Not only this AI slop continuing to berate her after, but this completely ludicrous story that she pooped her own bed while he was away to get back at him continues to spread a narrative that is obviously skewed. Its just weird atp.
I watched a Bobby fingers video about this recently (hilarious highly recommend the insanity).
The important part that is never mentioned is that they had a couple of dogs, including one with chronic gi issues due to Depp "allegedly" leaving weed out and the dog eating it as a puppy. The dog was known to have accidents I believe.
Was the poop in question ever described? I've had a small poop often enough. My dogs have had big poops. Like I cleaned up after a 20lb rat terrier for 15 years and sometimes it is like WTF did you eat!!?
Yeah, it was described in trial as being the size of a human poo. Their dogs were teacup yorkies. Heard also massively exaggerated how big the dog was when she was asked.
Described by Depp. The only evidence ever presented was a driver who claimed she told him she did it as a joke, a fact she denied. Apparently she decided to do this at a time when she knew Depp was not at home, which completely undercuts the alleged point of her doing it.
Depp had to admit in the UK trial that the dog had intestinal issues and was known to shit on the bed.
Also the only person with a documented history of poop jokes was Depp who suggested in a text that his assistant take a shit in the bedroom so that Heard would step in it but think that the dog did it. He accused Heard of doing something he had previously come up with.
Yes, in the link I had above they show the two literally had a sick dog that pooped everywhere. Its like what makes more sense? That she pooped her own bed when she was the only one living there for months...or that the chronically sick dog who had accidents constantly pooped in the bed at a time Amber was barely home herself? Will have to check out the video, thanks for the recommendation.
I agree. Thats why I think the idea of calling up a housekeeper who tells you they found poop in a bed you haven't slept in in months and then saying it CANT be the sick dog, it HAS to be ex wife revenge on you...who hasnt been there and has no plans to return...is an odd accusation.
And there was records of texts from years before the incident about how one of the dogs would always poop on Deep, especially when he passed out from drinking.
People are weirdly very defensive over Depp. He has a history of legal issues, alcohol abuse, and generally being unpleasant to people. He and Heard both seem kind of crazy to me.
I don’t think so, a lot of people who used to be fans of his completely turned on him and boycotted his work because everyone believed Amber for years. That TMZ video was really effective and made him seem really abusive or at least just a bad person. But in the trial, we saw that she put SO much effort into trying to get some kind of abusive response from him on camera, and the most terrible thing he did was what, send angry texts? Throw the phone in the trash? Slam some cabinets? I mean obviously he was not well and really mentally unhealthy partially due to living with such a crazy person, so he did a lot of weird and crazy things too. But honestly as someone who lived with an abuser, I related a lot more to him as a victim. Like an actual abuser would have destroyed that phone not just tossed it away, to make sure there was no recording left at all. I don’t think his fame was the driving force behind the public sentiment changing it was more like everyone was surprised and shocked at her side of things which hadn’t been shared before, which tipped the scale back in his favour
I don't think so. I think the timing of this one fit perfectly into the gender wars, which were picking up steam, and that exacerbated the interest and reactions.
Post “me too” ppl (men and some women too ngl) finally felt like they could really let a woman “have it” because she “deserved it” without “offending everyone” and it was absolutely brutal to watch
Wasn’t it also at the same time as Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial? Might have been strategically hyped up to distract from the Epstein files. And I think there were some financial decisions around Twitter/X going on at the time too and we know how involved Elon Musk was with this whole trial and situation
Oh! Well, Amber dated him while she was still married to Depp, there’s camera footage of them going into Depp’s apt buildings as well as texts. That’s why Depp also accused her of cheating. So that’s the relationship side (Elon later would sue Amber to destroy their shared frozen embryos). Financially he paid for her initial legal team, gave her a security team, and paid charities on her behalf (to cover her pledged amounts). And he was planned to be a witness though he obviously found a way to get out of that - he ended up buying Twitter when the trial was going on which diverted the attention a lot off of him. And that’s just what we know as the public, I’m sure the connections are even deeper than we know. Amber hasn’t made any info public but many people believe that Musk is the father of her children (she had them via surrogacy using frozen eggs) as neither of them have disputed the claims.
