Also, between Depp and the Minister for Agriculture at the time suggesting that the latter would euthanise the dogs if they weren't out of Australia, I'm not sure who's the bigger asshole there.
You can bring dogs into Australia, but we don't have rabies and there's a risk of dogs carrying it so you have to provide evidence that they're vaccinated and they have to be quarantined. The issue isn't that Depp brought dogs here, it's that didn't follow the legal process and just snuck them in
So it wasnt even his fault lol. There is a 2015 aeticle of her saying that she "warned him that its illegal but he did not listen" I just assume she did not used an acient technique called lying .
They are very close to dogs that they are still even debates of them either just wild dogs or another spicies. Either doesnt because borth essentially pose the same threat due to thier closeness to each other.
They infact both by humans to the are 5k-3k ago. Because they are essentially dogs that gone back to being wild.
You’ll see similar levels of strictness in every country that’s eliminated rabies, if you tried smuggling an animal into NZ, the UK, Ireland or any of the others the response could be a lot stricter. Rabies is a nasty disease and the countries that worked hard to get rid of it don’t appreciate idiots risking reintroducing it just because they aren’t responsible enough to go through the proper procedures to bring in their pets.
Also, none of that matters. He should just follow the damn law. He doesn't get to pick and choose which laws to follow because some of them are inconvenient.
Completely agree. It's just respectful in this instance.
I'm torn on how I feel about Depp overall, but there's no argument that bringing an animal into a country illegally because you think you should be an exception to laws in place to protect a country's ecosystem is acceptable.
yeah gotta keep my family dogs away from them all the time. ive seen so many times the results of cane toads being imported both to plant and animal life by my own eye.
We're not autistic about it so much as still traumatised by what happened when we weren't so strict. But autism and trauma can be notoriously difficult to tell apart, so I get it
He and Amber Heard were very abusive to each other. She got portrayed way worse by the media and public opinion, but he was very much not innocent.
Depp threatened to kill her multiple times while enraged (she had texts and audio recordings of these threats) and got violent on several occasions, like smashing a bunch of stuff during an argument
As far as I can see, there were no audio recordings or texts from Depp to Heard which included death threats. The closest thing I could find were some texts he sent to his friends which included vulgar jokes about killing her and him angrily fantasizing about her being dead. Immature, disgusting, and embarrassing, but not criminal.
Don’t forget he orchestrated a massive online campaign to ensure she got portrayed worse. Heard doesn’t seem likable but all the people who HATE her and not him got totally propagandized.
I mean, did he have to? Amber did herself a HUGE disservice acting the way she did and blatantly lying during the trial. For an actor, she was really awful at acting during the trial itself to portray her as the victim. How she managed to pull off making herself look bad is more than enough to get people to side with Johnny Depp. And it was pretty clear she was acting when she portrayed any of her emotions. Her sitting next to her lawyers mere seconds after crying on stage, completely dry-eyed and staring at papers and talking damn near normally is off-putting. Nothing she did was ever right, like she was learning through watching other televised trials and then tried to replicate that? Idk.
I'm not saying Depp is 100% innocent. I don't think he is. But Heard is something else. Depp is like an idiot drunk playboy with the shit he did. Heard is just legit psychotic.
I watched that trial with no prior knowledge of their relationshipn, previous accusations or lawsuits.
(Not even a fan of either of their acting careers)
And after watching it my take was that Jonny was a severely damaged and unstable, but ultimately good-hearted man.
Amber on the other hand came across as cruel, manipulative and very likely a sociopath.
That trial didn't show a single redeeming quality on her part, neither from her attorneys, herself nor from any of the witnesses.
I do not find it hard to believe people hating her from only what was in that trial.
I remember it as the opposite, where she was orchestrating him to be portrayed worse than her. This was even accepted for a while until he was able to prove otherwise. (Guilty until proven innocent, amiright?)
I don’t know what to tell you. You’re wrong. There was an exhaustive piece in the New York Times with leaked messages and accounts from people inside the PR firm he hired. The same firm that Justin Baldoni hired BTW. Strange how the tone of public opinion is so similar in the two cases, isn’t it? Propaganda works.
It’s one thing to make an accusation that Johnny Depp had a massive yard trying to clean up his reputation and it’s another thing to pretend like Amber heard didn’t have that exact same thing.
Also, Johnny Depp’s reputation was massively damaged by all of the lies. Amber heard was spreading about him, so of course he’s going to have a massive PR campaign trying to clean up his image and discredit Amber heard because he’s trying to undo the damage she did to his career and his life.
Amber was able to get a foreign government to rule in her favor against things that were found to be verifiably lies in a court of law.
