#if some of these don't seem factually correct / not correct with story line let me know ! i havent watched bleach or read it in a while

[liberotm]

y’all ugly poof.  ( bleach headcanons no one asked for )

6teen in this verse. or, well, looks like it. she’s probably a bajillion years old

her father and her didn’t go to the same place; he went to some other district while she was stuck in the 79th district of the rukongai and it was very much YOU’RE ON YOUR OWN and she probably had like one (1) friend she stuck to like glue and shit but she was severely.......... targeted mostly because she was a small girl of small stature and they thought it would come easy

YA YEET it was not easy and she easily ......... looked out for herself and for her friend. 

she entered the academy with literally the intention of just leaving the district and she was like... very good at what she did. timeline wise i would say she entered in a little after shinji came to be the captain again of the fifth division.

she was there when a bunch of people went missing from her district but literally she just “y’all ugly” and poofed and i know i’m over simplifying it because i’m tired but she definitely kept a low profile because she just didn’t want to be bothered or get in trouble

at the academy she was near the top of the class in almost everything but never had the effort or wanted to be top of the top and just ... being the best isn’t her goal ( even if it should be ) and she was just doing what she was doin and it came naturally to her.

she was originally in fifth division ( i dont think she’d have a seat mostly because her own lack of wanting one or trying to vye for one ) but eventually left / got transferred out for a factor of reasons mostly being that she didn’t jive with the people and she was very... not good with everyone and just didn’t click so she ended up getting transferred to the ? tenth division ? but i don’t want to like impose on anyone’s canon so like .............................. lmk LOL

her zanpakuto in shikai form is a tanto . her actual ability of her zanpakuto is to control the speed of the molecules of ... anything that it touches , generating electricity and heat , fire , which can cause spontaneous combustion etc etc . it’s not INHERENTLY a fire type , but often classified as one because that’s what the end result of her attacks usually end up being

dont ask if she uses her zanpakuto to warm herself up when its cold . she might . alksjdf;ladjksfl;adjksf

also don’t ask me about her bankai. she achieves it after staying with the tenth division (stayed in the division for not that long of a period --- maybe 20 years at the most) for a long period of time but just ... keeps it on the dl

this is the part where i think the slowing down of molecules would come into play so it seems like she has ice and fire but this is more over just her controlling the speed of molecules and atoms and such which creates ice , not her creating ice. again, the blade of her zanpakuto has to touch it. in bankai she’d have ... two (if thats a thing,,, one in shikai and two in bankai) one that mainly operates as slowing down molecules and one that speeds up but that’s not necessarily specific to a blade, it just makes it easier on her

her release call thing would probably be ...... fuck if i know “spark up” or something LKJASDFL;KJADSL;FJK

she’s a kido expert. change my mind. she relies heavily on it when trapping opponents because ... she’s a dick that’s all i got . it’s kind of her style , and it’s not as much of a surprise as it is something to roll with when sparring with her, because 11 times out of 10, she will do it

but yeah rn she’s just trying to live her best life. she’s kind of distant from the rest of the division and the rest of the court guard despite being ... relatively strong. mostly because that’s how she was as a kid and that’s what she recognizes as like ... normal . she won’t make interaction but won’t shoo you off if you come up to her.

edit: she’s terrible at conserving spiritual pressure. thanks.

[evilwickedme]

So the thing is Jason never asks Bruce to kill the Joker in UTRH. He asks why Bruce didn't kill him and questions Bruce's slippery slope argument but he doesn't tell Bruce to kill the Joker. Instead he tells Bruce he will kill the Joker and Bruce must choose between allowing him to do so or killing him to stop him. Jason is not asking Bruce to kill the Joker but to accept the killing of the Joker or he must kill the Jason to defend the Joker. 1/2

