Thought it was more about getting public opinion back on his side than actually winning.
To actually win the case is quite something.
Yeah thats what I thought... Expected it to be all about this being heard (no pun intended) by the public, with Depp redeemed in the outside world, but condemned still in court - Having watched snippets, I'm not surprised, but still didnt expect it.
Ultimately hope that this doesnt set back the progression that has been made with clamping down on genuine Domestic Abuse.
Thought it was more about getting public opinion back on his side than actually winning.
To actually win the case is quite something.
Yeah thats what I thought... Expected it to be all about this being heard (no pun intended) by the public, with Depp redeemed in the outside world, but condemned still in court - Having watched snippets, I'm not surprised, but still didnt expect it.
Ultimately hope that this doesnt set back the progression that has been made with clamping down on genuine Domestic Abuse.
Was about to post similar. I think Heard is a liar, but with many millions of people watching, I worry that she, as well as this result, could do lasting damage to domestic abuse sufferers
Thought it was more about getting public opinion back on his side than actually winning.
To actually win the case is quite something.
Yeah thats what I thought... Expected it to be all about this being heard (no pun intended) by the public, with Depp redeemed in the outside world, but condemned still in court - Having watched snippets, I'm not surprised, but still didnt expect it.
Ultimately hope that this doesnt set back the progression that has been made with clamping down on genuine Domestic Abuse.
This is the big potential negative and is the point Heard has made in her statement after the verdict. She’s pointing to Depp’s power and influence. Food for thought.
They had basically nothing to work with, she never took time off after a "beating" with a guy with multiple rings on his fingers, pictured multiple times, a day after alleged beatings with no swelling, looking like a supermodel. Never checked into a hospital. She clearly and demonstrably doctored photographs to make it look like she had been hit, and called paparazzi media to photograph her (to the extent of telling them which side of her face to picture)
And she smirked and rolled her eyes throughout testimony/mentions of abuse that any genuine PTSD victim would be absolutely traumatised by if it had actually happened.
I'm so uninterested in this story. Media just feeding on itself.
I do think that the way the media has influenced the trial is poor though. There's widespread love for Depp and hatred for Heard. I much prefer our untelevised court system which doesn't try to make a soap opera out of people's suffering.
Absolutely this. I’m finding the way Heard has been demonised quite disturbing. I don’t know enough about the case to have an opinion one way or the other, but the way it’s been covered seems ludicrously one sided. Trial by TikTok. It almost doesn’t matter what the verdict is because so many people seem to have made their minds up already and Depp will continue to get work while Heard probably won’t. Maybe she really is a bad egg, but the whole pantomime just doesn’t sit right with me.
Edit: So, Depp won. Now hopefully the jury made it’s decision purely on the evidence, but like @cafcnick1992 said, I can’t help but think the coverage influenced it. Safe to say Amber Heard’s career as she knows it is over. Maybe that’s karma? I’m not so sure.
I have no problem with people facing the consequences of their actions. She wouldn't be getting pelters if she weren't a narcissistic liar. Please take a moment to ponder how you would feel if you were publicly accused of being an abusive rapist based on the vengeful manipulations of a despicable individual who had a grudge against you. Depp is no saint by any stretch of the imagination; quite the opposite, but does this means that he should be punished for crimes which he did not commit?
She knew that with the climate of #metoo, and the nonsense proposal of 'always believe women' (why not do away with the PCS and the courts altogether?), that all she had to do was make the accusations and then turn on the fake tears and victimhood in order to win under circumstances that made it hard for the accused to disprove the malicious allegations. The only problem was that she wasn't very bright and made definitive statements about alleged attacks which were easily proved to be false and often rebounded on her in a negative way. Reminds me of a certain 'Princess' married to a rather dim bulb that uses the current fashion for victimhood and nonsense post-modern narratives to press all the right buttons to win the victim label.
From the BBC:
'The jury has found that Heard's statements about her marriage were "false" and conveyed "a defamatory implication" to people other than Depp.
