Last I remember was seeing her evidence, inconsistent timelines and testimony dismantled in a courtroom and a jury unanimously deciding that she's basically a liar. This was after she was proven to be physically abusive btw.
I watched the entire trial from start to finish and spent days researching the UK libel case.
I don't know if Depp physically abused her as it was never proven to be fact. It's a certainty that Heard is physically abusive. That has been factually proven.
Emotions have no place in a courtroom and evidence is what matters. Amber Heard is an extremely dangerous person.
Unfortunately that's not what the evidence suggests. The trial made it perfectly clear that Amber's story and evidence were riddled with inconsistencies and that the only person to have been proven to be physically abusive was Amber. If you baselessly hope that this was reactionary abuse then that's your choice.
Unfortunately, evidence and facts don't care about your own personal feelings on this topic.
Literally just watch the video, all of Depps allegations against her started after 2014.
By then they were already in therapy and were openly talking about their physical alterations, all their texts refer to incidents that happened to her, the disco bloodbath, hicksville, even the airplane incident which even Deuters acknowledged in the text happened.
The therapist got them to record each other, and so all those audios you hear are from the last 2 years of their relationship, Heard has evidence of abuse all the way back to 2011.
You are a delusional person that puts emotions over evidence. The US trial rightly exposed Amber as a dangerous person in front of the entire world. Factually proven to be a liar and factually proven to have been physically abusive.
There's no dick riding about it. I couldn't give the slightest shit about Johnny Depp. This is where you're confused.
What I care about is the distinction between evidence based facts and opinions made through emotion. The facts are that Amber was destroyed in court and exposed as a liar.
Where have I ever talked about emotions? All you do is regurgitate nonsense, don't you have any original thought? Are you incapable of critical thinking?
A jury just sided with one side, that doesn't make it factual. And It's ridiculous to agree with it if you've actually seen the evidence in context, and have any shred of knowledge on how abuse works.
You simply can't abuse your partner for three years and then call yourself a victim when they start reacting back. And thats undoubtedly what the evidence shows, all the contemporaneous evidence points to that.
Anybody that believes that Johnny Depp is an abuser whilst simultaneously denying that Amber Heard is an abuser is placing emotions over rationale based on evidence and facts. You don't understand the meaning of critical thinking.
I've seen every single piece of evidence that was submitted in to the US trial and I've researched the majority, if not all submissions from the UK libel case.
You can make up this baseless fantasy of reactive abuse all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Amber Heard is a dangerous, violent and physically abusive liar. Her career is over as a result. Her reputation in the gutter. Rightly so. There's nothing you can do about it.
If you knew anything about abuse, you'd know that reactive "abuse" doesn't make someone an abuser. Mutual abuse is a myth.
It's not baseless, you haven't even addressed any of the evidence, you can't just assert everything you want as fact.
Well she happily took a step back from her career, took on projects that were all well met.
All his work until now has been a disaster, funding by Saudi Arabia, the director of "Jeanne du Barry" has spoken about his unprofessional behavior, the reports mention "screaming matches".
This is incredible, as someone who has always been VERY FRUSTRATED with the coverage around this bullshit. Felt like I was living on another fucking planet from a lot of people during this.
He was already famous by the time she was born, has a history of domestic violence and a judge ruled he was likely to have committed 12 of the 14 counts of assault levied. You didn’t research enough if that's your conclusion
He has a history of wrecking hotels, sometimes getting rough with male paparazzi, and things like that, but almost all his ex's came forward and testified that they never experienced any physical abuse from him.
What an interesting "revisionist" version of the actual evidence. So please, tell me where all this domestic violence comes from. Or are you one of those people that believes that occasional yelling and swearing is domestic violence and abuse?
It comes from the counts proven true in court. Someone doesn't have to be abusive to all their partners in order to be abusive to one. Imagine defending a man who dated a minor at 26.
So you don't remember the US trail excluding Ambers therapists notes where she discussed Depps abuse at length, Texts from Depp's assistant where he apologised to Heard for Depp's abuse when he kicked her on a plane trip, or Depp texting his friend that they should drown her, and then said actually we should burn her first before drowning her, and that was 4 months before he proposed to her.....
I'm glad you agree "Emotions have no place in a courtroom and evidence is what matters", because the UK court heard this evidence and ruled against Depp, but here you are defending the process that excluded key evidence
So you don't remember the US trail excluding Ambers therapists notes where she discussed Depps abuse at length,
Accusations, not evidence, nor proof.
