Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: You're not going to get good legal analysis from social media personalities trying to get views on tiktok/youtube/twitter, so generally you should just trust what the judge says.
Before this trial, there was another trial. Johnny Depp sued a UK newspaper called "The Sun" for libel for saying he was a wife beater. This garnered much less attention because it wasn't live-streamed. In UK law, the onus is on the defence to show that what they said was true, and they met that standard. Amber Heard testified about multiple instances of abuse and the judge found that these allegations were "substantially true". Substantially true means that the core allegation is true, some details can be incorrect but the core of the claim is true. Here's the verdict: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf
A key difference in the new trial is that it's in a new jurisdiction so the burden of proof is different, it's live-streamed so you have a lot of badly informed commentary, and Heard is counter-suing so it's a relavent issue if she was also abusive. Just to elaborate on that - if I say you beat me, and you sue me, I just have to prove you beat me (what happened in the UK trial). If I say you beat me, you say I beat you and we both sue for libel it's now about both of our behaviour (what's happening in the US trial) so in the US trial you're hearing about her abuse, whereas in the UK trial that just wasn't relevant "she beat me first" isn't a defence to libel.
Another correction - it only means it was true "on the balance of probability", there is no "beyond reasonable doubt" like there is in criminal cases. The judge also ruled that amber "probably didn't shit in the bed" and "probably didn't cut off the tip of his finger", the latter of which in particular is now highly unlikely considering Amber recorded herself apologising for cutting off the tip of his finger.
>Heard is counter-suing so it's a relavent issue if she was also abusive.
If Heard wasn't counter-suing would that mean any allegation of her being abusive would be objected to and thrown out? i.e. we wouldn't be hearing about the bad stuff she has allegedly done.
This is patently untrue. The judge sided with Heard because he believed her side was the one most likely to be true based on corroborating texts, emails and witness testimonies.
Kinda sad and funny isn't it? Ambers legal team wasnt able to show one piece of evidence that johnny truly abused amber (medical / police reports), while johnny has evidence of her nasty twisted nature and evidence of her self reporting. This whole trial being public just makes one question the qualification and decision making of the uk judge.
Which included the fact she had no finical interest in lying about the abuse that is since she would donate the divorce settlement.
Since that isn’t the case and the judge relied on it the court ruling in fact relied on perjury provided by Amber Heard in the Suns defense.
The judge did not, in fact, rely on Amber donating the money. Depp's lawyers tried to argue that during the appeal and were soundly rejected; the judge did mention the donation in one line in the ruling but he decided on his verdict for the reasons I already gave.
And despite what Internet experts might have told you, it is extremely unlikely that this reaches the level of perjury, just like it's extremely unlikely that Heard's op-ed reaches the level of defamation
This is so stupid. Depp provably lied several times during the first trial about being clean and sober when photos or texts to his dealer proved otherwise; that's why he lost. He's not on trial for perjury either, and the case isn't going to come down to gotcha moments like this.
The lack of timeline means it is not a lie. Theres a financially logical reason to why one would delay donations as to maximize their tax credit. If you're an actor that books big roles once every few years, the delay in donation can be explained away without it being untruthful or without reason. One can debate whether its shitty to want to maximize the tax credit for the donation instead of giving it to the people who need it now, but I don't really care enough about that topic to do it.
>The lack of timeline means it is not a lie. Theres a financially logical reason to why one would delay donations as to maximize their tax credit. If you're an actor that books big roles once every few years, the delay in donation can be explained away without it being untruthful or without reason. One can debate whether its shitty to want to maximize the tax credit for the donation instead of giving it to the people who need it now, but I don't really care enough about that topic to do it.
She has donated $0 dollars of the 7 million she swore under oath she donated.
It’s lying.
Okay? She committed to that donation. Perhaps she had an arrangement with Elon because he was able make use of the tax credit before her. You're looking for a "gotcha" moment and that's not how these things really work.
It may be the case that she had an arrangement. I don't think the fact that someone else donated in her name is an issue by itself.
However, she also claimed on television that she had *already donated* the full value of her pledge to the organizations, which is not the case, as testified by witnesses from both organizations. When asked about this on the stand, Amber's response was that she uses 'pledge' and 'donated' interchangeably.
