Here is the full audio if anyone wants to listen to it.
You seem to have alot of time and interest invested in this subject
Just read about that, doesn’t seem to be going well for her, but for Depp to get the “win” in courts then it needs to be a slam dunk I think?
there’s been enough to come out in this case so far that at least public opinion will have changed on Depp and he may get his career back?
Just read about that, doesn’t seem to be going well for her, but for Depp to get the “win” in courts then it needs to be a slam dunk I think?
there’s been enough to come out in this case so far that at least public opinion will have changed on Depp and he may get his career back?
Yeh there is no chance he wins regardless because there is no real disproving that he was violent. It seems clear they both were.
But like you say there might be context to it all, that they were both in a toxic environment
Apart from ambers word there so far has been no evidenceso far that johnny was violent.
But they are not ruling on that are they thats already been proven in previous court rulings? One court previously ruled that she was telling the truth, so is the onus in this case not on him to prove without doubt he was not violent?
The uk trial has no bearing on this one. Although it has come up that amber purjured herself in the uk trial. She lied about donating her divorce settlement to charity. Which was a big part of why she won as it showed she had no financial incentive to lie.
This is a civil case not criminal. So is based on probability of who the jury (in the uk case judge) thinks is more likely to be telling the truth. There is no reasonable doubt and nothing is proven as such.
Ok, I stand correct, not as invested as you TBF
Bit of a circus all this really
Dipped in an out without taking too much notice but whats clear is this is two people with issues who have depended on drink and drugs and its contributed to whats clear been a toxic relationship. Im not saying who is wrong who is right, I mean who knows but its a shame its got to this.
What is baffling is the money element here, she has none and he has done his dough, so who can afford to pay who even if they wanted to?
Was just watching a lawyer in the us talk about how difficult it is to actually get the money back from people even if they have it. Seems the judgement will only be for that state. If the person that loses doesn't live or work in that state. Then you can't get anything. You'd have to apply to get the judgement recognised in a state where they do. Now for wages you can take some if they earn over a certain amount. But you can't seize property. You can only take a percentage of a sale. Now the person isn't going to sell if all the money goes to you. So you have to negotiate with them what percentage you'd take if they do sell.
Now in florida, if you are the primary provider in your family, they can't take anything. Hence why trump and others have moved there.
SO in short this is all abit pointless?
There are shades of Gamergate about the way the far right are using this to radicalise people