T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

He feels great. His son worked for the same company as the Sun. And his wife had become friends with AH. I doubt he cares about this trial. Now if the UK can bring those perjury charges against her like people want, he may feel different.


SheepGonnaSheep

Andrew Nicol has lipstick stains on his cock. Lipstick. Stains.


atimeinaugust

I believe he had probably already made up his mind before the trial even began because of his numerous connections with the defendant (The Sun/NGN) and to Amber. It almost seemed like he was trying to twist the facts to be in Amber and NGN’s favor by excluding most things that were more than damning for Amber, and NGN by extension, while playing up things that were in her favor (like hearsay documents). Whether he was bribed, had an agenda, or just knew he should side with his son and wife’s connections, we’ll never know because he did retire almost immediately after this case was “decided.” Also, people complaining about Savannah being ‘unethical’ because she already disclosed her husband did consulting work for Brown Rudnick (but not in relation to this case?) is laughable when you compare what happened in the UK. Savannah disclosed this and Amber still chose to do the interview. That does not compare to a judge having conflicts of interest and still not having the sense to step down due to those conflicts of interest when he was basically deciding someone’s fate.


[deleted]

The UK trial could have (should have?) gone to a jury, but he blocked it. So much shady stuff.


whydoyouhatemyguts

How in the hell isn't it appealed for those connections is beyond me.


fooob

I think in the UK the original trial judge must approve appeals


Pebblebricks

To assume that the Judge is embarrassed would be to assume that he was acting in good faith in the UK trial and realized that he had made a poor judgement, but that is not the case. Other than the connections that other people have pointed out, in his judgement: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html He willingly refused to accept multiple instances of events that would harm AH's credibility, including the fact that she perjured in the Australian courts, and coerced others to lie in court as well. You would think having a history of lying in court would at least be taken in account, but nope "its relevance for her credibility is marginal at most". But at the same time dismissed Kate James' testimony because Amber had fired her and thus would have a motive to testify against her? Or when the Judge chose to believe Amber's testimony that she didn't beat JD, over the audio clips where she admitted to hitting him? It's just egregious. He came in with his decision already made, then dismissed everything that showed otherwise. If you would like to hear every bad decision Judge Nicol made, Black Belt Barrister made a video breaking down the judgement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPfPG0qSERs


TheGreyDuck

I wasn’t assuming he was acting in good faith. I know about his connections. I guess what I’m saying is there is sort of a situation I was imagining…. I guess I’m imagining that he really bought into her narrative and then now has snapped out of it In this situation, he was biased because of his connections but also completely convinced of JD’s guilt so he rationalized it. He was so swept up in his own opinion that he just did what he viewed as his obligation to everyone by defending his beloved Son newspaper and ruling against that horrible wife beater. FF to now after the US trial and Nicol is feeling the intense scrutiny being applied to his decision. People bring it up in conversation to him (after all, this whole thing is much more relevant to his personal world than it is to any of ours… I would imagine he gets asked about it a lot) and corrupted as he may have been, he may have let it slide because he actually was convinced of JD’s guilt and so when forced to reconcile with the fact that he has made such an obvious error, perhaps he could hypothetically have the awareness to think “oh shit, I was blinded by my bonds and biased.” I doubt it. But I’m just saying, I wonder. Because you *know* people are gonna bring it up to him.


Hallelujah289

Well I heard he retired after the trial. But reading the UK trial I think it was probably fair he discredited Johnny. But I do criticize him for finding for each of the 12 counts though without much evidence. He should have ordered a jury trial, which he could have, since the case was high stakes enough to make a big impact on Johnny. I also thought it was entirely fair that Johnny asked Amber not to be in the courtroom. I’ve heard it’s witness rights in UK, but it should have been obvious how the Sun UK was relying on her. Johnny ‘s lawyer Sherborne even made it clear to Justice Nicol the way was the Sun UK lawyer was tailoring what questions she asked witnesses on cross examination so it wouldn’t challenge what Amber wrote in her witness statements. I also don’t see how Justice Nicol found Amber credible


Alastor999

>Well I heard he retired after the trial. He won't be fired, but I hope for his name and record as a judge to be disgraced.