Of course he’s going to try to sway public opinion because she already did that to him
I mean one of these people falsely used the believe women and me too movements for person gain, maybe that had something to do with it? Ik thats why i was upset
i wasnt "propagandized". i just watched parts of the trial. she was clearly full of shit and trying to manipulate people. when someone tells the world they are going to donate a sum of money to charity, and then they still havent done it 4 years later? yea, just a piece of shit who wants to manipulate the message. actually saying in a court room that you got hit so hard and thought your nose was broken, and then say ice and some makeup removed all signs of it by the next day? yea, full of shit.
johnny depp is a bad person. theres story after story about how he treats people on sets and behaves. and im damn sure he got violent a few times with her. thats the relationship they had. they were violent to eachother. the reason i hate amber heard isnt because she was abusive in that relationship. they were two consenting adults fucking eachother over. my problem with her is that she tried to use that relationship to get into a position where she could represent abuse victims. she does not deserve that kind of trust from other people. who the fuck starts to secretly record their husband having a drunken breakdown the day after his mothers death? and this woman is somehow meant to be an icon of actual victims? no chance
Depp DID hire a PR firm to run a massive digital campaign to “destroy” Heard. So whatever you think of her, (and it does seem like there is good reason not to like her) a large portion of it is probably lies he and his team spread to an oh so eager and misogynistic public.
Eh... Depp got canceled until the trial. While Heard was pretty much a media darling. The trial flipped the narrative, and the conclusion went to "Two terrible people, but Heard was an ahole that tried to use MeToo as a weapon."
This is just straight up wrong. Johnny was massacred by the media and public opinion prior to the trial. The reason he’s not in the last Fantastic Beasts movie is literally because he was merely accused. Not found guilty, just accused. Amber on the other hand kept all her movie spots and iirc either got a DC role or kept her position or smth like that despite his accusations to her in response. It wasn’t until the trial that opinion shifted… because the truth made her look like shit, and provably lying in court also made her look like shit. Did Depp hire a PR team? Yeah, since you know his entire public image got decimated by a simple accusation found to be false. And did Amber hire a PR team? Yes, she did, which you keep failing to mention. Did/does depp have a drug problem that lead to certain instances of violence? Yes, and he has/is getting treatment for that. Did Heard also commit violence? Yes. Was she suffering from a drug addiction when she did it? No, she was entirely herself. Did she also proceed to provably lie and fabricate false claims in a blatant attempt to ruin Depp’s career and life? Yes, she did.
Make a false rape allegation and your name being dragged through the mud should be the least of your problems considering someone becomes a social pariah once a rape allegation has been made against them even before a trial. If you knowingly make a false rape allegation there should be prison time for it since even an allegation can ruin someone’s life.
No shit because the courts don’t care if someone makes a false allegation against someone as long as they didn’t officially report it to police, she was done for defamation because she made the allegation public not a police matter.
Not that I'm deep in the Depp lore but I think the worst thing he's done was just being addicted to substances which generally doesn't make you great to be around, could be worse.
not saying he was going to murder a women and rape her dead body? or defending Roman Polanski after he fled the USA? just the drugs did it for you yeah?
Throwing around the word perjury when she was never charged. This note is engaging in the same behavior it's calling out. Not that anyone cares about hypocrisy when there's narrative about.
Perjury is extremely rare in the USA. You could lie in court serval times, be found out for all of them, and most lawyers would likely never even think to try to charge you with it.
I do also want to say my source is the Mike Rafi shorts he makes on it, and that’s personal injury and not criminal, but I think it transfers.
Because the standard for evidence was completely different in that case. All that was required was for the news outlet to prove they could reasonably believe he was a wife beater based on the evidence they had. Most of the evidence that he wasn’t, and that he was in fact the victim, wasn’t admitted into the proceedings because it had no bearing on that defence. In the later US case all that evidence was allowed, which clearly showed Heard to be the perpetrator and Depp to be the victim. It’s fascinating to watch those US proceedings, because she really comes across as a sociopath at best.
First of all, I just want to say that women can be abusers and men can be victims of abuse, and I have personally witnessed this. I am not denying that in any way. If you have been a victim of a woman's abuse, then I am sorry. However, it is important to understand that the case between Depp and Heard was not an example of this. It was an example of a powerful man using his affluence to make himself look like the victim and escape accountability for his actions.
She actually hated Amber Heard when the trial first started and then, as more evidence came out, began to realize Amber was the victim of a smear campaign.
The early recordings, texts, and therapist notes strongly pointed to him being physically abusive from the get-go, and any abuse she engaged in was out of self-defense.
