Tbf I'm unhappy that Depp is playing gigs with Jeff Beck, he's fecking awful.
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I've seen a few things saying both the US and UK might be looking at investigating Heard for perjury.
They should definitely investigate and hopefully press charges. Seems like no one gets convicted for it unfortunately
She clearly should be, she’s made an absolute mockery of the law of perjury.
It'd be quite funny if she lied under oath in order to win the trial then have to use the money she wins from Depp to pay for lawyers to deal with potential perjury charges.
Amber Heard and her friend seems to still be horribly obsessed with Depp. I wouldn't be surprised if Amber Heard herself was using that account.
Aye, there are rumors that she’s the one using that account.
Did they break up? They seem thick as thieves so thought they were still together.
They do seem well suited to each other.
Deleted my post. My post was about Bianca Butti but I see now that you’re referring to Eve Barlow, yeah? Seems like they’re just friends but the use of girlfriend confused me.
I think she’s also still pending a potential perjury trial in AUS as well. Going to need that money.
Haha yup
At the risk of being accused of being biased, do you think that only Heard has potentially perjured herself, and not Depp?
It seems fairly likely that Depp has lied about a few things on the stand as well but i think his lies would be harder to prove than Heard's. As @tomaldinho1 said i think she's facing investigations in Australia as well so that's 3 separate countries potentially investigating her.
Oh I think he lied plenty but her lies are too obvious and easy to prove as such.
You may well be right. I’m very aware that only a fraction of the available evidence, especially of the digital kind, has not been admitted. Which makes me think that on the balance of probability there is evidence out there which could perjure them both. But we’ll see, I’m making assumptions here, rather than actually asserting that it exists, or even that it would be admissible in the event of a perjury trial.
I’d assume she (like Depp) has been coached to not perjure herself, but perhaps her legal team’s priority was this trial rather than a potential future one that may never happen.
Or she simply is a bigger liar than Depp. If you lie too much you will eventually get caught. She has lied about such stupid things it's unbelievable.
Yep, there’s also that!
She's a pathological liar, having a pathological liar who's an abuser be put under oath is going to lead to some rather hilarious moments.
I pledge that she is telling the truth
We are past her being a liar, she's literally making fake notes in a courtroom filled with cameras broadcasting her to the entire world. It's rather concerning what's going on in her head.
Imagine the jury watching those videos of her doing that in front of them over and over on social media. Gonna be rather weird.
Did she really say "apply to Bruise kit" or something to that effect when discussing her make up routine or is that twitter lies?
She couldn't be that stupid.
She couldn't be that stupid.
I think the term "I won't be holding my breathe" was coined for people who take pledges from people/bedshitters like Amber.
@Moby she's the definition of pathological liar, lies for absolutely no reason, like the note taking, it helps her not one bit taking notes, but does it anyway, it's baffling behaviour but I've come across a few in my time.
Either she was raped by a bottle, or she lied about it.
(not my word)
(not my word)
She had said "bruise kit" then changed it to "theatrical makeup kit" iirc. She probably slipped up there.
I google and these are the same.
I assumed it was a passive aggressive pet name she had for it and it just slipped out. Something about her reaction when she realised she had said it seemed a lot more innocent than a "oh shit, I've been caught lying". We know she's not a good actor.
I should point out that I have a doctorate in behavioural psychology from the University of Feck All.
Sociopaths are actually way more common than people think.
He has clearly lied, but the way he did it (for example the texts) still leaves room for question. Heard clearly lied about many things especially the photos, and there's no room there. Whether she gets pushed on it is another question entirely though.
This should be called a draw, and as I've said all along both feck off from public view. But there's no way this is the last we've seen of this.
Are civil cases appealable? Or you think it will continue via a different channel?
I might be being cynical, but I think this isn't the last we've seen of this. I believe there are appeals, but more than that I think whoever wins will milk it and be using championing domestic abuse to replace the fame lost from the film contracts.
Heard has already done this of course, but I wouldn't put it past either to continue to hurt the cause to further their public view.
Yes. Perjury charges are very rare & only seen in extreme cases. She has lied with near every word leaving her mouth, a lot of them severe & provable as lies. Depp seems to have slight variations in details, such as where he was standing in a particular moment being slightly different to where his bodyguard said etc, these kinds of things wouldn't be considered perjury. If you & a friend recounted an event from 6 years ago, you'd likely present minor differences in detail, that's just memory & not deliberate deception. The main thing Depp seemed to have lied about was the wall-mounted phone & even there it seems like he lied in the UK case rather than this one, stating in the UK case that there was a wall-mounted phone but pictures of the bar before & after seem to disprove that ever being the case. In that case the UK wouldn't go after him for it either as it wouldn't be a serious offence & it was also of very little benefit to him to agree to the presence of a phone that seemingly didn't exist.
That’s very true. My brother who is lawyer told me it’s often very hard to charge someone on perjury, as it could be easily explained by being case of “misspoken” or “misremember” the specific of some past events, which could be common.
Not when said statement matters
If you say you see X killing Y under oath while not being true it's a very clear case of perjury
Off course if the matters are trivial it's a different story whether she said things or not that only serve as a minor background
Seems like the jury sought some clarifications yesterday. Does it give any indication as to what the jury is thinking?
The headline does not mention Depp by name, nor does it claim that Heard was sexually assaulted. All the headline states is that she spoke up against sexual violence and she faced our culture's wrath. At the same time, the Judge did tell the jury to use common sense.
Yeah, the jury will have to assume that the sexual violence being talked about is with regards to Depp.
The whole point of this case, which has gone on for weeks, 68 pages and 238 of your posts is exactly to determine if the speech is protected by the first amendment or not ...
No, it isn't. Even if you ignore all evidence & decide that the statements aren't defamatory then it's still not protected by the first amendment. The first amendment protects you from actions from the state, it does not apply in civil cases.