They also found she acted with "actual malice"'.
They heard all the evidence from both sides; and that is a pretty damning verdict.
Save your sympathy for someone who deserves it. Unfortunately, there are many victims of male sexual violence who have had no justice - she isn't one.
Thought it was more about getting public opinion back on his side than actually winning.
To actually win the case is quite something.
Yeah thats what I thought... Expected it to be all about this being heard (no pun intended) by the public, with Depp redeemed in the outside world, but condemned still in court - Having watched snippets, I'm not surprised, but still didnt expect it.
Ultimately hope that this doesnt set back the progression that has been made with clamping down on genuine Domestic Abuse.
This is the big potential negative and is the point Heard has made in her statement after the verdict. She’s pointing to Depp’s power and influence. Food for thought.
I notice she mentions in her statement that something was ignored in this case, that helped win in the UK
Wonder what that was
I think her mentioning Depp's fame is too easy a way to try and deflect as to why she lost.
She may have brought it up when she got questioned (I havent watched much the last few weeks) - But the bit I've struggled with the moment it came out, was the fact that she originally came out saying she had no intention of keeping the $7m she won from the original case... But the charity barely saw a penny from her
I'm so uninterested in this story. Media just feeding on itself.
I do think that the way the media has influenced the trial is poor though. There's widespread love for Depp and hatred for Heard. I much prefer our untelevised court system which doesn't try to make a soap opera out of people's suffering.
Absolutely this. I’m finding the way Heard has been demonised quite disturbing. I don’t know enough about the case to have an opinion one way or the other, but the way it’s been covered seems ludicrously one sided. Trial by TikTok. It almost doesn’t matter what the verdict is because so many people seem to have made their minds up already and Depp will continue to get work while Heard probably won’t. Maybe she really is a bad egg, but the whole pantomime just doesn’t sit right with me.
Edit: So, Depp won. Now hopefully the jury made it’s decision purely on the evidence, but like @cafcnick1992 said, I can’t help but think the coverage influenced it. Safe to say Amber Heard’s career as she knows it is over. Maybe that’s karma? I’m not so sure.
I have no problem with people facing the consequences of their actions. She wouldn't be getting pelters if she weren't a narcissistic liar. Please take a moment to ponder how you would feel if you were publicly accused of being an abusive rapist based on the vengeful manipulations of a despicable individual who had a grudge against you. Depp is no saint by any stretch of the imagination; quite the opposite, but does this means that he should be punished for crimes which he did not commit?
She knew that with the climate of #metoo, and the nonsense proposal of 'always believe women' (why not do away with the PCS and the courts altogether?), that all she had to do was make the accusations and then turn on the fake tears and victimhood in order to win under circumstances that made it hard for the accused to disprove the malicious allegations. The only problem was that she wasn't very bright and made definitive statements about alleged attacks which were easily proved to be false and often rebounded on her in a negative way. Reminds me of a certain 'Princess' married to a rather dim bulb that uses the current fashion for victimhood and nonsense post-modern narratives to press all the right buttons to win the victim label.
From the BBC:
'The jury has found that Heard's statements about her marriage were "false" and conveyed "a defamatory implication" to people other than Depp.
They also found she acted with "actual malice"'.
They heard all the evidence from both sides; and that is a pretty damning verdict.
Save your sympathy for someone who deserves it. Unfortunately, there are many victims of male sexual violence who have had no justice - she isn't one.
Tonight is the first time I’ve taken a little bit of interest in the case and I concede that others here making points about the case know far more about it than I. My point really was about the general perception that the general public seem to have about the case. In the last few weeks I’ve skipped past so many videos and articles with headlines clearly criticising Heard, ridiculing her legal team, fawning over Depp’s legal team, analysing Heard’s body language and so on. I don’t think I’ve noticed anything critical of Depp at all. As I said earlier, maybe this is the correct verdict and she got her just desserts, but I’m not comfortable with the way the verdict was reached by the general public seemingly on the basis of one sided TikToks and YouTube videos made by people with clear agendas.