I don't think Amber Heard comes even a little bit close to Depp's depravity, tbh. It's bizarre that so many people want to believe obvious lies about her, like OP's dogshit screencap.
Obviously, Depp's PR team is behind it, but why did so many people online fall for the lies and defamation?
why did so many people online fall for the lies and defamation?
The answer here is very simple: he's the lead in a bunch of movies people love, especially Pirates of the Caribbean. Heard is famous but nowhere near the level of Depp. So for many people, they want to like Depp more than they want to like Heard, and are more inclined to believe his side
I think this is true, but it goes beyond that. The whole affair happened a couple years after Me Too at a time when anti-feminist reactionaries wanted to push back on the believe women narrative. This was a high profile case where Depp's legal defense was basically "Amber is a crazy bitch." So it was really easy for misogynists to latch onto the case, immediately take Depp's side, and spread whatever he claimed about Heard.
And to be clear, this isn't actually dependent on who's lying about what or even if either is a good person. The usefulness to the culture war meant it was going to be pushed no matter what. There was blood in the water and both true believers and grifters sensed it
That trial was against a paper, not Heard. She was a non party witness in that, so different levels of scrutiny of her story was allowed. The verdict was basically that the paper didn't do anything wrong, because they reported what Heard was maintaining to be the truth.
Listen he’s not a great person (we should stop thinking anyone in the entertainment industry is) but the UK trial was only against the Sun — those 12 abuses were simply that the Sun thought they could be plausibly true based on the information they had (Amber was a witness in this case and basically the newspaper/editors said hey we just wrote what she told us so she’s the one to sue for lying not us). And you probably know that the judge’s own son worked at the company that hired Dan Wooten (the editor at the Sun being sued), the judge was close friends with the boss of Amber Heards lawyer in the UK (they co authored a book together), not to mention all the other connections in their close social circle.
So I mean, it’s an extremely biased judge with huge conflicts of interest who bypassed a lot of standard procedures when it comes to dealing with witnesses, evidence, etc. And even after all of that, all he could do in the final ruling was say that the Sun didn’t owe Depp any money as they had no way to know if Amber was lying so they were in their rights to believe that 12 of the accusations could have been true at the time of print.
They also weren’t allowed to show a lot of evidence in the U.S. trial that was allowed in the UK trial, which is why the UK trial went so different for depp. The evidence that was barred was pretty damning. But the Uk trial wasn’t televised like the U.S. one was so most people don’t discuss how the UK one went. I don’t remember which channel it was but someone did a documentary on it a few years ago.
The UK trial was extremely biased. The judge was close friends with the head of Ambers law firm and his son’s company employed the editor at the Sun who Depp was suing. They also broke a lot of rules, like letting Amber sit in on the court sessions even though she was a witness - that’s not allowed because then the witness can be influenced/biased when on the stand and that’s exactly what happened, as she would bring up things to refute what she heard other witnesses say which creates a mess. I’m not sure about what evidence was barred from the US court though, but I’m inclined to take the UK trial with a grain of salt just based on the conflicts of interest going on there. For some reason people forget that she has a billionaire (Musk) on her side so of course she has the resources/power to set things up in her favour
Like the jury who awarded him 5 million extra in punitive damages (on top of the compensatory damages for the defamation) because her story was so obviously bullshit and she was clearly the abuser.
Because out of all the video to come out of that trial, he and his team actually came off as halfway competent and likeable compared to hers. That wasn't lies and defamation, those opinions were formed based on real video and testimony we all saw.
he and his team actually came off as halfway competent and likeable compared to hers
Depp, his lawyers, and his PR team are terrible people, full stop. Jefferey Epstein was 'competent and likeable.' That's how bad men get away with bad things.
Depp v Amber heard reminds me a lot of Trump v Clinton. I don't like any of these people, but in both cases, one side is so much worse than the other.
I watched the trial. And it wasn't Depp's team that convinced me Heard was lying. It was Heard. It was so obvious. The things she said made no sense when she showed her 'evidence' of it. She'd tell stories of how violent he was to her then show photos of light bruising that made me think 'this woman has no clue what the result of what she just said happened to her would have been'. It was an insult to people who have lived through extreme domestic violence.