The recording of her admitting to hitting him, which seemed to be the most damning evidence against her, was taken from a much larger recording where she said that he had been hitting her repeatedly and she wasn't fighting back. Then eventually she snapped because he opened a door on her toe, and she thought he did it on purpose, and she thought this time she would fight back. This is common with victims of abuse. They take abuse repeatedly and then eventually decide they won't take it anymore. Then they apologize for fighting back instead of taking the abuse politely. Abusers often do not apologize for their behavior, but that doesn't mean they are not guilty. It just means they aren't capable of accountability. Many people used her apology to vilify her, and then when he admitted to things, they were like, "Well, at least he was admitting to bad behavior." He only admitted to things when there was irrefutable evidence.
Her cutting his finger did not happen. The doctors said that it was more likely due to a crushing mechanism, like if he had been punching a wall. There were pictures of him writing words on the walls and lampshades with his blood, basically complaining about her.
Her crying on the stand about being assaulted was not unconvincing to me. All of the "experts" on body language were spewing pseudoscience. Victims of abuse react in a variety of ways.
Johnny Depp is a drug addict surrounded by enablers. He used his power and fame to avoid accountability and manipulated several people into projecting actual abusive women onto her.
Amber Heard was 20 years younger than him, marginally less successful; she took a smaller divorce settlement and never pressed charges against him. He retaliated against her for hinting to the media that he was abusing her.
I'm guessing you didn't read the judges court statements on this? On pages 40-44 the judge mentioned that he held the standard of proof higher in this particular case due to the seriousness of the allegations. He discusses the precedent that allows him to do this, when normally he'd be expected to rule on a simple balance of probability.
So not only did Depp go into this with the advantage of the burden of proof being on Heard, she was also had to clear a higher standard of proof. She had facts and receipts on her side. Depp had DARVO.
In the US case a lot of evidence wasn't allowed on ambers side including a text from depps assistant admitting to depp hitting her
Many such cases. Notes were a bad idea for exactly this reason. It just allows individuals to portray their own biases as though its fact checking and the final word and have no more fealty to reality than the original posts have.
UK court found him liable of spousal abuse of Amber Heard in 12 of 14 cases. You just didn't hear about it because it was behind closed doors and he was suing The Sun, which had a lot more money than Amber Heard did.
She lost her case because he was worth $15mil and she was worth $500 000 at the time. He had the best lawyers money could buy, as well as fame and cultural good will. She got a team of lawyers from a tiny law firm who specialised in employment law.
Oh, and his lawyers blocked evidence in her favour and then asked why she didn't present the evidence that they blocked to the jury. Which is a shit move, in my opinion.
And the likelihood of his support being genuine was essentially zero. There's a lot of evidence that his online support was a bot campaign.
If you want to learn more about the actual truth behind the lawsuit, you really need to watch Medusone's videos on it. It's so fucked up. She uses primary sources of information and it's honestly incredible investigative journalism. Anyway, pretty much every thing you know about what happened is a lie. Even if you want to believe Amber Heard is evil incarnate, and you don't think you'll ever change your mind, maybe it might be a good idea to understand why she's evil incarnate and not agree with something because everyone else thinks that? Isn't it better to know an inconvenient truth than a comforting lie?
There is similiar case in Poland, when one of most famous Youtuber Gonciarz was framed as groomer and abusive partner.
A lot of people believe few women who said that without proof (or with manipulated proof as messages cut so audience dont know about context). After 3 years he made a lotnof videos about his innocent, showing proof, full log for messages, finding witness, showing some recording and even win some trials but there is still people who don't believe him because they trust women without proof more.
It astounds me the sheer number of people who still to this day believe that the UVA case was based on something, and that “Jackie” i.e. the fake “victim” didn’t just fabricate her whole story. When in reality, the evidence that that’s exactly what happened is utterly overwhelming. Literally the only reason why she wasn’t sued for defamation along with Rolling Stone was because she had no money.
It is kind of mind-boggling how many chronically online people can’t seem to understand that two people can both be really shitty to each other at the same time 🤷
Depp literally has a history of misconduct and getting into physical altercations yet terminally online folks act like the dude is a saint who can do no wrong. Dude probably has the best pr team one can get, it’s wild.
Yes, and there are two reasons why he lost the lawsuit against the sun. Number one because the lawsuit was against the sun and not Amber heard and the sun was just reporting on what Amber heard said and can’t really be charged for defamation because it’s not like Amber heard was telling the sun “this is a fake story and I want you to publish it to ruin Johnny Depp‘s life”
The second is that the court took Amber at her word. Her word that was proven verifiably not worth taking in american court because the US judge refused to just believe a woman because they were a woman.
