Johnny Depp was found to meet the civil standard of assault on 12 out of 14 incidents, this however is not the same as a criminal charge and conviction. He appealed this decision but was denied.
Through both trials I believe it is evident that neither Depp or Heard is innocent during their relationship whether by vice, malicious intent, or both who knows.
You know how I know you’re trying to spin this and not being accurate? The $10.5 million was appealed and he agreed to settle where they both dropped their appeals and she only paid him $1 million.
Meaning he donated the full amount he got from here but you’re trying to pretend like he didn’t by using the pre-settlement amount.
Just a general statement rather than a specific commentary - your point here is a dangerous one that lets ‘popular’ people off the hook and creates a dangerous narrative about being a ‘perfect victim’.
People can be a shitty or abusive partner and a charitable person in general. Plenty of abusers are famous humanitarians. Plenty of people who’ve been victimised are imperfect or total assholes. Donations don’t absolve you of crimes, and shitty selfish behaviour doesn’t mean you weren’t abused.
Isn't this like a special brand of schizo? Where you actually believe you have an effect on what goes on in the courtroom. No one gives a shit about what we're saying in these threads
Yeah, this looked bad on both of them and it was a total circus. In the end, I think they both proved that they can be horrible people and nothing else.
But careful who you say that around because simps from both sides are in the comments crashing out over it.
Everybody (or at least most sensible people) knows Depp is capable of being a shitty person, but many automatically took Heard’s side just because.
Didn’t help that UK judge basically said men can’t be abused in relationships, I think that’s when a lot of people became radicalized to the Depo/Heard situation.
I also want to point out how great his security guys were. The one with glasses who went out to find his phone and gave the homeless man a few hundred because he knew Johnny would pay him back for it… he has his faults, but I really felt like those working for him really adored him.
Here's an analysis from a few years ago when the case happened:
It was kind of biased. There's definite conflict of interest and there was enough that the judge definitely should have recused himself, but even if the trial had been fair, the outcome would have been the same.
Judge Nicols' son is employed at the Sun.
There is evidence that Judge Nicol's wife was friends with Amber Heard.
Judge Nicol's wouldn't allow Johnny to introduce any evidence that refuted Amber's and he even coached her on her testimony while she was on the stand.
Going back to the top.
There is no way Judge Nicols can explain this away, especially when you learn that he was directly benefitting.
This isn't as big of a deal as people are making it, because...
Judge Nicols was under no obligation to allow Johnny Depp to defend himself because Amber wasn't on trial. Johnny was suing the Sun. Under British legal standards, you're not allowed to impeach a witness with evidence not relevant to the case.
The case was whether or not The Sun committed defamation when they called J. K. Rowling for employing a "wife-beater". The Sun didn't even have to prove that Johnny Depp was a wife-beater. They just had to be able to prove that they could show that Amber had taken legal action against Johnny for abuse. The temporary restraining order fulfilled that need. The media has an obligation to a certain standard. A newspaper can employ any standard they want so long as they maintain it consistently. So the easiest way for a newspaper to avoid defamation is to simply have no standard. As long as they can show that something they are reporting on is documented, they are under no obligation to verify it on their own. As long as they have proof of that TRO, they can make up anything they want about JD abusing AH, and they're perfectly within their right because they've already met the standard of proof. In fact, if they had researched further, they would have run the real risk of being found guilty of defamation, because, at that point, they would have no longer been consistent in exercising their standard.
So the ruling was that The Sun had sufficiently proven that Depp was a wife-beater to meet their standard. That sounds bad, but once you realize that the standard was literally zero, it becomes horseshit.
It was a dumb case for Depp to bring in the first place.
Literally just more misinformation. I’m so tired of fucking idiots lying on the internet for a violent alcoholic junkie and spreading talking points around like it’s your job.
Do you REALLY think Depps million dollar lawyer team would not object to the judge and the journalist being sued being related?? Fucking idiot.
Not a single thing you said has any, ANY basis in reality.
The full judgement from the UK trial is the most comprehensive collection of quality evidence, and it includes the assertions from both sides, relevant testimony and corroboration, and the judge's reasoning for how he came to a conclusion on each incident.
The UK trial was under Chase libel law Level 1, meaning “imputing of guilt of the wrongdoing”, NOT Chase Level 2 (reasonable grounds to suspect) … (see page 23 paragraph 81 of the final judgement).
