She didn't even go to the UK court. Depp did. Depp had a better chance of winning in UK btw
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
Anyone still defending her is an absolute clown, she's a deeply disturbed sicko. Mens lives get ruined all the time by women like her who get away with this nonsense. She has also done no favours at all to those who truly suffer domestic abuse.
Absolute nonsense. In the UK court the judges decide whether you're guilty or not. In the US it's based on a jury of people. The reason why the first trial was in the UK was because Depp was suing the Sun. The Sun is a British newspaper. In this trial he is suing Heard directly, hence - it takes places in the US.,
Josh Drew's testimony has been Amber Heard's best evidence so far
TBF that's correct - he filed a suit vs a newspaper not Heard in the UK case for publishing an article stating he was a DA perpretrator. He lost vs the paper despite no criminal evidence to support the way they framed him as a "wife-beater". Doesnt change the fact though she had no evidence then and doesnt now. The judge simply believed her because he wanted to. Would never hold up in a criminal court
As his lawyer stated publicly
"Most troubling is the judge's reliance on the testimony of Amber Heard, and corresponding disregard of the mountain of counter-evidence from police officers, medical practitioners, her own former assistant, other unchallenged witnesses and an array of documentary evidence which completely undermined the allegations, point by point."
Stunned that Heard's sister has been allowed to testify.
She did a deposition for the defence and ran off sick before she was able to do so for Depp's team and never rearranged.
She did a deposition for the defence and ran off sick before she was able to do so for Depp's team and never rearranged.
How do you know she lied? I have no idea whether it’s true or not but you are stating with certainty that it can’t be true. And, frankly, you’re emotionally invested in attacking everything she says, I don’t think you’re even trying to be impartial. You aren’t the only one to be fair but there’s something really sinister about this.
Are those who are blindly supporting AH even watching the trial? Shes lying over and over and you lot still believe her???
She wont shag any of you lot, you know this right?
She wont shag any of you lot, you know this right?
If I'm wrong about this I'm open to admitting I misunderstood. This is what I have understood and got from Google:
"Libel: In the US, if someone accuses you of lying about them in print and sues you, they need to prove that what you said was false. UK libel law reverses the burden of proof: when suing someone for libel, it's up to the defendant to prove that what they said was true."
The sun had to prove what they said was true, which is more difficult to do than someone else busting their story.
In other words the "rumor spreader" has a more difficult job of proving their rumors are true.
One of the main reasons it's harder to sue for defamation in the US is that for a public figure you must prove actual malice.
That means proving that they know its not true, or to be so reckless to it to be liable.
For Heard, unless she is literally going to argue delusion she would know if the claims are not true.
That means proving that they know its not true, or to be so reckless to it to be liable.
For Heard, unless she is literally going to argue delusion she would know if the claims are not true.
I mentioned this a while back in relation to the UK case, but the judge involved wrote a textbook on Media Law, is known as being friendly to free expression principles and in favour of libel reform, and has regularly had his judgments overturned on appeal. The fact the Court of Appeal denied an appeal hearing does not mean that the High Court judgment was correct.
Nothing about what I have just said proves Depp isn't a domestic abuser, but equally it doesn't mean that the UK judgment proves that he is, especially given the context.
You dont know. That's why in law you need proof and visum. You cant just claim such and such. And to be raped by blunt object is not something you can say it happened without any actual proof.
1 person words is as good as the other
Rocky (wife at the time?) contradicted his testimony saying under oath that she wasn't touched.
Was it not reviewed by 3 seperate judges ? An appeal was denied because it would have been a waste of time. Depp didn't have a case.
If we don't know why conclude it's a lie? I'm not sure myself but what if it did happen?
He also took his deposition before he knew about the bodycam which contradicts him.
He came across well by contrast to others though
She said it happened and can't prove it. The onus is on her to come up with a proof. No proof or debunked is a indication of lie.
That's how our court system works basically.
You can't lock people up based on what if it did happen. And at this stage a man's life is st stake. It's not some harmless if. Accusing people of raping with a blunt object could land you in prison for a long time and there should be consequences if it's a lie.
The bodycam isn't admitted I think for some reason.He also took his deposition before he knew about the bodycam which contradicts him.
He came across well by contrast to others though
Permission to appeal is reviewed by a single judge at the Court of Appeal. It is only heard by three judges if there is a hearing. Lord Justice Underhill refused permission on the basis of there being no real prospect of success and there was no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
The "real prospect of success" is a prospect of succeeding in establishing one's case at trial, a task which is more onerous for the claimant.
Essentially the Court of Appeal judge deciding on a PTA, looking at the trial judge's ruling, will first determine whether the trial judge has made any errors of law, and then consider whether the judge's conclusions were reasonable ones to make.