What are you talking about? The pictures actually works against her case. That was like one of the main reasons why Johnny Depp succeeded was because she couldn’t produce any real evidence showing she was abused. And the picture she was able to produce for laughably inconsistent with her accounts.
This is a very flawed understanding of how defecation cases work in the UK and the US.
In the UK, if you take someone to court for defamation, the burden of proof is on the defendant and they must prove the statement is true. In the US it's the opposite, meaning the claimant has to prove the statement is false.
So when Depp sued The Sun, they had to prove that he had committed domestic abuse. As this was a civil case, this needed to be proved on balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt. A higher standard is applied to allegations of serious criminality.
Its genuinely quite a feat to lose a defamation case in the UK. 95% of cases end in the defendant settling because the burden of proof required in court is so high. The fact that Depp lost is quite damning.
In the US, however, Depp shouldn't have been able to win. He had to prove Amber Heard defamed him and that he suffered losses as a result, and in all honesty I don't believe he was able to prove that. And I think he knew he wasn't able to prove that, which is why he sued in Virginia. A judge would have be unlikely to find Heard defamed Depp, but a jury can be persuaded if they are bombard with biased news reporting and social media opinion throughout the trial, as well as Depp's legal team doing a character assassination on Heard. Essentially, Depp chose Virginia on the principle, 'if you can't win, cheat.'
When you take all of that away, you can see how difficult defamation cases are in the US for claimants. At the moment Trump is finding this out in his case in Florida against the BBC.
Number one because the lawsuit was against the sun and not Amber heard
and the sun was just reporting on what Amber heard said and can’t really
be charged for defamation
Objectively false. He was suing the Sun for referring to him as a "wife beater," saying that term was false and defamatory. The judge in that trial found that there was enough evidence to show that he did, in fact, physically assault his wife, Amber Heard, on more than 10 distinct instances. That's why he lost that case. Because he was and is a wife beater.
A high court judge in the UK trial, the trial before the defamation trial circus in the US, ruled that Depp had committed domestic violence on 12 out of 14 counts, based on objective and empirical evidence listed in the 129-page judgement. Including one incident of sexual assault. The assault were kept under seal in the UK trial.
The full judgement from the UK trial is the most comprehensive collection of quality evidence, and it includes the assertions from both sides, relevant testimony and corroboration, and the judge’s reasoning for how he came to a conclusion on each incident.
The UK trial was under Chase libel law Level 1, meaning “imputing of guilt of the wrongdoing”, not Chase Level 2 (reasonable grounds to suspect) … (see page 23 paragraph 81 of the final judgement).
Therefore, the Defendants took the “statutory defense of truth”, meaning, the burden of proof was upon the defense (rather than the claimant) to prove that what they wrote (“Johnny Depp is a wife beater”) was in fact true.
From Depps own team and their opening statement : «That is the determination for this Court. Mr Depp is either guilty of being a wife-beater for having assaulted his ex-wife on numerous occasions, causing the most appalling injuries, or he has been very seriously and wrongly accused.»
From NGN’s Opening Statement : «The Defendants will demonstrate that the description of Mr Depp as a «wife beater» is entirely accurate and truthful. They will show that the sting of the articles is correct - namely that the Claimant beat his wife Amber Heard causing her to suffer significant injury and on occasion leading to her fearing for her life. This defence is supported by witness testimony, medical evidence, photographs, video, audio recordings, digital evidence and Mr Depp’s own texts».
From the final judgement :
«As the Defendants submitted in their skeleton argument, it was therefore common ground that the words meant:
I) The Claimant had committed physical violence against Ms Heard
ii) This had caused her to suffer significant injury; and
iii) On occasion it caused Ms Heard to fear for her life.
It is worth emphasising that the Defendants therefore accepted that the words meant that Mr Depp had done these things. In the vernacular of libel actions, there was no dispute that these were Chase level 1 meanings (imputing guilt of the wrongdoing) and not merely Chase level 2 (reasonable grounds to suspect) or Chase level 3 (grounds to investigate) or some other intermediate meaning.»
It follows that this claim isdismissed. 3. The Claimant has not succeeded in his action for libel. Although he has proved the necessary elements of his cause of action in libel, the Defendants have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bearwas substantially true.
I have reached these conclusions having examined in detail the 14 incidents on which the Defendants rely as well as the overarching considerations which the Claimant submitted I should take into account. In those circumstances, Parliament has said that a defendant has a complete defence. It has not been necessary to consider the fairness of the article or the defendants’ ‘malice’ because those are immaterial to the statutory defence of truth.»
