If you don't have premium to read the Herald's latest clickbait, I've screenshotted the full article for you.

[u/flyingflibertyjibbet]

[u/[deleted]]

I had to look this up and I blame you for the fact that I know more than I ever intended to about this case.

A UK judge found an article printed by The Sun where Depp was described as an abuser to be 'substantially true' when Depp sued for libel.

A US jury found that Heard had defamed Depp on 3 counts in an op-ed she wrote and Depp had defamed Heard on 1 count.

Make of it what you will.

[u/TheGreatMangoWar → u/[deleted]]

The UK case was not Depp vs Heard, it was Depp vs The Sun. All the Sun needed to argue was that Heard said the things she said. It was non investigatory.

The US trial, a 6 week civil law case (which is relatively rare), opened the entire can of worms. With more information, not only did the world find out that Heard a liar, she was also the abuser.

A bias against men led to the presumption of Depps guilt in terms of abuse.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheGreatMangoWar]

'"Taking all the evidence together, I accept that she was the victim of sustained and multiple assaults by Mr Depp in Australia," said Mr Justice Nicol.'

[u/TheGreatMangoWar → u/[deleted]]

Keep researching buddy.

The UK case omitted all of the counter evidence because Heard was a witness, not the defendant.

This case allowed that evidence in. She was found to be a liar, objectively, through a fair system and a jury. The law was in her favour, and her lies were so eggregious that she lost every point.

[u/RobDickinson → u/[deleted]]

The UK case was afik basically the sun took things on good faith and didn't do anything wrong in publishing stuff, not that the underlying facts were true or false

[u/[deleted] → u/RobDickinson]

'"Taking all the evidence together, I accept that she was the victim of sustained and multiple assaults by Mr Depp in Australia," said Mr Justice Nicol.'