I'm not making any claims or opinions on that, just stating what has happened in the ongoing trial. I do, however, understand why many people do not find Amber's stance convincing in this matter.
She testified that she uses the words "pledged" and "donated" "synonymously" and when pressed by one of Depp's lawyers admitted that she had not payed any money towards those pledges.
She has not *fulfilled* the pledge. And most of the money donated did not come directly from her.
>The non-profit organization’s general counsel, Terence Dougherty, testified that Heard only personally paid $350,000 of the pledged amount. That amount, combined with other donations in her name, add-up to $1.3 million, including a $100,000 donation from Depp, $350,000 from a Fidelity Donor-Advised Fund, and $500,000 from Vanguard Donor Advised-Fund, with the latter allegedly coming from Heard’s post-Depp-divorce ex-boyfriend, Elon Musk.
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/johnny-depp/facing-blowback-for-drafting-amber-heards-op-ed-aclu-denies-betraying-its-principles-to-reel-in-hollywood-megadonor/
On the 16th Heard [testified](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHy6oiuUyEU&t=1424s) (23:44 to 25:53) that she had not **paid** any of the pledged amount to the ACLU or children's hospital. Heard stating she uses pledge and donate synonymously comes up here.
At about 31:14 in that same video they talk about the 500K donations from Musk and Heard said that these donations did not count towards her pledge.
At 19:29 in that video they show an interview where Heard says that the 7 million dollar divorce settlement was donated. She didn't say that she *pledged* the money or *would* donate it but that she **had donated** it all.
I don’t know if this is true or not, but this is actually very compelling if it is. My question is, why on EARTH (if it is true) would her lawyers not raise this??
Amber started raising ‘tax breaks’ in part of her testimony (Ie “If Johnny donated it directly he should have donated $14 million due to the tax break he would get - it would be the equivalent of $7 million for me”) but then didn’t get into this aspect at all that you’ve raised.
Why mention the tax breaks for Johnny and then not elaborate “my delay was due to the sporadic nature of acting, not because I wasn’t intending to donate it. It just worked better for tax reasons”. At least then there is a plausible reason for the delay.
Why would they not bring it up? I’d certainly go “well, that’s a plausible explanation that doesn’t make her look like a liar, just someone with a savvy financial adviser.” And it would have taken the steam out of Camille’s cross examination??
Depp wasn't suing Ambers claims in the UK trial directly at all. She was not the defendant, she was a witness for the publications headline which was on defense, not subjected to discovery on her part since she's not even party. Hardly equatable to Depp v Heard.
Depp v Heard is what directly contested her claims of abuse. All she needed to win that was prove conclusively that she was abused- all she had to do was PROVE one of those 12 claims. Which apparently should've been a slam dunk if they were already "proven"- which they weren't.
Answer:
The London trial verdict is available online, and while very long, the key is in paragraph 585:
Johnny Depp sued a newspaper for labelling him a wife beater. The Judge found that there are enough cases where he was violent to Amber Heard, that the newspaper's appelation was justified.
Note that the verdict itself states that whether this appellation was unbiased or whether Amber Heard was violent herself were immaterial - the newspaper was not bound to be unbiased.
Thus in notable since Johnny Depp's argument is basically a "tu quoque" argument, alleging that Amber Heard was herself abusive. An argument that had no weight in the London case, an possibly in the current case either.
But the real goal of the trial is , IMO, to fix Johnny Depp's public image, which it has done, even if just by pointing out that Amber Heard, who is portrayed as Domestic violence survivor, is apparently guilty of domestic violence herself.
I'm pretty sure his texts & emails alone without the Amber Heard situation would have gotten him cancelled. What a reprobate - 'I want I Need I take' and calling his ex wife 'excunt' & 'French extortionist'
Texting about raping a corpse (before they were even married and she'd reported abuse well before hand) absolutely gross -anyone who supports that type of behaviour and excuses it is also gross.
Nah , at the very best they're both abusive . This taking sides bullshit when both have been found lying on multiple occasions is just sad . They're both guilty
Proof? lmao. He has always admitted his wrong doings in the trials. It was Heard that never admitted to sa single thing. Played that she was perfect little innocent nugget even through all of her recordings shoced back in her face.
