I am so shocked that a lawyer in the UK is okay with evidence being kept out of the trial and a judge can just say I believe her more, I don't care to see all the evidence. And bases his judgment on the statements of only one of them because he likes her better ???
@@3_times_mum520 watch the whole thing. the uk judge, their system, posted a 129 page judgement document on why he came to the decision, which is opposite to the US jury system, where it was only the amount and the a 'yes or no' to the contentious points.
The British court got it wrong! Johnny won in USA case because he got to tell his side where in the UK he wasn’t allowed to, that is the only reason she won in the UK! Australia
It was the correct decision in regard to the paper not being the party that defamed JD. They reported ‘true statements’ made by AH and her cohorts. Those ‘true statements’ where made under oath. So AH and cohorts actually have lied under oath, that is what helped establish JD’s case in the US. She didn’t win. It was the paper for printing statements from sources.
@@debasishmondal8180 It drives me crazy that not only do so many people think "Amber won" in the UK, but it seems like her lawyers are trying to spin that narrative as well.
JD must surely be a man of strong character. He was able to bare the pain of showing his own faults and frailties in order to get justice and show the world what kind of individual AH really is.
Some analysts have suggested that he protected himself by adopting parts of a character to insulate himself from transparency. But, they also emphasize that this might be a natural coping mechanism, and you can still tell if he's being honest through it. I just thought it was interesting how he protected himself.
@@steggopotamus I found it interesting how amber Heard denied any mistakes. She held absolutely no accountability for anything. It was always someone else's fault never hers.
@@icequeen6512 yep, super triggering for me. Part of why I'm obsessed with the case even still. Because it's reassuring to see so many people understand and provide their takes on her. Helps me not feel so unsure about my boundaries
Absolutely!!! I was in a DV refuge against my ex, I had to leave my house, my car all his belongings whilst 20 weeks pregnant...... He didn't even get arrested 3 years later and another incident it went to court, and he got 6 months restraining order and £50 fine . That's it!!
@kyle that does not mean now that Australia has to have the exact same system as in the UK. Systems across the world more often that not have similarities and differences. Just because someone lives in Australia doesn't mean their system would be Identical
@@benzamg32m68 I thought there would some differences across the world. Anyways whatever the system there are always flaws unless it's regularly overhauled. Think cameras in court are a bad idea though... In my opinion
In the verdict the UK judge writes that Amber didn´t have and reason to lie because she donated the money to charity. The facts about the donation was supressed in the trial. He also writes that he chose to not put any weight on the audiorecordings. The man just didn´t care about any evidence.
As people have already found out, the judge was connected with the defendant (which is disgustingly inappropriate) and the media and some people seem to forget that it was not "Depp vs Heard" but "Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd.". The judge's son may not be an employee of The Sun but he was still part of the organization since he was with TalkRADIO which was also owned by murdoch. Anyhoo, sorry for sounding like a tin foil wearing conspiracy theorist but just wanted to add more to my agreement with your statement. Have a good day.
Still denied an appeal despite accounting for that fact . Let’s face it ....Judge would have understood exactly why she couldn’t have afforded to pay her pledge off by that time due to Depps harassment of expensive & ongoing litigation ....further proof he was an abuser bc he was still trying to destroy & control her, post divorce . A classic strategy employed by abusive partners . That judge had Depp’s measure 100% ... read the transcripts an 130 pg summary or details . He has been around many a block and knewDepps type and their vindictive,duplicitous vengeful tactics . Unlike the circus we witnessed in US ....what a travesty of balance and justice that zoo was . Proverbial prejudicial kangaroo court
@@djprojectus definitely a bot or Amber’s PR. Look when the account was created and all the comments. It’s a pro Amber account entirely. Tragically pathetic and sad. 😂
The UK judgement is open to question, as the 'donations' of divorce money formed part of the judge's assessment she was telling the truth. Now we know that the donations weren't made as she claimed. She demanded that JD paid the money immediately if he was to make the donation - but she had the money for 13 months on her account without paying it over before any legal action was started. The UK system is also very beneficial for the English establishment, who very often are mates of judges having gone to the same schools, and in some cases masonic lodges. The sooner this is replaced with a jury the better.
But that was raised as one of his reasons for requesting an appeal . The appeal was still denied by 2 independent appellate court judges on the grounds of preponderance of evidence . Let’s face it ....the UK Court system isn’t a circus /zoo like that of US . This recent case took that to unbelievable lengths and Amber was never given a fair chance w the trial being televised ; filled w lunatic fans both inside and outside every day for 7 long weeks . A travesty of justice and a kangaroo court . Celebrity bias and vigilante public opinion precluded a fair and balanced trial from day 1 . OJ Simpson travesty all over again
@@equatorialjourney4478 ah yes, because the absence of a camera will magically make your evidence and witnesses that you chose to bring better in the eyes of a jury of your peers.
@@equatorialjourney4478 Sorry dude, but as a survivor of domestic violence….Amber was the abuser here. We can tell when someone is an abuser because we’ve learned to recognize behavioral patterns.
The pledge will simply be viewed as over ambitious. Yet in reality she donated just under a million which is quite generous. We must look on the bright side
@@Goodzillla1066 She didn't donate anything!! Elon Musk donated part of the money in her name, and Johnny donated part of the money!! She kept all $7 million and blamed it on Johnny suing her, which was another lie because he hadn't even started it until over a year later.
As a Brazilian, I can say that I really prefer the justice system in the US, far more democratic, more just, more humble, and, for sure, has much more respect for common sense.
Supposedly someone at The Sun was the judges son, or relation in some way. I don't know how true that is but it keeps popping up. Seems like a conflict of interest but idk UK laws.
Dr Silva is absolutely right about the “attack” with a bottle scenario. It is not possible to perform that act without causing horrendous damage. Her assertions collapsed for me and she disgusted me.
Right horrendous damage but can also kill! Imagine that & didn't seek medical treatment or even tell her nurses or doctor's about it! No-one except her sister saw anything! And her story he was standing in front of her! And Amber hit him! How do you push someone down the stairs who is behind you? Interesting story! Whitney never said he pushed her niether did Amber! What was truely said Amber thought he was going to push Whitney who was behind him? All Whitney did is say well yeah she hit him & say why! Because what Amber thought! Yeah right!
I've always preceived America in a little negative manner, but this whole trial has made me admire the justice system of America. Facts matter, not what an outcome will do to society. Unlike how a handful few want to spread the outcome as a setback to gender equality and misogyny, I believe the outcome brings forth what equality actually is, men or women or any gender, all are equal and all deserve justice. Power to the DV victims, as they should come out and speak about their experiences and seek justice as Johnny did. There are manipulating people all around and in all genders, just like Amber heard we have come to see, we shouldn't let them get away with it. God bless America and the whole world.
