Apparently it's "Deppo"!
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yes, we are.
Just to say that I was punched by my previous husband on more than one occasion, and it's quite possible to not have a huge bruise. I used to get small, deep bruises that were painful for a long time.
I have no idea about Heard and Depp, but your dissection of "when is a punch not a punch" is rather ignorant.
I think Depp is a great actor actually and it's a shame he is being blacklisted especially if it turns out he has been the one who was abused
Yeah, @Penna is right. It’s definitely possible to not show any visible marks at all after being punched in the face. Some people mark more easily than others. For all sorts of reasons. So to imply that “only a small dark spot” is definitive proof that someone wasn’t punched is ridiculous. Made even worse by your macho crap about “I assume you’ve never been punched”.
Just to add to what Penna and Pogue have said, when I was younger I used to work as a live in carer at a family home for two big lads with severe autism, loved it and am still in contact but violence was a daily occurrence due to pinching and punching, it rarely showed on me (did sometimes but was inconsistent) but was always visibly devastating on some of the others for whatever reason. So ignoring all context about what the photo means and it's value as evidence for simplicity's sake, I can assure you that taking that photo in a vacuum as it not being indicative of a punch is complete bull.
also Depp's been on the piss for 20 years solid he probably can't punch very hard
It's been good for Heard to have this break before she gets cross examined.
Her stories are so horrific that you want to believe her because the alternate is too hard to comprehend.
We'll see how much they stand up to scrutiny and can be supported by independent verified sources when they get back because at this point it's such a juxtaposition to everything we've heard in the case so far.
Her stories are so horrific that you want to believe her because the alternate is too hard to comprehend.
We'll see how much they stand up to scrutiny and can be supported by independent verified sources when they get back because at this point it's such a juxtaposition to everything we've heard in the case so far.
Is it wrong that I really don’t give a shit about this whole circus?
Right then ask yourself why Depp was with her despite having "anyone"
And ask yourself why all his previous relationships ended. I honestly don't know how old you are but you you seem to have this superficial idea of a relationship. Hollywood actors like Depp can get women any time so why marry at all then by your logic?
So by your logic any make hollywood star in a long term relationship is the one making the sacrifice because the woman must be warned he can leave any time to get a hotter wife!
That's ridiculous. As I said this isn't tinder. Depp wanted a relationship and wanted one he can control. I'm sure amber heard had her own toxic expectations.
And yes he has most definitely beat her. Only question is who instigated and who did it worse.
Initially I didn't either but the watching the ridiculous PR game unfold with every person blindly supporting Johnny Depp just reveals the pull of celebrity and fan power.
If you're rich and famous with a following you can control narratives and reasonably smart people won't even question it
Why are you coming into the thread then?
I'm trying to prove that a small mark under her eye is not an indicative of the episode she described were Johnny supposedly violently pummeled her for minutes on end. Johnny in one of the recordings explicitly says "Don't tell me what it feels like to be punched" which is indicative that either he never punched her or at least he never punched her before this recording took place
She has barely any visible bruising. Apparently this is a woman that has been beaten for minutes and headbutted just 1 day prior to that event:
I gotta tell you, my suspension of disbelief is big, but not that big.
It's literally impossible for her to survive the episode she described and barely have a bruise to show for it. The bruise might as well just been an eye bag from waking up early in the morning and i'm not kidding. Johnny, on his part, looks to have more bruising in his photos, but I digress. The most important fact in this case is that we have 2 recordings in evidence that plain as day suggest Amber starts fights either by yelling or assault and Johnny's first instinct is to run away or lock himself somewhere away from her. That should be case closed as far as "domestic violence" goes.
We can all agree that Johnny is an absolute feck up of a husband and Amber's team have definitely showcased that, but as far as domestic abuse goes - she hasn't provided absolutely nothing as of yet apart from her word and apparently the only one to collaborate it is... Johnny's dead bodyguard
To ask the question.
I come from a household where my father physically, mentally, & sexually abused my mother for years until I was old enough to fight back for her. I am typically very sensitive to any instance of domestic abuse in either direction, but this spectacle has turned me off.
I do wonder if there wasn’t a war & the abortion issue here if I would have more interest in this. Dunno.
How do we know this ? The only actual evidence I've heard of is the audio tape where she brushes of her violence as nothing.
Yeah that's why he's lost millions in earnings due to the allegations. Such a powerful man Depp is. Everyone is questioning this case but other than their word of mouth from what I have seen, the actual evidence doesn't seem to support her.
No I'm pretty sure that's the healthy viewpoint.
Exactly , there seems to be a vibe that if you think (on the balance of the evidence presented) that Heard was the more violent abuser in an abusive relationship that you are some sort of blind incel that hates women.
(For the record I think they were both abusive but that on the balance of evidence her physical violence has more evidence provided thus far)
My biggest issue with her is that she has presented herself as a completely innocent victim in this situation whereas the evidence (presented thusfar) points to the fact that she was at least as culpable as him and potentially even moreso.
