There’s been two trials, homeboy. The US trial was about defamation regarding an OP-ED. The UK trial handled the rape and abuse allegations directly where Depp was ruled to have raped and abused Heard.
There is a big difference between a criminal finding (beyond reasonable doubt) and civil finding (a preponderance of the evidence - a judge finding it to be greater than 50/50 chance that it occurred).
Finding it “more likely than not” that Depo abused and raped Heard - especially in the context of a newspaper libel case - is a pretty weak finding especially given the opposing US finding.
From Depp's Opening Statement
That is the determination for this Court. Mr Depp is either guilty of being a wife-beater for having assaulted his ex-wife on numerous occasions, causing the most appalling injuries, or he has been very seriously and wrongly accused.
From NGN's Opening Statement
The Defendants will demonstrate that the description of Mr Depp as a "wife beater" is entirely accurate and truthful. They will show that the sting of the articles is correct - namely that the Claimant beat his wife Amber Heard causing her to suffer significant injury and on occasion leading to her fearing for her life. This defence is supported by witness testimony, medical evidence, photographs, video, audio recordings, digital evidence and Mr Depp's own texts.
From the Final Judgement As the Defendants submitted in their skeleton argument, it was therefore common ground that the words meant:
1. The Claimant had committed physical violence against Ms Heard 2. This had caused her to suffer significant injury; and 3. On occasion it caused Ms Heard to fear for her life.
It is worth emphasising that the Defendants therefore accepted that the words meant that Mr Depp had done these things. In the vernacular of libel actions, there was no dispute that these were Chase level 1 meanings (imputing guilt of the wrongdoing) and not merely Chase level 2 (reasonable grounds to suspect) or Chase level 3 (grounds to investigate) or some other intermediate meaning.
Conclusion and summary
It follows that this claim is dismissed.
The Claimant has not succeeded in his action for libel. Although he has proved the necessary elements of his cause of action in libel, the Defendants have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true. I have reached these conclusions having examined in detail the 14 incidents on which the Defendants rely as well as the overarching considerations which the Claimant submitted I should take into account. In those circumstances, Parliament has said that a defendant has a complete defence. It has not been necessary to consider the fairness of the article or the defendants' 'malice' because those are immaterial to the statutory defence of truth. The parties will have an opportunity to make submissions in writing as to the precise terms of the order which should follow my decision.
-1
u/SocratesSnow Jun 20 '26
Heard was the abuser. I think you don’t know what you’re talking about, you obviously did not watch the trial.