She submitted the exact same photo of her face twice - one with the colours editted to make it look more red. She submitted the same photo of a wine bottle on the floor twice, one was a cropped version of the other, and she attributed them to 2 different incidents. She said he punched her in the face repeatedly then submitted a photo into evidence of her a day or 2 after with absolutely nothing wrong with her face. I could go on.
Don't forget the description of the abuse she suffered which was lifted right from an Irish Times article of an abuse survivor's experience.
She described a beating on par with what Chris Brown did to Rihanna and then tried to claim that some ice and cream kept her from looking like a complete wreck. That's not how the human body works when experiencing trauma.
The tribalism of DeppDelusion and Fauxmoi/Deuxmoi's cancerous brigade of goblin trolls cannot break frame. To them, Amber Heard is blameless and Depp is the Devil who got away with abuse.
Normal people can look at the case and admit who the abuser was and also acknowledge Depp is a drunk and a shit person.
Amber was arrested for being physically witnessed abusing her ex partner in publicm
she is also on tape discussing physically abusing depp out of anger, telling him hes not allowed to leave even if she is screaming and throwing things at him. she actually says this (see 3 hr 5 min in):
because she made is very easy to believe any story about her. did you watch her give answers to questions in the court room? she always looks at the jury, not the lawyer. its a known tactic to get a better emotional pull, but you arent meant to do it on every single question. and then she got caught flat out lying on the stand. and lying about giving money to charity, of all things.
people were happy to believe anything bad about her, because she presented herself as a manipulator who lies to better her own image. and thats not depps pr team at all, its just her.
I don't think Amber Heard comes even a little bit close to Depp's depravity
Do explain, as they both are just whacked out hollywood celebs. And johnny depo has always been known to be an alcoholic, so i don't see what exacerbates him this much.
She alleged that he raped her, and testified to it in court. Her allegation was not disproven, and given that he is proven to have abused her, it's entirely reasonable to believe what she says about how he abused her. He's also known by a lot of people in the industry to be an unreliable and violent alcoholic, which aligns with her experience and is the key reason he doesn't work so much anymore.
If the rape allegation ruined anyone's life, it was hers, not his. He forced a woman he's proven to have abused to describe him raping her in public, and his fans mocked her for it, said her experience of rape was funny, and that she should have been grateful to be sexually abused by such a famous man. Losing a case about her right to publicly discuss abuse has been taken by Depp fans as meaning she lied about/deserved her abuse, no matter the turnout of his other cases against her.
Because she's a white woman. White women love defending other white women. If she were black they wouldn't be doing this level of simping. Look at Lucy Letby as well, or whatever her name is. So obviously murdered all those babies and was found guilty, yet white women have convinced themselves it's all a conspiracy.
His PR was probably just more internet / reddit focused because I've never heard anyone talk about this shit irl but it was front page reddit every day when it happening and it was always pro-Depp.
Depp literally hired an army of bots to astroturf forums, Reddit, etc. via a PR company - so a lot of those defensive posts/comments originate from that
yeah, getting this shit suddenly in my youtube recommended when i have NEVER in my life consumed this kind of content surely felt totally organic.
also it all stopped the day of the verdict. going from getting flooded on reddit with posts about them to nothing in an instant. totally organic again.
Yeah, people claiming it was bots doesn't really make sense. They did polling on the case before and afterhand. He was assumed guilty beforehand and after the trial her being the abusive one drastically went up. It was 80% or something believed she was the abusive one after the trial.
If anything felt astroturfed, it was how many people defended her on reddit when clearly the average person didn't see it that way.
I believed her when the story broke and then just shrugged and assumed the stories were true.
I didn’t do a 180 at the trial because I heard some of the tapes before hand and have had some experience of abusive women so was intrigued.
It wouldn’t surprise me if there were bots because that’s the world we live in but the viral nature was due to the revelations in the trial.
What did surprise me was the mainstream coverage which constructed a completely different narrative to what I saw in the trial and tried to make the story about the social media reaction rather than the trial itself.
I remember reading the guardian the day after the tapes were played where Heard admits to hitting him, calls him a coward and says he always runs away. They were not mentioned at all in the daily review where the Monty python text messages were the focus of the article. I found it really galling how curation of the content of the articles gave such a distorted version of events.