The non-teenage non-film-buff portion of the American society are viewing the result as a disgrace. Just check the newspapers. Why do you think the AACLU is suing JD not AH for owed money? They are basically telling JD who are you to criticise your ex when she donated close to a million. Whereas your lazy drunk drugged a$$ is not capable of owning up to a few hundred thousand in fees for hard work that the ACLU did for you
There are still a lot of ways the US court can be manipulated, but yes, I learned a little about the process and found it to make quite a bit of sense.
Without the cameras people will actually think and believe Amber really broke down crying while testifying!! BUT in reality she just made the FACES but Zero tears came out. And we wouldnt have seen the quick changes in Ambers attitude as she was being questioned.
Great point!! It frustrated me to no end how news outlets reported AH crying on the stand while giving emotional testimony, when in reality, if you saw it with your own eyes, it's like you said, *zero* tears & a forced exaggerated *performance* with emotional cues & body language not in sync with authentic human emotion. She swung for the fences in attempting to give the performance of her lifetime & she missed terribly. Her words fell flat & her credibility was shot in the eyes of the jury, my own, your own & many, many others open-minded enough to consider all the evidence.
Exactly, especially with how the main stream media are trying to change the narrative. I mean, BBC uk added tears to her picture when they reported it..imagine if we didnt see it live???!!
I can’t get around the statement that the UK judge was directly connected to the people for Sun. In the US, said judge would be forced to immediately recuse himself for bias!!!
The main difference was a judge with connections to Amber before the trial ,she visited his office had dinned with his wife, their son worked with Dan Wooten, they both worked fo Murdoch, who hated J.D. after he won his phone hacking case against the sun and Murdoch. Murdoch has an axe to grind against J.D.
I'm American and I've always thought the US justice system was a little crazy and backward and all wrong. But after listening to this video and many others like it, I've come to realize that I would rather be judged by a jury of 7 to 12 people than just 1 judge who could be biased. The judge in the UK was biased against JD. JD never had a chance in the UK but he finally got justice in the US. God Bless the USA.
Ah yes “a very clever judge” wrote a very “erudite” judgement in which he believed a lot of hearsay without much evidence to back it up. He actually said he didn’t believe she was a gold digger because she donated all the money to charity. Which she didn’t do, so who is the clever one now? I never really have given much thought to the term “jury of your peers” but after listening to that guy I am even more grateful to live in the U.S!
They are corrupt judges (sadly) everywhere around the world... We have had experience it... the judge was a friend of the couple with whom we were in dispute... we had ZERO chance...
Frankly I don't have any faith in our system in the UK and wish it was more like America. Disregarding evidence including the police evidence and believing Amber and friends and calling Josh Drew credible. He got it badly wrong imho. We need a more transparent system like the US.
Yeah until you see how many innocent people have spent their lives in prison because we got it so wrong. Theres constantly people being proven innocent by DNA. So obviously it's not that great.
think about the people who have lost their cases (to people whose lives were destroyed and don't have millions to live on) and if this judge ever did criminal trials, my god, I bet no innocent man ever had a chance in front of him
He has always been jealous and paranoid in his relationships. When he split with winona he trashed his hotel room. Both depp and Moss trashed their retrospective hotel rooms. That's self absorption and entitlement. He doesn't necessarily have npd but he does have narcissistic traits
@Proper seriously, drugs change you, your brain, your actions. His brain is not the same that it was 20 years ago. But no one wants to talk about that.
The judge in the US ruled Johnny did not get fair trial in the uk. The ruling was so biased it would be laughed out of any court in the United States 🇺🇸
Love or hate America, I was able to make my decision based on the court feed. Johnny and team had to fight for this to televised. This is how you prove the truth in the court of public opinion.
The number 1 thing is that in the UK the Judge should have been removed because he had a conflict of interest he had a family member that worked directly with the Sun News therfore the likelihood Johnny Deph would get a fair trail is ten percent out of a hundred
But to have only one person make the final decision, like in the UK, leads to lots of questions such as is the judge prejudiced or bought or too close to people involved a trial or make a decision early on then stop listening to the other side. No one legal system is perfect, but after seeing court transcripts and evidence the was allowed and not allowed by the judge in the UK it strong suggests that the judge in the case was not fair.
The UK judge should have recused himself from the trial but he didn't. Shows the serious Corruption in the UK Court System. The UK Judge should be investigated for the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.
Thats why the UK court system is worse then, because you should NOT have only 1 person (a Judge) deciding on the story of both sides. This leaves too much possibility to not liking one side or simply disbelieving a story. At least a Jury have to deliberate and rationalize between themselves to present a conclusion.
We have jury over here. Over time things have been removed from a jury's responsibility to a judge. Things like libel and slander were removed in the 80s. If a judge wants a jury though he can ask for one.
Jury trials are the exception rather than the rule; England & Wales, Scotland, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have jury trials. In other words countries formerly ruled by Britain. Most of Europe has an inquisitorial system where three or more judges preside over a trial. Personally I'd prefer my fate to be decided by people who know their arse from their elbow.
He was against the publication company that had more than enough means to hire a biased judge and a biased jury. Even worse Heard was only a witness and she had to speak the instances that he HIT her. Be it in self defense or pure offense. Here she was the defendant, her claims required to be corroborated by others.
At the very start of the US trial, the first words she said was ‘That’s why I wrote the op Ed. She admitted it straight away but had said she didn’t write it!
I don’t think the argument was if she wrote it or not she said she wrote it with the help of the aclu but one of the things they were trying to prove for defamation was it was about Johnny depp even though he wasn’t named
I'm Canadian and as far as I know the Canadian, British, and US justice system need massive reform. The UK judgment was CRAZY and activists there should be using it to critique the justice system in general
People must understand, that the defamation suit in the UK was against a newspaper for recounting statements from sources. In the UK, that is a right under the freedom of press law. They did not defame JD. They simply reported what nasty people like AH and co where saying as direct sources. The court only had to distinguish this as fact, not AH and her character or innocence. That is why the defamation suit against AH was necessary.
@@notwoke7005 Proven by the paper to be factual statements from their sources. It was only the paper and subsequently the free press law that was being tested. The statements from the sources where under oath, so those statements could then be put under testing in a separate case against the actual party guilty of defamation(AH)
There a lot more going on with judge in the UK case. He should have recused himself and never heard the case. His family and friends was involved with the Sun and other people involved in the case on suns side.
Thank you for posting this because the freaking Elaine keeps going on TV interviews and keeps referencing the UK trial and causing fake news about this case ….and amber was not even the defendant in the UK trail !!!!
