- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,868
- 56,859
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #26
Of interest:
Marilyn Manson - Depp's bestie.
Marilyn Manson - Depp's bestie.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We are daimetrically opposed in view that clearly isn't going to reconcile. The thread in any event isn't about Depp V Heard nor Manson nor other unrelated killers. I'm going to leave it there
You have shown in other threads that your understanding of statistics and probability is, ooh... less than 1%.She is appealing. The guy i was following who is excellent called 'the lawyer you know" has suggested that the appeal will fail. Less than a 1% chance and he gives legal reasons for that.
You have shown in other threads that your understanding of statictics and probability is, ooh... less than 1%.
Peter Tragos lawyer you know .....his assessment as expert of the % chance. She isn't winning any appeal.
Attorney Rabia Chaudry of 'Serial' is on to this and she's actually telling people to 'go f*** themselves' for their ignorance and blind hatred of Amber Heard. Rabia's the expert on juries getting it wrong and she explains why they got it wrong in this case.
I don't listen to 'advice' when couched as go **** yourself. Its not advice. It's sentiment. And it indicates a clear lack of objectivity which for a technical adviser is pathetic. Not going to waste 30 mins of my time. Peter Tragos has no bias and doesn't care in the least what the result will be. Works in this area. Didn't before the case but evaluated the evidence and concluded it would be a Depp win ON the evidence. It was. He then explained that appeals are rarely won in these cases and usually only granted when there is something major excluded. He went through the evidence that was excluded before trial and concluded that 'counseling notes' were rightfully excluded and weren't probative anyway. There was nothing else of significance
It's very unusual for Rabia, I've never heard her speak like that before so demonstrates how frustrated she is and after covering 24 wrongful convictions by juries, over her career.
Your unwillingness to consider another expert opinion isn't really surprising. Depp's social media campaign overwhelmed most
I jumped out over twitter early against the Heard hatred I could see dominating social media, after years of engaging in there with several thousand followers, my account was swarmed by Depp stans and targeted with mass reports, I could have lost it. Simply because I offered another opinion with four or five tweets, they tried to shut me down.
The sophisticated SM campaign against Amber Heard isn't organic.
I evaluate technical advice throughout my career including legal. There are established procedures to it for me. The mere fact she spoke n that way just excludes it from the start. I look for impartiality technical expertise and competence, a cautious and non committal hesitancy that all quality adviser exhibit. Tragos very first comment before trial was that there likely would be no winner.that gradually changed contrary to his initial take and he surprised himself.
I have no idea what your comment "it doesn't surprise me" means. If it's to imply I'm biased you are very wrong. Having given high level tax advice for 40 years I abide a approach that makes it basically incapable. for to be biased. Frankly the suggestion offends me. I took to this the same as I give my advice. Totally open mind free and open and driven to an outcome by evidence alone. It's what I do. I happened upon Tragos to help with the more technical aspects because he was a clone of me in a different field.
I'm sorry you seem to get emotionally invested in outcomes than processes but ultimately it's not my concern you do. I do what I always do unaffected by it be because i enjoy the challenge technically
You're COMPLETELY full of yourself - could that be considered a bias?I evaluate technical advice throughout my career including legal. There are established procedures to it for me. The mere fact she spoke n that way just excludes it from the start. I look for impartiality technical expertise and competence, a cautious and non committal hesitancy that all quality adviser exhibit. Tragos very first comment before trial was that there likely would be no winner.that gradually changed contrary to his initial take and he surprised himself.
I have no idea what your comment "it doesn't surprise me" means. If it's to imply I'm biased you are very wrong. Having given high level tax advice for 40 years I abide a approach that makes it basically incapable. for to be biased. Frankly the suggestion offends me. I took to this the same as I give my advice. Totally open mind free and open and driven to an outcome by evidence alone. It's what I do. I happened upon Tragos to help with the more technical aspects because he was a clone of me in a different field.
I'm sorry you seem to get emotionally invested in outcomes than processes but ultimately it's not my concern you do. I do what I always do unaffected by it be because i enjoy the challenge technically
I'm sorry you seem to get emotionally invested in outcomes than processes but ultimately it's not my concern you do. I do what I always do unaffected by it be because i enjoy the challenge technically
You're COMPLETELY full of yourself - could that be considered a bias?
Oh, and you're clearly biased against women.
If you were even, oh, I dunno, 1% as objective and intelligent as you proclaim, you would consider that a Judge found that Heard was abused. A jury of 12 people influenced by Depp's celebrity status and unprecedented PR campaign decided he didn't do it.
You could remove that accusation of being emotional if you want to be taken seriously because there's a good case to be made that Depp's team has played on yours.
Here's the technical for you and it's very simple. Amber Heard could be the most awful person on the planet and she can be a bit messed up, she can also be a liar and still not have defamed him when she said he hit her. All she had to do to defeat his defamation suit, was prove that he abused her once. Not 12 times as the UK High Court found, just once and she did that.
She was unable to do that because she lied and perjured herself on multiple occasions multiple ways. Her credibility was destroyed. A jury can still find randomly for unrelated reasons but didn't. That's nor surprising
Are you implying that makes the jury more or less reliable than if there were 12 jurors?7 jurors actually but don't let facts get in your way
Not sure if serious, or...I'm not on social media so am not influenced by it
Are you implying that makes the jury more or less reliable than if there were 12 jurors?
Not sure if serious, or...
You could remove that accusation of being emotional if you want to be taken seriously because there's a good case to be made that Depp's team has played on yours.
Here's the technical for you and it's very simple. Amber Heard could be the most awful person on the planet and she can be a bit messed up, she can also be a liar and still not have defamed him when she said he hit her. All she had to do to defeat his defamation suit, was prove that he abused her once. Not 12 times as the UK High Court found, just once and she did that.
No, you aren't "pointing out" anything of the sort.Just pointing out facts don't seem to matter in analysis for you
I'm not on social media so am not influenced by it
You're typing this on an internet forum!Deadly serious. I watched the trail, The lawyer you know and not much else. Had all I needed. If there was some surge in social media I didn't see it nor care
It's obvious you care deeply about what random strangers on the internet think about you. Why else would you engage in lengthy, tedious, reach-around conversations with one other poster in public threads that would be far more appropriate for private messaging? Why engage in lengthy, tedious arguments with random strangers on the internet who disagree with you? Why try to convince anybody who doesn't care that you are so intelligent and objectively correct about everything?I think you mean remove accusation I'm somehow biased? Why? I can't control what others think or don't think. I'm not here to please them or you either. I do what I do and if people don't accept it or believe it or like it I don't care.
I'm not on social media so am not influenced by it
How did you find out about the trial and where did you watch it?
From the court
I didn't ask for your resume.
You're simply trying to look for an acceptable way out not to listen to an excellent analysis by pretending the whole thing should be ignored on one expression of frustration.