their network’s norms, triggering moral outrage. Network members send harassing messages to the target, reinforcing their adherence to the norm and signaling network membership. Frequently, harassment results in the accused self-censoring and thus regulates speech on social media. Neither platforms nor legal regulations protect against this form of harassment. This model explains why people participate in networked harassment and suggests possible interventions to decrease its prevalence.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

In morally motivated networked harassment, a member of a social network or online community accuses a target of violating their network’s norms, triggering moral outrage. Network members send harassing messages to the target, reinforcing their adherence to the norm and signaling network membership.

Weird. Seems like this hits close to home in a certain area of the Surly...

[Laxtonto 12090]

8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I am more concerned with the societal repercussions - as expressed in this journal article - and the right to a fair trial. 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20563051211021378

While online harassment is recognized as a significant problem, most scholarship focuses on descriptions of harassment and its effects. We lack explanations of why people engage in online harassment beyond simple bias or dislike. This article puts forth an explanatory model where networked harassment on social media functions as a mechanism to enforce social order. Drawing from examples of networked harassment taken from qualitative interviews with people who have experienced harassment (n = 28) and Trust & Safety workers at social platforms (n = 9), the article builds on Brady, Crockett, and Bavel’s model of moral contagion to explore how moral outrage is used to justify networked harassment on social media. In morally motivated networked harassment, a member of a social network or online community accuses a target of violating their network’s norms, triggering moral outrage. Network members send harassing messages to the target, reinforcing their adherence to the norm and signaling network membership. Frequently, harassment results in the accused self-censoring and thus regulates speech on social media. Neither platforms nor legal regulations protect against this form of harassment. This model explains why people participate in networked harassment and suggests possible interventions to decrease its prevalence.

I think a big part of this that people miss is that the triggering of outrage because of violation of social norms wasn’t triggered by the trial itself, but the testimony from within the trial and the credibility of the witnesses.

The vast majority of online engagement before the trial was pro AH, and as the trial progressed that completely flipped 180.

The public outrage isn’t that she came out against Depp, it’s that it became very clear to huge swaths of the public that her story never added up. Once her credibility was smashed, the online mobs went after her in full force.  That is the internet and how it spirals out of control and piles on. 

So is this a mob attacking some one that came out as a domestic violence survivor or is this the mob mentality that is out to shame someone that is cheapening the entire idea of domestic violence allegations and the me too movement.

It is hard to say this article is remotely close to this instance because this isn’t just a claim that is thrust into the public eye as a one off and the mob takes off with a mind of its own, but instead a legal preceding with actual evidence and testimony.

[Rimbo 25993]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll defend wildcat a bit.

He's looking at it from the 10,000 foot view.  And that is that defamation should not lie where the defamatory allegations are true, or the person making the allegations at least believed them to be true.  And, in this case, where the public has perhaps a heightened interest in domestic abuse perpetrated by a public figure, this verdict has a chilling effect on future attempts to publish such allegations.

That doesn't require him to "stan" for Amber Heard personally.

The part you said in bold. Two of the things that were proven in this case, and needed to be for Depp to win: 

1. The allegations were false.

2. Heard knew they were false when she said them.

This isn't even everything that had to be proven; reading the verdict on all six counts took ten minutes, because there were five or six things that had to be shown by each side, by each count. And then the jury was polled, and shown to have come to their decision unanimously.

So for people like you and wildcat09 to keep shitting nonsense upon your keyboards against that... Particularly when wildcat09 hadn't seen any of the trial, only read about it in pro-Heard simp pieces, you're actually contributing to the defamation. Proving Depp's case, afterwards.

So, stop being a simp. And if you're not a simp, stop reading and believing op-ed/PR pieces written by simps.

At least attempt to have an opinion based on facts and reality. And if you think you're above that shit, then do everyone a favor and stay above it by not bothering to form an opinion.

[The Dog 44067]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but Amber has to post the entire judgment against her as bond ($8.35 million) in order to appeal.

So if she can't come up with the dough then she can't appeal and all of this is PR. 

[HouTex 1887]

29 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned but Amber has to post the entire judgment against her as bond ($8.35 million) in order to appeal.

So if she can't come up with the dough then she can't appeal and all of this is PR. 

Is that unique to Virginia?  In Texas you can still appeal without a bond, it’s just that enforcement of the judgment is not stayed.  

[achooloco 1072]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll defend wildcat a bit.

He's looking at it from the 10,000 foot view. 

Except he said he didn’t watch any of it, clips or actual trial. It’s one thing to say “nah, I think y’all wrong”, and quite another to say, “I haven’t looked at all what y’all are talking about but I know you’re wrong.” And to double down on a key point that she was proven to have lied about.

And i like his viewpoints and almost all his other posts elsewhere, which makes this thread so baffling. 

