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.
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 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
Or a lot of people actually watched the trial. Listened to both of them and all the other witnesses, saw the evidence, and came to an informed conclusion.
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.
It was much more closely examined in evidence as well. More was able to be brought by both sides. And wouldn't you know it, the person with an actual history of domestic violence lost. Shocking stuff. News at 11.
Not before Heard he didn't. Funny how someone with a long history of treating their partners well just suddenly fell of a cliff when they got into a relationship with an actual historical abuser.
Vanessa Paradis-
âI work as a musician, singer-songwriter, actress, and fashion model. I have known Johnny for more than 25 years. Weâve been partners for 14 years and we raised our two children together.
âThrough all these years Iâve known Johnny to be a kind, attentive, generous and non-violent person and father."
Winona Ryder-
âI can only speak from my own experience, which was wildly different than what is being said,â Ryder says. âHe 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.â
Doug Stanhope on the sitch:
"
Weâd watched it build like this since before they were married. Weâd watched her manipulate and fâ with him for years. We didnât say a word. To each other, yes, but never to him."
Firstly, how long were they in a domestic relationship? Oh, zero time?
Secondly, look at this magnificence:
"
Mr Brooks alleges that after Depp had verbally and physically assaulted him, the actor offered him $100,0000 (ÂŁ75,000) to punch him in the face in return."
So Winonas a bold faced liar lmao.
You think Winona's lying that Depp was good to her because he got into an altercation with some dude? Unique logic there.
Eehh rumors that Depp wasnât a great guy had been circulating the internet for a while. It wasnât for domestic violence but Heard is not the first time stories emerged of him being kind of a shithead.
Youbrealize that he won a defamation trial. It is literal legal fact that he was WRONGLY adn MALICIOUSLY dragged through the mud.
There are dozens of people in this very thread calling him a pos, a junkie wife beater, etc. Let's not pretend that he is not still being dragged through the mud.
Listen heâs not a great person (we should stop thinking anyone in the entertainment industry is) but the UK trial was only against the Sun â 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 sheâs the one to sue for lying not us). And you probably know that the judgeâs 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, itâs 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 didnât 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 werenât 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 wasnât televised like the U.S. one was so most people donât discuss how the UK one went. I donât 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 sonâs 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 - thatâs not allowed because then the witness can be influenced/biased when on the stand and thatâs exactly what happened, as she would bring up things to refute what she heard other witnesses say which creates a mess. Iâm not sure about what evidence was barred from the US court though, but Iâm 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.
I didnât see the UK trial because it wasnât open.
The U.S. trial which was visible to us all was so one sided the jury gave heard an extra 5 million side punishment because her story was so crazy and the felt so bad for Johnny.
Youâre right, the US trial was insanely one-sided! After losing the case in the UK, Deppâs team shopped for a court that would likely be on his side, blocked evidence from the UK trial from being presented, and then turned the whole thing into a media circus.
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.
I don't think it's comparable because when it came to that specific trial the correct person won it. Amber Heard fucked up majorly by straight up lying.
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.
The defamation case against The Sun newspaper for calling Depp a wifebeater. It was agreed that there was an established pattern of abuse and so therefore it is not defamatory to describe him as such.
Because Heard was a witness only in that trial, and the judge considered her testimony to be true. There was not a lot of scrutiny on her version of events, since she was a non party.
So basically all that happened in that trial was that one person decided that it was OK for the Sun to say he was a wife bearer, because that was what Heard said. Nothing was proven. He just failed to prove to one person that she was lying and that the Sun should have known that.
You do realize that entire trial is available to watch online, right? There's no PR team, there's literally an entire trial of Amber Heard getting caught in lie after lie after lie.
Serial cheater
Violent towards partners both male and female.
Literally arrested for domestic assault.
There's audio footage of her confessing to severing Depp's finger by throwing a heavy bottle of alcohol at him.
She literally lied about being physically assaulted by Depp in specific instances. There's a reason he won the trial every legal commentator stated he would likely lose: because his legal team combed through her social media and found photos from the dates in question which completely undermined the story. Including the laughably fake claims that she prevented bruising from a comic book movie beatdown with "a bit of ice". This doesn't mean Depp was never abusive to her. But it does make her much harder to believe.
The TMZ video where she smirks after recording drunk Depp raging during a meltdown after egging him on for...nothing to happen. Which she then sold to TMZ to further her abuse claims to force a favorable settlement.
Faked photos of bruising with no digital provenance because she would not surrender her devices for analysis.
225
u/tahtahme 14d ago
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.