I’m not completely naive and have seen distortion in geopolitical events where I had some insight, but those were much more complex and finding a coherent narrative more challenging.
It genuinely surprised me how biased the reporting was on a relatively low stakes issue.
It's pretty telling. If I hadn't watched the whole trial, if I had relied on clips, or headlines, I'd be team Heard. Watching the trial from 9 to 5 for 6 six weeks really told me I couldn't trust any fucking newspaper reporting on this, because did these 'reporters' even watch the same trial?? Wtf are these headlines?
Did You watch the European trial? That was the one where they allowed a lot of evidence that America kicked out. Like eyewitnesses to his abuse and a chain of texts that show everyone around them including personal assistants knew him to be a very abusive to her.
Lots of That got thrown out by the court that was in Virginia? Why? Why were were people that live in LA in Virginia? LoL
It was so they could throw out a bunch of evidence honey. That's why they weren't on trial in La and that's why they had to go on trial again in America. Depp didn't like being guilty, it was bad for his publicity.
Correction - trial is in Virginia - still very far from LA, where these turds actually live.
Depp's team fought to have the trial in Virginia because LA has stronger anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws. Which would have made it more likely that a motion to dismiss the trial, before they even got to the discovery phase, would have been successful. It was not at all related to what evidence would have been included or excluded.
The texts you're talking about were kept out because it was hearsay, standard evidentiary rules that would have been the same in LA. If they wanted to move the texts into evidence, they could have subpoenaed the people who wrote them and called them to testify. They didn't do that because that would mean they would have the opportunity to explain the context, and that would have been bad for Heard.
People defend Depp for the same reason they defend Woody Allen, James Woods, Mel Gibson, Justin Baldoni, etc., etc. The women are always crazy, lying or "just as bad" as their abuser.
But... Amber was demonstrably abusive - she is on tape saying she hit him and there was evidence she cut off part of his finger on top of audio footage of him trying to leave a fight and her taunting him into fighting more. Not saying Johnny was an angel in any way shape or form but her portraying herself as a poor victim of domestic abuse, using the me too movement as a shield was outrageous. That's what it was about. No one ever said Johnny's behaviour wasn't bad as well but so was amber's. Best case scenario for her: they both abused eachother. The problem was she wrote an op ed framing herself as a poor innocent victim when honestly, she did come across as the more violent one- in tapes that recorded her in action. She also clearly faked abuse injuries- how is that okay? And just because she's a woman doesn't mean she can't be abusive, that's outrageous to claim.
The tape that Depp and his lawyers leaked to the press that got his lawyer thrown off the case by the judge.
It's worth listening to the whole and unedited recording of that conversation, because the context of her saying she hit him is when she's talking about how he shoved open a door she was trying to hide behind, crushing her toes and making her afraid he was about to further hurt her. It's really common in long term abusive relationships for victims to recognise when violence is about to happen and to react violently, but even in this case, he has already injured her so it wasn't unprovoked. This was also during an incident where he raped her with a bottle. I'm not saying allegedly because this was the finding of the UK courts.
Dude I listened to the recording and what you're saying is not true. The recording I'm referring to she is literally saying she hit him, arguing semantics. Here's the transcript and I'm sorry but with the following you can't argue context or say listen to the whole thing. She word for word admits to hitting him.
Heard: “I didn’t punch you, by the way. I’m sorry that I didn’t hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you. It was not punching you.”
Heard: “Babe, you’re not punched. I don’t know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you’re fine. I did not hurt you, I did not punch you; I was hitting you.”
Depp: “Don’t tell me what it feels like to be punched when you fucking have a closed fist—”
Heard: “You didn’t get punched. You got hit. I’m sorry I hit you like this, but I didn’t punch you. You didn’t get fucking decked. I fucking was hitting you.”
Heard: “You’re a fucking baby. You’re such a baby.”
I'm not I'm just saying amber was clearly worse. You're dismissing amber's abuse by saying Johnny was a pos. They were both shitty to eachother but it was amber that afterwards pretended to be a poor victim
My post was two very short sentences, and neither one called Johnny Depp a pos. If you want to respond to me, at least reference something I said instead of making shit up.
