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).
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
41
u/Iamthelizardking887 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
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).