I’d like to think the jury got it right. Some of you have pointed to inconsistencies in her stories and the like, so maybe that’s all there is to it. I don’t know. But at the end of the day, I don’t see why people needed to watch it or why it’s considered ok for it to be televised. I don’t see how that helps to ensure a correct verdict. And I don’t see how it helps encourage genuine victims of abuse to speak up.
Anyway, this is just my thoughts on what little I’ve seen and the fact that when I see multiple reports all pushing the same agenda, I get suspicious. 🤨
Tonight is the first time I’ve taken a little bit of interest in the case and I concede that others here making points about the case know far more about it than I. My point really was about the general perception that the general public seem to have about the case. In the last few weeks I’ve skipped past so many videos and articles with headlines clearly criticising Heard, ridiculing her legal team, fawning over Depp’s legal team, analysing Heard’s body language and so on. I don’t think I’ve noticed anything critical of Depp at all. As I said earlier, maybe this is the correct verdict and she got her just desserts, but I’m not comfortable with the way the verdict was reached by the general public seemingly on the basis of one sided TikToks and YouTube videos made by people with clear agendas.
I’d like to think the jury got it right. Some of you have pointed to inconsistencies in her stories and the like, so maybe that’s all there is to it. I don’t know. But at the end of the day, I don’t see why people needed to watch it or why it’s considered ok for it to be televised. I don’t see how that helps to ensure a correct verdict. And I don’t see how it helps encourage genuine victims of abuse to speak up.
Anyway, this is just my thoughts on what little I’ve seen and the fact that when I see multiple reports all pushing the same agenda, I get suspicious. 🤨
Yes, if you didn't follow the trial, I can absolutely see why you would think that way. Be suspicious, or just watch the trial. Its all there in black and white. The reason of the trial was not to "encourage genuine victims of domestic violence to speak out" it was about somebody maliciously lieing that they were domestically abused to ruin somebody elses life. If you don't feel that it was a correct decision (without seeing the evidence) then perhaps you should reflect on that before you put your opinions online that people can see.
But if you would like to create a conspiracy theory then crack on, perhaps the jury was paid off? Stranger things have happened I guess..
Tonight is the first time I’ve taken a little bit of interest in the case and I concede that others here making points about the case know far more about it than I. My point really was about the general perception that the general public seem to have about the case. In the last few weeks I’ve skipped past so many videos and articles with headlines clearly criticising Heard, ridiculing her legal team, fawning over Depp’s legal team, analysing Heard’s body language and so on. I don’t think I’ve noticed anything critical of Depp at all. As I said earlier, maybe this is the correct verdict and she got her just desserts, but I’m not comfortable with the way the verdict was reached by the general public seemingly on the basis of one sided TikToks and YouTube videos made by people with clear agendas.
I’d like to think the jury got it right. Some of you have pointed to inconsistencies in her stories and the like, so maybe that’s all there is to it. I don’t know. But at the end of the day, I don’t see why people needed to watch it or why it’s considered ok for it to be televised. I don’t see how that helps to ensure a correct verdict. And I don’t see how it helps encourage genuine victims of abuse to speak up.
Anyway, this is just my thoughts on what little I’ve seen and the fact that when I see multiple reports all pushing the same agenda, I get suspicious. 🤨
Yes, if you didn't follow the trial, I can absolutely see why you would think that way. Be suspicious, or just watch the trial. Its all there in black and white. The reason of the trial was not to "encourage genuine victims of domestic violence to speak out" it was about somebody maliciously lieing that they were domestically abused to ruin somebody elses life. If you don't feel that it was a correct decision (without seeing the evidence) then perhaps you should reflect on that before you put your opinions online that people can see.
But if you would like to create a conspiracy theory then crack on, perhaps the jury was paid off? Stranger things have happened I guess..