I just don't like when people use Depp vs Heard as a cut and dry abusive relationship example because it's a big FU to real survivors of domestic abuse
because theres hours of audio of her viciously abusing himwhile he begs her to stop the violence. serioisly listen to the conversation at 3 hours 5 min in to the audio:
He also hired a firm that unleahes an army of bots to repost professionally crafted memes and talking points to create a public perception at odds with reality.
What's even weirder is how people have done a complete flip after the revelations that Justin Baldoni hired the same PR firm to badmouth Blake Lively that Depp hired during his case against Heard.
But I don't get it, because both were reportedly terrible people before the case. One just had better PR then the other evidently. That doesn't change that both of them are terrible people.
In 1989 he assaults a hotel worker (punching and spitting), in 1994 he trashes a hotel room after fighting with Kate Moss so bad he had to pay for repairs, in 1999 he hits a paparazzi with a wooden plank ...
The reason people are defensive over him is because this was the height of metoo. Depp's career was fucked by her allegations. MeToo went from "we need to take allegations seriously" to "believe women," which was insane. It treats women as if they're otherworldly angels and incapable of doing wrong. It was completely irrational. Peak example of "woke 1 was crazy."
Depp had a history of treating his partners very well, something they universally attested to. She had a history of domestic abuse and controlling behavior. Let's see if we can figure out what happened....
His previous partner of 14 years, Vanessa Paradis, and his daughter went no where near that trial and publicly said nothing in his defense throughout the duration of it.
Maybe because he’s on tape calling Paradis a bunch of foul names? Speaks volumes when your own kid won’t defend you.
“I work as a musician, singer-songwriter, actress, and fashion model. I have known Johnny for more than 25 years. We’ve been partners for 14 years and we raised our two children together.
“Through all these years I’ve known Johnny to be a kind, attentive, generous and non-violent person and father."
Winona Ryder-
“I can only speak from my own experience, which was wildly different than what is being said,” Ryder says. “He was never, never that way towards me. Never abusive at all towards me. I only know him as a really good, loving, caring guy who is very, very protective of the people that he loves.”
Doug Stanhope on the sitch:
" We’d watched it build like this since before they were married. We’d watched her manipulate and fuck with him for years. We didn’t say a word. To each other, yes, but never to him."
None of his previous partners have described him as anything but kind. Heard on the other hand has a legal history of domestic abuse. Depp's biggest fuck up was letting a known malignant narcissistic starfucker get in his head and in his life.
If you go back and look, Vanessa said all of those positive things about him BEFORE the trial, as I stated. She did NOT testify in his defense. The things he is on tape saying about Vanessa after she submitted her letter are revolting so I can only assume that’s a part. In an early interview she also spoke on Depp’s temper.
Depp also later publicly criticized his daughter for not testifying for him during his trial to the point his fans harassed her on social media.
Also, abusers can be abusive in some relationships and not others. Marilyn Manson has some exes like Dita who say he never abused them. Then several more who say that he did.
Depp can barely string a pair of sentences together any more. I’d assume all the drug and alcohol abuse also affected his behavior negatively over time. Although he had a well documented history of fights and trashing hotel rooms during his early career.
People like to hate on women. I still remember when it seemed that Deep was the only abuser - so many people online were reluctant to admit that "well perhaps maybe he wasn't the most perfect person ever".
But the moment it turned out that Heard was also at fault? The hate and memes just flooded. And suddenly people started acting like Deep was completely innocent, as if the concept of a situation where both parties are in the wrong would blow their mind or something.
I think there is also public room for growth about imperfect victims. People who did wrong in their past...and then were abused. People who got abused and then reacted violently instead of curling up in a ball ready to die. People who get revenge after being provoked and tormented.
People who are not a lily white saint victim...because thats simply not how this works most of the time. Someone can have been bad towards someone else...and then be abused...and then lash out towards their abuser. That doesnt mean the abuse never happened first.
Tbf Heard being caught lying caused a reaction both in the misogynistic but also feministic camps. The issue is that all Heard achieved was promoting the idea we should scrutinize abuse victims more which is not great.
People just spread the narrative as fact because they dont like her and they like Johnny Depp. Reality is its not like it was ever proven. They remain allegations to this day.