It's good that a platform like yours is willing to talk about the difference so that idiots blindly believing Amber could even begin to understand the difference.
@@mj_crazydaze0 Indeed, she had no need to disclose her evidence (meaning in UK she could present evidence as she wish with no knowledge to the JD's legal team) the bodyguards weren't asked or required either to testify about AH punching or hitting JD, but only answer if yes/no they saw her being punched or hit, and the judge took her word as unverifiable true You can say she is able to alienate one person's mind the fact that she did with JD's, and her lawyer still believes her , or just $$$ In any case, it's suggested that UK protected ita very UK tabloid, and the judge had some swaying kinships or ties with the tabloid (UK trial defendant)
How you can know, clever, experienced, law expert like Judge is unbiased. UK legal system is outdated and has many flaws. They don't allow experts to testify but allow law experts to deliver verdict who may be biased. Testimonial Transcript are not best to verify the falsity.
Amber Heard's statement following the jury decision is an example of pure "hate" and "delusional thinking" and a testimony to Dr. Curry's description of her psychosis. In contrast, was Johnny's statement which was pure class - hope he is invited to host the Oscars next year. Amber Heard gives new meaning to the term Bat$hit Crazy and adds a new dimension to the warning "Amber Alert", something all men and certainly lawyers representing Bat$hit Crazy Women should take heed.
Dr. Curry never diagnosed her with any form of psychosis, but as having a combination of two different personality disorders. Psychosis is not a general term for "serious psychological disorder", but refers to a specific group of mental disorders, f.e. schizophrenia, which is the most common form of psychosis. People suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder sometimes have very brief phases in which they can be just as delusional as somebody suffering from psychosis, but those phases usually last only a couple of hours. One has to display symptomes associated with psychosis for at least two weeks in a row to be considered to suffer from psychosis. Also psychosis are a form of mental illness, you can treat them with medication which will make them "go away". No amount of medication can heal a personality disorder though. Personality disorders aren't mental illnesses, but deeply ingrained dysfunctional personality structures. Medication can help to "take the edges off", but they can't HEAL personality disorders.
Thank you for bringing Dr. Silvia’s new research and guidelines for judging if a witness is trustworthy. I hope knowledge of her findings becomes widespread!
Thank yall for this. It was well needed. Also, I think that Johnny Depp's case against Amber Heard was fairly executed here in the U.S, especially when bringing in experts for clarity of the information and/or evidence presented for both sides. It was so obvious that Amber's evidence was tampered with, and that needed to be exposed. Furthermore, the differences between the UK and US justice systems is well needed for comparison when it comes to defamation because it shows if justice is really going to be served or not.
In one country, you're a subject and are considered guilty until proven innocent. In the other country, you're a citizen with a bill of rights and are considered innocent until proven guilty.
It was a learning experience for JD and his legal team. He would never be able to put forward evidence, as it was about the newspaper having to prove it acted ethically in regard to UK free press law. The paper only had to provide evidence of their source material, it was not their responsibility to be judge and jury of the truth, just true statements. That is why you should never believe all you read or hear in the news, as it is a narrative aimed at selling themselves as a product. The positive from that case, was the statements that AH and co, made under oath where incriminating in the defamation suit against AH.
I don't agree with streaming court proceedings because that makes it entertainment.... but on the other hand, it was very useful in the Depp case so that we can see what's happening for ourselves and can't be fooled by all that biased, incorrect reporting. I not only wonder how much of AH's words we can trust, but it also makes you wonder if you can trust anything the mainstream media say
It is bc of this case and some other “woke” talking points that I stopped watching or reading mainstream media. I am hearing a lot of people saying this. And 5 years ago I was a dedicated CNN and MSNBC consumer. I’m done
I would never trust the main stream media ever again. Never again! I stopped watching news about two years ago but still peep once in a while Johnny Depp’s case has made me decided for a fact that I will never bother to believe whatever the mainstream media is peddling.
What's the difference between something being "entertaining" and being extremely interesting because people have an interest in how their justice system works?
@@MykeruMedia Well, in my opinion, once we start being entertained by (ie enjoying) the real suffering of other human being who happen to be famous, then that to me is like the ancient romans being entertained by the real suffering of gladiators ripping each other to pieces or being eaten alive by wild animals. I think there's a danger of that when these things are televised, but it's quite different from simply wanting to see justice be done
One important fact you guys got wrong. The COURT ordered Dr. Curry to evaluate Amber because SHE claimed she had PTSD therefore put her mental health at issue. It was court ordered not just an expert by Depp. Johnny wasn’t required any evaluation
It was very interesting to hear the differences. The thing about no expert witnesses for each side that we have in USA and not in UK was surprising. It would be cool to have them back see what the think since the verdict came.
Talk about the link between the U.K. judge and The Sun Newspaper and her smirking! And lying under oath in U.K. and US saying she didn’t inform TMZ. She admitted it in the U.K. then realised her mistake and the judge overlooked that!
Teresa Silva is absolutely correct. I have seen the after effects of DV and Amber never mentioned how her throat hurt after being choked. She never said it was difficult to wear heals or dance ballet days after her feet were allegedly cut from broken glass. She never mentioned the headaches after having hair pulled out. She never showed evidence of any swelling on her face from the numerous direct punches. The picture of hair looks like an extension. There is no blood or scalp on the hair in the picture. It’s hard to fake innocent when you are guilty. She should of researched more on the part she was playing. I didn’t even touch on her testimony being believable or not. No tears ……. The court testimony of AH was hard to watch bc I know for a fact just like Teresa it’s not rocket science when things don’t add up someone is lying. This was a step in the right direction for punishing people who slander others by allegations of DV.
It is a shame to remain silent about harming people with mockery, threats, and insults. This is the most difficult situation. This is the worst thing a person can go through.
The UK judge is said to have ties with the Suns' owner Murdoch. One of his sons works for Murdoch. Great interview of the criminologist who used to be a nurse-practitioner.
No justice for Johnny in the UK very sad what this man has gone through with Amber and her sisters lies . His finger was chopped off by Amber throwing a vodka bottle at him 😏
Yes, the judge could write a fantastic judgement that is erudite, logical etc, but if he started with the wrongful facts then it is a fallacious argument.
@@dreamweaver8798 she had the bee tie where she copied johnny and the earing with the bee. it wouldn't surprise me if that helped her come up with this detail about the dog stepping on one.
Thank you, Teresa Silva, for not only championing Depp and other victims of domestic violence, but helping to codify guidelines for evaluating credibility so more real victims will be believed.
I wonder why British quart room artists are not allowed to draw in the court room, but have to go by memory and draw outside of the court room. That just seems so bizarre to me.
