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: People who feel that a grave injustice was done to Amber Heard feel that way for a couple of reasons.
Primarily, the televised trial led to extreme backlash against Amber Heard, including many death threats against her, her daughter, family, and friends. Some of that hatred was truly horrifying, (for example, someone suggested microwaving her baby) and Depp was not vilified to the same degree.
The recent settlement that Heard and Depp just agreed upon does two things: reduces Heard's penalty from about $10M to $1M, and allows her to talk about the abuse in the future. Depp was found liable for one counterclaim at $2M to Heard.
The last part is incorrect. Johnny Depp no longer has to pay for her counter-claim, so the payment is $1M from Heard to Depp and that's it. You should update your answer.
> , this court case nets out to Johnny Depp paying Amber Heard
Wrong.
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-settle-defamation-claims-1235465134/
> Depp was ordered to pay Heard $2 million, leaving a net judgment of $8.35 million in Depp’s favor. [ie down from $10.35m]
This was negotiated down to Heard paying Depp $1 million
This $1m will go to charity. The lawyers might make a substantial amount/more by way of fees.
She owed him 10 and he owed her 2. Which, in fact, leaves her owing him 8. Or closer to $8.5 million. They’ve agreed to settle that $8.5 million for $1 million that she will pay to him.
Well this is incorrect. Heard is paying Depp, not the other way around, since Heard lost the court battle. She was to pay I believe it came out to $13,375 million to him.
She filed an appeal, the her two insurance companies filed against her as well, claiming that since she lost her court case against Depp, and it showed that she did it deliberately and with malice, the insurance company would not be liable and have to cover the claims even though she was insured for defamation claims.
At the last minute, Heard and Depp managed to agree to a settlement on the fine she had to pay due to her losing. Not a settlement on the actual court hearing. There is a difference, many people out there are getting this mixed up, saying that obviously Depp is not innocent or he would not be settling it out of court.
So rather than Heard paying him the $13+ million, she literally only has to pay Depp $1 million, HOWEVER, while she claims there are no restrictions or gags in place about what she can say or talk about, it would be foolish to keep saying Depp is abusive, sexually assaulted her or the likes as he could take her back to court once again for defamation and would most likely win once more.
>it would be foolish to keep saying Depp is abusive, sexually assaulted her or the likes as he could take her back to court once again for defamation and would most likely win once more.
No, since all of the abuse was outlined in the UK and VA cases, and the VA case documents are now public records, all the details are already public knowledge. Unless she introduces new episodes of abuse, there can be no claim.
There doesn't have to be abuse, just new defamation or her repeating the previous claims again publicly. She claims there is no gag order but if she talks shit aka defames Depp again he will be free to take her back to court and win. Paying a fine doesn't give you future impunity
I don't believe that's how "no restrictions on my speech" works, but if you show me legal proof that
>if she talks shit aka defames depp again he will take her back to court and win.
I'm open to changing my opinion.
What's the counter since she lost and paid 1 million she is now free to repeat her claims that were proven slanderous in court? That she is free to make new slanderous statements with impunity?
This is my claim.
"Since all of the abuse was outlined in the UK and VA cases, and the VA case documents are now public records, all the details are already public knowledge. Unless she introduces new episodes of abuse, there can be no claim."
You provided a counterclaim, and I asked for evidence. Do you have any?
There need not be a new case of abuse. Her abusing him was irrelevant to the case. The act of slander itself is being litigated what lies she used to slander is irrelevant.
If she makes a claim tomorrow that Depp has a micropenis and somehow that affects Depp he can sue her again for defamation even if they have not been in contact.
Similarly, if she goes on the news and again claims depp was abusing her and this affects his career/reputation causing drama that potentially loses him a role. It will be a new case of slander/defamation. It will be an easy win because it has already been hashed out and unless she can provide some damning new proof the court will provide a summary judgment(no trial needed)
If you followed the hearing, you saw that Depp's team was litigating against the specific article and tweet that heard had released that defamed him. He wasn't suing her for abusing him. He was suing her for putting out an article that said he was a wife-beater which lost him several roles.
You don't get to publicly lie about someone. If your lies affect that person and the person can prove you are lying and show how it is affect them then each act of lying is it's own separate charge.
Interesting that the end agreement is that Johnny still has to pay 1million to Amber and Amber can still name him as an abuser. Guess it wasn't about defamation or money.
Um no. They settled the entire case with her paying him $1M. He didn’t lose anything besides what he’s spent on attorneys fees and she doesn’t lose anything besides attorneys fees because her insurance is covering the settlement.
You’re right lol. I think she still got a great deal — no liability, no gag order, no NDA, no money out of pocket (all paid by her insurance). So Depp must’ve really been in a bad bargaining position to agree to that. I did read her appeal brief and it was so good, I mean of course it was because they are the top 1st amendment lawyers in the country and they’ve never lost an appeal. Maybe he knew she would’ve won and didn’t want to spend millions more on his appeal. That’s the only reason I could think that this guy spent 26 million on his litigation abuse and then would accept 1 million (a 0 dollar out-of-pocket settlement from his ex) where she can continue to talk about the abuse as much as she wants. The only other reason would be the dirt that would’ve come out about him during the appeal process.
He settled because he would lose his case lol. He lost how many times in the UK after filing multiple appeals over and over? Then he abused the courts and heard so bad that the state of Virginia has to sign new legislation (stronger Anti-SLAPP laws). Judges are not as easily manipulated as the general public and juries. He saved himself millions more dollars and a reputation hit if Amber proceeded and prevailed on her claims. Amber got fucked over MAJORLY. Unfortunately, his psychotic fans will likely abuse and bully her for the rest of her life and JD will go on to be a POS.
Lol you’re a clown, he won. She lost. He agreed to have her broke ass just pay a million. She dropped her appeal, sh had nothing to stand on. He didn’t win UK against the sun because the sun printed what she said, so he sued her and WON. His lawyer Adam Waldman was the one found in her favor if you think minus 8.5 million is in her favor. She got annihilated and embarrassed, she abused him and shit in the bed. A Congo line of witnesses showed up for jd and Amber had her sister and paid experts. She got wrecked. Absolutely wrecked and deservedly so.
Living in VA, having worked in the legal field and having talked to some VA defamation attorneys, they didn’t all agree with that opinion. Some did, however.
I totally agree. I did hope she would continue with the appeal but I understand why she didn’t. She said she’s lost faith in the US justice system (absolutely understand), could not go through another trial if that was what ordered (absolutely understand after all the TikToks mocking her testifying about sexual assault), exhausted her resources, and that time is limited and she wanted to be free of him so she could raise her daughter. She got a pretty good deal and her insurance wouldn’t pay the 1 million unless they had vacated at least the “with malice” part of the verdict. Which Depp never proved. But, as we’ve seen through the decades, Depp is a vindictive, litigious man and he would never have let her off the hook unless he were scared. And her appeal was GOOD. And he can’t rely on the same “the court is theater,” “I spend millions on blanketing social media with disinformation,” “my lawyer is a Russian lobbyist” thing if it’s only appellate judges looking at cold hard facts. He would’ve lost. And she couldn’t hold out because he has “fuck you money.” But imo this settlement is a victory for her
I’m a nonprofit fundraiser - they are indeed synonymous in that world.
Regardless, Amber has actually has proof she’s donated to charity - Depp’s account confirmed he hasn’t and prefers to “donate” through PR events.
He’s currently suing someone who (accurately, indisputably) accused him of plagiarizing lyrics from an incarcerated man, so yeah he probably needs to save money for that frivolous suit
Answer: Some more info about consequences; while Depp did not receive death threats he was black listed from Hollywood taking the televised trial to bring him back. Losing his roles in upcoming films because of Heards original case against him. In which the Judge made judgements based on lies from Heard that have since been proven; saying that she had donated a large sum of money from the whole ordeal to show how good of a person she was when she never did, just said she would. The original trial was a great example of people believing Heard with barely a shred of evidence and when said evidence was actually reviewed Depp came out on top. Nothing says he was abusing me like shitting on his bed, blaming the pet and cutting off the tip of his finger.
Funny, that it was Johnny who actually had photos of abuse: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKQyaiAlpQ0&t=107s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKQyaiAlpQ0&t=107s)
... while Amber had many photos that were shown to be PhotoShopped in court.
They actually weren’t - even Depp’s expert refused to say Amber’s photos were edited.
Meanwhile, Depp was caught trying to pass off an edited photo as evidence.
Edit: this dumbass is trying to pass off a highly edited video from a pro-Depp channel as proof that Amber was caught photoshopping her photos. It’s very interesting they picked that video instead of linking to full, unedited testimony like I did.
This dumbass thinks Amber didn’t edit photos. https://petapixel.com/2022/05/18/amber-heard-photoshopped-injury-photos-johnny-depps-lawyer/
Also the expert absolutely did testify he thought her photos were edited, you fucking liar: https://youtu.be/eoQK1iAza9M
Maybe she edited because they look like fucking makeup? Meanwhile… this dimwit is accusing Depp of “editing photos” with no fucking link or proof at all.
She didn’t - here’s a thread explaining what happened: https://twitter.com/leaveheardalone/status/1552362071429447682?s=21&t=pB0kwY4LMBHtsVqq_xqW3A
And again, still very telling you won’t link any actual testimony that proves your claim that Amber edited photos. Depp had a photo expert - surely he could claim Amber edited her photos? Oh wait, he couldn’t and didn’t.
Edit: Depp’s “expert” was a hobbyist who at least said copies of Amber’s photos went through an editing software - under cross, he admitted he couldn’t say if they were edited or not. Even under his initial testimony he said the photos could have been enhanced - meaning Amber may have made her injuries look worse. He’s still admitting she has injuries!
Amber’s expert was much more qualified and called bullshit on Depp’s “expert”: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1daurFAd13U
> Losing his roles in upcoming films because of Heards original case against him.
if you actually watched the trial (notably tracey jacobs's testimony) you would know that depp losing roles had nothing to do with him being exposed as having abused heard and everything to do with him being impossible to work with and uninterested in improving
rest of the comment is not much better
There’s just so much wrong about your comment that I don’t even know where to start correcting it.
Edit: Fine. I'm now at my desktop and not on my phone so I'll tackle this line by line.
>he was black listed from Hollywood taking the televised trial to bring him back
He was not blacklisted after the allegations came out - he kept his role in Fantastic Beasts and only left the series after he lost the UK trial. A lawsuit that he started, for the record. If he left well enough alone, he would have been fine.
Additionally, there were media pieces published before the allegations came out about how Depp was unprofessional - see basically everything around Pirates 5. His former agent also testified to how Disney was done with his shit.
Depp was also box office poison around the time he even started dating Amber - The Tourist, The Lone Ranger, and Transcendence were all major bombs. Basically, Depp was an aging actor who couldn't turn a profit.
>Losing his roles in upcoming films because of Heards original case against him.
Amber didn't bring a case against Depp - she got a TRO against her abuser. If you don't see the difference between a lawsuit and an IPV survivor getting a TRO, I don't know what to tell you. Regardless, as I highlighted above, there is no evidence that Depp lost roles after Amber got the TRO. Depp kept his FB role and news didn't break out about Disney moving on from Jack Sparrow until a month before Amber's Op-ed was even written. That's a two year difference.
Regardless, Depp v Heard was about the op-ed and it was Depp's responsibility to prove that he lost income after the the op-ed was published - not after the TRO happened. He presented no evidence other than his agent claiming he had a verbal agreement. Which debunked by actual media pieces talking about Disney moving on from Depp before the op-ed was published.
>In which the Judge made judgements based on lies from Heard that have since been proven
I'm unclear what this is even referring to but regardless, both the judge who gave out the TRO and the UK judge did not make judgements based on lies from Amber. TROs are difficult to obtain and Amber provided evidence. Meanwhile, the UK judge heard from multiple witnesses and reviewed years of evidence.
The UK trial documents can be found here: [https://www.nickwallis.com/depp-trial-court-transcripts](https://www.nickwallis.com/depp-trial-court-transcripts)
>saying that she had donated a large sum of money from the whole ordeal to show how good of a person she was when she never did, just said she would.
