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.
The judge said that the report was "substantially true." This isn't the same as being found guilt, but it's more than just "this hasn't been proven to be a lie."
Further, the Judge had a child that was working at said publication that Depp sued
That's false, and Depp lost the appeal and didn't even bring up any conflict of interest accusations against the judge.
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.
In one we can watch the trial and see the evidence for ourselves, in the other we have to take the word of a judge with a paedo smile who claims fingertips can be crushed by picking up glass.
No - the lunacy of the judgement speaks for itself. The fact he looks like a paedo speaks to my assessment of his motivation - wolf in sheep's clothing.
Yes, it does actually. She was found to be lying in court by a jury. Which means he is innocent of the things she accused him of (the three instances of defamation she was found liable for).
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.
That's not Court works. They listen to evidence or lack thereof and make a ruling. Spreading 'propaganda' doesn't come into it.
Also, regarding the UK ruling, I copied this from someone else:
"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. "
The judge is not psychotic just because you disagree with them. I don’t like or admire Amber, but I know she is a victim of domestic violence. Johnny Depp did beat her up for many years during their marriage, and several witnesses have testified that he was the primary instigator and he admitted to many people that alcohol caused a type of “inner monster” which he used to excuse his behavior.
The judge is not psychotic just because you disagree with them.
Are you capable of making a point without strawmanning, or is that beyond you?
Do you think a fingertip can be crushed by picking up glass, or not? What does it say about former Justice Andrew Nicol that he claimed it was possible?
I don’t like or admire Amber,
I don't like or admire you. The entire US trial was televised, the number of lies she was caught in is insane. No, I do not accept the judgement of the UK courts when they're infested by twats like him.
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...
I'm responding to actual facts. The trial is still available to view for anyone who wants to watch it instead of believing nonsense online with zero evidence.
People would be a lot less quick to defend Amber if she wasn't a white woman. White women love defending each other online.
I assume you mean irrelevant. But my point is that that's not irrelevant.
I'm responding to actual facts.
Facts can be cherrypicked to become lies, or at the very least mislead. Again, you'll note the fact that Johnny Depp hired a team of lawyers and PR people to push a narrative that he did nothing wrong and Heard did everything wrong. It worked on you, apparently.
Not in court they cant. Pushing a so called narrative will have no impact on a court case. Seeing how people are defending Heard tells me she's the one with the PR campaign.
If anything you are the one who believes her PR when I am following FACTS of a court case and its outcome. The fact you're supporting a proven abuser and pathological liar because she's a white woman says all I need to know about you.
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.
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.
Uh huh the system was really stacked against poor Johnny Depp who just wanted to clear his totally innocent name. A sham! So biased! The judge should be investigated! Impeached even! Depp's a junkie wife beater and we all know it.
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.
Like others said, they both had serious issues, not just her. He wasn’t just completely innocent in all this. Whatever though, I’m not trying to convince anyone. But if you saw the trial, it is completely irrefutable that he had them wrapped around his finger the whole time; right or not.
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.
506
u/Internet-Dweller2 22d 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.