The sad thing is Bruce throws a Batarang in desperation. It doesn't seem like it is aiming for anything it just happens to hit a wall and ricochet. Also in the original story Jason never sets off a bomb not did he ever intend to set off a bomb. He tied the Joker to a chair with bombs so the Joker would not move while he was fighting Batman. Joker broke free after Jason was struck got his gun and fired at the explosives. Jason only planned for Bruce to do nothing or attack him. 2/2

okay so I will admit I misremembered the dialogue from utrh and that's on me for not getting up to check bc I spent nearly six hours being cat-upon but hey I have the comic next to me now and I'm even using a laptop instead of the shitty chrome mobile browser to type this up

so basically yes you are correct and I misremembered what happens in the scene as jason asking him to shoot either jason to stop him or the joker to kill him and while that's a great scene that's not the scene that actually happened. I was referencing the comic, not the movie; the movie's good, but I like the comic much better and I thought I was clear I was talking about the comic, so I'm not sure why the aside about the bomb was necessary, I don't really have much to say about the change in this context

I do feel more confused in a way now, though, as to your point, bc if it's about the issue of morality, either there is no difference between inaction (not preventing a killing) and action that leads to the same result (killing the same person) or there is and the inaction is better, so morally like. the same exact things are standing in between jason and being right? or even like we should be more on jason's side?

bc again from my actual irl pov not only is killing the joker wrong, but inaction that leads to his death is equally wrong - you are morally compelled as a human being to do whatever you can to stop the evil that is right in front of you as long as you are capable of it, and bruce is obviously capable of it. but within the fictional framework we're in, jason is asking his father to care about him. that's all he cares about. he places himself in a position where bruce can either admit he's going to let jason kill the joker, kill jason, or, unspoken but very real, he can kill the joker himself. but putting all that aside...

the reason he's doing this is still like what I said in the last ask, "there is no line drawn for jason between the fact that bruce didn’t avenge him and the fact that bruce didn’t prevent other people from dying". If anything, this idea is stronger when jason is just asking him to do the same thing he did before: let others die through inaction.

so yeah, factually I misremembered some of the important dialogue from this scene. but like, emotionally? jason still cares that bruce didn't kill the joker, and he still wants bruce to know why the joker is dying at his hands. the joker isn't going to die in some anonymous alleyway and be left to rot without jason confronting bruce first. because at least in utrh a random drug dealing pimp who's making everyone's life worse being killed by jason is a small favor he can give to the world. the joker, however, is standing, quite literally, in the way between bruce and jason. it's just... it's completely understandable, and within the framework of the story, morally justifiable.

[thecreepiestcarrie]

I've been quite bewildered as to how Johnny Depp lost his appeal against the clearly-biased judgement of Judge Nicol so I went through the official Court of Appeal Judgement. And what did I find there? More examples of this bias against Johnny.

I now have an answer to my question of how did Johnny lose the appeal, with all of the knowledge that we gained during this trial taken into consideration - how could it be upheld that the Sun calling him a 'wife beater' was factually correct?

Because Nicol went the way that the money and all of his not-so-covert connections told him to.

It was Rigga Morris, girl. Completely rigged. You don't just take on Rupert Murdoch's empire and win, even if you have the truth and a wide selection of the public on your side.

Basically it's 14 pages of 'Nicol said this and it's true so nyeh' and the court of appeal just dodging the many holes in his logic/judgement. Nicol is right, Johnny is wrong and everything Scum ever did wrong has a reasonable explanation and she's definitely not a gold digger and that's all that matters. No matter what Scamber says at any point in time, she is correct. Did she just contradict herself? No, she didn't, this is actually what she meant...

Page 3, section 1: Mr Depp did extensive damage to a house which he had rented and wrote offensive graffiti about Ms Heard (shown in photographs), some in paint and some in his own blood. While it does not necessarily follow that angry and jealous behaviour of this kind would involve physical violence against Ms Heard, the Judge evidently regarded it as making her allegations more likely to be true. section 2: He does not explicitly admit acts of assault against Ms Heard, but again the Judge regarded the admissions as making it more plausible that he did in fact commit such acts

A heavy feature of this judgment is the shit-ton of assumptions that are made and then stubbornly stuck to without a clear line from the evidence to the conclusion that was reached.