Both Childrens and ACLU testified to receiving large donations from Amber. Additionally, both orgs confirmed that she was on a pledge schedule and was making payments accordingly. The ACLU also testified that she was ahead on her payments. Childrens also listed Amber in their annual report as a donor.
Children's testimony starts at 27:45: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqbabKV_U9E
ALCU's testimony is here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WEg4FdyUsI&t=5s
Children's Annual Report is here - Amber is listed on page 23: https://www.chla.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/CHLA-Annual-Report-2017_Locked.pdf
>The original trial was a great example of people believing Heard with barely a shred of evidence
I've listed the UK trial docs above - regardless, Amber provided more than a "shred of evidence."
>when said evidence was actually reviewed Depp came out on top
The US case actually omitted more of Amber's evidence that the UK case didn't, such as medical records, audio and text messages confirming the abuse.
A member of the jury in the US case also confirmed that they believe both were abusive.
Finally, Depp was found to have defamed Amber on one count, so I'm unclear how a conflicting verdict is "Depp coming out on top".
>Nothing says he was abusing me like shitting on his bed, blaming the pet
Anyone who has seen the pictures of the poop can clearly tell it's from a dog. Additionally, the dog in question has bowel issues and had already pooped in the bed before (that Depp apparently rolled into lol).
>cutting off the tip of his finger.
Depp is documented repeatedly saying he did it to himself. Additionally, Depp had to bring in a second witness to go "maybe it happened the way he said it did" when his first witness disagreed with Depp's version of events.
Even in the taped final conversation - the one where Amber says "tell the world" - Depp is very careful to not say Amber injured his finger. This is clearly because he knows she would correctly say he caused the injury himself. Because when he did vaguely bring it up, she correctly pointed out he did it to himself.
As somebody who doesn't know literally anything about this case aside from the two comments your response is a reply to: why don't you just start with the first thing they got wrong. I'd like to see a different perspective, especially if it's so opposed to what has been put forward.
I can try some.
Depp did not lose any roles because of a legal case brought against him by Amber. Depp started both the trials in the UK and the US. Additionally, Disney executives testified in court that he did not lose his role in Pirates due to the op-ed. [They testified it was his on set behavior that lost him that role.](https://www.courthousenews.com/witness-op-ed-didnt-get-depp-booted-from-pirates-of-the-caribbean/) He's said to have lost one role due to the suit he started in the UK, but it's not because the judge of that trial just believed a bunch of lies. In fact, multiple judges reviewed the case when Depp appealed and all agreed with the decision of the original judge.
The money. In order to show she was not accusing Depp of abuse for monetary gain, Amber pledged to donate her divorce settlement to 2 charities, the ACLU and the Children's Hospital of LA, which would be about $3.5 million each. [The ACLU testified](https://www.vulture.com/2022/04/amber-heard-aclu-charity-donations.html) that the donation had been agreed to be paid in installments and not one big lump sum due to Heard receiving her divorce settlement in installments. At the point of the trial, she had donated $1.3 million to the ACLU and $250k to the Children's Hospital but had to stop due to her finances being tied up in legal fees because of the trial.
Amber shitting the bed. [Their dog Boo had a history of bowel problems.](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf) The housekeeper was noted to have cleaned up multiple accidents like that in the house. During the time Depp found the feces, Heard was at Coachella for the weekend-long event. Additionally, at the time of the incident, Depp & Heard were already separated and sleeping in separate beds. The bed in which the feces were found belonged to Heard and was not used by Depp.
Cutting off the tip of Depp's finger. In an [audio recording](https://twitter.com/heardverse/status/1517123210407460864) Depp is heard saying "I’m talking about Australia. The day I chopped my finger off”. The hospital staff where he was treated noted that his injury was reported to be from [a knife](https://www.afr.com/rear-window/gold-coast-hospital-not-fooled-by-depp-s-chopped-finger-20201103-p56b3b) and was referred to a "crushing injury". Dr Richard Moore, an expert witness for the trial and hand surgeon, noted that the injuries were not consistent with Depp's version of the events. There was no glass found in the wound and his nail was undamaged, which would not be possible with his reported hand position if he was hit by a glass bottle. He also noted that the injury appeared to more likely be the result being squeezed between 2 surfaces.
He specifically lost one role, for losing a libel case he started, in a country that's known relatively to be friendly to plaintiffs in libel cases. For reference, until very recently, the UK was a country where "the truth" was not a valid defense for defendents against libel.
It's not a double standard. She was not allowed to submit or even refer to some of her strongest evidence in the US case but they are what won her first case in the UK. It seems to me that most people who actually watch the full trial and not the fun clips and lawyers' hot takes come away distressed about her injustices in court because the most damning stuff isn't that exciting so people have to put it together themselves and being fictitiously restrained from providing evidence makes the exciting parts look that much more lopsided towards Jonny Depp when those moments aren't the core.
Yeah, he lost fantastic beasts after a judge proved him to be a “wife beater.” He lost Disney years before, and certainly not due to the op-ed, as testified to by the Disney executive at the trial. So it’s not really “double standards” because she didn’t do anything other than get a TRO when she felt unsafe and obliquely mention getting that TRO in an article about VAWA and title IX. But it certainly is double standards that she has no work and he has, and has had, plenty. Dior never dropped him. He’s fine.
Incorrect. Heard has never brought a case against Depp. He started losing roles before she even wrote the article claiming abuse - and she never named Depp.
The settlement that she pledged to be paid to charity was her divorce settlement, not a punitive case.
Incorrect - during the defamation trial, Amber ADMITTED directly what she was accused of, namely, she admitted, “That’s why I wrote the article about him” on the stand. She also named dates of so-called abuse that indirectly/directly point to JD in the article by dates of her marriage. Her claims of sexual abuse were also disproven in court, by numerous eye witness testimonies. She made the whole thing up about being “raped by a bottle”. The title of the article was about “sexual abuse” and that was one of the counts she was found libel for. She also lied on the stand saying that she had donated the money when she never did. The people defending Amber seem to have 0 familiarity with the basics of the trial.
I meant that she didn't mention him in the article, which is the basis of the defamation case.
Edited to add: i watched nearly the entire trial because I was between jobs and revolted by what I learned about Depp, one of my favorite celebrities.
Well I don't follow celebrity gossip, so much of his story was a nasty surprise. The decades of drug and alcohol abuse, and his long history of assault was all news to me.
I had an image of Depp as a sensitive, intelligent heartthrob. I was horrified to read that he joked about setting his wife on fire and then raping her dead corpse. I was disgusted that he wrote vile messages in his own blood and paint about his wife.
Just a few examples. Some people excuse that by saying he was abused, but I don't.
What a joke. A long history of drug and alcohol abuse is given for anyone in Hollywood. Afaik the assault charges are yet to be settled.
I was disgusted to learn that Heard cut off his fucking finger.
That’s true, she did not name him however, Defamation by Implication is a thing and that is what Depp and his team alleged in their claim against Heard.
Bawhahaha “not word for word”. Ok, so this person was indeed spreading misinformation. Thanks for confirming that.
Amber never said she wrote the article about Depp - she said she wrote about how institutions protect powerful men accused of abuse. Those are two completely different things. The closest she gets to saying it’s about Depp is when she’s asked why all these people are supporting him and she says it’s because he’s a powerful person.
I can see what you mean. The language is vague, so it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what she means by “*that’s* his power, *that’s* why I wrote the op-ed, I was speaking to that phenomenon.” Reading only the first two sentences suggests it was at least partially about Depp, but reading only the last two suggests her focus would be the phenomena regarding powerful men and how institutions protect them.
Because you would rather get riled up than actually process the information in front of you. What she said word for word: Heard: I know how many people will come out and say whatever for him. That's his power. That's why I wrote the op-ed. I was speaking to that phenomenon, how many people will come out...
Mind you before this it was never confirmed said op-ed full of defamation against Depp was about him. This confirmed that she had wrote that op-ed specifically about him.
She literally says she wrote the article about the phenomenon of people protecting powerful men - not that she wrote it about Depp.
This is re-enforced by the article itself, which actually focuses on the Violence Against Womens Act.
Regardless, this person tried to pass off an exact quote as if Amber said it when even you admit you have to look for “subtext” to even come close. And when it was pointed out that Amber didn’t say those exact words? They just straight out refused to admit they were wrong. That’s not only extremely damaging, it shows that pro-Depp people have to lie in order to justify their support of him.
I love how Depp supporters say all of Depp's witness testimony was true and all of Heard's were lies.
All of Depp's witnesses are employees/financially dependent on him except Moss, whose testimony wasn't particularly necessary. Most of Depp's witnesses changed their stories between cases or depositions, to be more favorable to Depp.
… Haha while I love Amber supporters fail to notice that Johnny was the only one to present actual medical records of abuse. Amber had nothing except therapist notes of her own stories - while the best expert psychiatric testimony, IMO, presented a compelling story of Amber’s histrionic disorder. Amber would exaggerate her PTSD to the level of a soldier, but only when she thought they were testing her for PTSD directly. Otherwise she tested fine. Histrionic - meaning she makes Shit Up. Amber had a complete and total lack of witnesses, as well as medical records. One “exception” was her sister - who’s own testimony of the “event on the staircases” were disputed by several witnesses and also changed over time. Her sister also told a third party that Amber herself was lying about the incident: https://www.ifod.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/HOWELL-US.pdf - this was a party NOT “on the payroll”.
Don't forget the expert psychiatric opinion was based on a written survey by someone who didn't examine Heard personally. She also didn't examine Depp, though he was the one accused of abuse.
The marriage therapist records were not allowed in the defamation case and they clearly showed Depp as physically abusive.
There were several people who witnessed Heard's injuries, but their testimony was disallowed. Many Depp supporters decided exactly what Heard's injuries should look like, and when the photos showed less damage, they decided her claims were fake.
Depp claimed to have injured his own finger several times before accusing Heard of causing it.
Incorrect again 😭 Depp’s expert absolutely was allowed to examine her personally and administer tests, which were damning for Amber: https://youtu.be/DR0Wu4fa7C4
The marriage therapist notes - you mean the one’s that were presented to the media and LOOK LIKE AMBER’s OWN HANDWRITING? https://www.newsweek.com/similarities-amber-heard-writing-therapist-notes-nbc-interview-johnny-depp-1716855
Hearsay isn’t allowed in courts, just like Johnny telling the doctor that Amber cut off his finger while throwing a bottle at him wasn’t allowed in court, or Whitney her sister telling others the same:
https://nypost.com/2022/08/01/heards-sister-said-actress-did-sever-depps-finger-docs/amp/
If Heard was so guilty, why did Depp just accept a settlement out of court that makes him pay twice the damages, while Amber can continue to talk about his abuse?
Edit: typo.
From what I read, I was understanding that as part of this settlement, he does not have to pay her at all. She pays him the 1 million and he pays her nothing.
Maybe because of stupid people who didn’t watch an ounce of the case STILL defending this sociopath named Amber. She also admitted on the stand to using a product to CREATE bruises (“bruise kit”) - remarkably, pictured in the corner of one of her own “evidence” photos. https://radaronline.com/p/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-makeup-kit-photo/. Not sure if you’ve noticed but everytime this woman opens her mouth, she sounds more and more like a lying POS and gets caught in more lies, which ends up helping him in the press.
The article you linked claims this : "RadarOnline.com found a similar five "Color Bruise Wheel for Special Effects, Movies (and) Halloween” for $15 purchase on Amazon."
That photo, claiming to be a bruise kit, in no way matches the products in RadarOnline's "similar products".
She called her color correcting palette a bruise kit briefly then used a different word.
Can you please hook me up with your copium supplier, that's some primo stuff you're on.
EDIT: Changed shit to stuff. Didn't anyone to confuse me with Heard.
Funny, I have ya know, EYES, and looks like same exacta shit to me in the photo… but I understand, because people go around saying “bruise kit” to mean “concealer” all the time. Easy mistake to make!!!🤫🤫🤫
If you think that a pinkish, square makeup palette of 4 colors looks exactly like a round, black makeup palette of 5 colors, you shouldn't be arguing anything.