I didn’t say I don’t think it was a correct decision. And “create a conspiracy theory” 😂 Jesus. Get a grip mate! I’m just pointing out the one sided nature of the soap opera.
If the jury made the correct decision, then great. If she’s a liar, ok, she got her come-uppance. I’ve said this already. I’m pointing out that a trial doesn’t need televising and I’d argue it shouldn’t be televised. It’s not helpful, either to justice or wider issues. That’s all.
Tonight is the first time I’ve taken a little bit of interest in the case and I concede that others here making points about the case know far more about it than I. My point really was about the general perception that the general public seem to have about the case. In the last few weeks I’ve skipped past so many videos and articles with headlines clearly criticising Heard, ridiculing her legal team, fawning over Depp’s legal team, analysing Heard’s body language and so on. I don’t think I’ve noticed anything critical of Depp at all. As I said earlier, maybe this is the correct verdict and she got her just desserts, but I’m not comfortable with the way the verdict was reached by the general public seemingly on the basis of one sided TikToks and YouTube videos made by people with clear agendas.
I’d like to think the jury got it right. Some of you have pointed to inconsistencies in her stories and the like, so maybe that’s all there is to it. I don’t know. But at the end of the day, I don’t see why people needed to watch it or why it’s considered ok for it to be televised. I don’t see how that helps to ensure a correct verdict. And I don’t see how it helps encourage genuine victims of abuse to speak up.
Anyway, this is just my thoughts on what little I’ve seen and the fact that when I see multiple reports all pushing the same agenda, I get suspicious. 🤨
Yes, if you didn't follow the trial, I can absolutely see why you would think that way. Be suspicious, or just watch the trial. Its all there in black and white. The reason of the trial was not to "encourage genuine victims of domestic violence to speak out" it was about somebody maliciously lieing that they were domestically abused to ruin somebody elses life. If you don't feel that it was a correct decision (without seeing the evidence) then perhaps you should reflect on that before you put your opinions online that people can see.
But if you would like to create a conspiracy theory then crack on, perhaps the jury was paid off? Stranger things have happened I guess..
I didn’t say I don’t think it was a correct decision. And “create a conspiracy theory” 😂 Jesus. Get a grip mate! I’m just pointing out the one sided nature of the soap opera.
If the jury made the correct decision, then great. If she’s a liar, ok, she got her come-uppance. I’ve said this already. I’m pointing out that a trial doesn’t need televising and I’d argue it shouldn’t be televised. It’s not helpful, either to justice or wider issues. That’s all.
Your entire post is EXACTLY why it is important to televise this trial - you have openly admitted you haven't seen any of the evidence or any of the trial - but your bias is that it is suspicious. The trial wasn't "one sided" your views are.
Tonight is the first time I’ve taken a little bit of interest in the case and I concede that others here making points about the case know far more about it than I. My point really was about the general perception that the general public seem to have about the case. In the last few weeks I’ve skipped past so many videos and articles with headlines clearly criticising Heard, ridiculing her legal team, fawning over Depp’s legal team, analysing Heard’s body language and so on. I don’t think I’ve noticed anything critical of Depp at all. As I said earlier, maybe this is the correct verdict and she got her just desserts, but I’m not comfortable with the way the verdict was reached by the general public seemingly on the basis of one sided TikToks and YouTube videos made by people with clear agendas.
I’d like to think the jury got it right. Some of you have pointed to inconsistencies in her stories and the like, so maybe that’s all there is to it. I don’t know. But at the end of the day, I don’t see why people needed to watch it or why it’s considered ok for it to be televised. I don’t see how that helps to ensure a correct verdict. And I don’t see how it helps encourage genuine victims of abuse to speak up.
Anyway, this is just my thoughts on what little I’ve seen and the fact that when I see multiple reports all pushing the same agenda, I get suspicious. 🤨
Yes, if you didn't follow the trial, I can absolutely see why you would think that way. Be suspicious, or just watch the trial. Its all there in black and white. The reason of the trial was not to "encourage genuine victims of domestic violence to speak out" it was about somebody maliciously lieing that they were domestically abused to ruin somebody elses life. If you don't feel that it was a correct decision (without seeing the evidence) then perhaps you should reflect on that before you put your opinions online that people can see.