Heard used one photo of the wine stain and a bottle on the floor for two different time lines! That was a huge slip up for her legal team not spotting that! Manipulating evidence
Curious why people feel a jury verdict is more important. OJ Simpson was exonerated via a jury. This goes to show how robust a broadcast trial is when subject to a jury verdict.
the eye rolling, the fake writing of notes, the scanning of the jury, her turning to the jury every answer, her quick change of expressions, her lack of tears etc
I'm from the UK and I completely disagree with the way the the uk judge handled the case of defamation. I heard the judges son was involved with AT on some level or was a fan of hers. Completely biased!!! Johnny should bring a case against the Sun again with every bit of evidence he has.
The judges ‘reasoning’ in the UK was clearly flawed and unable to be called in to question. HE was biased. It would have been different if there was a PANEL of judges in the first place.
We all know why Johnny didn’t win in UK (Two Court of Appeal judges said the Hollywood star cannot challenge the High Court’s rejection of his libel lawsuit against publisher of The Sun newspaper for labeling him a “wife beater” in an article.) The judge is the father of the sun who published the article there was no jury Johnny Depp wasn’t allowed to give evidence and then Elaine Ambers lawyer says “we wasn’t allowed to bring evidence that we used in the UK trial unless Elaine was bringing the UK judge as a witness in the US trial well the UK case was again between JOHNNY VS THE SUN that’s how The sun won that case 👍🏻 Elaine thought “if I keep mentioning UK case may I can use that in this case” lol I say good on Johnny he got justice from this evil abuser
Nah, all they have to do is look into UK Judge Nicol dirty dealings. Apparently he retired immediately after the UK trial at the aged of 71. Which is much earlier than the 75 by judges.
This case, in both the UK and US , has had me pondering why Johnny lost in the UK but won in the US. What was the difference? Your video has finally answered that question for me, and in such a clear way. Very interesting to hear the opinions of the your experts Dr, Silva and Gavin Millar. Many thanks.
I am so shock that a lawyer in the UK is okay with that evidence is cape out of the trial, and a judge just can say, I believe her more, I don't care to see all the evidence. And relay his verdict on hearsay from only one of them because he likes her more????
This is one of the few cases where I completely agree with the way things are done in the US.
Ditto. One of the VERY few.
Nmvb aww
I am so shocked that a lawyer in the UK is okay with evidence being kept out of the trial and a judge can just say I believe her more, I don't care to see all the evidence. And bases his judgment on the statements of only one of them because he likes her better ???
@@3_times_mum520 watch the whole thing. the uk judge, their system, posted a 129 page judgement document on why he came to the decision, which is opposite to the US jury system, where it was only the amount and the a 'yes or no' to the contentious points.
@@BrodyBaddis you do know that they didn't let evidence in so wtf is that bs bro . The judge also knew and liked amber heard 😐
The British court got it wrong! Johnny won in USA case because he got to tell his side where in the UK he wasn’t allowed to, that is the only reason she won in the UK! Australia
She didn't win, The Sun won.
It was the correct decision in regard to the paper not being the party that defamed JD. They reported ‘true statements’ made by AH and her cohorts. Those ‘true statements’ where made under oath. So AH and cohorts actually have lied under oath, that is what helped establish JD’s case in the US.
She didn’t win. It was the paper for printing statements from sources.
@@debasishmondal8180 It drives me crazy that not only do so many people think "Amber won" in the UK, but it seems like her lawyers are trying to spin that narrative as well.
@@leecostello8424 best conclusion I've read.
in the UK there is an MP fighting for women's rights (no problem there should be) But no MP for men's rights, isn't that sexism?
JD must surely be a man of strong character. He was able to bare the pain of showing his own faults and frailties in order to get justice and show the world what kind of individual AH really is.
Twice. It takes a strong person to bare his soul TWICE
Some analysts have suggested that he protected himself by adopting parts of a character to insulate himself from transparency. But, they also emphasize that this might be a natural coping mechanism, and you can still tell if he's being honest through it.
I just thought it was interesting how he protected himself.
@@steggopotamus I found it interesting how amber Heard denied any mistakes.
She held absolutely no accountability for anything.
It was always someone else's fault never hers.
@@icequeen6512 yep, super triggering for me. Part of why I'm obsessed with the case even still. Because it's reassuring to see so many people understand and provide their takes on her. Helps me not feel so unsure about my boundaries
A real man!
As a australian iam fully aware that it is harder to get a fair go in a British based court system
How if ur Australian
@@bereal6590 under the same rule as I know it to be
Absolutely!!! I was in a DV refuge against my ex, I had to leave my house, my car all his belongings whilst 20 weeks pregnant...... He didn't even get arrested 3 years later and another incident it went to court, and he got 6 months restraining order and £50 fine . That's it!!
@kyle that does not mean now that Australia has to have the exact same system as in the UK. Systems across the world more often that not have similarities and differences. Just because someone lives in Australia doesn't mean their system would be Identical
@@benzamg32m68 I thought there would some differences across the world. Anyways whatever the system there are always flaws unless it's regularly overhauled. Think cameras in court are a bad idea though... In my opinion
In the verdict the UK judge writes that Amber didn´t have and reason to lie because she donated the money to charity. The facts about the donation was supressed in the trial. He also writes that he chose to not put any weight on the audiorecordings. The man just didn´t care about any evidence.
As people have already found out, the judge was connected with the defendant (which is disgustingly inappropriate) and the media and some people seem to forget that it was not "Depp vs Heard" but "Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd.". The judge's son may not be an employee of The Sun but he was still part of the organization since he was with TalkRADIO which was also owned by murdoch.
Anyhoo, sorry for sounding like a tin foil wearing conspiracy theorist but just wanted to add more to my agreement with your statement. Have a good day.
Still denied an appeal despite accounting for that fact . Let’s face it ....Judge would have understood exactly why she couldn’t have afforded to pay her pledge off by that time due to Depps harassment of expensive & ongoing litigation ....further proof he was an abuser bc he was still trying to destroy & control her, post divorce . A classic strategy employed by abusive partners . That judge had Depp’s measure 100% ... read the transcripts an 130 pg summary or details . He has been around many a block and knewDepps type and their vindictive,duplicitous vengeful tactics . Unlike the circus we witnessed in US ....what a travesty of balance and justice that zoo was . Proverbial prejudicial kangaroo court
@@severedproxy yawn, yawn, yawn ....gimme a break . The conspiracy nonsense that spews forth from the Depp echo chamber is beyond !!!
