Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts

MichaelRed

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,649
The most telling thing about this whole farce is how she repeatedly tried to obfuscate between the words donate and pledge.

She had 13 months to donate the 7 million dollars to those two charities, repeatedly said that she'd donated the whole sum before this trial (both in public and in court), and continues to act as if she's actually "donated" what she promised.

One might argue that this has nothing to do with the allegations themselves, and I agree. However, I can't take her allegations seriously if she's just flat out lying about something as important as donating to charities.
The judge in the UK trial even cited that in his conclusion. Saying that he believed she was trustworthy & clearly wasn't using JD for money because donating all of the money to charity was not the actions of a gold-digger.

Edit: Also we saw evidence today of a statement AH made when JD donated $100,000 on her behalf where they said "we're happy Johnny has a new-found novel interest in charity work that he'd never previously been interested in.". Yeah, the same Johnny Depp that has done countless amounts of charity work & made many visits to children's hospitals to spend time cheering up these poor children.
 

yumtum

DUX' bumchum
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
7,132
Location
Wales
It’s quite unlikely they were equally abusive, isn’t it?

Both twats, sure..

Both addicts, sure..

Both abusive, yep..

but equally abusive? I don’t see how we could know this?
Still going with the both abusive line? Not sure how anyone could say that with a straight face after all the evidence to the contrary.

And before I get called out for saying he admitted to a headbutt or whatever, it was actually a clash of heads during a scuffle that, going off evidence she instigated.

I've said in this thread before, there's a huge line between self defence and domestic violence and anyone brandishing someone an abuser for defending themselves should have a long look at themselves - men can be victims of domestic violence/abuse without being abusers themselves, the sooner people understand this the better.
 

lsd

The Oracle
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
10,861
They've all written their defences but they're just not hitting 'post reply'. They probably think writing a response and posting a response are synonymous, right?

I just can't :lol:

How on earth did she think she could just get away with saying pledge is the same as donate and not have anyone challenge her on it?
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
14,822
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
The most telling thing about this whole farce is how she repeatedly tried to obfuscate between the words donate and pledge.

She had 13 months to donate the 7 million dollars to those two charities, repeatedly said that she'd donated the whole sum before this trial (both in public and in court), and continues to act as if she's actually "donated" what she promised.

One might argue that this has nothing to do with the allegations themselves, and I agree. However, I can't take her allegations seriously if she's just flat out lying about something as important as donating to charities.
Yes, shows she is a liar, in the worst ways, and also proves that she did benefit financially from her allegations against Depp during the divorce since she kept the money.

She had 13 months where she had the full $6.8m (after Depp made the first payments directly) and wasn't sued and never made the payment.

Depp made the first payment and she demanded it went to her directly, talking rubbish about tax when she would have got both the tax benefit and credit either way. Suggests this was the plan all along.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,629
Location
Sydney
Still going with the both abusive line? Not sure how anyone could say that with a straight face after all the evidence to the contrary.

And before I get called out for saying he admitted to a headbutt or whatever, it was actually a clash of heads during a scuffle that, going off evidence she instigated.

I've said in this thread before, there's a huge line between self defence and domestic violence and anyone brandishing someone an abuser for defending themselves should have a long look at themselves - men can be victims of domestic violence/abuse without being abusers themselves, the sooner people understand this the better.
Yeah okay, I can't say I've followed enough of the trial to say that with any certainty so clearly I shouldn't have said it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,873
Location
Somewhere out there
The most telling thing about this whole farce is how she repeatedly tried to obfuscate between the words donate and pledge.

She had 13 months to donate the 7 million dollars to those two charities, repeatedly said that she'd donated the whole sum before this trial (both in public and in court), and continues to act as if she's actually "donated" what she promised.

One might argue that this has nothing to do with the allegations themselves, and I agree. However, I can't take her allegations seriously if she's just flat out lying about something as important as donating to charities.
Actually it has the upmost importance to the trial and her character. It’s proof she’s manipulative and calculated in every action.
The fact is, she is clearly trying to make out that this trial is what has prevented her from donating the money she pledged, because until she knows the verdict, she does not know if she will have the money. That’s why the 13 months are so important.
Amber Heard knows full well that she’s playing on the conscience of the jurors, in that if she were to lose the trial she would not have the money to be able to fulfil her pledge. The “because Johnny sued me” comment is meant to persuade jurors that nasty vindictive Depp is the thing preventing these charities from receiving her pledge.
She hopes the jurors are stupid and naive enough to believe that an Amber Heard with money, post-trial, will fulfil her pledge despite 13 months of evidence showing her absolutely will not.
 