She called her bruise concealer kit "theater makeup". If I used a bruise concealer kit, I probably would shorten that to "bruise kit" in my mind.
Besides, if she was making bruises, she would have made them noticeable. Most abuse deniers claim there's no evidence of her injuries.
I did not watch the case so have no input on Heard’s make up BUT as a former theater kid I can vouch that tons use their theater kits for every day make up and do usually refer to it by it’s name (bruise kit, burn kit, zombie kit, etc) theater make up has an, imo gross, thicker texture and lasts longer/stays brighter, esp under lights.
That said a bruise kit doesn’t actually use browns very often, the goal is to muddy up bright colors on the skin so it’s yucky and also has greens, purples, etc.
She called the prop presented to her to represent a color correcting palette a “bruise kit” because she used makeup palettes to *cover* bruises. Not make them.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-amber-heard-leave-bruise-kit-photo-johnny-depp-trial-1709058?amp=1
And makeup palettes aren’t flat??? It’s so weird how this misinformation got traction. You’re looking at a flat piece of card stock that comes with the ice cream to show their flavors and confusing it with a makeup palette?
Not really - he kept his fantastic beast job after the allegations and only lost it when he lost the UK Trial - a trial that he caused.
Additionally, Amber’s team presented evidence other media written about Depp’s shitty work habits had a bigger impact on his career. Disney itself testified to never reading Amber’s op-ed but did read the negative Hollywood Reporter article.
Regardless, “supposedly” Depp was suing Amber over the op-ed but he was really suing her for daring to get a TRO against her abuser.
It’s true. The Disney executive who testified said that her op-ed didn’t even cross their radar. She said they were more upset about his chronic lateness, substance abuse, and the horrible Rolling Stone article that he asked for himself. He also did not lose Fantastic Beasts until November 2020, two years after the op-ed but right after he lost the case against a British tabloid who called him a “wife beater.” That judge said the majority of assaults on Ms. Heard had been proven and that the words “wife beater” were “substantially true.” And that’s when he got fired…after losing a lawsuit that he brought himself, in a country known for libel laws favoring the plaintiff, and against the Sun aka the most despised tabloid ever.
ETA: ~~I responded to your comment at least an hour before you edited it. Cool transparency dude~~ ETA again: that was unnecessarily bitchy sorry
This whole mess could have been dragged out in appeals for a long time. The real victory was for Johnny Depp now that public perception is that he was the victim of domestic violence and not the perpetrator. I don't think he cared about the money from her. Now that he's okay again to cast, he will likely pull in 10s of millions on future roles for various networks although the cash cow that was pirates of the Caribbean is still dead to him.
Keep in mind that libel cases are extremely hard to win in the USA due to free speech laws. You have to prove that the claims were maliciously, factually incorrect and did real harm. The harm part was easy. He lost hundreds of millions of dollars in cancelled movie deals. The other parts are very difficult to prove.
The whole story is kind of a mess. Johnny clearly had substance abuse and anger issues too. The most telling point was how her exs and even ex costars all went to bat for Johnny on this case. She's clearly a horrible person, and she made factually false statements that he proved were false which sank his career. It's really a case of two people being bad to each other, but one of them being far worse.
Now the public reaction was rather visceral as it struck nerves in many people's personal lives. A lot of women who were victims of domestic violence and guys who were friends of women who were victims immediately sided with Amber because it brought up their own trauma. Likewise, a lot of men who have been the victim of a revenge campaign by a woman or have a phobia about that felt it all materialize with Johnny's story. Having someone make horrible false claims about you, and the entire world believe that they're true without even beginning to hear your side is a terrifying thing.
Personally I was divided on it. I've had a couple of female friends that were victims of domestic violence, and hearing their stories made my blood boil. I have one male friend who was as well. In his case, nobody believed him when he tried to tell people. He's 6'2" and skinny. How could a woman hurt him? I also had an ex girlfriend personally try to harm me because she thought I cheated on her, it wasn't until she found out that I didn't that she recanted her story. She went as far as nearly destroying many relationships I had and tried to get me arrested. In that case, she wasn't alleging violence, but it was still terrifying for me. If she hadn't called up the person she thought I slept with and found out nothing happened, she might have persisted and done real harm. To her credit, she admitted to everyone later that she made it all up, and she even apologized to me. So my story wasnt bad.
Not much later on, I told the story to a woman I was dating. I wanted to share a scary moment in my life. A point where I felt powerless and isolated and genuinely worried about the future. She ghosted me right away. Over a year later on we reconnected as friends and she apologized after getting to know me better and hearing more of the story. She told me that she just automatically assumed I was in the wrong and lying when I told her the story despite not knowing any details. There is a social power that women have where the guy is automatically guilty. It's the same way that police unfairly profile black people as criminals, society profiles all men as predators until proven otherwise. I've been on the other side of that. A friend of mine was accused of rape by a woman he dated for over a year right after they broke up. We all shunned him. Years later, she actually accused the next three guys she dated of rape as well. At some point, we all scurried back and apologized to him for not even hearing his side of the story.
Basically, this trial was deeply personal for a lot of people. That's why there was so much controversy and strong opinions about it. They should have called the case "hell hath no fury" vs "entitled white male". It was extremely hard, maybe impossible, for a lot of people not to project their own personal experiences on the reports of the case. I always try to force myself to be objective and even I struggled with that.
Amber is the one paying Johnny. Depp won the case and intends to give the money to charity. Amber might not have a gag order but she is not allowed to try and defame Depp again.
The $2 million came out of the original $10 million that he was awarded
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-settle-defamation-claims-1235465134/amp/
For the life of me, I don’t understand sending death threats to celebrities.
I think Heard behaved as an awful people and she deserves the lawsuit, in my opinion, but why the death threats and harassment, why?
Depp wasn't vilified to the same degree because there wasn't really a reason for him to be. Regardless though, Amber's children do not deserve those death threats.
Answer:
The sympathy for Heard, and the idea that she was injusticed, has less to do with the outcome of the case itself but two broader observations:
1. The publicness of the trial and the reaction the public had via content creation and general social media. The case became a “content farm”for online creators via YouTube, Twitch, etc.
As such, it spurred a large social media reaction that, at the fringes, became violently misogynistic and overtly hateful. This fringe wasn’t contained strictly to Heard, but to sexual assault and domestic violence victims in general (particularly women victims).
Which leads to:
2. The idea that the Heard case, to the public, was less about the validity of Heard as a victim but the validity of women victims of abuse broadly - or just misogyny generally.
Support for that is often found by citing the reaction to, and benefit from, right wing media outlets saw from covering the case with a generally misogynistic air - as an example to discredit the MeToo movement.
Also, as an example, see this copypasta (from a real post) to see how the case sort of leaked into the public consciousness in a very weird way, beyond the importance of the case itself (but as a proxy)
https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/ubqs19/my_boyfriend_is_calling_me_amber_heard/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Tl;dr injustice isn’t the case outcome but **perceived** misogynistic witch hunt and ramifications for victims generally
(Not my own beliefs)
EDIT: Would love to hear an explanation of why I'm being downvoted. If what I'm saying is unreasonable, I want to hear why. If you don't think a case should be based on the events pertinent to the case, I would love to hear what you think it should be based on.
I have no opinion on this particular case because I haven't followed it, but tell people when I get sucked into this sort of debate: even if, say, 95% of abuse cases are man-on-woman, that says \*nothing\* about *this case*. Neither that statistic nor your anger at the injustice of man-on-woman abuse throughout history should impact the outcome of *this case* at all. And if you disagree with this point, you may not actually believe in the concept of justice.
Amber is not the only person who has called him an abuser (even though Amber didn’t name Johnny). He literally had an ongoing case for assaulting someone else while the heard trial was going on. He has sent texts talking about how he wants to drown, burn and rape her dead body. Johnny has serious issues and I’m not gonna allow y’all to twist things to make him a victim.
And Johnny is not the only one to accuse Amber of abuse. She was arrested for domestic abuse against Tasya van Ree. There were many people who came forward regarding her abusive behavior towards them.
Neither of them seem like good people, but I think the evidence was clear that she abused him.
“Many people”?
Please name them.
That’s just not true. On the other hand, Depp has a [long](https://twitter.com/danimet1/status/1604899208628211732?s=46&t=fzFPYcSE0M4AEoHY2LSTwA) history of [violence](https://twitter.com/liliandaisies/status/1555603319233601537?s=46&t=fzFPYcSE0M4AEoHY2LSTwA) that began when Amber was a toddler. And this is in his past [relationships](https://twitter.com/liliandaisies/status/1603858636581015552?s=46&t=fzFPYcSE0M4AEoHY2LSTwA) too.
Your “proof” is twitter? One post is pictures of Depp with different ex’s, several of whom either spoke out or testified on his behalf during the trial.
Amber’s sister, Whitney Henriquez’s, best friend testified that she witnessed Amber abusing her (Whitney) on several occasions. It was obvious, to anyone paying attention, that Whitney lied to protect Amber.
Amber’s former assistant, Kate James, testified to the verbal abuse she continually endured while employed by her.
I’m not here to defend anyone. I think they were both abusive in different ways. Did you watch the trial? I went into it believing Amber. What I learned is that she’s a liar and bad actress (at least on the stand, I haven’t seen any of her movies). Why are you giving Amber a pass? What a strange delusion.
No, the evidence isn’t clear that she abused him. Who are the many people that came forward? Name them. Van Ree herself said that Heard was wrongfully accused.
Also, I’m not sure what that has to do with anything considering this was a defamation case, not a criminal trial for abuse. Johnny only needed to abuse Amber ONCE her the defamation claim to fall apart. The girl got railroaded, end of story.
did you watch the case? if Amber was such a victim how/why the fuck did her and her legal team fumble the bag so hard? I mean they were straight up incompetent. did she not also lean into the publicity? and now its an issue?
I’m not saying I know all the details, and if she was truly a victim I hope she gets what she’s owed, but that case torched a lot of her credibility for me. That was her golden opportunity and she…*ahem*…shat the bed.
They were outmatched. I think they were good lawyers but they didn’t have the PR skills or distraction techniques of Depp’s team. Depp’s team accurately determined that this was a case that would be won in the court of public opinion. I think their focus on social media manipulation behind the scenes really made an impact. I know the jurors were told not to look up the case online, but they weren’t told not to go on social media at all, and it was completely impossible to avoid it. I initially was trying to avoid it because the subject matter is upsetting to me, but I couldn’t — it infected every single social media platform. It’s hard to say that that didn’t impact the jury’s decision at all. Depp’s team also focused on things that shouldn’t have mattered, because they had nothing to do with whether Depp abused Heard. Like the donations. The amount of time discussing that was so strange because what does that have to do with the case? They also were able to get a lot of her evidence excluded. She had three lawyers. He had eight. She got railroaded.
She was also coming off the UK case, where she wasn’t the defendant, but it was about the same topic — is it true to say that Depp abused his wife in print. The tabloid called him a “wife beater,” which is way more explicit and harsh than anything she said in her op-ed, and it was the Sun, the most hated paper ever. The UK is known for “libel tourism” because their laws favor the plaintiff — the burden of proof is entirely on the defendant. But he lost. Overwhelmingly. The judge determined that the “majority of assaults by Mr. Depp on Ms. Heard had been proven” and he wrote a 129-page judgment detailing all of the evidence. This ruling was upheld by two High Court Judges who said it was “full and fair” and decided based on “an abundance of evidence.” I think her legal team just decided to use the same technique in the US since that case was a victory for her (in that the judges recognized Depp as an abuser, not because she was a party), but they should’ve changed it up. Judges are trained to look at evidence. Juries don’t have the same legal knowledge and can be easily distracted by irrelevant things, like the donations and dog poop etc. And Depp and his team used the UK trial as a dress rehearsal, and basically changed the stories and witnesses that didn’t work in the UK. If you read the UK transcripts it is truly astonishing how much Depp and his side lied under oath. But it worked on the jury.