@@equatorialjourney4478 Amber...is that you? 😂
@@djprojectus definitely a bot or Amber’s PR. Look when the account was created and all the comments. It’s a pro Amber account entirely. Tragically pathetic and sad. 😂
Thank you, Adam, for inviting me to give my opinion on this case. A pleasure to be part of your work.
The UK judgement is open to question, as the 'donations' of divorce money formed part of the judge's assessment she was telling the truth. Now we know that the donations weren't made as she claimed. She demanded that JD paid the money immediately if he was to make the donation - but she had the money for 13 months on her account without paying it over before any legal action was started.
The UK system is also very beneficial for the English establishment, who very often are mates of judges having gone to the same schools, and in some cases masonic lodges. The sooner this is replaced with a jury the better.
But that was raised as one of his reasons for requesting an appeal . The appeal was still denied by 2 independent appellate court judges on the grounds of preponderance of evidence . Let’s face it ....the UK Court system isn’t a circus /zoo like that of US . This recent case took that to unbelievable lengths and Amber was never given a fair chance w the trial being televised ; filled w lunatic fans both inside and outside every day for 7 long weeks . A travesty of justice and a kangaroo court . Celebrity bias and vigilante public opinion precluded a fair and balanced trial from day 1 . OJ Simpson travesty all over again
@@equatorialjourney4478 ah yes, because the absence of a camera will magically make your evidence and witnesses that you chose to bring better in the eyes of a jury of your peers.
@@equatorialjourney4478 Sorry dude, but as a survivor of domestic violence….Amber was the abuser here. We can tell when someone is an abuser because we’ve learned to recognize behavioral patterns.
The pledge will simply be viewed as over ambitious. Yet in reality she donated just under a million which is quite generous. We must look on the bright side
@@Goodzillla1066 She didn't donate anything!! Elon Musk donated part of the money in her name, and Johnny donated part of the money!! She kept all $7 million and blamed it on Johnny suing her, which was another lie because he hadn't even started it until over a year later.
As a Brazilian, I can say that I really prefer the justice system in the US, far more democratic, more just, more humble, and, for sure, has much more respect for common sense.
Well, the judge in the UK was compromised…….. his connections to certain people involved in the case should have prevented him from being involved
I don't know the story but it seems the judge was influenced.
Yes I hear he had lunch with Amber and her team
Supposedly someone at The Sun was the judges son, or relation in some way. I don't know how true that is but it keeps popping up. Seems like a conflict of interest but idk UK laws.
I agree.
the judge sucks a huge C
Dr Silva is absolutely right about the “attack” with a bottle scenario. It is not possible to perform that act without causing horrendous damage. Her assertions collapsed for me and she disgusted me.
So many lies Amber told in her “stories”!
Right horrendous damage but can also kill! Imagine that & didn't seek medical treatment or even tell her nurses or doctor's about it! No-one except her sister saw anything! And her story he was standing in front of her! And Amber hit him! How do you push someone down the stairs who is behind you? Interesting story! Whitney never said he pushed her niether did Amber! What was truely said Amber thought he was going to push Whitney who was behind him? All Whitney did is say well yeah she hit him & say why! Because what Amber thought! Yeah right!
I've always preceived America in a little negative manner, but this whole trial has made me admire the justice system of America. Facts matter, not what an outcome will do to society. Unlike how a handful few want to spread the outcome as a setback to gender equality and misogyny, I believe the outcome brings forth what equality actually is, men or women or any gender, all are equal and all deserve justice.
Power to the DV victims, as they should come out and speak about their experiences and seek justice as Johnny did. There are manipulating people all around and in all genders, just like Amber heard we have come to see, we shouldn't let them get away with it.
God bless America and the whole world.
I live in Massachusetts I love living here I love the law here I wouldn't have it any other way I love the USA
No, only women matter... Men are not good for anything
The non-teenage non-film-buff portion of the American society are viewing the result as a disgrace. Just check the newspapers. Why do you think the AACLU is suing JD not AH for owed money? They are basically telling JD who are you to criticise your ex when she donated close to a million. Whereas your lazy drunk drugged a$$ is not capable of owning up to a few hundred thousand in fees for hard work that the ACLU did for you
There are still a lot of ways the US court can be manipulated, but yes, I learned a little about the process and found it to make quite a bit of sense.
That only works most the time for people with money and criminals.
Without the cameras people will actually think and believe Amber really broke down crying while testifying!! BUT in reality she just made the FACES but Zero tears came out. And we wouldnt have seen the quick changes in Ambers attitude as she was being questioned.
Great point!! It frustrated me to no end how news outlets reported AH crying on the stand while giving emotional testimony, when in reality, if you saw it with your own eyes, it's like you said, *zero* tears & a forced exaggerated *performance* with emotional cues & body language not in sync with authentic human emotion.
She swung for the fences in attempting to give the performance of her lifetime & she missed terribly. Her words fell flat & her credibility was shot in the eyes of the jury, my own, your own & many, many others open-minded enough to consider all the evidence.
Her dog stepped on a gd mf bee have a fcn heart you wretched apathetic swine
Not to mention the smirking…..
Exactly, especially with how the main stream media are trying to change the narrative. I mean, BBC uk added tears to her picture when they reported it..imagine if we didnt see it live???!!
I can’t get around the statement that the UK judge was directly connected to the people for Sun. In the US, said judge would be forced to immediately recuse himself for bias!!!
It is terrible to see someone claim violence you have experienced and know they're lying.
kate j had that experience when amber stole her r*** story
The main difference was a judge with connections to Amber before the trial ,she visited his office had dinned with his wife, their son worked with Dan Wooten, they both worked fo Murdoch, who hated J.D. after he won his phone hacking case against the sun and Murdoch. Murdoch has an axe to grind against J.D.
The UK trial got it wrong.
I'm American and I've always thought the US justice system was a little crazy and backward and all wrong. But after listening to this video and many others like it, I've come to realize that I would rather be judged by a jury of 7 to 12 people than just 1 judge who could be biased. The judge in the UK was biased against JD. JD never had a chance in the UK but he finally got justice in the US. God Bless the USA.
Agree 👍🏻
His son works for the sun newspaper ofcourse he should never have been a judge on that case based on that alone
Ah yes “a very clever judge” wrote a very “erudite” judgement in which he believed a lot of hearsay without much evidence to back it up. He actually said he didn’t believe she was a gold digger because she donated all the money to charity. Which she didn’t do, so who is the clever one now? I never really have given much thought to the term “jury of your peers” but after listening to that guy I am even more grateful to live in the U.S!
UK should allow cameras to show how corrupt some judges are.
They are corrupt judges (sadly) everywhere around the world... We have had experience it... the judge was a friend of the couple with whom we were in dispute... we had ZERO chance...