But if you would like to create a conspiracy theory then crack on, perhaps the jury was paid off? Stranger things have happened I guess..
I didn’t say I don’t think it was a correct decision. And “create a conspiracy theory” 😂 Jesus. Get a grip mate! I’m just pointing out the one sided nature of the soap opera.
If the jury made the correct decision, then great. If she’s a liar, ok, she got her come-uppance. I’ve said this already. I’m pointing out that a trial doesn’t need televising and I’d argue it shouldn’t be televised. It’s not helpful, either to justice or wider issues. That’s all.
Your entire post is EXACTLY why it is important to televise this trial - you have openly admitted you haven't seen any of the evidence or any of the trial - but your bias is that it is suspicious. The trial wasn't "one sided" your views are.
*Sigh*. No. You’re not understanding. I didn’t say the trial was one sided. The media coverage (the soap opera) was. Seemingly every report on the case has come from one point of view. In any argument there are always two points of view. Even if you disagree entirely with a side, it’s important to see that point of view and hear it. It’s why we should always consume news from a range of sources to avoid confirmation bias. When there doesn’t seem to be any reports from one side, it strikes me as odd.
I honestly don’t know why you’re so angry about this and trying to make me out to be biased. It’s a bit weird.
Lordromford sighed with disappointment as once again his comments were misunderstood by Manic_Mania. Could it have been that his explanation was unclear or was Manic_Mania being difficult?
Only Manic_Mania truly knew the answer to this question, would he let lordromford know that he had either misunderstood or was just being difficult.
The bored users of Charlton Life watched on in anticipation.
Lordromford sighed with disappointment as once again his comments were misunderstood by Manic_Mania. Could it have been that his explanation was unclear or was Manic_Mania being difficult?
Only Manic_Mania truly knew the answer to this question, would he let lordromford know that he had either misunderstood or was just being difficult.
The bored users of Charlton Life watched on in anticipation.
No idea. Maybe I was unclear. Sorry to have bored you.
Lordromford sighed with disappointment as once again his comments were misunderstood by Manic_Mania. Could it have been that his explanation was unclear or was Manic_Mania being difficult?
Only Manic_Mania truly knew the answer to this question, would he let lordromford know that he had either misunderstood or was just being difficult.
The bored users of Charlton Life watched on in anticipation.
No idea. Maybe I was unclear. Sorry to have bored you.
Don't feel bad it's the Summer break, we're all bored 😉
Tonight is the first time I’ve taken a little bit of interest in the case and I concede that others here making points about the case know far more about it than I. My point really was about the general perception that the general public seem to have about the case. In the last few weeks I’ve skipped past so many videos and articles with headlines clearly criticising Heard, ridiculing her legal team, fawning over Depp’s legal team, analysing Heard’s body language and so on. I don’t think I’ve noticed anything critical of Depp at all. As I said earlier, maybe this is the correct verdict and she got her just desserts, but I’m not comfortable with the way the verdict was reached by the general public seemingly on the basis of one sided TikToks and YouTube videos made by people with clear agendas.
I’d like to think the jury got it right. Some of you have pointed to inconsistencies in her stories and the like, so maybe that’s all there is to it. I don’t know. But at the end of the day, I don’t see why people needed to watch it or why it’s considered ok for it to be televised. I don’t see how that helps to ensure a correct verdict. And I don’t see how it helps encourage genuine victims of abuse to speak up.
Anyway, this is just my thoughts on what little I’ve seen and the fact that when I see multiple reports all pushing the same agenda, I get suspicious. 🤨
Yes, if you didn't follow the trial, I can absolutely see why you would think that way. Be suspicious, or just watch the trial. Its all there in black and white. The reason of the trial was not to "encourage genuine victims of domestic violence to speak out" it was about somebody maliciously lieing that they were domestically abused to ruin somebody elses life. If you don't feel that it was a correct decision (without seeing the evidence) then perhaps you should reflect on that before you put your opinions online that people can see.
