You are making me go google who the feck is playing Smeagol arent you Wibs, arent you!
Well I tried but all I found before I stopped in admiration were these fine illustrations to remind us of some of the key court moments, breakfast muffin anyone?
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Well I tried but all I found before I stopped in admiration were these fine illustrations to remind us of some of the key court moments, breakfast muffin anyone?
Does anyone have an idea of whether JD's legal team will challenge the UK verdict, possibly due to the false statement relating to the donation of the divorce settlement?
I found nothing relating to any possible attempt to challenge that verdict online, but cannot believe that they wouldn't attempt to do so.
Any thoughts on that?
I found nothing relating to any possible attempt to challenge that verdict online, but cannot believe that they wouldn't attempt to do so.
Any thoughts on that?
I think he may not claim the money unless she does and may not challenge the UK ruling.
If he really just wanted his version out there he has done that well.
If he really just wanted his version out there he has done that well.
Last edited:
I think he should just drop it now. The world has seen what she's like but the whole thing has gotten so toxic by fans on both sides. It would be best not to fan the flames imo.
I think he should bankrupt her.
It's been confirmed in the paper that Elon Musk is the father of her baby, so she won't starve.
I don't think they can, the appeal has been rejected.
Yes, but the appeal was based on incorrect application of the law.
Now they have evidence that AH has lied about the charity donations, which they did not have in the UK trial, but were a deciding factor in the judgement (related to motive).
Yes, but does it alter the case against the Sun?
And I'd suggest, not really.
it doesn't alter the defamation case, but sometimes judgements obtained through fraudulent evidence are not allowed to stand ("fraud unravels all"). I recall that in the judgement reference was made to AH donating her divorce settlement and thus dismissing the allegation of her being a gold digger who fabricated the accusations for monetary gain.
The judge felt the the donations added to her credibility.
I just wondered why they wouldn't explore if this (eg the money not having been donated after all) jeopardises her credibility to the extend that the whole of her judgement might not be credible. (The judge predominantly referred to her allegations and testimony being credible)
I was just surprised not to read more about it, especially after Adam Waldman posted a photo the High Court in the summer.
I understand the point.
And I understand why people say it...
because of the judge's reasoning.
But if people really want to go back and revisit evidence that is now known, I'd suggest subsequent comments made by Mr Wootten would be directly material.
When he suggested both he and Amber on numerous occasions tried to contact JK Rowling to have Johnny removed from Fantastic beasts.
If that is true...
Then that points directly to a possible malicious intent, and to a reason as to why the offending article was written.
And something that was not explored, or known of, at the time of the original trial.
They would also be relevant because Mr Wootten was a party...
And it could perhaps be argued that he and Ms Heard had conspired, perhaps, both in the the publication and at the trial.
The current problem is that because Amber is such a hate figure/victim of misogynist hate - or can be portrayed as such - and because much of the discussion is based on a misundrstanding of the differences in English and American law, these issues tend to get overlooked.
True, if Wotton and Heard had agreed to try and get Depp fired from the film the criteria for tort of conspiracy by unlawful means could be met.
Interesting aspect!
I wonder why none if this is explored? Possibly because JD does not want to draw more attention to himself/ be told to let things rest?
I am unsure what you mean with the bib?
Oh...
Off topic but I saw that YouTube yeeted Reiketa law’s channel. Some people think that it was a mass flagging may so. I don’t know.
Completely gone off YT? I quite liked his coverage of the trial…. It’s probs Bouzys lot mass reporting … I’ve noticed a lot of you tubers are now also saying they are using Rumble - I just downloaded the app to check out who is on there!
Yes completely off YT , some people think it’s keffel drama stuff
Reiketa Law is back on YouTube again
I heard that they are not exclusive right now
I have heard he is not that keen on her...
Thanks. Mmmm. Interesting.