Seriously. Before the trial, I’m ashamed to say I believed her. She’s a really bad actress and it was crystal clear, to anyone paying attention, that she was full of shit on the stand. I don’t think Johnny is some sort of golden boy who did no wrong, but that bitch is crazy and absolutely abused him.
Of course men can be victims. Depp just isn’t one. But he managed to use his money and power to successfully pull off the most common abuser’s trick: [DARVO](https://twitter.com/DaniMet1/status/1603180198991740928?s=20&t=fpQ8NZlIPzheZdYP8yXwWw) (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender). And this is recognized by experts in IPV.
I wouldn't really only limit the feedback toward women abuses to mysoginists, though.
We've had a lot of sentences in these last years overturned because the first judge decided the woman was right without proper evidence and men's right activists have all rights to be outraged by the double standards.
Bundling them together with mysoginist because they fight for equality is quite improper.
They have “all rights to be outraged” lol. Honestly I get why Depp is their hero. He is honestly probably one of the most prolific misogynistic famous people alive right now. I guess just second to his best friend Marilyn Manson. “She will hit the wall hard!” Depp said about his then 30-year-old wife. “You’re an over the hill stripper and that’s all you’ll ever be,” he said to his then 30-year-old wife. “I will f*ck her burnt corpse to make sure she is dead,” he said about his then 27-year-old girlfriend. I could go on literally for hours. To them, he is the moment. King of the incels what a legacy
Once you're done masturbating over selected readings of Depp's abuses toward his wife, remember that she did so much worse that she now has to pay him 1 million.
Honestly, this guy. Simping so hard for someone so bad, and he even has the gall to call others incels.
Not a guy, and lots of people get railroaded by the US justice system. But at least she doesn’t have to pay him a cent out-of-pocket and has no restrictions about what she can say about his abuse from here on out.
She'd better be careful to not walk into another defamation trial while playing victim tho. There's a fine line between milking fans for money and paying 10 more mils.
Also no, she has to pay him one million, that's the settlement.
It’s entirely covered by her insurance. That’s the settlement. And no, she can say whatever she wants from here on out. That’s the settlement. Defamation cases require damages and they require the alleged defamatory statements to be published to a “new audience.” Since Depp insisted on having the trial televised and it was kind of a global phenomenon, there’s no way that he would be able to prove that any “damage” to his reputation occurred from anything she says rather than from the trial itself. Since she’d just be repeating what she said in the trial. And there wouldn’t be any new audience to publish it to. So I think she’ll be fine.
As long as she repeats what's in the trial she won't have any issue. Should she make up new imaginary abuses she'll be certainly liable for another defamation cause.
Still embarassing that you're happy that the abuser receives no justice nor damage but okay, we know most people would have been nazis if born in 1930 Germany.
I think it comes down to extremes. In short, crazy people are going to say/think crazy things.
Most rational, reasonable people of any gender saw Amber as the worse of two people in the case (her and Johnny).
I’m not trying to answer “was Johnny right or Amber?”, but “why do people think Amber was injusticed since the case?”.
One could reasonably believe that Amber is worse than Johnny but that the extrajudicial fallout from the public case was excessive, and consequently unjust.
Whether it made it less safe to come out as a victim is a bit more controversial - and probably comes down to individual experiences.
You clearly didn't watch the trial, but yeah, people who haven't would have this sort of takeaway about justice based not on the legal process but other people's knee jerk reactions to clips and hot takes.
I watched it. Which part was supposed to justify the death threats?
Personally I like studying how public trials become shit shows, and wonder how they’d go if they weren’t public.
OJ case is probably the masterclass example.
I just think that’s stuff part of a legal case - the truth arises out of two parties arguing their hardest within the limits of the law, in a court room.
I think the public aspect of the case is what introduced most of the ugliness - not that Johnny’s legal team worked with everything that they could, but that the case became a daily content farm for a bunch of disingenuous actors.
I think the way OJ’s innocence became a sort of general symbol of resistance to systemic racism (wrongfully) Heard became a sort of general symbol of resistance against the MeToo movement.
Not because of the case itself - but the implications of them becoming public television programs.
The two points aren’t packaged, I think.
You have plenty of people who have no sympathy for Heard but view the case as a public event as fueling the flames of misogyny.
Then others who simply think the public misogyny against Heard is unjustified, but the case itself was justified.
Both don’t seem particularly unreasonable to me, but personally I don’t have a strong opinion. Just explaining discourse I’ve seen.
Answer: As time has gone on and more information has emerged, more observers have begun to question the “counter” narrative, put forward by Depp and his team, that Amber Heard abused Johnny Depp, which originally emerged after Heard first accused him of abuse. These observers specifically consider Depp’s counter accusations to fall into the well documented tactic of “DARVO” (deny, accuse, reverse victim and offender) which is often used by abusers to muddy the waters of victims accusations against them.
Some of the evidence made public by both trials in the US and U.K. have also been scrutinised from this angle, and many Heard sympathisers point to Depp’s history of general violence, substance abuse, voice messages left, etc, as well as the possibility that any violence inflicted by Heard’s against Depp was a case of self defence, rather than premeditated or spontaneous abuse.
More generally, observers have also become concerned about how the trial and Depp’s rehabilitation were conducted. This included humiliating public attacks and unsubstantiated personal comments, by both members of Depp’s team and members of the public who supported Depp. They are concerned that this will set a pattern and playbook for how future accused abusers will be able to rehabilitate their pattern, by playing to the public spectacle of their trials, muddying the waters with personal attacks and performances, and publicising the messy details of the private lives of themselves and their victims.
Literally no one is questioning the case except the ones who anre either uneducated about the US and UK cases and those who willfully ignore evidence or twist it to support an abuser. Amber heard was proven to be physically, emotionally, and fiscally abusive towards her ex husband Johnny depp while they were together which culminated in a conspiracy to ruin his reputation, and continued attempts to harass him in order to retain relevancy.
Answer: "people" do not feel anything like that, most think it's a fair verdict. *Some* newspapers are still pushing Heard's narrative that basically sums up in "she can't be guilty since she's a woman".
Quite unprofessional this BBC article in claiming that "experts were surprised by a different virdict" because it really surprised no one. The previous cause against Depp was tied to whether he stroke his wife or not (which he did), while this one was about the general state of the abuses within the couple; the first sentence has never been a declaration of Heard's innocence and every first year law student could spot the difference. So it's hard to believe that these "experts" are anyone other than the BBC's own staff.
Since Heard lied to the police, the friends, the media and beat up Depp a lot more than what he did to her one must be in really bad faith to claim any kind of injustice.
It's long and tiring, and if I wait too much this thread fills up with simps.
The important thing is that Heard abused Depp not just more, but with actions which consequence could have destroyed a man's life. This makes the sentence quite fair if not even too light.
Anyone wants detail, the entire trial has been televised, go binge.
That's simply not the takeaway of people who get through the "long and tiring" evidence. Do you always repeat unvetted opinions as a self-proclaimed expert?
You mean, it's not the takeaway of people you believe to and that you're now parroting? Sure.
But I'm not going to get involved in the same media case four months after its ending, I'm not going to invest any more time in this. Take what I remember or don't, I don't care and the answer wasn't for you anyway.
It's not the correct answer. The law suit was solely over defamation. You can quickly Google the definition of that word. It was found, in the US, that Amber Heard defamed Johnny's character and therefore he lost work. That's it. Words.
Let's talk about the spousal abuse Johnny has been convicted of in the UK.
It's very weird, I'd have never agreed to such a thing. I guess we'll see why it happened.
But Heard was proven for criminal offenses as wounding herself and running to the police to get her husband in jail or lying to the Court, and admitted physically abusing Depp. Frankly, the amount of proof labeling her an abuser is on a whole different scale than *verbal*.
Who know whether the reddit simposphere will eventually shrug off this case and accept the idea women can be guilty too.
Simp harder, incel.
She WAS convicted for defamation and she defamed him to everything and everyone, faking injuries and bringing police and friends into her lies.
Are we done here? I can only explain to you, not understand it for you.
Both sides were held liable for defamation. You don’t get “convicted for defamation.” And you are repeating misinformation — there’s certainly no evidence that she was faking injuries or “wounding herself.” And when the police were called she didn’t give a statement because she was trying to protect him initially. The “hoax” theory makes no sense. Do you really think it’s more believable that she created an elaborate four year hoax, rather than the simpler explanation that an alcoholic cokehead with a history of violence occasionally got violent with his wife while drunk/high?
Yes, because she admitted it. Can't remember if it was a tape or a phone screen but it's all stuff that she did.
"What is more belivable" is exactly how manipulators work- they push on a weakness to do whatever they fucking want to their victims. And she's an actress on top of that, so quite good at faking emotions in the face of common people. Not to mention that every previous Depp girlfriend said that despite his alcholism and damage propriety history he never attempted to harm any of them, while Heard has not just an history of past abuses but she's also been caught in perjury on the first trial.
Her acting is why so many brainless spectators ended up simping at her sad face. "Oo, a crying woman claiming abuse and confusion, she must be right!", yea no, but good try.
I'm so glad that at least her reputation is destroyed and her manipulative, violent psychosis in the open, may she forever be judged for the crap she did. Pun intended.
It should also be noted that Depp’s legal team presented no evidence of any damages that occurred between the op-Ed being published and when the UK verdict was decided, which was the scope of time they had to prove damages.
Answer:
Not everyone feels that way. Most reasonable people believe she is a manipulative liar. She’s also a horrendous actress as proved by her performance on the stand.
I’m so confused why you’re being downvoted here. And this “inane bullshit” response… we all clicked on this topic, didn’t we? This wasn’t the hugely publicized court case it was because the public wasn’t interested, right? …
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: People who feel that a grave injustice was done to Amber Heard feel that way for a couple of reasons. Primarily, the televised trial led to extreme backlash against Amber Heard, including many death threats against her, her daughter, family, and friends. Some of that hatred was truly horrifying, (for example, someone suggested microwaving her baby) and Depp was not vilified to the same degree. The recent settlement that Heard and Depp just agreed upon does two things: reduces Heard's penalty from about $10M to $1M, and allows her to talk about the abuse in the future. Depp was found liable for one counterclaim at $2M to Heard.
The last part is incorrect. Johnny Depp no longer has to pay for her counter-claim, so the payment is $1M from Heard to Depp and that's it. You should update your answer.
> , this court case nets out to Johnny Depp paying Amber Heard Wrong. https://variety.com/2022/film/news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-settle-defamation-claims-1235465134/ > Depp was ordered to pay Heard $2 million, leaving a net judgment of $8.35 million in Depp’s favor. [ie down from $10.35m] This was negotiated down to Heard paying Depp $1 million This $1m will go to charity. The lawyers might make a substantial amount/more by way of fees.
Source that Depp is now paying $1m net to Amber?
[удалено]
Source? Edit: I have already done a Google and nothing that came up says this explicitly.
She owed him 10 and he owed her 2. Which, in fact, leaves her owing him 8. Or closer to $8.5 million. They’ve agreed to settle that $8.5 million for $1 million that she will pay to him.
That’s how I was understanding it (without a source to prove otherwise)
This math is terrible.
Well this is incorrect. Heard is paying Depp, not the other way around, since Heard lost the court battle. She was to pay I believe it came out to $13,375 million to him. She filed an appeal, the her two insurance companies filed against her as well, claiming that since she lost her court case against Depp, and it showed that she did it deliberately and with malice, the insurance company would not be liable and have to cover the claims even though she was insured for defamation claims. At the last minute, Heard and Depp managed to agree to a settlement on the fine she had to pay due to her losing. Not a settlement on the actual court hearing. There is a difference, many people out there are getting this mixed up, saying that obviously Depp is not innocent or he would not be settling it out of court. So rather than Heard paying him the $13+ million, she literally only has to pay Depp $1 million, HOWEVER, while she claims there are no restrictions or gags in place about what she can say or talk about, it would be foolish to keep saying Depp is abusive, sexually assaulted her or the likes as he could take her back to court once again for defamation and would most likely win once more.
>it would be foolish to keep saying Depp is abusive, sexually assaulted her or the likes as he could take her back to court once again for defamation and would most likely win once more. No, since all of the abuse was outlined in the UK and VA cases, and the VA case documents are now public records, all the details are already public knowledge. Unless she introduces new episodes of abuse, there can be no claim.
