Injustice Served On A Platter Of Democratic And Public Justice (Finale)

If you haven't read the first part of this article, you can read it here

It's interesting to know that both Amber and Depp are American citizens which removes possible nationalist bias in the judgement received in the UK trial. However, this can't be said of the US trial. Moving on, another key difference is who the judge of the case was. In the UK, it was solely a judge trained in the art and business of the law, while in the US, it was a bunch of people with no prior law training or idea on how a case should run, people who were more focused on the online comments about the case than the argument in the courtroom. I know you might argue with this reasoning, and understandably so, but even the judge saw it happening. How do I know this?

I know for a fact that the jurors were told not to read about the issue online. But their phones weren't taken, and neither were they sequestered. So, do you think they didn't go online to read about it all through the trial while they had smart TVs and their phones with them in their respective homes? I know my answer. You answer it for yourself. I will now make my arguments. The judge knew because they were not quite trained on how to separate genuine arguments and evidence from manipulated ones, justice might be perverted.

As I've said before, the same set of evidence was presented in both the US and the UK. While it was enough for the judge in the UK, it was wholly "malicious" for the jury in the US. Amber Heard lost in this case for two reasons which are jointed. Amber lost because she was tried in the court of the public. The real jurors and prosecutors were the thousands of people who gathered online, either against her or for Depp. Before you start to say people were against her because she lied, I would like to remind you that it was soon after the #Metoo trend, that this whole saga started. Amber's online trial was a result of the backlash of the #Metoo trend.

The second reason is that these jurors relied on the popular opinion online, which they were not supposed to come to the knowledge of in the first place. There's a third reason which is a very classic one. There's a method amongst lawyers known to be used to pervert justice in cases like this and that's exactly what Depp's lawyer used. This technique is however something a lawyer or judge can easily spot and dismantle, but not so much can be said of a jury. Don't take it from me, take it from a certain international lawyer who gave this opinion on BBC.

According to this lawyer, "The fact that the jury found that Ms Heard was guilty of defamation with an article in which she claimed she was a victim of domestic abuse means they didn't believe her testimony.

Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer, told the BBC that it's "very rare" that essentially the same case is tried on two sides of the pond and gets different results.

He believes the main factor that influenced Mr Depp's victory in America was the fact that his US trial was before a jury while his UK trial, over an article in the British tabloid that called him a "wife-beater", was before a judge only.

"Amber Heard has comprehensively lost in the court of public opinion, and in front of the jury," he said.

In both the UK and the US trial, Mr Depp's lawyers argued that Ms Heard was lying - to make their case, they attacked her character and claimed that she was in fact the abusive partner.

This is a common defence tactic in sexual assault and domestic violence trials called "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender" or "Darvo", said Mr Stephens.

The strategy turns the tables on the alleged victim, shifting the conversation away from "did the accused commit abuse" to "is the alleged victim believable".

"They deny that they did anything, they deny they're the real perpetrator, and they attack the credibility of the individual calling out the abuse and then reverse the roles of the victim and the offender," Mr Stephens said.

In the UK trial, Mr Stephens said the judge recognized that strategy and dismissed a lot of the evidence that did not directly address whether Mr Depp committed assault or not.

"Lawyers and judges tend not to fall for it, but it's very, very effective against juries," he said."

If after reading that, you still don't see what happened, then I rest my case.

Closing Thoughts.

While I'm not denying the fact that Amber was just as abusive to Depp as he was to him, if not more, it doesn't invalidate her claim that she was abused. Mutual abuse is not the same nor equal to no abuse. Hence, there was no defamation whatsoever. The jury didn't judge for defamation, they judged Amber's person and on that basis, they invalidated her arguments and evidence without even looking at it.

I'm hundred percent certain, that if it was left to the sentencing judge alone, the final decision from him would have been the direct opposite of what we have now. What becomes of it now is for Amber to decide. Maybe she'll appeal, and this time ask for a non-televised trial, so she can be tried in a courtroom, and not on Twitter.

Thanks for reading..