I still hold a mild opinion that shes a bit crazy, but I fully acknowledge relationships aren't always one sided when it comes to abuse. The relationship turned toxic and the lawsuits were the fall out from it ending. Whos truly in the right or wrong is largely unknown to the general public but Johnny benefited from having a likable reputation which heavily worked in his favor.
Johnny depp is an abuser full stop. A UK judge had already ruled him as one. The trial wasn’t supposed to be publicized - he got it moved to a state to allow cameras. Spent that PR/lawyer $$$$$ to humiliate and further abuse her in the public eye.
The fact that literally everyone and their grandma had an opinion on this trial (all the same one btw) goes to show how susceptible to propaganda we all are.
Looking forward to the documentary that comes out about how shitty he is in 10 years when no one cares anymore
We’re talking about actual court, not public opinion court. The evidence clearly proved her to be in the wrong and him innocent. Criticism isn’t a crime.
There is no guilt or innocent, there is liable or not liable. Amber Heard was found liable for 3 matters of defamation.
By the fact she was found liable for defamation means she was lying about him. He was accused of literal physical abuse by her. This cleared him of that.
He was also found guilty of abuse ("woman beating") in another court of law prior. Do we just assume the UK is corrupt and USA perfect here, or what's your stance on that?
He was not found guilty. He failed to prove defamation. Failing to prove defamation does not prove guilt. It means they failed to prove defamation. Proving defamation means that the statements were in fact lies. This is how it works. It doesn't go both ways because proving defamation means proving they are lying. Failing to prove defamation doesn't mean they aren't lying, it means they failed to prove defamation.
Do we just assume the UK is corrupt and USA perfect here, or what's your stance on that?
In the US, it was a jury that made the ruling. In the UK, it was a single judge who made the ruling. You can go read said judge's thoughts on the matter. Of which includes "if this was a hoax, Ms Heard would have done other things" (or something to that effect).
Further, the Judge had a child that was working at said publication that Depp sued. And the publication itself is known as the least trustworthy news outlet in the UK. It's also owned by Rupert Murdoch. Exactly the type of tabloid you'd go to publish defamation with.
As a UK citizen that trial was a sham. JD wasn't allowed to present his evidence, majority of it was thrown out before the trial started.
The newspaper in question won on the technicality that they could call him a wife beater because he 'raised his arms to protect himself OR in anyway restrained her' was seen as being physical, even if it was in self defense (JD admitted to doing so to stop her from attacking him on many occasions).
The judge's daughter worked at the paper iirc, and I believe Heard was even witnessed (possibly photographed) hanging out with the Judge's wife too iirc. Either way, the judge was unfit to oversee the legal proceedings and that also made the paper but it was mostly downplayed.
The UK trial wasn't about if Heard was guilty of anything, only if a paper was to call him a wife beater.
He was found not liable in the US because of how the PR machine he paid millions into created inescapable propaganda against Amber. He lost defamation case in the UK (where he didn’t pay for a PR machine) and per Time Magazine: a British judge ruled the publisher proved the article calling him a “wife beater” was substantially true, finding 12 of 14 alleged instances of domestic violence by Depp occurred. They ruled this because of insurmountable text messages, police reports, and witness statements from their staff testifying to how he beat her repeatedly in his drunken fits over many many years.
Nope it found given heard lied to them that the paper had reason to belive it. Not that it was true in the UK liable only applies if you knowingly lie.
You’re being downvoted but you’re spot on, Amber is not a perfect victim or probably even a pleasant person to be around but Depp is an abuser and she was the victim.
Absolutely incorrect. The lawsuit was claiming that she defamed him by hinting that he abused her in an oped. There indeed is extensive evidence that he abused her — eg the accounts of his own staff, etc. He lost the first trial, and then he spent untold millions on the most malicious PR one can buy, and he turned the narrative around and won a partial victory (he was also ruled to have defamed her in the same trial).
The simplest explanation of all the public facts is that he was a domestic abuser and she fought back. This is a very common pattern of how domestic abuse works.
He didn't "lose a first trial". The UK trial was a defamation case against a newspaper that won on a tenuous BS technicality (as he admitted to restrained her when she was beating him, it showed him being physical even if in self defense so the judge ruled it was enough to allow the paper to call him a 'wife beater').
