Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 36124292)

Good job your not involved in the case then. Personally i think he should have been give a bigger pay-out as it was proved she lied through her teeth. Shame she cannot now be tried for lying under oath.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36124262)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...anada-61633236

If you watched any of it Amber Heard was obviously lying through her teeth throughout the trail. I am happy with the result. Depp should go after Disney and Rowling now for sacking him off due to the lies

The main case was Amber Heards report that she was a victim of domestic abuse and this is where she lost
She counter sued 2 of which were ruled out 1 upheld. Heards claims basically ruined his career

Depp awarded $15 million Heard $2 million so an award of $13 million to Depp

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36124309)

So British court got it wrong . Both can't be right , must trust jury over a trained judge . After all pulling down a statue ( whom ever it is) is not criminal damage according to a British jury .:shocked:

Originally Posted by Ken W (Post 36124293)

I thought that I was being generous

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36124311)

Did this trial use evidence that wasn't applied in the UK one? The UK one was solely about what he did or didn't do, whereas this one was about both of them.
IMO the UK decision was wrong on the basis that the evidence presented wasn't known at the time of the alleged defamation.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36124309)

So British court got it wrong . Both can't be right , must trust jury over a trained judge . After all pulling down a statue ( whom ever it is) is not criminal damage according to a British jury .:shocked:

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36124315)

it is not alleged anymore

---------- Post added at 18:28 ---------- Previous post was at 18:27 ----------



I would go with a jury over a judge yes

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36124317)

My point being that they didn't know that at the time of the defamation. You can't defame somebody, and then start searching for evidence.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36124315)

it is not alleged anymore

---------- Post added at 18:28 ---------- Previous post was at 18:27 ----------



I would go with a jury over a judge yes

On your logic a biased jury would tend to side with the women wouldn't they? isn't it normally men who are vilified in such cases. The evidence presented in court left me in no doubt Heard was lying and the psychiatric reports explained why she is the way she is. A lot of the evidence was not allowed by the judge in the UK trial if it had been there may well have been a different result

End of the day the only witness Heard had to any assault was her sister and Depp had plenty of witnesses that said differently ie hotel staff who were there at the time of alleged assaults bartenders first responders and on top of that Kate Moss who basically disproved one of the lies outright

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36124334)

Frankly a US jury is made up of the "simpler" members of the community , who are easily duped . Surggest that you look at the ,can't believe I am saying this , the BBC news web site and the article about why different courts came to different conclusions ;) in the past" we" have always tried for a jury . Look at OJ Simpson :shocked: