zero129 said:
JWeinCom said:
So... we all have a common understanding of what abuse is, and nobody has ever believed themselves to be a victim of abuse when others would disagree? O_o...
"I don't know whether or not the jury came to the right conclusion."
"You're defending Amber Heard."
"No... I said I don't know what the right conclusion was."
"You're saying both sides were wrong and nobody should lose."
"No, I'm saying I don't know what the right conclusion was."
"So explain to me why you think Amber heard should have won."
I genuinely don't know to say at this point. Are you doing an Abbott and Costello bit? I'm not going to defend a point I never made. I'll just repeat.
I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not.
|
You almost sound like her solicitor for real after she is caught out in shit and has nothing else to say.
|
So... you think her solicitor would say that he thinks she's possibly delusional, abusive, and that they don't know if she should have won the case? I suggest you don't go into the PR business cause you'd be shit at it. Honestly, are you trying to mess with me, or is literally anything but unqualified condemnation considered support?
People, to be clear I mean specifically the people in this topic that I'm interacting with, just can't seem to grasp the concept that the trial was not about if Amber Heard was abusive, or if she's a bad person, or if Johnny Depp is a good person, etc (or at least not directly about those things even if they were relevant). Trials aren't places where we decide who is good and who is bad. Sometimes bad guys win, and good guys lose.
Amber Heard could literally be Hitler cloned into a female body, and Johnny Depp could secretly be Super-man and it wouldn't necessarily mean she should have lost. It is about whether specific statements made met the standards of defamation. That has a specific legal meaning, and I thought since I had some expertise on the matter, I'd bring it up. Didn't expect the pitchforks XD. "Law is reason free from passion" and this topic is apparently passion free from reason.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 02 June 2022