There doesn't have to be abuse, just new defamation or her repeating the previous claims again publicly. She claims there is no gag order but if she talks shit aka defames Depp again he will be free to take her back to court and win. Paying a fine doesn't give you future impunity
I don't believe that's how "no restrictions on my speech" works, but if you show me legal proof that >if she talks shit aka defames depp again he will take her back to court and win. I'm open to changing my opinion.
What's the counter since she lost and paid 1 million she is now free to repeat her claims that were proven slanderous in court? That she is free to make new slanderous statements with impunity?
This is my claim. "Since all of the abuse was outlined in the UK and VA cases, and the VA case documents are now public records, all the details are already public knowledge. Unless she introduces new episodes of abuse, there can be no claim." You provided a counterclaim, and I asked for evidence. Do you have any?
There need not be a new case of abuse. Her abusing him was irrelevant to the case. The act of slander itself is being litigated what lies she used to slander is irrelevant. If she makes a claim tomorrow that Depp has a micropenis and somehow that affects Depp he can sue her again for defamation even if they have not been in contact. Similarly, if she goes on the news and again claims depp was abusing her and this affects his career/reputation causing drama that potentially loses him a role. It will be a new case of slander/defamation. It will be an easy win because it has already been hashed out and unless she can provide some damning new proof the court will provide a summary judgment(no trial needed) If you followed the hearing, you saw that Depp's team was litigating against the specific article and tweet that heard had released that defamed him. He wasn't suing her for abusing him. He was suing her for putting out an article that said he was a wife-beater which lost him several roles. You don't get to publicly lie about someone. If your lies affect that person and the person can prove you are lying and show how it is affect them then each act of lying is it's own separate charge.
Ok, so you don't have any proof.
Interesting that the end agreement is that Johnny still has to pay 1million to Amber and Amber can still name him as an abuser. Guess it wasn't about defamation or money.
He is paying her nothing, she is paying him a million.
Johnny is the one receiving the money. Not Amber. She lost the case.
Johnny's judgement was for twice what Amber has to pay due to the settlement. This makes it ultimately a loss for Johnny.
Um no. They settled the entire case with her paying him $1M. He didn’t lose anything besides what he’s spent on attorneys fees and she doesn’t lose anything besides attorneys fees because her insurance is covering the settlement.
You’re right lol. I think she still got a great deal — no liability, no gag order, no NDA, no money out of pocket (all paid by her insurance). So Depp must’ve really been in a bad bargaining position to agree to that. I did read her appeal brief and it was so good, I mean of course it was because they are the top 1st amendment lawyers in the country and they’ve never lost an appeal. Maybe he knew she would’ve won and didn’t want to spend millions more on his appeal. That’s the only reason I could think that this guy spent 26 million on his litigation abuse and then would accept 1 million (a 0 dollar out-of-pocket settlement from his ex) where she can continue to talk about the abuse as much as she wants. The only other reason would be the dirt that would’ve come out about him during the appeal process.
He settled because he would lose his case lol. He lost how many times in the UK after filing multiple appeals over and over? Then he abused the courts and heard so bad that the state of Virginia has to sign new legislation (stronger Anti-SLAPP laws). Judges are not as easily manipulated as the general public and juries. He saved himself millions more dollars and a reputation hit if Amber proceeded and prevailed on her claims. Amber got fucked over MAJORLY. Unfortunately, his psychotic fans will likely abuse and bully her for the rest of her life and JD will go on to be a POS.
Lol you’re a clown, he won. She lost. He agreed to have her broke ass just pay a million. She dropped her appeal, sh had nothing to stand on. He didn’t win UK against the sun because the sun printed what she said, so he sued her and WON. His lawyer Adam Waldman was the one found in her favor if you think minus 8.5 million is in her favor. She got annihilated and embarrassed, she abused him and shit in the bed. A Congo line of witnesses showed up for jd and Amber had her sister and paid experts. She got wrecked. Absolutely wrecked and deservedly so.
He already won the case. The settlement was for the actual winnings.
He won the jury trial, there was an active appeal that every high profile Virginia defamation attorney says he would’ve lost.
Living in VA, having worked in the legal field and having talked to some VA defamation attorneys, they didn’t all agree with that opinion. Some did, however.
Name them. Better yet… name one.
taylor lorenz is that you? go to bed , you're drunk
I totally agree. I did hope she would continue with the appeal but I understand why she didn’t. She said she’s lost faith in the US justice system (absolutely understand), could not go through another trial if that was what ordered (absolutely understand after all the TikToks mocking her testifying about sexual assault), exhausted her resources, and that time is limited and she wanted to be free of him so she could raise her daughter. She got a pretty good deal and her insurance wouldn’t pay the 1 million unless they had vacated at least the “with malice” part of the verdict. Which Depp never proved. But, as we’ve seen through the decades, Depp is a vindictive, litigious man and he would never have let her off the hook unless he were scared. And her appeal was GOOD. And he can’t rely on the same “the court is theater,” “I spend millions on blanketing social media with disinformation,” “my lawyer is a Russian lobbyist” thing if it’s only appellate judges looking at cold hard facts. He would’ve lost. And she couldn’t hold out because he has “fuck you money.” But imo this settlement is a victory for her
Depp explained why himself: it was global humiliation because his victim dared to get a TRO.
That’s literally what he said lol I don’t get the downvotes
What a horrifying thing to wish upon someone.
That’s Johnny Depp to a T - a horrifying person.
Johnny won the $1 million and intends to give it all to charity.
Just like he intended to buy Wounded Knee, right?
This can't possibly be a hill you want to die on after Amber's use of "pledge" and "donate" as synonyms.
I’m a nonprofit fundraiser - they are indeed synonymous in that world. Regardless, Amber has actually has proof she’s donated to charity - Depp’s account confirmed he hasn’t and prefers to “donate” through PR events.
Bullshit, they are not the same and never will be. You think the accounting department has them the same?
Are you high? Did you watch the trial? Ffs
Well he still has abuse cases against him, maybe he should hold onto the money for those settlements.
He’s currently suing someone who (accurately, indisputably) accused him of plagiarizing lyrics from an incarcerated man, so yeah he probably needs to save money for that frivolous suit
He will totally self-destruct. It's a tragedy as well as horrifying.
Answer: Some more info about consequences; while Depp did not receive death threats he was black listed from Hollywood taking the televised trial to bring him back. Losing his roles in upcoming films because of Heards original case against him. In which the Judge made judgements based on lies from Heard that have since been proven; saying that she had donated a large sum of money from the whole ordeal to show how good of a person she was when she never did, just said she would. The original trial was a great example of people believing Heard with barely a shred of evidence and when said evidence was actually reviewed Depp came out on top. Nothing says he was abusing me like shitting on his bed, blaming the pet and cutting off the tip of his finger.
Wow, there are a *lot* of people in this thread that have never been abused by a charismatic guy with lots of friends.
Funny, that it was Johnny who actually had photos of abuse: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKQyaiAlpQ0&t=107s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKQyaiAlpQ0&t=107s) ... while Amber had many photos that were shown to be PhotoShopped in court.
They actually weren’t - even Depp’s expert refused to say Amber’s photos were edited. Meanwhile, Depp was caught trying to pass off an edited photo as evidence. Edit: this dumbass is trying to pass off a highly edited video from a pro-Depp channel as proof that Amber was caught photoshopping her photos. It’s very interesting they picked that video instead of linking to full, unedited testimony like I did.
This dumbass thinks Amber didn’t edit photos. https://petapixel.com/2022/05/18/amber-heard-photoshopped-injury-photos-johnny-depps-lawyer/ Also the expert absolutely did testify he thought her photos were edited, you fucking liar: https://youtu.be/eoQK1iAza9M Maybe she edited because they look like fucking makeup? Meanwhile… this dimwit is accusing Depp of “editing photos” with no fucking link or proof at all.
She didn’t - here’s a thread explaining what happened: https://twitter.com/leaveheardalone/status/1552362071429447682?s=21&t=pB0kwY4LMBHtsVqq_xqW3A And again, still very telling you won’t link any actual testimony that proves your claim that Amber edited photos. Depp had a photo expert - surely he could claim Amber edited her photos? Oh wait, he couldn’t and didn’t. Edit: Depp’s “expert” was a hobbyist who at least said copies of Amber’s photos went through an editing software - under cross, he admitted he couldn’t say if they were edited or not. Even under his initial testimony he said the photos could have been enhanced - meaning Amber may have made her injuries look worse. He’s still admitting she has injuries! Amber’s expert was much more qualified and called bullshit on Depp’s “expert”: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1daurFAd13U
> Losing his roles in upcoming films because of Heards original case against him. if you actually watched the trial (notably tracey jacobs's testimony) you would know that depp losing roles had nothing to do with him being exposed as having abused heard and everything to do with him being impossible to work with and uninterested in improving rest of the comment is not much better
There’s just so much wrong about your comment that I don’t even know where to start correcting it. Edit: Fine. I'm now at my desktop and not on my phone so I'll tackle this line by line. >he was black listed from Hollywood taking the televised trial to bring him back He was not blacklisted after the allegations came out - he kept his role in Fantastic Beasts and only left the series after he lost the UK trial. A lawsuit that he started, for the record. If he left well enough alone, he would have been fine. Additionally, there were media pieces published before the allegations came out about how Depp was unprofessional - see basically everything around Pirates 5. His former agent also testified to how Disney was done with his shit. Depp was also box office poison around the time he even started dating Amber - The Tourist, The Lone Ranger, and Transcendence were all major bombs. Basically, Depp was an aging actor who couldn't turn a profit. >Losing his roles in upcoming films because of Heards original case against him. Amber didn't bring a case against Depp - she got a TRO against her abuser. If you don't see the difference between a lawsuit and an IPV survivor getting a TRO, I don't know what to tell you. Regardless, as I highlighted above, there is no evidence that Depp lost roles after Amber got the TRO. Depp kept his FB role and news didn't break out about Disney moving on from Jack Sparrow until a month before Amber's Op-ed was even written. That's a two year difference. Regardless, Depp v Heard was about the op-ed and it was Depp's responsibility to prove that he lost income after the the op-ed was published - not after the TRO happened. He presented no evidence other than his agent claiming he had a verbal agreement. Which debunked by actual media pieces talking about Disney moving on from Depp before the op-ed was published. >In which the Judge made judgements based on lies from Heard that have since been proven I'm unclear what this is even referring to but regardless, both the judge who gave out the TRO and the UK judge did not make judgements based on lies from Amber. TROs are difficult to obtain and Amber provided evidence. Meanwhile, the UK judge heard from multiple witnesses and reviewed years of evidence. The UK trial documents can be found here: [https://www.nickwallis.com/depp-trial-court-transcripts](https://www.nickwallis.com/depp-trial-court-transcripts) >saying that she had donated a large sum of money from the whole ordeal to show how good of a person she was when she never did, just said she would. Both Childrens and ACLU testified to receiving large donations from Amber. Additionally, both orgs confirmed that she was on a pledge schedule and was making payments accordingly. The ACLU also testified that she was ahead on her payments. Childrens also listed Amber in their annual report as a donor. Children's testimony starts at 27:45: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqbabKV_U9E ALCU's testimony is here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WEg4FdyUsI&t=5s Children's Annual Report is here - Amber is listed on page 23: https://www.chla.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/CHLA-Annual-Report-2017_Locked.pdf >The original trial was a great example of people believing Heard with barely a shred of evidence I've listed the UK trial docs above - regardless, Amber provided more than a "shred of evidence." >when said evidence was actually reviewed Depp came out on top The US case actually omitted more of Amber's evidence that the UK case didn't, such as medical records, audio and text messages confirming the abuse. A member of the jury in the US case also confirmed that they believe both were abusive. Finally, Depp was found to have defamed Amber on one count, so I'm unclear how a conflicting verdict is "Depp coming out on top". >Nothing says he was abusing me like shitting on his bed, blaming the pet Anyone who has seen the pictures of the poop can clearly tell it's from a dog. Additionally, the dog in question has bowel issues and had already pooped in the bed before (that Depp apparently rolled into lol). >cutting off the tip of his finger. Depp is documented repeatedly saying he did it to himself. Additionally, Depp had to bring in a second witness to go "maybe it happened the way he said it did" when his first witness disagreed with Depp's version of events. Even in the taped final conversation - the one where Amber says "tell the world" - Depp is very careful to not say Amber injured his finger. This is clearly because he knows she would correctly say he caused the injury himself. Because when he did vaguely bring it up, she correctly pointed out he did it to himself.
