Johnny Depp lost his London libel case against the London tabloid owned by Rupert-Murdoch, the Sun and his parent company, News Group Newspapers, for calling him a “female thresher” in a 2018 article and for suggesting he be fired from the JK Rowling / Warner Brothers Fantastic beasts movie franchise. The loss of the lawsuit will be more important than in the present proceedings, in that the from the sun legal representatives have bet that a witness appearance for Depp’s ex-wife Amber Heard would work for her and their favor.
It was a spectacular legal gamble. But the greater significance of the UK court verdict will come as a welcome boost for Ms Heard’s US legal team, as they are pledged to bring Mr Depp’s lawsuit against his ex-wife for a Washington post op-ed that she wrote as an alleged victim of domestic violence. Ms Heard’s US legal team expressed a sort of majestic appreciation of the verdict, stating that they look forward to standing up for Ms Heard and her First Amendment rights. Johnny Depp’s UK legal team from Schillings’ white-shoe law firm expressed dismay and surprisingly hinted at a call.
“This decision is as perverse as it is confusing,” said Jenny Afia of Schillings. “Most disturbing is the judge’s confidence in Amber Heard’s testimony, and the corresponding disregard for the mountain of counter-evidence from police officers, medics, his own former aide, other undisputed witnesses and a body of documentary evidence. which completely undermined the allegations, point by point. It was all overlooked. The judgment is so flawed that it would be ludicrous if Mr. Depp did not appeal this ruling.
In his opinion, the judge said: “The plaintiff was unsuccessful in his libel action. Although he has proven the necessary elements of his cause of action for libel, the defendants have shown that what they published in the sense that I accepted the words to bear were essentially true. I have come to these conclusions after examining in detail the 14 incidents on which the defendants rely as well as the overarching considerations that the plaintiff has stated that I must take into account. “
As was meticulously and spectacularly reported when the couple clashed with each other during the apparently 16-day Sisyphean trial, the testimony of Ms Heard and Depp was nothing short of explosive. Everything has been laid bare on both sides, in the hope of winning the sympathy of the judge. The Besieged Depp is one of our most gifted actors and storytellers – in fact, that’s the main reason producers and directors keep beating the man up for great roles: he knows how to incorporate a character, as fantastic as it is, and how to bring that character’s story to life. It seemed for a long time that Depp’s highly theatrical personal life, lived on the more fragile edge of his idol Hunter S. Thompson, including his drug addiction, was consuming him.
Despite this judgment, it does not seem to have happened yet. It was also a pleasure for his millions of fans to see him start his rebound from Disney. unceremonious and questionable hard fall of his iconic portrayal of the epically disorganized and world-loved Captain Jack Sparrow taking on the role of JK Rowling Grindelwald’s deeply torn wicked wizard in Warner’s Fantastic beasts franchise. Simply put, Fantastic beasts absolutely needs a tragic villain at his heart, and, right now, there are very few actors on earth who can play, along with the talented Mr. Depp, a tall, nuanced False figure grappling with his own demons while trying to take over the world (wizard).
Depp is filming Fantastic beasts’ third installment in Britain, where, as the world knows, he took arguably the world’s most spectacular summer break after the first wave of Covid to appear as a witness in this civil libel action against Rupert Murdoch Sun, its editor Dan Wootten. Mr. Wootten, in particular, will breathe a sigh of relief.
The legal process was epic in several ways, not least because lawyers for Murdoch without a prisoner put Depp’s ex-wife Amber Heard on the stand, and Depp matched that to take the stand to submit to a counter- scrutiny, explosively revealing by the team of defendants – millimeter-by-millimeter anatomy of a rocky marriage. The sheer volume of excruciating detail was astounding – the daily gruesome, emotional testimony and tapes of their arguments made the proceedings seem dramatic – as if the characters in Tennessee Williams’ Cat on a hot tin roof had been posted to a courtroom and told their lawyers to get rid of them.
The London tabloids – including, ironically, the Sun himself, covering his own trial along with all the other media outlets around the Orb – has made millions over the weeks reporting back-to-back appearances of Ms Heard and Depp. The coverage of the unsavory disclosures was so great, and the unsavory disclosures were so plentiful that it became difficult to remember that the failed Depp / Heard marriage was not on trial himself, nor was Depp himself. same.
And yet it was all the subject of a trial in London: Under UK law the burden of proof in defamation cases rests with the defendant, which gives defendants a great advantage in bringing legal actions. defamation. In this case, according to the evidence, the from the sun a star witness was said to have been responsible for her own assaults during the eventful marriage – Ms Heard was taped into an argument criticizing Depp for even bringing up for discussion a case of her own physical abuse against her.
Despite all this, Depp did not win this round in his overall attempt to escape the strong statement of beatings against his wife made by the Sun. In other words, today’s verdict means that stating such a thing about Depp is a precedent – in Britain anyway – legally tested now. Any tabloid or news outlet can handle it, and they will, given that Depp is a huge figure in Britain and in mostly British or Anglo-American films such as the Pirates and Fantastic beasts franchisees. He risks losing a support quotient, that is, in the executive suites of movie studios. Although Depp has remained anonymous in Heard’s Washington post editorial, it was clear to the newspaper’s editors and, arguably, most readers, that the identity of the person Ms Heard was very likely to have (apparently) assaulted her was, in fact, Depp.
It’s unclear what material effect this will have on next year’s Depp / Heard trial (and Ms Heard counter-prosecution) as the former is on trial in Virginia. For now, Depp’s concerted efforts to evade the searing branding of him as a spousal abuser have been hit hard.