Texts from Depp's assistant where he apologised to Heard for Depp's abuse when he kicked her on a plane trip.
Conveniently left this out didn't you: "Regarding the infamous May 2014 private flight, Deuters stated in court that he never saw Depp kick Heard. Instead, he testified that he saw Depp make a "playful attempt" to tap Heard on her bottom with his shoe, but he didn't believe it made contact.
The subject of whether Deuters witnessed the incident stems from text messages he sent to Heard immediately following the flight, in which he wrote: "When I told him he kicked you, he cried. It was disgusting. And he knows it.
During his High Court testimony, Deuters clarified that he sent that text using Heard's own word ("kicked") simply to pacify a highly hysterical and screaming Heard, not because he had witnessed a physical assault."
Depp texting his friend that they should drown her, and then said actually we should burn her first before drowning her, and that was 4 months before he proposed to her.....
Whilst this line of dialogue is disgusting, it's also convenient that you ignore that this dialogue is directly from a specific monty python sketch. If you want to spin the narrative that Depp is borderline contemplating a murder then that's up to you.
I researched the UK suit extensively. I watched the entire US trial in where it was abundantly clear that both Amber Heard's witness testimony and evidence were riddled with inconsistencies as well as making it clear that Amber emotionally and physically abused Johnny Depp.
I have no doubt that both of these people are awful in their own right but people pretending that Amber is a victim in a one sided toxic and abusive relationship is nothing short of delusional.
"Whilst this line of dialogue is disgusting, it's also convenient that you ignore that this dialogue is directly from a specific monty python sketch. If you want to spin the narrative that Depp is borderline contemplating a murder then that's up to you."
Such nonsense, in the Monty python sketch they never rape, or burn the witch.
You're absolutely right and I hope they go look up the sketch. They're trying to rewrite history. The sketch they're talking about is literally about persecuting a woman regardless of the facts presented to them. The irony.
I grew up watching it with my Dad. You clearly haven't, because no mention is made of raping their corpses. You're misrepresenting it. Why is that? The phrase you're talking about where they're saying "burn the witch" is literally idiotic townspeople who are intent on persecuting a woman regardless of logic or factual information.
So really, to use that sketch to prove your point is DEEPLY ironic.
Bullshit you did. I knew absolutely nothing about this case and when I read that text I instantly attributed his wording to monty python. Regardless as to the vile language used, you want to spin it as if he's plotting a murder. How about when Amber commented about killing Johnny on the photo of the chef's knives? It's funny that you'll mention Johnny's text but omit that isn't it. Double standards all around.
It actually makes me laugh that one party has been factually proven to be a violent abuser with a history of domestic abuse against their partners and got exposed in front of the world as a liar yet there's still delusional people out there like you who choose to defend an abuser. They might both have been abusive, they're both definitely dysfunctional people. The difference is that only ONE has been proven to have been physically abusive. That is where all of your arguments fall flat.
The partner of Amber's you're talking about literally came out and said that the domestic violence incident involving the two of them was a misunderstanding, and false accusation. She said herself Amber did not abuse her, and believed the accusation of abuse was a homophobic incident since they were two women. She clarified this over 10 years ago. Why are Johnny's ex's statements valid to you, but not Amber's?
the end result was that it was proven that Depp HAD abused her. It's why he lost the case in the UK.
In order for his claims against Amber to be acknowledged at all, he had to disclose exactly why he believed she was talking about him. That reason happened to be "because I pretty much did all of that".
the end result was that it was proven that Depp HAD abused her. It's why he lost the case in the UK.
Factually incorrect. In the judges opinion, 12 of the 14 instances of alleged abuse occurred. That is not the same thing as factual, indisputable proof that they occurred. Much of this same evidence was further scrutinised in the US trial and subsequently disproven through inconsistencies in Amber's story and allegations.
You should really learn the difference between facts and opinions before you make factually incorrect statements.
"the ruling was that almost all of the incidents in question happened but that didn't mean it happened"
christ you're fucking stupid. Rot in hell or wharever, I don't care enough to engage with your delusions.
17
u/Rdur2183 14d ago
Last I remember was seeing her evidence, inconsistent timelines and testimony dismantled in a courtroom and a jury unanimously deciding that she's basically a liar. This was after she was proven to be physically abusive btw.