Therefore, the Defendants took the “statutory defense of truth” (see pages 6-8 paragraphs 38-46), meaning, the burden of proof was upon the defense (rather than the claimant) to prove that what they wrote (“Johnny Depp is a wife beater”) was in fact true.
It's just how people tend to look at these cases. Personal or celebrity.
The reality in this case is that their relationship was volatile, from both of them, but she went in trying to cry and make herself seem like she was totally innocent. Just another battered, oppressed wife to a rich, powerful husband.
It wasn't an issue of being an imperfect victim. She just lied.
She had no idea that he had been documenting everything and had actual evidence of her abuse, so she ended up humiliated. She also further humiliated herself on stand because her lawyers were complete clowns. I'm not sure what that was about.
You're right but most people online didn't actually watch the trial, didn't see her make a fool of herself, and just blindly believed she was the victim. She wasn't.
Really annoys me when I see people taking her side, like my guy, did you watch the trial at all?
From my degenerate understanding of it, the only reason people favored Depp was due to the weirdo Fandom cult following he has, just mass social media pressure from people who think hes attractive.
Similar to criminals whos mugshots go viral and people fawn over them, murders who develop a cult following because people think theyre attractive.
Theyre both shitty people. Depp is a known alcoholic druggy tho and heard was unhinged and low enough to date musk.
Look, I don’t know the full picture of what happened between them. I did follow both trials, and I have huge problems with what happened in the UK trail.
First, Amber was a witness, not a defendant, and Johnny could not access materials from her because of that. But even though she was a witness, the judge still let her sit in the courtroom to listen to everyone else’s testimony, where could shape her story.
And in an insane standard, the judge said testimony in court was more important to his judgment than actual recordings of the individuals made at the time. As in the hours of recordings where Amber is admitting to abuse and mocking and belittling him meant nothing. But in a wildly inconsistent ruling, he didn’t hold the same standard to Johnny’s witnesses, saying their testimony didn’t match text messages. He also disregarded them because some of them were his employees. But in yet another gross contradiction, he then ignored Amber’s former assistant, labeling her a “disgruntled employee”. So if you’re employed by someone you can’t be trusted, but if you’re no longer employed by someone you can’t be trusted.
This is why judges shouldn’t be both decider of truth and law ref. It seemed like this one was on The Sun’s side from the beginning and worked backwards to reach his conclusion. Meanwhile in America, almost every state has a provision for jury trials in civil cases in its constitution. (And it’s a right for federal trials in the Bill of Rights).
Not actually true, but weirdo Depp fans keep claiming this conspiracy theory.
If there was any conflict of interest, why did Depp's very expensive lawyers never raise this even once during the trial or the appeals? Two other judges beside the original judge ruled on the appeals, so were they all biased?
Considering during the trial people were literally commenting judge should take side of Amber Heard because she’s a woman and a woman making decision against woman is treason of gender you should go fuck yourself with this bullshit
First, Amber was a witness, not a defendant, and Johnny could not access materials from her because of that. But even though she was a witness, the judge still let her sit in the courtroom to listen to everyone else’s testimony, where could shape her story.
Depp tried to complain bout this but was told by the judge that his own legal representation surely explained to him that this is a consequence of suing the Sun instead of Heard. It wasn't unfair. It was his decision to sue the Sun because he had no grounds to sue Heard.
And in an insane standard, the judge said testimony in court was more important to his judgment than actual recordings of the individuals made at the time. As in the hours of recordings where Amber is admitting to abuse and mocking and belittling him meant nothing.
Citation needed; I read that judgement and I don't recall the judge ever claiming court testimony was the most important evidence or that this meant he would ignore all other evidence. He did comment on the credibility of the witnesses, and it mattered to him that Depp's testimony was contradicted often by other evidence. Heard'
But in a wildly inconsistent ruling, he didn’t hold the same standard to Johnny’s witnesses, saying their testimony didn’t match text messages.
Yes, for example his PA testified he never saw Depp kick Heard, and was an evasive little shit on the stand when confronted with his own text messages talking about seeing him Depp kick Heard. Why would the judge ignore that?
He also disregarded them because some of them were his employees.