But if you would like to create a conspiracy theory then crack on, perhaps the jury was paid off? Stranger things have happened I guess..
I didn’t say I don’t think it was a correct decision. And “create a conspiracy theory” 😂 Jesus. Get a grip mate! I’m just pointing out the one sided nature of the soap opera.
If the jury made the correct decision, then great. If she’s a liar, ok, she got her come-uppance. I’ve said this already. I’m pointing out that a trial doesn’t need televising and I’d argue it shouldn’t be televised. It’s not helpful, either to justice or wider issues. That’s all.
Your entire post is EXACTLY why it is important to televise this trial - you have openly admitted you haven't seen any of the evidence or any of the trial - but your bias is that it is suspicious. The trial wasn't "one sided" your views are.
*Sigh*. No. You’re not understanding. I didn’t say the trial was one sided. The media coverage (the soap opera) was. Seemingly every report on the case has come from one point of view. In any argument there are always two points of view. Even if you disagree entirely with a side, it’s important to see that point of view and hear it. It’s why we should always consume news from a range of sources to avoid confirmation bias. When there doesn’t seem to be any reports from one side, it strikes me as odd.
I honestly don’t know why you’re so angry about this and trying to make me out to be biased. It’s a bit weird.
Interesting because I felt the news coverage remained open-minded even while the trial itself was clearly one-sided. Which makes me wonder what news you're following? I know many liberal news outlets were very reluctant to call BS on Heard even when those lies were proven in court, just because of the prevalence of women's issues (especially in regards to violence against women).
The legal question that's being addressed is whether or not Amber Heard's OpEd is true and whether it's defamatory. The fact that they've both come out of this in a much worse state than they entered is mere fluff. The legal case rests on whether what she wrote about him was true and, if not, did it damage him, materially.
So far, legally, it seems both parties are on for a big loss.
I read that Elon Musk is paying Amber’s legal bills. He also made a £400,000 contribution to the donations she was supposed to be making out of the divorce settlement.
Tonight is the first time I’ve taken a little bit of interest in the case and I concede that others here making points about the case know far more about it than I. My point really was about the general perception that the general public seem to have about the case. In the last few weeks I’ve skipped past so many videos and articles with headlines clearly criticising Heard, ridiculing her legal team, fawning over Depp’s legal team, analysing Heard’s body language and so on. I don’t think I’ve noticed anything critical of Depp at all. As I said earlier, maybe this is the correct verdict and she got her just desserts, but I’m not comfortable with the way the verdict was reached by the general public seemingly on the basis of one sided TikToks and YouTube videos made by people with clear agendas.
I’d like to think the jury got it right. Some of you have pointed to inconsistencies in her stories and the like, so maybe that’s all there is to it. I don’t know. But at the end of the day, I don’t see why people needed to watch it or why it’s considered ok for it to be televised. I don’t see how that helps to ensure a correct verdict. And I don’t see how it helps encourage genuine victims of abuse to speak up.
Anyway, this is just my thoughts on what little I’ve seen and the fact that when I see multiple reports all pushing the same agenda, I get suspicious. 🤨
Here, i've highlighted what i'm talking about.
my point was (again) watch the trial it's in black and white. The reason it was important it was televised is because people just read headlines and think their opinion is valid - that is the DEFINITION of what defamation is. The entire point of the trial.
The legal question that's being addressed is whether or not Amber Heard's OpEd is true and whether it's defamatory. The fact that they've both come out of this in a much worse state than they entered is mere fluff. The legal case rests on whether what she wrote about him was true and, if not, did it damage him, materially.
So far, legally, it seems both parties are on for a big loss.
I read that Elon Musk is paying Amber’s legal bills. He also made a £400,000 contribution to the donations she was supposed to be making out of the divorce settlement.
