Probably best that he is retiring next May as I'd imagine anyone that comes up in his court after this will have no faith in the justice system at all.Įdited to add: Funnily enough, The Sun pretty much accused Nicol of being corrupt in November 2016 "A case of money talks, free speech walks?". It doesn't bring up anything that hasn't already been queried by anyone following the case and to my mind, if any layman can see the discrepancies, how solid is his judgement? Reading the skeleton argument, I'm not sure if Nicol is biased, incompetent or just deliberately ignoring evidence. It seems that their only real grounds were on judge Nicol not applying the law correctly, not sure if he covered himself fully in that area or not? But of course losing had a terrible impact on Depp. To me, and I guess many others it made the judgement near meaningless. The appeal doc really does show how much evidence wasn’t taken into account. It just seems that because the burden of proof is lower they can get away with seeing how they want to. After reading it, it really does illustrate the bias but as said above, I’m not sure either if it will carry any actual weight for the appeal. Nonetheless, if anybody here has read some - of either of the links – happy to share thoughts on why it might & why it might not have, 'a chance in hell ', of reaching the Appeal Court Was reluctant to put any more effort in than that, for several reasons) ( I read the Grounds cause it's only short and then read a few pages of the arguments in the second link. I also don't have the legal knowledge to say, in any informed way as to whether the appeal has sufficient merit but I made a stab at reading some of it.
I think they are very valid however, I'm also acutely aware that I'm about as legal illiterate as you can get so have no idea whether they will have any merit as far as the appellate court is concerned. So what do you make of the arguments in the link? He called one of these allegations “hyperbowl” then took her word entirely for twelve other incidents despite stronger opposing evidence, this I don’t understand and am glad the appeal doc highlights it. The other issue here is not just that Depp lost the case, it is how bias the judgement was and the ramifications of this, giving legal weight to twelve of Heard’s allegations. Considering the evidence he bought forward he deserved one. Whatever your feelings are on Depp being guilty anyway, he should have got a fair trial. It seemed Judge Nicol did everything he could to make Amber credible despite her dubious testimony in court, where she and Whitney were changing dates on the fly. A few lies under oath surely equals how can you destroy a mans career and reputation based on this, what else is she lying about? It was Depp v the Sun, but Heard was their star witness and they relied on her being completely credible, if she was exposed as lying, the Sun wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on. If these contradictions and lies in Heard’s account were tackled fairly then her credibility would have been seriously challenged, which in turn could have changed the case.
HYPERBOWL WHATEVER TRIAL
There are some valid points there as far as Judge Nicol's failure to engage in his summing up with the various ambiguities and contradictions/lies in Heard's account of things but it's all pretty much moot imo since (a) Depp was on trial, not Heard and (b) Depp, all on his own, provided enough evidence to satisfy the remit of the libel trial - that he had been physically violent towards Heard on 'X' number of occasions - and for Nicol to find in favour of the Sun. The Guardian's piece on Depp's lawyer's appeal against the High Court ruling.
0 kommentar(er)