Why are they even corrupt with such high salary
No
That’s why cameras are not allowed…
@@yesyouareright9800 go figure... conflict of interest !!!
Frankly I don't have any faith in our system in the UK and wish it was more like America. Disregarding evidence including the police evidence and believing Amber and friends and calling Josh Drew credible. He got it badly wrong imho. We need a more transparent system like the US.
The American justice system is a shambles.
Yeah until you see how many innocent people have spent their lives in prison because we got it so wrong. Theres constantly people being proven innocent by DNA. So obviously it's not that great.
US sentencing is crazy though.....
@@geneivemary4234 Other countries have much lighter sentences. In the US if you are guilty of DV or SA We will bury you under the prison.
“ don’t try to destroy someone’s life with lies,when yours can be destroyed with the truth”
After hearing this I feel like there are many wrong verdicts in UK and people affected by those wrong verdicts
think about the people who have lost their cases (to people whose lives were destroyed and don't have millions to live on) and if this judge ever did criminal trials, my god, I bet no innocent man ever had a chance in front of him
Unless they are very lucky to get help from some decent people. It happened before.
Sad facts.
It’s very questionable that the UK is so hesitant on experts, yet they base the verdict on a judge presumed to be the all-knowing expert.
Well the experts are paid by the legal team... So they're not going to go against who's paying them.
🤣🤣🤣 uk judge is a joke now
He is a High Court judge, if you know what that means. He's higher than ordinary Magistrate Judges.
@@pearlmcfarland4920 a high court judges with major conflicts of interest...
Johnny Depp isn’t a narcissist.. it would have manifested years ago in his other relationships..
Agree!
He has always been jealous and paranoid in his relationships. When he split with winona he trashed his hotel room. Both depp and Moss trashed their retrospective hotel rooms. That's self absorption and entitlement. He doesn't necessarily have npd but he does have narcissistic traits
He is a full emphatic, the opposite of a narc. He does not need or seek attention.
@Proper seriously, drugs change you, your brain, your actions. His brain is not the same that it was 20 years ago. But no one wants to talk about that.
@@devigndesign8370 he doesn't need attention? Wtf do you think this case was for? He was enjoying every second of the attention he's been getting.
The judge in the US ruled Johnny did not get fair trial in the uk. The ruling was so biased it would be laughed out of any court in the United States 🇺🇸
Love or hate America, I was able to make my decision based on the court feed. Johnny and team had to fight for this to televised. This is how you prove the truth in the court of public opinion.
The number 1 thing is that in the UK the Judge should have been removed because he had a conflict of interest he had a family
member that worked directly with the Sun
News therfore the likelihood Johnny Deph would get a fair trail is ten percent out of a hundred
But to have only one person make the final decision, like in the UK, leads to lots of questions such as is the judge prejudiced or bought or too close to people involved a trial or make a decision early on then stop listening to the other side. No one legal system is perfect, but after seeing court transcripts and evidence the was allowed and not allowed by the judge in the UK it strong suggests that the judge in the case was not fair.
this is a bigger a story now! they need to investigate the investigate the judge in UK even if that perdon has retired already.
The UK judge should have recused himself from the trial but he didn't. Shows the serious Corruption in the UK Court System. The UK Judge should be investigated for the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.
Thats why the UK court system is worse then, because you should NOT have only 1 person (a Judge) deciding on the story of both sides.
This leaves too much possibility to not liking one side or simply disbelieving a story. At least a Jury have to deliberate and rationalize between themselves to present a conclusion.
We have jury over here. Over time things have been removed from a jury's responsibility to a judge. Things like libel and slander were removed in the 80s. If a judge wants a jury though he can ask for one.
Jury trials are the exception rather than the rule; England & Wales, Scotland, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have jury trials. In other words countries formerly ruled by Britain. Most of Europe has an inquisitorial system where three or more judges preside over a trial. Personally I'd prefer my fate to be decided by people who know their arse from their elbow.
Let’s boycott UK, they made abuser won in court.
He was against the publication company that had more than enough means to hire a biased judge and a biased jury. Even worse Heard was only a witness and she had to speak the instances that he HIT her. Be it in self defense or pure offense. Here she was the defendant, her claims required to be corroborated by others.
@@ehsanullah2325 They cant hire a biased jury in the UK, that's impossible, Jury service is mandatory and randomized, you cannot hire them
This is a fabulous video. The UK trial is so frustrating to millions of us.
At the very start of the US trial, the first words she said was ‘That’s why I wrote the op Ed. She admitted it straight away but had said she didn’t write it!
I don’t think the argument was if she wrote it or not she said she wrote it with the help of the aclu but one of the things they were trying to prove for defamation was it was about Johnny depp even though he wasn’t named
And she was proud of it and had it framed.... I thought the same thing too
I'm Canadian and as far as I know the Canadian, British, and US justice system need massive reform. The UK judgment was CRAZY and activists there should be using it to critique the justice system in general
People must understand, that the defamation suit in the UK was against a newspaper for recounting statements from sources. In the UK, that is a right under the freedom of press law. They did not defame JD. They simply reported what nasty people like AH and co where saying as direct sources. The court only had to distinguish this as fact, not AH and her character or innocence. That is why the defamation suit against AH was necessary.
@@leecostello8424 but why did the judge rule that something like 9 of the events were proven?
@@notwoke7005 Proven by the paper to be factual statements from their sources. It was only the paper and subsequently the free press law that was being tested. The statements from the sources where under oath, so those statements could then be put under testing in a separate case against the actual party guilty of defamation(AH)
Correct, in the UK there is an MP fighting for women's rights (no problem there should be) But no MP for men's rights, isn't that sexism?
@@leecostello8424 didn’t the attorney from the UK say that they don’t have a bill of rights, including freedom of speech/press?
This is so educational. Thank you for this kind of content. More to come, please
There a lot more going on with judge in the UK case. He should have recused himself and never heard the case. His family and friends was involved with the Sun and other people involved in the case on suns side.
The UK judge should have recused himself from the trial but he didn't. Shows the serious Corruption in the UK Court System.
a little strange he retired right after that case. you begin to wonder did he retire 'in style'?
Looking forward to Australia, U.K. and US taking Amber to court for perjury and convicting her!
The difference was Johnny didn't sue Amber Heard in the UK. Johnny sued a media outlet.
yes!! She uses 'i won in the UK' a lot! it throws off those that don't know that she was just a witness!!
EXACTLY!!!
amber was caught in a photo with the judges son from uk trial lol
Case closed. Justice served. Next.
👍
Thank you for posting this because the freaking Elaine keeps going on TV interviews and keeps referencing the UK trial and causing fake news about this case ….and amber was not even the defendant in the UK trail !!!!
