Are you Heard's Chief of PR or something? Why are you so adamant in defending her contrary to all evidence? We can see that Depp is extremely careful with his words when it comes to Amber and often times he blames himself for situations, such as the one with his finger were he claims when he "lost his finger" without even blaming Heard for it. And we know he didn't "cut his finger" or his finger somehow "fell off" because in the hospital tapes she flat out admits it, so did Jerry. In this tape he says "I headbutted you on the forehead" but he doesn't say he did it on purpose or not. During his stand he said it was accidental. And I do think it was accidental because you'd have to be stupid to headbutt someone on the forehead. If a headbutt is intentional, it would be done on the bridge of the nose. It's more likely he was trying to restrain her and their heads accidentally met. And Amber being hysterical about everything blames him for legit headbutting her. Such as in that one recording were she says "he hit her and was afraid of her life" while Johnny simply replies "Amber... I just pushed you".
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
Don't shift the goalposts now. I have been saying since the beginning that I believe they are both abusive to each other.
Someone asks me how on earth I can believe Depp is abusive when there is no evidence at all that he has been. I share some clips of what I perceive to be evidence and your response is
"Are you Heard's Chief of PR or something?".
Your current response to this is "he headbutt her by mistake" which imo is all your opinion as to why it's a mistake. In the evidence, he clearly admits to headbutting her. Like I have said, you can come up with an excuse for every piece of evidence to throw it out.
My point is, which you seem to be ignoring, is that we have no idea if the headbutt was intentional or not. We know about the headbutt from the first few days. Johnny claims it was an accident. In this recording he doesn't say he purposefully headbutted her and she is the one who brought it up. I find it highly unlikely to believe it was intentional if he headbutted her on the forehead because that's simply stupid on so many levels.
If you’re solely interested in one outcome then you will find just enough information to back up that preconception. Every headbutt being on the bridge of the nose, for example. That’s pure speculation on your part and is, I’m sure, demonstrably not the case. Not saying the headbutt did or didn’t happen, but you’ve gone out of your way to only believe one scenario.
Its funny my wife is genuinely doing the same thing.
She seems absolutely disgusted with Amber Heard and thinks this is a step back for women that have been abused. I haven't paid that much attention to this trial but my wife and her girlfriends are glued to it. Been noticing alot of women who just don't believe her and are gutted about the damage this is causing
And it’s inconceivable to you that Depp might have done something that was ‘stupid on so many levels’? You’re so sure that he couldn’t have, in any state of inebriation, that the only acceptable answer to you is to dismiss it as a lie.
He's not gonna shag you mate
Thanks for the info, not as read up on the case and am just reading comments to catch up.
Think I’ll pledge my mortgage payment this month. I’m sure the bank will understand.
No, it's my point that you are ignoring. I provided evidence and you disagree with that evidence.
What you are saying, about his headbutt being "not intentional" is complete heresay. There is absolutely not evidence that that was a mistake in any of the recordings.
You're just grasping on straws here in this case. You have no way of knowing it was unintentional but you chose to believe it. That's the core of it. You aren't fairly evaluating the case but sticking to a side and trying to prove it.
Also, I'd suggest looking at the UK trial document that is officially out there. That is without any internet commentary and a judges ruling. You can make your own mind up after reading it and I believe presents both sides fairly.
And the award for the least self-aware caf poster goes to...
Very interesting article by a Virginia lawyer about the case, including the UK case. The judge only had to determine if the paper did their due diligence to confirm the allegations, not whether they were completely true or not, for example. The location is tactical too, he could have sued her in the UK.
“As such, these two trials are about COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in all legal senses.
You see, Johnny Depp was suing a NEWSPAPER, and a newspaper is not REQUIRED to get everything right as a general rule when it comes to defamation trials. Instead, newspapers are generally safe, so long as they don’t do one of two things:
- Purposefully get facts wrong that damages someone’s reputation [called “actual malice”], or
- Not exercise due diligence in investigating whether the things they report are false [called “knew or should have known it to be false”].