Last edited:

kouroux

45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
95,999
Location
Djibouti (La terre des braves)
Actually it has the upmost importance to the tria and her character.
The fact is, she is clearly trying to make out that this trial is what has prevented her from donating the money she pledged, because until she knows the verdict, she does not know if whe will have the money. That’s why the 13 months are so important.
Amber Heard knows full well that she’s playing on the conscience of the jurors, in that if she were to lose the trial she would not have the money to be able to fulfil her pledge.
She hopes the jurors are stupid and naive enough to believe that an Amber Heard with money, post-trial, will fulfil her pledge.
I know the clip cut after they mentionned the 13 months but what was said afterwards ? How does she explain sitting on that money for that period of time ?
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
14,822
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
I know the clip cut after they mentionned the 13 months but what was said afterwards ? How does she explain sitting on that money for that period of time ?
A good question for redirect. Be interesting if she has a believable answer or if she escapes this cross with any credibility.
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
9,888
Yea, amazed that a teacup yorkie pooped out half of its own bodyweight. Also her explanation that it was JD's fault for leaving weed around & the dog ate it & developed a life-long bowel problem from it was just BS. I asked 4 vets if that was possible & they all told me no way.
My dog can curl some proper king Kong's fingers out of her small body, crazy where she stores it all.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence showing Heard did in fact crap on the bed, which is disappointing for many.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,873
Location
Somewhere out there
I know the clip cut after they mentionned the 13 months but what was said afterwards ? How does she explain sitting on that money for that period of time ?
She doesn’t. She blames being sued, attempts to fool everyone into believing “pledged” is the same as “donated”, no matter how many times she gets asked.
Surely the judge should have asked for a yes or no answer.

They may ask straight out why she sat on the money, but I’m not sure that helps their case, rather it gives Heard another chance to try lying her way out of it or at least instil some doubt.
 

NicolaSacco

Full Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Messages
2,316
Supports
Ipswich
She doesn’t. She blames being sued, attempts to fool everyone into believing “pledged” is the same as “donated”, no matter how many times she gets asked.
Surely the judge should have asked for a yes or no answer.

They may ask straight out why she sat on the money, but I’m not sure that helps their case, rather it gives Heard another chance to try lying her way out of it.
I’d think that that is exactly what they’d want to happen though. Let her lie under oath and then expose it.
 

harshad

Play the odds, not the man - Poor man's Harvey
Scout
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
11,883
Location
On a long road that returns to Old Trafford!!!
A good question for redirect. Be interesting if she has a believable answer or if she escapes this cross with any credibility.
Read somewhere that she had an arrangement for paying in installments, which would be completely understandable, except for her making statements that she has donated the money she received from Depp upon their divorce.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,873
Location
Somewhere out there
I’d think that that is exactly what they’d want to happen though. Let her lie under oath and then expose it.
Not sure they can expose every lie. She’ll likely bullshit that she was worried she could get sued, or that she needed to be more certain of her work situation after the divorce, needed to get housing and lots of other things in order etc.

Better for Depp’s team to concentrate on the straight out lie under oath, “my entire divorce settlement has been donated”, and show the jurors that a) she lied and b) she had 13 months to pay it before the lawsuit.
 

Gandalf Greyhame

If in doubt, follow your nose!
Scout
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
7,454
Location
Red Card for Casemiro!
The most telling thing about this whole farce is how she repeatedly tried to obfuscate between the words donate and pledge.

She had 13 months to donate the 7 million dollars to those two charities, repeatedly said that she'd donated the whole sum before this trial (both in public and in court), and continues to act as if she's actually "donated" what she promised.

One might argue that this has nothing to do with the allegations themselves, and I agree. However, I can't take her allegations seriously if she's just flat out lying about something as important as donating to charities.
At the heart of it, this case feels like a he said /she said, and the jury has to decide between the veracity of both. This lie about charity donation can lead them to strongly believe that you can't trust what she says under oath. It hurts her credibility, and in her words, that's all she has.