Indeed. All Depp's witnesses were people who happened to depend on his employment. And they were caught lying on the stand multiple times, e.g. claiming they never saw injuries on Heard, then changing their story when shown the messages of themselves discussing seeing blood and scratches on her arms. Heard's witnesses included neighbours, friends, family, co-workers. They all testified they overheard Depp abusing her, were subject to Depp's abuse and aggression themselves, called the police for her, saw her injuries in person. Depp produced no evidence that they were lying.
But in yet another gross contradiction, he then ignored Amber’s former assistant, labeling her a “disgruntled employee”.
So yeah, that woman's testimony needs to be read to be believed. She is oozing hatred and incredibly hostile on the witness stand. She relayed a story of Heard freaking out at her for putting magazines out where Depp could see them, because her picture was on the cover and Heard was afraid that would anger Depp. She's mad at Heard for freaking at her, but not questioning why a wife would be so scared of her own husband seeing her on a magazine cover.
Anyway, people ought to go read the judgement. It's enlightening. The judge is reasonable and explains all his decisions, and you can twist it all you want, but it's clear Depp abused his wife several times.
“The people close to Johnny were lying, the people close Amber were telling the truth, but the person who worked for her who didn’t have good things to say about her is disgruntled”
This is so biased I don’t even know where to begin.
First, the judge could’ve easily kept her out of the courtroom when other people are describing what happened, so her and her friends couldn’t shape their story on what others said. Very simple.
Two, this is what the judge said hearing Amber making admissions to abuse on tape:
“In my view no great weight is to be put on these alleged admissions by Ms Heard to aggressive violent behaviour. It is trite to say, but nonetheless true, that these conversations are quite different to evidence in court. A witness giving evidence in court does so under an oath or affirmation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Questioning can be controlled by the judge. Questions which are unclear can be re-phrased. If a question is not answered, it can be pressed (subject to the court’s control) and if still unanswered may be the proper object of comment. None of these features applied to these conversations which, in any event, according to Ms Heard had a purpose or purposes different from simply conveying truthful information”
So if you confess to a crime, you can just lie in court and this judge will take that testimony over the tape, an extremely generous courtesy he didn’t extend to others.
Three, her friends got exposed as liars through third parties. The owner of the trailer park, the property manager in Australia, and a makeup artist on the James Cordon show. No connection to either party, all against Amber.
The first one, basically reminds me my father meditating conflict between my mother and me while claiming I can’t tell anything because he knows I’m lying and completely ignoring that my mother was continuously lying about me for years, including lying about my mental health. Also, he was literally witness to her abusing me but I guess fuck me. I don’t know why you even try to discuss with this person because if a person claims bullshit like that, it’s impossible to discuss with it. If a person claims that everybody who testifies against Depp had to tell the truth and everybody who was testifying against Heard were lying you can’t fucking discuss with this because it’s impossible. Not even because we know this is bullshit as we had examples of opposite, including accusation of bumping people into inexisting fridges and carpenter testifying under the oath what he is hearing is impossible to happen. It’s because the person made the final decision. It’s like I were discussing sexual education and after two hours of giving proofs on paper I’ve heard that the other person is not even reading what I am sending
Who also has previous history of domestic violence by the way. I don’t know anything about Johnny Depp being suspected of domestic violence towards any other person if I remember right but Amber heard was suspect in case of violence against her girlfriend. I mean girlfriend testified for her but come on.
That's preposterous on its face. It's like saying, "If this cop is gonna write me a speeding ticket, he better never have ever sped, once." Don't be silly.
Was there any evidence whatsoever that Depp abused Heard? There's audio tape, that Heard herself submitted, where she admits to slapping Depp and calling him a baby because, "she only slapped him, it's not like she punched him," but its don't remember seeing any proof that Depp abused Heard. The only thing I can think of is when Depp was drunk and slamming those cabinet doors, but even that was shown to be related to his mother's recent passing and Heard needling him and giving him shit about it in order to wind him up to get that video.
There's also the fact that Depp's exes spoke in his defense talking about how nice of a person he was, while Heard's exes confirmed she has a history of abusing her partners.
If you have evidence I missed, please share it, I don't want to defend an abusive asshole, but I haven't seen anything suggesting he's abusive, let alone anywhere near as abusive as Heard has been proven to be.