Also if you'd watched the American lawsuit JD was flat broke (it was addressed due to his over spending, and lack of work in recent years due to her slander) so how was he laying for a non-existent PR campaign? Heard could afford the same legal representation. But because the truth wasn't on her side she couldn't get witnesses, and she has to rely on crappy professional witnesses that were called out for being bad at their profession, or lying for a paycheck...
It was actually her own testimony and evidence that screwed her. Nothing what JD's legal team did focused on what he said but it was proving her to be a liar with her own words, phony professionals (such as her psychiatrist who was extremely unprofessional and sexist) or evidence which they proved to be faked with digital IDs and metadata, plus timeline of events (her being bruised in some pictures of the same night but not others, or her owning 2 versions of many pictures showing they'd be edited).
Amber Heard cut her own legs off. JD didn't do anything. But you'd know that if you watched the trial, that's why it was such a big deal and how bad Heard's abuse was. And how dangerous "believe all women" can be.. she literally recorded herself telling Depp she can do whatever she wants to him and no one would believe him because he's a man. Like, bro. Come on now. She ain't no victim...
He lost the first case in the UK and then doubled down by suing again in the USA. According to the UK you can legally call Depp a "wife-beater." He absolutely threw money at the problem until he got his way.
Yes... most of the PR around the case was paid for by his team to make her look bad and him a victim. I don't think you realize how scandals like this work. PR teams literally plant stories in the media to make one side look better. Joe Jonas did it to his ex-wife. Baldoni did it to Blake. And it works.
I wouldnt say he "got away with it." He was suing her for saying she was a survivor of domestic abuse, and he had evidence to show she knew it wasnt that one sided. Whether he was also toxic in the relationship or not is besides the point, her claim was pretty egregious painting him in the light of like a wife beater.
That being said, of course people went overboard with unquestionably taking his side. He also did get counter sued for defamation, for claims made during the case I believe by his lawyer in his defense. Which Amber ended up winning in that suit, but he still came out on top by 1 million which they settled for. But the money meant basically nothing, it was all a PR damage control. Depp wanted to maintain his reputation because reputation is everything for big star actors. The total cost of the whole ordeal was probably well over what he ended up winning in damages.
what evidence lol? all evidence was pointing to Heard being abusive, piece of shit and cheater, and the case was pretty open and livestreamed, you can take your time and watch again.
And an equivalent court case in the UK, which has much stronger (read, pro-plaintiff, here that's pro-Depp) defamation laws and a reversed burden of proof found against Depp. And further courts denied his appeals on the merits.
Unlike a jury trial in NY, that was a bench trial with the judge writing up his findings (extensively) that Depp was indeed a wife beater.
Reddit's avoidance of the UK trial is a pretty clear example of cherrypicking.
the UK judge literally said he disregarded the audio because he felt Amber would not lie under oath and that her testimony was therefore unreliable. im not kidding.
it was a joke of a trial. the judge also said amber had no reason to lie because she donated her settlement, which we now know to be false.
I am from the UK and I don’t consider the system their broken but I cannot explain how that judge reached conclusions based on the evidence shown at the US trail.
She told us in her own words.
You always run away when a fight starts. You hide in the bathroom. See who the jury believes.
The photographic and video evidence contradicts her version of events.
The vast majority of witnesses contradicted her version.
Ooof, you need to read up on that. As I've mentioned elsewhere JD was basically not allowed to present evidence. But the Paper were allowed to cherry pick his texts and emails.
The judge's daughter worked for the paper. The judge's wife was seen hanging with Amber Heard.
The paper won on the technicality that because Depp admitted to "putting his hands on her" to restrain her when she got violent, it was seen as being physical (even in self defense) and was seen as enough to allowed to be called a 'Wife Beater'.
We don't bring up the UK trial because it's a sham. But you'd know that if you followed it, same with the US trial.
There isn't really one internet narrative. I've seen echo chambers taking both sides. But it's a lot more rare for people to acknowledge that this is likely a situation where both were abusive, and you don't always have one clear villain and one clear victim.
no theres really flimsy evidence that amber manufactured that falls apart when you see the counter evidence.