Page 4, section 10: Mr Caldecott’s (Johnny's barrister) first complaint concerned the treatment of what he said were clear admissions by Ms Heard, recorded in taped conversations, that she had more than once herself been the aggressor in incidents of physical violence between her and Mr Depp. [...] he said that the admissions were important because it was Ms Heard’s evidence throughout that she never initiated any physical violence against Mr Depp (as opposed to responding to violence from him): if that was untrue it was bound to put in question the credibility of her evidence about what happened.

Page 5, section 13: The admissions apparently made in these tapes were relied on in the closing submissions on behalf of Mr Depp at the trial as one of the general matters adversely affecting Ms Heard’s credibility, and the Judge addressed the point [...]

Shit Judge Nicol says:::::

"In her evidence, Ms Heard said that she did sometimes throw pots and pans at Mr Depp but only to try and escape him and as a means of self-defence. She also said at times in Argument 2 she was being sarcastic."

"In my view no great weight is to be put on these alleged admissions by Ms Heard to aggressive violent behaviour. [...] nonetheless true, that these conversations [the taped confrontations] are quite different to evidence in court. A witness giving evidence in court does so under an oath or affirmation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Questioning can be controlled by the judge. Questions which are unclear can be re-phrased. If a question is not answered, it can be pressed (subject to the court's control) and if still unanswered may be the proper object of comment. None of those features applied to these conversations which, in any event, according to Ms Heard had a purpose or purposes different from simply conveying truthful information. (para 175)"

You can't put weight on to the taped conversations/confessions from Scamber because they did not take place in court... Okay, sure, why not, let's pretend that's how you operate. If that was the case, how come the circumstances behind the creation of the evidence for her case isn't questioned/doesn't impact on how much weight he allocates to them? Why does he disallow the tapes to sway him? But then pays full attention to Scamber's evidence of texts to family/friends and writings in her diary? Selective hearing, but more like selective weighing.

Page 6, section 14: Mr Caldecott submitted that the reasoning in para. 175 showed a fundamentally flawed approach to fact-finding because it gave an unjustified special priority to the status of witness evidence. [...] He also said that the Judge’s approach in this regard was inconsistent, because in many other instances he placed great weight on contemporaneous materials when making a finding against Mr Depp.

It's true and I'm glad he said it, but in the next section, the court of appeal knocks this down. They are sticking to Nicol's bullshit story and they are sticking to it until the ship is completely sunk to the bottom of the ocean with Titanic.

Section 15: We do not believe that that is a correct understanding of what the Judge was saying [...] In our view it is clear that the Judge was making a more specific point about the weight to be attached to these particular statements because of the particular circumstances in which they were made.

Page 12, section 40: If the statement in Ms Heard’s witness statement that the $7m “was donated” to charity [...] is to be understood to mean literally that the full $7m had already been paid, that is clearly contradicted by the further evidence, and her statement was accordingly misleading.

But that doesn't call her credibility into question? Nicol believes Scamber when she says her taped confessions were sarcastic, but doesn't believe that Johnny was speaking in exaggerated falsities when texting a friend about his abuser - Nicol picks and chooses which tone to pay attention to in order to suit his own agenda.

-----

These are just some exerts that I thought were interesting and show the nature of the judgement. I'm not sure how much I will be posting about the UK case anymore (I do have some posts about specific issues sitting in my drafts (about the James Cordon appearance casting doubts over all of AH's admissions, about the audio tapes and why they are ridiculously important, about Johnny's MRSA), but nothing like the other deep dives I was doing), because as I've stated before, I have become convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt of Johnny's innocence and because now that this judgement has been handed down by the Court of Appeals, the whole UK case is all over red rover so it doesn't seem super relevant to keep going on about this trial that is now dead and buried. The evidence that I have gone through and posted here, I can make sense of that. But this judgement and any thing in a similar vein, there's no chance of me ever making sense of that, so shall I just quit while I'm ahead? Yes.