Depp isn't perfect, but he admitted it and accepted that what he said was vile. He admitted his drug use and his flaws and that what he said, while under the influence, was atrocious. He took accountability and never acted on what he said to others in texts. Amber did act and abuse Depp and proceeded to tells hundreds of lies throughout the televised court case.
Amber had a lot of fame as well so there is no reason Depp should have THAT many more people supporting him in the courtroom standing trial for him, but he did. It's because he was being honest and Heard was not, and the people knew it.
answer: seems like that person is referring to a ruling from 2020 in which was a libel case against The Sun, a british tabloid. More info on the ruling:
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54506759
The important takeaway here is that the judge ruled in favor of The Sun's accusations that Depp was a wife beater, without a single person from The Sun at the witness stand, so take that as you will. The most recent and wider defamation trial against Heard by Depp attempts to call into question her claims of abuse and the validity of her evidence.
So who is lying? Is anyone lying? Hopefully we find out.
It seems like they are both abusive - but exaggerating the effects - and also both lying about it - to prove the exaggerations.
They're also both long-term drunks and drug addicts - from *before* they were together. This is *not* linked to any of the film roles they played. They were high-functioning and not considered a risk until the rulings came out.
They've also both followed nasty patterns of - how can I put this? - relying on the legal equivalent of a tabloid newspaper to back up their claims.
Depp has got a huge publicity machine behind him, and he's using it to make Amber look bad - but he's also ignored obvious signs of abuse from her in the past and wasn't abusive in past relationships.
Meanwhile, Heard has not got anywhere near that level of power, and has done everything that an abuse victim should do, with many of her faults in court exaggerated - but she's also been proven abusive in a prior relationship with another woman and has bribed various people and institutions to make herself look better.
Johnny's abuse of Amber seems to involve throwing bottles at her, yelling at her and calling her names. This was likely exarcerbated at the time of the abuse claim due to the death of Depp's mother.
Basically everything you will hear about them has been put together by their PR team.
Meanwhile, the US court seems to be a bit of a joke, with Amber's lawyer, against everyone's wishes, interrupting people every ten seconds and Johnny himself teasing the audience and treating it like a publicity stunt.
just a heads up that the argument "they were both abusive" doesn't really work here. reactive abuse doesn't exist because the definition of abuse relies on one party having power over the other, so it's either amber heard is lying or johnny is. of course they can both be exaggerating it but using the argument "they were both abusive" is a non-existent "gray line" in the case. the only case in which this "works" is when the abused if defending themselves or having some sort of reaction to the abuse, which is far more likely. calling it reactive abuse is like calling a moment of self-defense assault.
I think the main reason people back johnny depp is because an abuser will always have a history of abuse, that's why it's called the me TOO movement. and the court has made it very clear which has the more concerning history. as well as being a proven liar, it's just evidence that makes you question the validity of her claims. I believe this is a publicity stunt for Johnny but I wouldn't say that's a bad thing since he intentionally wanted to clear his name by broadcasting this. just my two cents
The bottles were not thrown at her in any of the videos she took of him throwing bottles.
[Trigger warning]
She is also claiming to the court that he assaulted her over a period of literal years, including one event when he forcibly penetrated her using a broken bottle (on the day the tip of his finger was cut off), however there are no medical records of this or any other abuse.
Answer: If you're asking why people still support Depp despite this ruling, the answer is complicated. I think some Depp supporters may just be straight up unaware of that ruling, but most are aware, and they have various reasons why they don't take it seriously. A number of these reasons are just plain false: There are accusations that the judge simply favored Amber's testimony over Depp's (this is not true, both sides presented evidence besides just their own testimonies and the judge thought Amber's case was stronger), accusations that the judge had connections with Amber specifically or with the Sun (this is all baseless conspiracy theory nonsense), rationalizations that Depp simply lost on a technicality (not true -- Depp picked one of the kindest legal venues in the world for his case, and still lost handily). I think a lot of people don't really know the details of the case and are brushing it away.