[TwiceHorn 31510]

5 minutes ago, HouTex said:

Is that unique to Virginia?  In Texas you can still appeal without a bond, it’s just that enforcement of the judgment is not stayed.  

It's like Texas, optional to "supersede" execution.  https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter26.2/section8.01-676.1/

I have always wondered about the wisdom/efficacy of executing a judgment that is on appeal.  Seems like a dick move.

[HouTex 1887]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's like Texas, optional to "supersede" execution.  https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter26.2/section8.01-676.1/

I have always wondered about the wisdom/efficacy of executing a judgment that is on appeal.  Seems like a dick move.

I've advised clients that they can start collection efforts, but don't spend whatever money/property they obtain just in case they lose the appeal.  

[TwiceHorn 31510]

12 minutes ago, HouTex said:

I've advised clients that they can start collection efforts, but don't spend whatever money/property they obtain just in case they lose the appeal.  

Yeah, and if you suspect that the defendant is going to go into fraudulent transfer mode, maybe better go ahead and act.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

So for people like you and wildcat09 to keep shitting nonsense upon your keyboards against that..

I'm not shitting nonsense, asshole.

I am explaining what I take to be wildcat's view of it that isn't 100% irrational, and isn't wholly dependent on having viewed the trial in its entirety.

Juries don't always, or even often, find the absolute truth.  They do, often, do justice.

The trial proved that she lied about the abuse and a whole lot of other shit.  And that pissed off the jury.  And they may have reached their verdict on that basis, moreso than strictly adhering to the law of defamation and the public figure doctrine.

I don't agree with wildcat, in that I think the verdict was probably just.  I can see where he's coming from on the strict application of the law.

Edited June 8, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not shitting nonsense, asshole.

I am explaining what I take to be wildcat's view of it that isn't 100% irrational, and isn't wholly dependent on having viewed the trial in its entirety.

Juries don't always, or even often, find the absolute truth.  They do, often, do justice.

The trial proved that she lied about the abuse and a whole lot of other shit.  And that pissed off the jury.  And they may have reached their verdict on that basis, moreso than strictly adhering to the law of defamation and the public figure doctrine.

Yeah but wildcat was spouting off shit without even watching or knowing anything about the trial. So fuck him.

[Rimbo 25993]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not shitting nonsense, asshole.

I am explaining what I take to be wildcat's view of it that isn't 100% irrational, and isn't wholly dependent on having viewed the trial in its entirety.

Juries don't always, or even often, find the absolute truth.  They do, often, do justice.

The trial proved that she lied about the abuse and a whole lot of other shit.  And that pissed off the jury.  And they may have reached their verdict on that basis, moreso than strictly adhering to the law of defamation and the public figure doctrine.

I don't agree with wildcat, in that I think the verdict was probably just.  I can see where he's coming from on the strict application of the law.

He hadn't watched any of it. Not just "not 100%," but none. He came into this thread knowing not one thing about it, spouting off.

If you've got a point to make on your own, do it. But don't even try to defend what that guy did. Speak for yourself.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Rimbo

[TwiceHorn 31510]

10 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

He hadn't watched any of it. Not just "not 100%," but none. He came into this thread knowing not one thing about it, spouting off.

If you've got a point to make on your own, do it. But don't even try to defend what that guy did. Speak for yourself.

I've spoken for myself plenty.

Got a question, though.

Do any of you think, setting aside Amber's lies and whether it was provoked, deserved, or mutual combat, that Johnny Depp never hit Amber Heard during their relationship?  

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Do any of you think, setting aside Amber's lies and whether it was provoked, deserved, or mutual combat, that Johnny Depp never hit Amber Heard during their relationship? 

No clue. But no evidence either. No physical signs. No witnesses. Nothing. 

You'd think that if Amber was "the face of abuse" those things would be everywhere. 

[Rimbo 25993]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I've spoken for myself plenty.

Got a question, though.

Do any of you think, setting aside Amber's lies and whether it was provoked, deserved, or mutual combat, that Johnny Depp never hit Amber Heard during their relationship?  

I think they both hit each other.

But I don't know shit.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Rimbo

[BabaYaga 15302]

13 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I think they both hit each other.

Can anyone find a picture of JD when he's NOT wearing a scarf, mascara, and most importantly large rings on almost every finger?  Those are going to leave a mark unless the conversation is about getting slapped....which is it not.  

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

TwiceHorn: Did Johnny physically abuse Heard?
 

 

No doubt Amber physically abused Depp. She’s on tape admitting to doing so. Saying her “hits” weren’t punches etc. she admitted it. She almost fully admitted to costing Depp his finger tip and on her own recordings, she doesn’t deny it when Depp accuses her of it. 
 