And based on what Amber Heard had publicly stated, the Sun (without commenting on the general standards of that newspaper or the truthfulness of the allegations) had “good reason” to believe that Johnny Depp was a “wife beater.” Why? Because his ex-wife was throwing SERIOUS HINTS that he was a “wife beater” when they published the story. Amber Heard testified in that trial because she was A WITNESS, not because she was a defendant.
The judgement in the UK wasn’t making claims about whether Johnny’s alleged abuse of Amber Heard ACTUALLY did or did not happen. Instead, the question before the judge was whether the Sun had good reason to think so. And no matter what your opinion of Amber Heard or Johnny Depp is, Amber Heard is THE PERFECT person to serve as a witness to the alleged abuse by Johnny Depp.
Unless, of course…. ….she’s totally lying.”
https://jcalebjones.com/2022/05/17/the-johnny-depp-trial-explained-by-a-virginia-lawyer/
But that was not the only thing used. I more or less agree with the rest of what you said and what the case was but evidence was used from photos, to text messages, medical records and eye witness testimonies.
You can disagree with the judgment but I've seen the judge "only believed what Heard said" thrown around which is not true. The evidence was believed in which case there was enough for the sun to post what they did. You are free to disagree with that.
Been a good day for Heard so far.
She testified in the UK case.
That’s not correct, the Sun only had to show they did they due diligence trying to see if it’s true. See my post 1373.
That's nonsense. If you're trying to actively headbutt someone, you'd at least go for the nose. Even if the head itself doesn't land perfectly, it should still land somewhere around that area. A forehead headbutt will hurt you more than the other person, if we are being honest and not something anyone would do. Even a little kid. Of course it is speculation on my part, but then again nobody of us can be entirely sure what Johnny meant by that. Because there is a vast difference between him headbutting her intentionally and them accidentally butting their heads in a scuffle, right? Because it could just as easily have been the latter
Very funny. Just because I do not accept this absolute nonsense as definitive proof or something? For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would defend Amber. You really have to be some delusional man hater or something to try and continue with this charade in contrast to all the evidence.
What evidence, my man? You've provided something that can be easily interpreted in 2 ways and only two people know what exactly happened in that situation - one of them is claiming on purpose while the other one is saying it was accidental. Yes, I have no way of knowing it was unintentional, but so do you have no way of knowing it WAS intentional. So we might as well be going in circles here.
Don't think we needed a witness to tell us that Heard struggles to cry while acting.
I don’t know if that’s correct or not. But it wasn’t a case about finding out the truth or not, but whether the paper has enough info to have the right to publish. Which they did.
So what is it. Am I a "man hater" or interpreting evidence in another way (i.e not #justice4Johnny!!!1 )
They concluded the paper contacted enough people that claimed corroboration to have the right to print the allegations.
Ok thanks for the explanation.
Because that is what Depp was suing them for. Defamation. The court ruled it was not. So you are right but that is not something new.
You quoted me saying "that's not true" about the difference of proving defamation in U.S vs U.K but I'm not sure what you meant. My statement, which was copy pasted, is factually true with how a defamation case is proved.
It was easier for Depp to win in UK because the pressure is on the sun but they were able to prove enough evidence to show they had not cooked up their stories out of nothing. This was in 10 incidents of domestic abuse.
That's not saying "yep, he's guilty" but it's not insignificant either.
Didn't the Heard team make a motion to dismiss based on the UK outcome and got absolutely arseholed by the judge for it?
I don't think this is quite accurate. The document is public you just have to google "uk defemation case johnny depp verdict". It's a massive document but it's full of the judge making judgements based on looking at the evidence and concluding "abuse took place here".