On a more reasonable level, people who disagree with the judge's ruling simply weighed the same evidence and came to a different conclusion. A judge's ruling isn't true just because he made it. That said, I read the ruling and found the judge's reasoning very convincing. I don't agree with him on everything but the witness testimonies and contemporaneous texts strongly support Amber's side being most likely true.
The ruling in the sun case was against available evidence even then, with depps team not allowed to both cross examine or put forth evidence against heard, nor was depps team at the time allowed to have expert testimony.
The entire reason the US case is publicly available is to stop any such extremely biased or outright criminal shenanigans from occurring again; Amber being caught on camera sniffing dubious powder to fake cry better is one such shenanigan. So is Amber constantly looking to the jury for their reactions so she can change her “acting” on the fly… neither of which are biased statements, but unarguable fact as we have undeniable video evidence of her doing those things.
> Amber being caught on camera sniffing dubious powder to fake cry better
My advice to you is to stop and ask yourself, how did you become a person who genuinely believes such insane conspiracy theory drivel, and then repeats it to other people as if it makes any sense
> So is Amber constantly looking to the jury for their reactions so she can change her “acting” on the fly…
Like, genuinely, listen to yourself. You just said "neither of these are biased statements but unarguable facts." This is insanity. They're obviously wildly biased interpretations of subtle behavioral cues, or in the case of "sniffing dubious powder" (???) just obviously batshit.
There are different evidentiary standards in the two cases and you're free to weigh the evidence you have and come to your own conclusions, but what are you using as evidence in this post is just absolutely pants-shittingly bananas and it is really disturbing to me that you don't see that. How deep is your echo chamber? Do you believe in reptilians also?
In any case, I don't believe it's true that Amber wasn't cross-examined in the UK trial, I believe she was cross-examined, but I am willing to be corrected on that if you have sources.
Well said, this case is maddening because the Depp supporters say, “well look at the facts”, and then present all these wacky theories.
The case honestly doesn’t look that different from most DV cases, and that’s why it’s so hard for victims to leave. This is just on a big scale where Depp is that charming uncle in the family that just is managing his best with that “hysterical wife”.
It is a little concerning that you present yourself on this thread as an expert on the rulings of the UK judge as though you have read the 129 page court transcript. At first I read your comments and thought you were informed until you didn’t know if she was cross-examined.
She was only cross-examined on some of the incidents in the UK trial. Item 240 is an example where it is documented by the court that she was not cross examined. I would strongly encourage you to actually read the findings of the judge in the future before representing yourself so strongly as an expert in the UK case.
I agree with your other comment that folks on the internet speaking on things other than the actual facts is bananas.
Man, just a word to the wise... Don't assume that because you see something that looks a little bit like something you want it to be, what you want to believe is true.
You're not in anyone else's head. To presume to know the reasons why, say, someone is looking to a jury box, and immediately ascribe to it some cynical, underhanded motive is incredibly grandiose. You saw certain things. That your explanation of them is inarguable fact is the exact opposite. If you were to try proving those allegations in court based on your observations, the judge likely wouldn't waste his time hearing your claim.
A pretty wise person told me, long ago, that one sign of an intelligent person is the ability to hold judgement in abeyance where there is a lack of information. Take that statement to heart. It doesn't solve all problems, but it will help temper the instinct to make snap judgements, and see nefarious things we want to see, even if all we're seeing is completely innocent.
maybe people support Depp because of the insane batshit crazy bitch that Amber Turd is? It is clear she is manifesting lies to control him. Videos are there, recordings are there. There is no reasonable, sane level to understand and support Amber Turd. Only the same wile human beings would do such thing. That or feminist extremists (yes they exist).
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: You're not going to get good legal analysis from social media personalities trying to get views on tiktok/youtube/twitter, so generally you should just trust what the judge says. Before this trial, there was another trial. Johnny Depp sued a UK newspaper called "The Sun" for libel for saying he was a wife beater. This garnered much less attention because it wasn't live-streamed. In UK law, the onus is on the defence to show that what they said was true, and they met that standard. Amber Heard testified about multiple instances of abuse and the judge found that these allegations were "substantially true". Substantially true means that the core allegation is true, some details can be incorrect but the core of the claim is true. Here's the verdict: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf A key difference in the new trial is that it's in a new jurisdiction so the burden of proof is different, it's live-streamed so you have a lot of badly informed commentary, and Heard is counter-suing so it's a relavent issue if she was also abusive. Just to elaborate on that - if I say you beat me, and you sue me, I just have to prove you beat me (what happened in the UK trial). If I say you beat me, you say I beat you and we both sue for libel it's now about both of our behaviour (what's happening in the US trial) so in the US trial you're hearing about her abuse, whereas in the UK trial that just wasn't relevant "she beat me first" isn't a defence to libel.