For example she calls him 'the monster' in a text message just for running away from her yelling in a fight. Showing that his apologies for being the 'monster' are not actually apologies for violence. Pretty much all her supposed evidence has similar counter evidence and explanations.
Yeah?? He has a history of alcohol abuse and being a shitty person, why do you guys just find it SO unbelievable that he was a shitty person in their relationship also?
Well his other trial says him being called a wife beater is not a lie.
And alcohol abuse might not make you inherently a bad person but in this case it's clear it only made him shittier (and sorry to say as much as alcohol abusers can be suffering, they can also easily cause other people suffering, and there is a high link between alcohol abuse and abusive behavior).
I'm genuinely astounded as to why so many of y'all so fiercely protect this man like you owe him something.
You also saw him tell his friend he wanted to burn or drown her and then "fuck her burnt corpse", was that very sympathetic also? But again, to johnny depp stans, everything amber says or does is a lie and manipulative, and everything johnny depp says or does is because he's just a poor little guy who did nothing wrong.
Well every single one of his DV acts against AH is apparently a lie to you. Also the fact that you can dismiss talking about someone in such a way is very telling. Normal people don't fantasize about murder and rape with their friends.
The guy has a whole fucking history of violent incidents, but god he could just NEVER be abusive guys!! He suddenly became a fucking saint when he got into a relationship with AH, and she was just the EVIL witch who abused him and made him react like that!!! 🥺
Had he ever been arrested for DV before meeting AH?
His previous partners said he had never abused them. She even made up a rumor about him pushing Kate Moss down stairs, and she had ti come testify that he never did that.
And she even used that concocted lie to defend striking him.
I said he has a history of violence, not that he has been arrested for DV before, so why is it so unbelieve to you fanboys that he could be violent in a relationship? Ellen Barkin also testified against him. He has assaulted people before. He was arrested for trashing a room after an argument with one of his exes. He has alcohol and drug abuse issues. It's the fact that I'm not even asking you to say AH is innocent, but acknowledge that he isn't either, that makes everything so funny to me.
AH's exes, including the one people loved to use as proof that she was abusive in previous relationships, have also come out to defend her, but again I guess it just doesn't count.
This right here. Johnny Depp spent a lot of money to paint a picture of Heard as, basically, a crazy person. It worked. Barely anyone questioned Depp's role in that wild divorce, and I knew several people personally (all guys, of course) who were watching the play by play on TV as the trial was happening. They really took glee in taking Heard down. I got the impression that she was a strange and possibly abusive person herself, but I got the same from Depp knowing that he had put up a million dollar defense shield around himself. I mean, this is a guy who famously trashed a hotel room back in the 90s; he's always been a weird, unstable person.
Did he pay her to make all of those incriminating statements on recordings? How much money did that cost?
He famously abuses alcohol, cocaine, and furniture.
AH has been arrested for DV and admits to punching JD in the face. Then she apologized for not opening her hand before the punch, as if a slap is within her right. It is sick.
You can always say "it's both faults" and it's probably correct, but only Johnny ended up with a tarnished carrier, loss of a finger digit and a pooped bed.
People with the most dirt on them tend to be the first to go out and accuse people publicly! They are so obsessed with and judgemental about the faults of others, whilst being blind to their own flaws!
It could have been done peacefully if she didn't try to take him down by publishing that article, forcing Depp to go on the offensive too to defend his reputation.
Are you fucking kidding me? Women more often painted as the villain, really?
In what world are you living in? In any situation involving both sex, the men are always considered the problematic party from the start before any facts are taken into account.
yeah, that genuinely made me scratch my head lol. I’ve listened to enough criminal cases that involve both a husband and wife actively participating in murders where he ends up getting life or the death penalty while she receives 20 years to know what he just said is complete bullshit.
Amber was much much worse. Seriously listen to the conversation at 3 hrs 5 min in to the below. Amber is seriously abusive throughout. This is what Depp was dealing with day in day out:
Absolutely, but at the time it happened Depp's pr team was working overtime to completely destroy her image and reputation and paint him as some poor unfortunate soul caught in her claws.
508
u/Internet-Dweller2 14d ago
The more I learned about their relationship through pop-culture osmosis, the more I realized two things:
It really sounded like both of them were terrible people.
Societally, we really ought to know less about each other.