#this isn't even a johnny defence post just to be clear

[leotanaka]

cobra kai: has kreese acknowledge outright that johnny was okay with losing to daniel and then showcases via flashbacks to tkk1 & tkk2 that johnny congratulated daniel on his win and told kreese that he did his best before kreese broke his trophy and tried to kill him.

cobra kai: has johnny admit that it never mattered to him if he lost because he knew he did his best and he could have won (literally same thing he said in tkk2)

also cobra kai:

repeatedly made it clear that johnny is still dealing with the trauma of nearly being murdered by someone he loved and idolised;

literally stated in the series finale that being labelled a "loser" (which kreese called him as he was choking him) is a legitimate trigger for him;

showcased that he can't handle anything around his neck; and

gone out of their way to make it as clear and simple as possible for anyone to understand that there is no separating losing the fight from nearly being murdered because losing that fight is the reason he was nearly murdered.

fandom:

johnny's a bad loser

johnny can't get over losing a fight when he was teenager

johnny doesn't know how to handle losing a fight

johnny's story should've been about him learning to accept losing

if robby can accept coming second why did it take johnny 30 years to accept it?

[scaryspears]

Daniel was never the 'Real' villain

I posted this on a YouTube comment section, but here.

Bro, Ali did not want to talk to Johnny, and Johnny was pushing it. He was being hella aggressive about it, Daniel was just returning his energy. The worst Daniel did was spray some water on Johnny, AFTER Johnny and the other Cobra kids shoved Daniel down a hill on his scooter, just because Daniel wanted to learn self defence after he realised he's attending school with the same people who humiliated him and beat him up. Guess what, they humiliated him again at the football tryouts thing, and Daniel wasn't even doing anything to them. As the movie goes on it becomes less about Ali, and more about Daniel, because it's clear the Cobra's enjoy bothering Daniel. I know Daniel isn't perfect, sometimes antagonising them, but only verbal and nothing too excessive, like pushing them down a hill in the middle of the night.I personally think Cobra Kai is an out of character take on the Karate Kid series. They made Johnny an idiot, even though we know from the first Karate Kid film that he's pretty intelligent. Miyagi was also a father figure to Daniel, but they over did it in Cobra Kai. Kreese and Terry Silver are the real villains, two grown adults who couldn't get over a Karate tournament.

They legit gave Daniel trust issues with the Terry thing. Also, didn't Terry break into the Miyagi house?

[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.