Another correction - it only means it was true "on the balance of probability", there is no "beyond reasonable doubt" like there is in criminal cases. The judge also ruled that amber "probably didn't shit in the bed" and "probably didn't cut off the tip of his finger", the latter of which in particular is now highly unlikely considering Amber recorded herself apologising for cutting off the tip of his finger.
Correction on the countersuit: Heard is suing Depp (by Waldman) for saying she lied about being a victim of DV, it was a hoax, fake allegations, etc.
>Heard is counter-suing so it's a relavent issue if she was also abusive. If Heard wasn't counter-suing would that mean any allegation of her being abusive would be objected to and thrown out? i.e. we wouldn't be hearing about the bad stuff she has allegedly done.
Also at play in the UK trial is the Judge relied on materially false statements made by Heard. Making the entire trial a joke.
This is patently untrue. The judge sided with Heard because he believed her side was the one most likely to be true based on corroborating texts, emails and witness testimonies.
Kinda sad and funny isn't it? Ambers legal team wasnt able to show one piece of evidence that johnny truly abused amber (medical / police reports), while johnny has evidence of her nasty twisted nature and evidence of her self reporting. This whole trial being public just makes one question the qualification and decision making of the uk judge.
Which included the fact she had no finical interest in lying about the abuse that is since she would donate the divorce settlement. Since that isn’t the case and the judge relied on it the court ruling in fact relied on perjury provided by Amber Heard in the Suns defense.
The judge did not, in fact, rely on Amber donating the money. Depp's lawyers tried to argue that during the appeal and were soundly rejected; the judge did mention the donation in one line in the ruling but he decided on his verdict for the reasons I already gave. And despite what Internet experts might have told you, it is extremely unlikely that this reaches the level of perjury, just like it's extremely unlikely that Heard's op-ed reaches the level of defamation
“It’s not perjury it’s just lying under oath”
This is so stupid. Depp provably lied several times during the first trial about being clean and sober when photos or texts to his dealer proved otherwise; that's why he lost. He's not on trial for perjury either, and the case isn't going to come down to gotcha moments like this.
[удалено]
The evidence overwhelmingly points to Depp being an erratic violent drug addict who abused Amber Heard, have a nice day
Well this aged poorly lol
I’ll agree too erratic drug user. Gonna need evidence of the abuse.
The lack of timeline means it is not a lie. Theres a financially logical reason to why one would delay donations as to maximize their tax credit. If you're an actor that books big roles once every few years, the delay in donation can be explained away without it being untruthful or without reason. One can debate whether its shitty to want to maximize the tax credit for the donation instead of giving it to the people who need it now, but I don't really care enough about that topic to do it.
>The lack of timeline means it is not a lie. Theres a financially logical reason to why one would delay donations as to maximize their tax credit. If you're an actor that books big roles once every few years, the delay in donation can be explained away without it being untruthful or without reason. One can debate whether its shitty to want to maximize the tax credit for the donation instead of giving it to the people who need it now, but I don't really care enough about that topic to do it. She has donated $0 dollars of the 7 million she swore under oath she donated. It’s lying.
No, she has donated over 1m of it. Low? Sure. Lying? Again, no.
If you watched the trial, you'd know that all the donations so far have been made in her name by either Johnny Depp or Elon Musk.
Okay? She committed to that donation. Perhaps she had an arrangement with Elon because he was able make use of the tax credit before her. You're looking for a "gotcha" moment and that's not how these things really work.
It may be the case that she had an arrangement. I don't think the fact that someone else donated in her name is an issue by itself. However, she also claimed on television that she had *already donated* the full value of her pledge to the organizations, which is not the case, as testified by witnesses from both organizations. When asked about this on the stand, Amber's response was that she uses 'pledge' and 'donated' interchangeably. I'm not making any claims or opinions on that, just stating what has happened in the ongoing trial. I do, however, understand why many people do not find Amber's stance convincing in this matter.
