He walked us through the process of how the article was written to be as obviously damaging to Depp as possible, while trying to stay as within an NDA and defamation laws as possible. That includes redrafts to be more obviously about Depp.
If the dog shits then you must acquit.
I'm not biased! I just think there are people in here looking to invalidate Heard's account primarily because she is a woman.
Not sure if you've read through the entire thread but if you do you'll see it said (among other things) that she's dressed like a tramp, she's riding the #metoo train to fame, that she dated Depp for his lifestyle, that she dated Depp for career advancement, that Depp had no reason to be overly attached to her as she's nothing special in terms of looks (along with a helpful list of Depp's apparently better looking exes to compare her to) and (conversely) that people are only defending her because of her looks.
yeah I haven’t read any of that, so I (sincerely this time) stand corrected
No need to apologise. If I were able to articulate myself as well as @sullydnl it would not have dragged on as long as it did.
I was referring to about 60% of posts to be fair.
Which is the tip of the iceberg really. Even as recently as 2018 he beat up a guy on set in another one of his drug fueled rages.
That part is true but the moment has shifted now. As far as evidence goes, if you follow the case it is not going the way media is reporting it. The evidence at the very least is not at all taking us "far past that". There is substantial evidence Depp was violent and my issue is not even disagreeing with the evidence, but disagreeing with it due to the misogynistic stuff like her reactions, how her facial expressions should be when abused and so on.
I’m not. If you look at my earlier posts in this thread I was defending Depp when people were saying the libel/slander trial in the UK proves he’s a domestic abuse perp and proves Heard is a victim too.
So if people were only judging Depp on his performance you'd consider that man hate? Of course not.
People didn’t really judge Depp based upon his performance, certainly not in the way they are with Heard, which is sort of the point @shamans is making
You have repeatedly claimed that Depp "beat up" a guy on a movie set.
I admit I could be wrong I am giving my opinion of what I read and there's a lot of misinformation out there. That said it still sounds bad. There are also witness accounts (that will be heard soon in this case I believe) of him beating up photographers.
You're judging the character of one person and not the other. Amber Heard is blowing her nose in court which gets scrutinized as snorting coke. Depp is making jokes about his big wine glass while he was wrecking pots and pans but its "good ol' jonny!'
Amber Heard was found guilty in trial by media after she was exposed on tape admitting to committing domestic abuse. If I see a grown man punch a kid in the face or if I hear him on tape saying 'come on I only hit you in the face a few times' then I don't need to sit and listen for the 'full evidence' to know whether he did it 10 times or 1 before I call him a child beater and it's kind of weird that that would be the expectation. Depp was found guilty in a trial by media years ago based on 0 evidence, so the fact that Amber is currently going through what Depp has already gone through on the back of some kind of evidence, is not really a hill to die on.
Name something that has gone against my view and I have pushed hard against? I am only "defending" heard because the overwhelming majority is towards Depp like no other. I'm not going to bring out the obvious flaws and holes in her story when it's been done to death?
Your misunderstanding of Depps UK libel case for one and what the judges ruling actually means, you keep pushing it despite having been shown that the words you are selecting do not mean the thing you keep saying they mean.
Then you are by definition, not providing a balanced view. You are picking a side in what you bring out.
It is a direct admission of domestic abuse, and so it proves more than what has been used by Heard to ruin Depp's career and reputation over the last decade which was nothing more than speculation. You're also doing the same thing here yourself, you're referring to 'reports' that Depp did XYZ like violence on set etc as some kind of indictment in this case and almost inferring that if you once got in a fight with someone then you're not capable of being the victim of domestic abuse as if the two are in any way related. I too have been in fights in my life, it does not make me more likely to have ever abused a woman.
If that comes out, then yes it may but usually you don't do mental gymnastics and jump to horrific eventualities that may or may not ever come up to influence your mindset - you react to what has actually come up so far as the evidence is introduced; such as Heard admitting herself to committing domestic abuse, the witness testimonies, the lies she has been caught in etc.
I agree it sounds bad and i believe that he could be a pretty unpleasant person to work with.
I don't think I misunderstand the UK case. You think I do. If you think that's bias it's on you but I have looked at it in a fair view. I don't think the UK court case makes this an open shut case.
What's the relevance of the bolded exactly? Whether he deserved it or not?.
It's meant to reiterate what I'm saying -- Depp acts weird in courtroom or outside of it and it's all cool but when she does it there is body language analysis.
Zarlak is right, you aren't "balanced" at all. Your last line there speaks to that.
Maybe you can explain then because I don't really understand why people are more sympathetic to Depp. I've been paying some attention to this and to me it seems like they both did shitty, abusive things to each other
It's when you know someone's gone off the deep end.
People are more sympathetic because of a smear campaign against Heard. There has been a lot of misinformation. The general belief is there is no real proof Depp hit or has never lied in this case.
I don't see what's going "off the deep end" for that? Right now there are viral videos of a woman who is not supposedly reacting to abuse the "correct" way being ridiculed on all platforms so I'm comfortable making that claim.
I think it's spot on.
It's because everybody was so quick to jump to her defence and his career was ruined. Then it came out that they are both scumbags and in fact, she is a lying sack of shite, people still rallied behind her and her career remained intact.
"balanced"
for me its the tapes of them fighting
Was his career really ruined? I'm sure if he kept his head down for a couple of years he'd have been back in Hollywood's good books.
Oh don't get me wrong, the stuff she's done to him is awful but, again, is it any worse than what Depp did to her?
Still don't see the relevance. They're independent judgements of seperate people
it appears that way, yes
What misinformation, man? Have you even bothered to listen to the recordings? They're even more damning for Heard than those shown in the trial. Furthermore, Amber Heard actually has history of domestic abuse while Johnny Depp doesn't. Pretty fecking weird that a guy in his 50's would suddenly turn violent despite women in his other relationships suggesting the exact opposite.
