- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 36,003
- Location
- None of your business mate
- Supports
- The greatest team in history
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yes, we are.Just when I thought this thread couldn’t get any worse we’re now getting an abbreviation of Depp’s name that has one more letter than the real one.
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.Question is - DID she get beaten. And IMO, that's a hard no. I assume you've never been punched or you wouldn't be so gullible as to believe that a small dark spot is indicative of a punch. There's a reason why the defence is grasping at straws when it comes to Johnny being abusive and the biggest thing they've come up with so far is that Johnny is an alcohol addict and a photo of a small dark spot under her eye accompanied with a cut on her lip.
At any rate I think the recording tapes are pretty clear as to who initiates the fights and that Johnny's first instinct is to run away, even confirmed by Amber in those tapes. I don't know why people are still debating on this.
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”.Question is - DID she get beaten. And IMO, that's a hard no. I assume you've never been punched or you wouldn't be so gullible as to believe that a small dark spot is indicative of a punch. There's a reason why the defence is grasping at straws when it comes to Johnny being abusive and the biggest thing they've come up with so far is that Johnny is an alcohol addict and a photo of a small dark spot under her eye accompanied with a cut on her lip.
At any rate I think the recording tapes are pretty clear as to who initiates the fights and that Johnny's first instinct is to run away, even confirmed by Amber in those tapes. I don't know why people are still debating on this.
Tatjana Patitz, Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell , Polina Glen = famous models Depp dated. Winona Ryder, Sherilynn Fenn, Jennifer Grey, Juliette Lewis, Vanessa Paradis = famous actresses/singers Depp dated. In this context, Amber Heard is nothing special. If you seriously think a handsome, world famous movie star with tens of millions of dollars can’t get a hot young girlfriend, I don’t know what to tell you.
We will see what the courts decide. US and UK laws are very different on this. My suspicion is that they were both high strung and volatile, they both abused alcohol and drugs, and they both were horrible to each other. Their marriage was full of drama, but I don’t think Depp is a wifebeater, which is a pretty shitty thing to be. This is all out in the open, so she’s got nothing to hide now, and if he really did beat her there should be a criminal case and she should press charges. She’s probably no better and no worse than he is, so it makes sense he’s trying to salvage his reputation.
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.Is it wrong that I really don’t give a shit about this whole circus?
Why are you coming into the thread then?Is it wrong that I really don’t give a shit about this whole circus?
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 placeI'm so confused by your posts. Firstly sending pictures of Rihanna's domestic abuse. What are you trying to prove? "THIS IS HOW A WOMEN IS SUPPOSED TO BE BEATEN?"
That's not how you measure domestic abuse, you don't compare one injury to another ffs. Just because she didn't look like 11th Round Rocky Balboa doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't deny Amber started fights but that doesn't mean she wasn't abused by Johnny, it's not that one is right and one is wrong.
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: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.
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.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”.
To ask the question.Why are you coming into the thread then?
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..
And yes he has most definitely beat her. Only question is who instigated and who did it worse.
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.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
No I'm pretty sure that's the healthy viewpoint.Is it wrong that I really don’t give a shit about this whole circus?
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.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.
Yeah he lost millions so he is not powerful anymoreYeah 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.
I don't know who is speaking of incels. Certainly not me or anyone on this thread. I am seeing two majority opinions: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.
Agree. I think this sense of injustice has brought out more in favour of Depp than would ordinarily be the case.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 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.I am seeing two majority opinions:
1) Depp is innocent. Didn't hit her. She was abusive.
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.Agree. I think this sense of injustice has brought out more in favour of Depp than would ordinarily be the case.
If you look at any piece of evidence on it's own it won't work but add up all of this: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.
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?Ok maybe Incel was an exaggeration but there are posts along the lines of "Would you prefer if she was beaten to a pulp?".
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.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?
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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.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.
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.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
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.Not really understanding what your trying to say here.
Any court of law is based around either what a jury or what a judge deems to have happened based on the evidence.
In this case the judge found what was being written about Depp (wife beater etc) to he substantially true based on the evidence given at the trial.
Are we to discredit that? Are we to discredit the fact that he lost his right to appeal as he wouldn't have stood a chance based on the evidence? Are we to discredit the fact that they wanted to appeal not based on the fact that Depp didn't hit her, but on the fact that the judge would have been swayed by a charitable donation?
Are we to discredit the fact that Depp admitted to headbutting Heard in court?
You have it half correct but despite calling my viewpoint "moronic" let me explain to you.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.
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.Both parties were violant to each other:
Bold matters. 14 incidents and 12 of them, even if they are 50%.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 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 that does not in any way shape or form mean that it's been proven that tomorrow is going to be a sunny day 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.
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.Bold matters. 14 incidents and 12 of them, even if they are 50%.
In terms of probability that makes the odds of none of the incidents happening 0.00024414062%
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
Also by going into these statistics you seem to be under the misunderstanding that the balance of probabilities means that more than 50% of the evidence submitted was some kind of hard proof. The 50% refers to the judges mindset, not the 'evidence' shown. If the judges mindset is that he believes it's 50.01% likely to have happened then it's referred to as substantially true. How the judge came to that belief that it's 50.01% likely to have happened and 49.99% likely to have not happened does not speak to anything evidence related that you can then start providing statistics about. This was not a criminal trial, did not require anywhere near the burden of proof that a criminal trial requires, but you're talking as if the standards applied were in any way similar. This was simply a case to see whether the Sun could print the words they printed and the judges verdict was essentially 'meh, I believe it's more likely to have happened than not to have happened, so I'll allow the Sun to say that' but nothing was proven, nothing was decided to be true but you're running with it and inferring things that shouldn't be inferred.Bold matters. 14 incidents and 12 of them, even if they are 50%.
In terms of probability that makes the odds of none of the incidents happening 0.00024414062%
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