I think this trial is the career version of the "Stink Palm" from MallRats.
Nobody is coming out of this smelling like roses.
*I'm not following the trial minute by minute but what's more interesting to me is the public reaction rather than the actual trial.
Yeah he lost millions so he is not powerful anymore
I was talking about when they married in terms of power dynamics Johnny Depp is definitely the more powerful. Even now ignoring all of his assets and connections the guy has 16 million instagram followers alone and he has a loyal fan base.
As I said earlier. Amber Heard is not like as likeable nor is she anywhere near as good at her art as Depp is. It is way easier for Depp to control the narrative here in the media and if you can't admit to that fact you're biased
I don't know who is speaking of incels. Certainly not me or anyone on this thread. I am seeing two majority opinions:
1) Depp is innocent. Didn't hit her. She was abusive.
2) They both hit each other and were toxic to each other.
I am of the second opinion and I don't have a clear opinion of who had it "worse". Amber seems to be the more emotional/reactive sort so I would imagine she abused him more but I can't say for sure and I don't think it matters for the case.
Agree. I think this sense of injustice has brought out more in favour of Depp than would ordinarily be the case.
Ok maybe Incel was an exaggeration but there are posts along the lines of "Would you prefer if she was beaten to a pulp?".Even now I kind of feel like I'm probably being judged for "Supporting" domestic violence by questioning some of the evidence presented. (And I'm not a fan of either)
I don't really see it like that at all, from what I can see is that the Depp "supporters" aren't saying that Heard was the "sole" abuser.
Sure there are some lunatics on both sides here (He never touched her Vs Depp is a drug addict scumbag) but I don't see those as the majority.
They seem to be pointing out that the evidence of the abuse that is being presented doesn't fit the narrative that Heard has constructed around their relationship over the years.
They seem to just "hope" that Heard gets her "Share" of the blame rather than all the blame.
His goose is already cooked.
Yeah once again I'm not a Depp fanatic but I think a lot of people can relate to a scenario where they have been painted in a bad light while the other participant in the conflict got off Scott free.
This is just Depp smearing some of shit of the last couple of years back on her.
If you look at any piece of evidence on it's own it won't work but add up all of this:
1) Depps violent past reported by Kate Moss and another ex (I'm forgetting the name she was involved in the UK high court case)
2) Suns 12 counts of accusation against him withheld in a UK high court
3) Bruises on Amber Heard with pictures shared
4) Depps obvious problems with alcohol and drugs
5) A board certified psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes has said she clearly sees sexual and physical abuse from Depp. I've heard a lot about this psychologist being a quack. I think that's none sense but yes she's Heard's psychologist so there is bias here but at best I think there would be exaggeration of events. Not "just never happened".
6) Depps apologies on text, texts to friends.
7) Depps assistant said Depp was apologetic, appalled and sad when I would tell him about how he beat her up. He claims Depp would say he had an illness (addiction) and didn't remember any of this. Here its possible Depp's own assistent is lying but again, it's all these cases combined.
8) Amber Heard has texts to friends and families as well as diary notes from the times he hit her all the way back to 2013.
There is all of this. And again, she could be framing him but for me it's easier to understand that he did hit her.
I mean that is pretty ridiculous. Someone posting a picture that looks worse than that of hers to "prove" this isn't "real" domestic abuse? Does a bruised lip not count?
I'm not contesting the fact that she is claiming that he abused her (I think it's quite possible he did because once again I'm not team Depp) but do those pics (Which Depp's team contends were "Faked" and which Heard refuses to share the meta data for) PROVE the existence of Depp's abuse? That's the problem I have with the pics.
Then you compare it with the Audio where she admits to hitting him and the fact he suffered a serious hand injury during an altercation with her and I can see why people are "siding" with Depp.
But once again I think the main driving force behind these people siding with Depp is the fact that Heard has sought to portray herself as the Victim (and not a participant in the abuse/ toxicity) since their divorce and are "happy" that the other side of the story is coming to the light of day.
Heh. He's light-years more successful an individual than her, professional speaking, and hence a powerful figure for sure. At the same time during the me too movement that didn't count for much and he lost out on a lot whether commercially or in terms of narrative based on her allegations so I'm not why you're obsessing that much about the big bad depp controlling the narrative against the helpless Heard which funnily enough is just that, another narrative. The court is there to decide based on facts not based on media coverage and public commentary.Yeah he lost millions so he is not powerful anymore
I was talking about when they married in terms of power dynamics Johnny Depp is definitely the more powerful. Even now ignoring all of his assets and connections the guy has 16 million instagram followers alone and he has a loyal fan base.
As I said earlier. Amber Heard is not like as likeable nor is she anywhere near as good at her art as Depp is. It is way easier for Depp to control the narrative here in the media and if you can't admit to that fact you're biased
As someone who's wife is beaten often I can assure you that it's totally possible to cover it up a day after.
