#metoo

[Snarky Oracle!]

I never knew any of that - like I said, I didn't follow the trial. I was ambivalent about the whole thing but after reading that, I think Heard got off very easy. Depp lost almost everything if I remember correctly.

Not only have those audiotapes not be replayed (that I'm aware of) but Samantha Guthrie did a pretty good interview with Amber shortly after the verdict, and Amber looked pretty darned bad in it. But the interview was quickly edited down to a version that ultimately came off as more neutral. Of course.

 

[Angela Channing]

The views of one person on a single issue doesn't discredit the whole #metoo movement.

However, when Johnny Depp sued a British newspaper for calling him a "wife-beater", the court found that what the paper said was "substantially true". So let's not make out that Johnny Depp is some kind of saint or victim or that Amber Heard was not subjected to violence by Mr Depp. It was the verdict of the court that she was indeed beaten by Johnny Depp.

Johnny Depp loses libel case over Sun 'wife beater' claim

The judge says the Sun's article claiming the actor assaulted Amber Heard was "substantially true".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The views of one person on a single issue doesn't discredit the whole #metoo movement.

However, when Johnny Depp sued a British newspaper for calling him a "wife-beater", the court found that what the paper said was "substantially true". So let's not make out that Johnny Depp is some kind of saint or victim or that Amber Heard was not subjected to violence by Mr Depp. It was the verdict of the court that she was indeed beaten by Johnny Depp.

Johnny Depp loses libel case over Sun 'wife beater' claim

The judge says the Sun's article claiming the actor assaulted Amber Heard was "substantially true".

www.bbc.co.uk

This was a miscarriage of justice. Depp sued over the story, and it turned out the judge was related to the guy who wrote it.

 

[Angela Channing]

This was a miscarriage of justice. Depp sued over the story, and it turned out the judge was related to the guy who wrote it.

That simply is not true, and if it was, Johnny Depp's legal team would have gotten the verdict overturned.

 

[Frank Underwood]

It was never just "the views of one person on a single issue" that undermined the #MeToo movement. Sadly, most movements are usually discredited by bad faith actors.

This was a miscarriage of justice. Depp sued over the story, and it turned out the judge was related to the guy who wrote it.

Actually, the judge's son worked for an organization that employed the author of the article. Still, it is an odd coincidence, to say the least.

The allegations were said to have "met the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities," but I think it should have to go from "probabilities" to "definitive proof."

 

[Angela Channing]

Actually, the judge's son worked for an organization that employed the author of the article. Still, it is an odd coincidence, to say the least.

The allegations were said to have "met the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities," but I think it should have to go from "probabilities" to "definitive proof."

That just not is the case. The judge's son was occasional contributor to TalkRadio he was not employed by them. The Sun is a separate company to TalkRadio. There was no conflict of interest and if there was, Depp's legal team would have secured a mistrial.

It was a civil case, not a criminal case so the level of proof required in the UK is balance of probabilities and on that basis The Sun were able to prove that it was "substantially true" that Mr Depp was a wife beater.

I know you don't like facts but that is the reality of what happened.

That said, The Heard-Depp dispute has nothing to do with #metoo

 

[Frank Underwood]

That just not is the case. The judge's son was occasional contributor to TalkRadio he was not employed by them. The Sun is a separate company to TalkRadio. There was no conflict of interest and if there was, Depp's legal team would have secured a mistrial.

It was a civil case, not a criminal case so the level of proof required in the UK is balance of probabilities and on that basis The Sun were able to prove that it was "substantially true" that Mr Depp was a wife beater.

I know you don't like facts but that is the reality of what happened.

I don't like facts??? That's rich coming from you. Facts are whatever suit your narrative, and everything else gets dismissed as "conspiracy theories."

I always do my best to substantiate what I post. The info I saw said the judge's son worked for TalkRadio, but either way, there was still a connection if he was a contributor.

At the very least, there was an indirect connection between the judge and the author of the article. That can be passed off as a coincidence, so Depp's legal team wouldn't have been able to prove a conflict of interest had occurred. I'm not very familiar with UK law, but even so, I cited the "balance of probabilities" reasoning that The Sun used to claim the allegations were "substantially true." I stuck to the facts, while also stating my opinion when I said "I think it should have to go from "probabilities" to "definitive proof."

That said, The Heard-Depp dispute has nothing to do with #metoo

The problems with #MeToo go far beyond the Heard-Depp dispute. It was hijacked by a bunch of misandrists on a witch hunt, not caring who got hurt in the process.

I know you don't like facts, but that's the reality of what happened.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

A mistrial has been declared in the Lindsay Clancy case. Reportedly, only 1 juror voted to convict, and was smeared as unwilling to follow the instructions of the court because he refused to cut the defendant any slack.

If all this is true, it's amazing. Why did 11 jurors vote otherwise??

More to come, I'm sure.

 

[CeeCee72]

A mistrial has been declared in the Lindsay Clancy case. Reportedly, only 1 juror voted to convict, and was smeared as unwilling to follow the instructions of the court because he refused to cut the defendant any slack.

If all this is true, it's amazing. Why did 11 jurors vote otherwise??

More to come, I'm sure.

And now the defense if appealing to a higher court because they judge wouldn't remove the hold out juror.

I'm absolutely stunned.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I just saw a fairly objective 20/20 piece on the Clancy case. The defense attorney now says that he "won" the case (even though he didn't want a mistrial).

She'll probably be in a mental institution permanently though, which is good... There was a case in the 1950s where a housewife drowned her three children, was found not-guilty from insanity, she went home, had three more children, and then drowned them again in the very same bathtub.