It's good that a platform like yours is willing to talk about the difference so that idiots blindly believing Amber could even begin to understand the difference.
Totally agree.
Included her lawyer?
plus ah was merely a witness in the UK trial (a 'star' witness, i guess). The Sun was being sued by JD.
@@mj_crazydaze0 Indeed, she had no need to disclose her evidence (meaning in UK she could present evidence as she wish with no knowledge to the JD's legal team) the bodyguards weren't asked or required either to testify about AH punching or hitting JD, but only answer if yes/no they saw her being punched or hit, and the judge took her word as unverifiable true
You can say she is able to alienate one person's mind the fact that she did with JD's, and her lawyer still believes her , or just $$$
In any case, it's suggested that UK protected ita very UK tabloid, and the judge had some swaying kinships or ties with the tabloid (UK trial defendant)
*its very UK tabloid.
How you can know, clever, experienced, law expert like Judge is unbiased. UK legal system is outdated and has many flaws. They don't allow experts to testify but allow law experts to deliver verdict who may be biased. Testimonial Transcript are not best to verify the falsity.
Agreed.
Expert testimonies were withdrawn in uk due to the fact they're biased towards their client....and miscarriages of justice! !
Amber Heard's statement following the jury decision is an example of pure "hate" and "delusional thinking" and a testimony to Dr. Curry's description of her psychosis. In contrast, was Johnny's statement which was pure class - hope he is invited to host the Oscars next year. Amber Heard gives new meaning to the term Bat$hit Crazy and adds a new dimension to the warning "Amber Alert", something all men and certainly lawyers representing Bat$hit Crazy Women should take heed.
Dr. Curry never diagnosed her with any form of psychosis, but as having a combination of two different personality disorders. Psychosis is not a general term for "serious psychological disorder", but refers to a specific group of mental disorders, f.e. schizophrenia, which is the most common form of psychosis. People suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder sometimes have very brief phases in which they can be just as delusional as somebody suffering from psychosis, but those phases usually last only a couple of hours. One has to display symptomes associated with psychosis for at least two weeks in a row to be considered to suffer from psychosis. Also psychosis are a form of mental illness, you can treat them with medication which will make them "go away". No amount of medication can heal a personality disorder though. Personality disorders aren't mental illnesses, but deeply ingrained dysfunctional personality structures. Medication can help to "take the edges off", but they can't HEAL personality disorders.
Please don’t use Amber Alert out of respect for Amber Hagerman.
And children that get kidnapped.
Thank you for bringing Dr. Silvia’s new research and guidelines for judging if a witness is trustworthy. I hope knowledge of her findings becomes widespread!
Thank yall for this. It was well needed. Also, I think that Johnny Depp's case against Amber Heard was fairly executed here in the U.S, especially when bringing in experts for clarity of the information and/or evidence presented for both sides. It was so obvious that Amber's evidence was tampered with, and that needed to be exposed. Furthermore, the differences between the UK and US justice systems is well needed for comparison when it comes to defamation because it shows if justice is really going to be served or not.
In one country, you're a subject and are considered guilty until proven innocent.
In the other country, you're a citizen with a bill of rights and are considered innocent until proven guilty.
No one thinks this case wasn't fair!! The only people saying it wasn't fair is Amber and the main stream media!!!!!!
Even the mainstream media said she was a liar. Has nothing to do with the left or mainstream media. She’s a liar plain and simple
Elaine Bredehoft complains that the trial was on TV...!!!..If you have the facts, you would want for the world to see it. !!! ...LOL
It was a learning experience for JD and his legal team. He would never be able to put forward evidence, as it was about the newspaper having to prove it acted ethically in regard to UK free press law. The paper only had to provide evidence of their source material, it was not their responsibility to be judge and jury of the truth, just true statements. That is why you should never believe all you read or hear in the news, as it is a narrative aimed at selling themselves as a product. The positive from that case, was the statements that AH and co, made under oath where incriminating in the defamation suit against AH.
There was no Johnny Depp vs AH in the UK. It was Johnny Depp vs The Sun.
Justice was served for Johnny!!!! Thank God!!!
I don't agree with streaming court proceedings because that makes it entertainment.... but on the other hand, it was very useful in the Depp case so that we can see what's happening for ourselves and can't be fooled by all that biased, incorrect reporting. I not only wonder how much of AH's words we can trust, but it also makes you wonder if you can trust anything the mainstream media say
I agree 100%. I think Depp wanted it open to the public so the public could decide for themselves
It is bc of this case and some other “woke” talking points that I stopped watching or reading mainstream media. I am hearing a lot of people saying this. And 5 years ago I was a dedicated CNN and MSNBC consumer. I’m done
I would never trust the main stream media ever again. Never again! I stopped watching news about two years ago but still peep once in a while Johnny Depp’s case has made me decided for a fact that I will never bother to believe whatever the mainstream media is peddling.
What's the difference between something being "entertaining" and being extremely interesting because people have an interest in how their justice system works?
@@MykeruMedia Well, in my opinion, once we start being entertained by (ie enjoying) the real suffering of other human being who happen to be famous, then that to me is like the ancient romans being entertained by the real suffering of gladiators ripping each other to pieces or being eaten alive by wild animals. I think there's a danger of that when these things are televised, but it's quite different from simply wanting to see justice be done
One important fact you guys got wrong.
The COURT ordered Dr. Curry to evaluate Amber because SHE claimed she had PTSD therefore put her mental health at issue. It was court ordered not just an expert by Depp. Johnny wasn’t required any evaluation
*to
Great video! The comparison between systems was informative. The forensic physiologist scientist was very logical.
It was very interesting to hear the differences. The thing about no expert witnesses for each side that we have in USA and not in UK was surprising. It would be cool to have them back see what the think since the verdict came.
Judge was smitten with the voodoo witch
yes thank you! Can we now have perjury charges brought against her please.
I thought the US judicial system was terrible. Then I heard about the UK.
Talk about the link between the U.K. judge and The Sun Newspaper and her smirking! And lying under oath in U.K. and US saying she didn’t inform TMZ. She admitted it in the U.K. then realised her mistake and the judge overlooked that!
I agree with pretty much everything Dr.Silva says here but the Me Too movement didn't use Amber, it was the other way around.
could be the aclu used amber. they needed someone like her to help push through their political agenda
Agreed. She rode the coat tails of the Me Too movement because she knew she would be believed.