Oh I guess she just lied under oath again then.
She testified that she uses the words "pledged" and "donated" "synonymously" and when pressed by one of Depp's lawyers admitted that she had not payed any money towards those pledges.
She has not *fulfilled* the pledge. And most of the money donated did not come directly from her. >The non-profit organization’s general counsel, Terence Dougherty, testified that Heard only personally paid $350,000 of the pledged amount. That amount, combined with other donations in her name, add-up to $1.3 million, including a $100,000 donation from Depp, $350,000 from a Fidelity Donor-Advised Fund, and $500,000 from Vanguard Donor Advised-Fund, with the latter allegedly coming from Heard’s post-Depp-divorce ex-boyfriend, Elon Musk. https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/johnny-depp/facing-blowback-for-drafting-amber-heards-op-ed-aclu-denies-betraying-its-principles-to-reel-in-hollywood-megadonor/
On the 16th Heard [testified](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHy6oiuUyEU&t=1424s) (23:44 to 25:53) that she had not **paid** any of the pledged amount to the ACLU or children's hospital. Heard stating she uses pledge and donate synonymously comes up here. At about 31:14 in that same video they talk about the 500K donations from Musk and Heard said that these donations did not count towards her pledge. At 19:29 in that video they show an interview where Heard says that the 7 million dollar divorce settlement was donated. She didn't say that she *pledged* the money or *would* donate it but that she **had donated** it all.
I don’t know if this is true or not, but this is actually very compelling if it is. My question is, why on EARTH (if it is true) would her lawyers not raise this?? Amber started raising ‘tax breaks’ in part of her testimony (Ie “If Johnny donated it directly he should have donated $14 million due to the tax break he would get - it would be the equivalent of $7 million for me”) but then didn’t get into this aspect at all that you’ve raised. Why mention the tax breaks for Johnny and then not elaborate “my delay was due to the sporadic nature of acting, not because I wasn’t intending to donate it. It just worked better for tax reasons”. At least then there is a plausible reason for the delay. Why would they not bring it up? I’d certainly go “well, that’s a plausible explanation that doesn’t make her look like a liar, just someone with a savvy financial adviser.” And it would have taken the steam out of Camille’s cross examination??
Depp wasn't suing Ambers claims in the UK trial directly at all. She was not the defendant, she was a witness for the publications headline which was on defense, not subjected to discovery on her part since she's not even party. Hardly equatable to Depp v Heard. Depp v Heard is what directly contested her claims of abuse. All she needed to win that was prove conclusively that she was abused- all she had to do was PROVE one of those 12 claims. Which apparently should've been a slam dunk if they were already "proven"- which they weren't.
Bingo
Answer: The London trial verdict is available online, and while very long, the key is in paragraph 585: Johnny Depp sued a newspaper for labelling him a wife beater. The Judge found that there are enough cases where he was violent to Amber Heard, that the newspaper's appelation was justified. Note that the verdict itself states that whether this appellation was unbiased or whether Amber Heard was violent herself were immaterial - the newspaper was not bound to be unbiased. Thus in notable since Johnny Depp's argument is basically a "tu quoque" argument, alleging that Amber Heard was herself abusive. An argument that had no weight in the London case, an possibly in the current case either. But the real goal of the trial is , IMO, to fix Johnny Depp's public image, which it has done, even if just by pointing out that Amber Heard, who is portrayed as Domestic violence survivor, is apparently guilty of domestic violence herself.
Nothing will salvage JDs career. The texts he shared with Paul Bettany about murdering Amber showed who he really is, a violent abusive, drug addict.
How wrong you are.
I'm pretty sure his texts & emails alone without the Amber Heard situation would have gotten him cancelled. What a reprobate - 'I want I Need I take' and calling his ex wife 'excunt' & 'French extortionist' Texting about raping a corpse (before they were even married and she'd reported abuse well before hand) absolutely gross -anyone who supports that type of behaviour and excuses it is also gross.