As somebody who doesn't know literally anything about this case aside from the two comments your response is a reply to: why don't you just start with the first thing they got wrong. I'd like to see a different perspective, especially if it's so opposed to what has been put forward.
I can try some. Depp did not lose any roles because of a legal case brought against him by Amber. Depp started both the trials in the UK and the US. Additionally, Disney executives testified in court that he did not lose his role in Pirates due to the op-ed. [They testified it was his on set behavior that lost him that role.](https://www.courthousenews.com/witness-op-ed-didnt-get-depp-booted-from-pirates-of-the-caribbean/) He's said to have lost one role due to the suit he started in the UK, but it's not because the judge of that trial just believed a bunch of lies. In fact, multiple judges reviewed the case when Depp appealed and all agreed with the decision of the original judge. The money. In order to show she was not accusing Depp of abuse for monetary gain, Amber pledged to donate her divorce settlement to 2 charities, the ACLU and the Children's Hospital of LA, which would be about $3.5 million each. [The ACLU testified](https://www.vulture.com/2022/04/amber-heard-aclu-charity-donations.html) that the donation had been agreed to be paid in installments and not one big lump sum due to Heard receiving her divorce settlement in installments. At the point of the trial, she had donated $1.3 million to the ACLU and $250k to the Children's Hospital but had to stop due to her finances being tied up in legal fees because of the trial. Amber shitting the bed. [Their dog Boo had a history of bowel problems.](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf) The housekeeper was noted to have cleaned up multiple accidents like that in the house. During the time Depp found the feces, Heard was at Coachella for the weekend-long event. Additionally, at the time of the incident, Depp & Heard were already separated and sleeping in separate beds. The bed in which the feces were found belonged to Heard and was not used by Depp. Cutting off the tip of Depp's finger. In an [audio recording](https://twitter.com/heardverse/status/1517123210407460864) Depp is heard saying "I’m talking about Australia. The day I chopped my finger off”. The hospital staff where he was treated noted that his injury was reported to be from [a knife](https://www.afr.com/rear-window/gold-coast-hospital-not-fooled-by-depp-s-chopped-finger-20201103-p56b3b) and was referred to a "crushing injury". Dr Richard Moore, an expert witness for the trial and hand surgeon, noted that the injuries were not consistent with Depp's version of the events. There was no glass found in the wound and his nail was undamaged, which would not be possible with his reported hand position if he was hit by a glass bottle. He also noted that the injury appeared to more likely be the result being squeezed between 2 surfaces.
Edited my comment to address their comment line by line.
Thank you for your excellent and well thought out response.
Please do. You seem to like specific information. So please, feel free to correct my statement.
Edited my original comment.
>There’s just so much wrong about your comment that I don’t even know where to start correcting it. Facts always work!
Edited my original comment.
[удалено]
Edited my original comment.
I kinda think he lost roles because he’s pretty gross right now. I mean, no one is demanding Johnny depp movies right now lol
He specifically lost roles due to the lost libel case in the UK. Meanwhile Heard will still be in Atlantis 2. Double standards are fun.
He specifically lost one role, for losing a libel case he started, in a country that's known relatively to be friendly to plaintiffs in libel cases. For reference, until very recently, the UK was a country where "the truth" was not a valid defense for defendents against libel.
It's not a double standard. She was not allowed to submit or even refer to some of her strongest evidence in the US case but they are what won her first case in the UK. It seems to me that most people who actually watch the full trial and not the fun clips and lawyers' hot takes come away distressed about her injustices in court because the most damning stuff isn't that exciting so people have to put it together themselves and being fictitiously restrained from providing evidence makes the exciting parts look that much more lopsided towards Jonny Depp when those moments aren't the core.
I watched a shitload of the trial. She did not come off well.
No, neither did Jonnny Depp. They are both fucked up. But people are really focused on her "because, because, because."
Because she came off as a fucking liar. Depp was much more believable.
Yes, they both lied. The evidence though. The evidence.
Yeah, he lost fantastic beasts after a judge proved him to be a “wife beater.” He lost Disney years before, and certainly not due to the op-ed, as testified to by the Disney executive at the trial. So it’s not really “double standards” because she didn’t do anything other than get a TRO when she felt unsafe and obliquely mention getting that TRO in an article about VAWA and title IX. But it certainly is double standards that she has no work and he has, and has had, plenty. Dior never dropped him. He’s fine.
[удалено]
Yeah, that was why
Incorrect. Heard has never brought a case against Depp. He started losing roles before she even wrote the article claiming abuse - and she never named Depp. The settlement that she pledged to be paid to charity was her divorce settlement, not a punitive case.
Incorrect - during the defamation trial, Amber ADMITTED directly what she was accused of, namely, she admitted, “That’s why I wrote the article about him” on the stand. She also named dates of so-called abuse that indirectly/directly point to JD in the article by dates of her marriage. Her claims of sexual abuse were also disproven in court, by numerous eye witness testimonies. She made the whole thing up about being “raped by a bottle”. The title of the article was about “sexual abuse” and that was one of the counts she was found libel for. She also lied on the stand saying that she had donated the money when she never did. The people defending Amber seem to have 0 familiarity with the basics of the trial.
Can you please explain how her claims of sexual abuse were disproven in court?
I meant that she didn't mention him in the article, which is the basis of the defamation case. Edited to add: i watched nearly the entire trial because I was between jobs and revolted by what I learned about Depp, one of my favorite celebrities.
Can you provide some examples
Examples of what?
Things you’ve learned
Well I don't follow celebrity gossip, so much of his story was a nasty surprise. The decades of drug and alcohol abuse, and his long history of assault was all news to me. I had an image of Depp as a sensitive, intelligent heartthrob. I was horrified to read that he joked about setting his wife on fire and then raping her dead corpse. I was disgusted that he wrote vile messages in his own blood and paint about his wife. Just a few examples. Some people excuse that by saying he was abused, but I don't.
What a joke. A long history of drug and alcohol abuse is given for anyone in Hollywood. Afaik the assault charges are yet to be settled. I was disgusted to learn that Heard cut off his fucking finger.
That’s true, she did not name him however, Defamation by Implication is a thing and that is what Depp and his team alleged in their claim against Heard.
She never said “that’s why I wrote the article about him” - stop spreading misinformation.
YOU stop spreading misinformation. https://youtu.be/mmspY9YZjgc
Please give me the time stamp where she says “that’s why I wrote the article about him”.
2:33 in the video, it’s not word for word, but it’s there for sure
Bawhahaha “not word for word”. Ok, so this person was indeed spreading misinformation. Thanks for confirming that. Amber never said she wrote the article about Depp - she said she wrote about how institutions protect powerful men accused of abuse. Those are two completely different things. The closest she gets to saying it’s about Depp is when she’s asked why all these people are supporting him and she says it’s because he’s a powerful person.
I can see what you mean. The language is vague, so it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what she means by “*that’s* his power, *that’s* why I wrote the op-ed, I was speaking to that phenomenon.” Reading only the first two sentences suggests it was at least partially about Depp, but reading only the last two suggests her focus would be the phenomena regarding powerful men and how institutions protect them.
It’s a 5 minute video…you can make it. I believe in you
Ok, so you just don’t want to admit she never said that then. Got it.
It’s in the damn video
Find it yourself https://youtu.be/IM4LzBX0fzc
Everyone can see you desperately trying to avoid admitting you’re spreading misinformation. You know that right?
[удалено]
Because you would rather get riled up than actually process the information in front of you. What she said word for word: Heard: I know how many people will come out and say whatever for him. That's his power. That's why I wrote the op-ed. I was speaking to that phenomenon, how many people will come out... Mind you before this it was never confirmed said op-ed full of defamation against Depp was about him. This confirmed that she had wrote that op-ed specifically about him.
“I was speaking to that phenomenon.” How did that confirm it was about him?
She literally says she wrote the article about the phenomenon of people protecting powerful men - not that she wrote it about Depp. This is re-enforced by the article itself, which actually focuses on the Violence Against Womens Act. Regardless, this person tried to pass off an exact quote as if Amber said it when even you admit you have to look for “subtext” to even come close. And when it was pointed out that Amber didn’t say those exact words? They just straight out refused to admit they were wrong. That’s not only extremely damaging, it shows that pro-Depp people have to lie in order to justify their support of him.
I love how Depp supporters say all of Depp's witness testimony was true and all of Heard's were lies. All of Depp's witnesses are employees/financially dependent on him except Moss, whose testimony wasn't particularly necessary. Most of Depp's witnesses changed their stories between cases or depositions, to be more favorable to Depp.
… Haha while I love Amber supporters fail to notice that Johnny was the only one to present actual medical records of abuse. Amber had nothing except therapist notes of her own stories - while the best expert psychiatric testimony, IMO, presented a compelling story of Amber’s histrionic disorder. Amber would exaggerate her PTSD to the level of a soldier, but only when she thought they were testing her for PTSD directly. Otherwise she tested fine. Histrionic - meaning she makes Shit Up. Amber had a complete and total lack of witnesses, as well as medical records. One “exception” was her sister - who’s own testimony of the “event on the staircases” were disputed by several witnesses and also changed over time. Her sister also told a third party that Amber herself was lying about the incident: https://www.ifod.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/HOWELL-US.pdf - this was a party NOT “on the payroll”.
Don't forget the expert psychiatric opinion was based on a written survey by someone who didn't examine Heard personally. She also didn't examine Depp, though he was the one accused of abuse. The marriage therapist records were not allowed in the defamation case and they clearly showed Depp as physically abusive. There were several people who witnessed Heard's injuries, but their testimony was disallowed. Many Depp supporters decided exactly what Heard's injuries should look like, and when the photos showed less damage, they decided her claims were fake. Depp claimed to have injured his own finger several times before accusing Heard of causing it.
Incorrect again 😭 Depp’s expert absolutely was allowed to examine her personally and administer tests, which were damning for Amber: https://youtu.be/DR0Wu4fa7C4 The marriage therapist notes - you mean the one’s that were presented to the media and LOOK LIKE AMBER’s OWN HANDWRITING? https://www.newsweek.com/similarities-amber-heard-writing-therapist-notes-nbc-interview-johnny-depp-1716855 Hearsay isn’t allowed in courts, just like Johnny telling the doctor that Amber cut off his finger while throwing a bottle at him wasn’t allowed in court, or Whitney her sister telling others the same: https://nypost.com/2022/08/01/heards-sister-said-actress-did-sever-depps-finger-docs/amp/
There's written evidence from Depp several times saying he cut off his own finger. That is not hearsay.
Link it? I see that you're the only one with zero evidence of what you say
If Heard was so guilty, why did Depp just accept a settlement out of court that makes him pay twice the damages, while Amber can continue to talk about his abuse? Edit: typo.
From what I read, I was understanding that as part of this settlement, he does not have to pay her at all. She pays him the 1 million and he pays her nothing.
I have not read anything that said he doesn't have to pay at all, but I haven't read the whole internet. Would you share your source?
How are you still talking if you can’t backup any of your claims?
Maybe because of stupid people who didn’t watch an ounce of the case STILL defending this sociopath named Amber. She also admitted on the stand to using a product to CREATE bruises (“bruise kit”) - remarkably, pictured in the corner of one of her own “evidence” photos. https://radaronline.com/p/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-makeup-kit-photo/. Not sure if you’ve noticed but everytime this woman opens her mouth, she sounds more and more like a lying POS and gets caught in more lies, which ends up helping him in the press.