Am I doing it right?
Am I doing it right?
I'm bringing a balanced opinion. The cancelling of Depp was wrong the way it happened in the peak of the movement where Amber Heard was a saint but afterwards, Depp used his power and muscle to wreck her imagine which he very successfully has.
I am "obsessing" over Depp because he's seen as the innocent party here by most while I think both are toxic to each other.
If you want to argue the photos are fake you can talk about the visuals of it or that they could be bruises from other injuries but sharing a picture of Rihanna who was beaten up pretty bad as a counter is plain weird.
Pretty much all that evidence you just mentioned goes the other way also. You have their couples therapist say Heard attacked Depp during sessions while he tried to de-escelate situations. Her assistant testifies how she never saw any aggression from Depp but a lot of it from Heard. You have tapes where she admits hitting Depp and then she mocks him for not fighting back. You have witnesses who say Heard has used a lot of drugs as well. You have photo evidence that seems to have been staged by Heard and her friends. And let's not even start on all the lies about her donating to hospitals just to make herself look good.
I'm not saying Depp is a saint, I honestly couldn't care less about the man, I don't even like his movies. But she seems to be not a bit better than him and she gets to write articles about poor her being abused? Dragging him in the shit while she gets off clean? I really hope not.
I would have believe those at first, but after listening to those damning tapes, and hearing many witness statements, and many made up lies from Amber being exposed, plus her terrible acting in court, I would say it would be foolish for anyone to believe anything from her, even though some might be true.
Last edited:
No way Deppo starts next season under ETH.
Are they going to ask Amber Heard to re-enact her turding all over their bed?
What a moronic viewpoint on this. Depp was the superstar, Heard was a nobody & yet without a shred of proof Depp was cast into the wilderness, abandonned by his fans, for years on the back of nothing more than accusations. Years later, evidence is coming to light & literally overflowing in his favour & showing what really happened and this lazy, pathetic narrative comes out of "oh well, people just believe him because he's a big celebrity". Yea, sure, how did that work out for him over the last 5 years? Oh. It didn't.
You do not understand the verdict, but you are presenting it as if you do which is problematic. You have a misunderstanding of what 'substantially true' means.
The judge did not find what was being being written to be 'substantially true' in the manner that you are presenting it, i.e he saw evidence that proved Johnny Depp was an abuser and so that's the case. That's false.
For something to be 'substantially true' in the type of case that this was, it simply needs to pass the 'balance of probability' standard. This does not prove anything in the way that you or I refer to proof. The balance of probability means that the judge believes it's more likely to have happened, than not to have happened. That's all, it's an opinion, it's not a proven fact or guilt. If the judge believes it's more likely to have happened than not to have happened, it meets the 'balance of probability' standard and it is then referred to as 'substantially true' but this does not mean what you are presenting it to mean. You may say that on the balance of probability you believe from observing weather patterns and listening to the weather report that it's more likely to be sunny tomorrow than rainy, in this case that would be referred to as 'substantially true' but you have seen 0 proof here that this is going to be the case and it does not in any way shape or form mean that it's going to be a sunny day tomorrow and you can't go around saying it's been proven that that's the case.
The rest of your post is irrelevant, we're talking about whether or not he was proven to be anything in that case - throwing unrelated whataboutisms in there don't add anything to that subject. If you want to say 'what about this should we just ignore it' then it'd be perfectly valid to say 'what about the fact that that Judge's son works for the person being sued in that case?' but overall that's not relevant to the bit about you being wrong about what that verdict found.
Last edited:
You have it half correct but despite calling my viewpoint "moronic" let me explain to you.
Both parties were violant to each other:
1) Heard unfairly dragged Depp through the mud and came across as a saint.
2) Depp was having none of it and flipped it all on her. In his high court case he went as far as denying his drug problems as well. Internet starts to think Amber Heard was the only abuser.
3) Now the truth is coming out in court cases. They both were abusive and toxic. The boring question is who was worse.
When you say things like that, you're just not arguing in good faith. There's zero to prove that Depp was violent against Heard. The tapes Amber made contradict that plain as day. And that's about as far as we'll come to having actual evidence in this case other than words. So no, they were not both violent against each other, the tapes clearly portray Heard as being violent and she even admits it.
Bold matters. 14 incidents and 12 of them, even if they are 50%.
That's assuming none of the 12 proved incidents are more convincing (75% true) and so on.
Edit: Theres a reason I got a C in stats
No it doesn't matter. You don't know how he came to his conclusion that he believes it more likely than not. You are inferring so many things from what is actually a very simple definition and then claiming it means something else entirely. I believe on the balance of probability that you have no idea how the law works in this regard but I've seen no actual proof to show that that's the case and so while I can describe the statement I just made as substantially true, in reality I haven't found or proven anything. You are doing the same thing as someone who claims an acquittal proved they were innocent.