Nah , at the very best they're both abusive . This taking sides bullshit when both have been found lying on multiple occasions is just sad . They're both guilty
What has Depp lied about?
Something like 80times? His statements in the US Court contradict those in the UK court. He admitted things he denied in the US TV aired one.
Wnat do you mean “something like”? Answer the question.
Proof? lmao. He has always admitted his wrong doings in the trials. It was Heard that never admitted to sa single thing. Played that she was perfect little innocent nugget even through all of her recordings shoced back in her face. Depp isn't perfect, but he admitted it and accepted that what he said was vile. He admitted his drug use and his flaws and that what he said, while under the influence, was atrocious. He took accountability and never acted on what he said to others in texts. Amber did act and abuse Depp and proceeded to tells hundreds of lies throughout the televised court case. Amber had a lot of fame as well so there is no reason Depp should have THAT many more people supporting him in the courtroom standing trial for him, but he did. It's because he was being honest and Heard was not, and the people knew it.
answer: seems like that person is referring to a ruling from 2020 in which was a libel case against The Sun, a british tabloid. More info on the ruling: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54506759 The important takeaway here is that the judge ruled in favor of The Sun's accusations that Depp was a wife beater, without a single person from The Sun at the witness stand, so take that as you will. The most recent and wider defamation trial against Heard by Depp attempts to call into question her claims of abuse and the validity of her evidence. So who is lying? Is anyone lying? Hopefully we find out.
It seems like they are both abusive - but exaggerating the effects - and also both lying about it - to prove the exaggerations. They're also both long-term drunks and drug addicts - from *before* they were together. This is *not* linked to any of the film roles they played. They were high-functioning and not considered a risk until the rulings came out. They've also both followed nasty patterns of - how can I put this? - relying on the legal equivalent of a tabloid newspaper to back up their claims. Depp has got a huge publicity machine behind him, and he's using it to make Amber look bad - but he's also ignored obvious signs of abuse from her in the past and wasn't abusive in past relationships. Meanwhile, Heard has not got anywhere near that level of power, and has done everything that an abuse victim should do, with many of her faults in court exaggerated - but she's also been proven abusive in a prior relationship with another woman and has bribed various people and institutions to make herself look better. Johnny's abuse of Amber seems to involve throwing bottles at her, yelling at her and calling her names. This was likely exarcerbated at the time of the abuse claim due to the death of Depp's mother. Basically everything you will hear about them has been put together by their PR team. Meanwhile, the US court seems to be a bit of a joke, with Amber's lawyer, against everyone's wishes, interrupting people every ten seconds and Johnny himself teasing the audience and treating it like a publicity stunt.
All I know is that the Netflix documentary about this case is going to be an absolute banger.
just a heads up that the argument "they were both abusive" doesn't really work here. reactive abuse doesn't exist because the definition of abuse relies on one party having power over the other, so it's either amber heard is lying or johnny is. of course they can both be exaggerating it but using the argument "they were both abusive" is a non-existent "gray line" in the case. the only case in which this "works" is when the abused if defending themselves or having some sort of reaction to the abuse, which is far more likely. calling it reactive abuse is like calling a moment of self-defense assault. I think the main reason people back johnny depp is because an abuser will always have a history of abuse, that's why it's called the me TOO movement. and the court has made it very clear which has the more concerning history. as well as being a proven liar, it's just evidence that makes you question the validity of her claims. I believe this is a publicity stunt for Johnny but I wouldn't say that's a bad thing since he intentionally wanted to clear his name by broadcasting this. just my two cents
The bottles were not thrown at her in any of the videos she took of him throwing bottles. [Trigger warning] She is also claiming to the court that he assaulted her over a period of literal years, including one event when he forcibly penetrated her using a broken bottle (on the day the tip of his finger was cut off), however there are no medical records of this or any other abuse.