Why not both? You haven't admitted a single thing Heard did wrong and instead try to pin the blame on Johnny, usually accompanied with the "both sides" rhetoric. On my part, I'm not justice4johnny or whatever, I've already said he is a massive feck up of a man with his drug and alcohol addiction and he is not a man any woman would want (aside from his money). But that doesn't mean he was violent or he deserved absolute lies of extreme physical and emotional abuse to be spread about him. And if Heard disliked his drug and alcohol addiction so much, maybe she shouldn't have participated so thoroughly into it and instead actively supported him in quitting.
Last edited:
Didn't the UK judge also believe the poop in the bed was done by the dog?
The UK case wasnt based on what Amber did, moreso on what Deppo did. Hence the reason no one really gave abuse against Deppo a second thought.
But abuse is abuse, and Deppo seems as guilty as Heard.
On the other hand, in a case where a young woman has been raped, the last people you'd want on a jury (or as lay judges, depending on the justice system) are middle aged women, so I'd be a bit hesitant with the gender thing unqualified.
This witness has just contradicted Heard on Australia, Whitney contradicted Amber on the stair incident and two others contradicted each other about Hoax-gate, but overall a good day for Heard.
They can't use it because she admits to Jerry who is now dead. You can't bring him into this because he can't be cross-examined over the exchange.
Yes in his judgement he did based on medical records, texts, and the fact johnny was away for two weeks. That's what I recall reading.
How am I bringing up "both sides" and not admitting to anything heard did wrong? How's that even possible? Answer: It's not. Check my posts on this thread I have been clear.
Amazed people are still responding to shamans tbh. I had to put him on ignore the second he tried quoting a r/deuxmoi post as evidence for Amber. Seriously, anyone that spends 5 minutes on that conspiracy subreddit can literally feel their IQ bleeding out of their brain.
Yeah, I'm not sure I'd be taking his other judgements seriously after that.
What did you make of today?
Damaging to JD's case if the trial ended today but I actually think overall it will be good for JD. Each testimony in isolation seemed damaging but they were all contradicting each other & I'm sure that will be highlighted in Depp's rebuttal case at the end. I know people are saying Whitney was damaging for Depp & that might be in part due to the fact that she called in sick for her deposition with Depp's side, which I believe should have been grounds enough to forbid her from giving testimony, but I think Depp's team played her near perfectly. They established that she would defend Amber & Amber would defend her & they established that she is friends with and confided in Jennifer Howell. Jennifer Howell will likely be used in rebuttal & blow everything out of the water for Amber's team.
If you're not familiar with Jennifer Howell then here's some info. She was Whitney's former boss & let Whitney live with her for 11 months because Whitney moved out of the penthouse with Amber, confiding in Howell that she had to leave because Amber was constantly beating her. Howell has texts from Whitney saying "She's really done it now, she's cut off his fecking finger!!". Whitney told Howell that Amber was attacking her on the stairs & that Johnny did not hit or attempt to push Whitney down the stairs. There are texts from Howell to Whitney, urging her not to lie under oath & then expressing her disappointment after Whitney did lie under oath in the UK case. Howell told Whitney that she was also going to testify & that she would tell the truth because she wanted Whitney to escape from Amber's abuse, to which Whitney responded by urging Howell not to testify for Johnny. Howell has even been speaking over these past few weeks about attempts to intimidate her & showed on her Instagram stories how her home, on a 10th floor, had been broken into using power tools to drill through the door & her home had been destroyed but nothing was stolen. She has said she has had enough of this family of abusers lies & will clear her name after the slander from Whitney about her.
There's even video footage of a reality TV show that was recorded, but ultimately not released, where Whitney is covered in bruises & the other people on the show are asking why she lets Amber beat her up like that. I doubt that this footage will come in but, honestly, if we get all the testimony & evidence from Howell on rebuttal I think that will be such a bombshell that will finish off any remnant of hope for Amber's case.
I have to say, I do love Whitney's defence of the situation. Claiming that the producers of the show came up with the idea of a fake story of Amber beating up Whitney. Hell of a coincidence that they came up with a story of domestic abuse & just happened to choose Whitney to be the victim of Amber for their storyline. Don't think even Lennie Small would buy that story.