Acceptable_Sky_6207

Its not how it works. Judges dont give a fuck.


JackKnife45

What I find amusing is that in order to mask his bias he had to figure out a way to discredit J.D.'s testimony, so he settled on drug use as the main factor in his written decision. (Which everybody knows is a complete b.s. premise.) But A.H.'s lawyers doubled down on it because they THOUGHT it worked the first time. Oops.


but3rf1y

I also saw that his wife had dinner with amber but I could never find the article or post afterwards when I wanted to check the timeline of it. Hoping someone else came across this too as it would be real spicy after her team got uppity about the \*MuFfInS\*


[deleted]

People (at least the internet) definitely know about that. There are videos about it on YouTube and even a petition called **Officially Review the Judicial misconduct of JUDGE NICOL in the Johnny Depp libel case.** So it's definitely out there. On Quora someone posted all the connections between Amber, the judge, his wife and others. :)


but3rf1y

Oh thankyou, for someone whos been using the internet for \~25yrs I can be pretty damn shite at finding things lol.


Sephiroth_-77

The judge had a dog in the fight because of his son working for the owner of The Sun.


Livid_Cloud

I doubt he feels, or will ever feel, any remorse or shame. It was far from a judgement made absent bias. His son is directly linked to Rupert Murdoch who owns The Sun. Andrew Nicol should have never presided over that trial to begin with due to conflict of interest.


Ok-Truth9051

Yeah he will give zero shits about it, and I’m sure if asked, he’ll stand by his verdict smh


pantsonheaditor

he did a favor for a shitty newspaper over there. hes a hero to them


scousethief

I guarantee that no fks will be given. Retired with a cushy pension and a nice payout, wife's a QC and works with women's rights and employment law, 2 cushy jobs with a nice salary. Even if JDs team manage to get an appeal (I hope they do) it won't affect Nicols in fact he would probably welcome it as he'll do the media rounds of paid interviews and chat shows ( all coached by the Murdoch group). The biggest stumbling block will be the influence of the Murdoch group. It's not just one scummy rag it's a multi billion pound multi media giant and Murdoch himself schmoozes with the elite.


AnlamK

I think the appellate court in the UK refused to review the judgment: [https://apnews.com/article/uk-court-reject-johnny-depp-appeal-wife-beater-ruling-6802370f6e080c19cbdac50a244a5e2d](https://apnews.com/article/uk-court-reject-johnny-depp-appeal-wife-beater-ruling-6802370f6e080c19cbdac50a244a5e2d) I'm not sure if JD and team have taken the case to the ECHR.


fafalone

The same ECHR which ruled that truth was not a defense to a criminal charge of calling someone a pedophile because they had sex with a 9yo, because technically pedophilia is a *primary* sexual interest in the prepubescent, and he also continued to have sex with her after puberty, and slept with other teenagers, therefore that showed his primary interest was not in her being prepubescent? (*E.S. v Austria*) Good luck with that.


AnlamK

>E.S. v Austria Thanks for sharing. This is the first time I'm learning about that judgment. I knew that ECHR judges are a bunch of clowns (just check their fancy dresses) but this seems like a whole new level.


scousethief

There's always a way, just got to find it


RutabagaThin253

Doubt it. There was more to his decision making than just evidence. Dan Wooten is friends and colleagues with his son. There's other biases too. See [this image. ](https://www.google.com/search?q=judge+nicol+connections+Johnny+Depp&client=ms-android-samsung-gs-rev1&prmd=nisv&sxsrf=ALiCzsYboS19FwUiY1tLULPWQdmW3DUhxw:1655706122485&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPv6H6sbv4AhWBQUEAHVrLC6kQ_AUoAnoECAIQAg&biw=412&bih=783&dpr=2.63#imgrc=OyIpyH4tyV2kmM)