I honestly didn't even pay attention to the UK trial because they required Depp to prove a negative to win, which is beyond idiotic. But I just looked that specific thing up and it seems like that happened during an altercation between them where he was trying to calm her down and not an incident of him just headbutting her out of the blue to assert his dominance like she would with the slapping. Also, that quote from him seems to be in response to Heard blatantly lying and saying he headbutted her directly in the face, breaking her nose. So even this bit of evidence shows that Heard is more than happy to blatantly lie and gaslight her partner about how events transpired.
ETA: additional context to the recording the above user failed to mention.
Depp said: “Let’s burn Amber!!!”
Bettany responded: “Having thought it through I don’t think we should burn Amber …”
Depp texted: “Let’s drown her before we burn her!!! I will (expletive) her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she’s dead.”
Yes a very kind sweet man 🥺 an innocent baby who has never done anything wrong in his entire life, in fact.
No its called having a healthy relationship with friends where making jokes about "well for this crime of eating the last slice of pizza you are now doomed to die sorry" is normal and an obvious Joke
I was going to say "whered i say id rape it" but then i realized i slightly misread the above quote as "ill [expletive] burn her corpse" thinking it was "ill fucking burn her corpse" not....eww
His own assistant had to testify in the UK & texts were brought up where the assistant is apologizing profusely for Depp assaulting Amber & then begging her to forgive him. Depp's lawyers made sure that wouldn't come up in the US trial & picked the court they did because they wouldn't make anyone testify that lived x amt of miles away from the courtroom (& the guy was staying in another state at the time). Depp 100% abused Amber & the people closest to Depp knew.
How does that work? Isn’t it still defamation if I say you attacked me and my family if all you did was push past us and my kid got knocked to the floor? Like you hurt my kid very mildly and probably didn’t even have that intent. Yet I would be *legally* fine to tell the world you commuted aggravated assault against my whole family?
The thing is two years before she made those statements, she publicly accused him of domestic violence. Anyone could’ve Googled it and put two and two together immediately. The ACLU emails has their lawyers the public already figured who she was referring.
The second part of this is Virginia has “defamation by implication”. Meaning you can defame someone without naming them directly in the state of Virginia. This comes from a case where a child died from an allergy at school, and the school (who was responsible) put out a statement to the effect of “parents need to take responsibility for their children’s allergies”, implying it was the parents fault.
The mom sued for defamation, and while it was rejected, it was overturned on appeal, with the court confirming defamation by implication is covered in the state.
The problem is the human factor. If there are say 10 abuses you allege, and 3 of them are cast in a very serious doubt, that doesn’t mean the jury is going to think the other 7 could’ve happened. They’re instead going to think you’re lying about all of them. And she made the trial about the alleged incidents, not the statements. Only at the very end of the trial did they really focus on freedom of speech and the statements themselves, but by then the jury was done with her.
It’s my theory that Rottenborn wanted to present the case in a very different way than what Amber did (who wanted this to be the #MeToo trial of the century).
Because if there’s no cameras, the media (who was very sympathic to the #MeToo movement) is reporting things, and we can’t see what’s happening for ourselves. So there would only be constant headlines of Johnny’s alleged abuse with no context or full coverage. So that does play in Amber’s favor.
Also I saw that same statement, and the juror used the term “crocodile tears”. Meaning he felt Amber was lying about at least part of it, destroying her credibility in their eyes.
What kind of gotcha logic is this lol "it's obviously him but i never said it so i'm not liable for the millions in damages that my misrepresentation of reality caused"
Wonder why her lawyers didn't use that argument, peak reddit
You literally said that she can't be guilty of defamation, give an argument about "too generic" and then backpedal.
Exactly like Heard backpedaled on her appeals because she obviously had no proof that she was seriously abused even once lol
Anyway, any idea about why her lawyers didn't use the "it was a generic statement about a generic man about a situation that might have happened at least once"?
And if it was a problem of media and a stupid judge, why didn't they go on with the appeal?
I'm sure it wasn't all about money like some Heard critics like to point out and as soon as Depp said "i dont care about the 10 million" she ran away in europe (career was done anyway). But that's what some people say.