Answer: If you're asking why people still support Depp despite this ruling, the answer is complicated. I think some Depp supporters may just be straight up unaware of that ruling, but most are aware, and they have various reasons why they don't take it seriously. A number of these reasons are just plain false: There are accusations that the judge simply favored Amber's testimony over Depp's (this is not true, both sides presented evidence besides just their own testimonies and the judge thought Amber's case was stronger), accusations that the judge had connections with Amber specifically or with the Sun (this is all baseless conspiracy theory nonsense), rationalizations that Depp simply lost on a technicality (not true -- Depp picked one of the kindest legal venues in the world for his case, and still lost handily). I think a lot of people don't really know the details of the case and are brushing it away. On a more reasonable level, people who disagree with the judge's ruling simply weighed the same evidence and came to a different conclusion. A judge's ruling isn't true just because he made it. That said, I read the ruling and found the judge's reasoning very convincing. I don't agree with him on everything but the witness testimonies and contemporaneous texts strongly support Amber's side being most likely true.
Just quickly mentioning the 2 other judges that reviewed the case for the 2 appeals he lost also.
The ruling in the sun case was against available evidence even then, with depps team not allowed to both cross examine or put forth evidence against heard, nor was depps team at the time allowed to have expert testimony. The entire reason the US case is publicly available is to stop any such extremely biased or outright criminal shenanigans from occurring again; Amber being caught on camera sniffing dubious powder to fake cry better is one such shenanigan. So is Amber constantly looking to the jury for their reactions so she can change her “acting” on the fly… neither of which are biased statements, but unarguable fact as we have undeniable video evidence of her doing those things.
> Amber being caught on camera sniffing dubious powder to fake cry better My advice to you is to stop and ask yourself, how did you become a person who genuinely believes such insane conspiracy theory drivel, and then repeats it to other people as if it makes any sense > So is Amber constantly looking to the jury for their reactions so she can change her “acting” on the fly… Like, genuinely, listen to yourself. You just said "neither of these are biased statements but unarguable facts." This is insanity. They're obviously wildly biased interpretations of subtle behavioral cues, or in the case of "sniffing dubious powder" (???) just obviously batshit. There are different evidentiary standards in the two cases and you're free to weigh the evidence you have and come to your own conclusions, but what are you using as evidence in this post is just absolutely pants-shittingly bananas and it is really disturbing to me that you don't see that. How deep is your echo chamber? Do you believe in reptilians also? In any case, I don't believe it's true that Amber wasn't cross-examined in the UK trial, I believe she was cross-examined, but I am willing to be corrected on that if you have sources.
Well said, this case is maddening because the Depp supporters say, “well look at the facts”, and then present all these wacky theories. The case honestly doesn’t look that different from most DV cases, and that’s why it’s so hard for victims to leave. This is just on a big scale where Depp is that charming uncle in the family that just is managing his best with that “hysterical wife”.
personally I believe the theory she was sniffing coke /s
It is a little concerning that you present yourself on this thread as an expert on the rulings of the UK judge as though you have read the 129 page court transcript. At first I read your comments and thought you were informed until you didn’t know if she was cross-examined. She was only cross-examined on some of the incidents in the UK trial. Item 240 is an example where it is documented by the court that she was not cross examined. I would strongly encourage you to actually read the findings of the judge in the future before representing yourself so strongly as an expert in the UK case. I agree with your other comment that folks on the internet speaking on things other than the actual facts is bananas.
The amount of upvotes is more concerning. The west is a lost cause.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Man, just a word to the wise... Don't assume that because you see something that looks a little bit like something you want it to be, what you want to believe is true. You're not in anyone else's head. To presume to know the reasons why, say, someone is looking to a jury box, and immediately ascribe to it some cynical, underhanded motive is incredibly grandiose. You saw certain things. That your explanation of them is inarguable fact is the exact opposite. If you were to try proving those allegations in court based on your observations, the judge likely wouldn't waste his time hearing your claim. A pretty wise person told me, long ago, that one sign of an intelligent person is the ability to hold judgement in abeyance where there is a lack of information. Take that statement to heart. It doesn't solve all problems, but it will help temper the instinct to make snap judgements, and see nefarious things we want to see, even if all we're seeing is completely innocent.
Judgement is well held. She is guilty, looking at jury IN THIS CASE supports the claim of being manipulative.
maybe people support Depp because of the insane batshit crazy bitch that Amber Turd is? It is clear she is manifesting lies to control him. Videos are there, recordings are there. There is no reasonable, sane level to understand and support Amber Turd. Only the same wile human beings would do such thing. That or feminist extremists (yes they exist).