The compelling reason relates to whether there is a compelling question of law that would benefit from an appellate decision, which clearly was not an issue in this case.
Oh I quite agree about one persons word, I’m not believing Heard over Depp, or Depp over Heard, but the person I was replying to was doing exactly that. In the absence of actual knowledge of the situation they had already decided.
And I hope you aren’t suggesting that IF somebody has been raped they wouldn’t be allowed to testify to that in court unless they could prove it?
I’ve not seen anyone, anyone at all saying he should be locked up because what if. It did happen! Literally no one on this thread has said that.
How long is this trial expected to go on for?
This is not a single incident. So you cant simply ignore Heard inconsistency in her other statement. Our law is human, we do not have divine foresight so yes consistentcy and history matters and proof matters.
You're not suggesting that we locked people up if they claim they've been raped and can't provide evidence dont you? Being imprisoned for false accusations isnt something you can casually dish out just because it might happened if she says so
If this is jane vs john doe and we heard nothing else it's still something you need to prove. And if the accusations is made it simply meant that either one is a rapist or one is s lying evil prick. There's no two ways about it.
60 years.
One would hope that if Depp loses this trial as well that there would be some level of criminal investigation.
We are an outlier in the UK having no statute of limitations for any indictable offence (the equivalent of a felony). Not sure about statutes of limitation in US states etc.
Well said
Again, you seem to have come to the view that I think Depp should be jailed because of an unproven claim. I have never said that and no one on this thread has said that. I’m saying Heard should be allowed to give testimony on what happened EVEN IF she can’t prove it. That’s how testimony works. Lack of proof is not proof of lying.
That’s absolutely nothing sinister in having serious issues believing a word that comes out of a proven domestic abuser and pathological lier’s mouth.
She’s been proven to be a pretty awful individual during the trial and has absolutely zero credibility. That’s not sinister, it her own actions.
He had so many freeloaders around himself.
I agree with most of that. But I also do believe it will be harmful from the other side of the spectrum. What I mean by that is I do believe AH has lied about some or lot of the stuff here, but I also do believe there was mutual abuse in that relationship. So, this sanctification/almost celebration of JD along with crassness with which the allegations of abuse has been discussed in public almost to the point of normalization hasn't felt right to me and won't be good for the cause. And this intentional or unintentional PR playbook from JD's side i.e. attack, meme-ify, attack, meme-ify and so on is sure to be weaponized in the future cases when a high profile person is involved.
Why do Amber Heard supporters repeatedly claim that there's evidence for certain things when we find out that none of this evidence consists of primary source material (firsthand witnesses, audio recordings etc.) and instead of secondhand accounts of what Heard told others?
Depp admitting to head butting her on tape is an audio recording is it not?
I think she comes across very badly. And I don’t find her overly trustworthy. But annoying, duplicitous people can be sexually assaulted too. It’s not only whiter than white people to whom this can happen.
Equally, hasn’t Depp been proven to be a domestic abuser and liar? In the court case in the UK for example.
I may have picked it up wrong but did he admit to headbutting her or that they accidentally butted heads?
Johnny wins either way, he gets the story out and everything I’ve seen/read points to her being a massive fecking psycho.
One thing is absolutely certain she’s a liar, the evidence she gave made it sound like he he smashed her face in yet when shown pictures from events at the time claimed makeup covered the blows….yeah right.
One thing is absolutely certain she’s a liar, the evidence she gave made it sound like he he smashed her face in yet when shown pictures from events at the time claimed makeup covered the blows….yeah right.
So you agree she lies, have seen proof of her domestic abuse, have seen lots of proof of her pathological lying, yet “also believe” JD is mutually at fault?
Based on? The pathological liers stories?
My reply was to someone who said why do supporters support when there is no evidence. The question here is not evidence. there is evidence but depending on what you believe you will accept or deny it.
Pictures: bruises aren't "real" enough
Testimonies: can't be relied upon. Free loaders
Depps texts: just month python jokes
Depps statements on audio: taken out of context
Depp's history with drug and alcohol: unrelated
and so on. If you believe Amber Heard you will see enough evidence. You think she is lying, every piece of evidence barring an actual video of violence will probably not be enough.
Need something a bit stronger than that describing this woman. She is batshit crazy dangerous
Does eveything have to be black and white? Yes, I believe she has lied and/or exaggerated stories, doesn't mean everything she has said has to be completely false.
In this conversation he says we had physical fights. He doesn't say you hit me and being fair she doesn't say "no you hit me".
From this conversation it is clear to me at least they both had fights and the story of him being a saint suffering physical abuse is false.
Also:
"I headbutted you in the fecking forehead. That doesn't break a nose".