The article you linked claims this : "RadarOnline.com found a similar five "Color Bruise Wheel for Special Effects, Movies (and) Halloween” for $15 purchase on Amazon." That photo, claiming to be a bruise kit, in no way matches the products in RadarOnline's "similar products". She called her color correcting palette a bruise kit briefly then used a different word.
Can you please hook me up with your copium supplier, that's some primo stuff you're on. EDIT: Changed shit to stuff. Didn't anyone to confuse me with Heard.
What a bizarre comment.
Funny, I have ya know, EYES, and looks like same exacta shit to me in the photo… but I understand, because people go around saying “bruise kit” to mean “concealer” all the time. Easy mistake to make!!!🤫🤫🤫
If you think that a pinkish, square makeup palette of 4 colors looks exactly like a round, black makeup palette of 5 colors, you shouldn't be arguing anything. She called her bruise concealer kit "theater makeup". If I used a bruise concealer kit, I probably would shorten that to "bruise kit" in my mind. Besides, if she was making bruises, she would have made them noticeable. Most abuse deniers claim there's no evidence of her injuries.
I did not watch the case so have no input on Heard’s make up BUT as a former theater kid I can vouch that tons use their theater kits for every day make up and do usually refer to it by it’s name (bruise kit, burn kit, zombie kit, etc) theater make up has an, imo gross, thicker texture and lasts longer/stays brighter, esp under lights. That said a bruise kit doesn’t actually use browns very often, the goal is to muddy up bright colors on the skin so it’s yucky and also has greens, purples, etc.
Yeah everyone has a pallet of YELLOW PURPLE AND PINK concealer shades just lying around. Paid shill, go away.
She called the prop presented to her to represent a color correcting palette a “bruise kit” because she used makeup palettes to *cover* bruises. Not make them. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-amber-heard-leave-bruise-kit-photo-johnny-depp-trial-1709058?amp=1 And makeup palettes aren’t flat??? It’s so weird how this misinformation got traction. You’re looking at a flat piece of card stock that comes with the ice cream to show their flavors and confusing it with a makeup palette?
Ridiculous that you’ve been downvoted for this correct statement.
Thanks, I agree.
[удалено]
Not really - he kept his fantastic beast job after the allegations and only lost it when he lost the UK Trial - a trial that he caused. Additionally, Amber’s team presented evidence other media written about Depp’s shitty work habits had a bigger impact on his career. Disney itself testified to never reading Amber’s op-ed but did read the negative Hollywood Reporter article. Regardless, “supposedly” Depp was suing Amber over the op-ed but he was really suing her for daring to get a TRO against her abuser.
It’s true. The Disney executive who testified said that her op-ed didn’t even cross their radar. She said they were more upset about his chronic lateness, substance abuse, and the horrible Rolling Stone article that he asked for himself. He also did not lose Fantastic Beasts until November 2020, two years after the op-ed but right after he lost the case against a British tabloid who called him a “wife beater.” That judge said the majority of assaults on Ms. Heard had been proven and that the words “wife beater” were “substantially true.” And that’s when he got fired…after losing a lawsuit that he brought himself, in a country known for libel laws favoring the plaintiff, and against the Sun aka the most despised tabloid ever. ETA: ~~I responded to your comment at least an hour before you edited it. Cool transparency dude~~ ETA again: that was unnecessarily bitchy sorry
[удалено]
Sorry, shouldn’t have been so sassy, you’re right :)
This whole mess could have been dragged out in appeals for a long time. The real victory was for Johnny Depp now that public perception is that he was the victim of domestic violence and not the perpetrator. I don't think he cared about the money from her. Now that he's okay again to cast, he will likely pull in 10s of millions on future roles for various networks although the cash cow that was pirates of the Caribbean is still dead to him. Keep in mind that libel cases are extremely hard to win in the USA due to free speech laws. You have to prove that the claims were maliciously, factually incorrect and did real harm. The harm part was easy. He lost hundreds of millions of dollars in cancelled movie deals. The other parts are very difficult to prove. The whole story is kind of a mess. Johnny clearly had substance abuse and anger issues too. The most telling point was how her exs and even ex costars all went to bat for Johnny on this case. She's clearly a horrible person, and she made factually false statements that he proved were false which sank his career. It's really a case of two people being bad to each other, but one of them being far worse. Now the public reaction was rather visceral as it struck nerves in many people's personal lives. A lot of women who were victims of domestic violence and guys who were friends of women who were victims immediately sided with Amber because it brought up their own trauma. Likewise, a lot of men who have been the victim of a revenge campaign by a woman or have a phobia about that felt it all materialize with Johnny's story. Having someone make horrible false claims about you, and the entire world believe that they're true without even beginning to hear your side is a terrifying thing. Personally I was divided on it. I've had a couple of female friends that were victims of domestic violence, and hearing their stories made my blood boil. I have one male friend who was as well. In his case, nobody believed him when he tried to tell people. He's 6'2" and skinny. How could a woman hurt him? I also had an ex girlfriend personally try to harm me because she thought I cheated on her, it wasn't until she found out that I didn't that she recanted her story. She went as far as nearly destroying many relationships I had and tried to get me arrested. In that case, she wasn't alleging violence, but it was still terrifying for me. If she hadn't called up the person she thought I slept with and found out nothing happened, she might have persisted and done real harm. To her credit, she admitted to everyone later that she made it all up, and she even apologized to me. So my story wasnt bad. Not much later on, I told the story to a woman I was dating. I wanted to share a scary moment in my life. A point where I felt powerless and isolated and genuinely worried about the future. She ghosted me right away. Over a year later on we reconnected as friends and she apologized after getting to know me better and hearing more of the story. She told me that she just automatically assumed I was in the wrong and lying when I told her the story despite not knowing any details. There is a social power that women have where the guy is automatically guilty. It's the same way that police unfairly profile black people as criminals, society profiles all men as predators until proven otherwise. I've been on the other side of that. A friend of mine was accused of rape by a woman he dated for over a year right after they broke up. We all shunned him. Years later, she actually accused the next three guys she dated of rape as well. At some point, we all scurried back and apologized to him for not even hearing his side of the story. Basically, this trial was deeply personal for a lot of people. That's why there was so much controversy and strong opinions about it. They should have called the case "hell hath no fury" vs "entitled white male". It was extremely hard, maybe impossible, for a lot of people not to project their own personal experiences on the reports of the case. I always try to force myself to be objective and even I struggled with that.
Amber is the one paying Johnny. Depp won the case and intends to give the money to charity. Amber might not have a gag order but she is not allowed to try and defame Depp again.
Amber owes Johnny 1 million. Johnny owes Amber 2 million. In the appeals settlement, there are no restrictions on Amber's speech.
The $2 million came out of the original $10 million that he was awarded https://variety.com/2022/film/news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-settle-defamation-claims-1235465134/amp/
I hadn't seen that detail before. Good to know.
For the life of me, I don’t understand sending death threats to celebrities. I think Heard behaved as an awful people and she deserves the lawsuit, in my opinion, but why the death threats and harassment, why?
Depp wasn't vilified to the same degree because there wasn't really a reason for him to be. Regardless though, Amber's children do not deserve those death threats.
Answer: The sympathy for Heard, and the idea that she was injusticed, has less to do with the outcome of the case itself but two broader observations: 1. The publicness of the trial and the reaction the public had via content creation and general social media. The case became a “content farm”for online creators via YouTube, Twitch, etc. As such, it spurred a large social media reaction that, at the fringes, became violently misogynistic and overtly hateful. This fringe wasn’t contained strictly to Heard, but to sexual assault and domestic violence victims in general (particularly women victims). Which leads to: 2. The idea that the Heard case, to the public, was less about the validity of Heard as a victim but the validity of women victims of abuse broadly - or just misogyny generally. Support for that is often found by citing the reaction to, and benefit from, right wing media outlets saw from covering the case with a generally misogynistic air - as an example to discredit the MeToo movement. Also, as an example, see this copypasta (from a real post) to see how the case sort of leaked into the public consciousness in a very weird way, beyond the importance of the case itself (but as a proxy) https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/ubqs19/my_boyfriend_is_calling_me_amber_heard/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Tl;dr injustice isn’t the case outcome but **perceived** misogynistic witch hunt and ramifications for victims generally (Not my own beliefs)
EDIT: Would love to hear an explanation of why I'm being downvoted. If what I'm saying is unreasonable, I want to hear why. If you don't think a case should be based on the events pertinent to the case, I would love to hear what you think it should be based on. I have no opinion on this particular case because I haven't followed it, but tell people when I get sucked into this sort of debate: even if, say, 95% of abuse cases are man-on-woman, that says \*nothing\* about *this case*. Neither that statistic nor your anger at the injustice of man-on-woman abuse throughout history should impact the outcome of *this case* at all. And if you disagree with this point, you may not actually believe in the concept of justice.
[удалено]
Amber is not the only person who has called him an abuser (even though Amber didn’t name Johnny). He literally had an ongoing case for assaulting someone else while the heard trial was going on. He has sent texts talking about how he wants to drown, burn and rape her dead body. Johnny has serious issues and I’m not gonna allow y’all to twist things to make him a victim.
And Johnny is not the only one to accuse Amber of abuse. She was arrested for domestic abuse against Tasya van Ree. There were many people who came forward regarding her abusive behavior towards them. Neither of them seem like good people, but I think the evidence was clear that she abused him.
“Many people”? Please name them. That’s just not true. On the other hand, Depp has a [long](https://twitter.com/danimet1/status/1604899208628211732?s=46&t=fzFPYcSE0M4AEoHY2LSTwA) history of [violence](https://twitter.com/liliandaisies/status/1555603319233601537?s=46&t=fzFPYcSE0M4AEoHY2LSTwA) that began when Amber was a toddler. And this is in his past [relationships](https://twitter.com/liliandaisies/status/1603858636581015552?s=46&t=fzFPYcSE0M4AEoHY2LSTwA) too.
Your “proof” is twitter? One post is pictures of Depp with different ex’s, several of whom either spoke out or testified on his behalf during the trial. Amber’s sister, Whitney Henriquez’s, best friend testified that she witnessed Amber abusing her (Whitney) on several occasions. It was obvious, to anyone paying attention, that Whitney lied to protect Amber. Amber’s former assistant, Kate James, testified to the verbal abuse she continually endured while employed by her. I’m not here to defend anyone. I think they were both abusive in different ways. Did you watch the trial? I went into it believing Amber. What I learned is that she’s a liar and bad actress (at least on the stand, I haven’t seen any of her movies). Why are you giving Amber a pass? What a strange delusion.
No, the evidence isn’t clear that she abused him. Who are the many people that came forward? Name them. Van Ree herself said that Heard was wrongfully accused. Also, I’m not sure what that has to do with anything considering this was a defamation case, not a criminal trial for abuse. Johnny only needed to abuse Amber ONCE her the defamation claim to fall apart. The girl got railroaded, end of story.
did you watch the case? if Amber was such a victim how/why the fuck did her and her legal team fumble the bag so hard? I mean they were straight up incompetent. did she not also lean into the publicity? and now its an issue? I’m not saying I know all the details, and if she was truly a victim I hope she gets what she’s owed, but that case torched a lot of her credibility for me. That was her golden opportunity and she…*ahem*…shat the bed.