Lordromford sighed with disappointment as once again his comments were misunderstood by Manic_Mania. Could it have been that his explanation was unclear or was Manic_Mania being difficult?
Only Manic_Mania truly knew the answer to this question, would he let lordromford know that he had either misunderstood or was just being difficult.
The bored users of Charlton Life watched on in anticipation.
nobody asked you to click on this thread, if the content bores you then contribute or do one. At least Lord Romford has something to say instead of trying to farm for likes to make himself feel popular.
Comments
Ultimately hope that this doesnt set back the progression that has been made with clamping down on genuine Domestic Abuse.
Heard's legal team were awful
And she smirked and rolled her eyes throughout testimony/mentions of abuse that any genuine PTSD victim would be absolutely traumatised by if it had actually happened.
She knew that with the climate of #metoo, and the nonsense proposal of 'always believe women' (why not do away with the PCS and the courts altogether?), that all she had to do was make the accusations and then turn on the fake tears and victimhood in order to win under circumstances that made it hard for the accused to disprove the malicious allegations. The only problem was that she wasn't very bright and made definitive statements about alleged attacks which were easily proved to be false and often rebounded on her in a negative way. Reminds me of a certain 'Princess' married to a rather dim bulb that uses the current fashion for victimhood and nonsense post-modern narratives to press all the right buttons to win the victim label.
From the BBC:
'The jury has found that Heard's statements about her marriage were "false" and conveyed "a defamatory implication" to people other than Depp.
They also found she acted with "actual malice"'.
They heard all the evidence from both sides; and that is a pretty damning verdict.
Save your sympathy for someone who deserves it. Unfortunately, there are many victims of male sexual violence who have had no justice - she isn't one.
Wonder what that was
I think her mentioning Depp's fame is too easy a way to try and deflect as to why she lost.
She may have brought it up when she got questioned (I havent watched much the last few weeks) - But the bit I've struggled with the moment it came out, was the fact that she originally came out saying she had no intention of keeping the $7m she won from the original case... But the charity barely saw a penny from her
He must have lost millions for not appearing in Pirates of the Caribbean and Fantastic Beasts alone.
My point really was about the general perception that the general public seem to have about the case. In the last few weeks I’ve skipped past so many videos and articles with headlines clearly criticising Heard, ridiculing her legal team, fawning over Depp’s legal team, analysing Heard’s body language and so on. I don’t think I’ve noticed anything critical of Depp at all. As I said earlier, maybe this is the correct verdict and she got her just desserts, but I’m not comfortable with the way the verdict was reached by the general public seemingly on the basis of one sided TikToks and YouTube videos made by people with clear agendas.
I’d like to think the jury got it right. Some of you have pointed to inconsistencies in her stories and the like, so maybe that’s all there is to it. I don’t know. But at the end of the day, I don’t see why people needed to watch it or why it’s considered ok for it to be televised. I don’t see how that helps to ensure a correct verdict. And I don’t see how it helps encourage genuine victims of abuse to speak up.
But if you would like to create a conspiracy theory then crack on, perhaps the jury was paid off? Stranger things have happened I guess..
Jesus. Get a grip mate! I’m just pointing out the one sided nature of the soap opera.
I’m pointing out that a trial doesn’t need televising and I’d argue it shouldn’t be televised. It’s not helpful, either to justice or wider issues. That’s all.
In any argument there are always two points of view. Even if you disagree entirely with a side, it’s important to see that point of view and hear it. It’s why we should always consume news from a range of sources to avoid confirmation bias. When there doesn’t seem to be any reports from one side, it strikes me as odd.
Only Manic_Mania truly knew the answer to this question, would he let lordromford know that he had either misunderstood or was just being difficult.
The bored users of Charlton Life watched on in anticipation.
my point was (again) watch the trial it's in black and white. The reason it was important it was televised is because people just read headlines and think their opinion is valid - that is the DEFINITION of what defamation is. The entire point of the trial.
Agent Elon.