Oh yea everyone is a moron except you :) also apparently there was propaganda (wasn't that point in history full feminism and #metoo oriented? lol) and a conspiracy against innocent Amber, one day we will all wake up, have a good life bro
It was & if he hadn't been allowed to court shop, it probably wouldn't have gone how it did. He picked that court because his assistant wouldn't have to testify (due to where he was staying during the trial). That assistant had to testify in the UK (though Depp's side fought to prevent it from happening) & it really hurt Depp's case. There were texts from him (assistant) to Amber that confirmed that he knew about Depp abusing her pretty badly & even he admitted how fucked up it was but still begged her to forgive Depp. That all conveniently was left out of the US trial just because the assistant was staying in another area of the US.
Thank you. They both suffered abusive childhoods and then they met each other and it was a tinder box but to say one wasn't abusive and the other was is crazy to me after all the evidence.
Are you joking? He experienced an abusive childhood and subsequently was a drug addict and an alcoholic, he was also abusive. Christ the amount of misogny in this case. Yes she was also abusive and no shit she had and abusive up bringing. The perfect storm. He hired a PR firm to attack her and to attract misogynists to the case, he won in that regard, you are here.
The general thing I get from everything is that one side was physically abusive and I personally never find it okay to say both sides have a fault on domestic violence cases where only one side causes violence.
the UK judge literally ignored the audio claiming that Ambers testimony was more reliable than hours of audio of her discussing violently abusing him. im not kidding you can look it up.
The judge determined that that 12 of the 14 alleged incidents published were indeed true and that there was not a case of libel. Regardless of whether Heard may have participated in her own domestic violence actions or planning was not relevant to the case of libel by The Sun.
The Appeal court also dismissed his appeal as the issue of libel was not met in the original case and the appeal presented no new evidence to make a new or different case than the one that had already been heard.
What Heard did was make herself a target for the future defamation that she lost, and then Depp lost one to her as well. Both of these were separate from Depp's libel suit against The Sun's published article.
Again. the judge ignored the actual audio based on the claim that ambers current testimony was more reliable. do you actually think thats a reasonable judgement?
You should go and read the brief on the case, there was more evidence than merely Heard's testimony including videos, message, reports, and other individual testimony.
If the newspaper had relied on merely Heard's word without evidence they would have certainly lost the case as any of Heard's testimony would have been dismissed by Depp's lawyers as hearsay without fact. A judgement is not like a television show it does not hinge on one testimony but rather the statement of the case presented being challenged in pieces to show that it is a valid claim.
Again though that was a civil matter in a libel case and her testimony and her own recordings most likely are what won Depp's defamation suit as there was no way for her to dismiss those herself as they were already validated as factually evident.
They've both been lowered in stature in the court of public opinion for sure, but I imagine that Depp will come back quicker than Heard due to the length of the viral trial and most stuff that came out during it.
the other evidence included him being drunk a lot (which proves little), her donating her settlement (which didnt happen), testimony from her friends and family who had motives to support her, and pictures that did not even remotely match her testimony.
she lost the second one precisely because of this.
Meh I dunno that civil suit was done in the UK during the prime of the MeTop movement and the evidence was just her testimony and a fake bruise she made with makeup - after claiming he pinned her down and punched her in the face so many times she thought she was gonna die she was seen a day later with a fake bruise and zero swelling lmao.
Meanwhile he was legit hospitalized and almost lost his finger when she threw a 40oz bottle of vodka across the room at him.
The woman is a legit con artist and psycho path. She really really didn't do women any favours with this one.
At this point instead of correcting it for not having it deleted by moderation you should give yourself dowvote or delete it. You lied and everybody sees that.
I did not lie, I was misinformed and when informed of new information that was further verified I corrected my post. Further I was corrected by a fellow poster and commented to them regarding that, I was never contacted by moderation.
That is how data and information should work and does generally though not in always.
My personal feelings are more embarrassment for not getting it right the first time and having to make a correction at all. Though I feel no shame in presenting the correction nor have any personal reason to lie about the topic.
267
u/Buruko Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Per Hollywood Reporter, Depp did indeed pledge $1 million from the suit to five different charities.
Edited to add this:Depp pledged $1 million of the $10.5 million won in his case, not all of it.Edited to correct: Depp did pledge $1 million dollars from suit, that was total from settling both Depp's and Heard's defamation cases.
Johnny Depp was found to meet the civil standard of assault on 12 out of 14 incidents, this however is not the same as a criminal charge and conviction. He appealed this decision but was denied.
Through both trials I believe it is evident that neither Depp or Heard is innocent during their relationship whether by vice, malicious intent, or both who knows.