I have no evidence of Depp being physically abusive to her. Verbally? Psychologically? Absolutely. Her evidence of 20 punches to the face with five rings on, or the pinning her down on her face with two knees and his full weight on her back, are nonexistent. In both instances she is professionally photographed within 24 with no visible injuries (backless dress etc). 
 

With as much abuse as she claimed, and as much secret video recording footage as she created, the complete lack of evidence is telling. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by ChickenSandwich

[TwiceHorn 31510]

13 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I have no evidence of Depp being physically abusive to her. Verbally? Psychologically?

Well, that is sufficient "abuse" to make her statements in the op-ed literally true.  And, even if you narrow the definition of abuse to something physical, or unprovoked, then the malice (believed to be abuse) prong of the public figure doctrine probably takes care of that, and voila, no defamation.

That is, I believe, wildcat's point.  

That said, I think in the grand scheme of things, the verdict is just.  They're both pretty sick fucks, apparently, and Amber is more malignantly sick than Johnny.  Juries are damned good at determining who gets the white hat and who gets the black hat, even when both of them probably deserve black hats.  They're not always great at finding absolute truth or strictly following the law.

Edited June 8, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Horn80 6131]

Has anyone in the media asked the judge in England if he realizes he’s a fucking fool for believing AH’s lies?

[TwiceHorn 31510]

3 hours ago, Horn80 said:

Has anyone in the media asked the judge in England if he realizes he’s a fucking fool for believing AH’s lies?

One thing, I quite imagine that the theatrical aspects of the UK trial, without a jury, were completely minimized.

And that means Amber didn't try to put on a show, and she wasn't subjected to withering cross-examination.

I posted the opinion, above, and the judge did seem quite credulous of most aspects of her story.

 

[Born to Run 6569]

Well, that is sufficient "abuse" to make her statements in the op-ed literally true.  And, even if you narrow the definition of abuse to something physical, or unprovoked, then the malice (believed to be abuse) prong of the public figure doctrine probably takes care of that, and voila, no defamation.
That is, I believe, wildcat's point.  
That said, I think in the grand scheme of things, the verdict is just.  They're both pretty sick fucks, apparently, and Amber is more malignantly sick than Johnny.  Juries are damned good at determining who gets the white hat and who gets the black hat, even when both of them probably deserve black hats.  They're not always great at finding absolute truth or strictly following the law.

Great take. That's about where I land on the matter. Jury by peer is inherently imperfect, as it requires humans, all we can do is try to make it as fair as possible. (Problem is, humans are in charge of correcting flaws in the system and we Are part of the problem we need to fix)

[The Dog 44067]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing, I quite imagine that the theatrical aspects of the UK trial, without a jury, were completely minimized.

And that means Amber didn't try to put on a show, and she wasn't subjected to withering cross-examination.

I posted the opinion, above, and the judge did seem quite credulous of most aspects of her story.

 

My understanding is that there was a significant conflict of interest situation with that judge in the UK (in favor of Amber).

[TwiceHorn 31510]

7 minutes ago, The Dog said:

My understanding is that there was a significant conflict of interest situation with that judge in the UK (in favor of Amber).

I hadn't seen that.

One very salient point is that Amber was not the defendant in that case, The Sun was.  And the conflict is that Justice Nichol's son is apparently a reporter for The Sun.

But, with a publication as the defendant, the credibility of Heard is less an issue than with her as the defendant.  And, even though the UK doesn't have the public figure doctrine, publications are still mostly entitled to take her word for it.

[The Dog 44067]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I hadn't seen that.

One very salient point is that Amber was not the defendant in that case, The Sun was.  And the conflict is that Justice Nichol's son is apparently a reporter for The Sun.

But, with a publication as the defendant, the credibility of Heard is less an issue than with her as the defendant.  And, even though the UK doesn't have the public figure doctrine, publications are still mostly entitled to take her word for it.

Yup that's what I was talking about (conflict of interest in favor of the Sun not Amber - I misspoke there). 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Seems as good a place as any to put the most outrageous exception to the "undefeated" trope I know...Houston Press dd this story and this this rouble couple. Dede had ben to jail about three times for DV but they kept getting bac together. And once more things reached a head.

"Oh honey," the woman said. Its too bad you don't have  tape recorder. Because You know hat I am m going to do. I am going to bet myself up, clll he cops, and ell them you did it, again, just like all those other times before."

She went on to relate her ways in clssic Bond Villian style. More details of her prior escapades. How she had his nuts in a vise, again, and how it would always be this way. I think she he even paused to cackle maniacally once or twice.

Nevertheless, the dude split. And she did just like she said. She prepared another sob story and beat her own ass.

But this time, the dude had taped the whole thing. All of it. 

Defeated.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

she wasn't subjected to withering cross-examination.

She wasn't in this trial either. If nothing else came out of this trial, it showed what an absolute horrible actress she is.