Teresa Silva is absolutely correct. I have seen the after effects of DV and Amber never mentioned how her throat hurt after being choked. She never said it was difficult to wear heals or dance ballet days after her feet were allegedly cut from broken glass. She never mentioned the headaches after having hair pulled out. She never showed evidence of any swelling on her face from the numerous direct punches. The picture of hair looks like an extension. There is no blood or scalp on the hair in the picture. It’s hard to fake innocent when you are guilty. She should of researched more on the part she was playing. I didn’t even touch on her testimony being believable or not. No tears ……. The court testimony of AH was hard to watch bc I know for a fact just like Teresa it’s not rocket science when things don’t add up someone is lying. This was a step in the right direction for punishing people who slander others by allegations of DV.
A great discussion. The two experts talked very thoughtfully. Loved them!
There was one person- the judge- making decision based off probability and less of evidence from Johnny.
It is a shame to remain silent about harming people with mockery, threats, and insults. This is the most difficult situation. This is the worst thing a person can go through.
Lets not forget that THE U.K. JUDGE'S SON WORKED FOR RUPERT MURDOCH! THAT would NEVER fly, here in the states!
The UK judge is said to have ties with the Suns' owner Murdoch. One of his sons works for Murdoch.
Great interview of the criminologist who used to be a nurse-practitioner.
11:26 😂
“😑 Adeum dis iz not rocket science👩🏻🎨🇫🇷”
Wonder if that UK judge watched any of Ambers testimony - he looks rediculous in the eyes of the world - or maybe Murdoch had something to do with it!
Or maybe the very woke young Mrs Murdochs.
What amazing reporting!! Law & Crime 🙏🏾💯!! Thank you for this. Also hej Sweden 🇸🇪
I just want to say THANKS L&C Network for an amazing job covering this case! Being Unbiased.!Just stating Facts! 🙏👍🏻👏👏👏Not like other MSNews .
No justice for Johnny in the UK very sad what this man has gone through with Amber and her sisters lies . His finger was chopped off by Amber throwing a vodka bottle at him 😏
Tip of his finger.
@@soniavadnjal7553 That he clearly severed.
Well said Dr all your answers on points
Thank you for the insight offered by your video. It was enlightening and instructive and augers well to the eventual outcome.
Thank you for posting this content. AH's allegations are completely malicious just as the verdict had ruled out. AH needs to seek a deep counseling .
They need to investigate the UK judge Andrew Nicol and whether there was inappropriate stuff that happened in that trial.
Yes, the judge could write a fantastic judgement that is erudite, logical etc, but if he started with the wrongful facts then it is a fallacious argument.
This is really important! Shared!
This comment isnt because I support JD. This lady is talking absolute sense.
Indeed. I hope it becomes public knowledge.
I believe Amber Hurd when she said her dog stepped on a bee. That's about it
I don’t even know if I believe that 😂😂. She probably got that line out of some movie or book, like her opening statements
everything after she said her name - i question
@@dreamweaver8798 she had the bee tie where she copied johnny and the earing with the bee. it wouldn't surprise me if that helped her come up with this detail about the dog stepping on one.
Thank you, Teresa Silva, for not only championing Depp and other victims of domestic violence, but helping to codify guidelines for evaluating credibility so more real victims will be believed.
I don't care what anybod Saying Johnny Depp's stocks going up right now off top💯
I wonder why British quart room artists are not allowed to draw in the court room, but have to go by memory and draw outside of the court room. That just seems so bizarre to me.
and difficult
Johnny Depp has a lot of power and rights that he has here in USA and he showed the world 🌎 the truth and what was right
Heard used one photo of the wine stain and a bottle on the floor for two different time lines! That was a huge slip up for her legal team not spotting that! Manipulating evidence
don't you know it's very difficult to create such a multi layered lie...
The metaData should have been examined in the UK too!
Curious why people feel a jury verdict is more important. OJ Simpson was exonerated via a jury. This goes to show how robust a broadcast trial is when subject to a jury verdict.
Can transcripts portray Amber's sarcasm? You would've never understood her tone. And that tone, was unforgettable.
the eye rolling, the fake writing of notes, the scanning of the jury, her turning to the jury every answer, her quick change of expressions, her lack of tears etc
First time on your channel. Enjoyed this episode. Please pass on my thanks to your two interviewees. Great stuff 🇬🇧
In UK trial 1 corrupt judge who handed the decision while in the US 7 people unanimously handed the verdict. The top difference is the word "CORRUPT".
I'm from the UK and I completely disagree with the way the the uk judge handled the case of defamation. I heard the judges son was involved with AT on some level or was a fan of hers. Completely biased!!! Johnny should bring a case against the Sun again with every bit of evidence he has.
Nope he’s moving on! He won in the world court of public opinion too!
I am English and I cannot understand why the UK court suppressed Johnny Depps file. Surely they were not biased in favour of the female - Amber Heard?
and Amber would have been imprisoned for 5 years in Australia
Difference is the judge didn't have any links with JD social circle whilst the one from UK was biased since his wife was close to Amber Heard.
and injustice Nicol's own son worked at TalkRadio owned by Rupert Murdoch like The Sun - AND he worked with Dan Wootton who was named in the lawsuit
The judges ‘reasoning’ in the UK was clearly flawed and unable to be called in to question. HE was biased. It would have been different if there was a PANEL of judges in the first place.
In the UK it is not great that only a judge makes the decisions and no jury ever for civil cases.
We all know why Johnny didn’t win in UK
(Two Court of Appeal judges said the Hollywood star cannot challenge the High Court’s rejection of his libel lawsuit against publisher of The Sun newspaper for labeling him a “wife beater” in an article.)
The judge is the father of the sun who published the article there was no jury Johnny Depp wasn’t allowed to give evidence and then Elaine Ambers lawyer says “we wasn’t allowed to bring evidence that we used in the UK trial unless Elaine was bringing the UK judge as a witness in the US trial well the UK case was again between JOHNNY VS THE SUN that’s how The sun won that case 👍🏻 Elaine thought “if I keep mentioning UK case may I can use that in this case” lol I say good on Johnny he got justice from this evil abuser
Nah, all they have to do is look into UK Judge Nicol dirty dealings. Apparently he retired immediately after the UK trial at the aged of 71. Which is much earlier than the 75 by judges.
oh that's interesting. he was able to retire EARLY...didn't realize that
I hope Sun feel ashamed now
This case, in both the UK and US , has had me pondering why Johnny lost in the UK but won in the US. What was the difference? Your video has finally answered that question for me, and in such a clear way. Very interesting to hear the opinions of the your experts Dr, Silva and Gavin Millar. Many thanks.
I am so shock that a lawyer in the UK is okay with that evidence is cape out of the trial, and a judge just can say, I believe her more, I don't care to see all the evidence. And relay his verdict on hearsay from only one of them because he likes her more????