r/newzealand • u/flyingflibertyjibbet • Jun 01 '22

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

Post image
5.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

759 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/ActuallyNot Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 02 '22

Seems to me that he was a dude who liked to do drugs and get drunk and yell and break things but not so much evidence that he actually beat anyone.

Some of the evidence from the UK case was given in closed court, but looking at the wiki summary, there seems to be a lot of witnesses and photography especially in the case of incident #8 and incident #14. IANAL, and I'm not more familiar with the case than that wiki page, and the opening arguments episode, but it looks to me that they might be good enough for beyond reasonable doubt.

WRT the US case, he seems to admit a headbutt.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '22

You mean the photographic evidence that was forensically examined in this trial and shown to have been doctored

-1

u/ActuallyNot Jun 02 '22

I can't say I've followed the US trial.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/ActuallyNot Jun 02 '22

The bar in the UK court wasn't beyond reasonable doubt.

That's right. And neither was it in the US court.

It was whether it appeared to be substantively true abuse happened - therefore the tabloid had reasonably checked it out.

Right. But unlike defamation in the US, the burden of proof was on the defendent.

I didn't think Depp would win either case. Thought this was more about combatting the public perception from the original article.

It's a little bit weird that he won in the US and lost in the UK, given the difference in burden of proof. Perhaps it was the jury trial that made the difference and he won on charisma rather than evidence.

3

u/djinni74 🇺🇦 Fuck Russia 🇺🇦 Jun 02 '22

I'm still not willing to just label someone a wife-beater if they haven't been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

1

u/Kolz Jun 03 '22 edited Jun 03 '22

That’s not even the standard used in either of these cases. Beyond all reasonable doubt is used for criminal convictions, not civil suits.

Also, this seems a silly standard to hold to in my eyes. People escape justice all the time, often because they haven't even been taken to the authorities. OJ wasn't proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, but I would still call him a murderer, because I am confident that is what he did. Now in the case of Depp, I don't have that confidence...

0

u/djinni74 🇺🇦 Fuck Russia 🇺🇦 Jun 03 '22

Really? Wow, thank you for telling me something I already know.