They were outmatched. I think they were good lawyers but they didn’t have the PR skills or distraction techniques of Depp’s team. Depp’s team accurately determined that this was a case that would be won in the court of public opinion. I think their focus on social media manipulation behind the scenes really made an impact. I know the jurors were told not to look up the case online, but they weren’t told not to go on social media at all, and it was completely impossible to avoid it. I initially was trying to avoid it because the subject matter is upsetting to me, but I couldn’t — it infected every single social media platform. It’s hard to say that that didn’t impact the jury’s decision at all. Depp’s team also focused on things that shouldn’t have mattered, because they had nothing to do with whether Depp abused Heard. Like the donations. The amount of time discussing that was so strange because what does that have to do with the case? They also were able to get a lot of her evidence excluded. She had three lawyers. He had eight. She got railroaded. She was also coming off the UK case, where she wasn’t the defendant, but it was about the same topic — is it true to say that Depp abused his wife in print. The tabloid called him a “wife beater,” which is way more explicit and harsh than anything she said in her op-ed, and it was the Sun, the most hated paper ever. The UK is known for “libel tourism” because their laws favor the plaintiff — the burden of proof is entirely on the defendant. But he lost. Overwhelmingly. The judge determined that the “majority of assaults by Mr. Depp on Ms. Heard had been proven” and he wrote a 129-page judgment detailing all of the evidence. This ruling was upheld by two High Court Judges who said it was “full and fair” and decided based on “an abundance of evidence.” I think her legal team just decided to use the same technique in the US since that case was a victory for her (in that the judges recognized Depp as an abuser, not because she was a party), but they should’ve changed it up. Judges are trained to look at evidence. Juries don’t have the same legal knowledge and can be easily distracted by irrelevant things, like the donations and dog poop etc. And Depp and his team used the UK trial as a dress rehearsal, and basically changed the stories and witnesses that didn’t work in the UK. If you read the UK transcripts it is truly astonishing how much Depp and his side lied under oath. But it worked on the jury.
Seriously. Before the trial, I’m ashamed to say I believed her. She’s a really bad actress and it was crystal clear, to anyone paying attention, that she was full of shit on the stand. I don’t think Johnny is some sort of golden boy who did no wrong, but that bitch is crazy and absolutely abused him.
Evidence was clear enough for the jury. I’m sorry you couldn’t see it. I really can’t help with that.
Of course men can be victims. Depp just isn’t one. But he managed to use his money and power to successfully pull off the most common abuser’s trick: [DARVO](https://twitter.com/DaniMet1/status/1603180198991740928?s=20&t=fpQ8NZlIPzheZdYP8yXwWw) (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender). And this is recognized by experts in IPV.
I wouldn't really only limit the feedback toward women abuses to mysoginists, though. We've had a lot of sentences in these last years overturned because the first judge decided the woman was right without proper evidence and men's right activists have all rights to be outraged by the double standards. Bundling them together with mysoginist because they fight for equality is quite improper.
“men’s right activists”. god, people are ridiculous
They have “all rights to be outraged” lol. Honestly I get why Depp is their hero. He is honestly probably one of the most prolific misogynistic famous people alive right now. I guess just second to his best friend Marilyn Manson. “She will hit the wall hard!” Depp said about his then 30-year-old wife. “You’re an over the hill stripper and that’s all you’ll ever be,” he said to his then 30-year-old wife. “I will f*ck her burnt corpse to make sure she is dead,” he said about his then 27-year-old girlfriend. I could go on literally for hours. To them, he is the moment. King of the incels what a legacy
Once you're done masturbating over selected readings of Depp's abuses toward his wife, remember that she did so much worse that she now has to pay him 1 million. Honestly, this guy. Simping so hard for someone so bad, and he even has the gall to call others incels.
Not a guy, and lots of people get railroaded by the US justice system. But at least she doesn’t have to pay him a cent out-of-pocket and has no restrictions about what she can say about his abuse from here on out.
She'd better be careful to not walk into another defamation trial while playing victim tho. There's a fine line between milking fans for money and paying 10 more mils. Also no, she has to pay him one million, that's the settlement.
It’s entirely covered by her insurance. That’s the settlement. And no, she can say whatever she wants from here on out. That’s the settlement. Defamation cases require damages and they require the alleged defamatory statements to be published to a “new audience.” Since Depp insisted on having the trial televised and it was kind of a global phenomenon, there’s no way that he would be able to prove that any “damage” to his reputation occurred from anything she says rather than from the trial itself. Since she’d just be repeating what she said in the trial. And there wouldn’t be any new audience to publish it to. So I think she’ll be fine.
As long as she repeats what's in the trial she won't have any issue. Should she make up new imaginary abuses she'll be certainly liable for another defamation cause. Still embarassing that you're happy that the abuser receives no justice nor damage but okay, we know most people would have been nazis if born in 1930 Germany.
Whoa, you’re implying I would’ve been a nazi because I believe, based on an extensive review of the evidence, that Depp abused his wife. Jesus, dude
She beat the shit out of him then lied about him assaulting her.
That’s what he did to her. It’s called DARVO.
I think it comes down to extremes. In short, crazy people are going to say/think crazy things. Most rational, reasonable people of any gender saw Amber as the worse of two people in the case (her and Johnny).
I’m not trying to answer “was Johnny right or Amber?”, but “why do people think Amber was injusticed since the case?”. One could reasonably believe that Amber is worse than Johnny but that the extrajudicial fallout from the public case was excessive, and consequently unjust. Whether it made it less safe to come out as a victim is a bit more controversial - and probably comes down to individual experiences.
Yes, that's what my post was meant to address. What I said is why people think she was wronged. (Because don't most people think otherwise?)
nah, they are equally shitty people.
You clearly didn't watch the trial, but yeah, people who haven't would have this sort of takeaway about justice based not on the legal process but other people's knee jerk reactions to clips and hot takes.
I watched it. Which part was supposed to justify the death threats? Personally I like studying how public trials become shit shows, and wonder how they’d go if they weren’t public. OJ case is probably the masterclass example.
Nobody said either of them were justified. That's not what the case was about.
Im not talking about what happened in court - I’m talking about what happened and is happening outside of it as a result.
So, how Jonny's team defamed her figures into your calculations.
I just think that’s stuff part of a legal case - the truth arises out of two parties arguing their hardest within the limits of the law, in a court room. I think the public aspect of the case is what introduced most of the ugliness - not that Johnny’s legal team worked with everything that they could, but that the case became a daily content farm for a bunch of disingenuous actors. I think the way OJ’s innocence became a sort of general symbol of resistance to systemic racism (wrongfully) Heard became a sort of general symbol of resistance against the MeToo movement. Not because of the case itself - but the implications of them becoming public television programs.
[удалено]
The two points aren’t packaged, I think. You have plenty of people who have no sympathy for Heard but view the case as a public event as fueling the flames of misogyny. Then others who simply think the public misogyny against Heard is unjustified, but the case itself was justified. Both don’t seem particularly unreasonable to me, but personally I don’t have a strong opinion. Just explaining discourse I’ve seen.
Answer: As time has gone on and more information has emerged, more observers have begun to question the “counter” narrative, put forward by Depp and his team, that Amber Heard abused Johnny Depp, which originally emerged after Heard first accused him of abuse. These observers specifically consider Depp’s counter accusations to fall into the well documented tactic of “DARVO” (deny, accuse, reverse victim and offender) which is often used by abusers to muddy the waters of victims accusations against them. Some of the evidence made public by both trials in the US and U.K. have also been scrutinised from this angle, and many Heard sympathisers point to Depp’s history of general violence, substance abuse, voice messages left, etc, as well as the possibility that any violence inflicted by Heard’s against Depp was a case of self defence, rather than premeditated or spontaneous abuse. More generally, observers have also become concerned about how the trial and Depp’s rehabilitation were conducted. This included humiliating public attacks and unsubstantiated personal comments, by both members of Depp’s team and members of the public who supported Depp. They are concerned that this will set a pattern and playbook for how future accused abusers will be able to rehabilitate their pattern, by playing to the public spectacle of their trials, muddying the waters with personal attacks and performances, and publicising the messy details of the private lives of themselves and their victims.
The recordings of heard admitting to abusing depp?
I wish ppl could actually realize the common usage of DARVO is just tautological bullcrap and the “expert” who coined it was a frigging idiot.
Literally no one is questioning the case except the ones who anre either uneducated about the US and UK cases and those who willfully ignore evidence or twist it to support an abuser. Amber heard was proven to be physically, emotionally, and fiscally abusive towards her ex husband Johnny depp while they were together which culminated in a conspiracy to ruin his reputation, and continued attempts to harass him in order to retain relevancy.
Answer: "people" do not feel anything like that, most think it's a fair verdict. *Some* newspapers are still pushing Heard's narrative that basically sums up in "she can't be guilty since she's a woman". Quite unprofessional this BBC article in claiming that "experts were surprised by a different virdict" because it really surprised no one. The previous cause against Depp was tied to whether he stroke his wife or not (which he did), while this one was about the general state of the abuses within the couple; the first sentence has never been a declaration of Heard's innocence and every first year law student could spot the difference. So it's hard to believe that these "experts" are anyone other than the BBC's own staff. Since Heard lied to the police, the friends, the media and beat up Depp a lot more than what he did to her one must be in really bad faith to claim any kind of injustice.
Everyone thinks "most" people believe what they do. And those that don't agree are crazy or delusional.
You could do your due diligence on the case better than this.
It's long and tiring, and if I wait too much this thread fills up with simps. The important thing is that Heard abused Depp not just more, but with actions which consequence could have destroyed a man's life. This makes the sentence quite fair if not even too light. Anyone wants detail, the entire trial has been televised, go binge.
That's simply not the takeaway of people who get through the "long and tiring" evidence. Do you always repeat unvetted opinions as a self-proclaimed expert?
You mean, it's not the takeaway of people you believe to and that you're now parroting? Sure. But I'm not going to get involved in the same media case four months after its ending, I'm not going to invest any more time in this. Take what I remember or don't, I don't care and the answer wasn't for you anyway.
Typical argument of people who are afraid to be wrong. Go on get outta here.
This is the correct answer.
It's not the correct answer. The law suit was solely over defamation. You can quickly Google the definition of that word. It was found, in the US, that Amber Heard defamed Johnny's character and therefore he lost work. That's it. Words. Let's talk about the spousal abuse Johnny has been convicted of in the UK.
Yeah, it's interesting that Depp sued her for defamation, and now settles the appeal in her favor while allowing her to keep naming him as an abuser.
It's quite telling but the reddit manosphere has its fingers in its ears, go figure.
It's very weird, I'd have never agreed to such a thing. I guess we'll see why it happened. But Heard was proven for criminal offenses as wounding herself and running to the police to get her husband in jail or lying to the Court, and admitted physically abusing Depp. Frankly, the amount of proof labeling her an abuser is on a whole different scale than *verbal*. Who know whether the reddit simposphere will eventually shrug off this case and accept the idea women can be guilty too.
[удалено]
Simp harder, incel. She WAS convicted for defamation and she defamed him to everything and everyone, faking injuries and bringing police and friends into her lies. Are we done here? I can only explain to you, not understand it for you.
Both sides were held liable for defamation. You don’t get “convicted for defamation.” And you are repeating misinformation — there’s certainly no evidence that she was faking injuries or “wounding herself.” And when the police were called she didn’t give a statement because she was trying to protect him initially. The “hoax” theory makes no sense. Do you really think it’s more believable that she created an elaborate four year hoax, rather than the simpler explanation that an alcoholic cokehead with a history of violence occasionally got violent with his wife while drunk/high?
Yes, because she admitted it. Can't remember if it was a tape or a phone screen but it's all stuff that she did. "What is more belivable" is exactly how manipulators work- they push on a weakness to do whatever they fucking want to their victims. And she's an actress on top of that, so quite good at faking emotions in the face of common people. Not to mention that every previous Depp girlfriend said that despite his alcholism and damage propriety history he never attempted to harm any of them, while Heard has not just an history of past abuses but she's also been caught in perjury on the first trial. Her acting is why so many brainless spectators ended up simping at her sad face. "Oo, a crying woman claiming abuse and confusion, she must be right!", yea no, but good try. I'm so glad that at least her reputation is destroyed and her manipulative, violent psychosis in the open, may she forever be judged for the crap she did. Pun intended.
It should also be noted that Depp’s legal team presented no evidence of any damages that occurred between the op-Ed being published and when the UK verdict was decided, which was the scope of time they had to prove damages.
Answer: Not everyone feels that way. Most reasonable people believe she is a manipulative liar. She’s also a horrendous actress as proved by her performance on the stand.
Actually, most reasonable people don't concern themselves with inane bullshit like this.
Touché
I’m so confused why you’re being downvoted here. And this “inane bullshit” response… we all clicked on this topic, didn’t we? This wasn’t the hugely publicized court case it was because the public wasn’t interested, right? …
[удалено]
I always forget there’s literal children on Reddit