You're left only with the he said, in that case.
 

MichaelRed

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,649
My dog can curl some proper king Kong's fingers out of her small body, crazy where she stores it all.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence showing Heard did in fact crap on the bed, which is disappointing for many.
The driver testified to her joking about leaving a surprise in the bed.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,045
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
The most telling thing about this whole farce is how she repeatedly tried to obfuscate between the words donate and pledge.

She had 13 months to donate the 7 million dollars to those two charities, repeatedly said that she'd donated the whole sum before this trial (both in public and in court), and continues to act as if she's actually "donated" what she promised.

One might argue that this has nothing to do with the allegations themselves, and I agree. However, I can't take her allegations seriously if she's just flat out lying about something as important as donating to charities.
I don't think pledge or wanted to donate and going back on donation is a court material. At best it's all about reputation.

I'm still on Johny side on all this.
 

Balljy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
3,324
I don't think pledge or wanted to donate and going back on donation is a court material. At best it's all about reputation.

I'm still on Johny side on all this.
The problem for Heard is that she previously said she had donated under oath in a different court case. That's a nightmare for her in this one as she s proven to be someone who has lied before to the court and not trustworthy. That's not withstanding the legal ramifications of doing that.
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
14,822
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
If he wants to pay it has to be immediate and double the agreement so he cannot benefit or come up with an excuse to not pay, but I want it paid to me so I can get the tax benefit or lie about my finances to not pay.

Also I am not the reason why the charities are short $4m
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,045
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
The problem for Heard is that she previously said she had donated under oath in a different court case. That's a nightmare for her in this one as she s proven to be someone who has lied before to the court and not trustworthy. That's not withstanding the legal ramifications of doing that.
Yes that's perjury. But the not donating part is hardly enforceable.

I honestly cant see her winning this. But between American justice system and the jury we'll never know.

For what it's worth i dont think amber herself expected Johny to fight back at the court. Not much she can do fixing her own plot hole against a bonafide lawyer. It's not easy to fabricate lies when your opponent is not lionel hutz
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
9,888
The driver testified to her joking about leaving a surprise in the bed.
Oooooh, hard evidence! From Deppos security guard no less. Did he witness the act? A lucky man if so...

Did Deppo have DNA evidence that it was human like he claimed he was going to?
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,629
Location
Sydney
I guess he lawyer trained her to say all that pledge nonsense

I can’t imagine they didn’t discuss what to say when it was brought up
 

Balljy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
3,324
Yes that's perjury. But the not donating part is hardly enforceable.

I honestly cant see her winning this. But between American justice system and the jury we'll never know.

For what it's worth i dont think amber herself expected Johny to fight back at the court. Not much she can do fixing her own plot hole against a bonafide lawyer. It's not easy to fabricate lies when your opponent is not lionel hutz
I'd love to see Boris Johnson cross examined by Depp's lawyers.
 

UpWithRivers

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
3,649
I have 2 things to say -

1) Why is Elon dating this lunatic? Doesnt say much about him
2) Is it just me or is Depps lawyer super hot.
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,570
Men in this thread: We're not misogynistic!
Also men in this thread: Wow that lawyer is hot
 

Glorio

Full Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
4,575
Men in this thread: We're not misogynistic!
Also men in this thread: Wow that lawyer is hot
Is calling a woman hot misogynistic?
Depends (really).

What's more important though is this revelation would suggest that I've suffered untold and unrelenting levels of persistent misandry (thanks Google) from myriads of women all my life.

I need a hug
 

lefty_jakobz

I ❤️ moses
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
3,648
“I use pledge and donation synonymously”

“I haven't been able to fulfil those pledges because i’ve been sued”

AH must be psychic to know she was getting sued roughly 13 months after getting her divorce settlement, and thats why she didn't donate the money. :lol:
 

lefty_jakobz

I ❤️ moses
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
3,648
Elon Musk tried to buy Twitter so he could auto correct Amber Turd to Amber Heard, no one wants to be dating a Turd after all, (unless said turd can be vomited - as a party piece)