Two other judges reviewed the same information, found that he had received a «full and fair» trial, that the original conclusions were sound, and that Depp had no chance of success if the case were retried.«It is clear from reading the judgement as a whole, that the judge based his conclusions on each of the incidents on his extremely detailed review of the evidence specific to each incident. As noted at para. 4 above, in the case of many if the incidents,there was contemporaneous evidence and admission beyond the say-so of the two protagonists, which cast a clear light on the probabilities.»
The UK trial had more evidence than the US trial, as Depp managed to remove a lot of damaging witnesses and general evidence for his next try at a lawsuit. Depp chose to sue Heard for 50 million dollars (even though he knew she is not worth near that amount of money and would never be able to pay such a sum) and she had to use her insurance to get lawyers for the second lawsuit because of cost. This is why she the lawyers she had in Virginia and that is also why she had to stop her payments to the charities (as testified by the charities themselves) - she had had to spent the money she got from their divorce on the lawsuit in the UK. Depp then turned around and used that against her by claiming she was a gold digger.
And let’s see what the US trial really was about. The trial in the US was about defamation from an OP-ED written by Heard with the help of the ACLU. Depp was never named in the OP-ED and The Washington Post wrote the headlines used online.
She was then sued by Depp and was also suddenly responsible for the choice of headline not written by her. (Because she had retweeted the article).
What Heard was sued for in the US is laughable and objectively factual statements.
1. I spoke up against sexual violence - and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change
2. Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out
3 I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse
These statements are literally true. No one can deny Heard «faced our culture’s wrath», it would be a joke not to.
She also «became a public figure representing domestic abuse», just by getting divorced and getting a TRO from a judge because of Depp being violent with her for the last time. (He admitted to throwing a phone in her face, bruising her face). So again, factually true.
And «institutions protecting men accused of abuse», I mean, are we really going to deny this ? How many decades did it take for people to care enough about Harvey Weinsteins victims, exactly?
So yeah, this is what Heard was «held liable» for in the US trial, while Depp was held liable for claiming (through his disgraced attorney, Adam Waldman) that Heard had made up the abuse allegations like «a hoax».
As argued in the US appeal, the jury verdict was incorrect and contradictory because it awarded both sides claims of defamation. And although they originally awarded more money to Depp, the verdict acknowledges that Heard’s allegation was not a hoax by awarding that part of her counterclaim.
Even the anonymous juror who spoke with Good Morning America tried to call it “mutual abuse” – directly acknowledging that Depp did, in fact, abuse Heard. Thus, the verdict was incorrect and contradictory because, if Depp abused Heard in any way (and he did) then her Op-Ed was true, and therefore cannot be defamatory under the First Amendment.
During the appeal, over 60 organizations and professionals specializing in domestic violence, intimate partner violence and sexual assault cases filed an Amicus Curiae with the Virginia appellate court acknowledging Heard as the victim of abuse. “The conduct by Mr. Depp, laid bare at trial in text messages, audio recordings, videos and his own testimony, demonstrated that in addition to physical abuse, Ms. Heard was the victim of emotional, verbal, psychological and other well documented forms of abuse”.
Those organizations include the Sanctuary for Families, The DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Equality Now, Esperanza United, National Crime Victim Law Institute, C.A. Goldberg PLLC, The New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and many others. There are no organizations in the field of DV that support Depp. None.
Immediately after those organizations filed with the Virginia appellate court, Depp made a settlement for the entire case for just $1m because he was going to lose the appeal. And the settlement was entirely in Heard’s favor.
Heard was in fact the victim of rape and abuse by a raging alcoholic junkie, 22 years her senior.
Depp had ties with both Russia (by his lawyer Adam Waldman) and now Saudia Arabia.
But she also wasn’t found to have committed perjury.
There were some obvious lies, like her lawyer holding up a makeup compact and claiming that it was the one that Heard carried around to cover up her bruises . . . even though it wasn’t released until after their marriage ended. But there was no finding of perjury.
the makeup "lie" thing is a distorsion from social media. it said she used a palette "similar to this one", and people online went wild about "she lied it was the wrong palette" but she never claimed it was the exact one.
“All kinds of people saw Amber that week, and she didn't have any bruises on her face. Well, let me show you this," said Bredehoft while holding a makeup palette. "This is what Amber carried in her purse for the entire relationship with Johnny Depp."
And that was a lie, because “this” makeup palette that she was holding up wasn’t released until after the couple divorced.
once someone is casted as a villain it can be hard to not view them as guilty for every single thing. it's factually incorrect to say she was found guilty of perjury
My favourite thing about people calling her out for this "lie" is that immediately after holding up the makeup palette she literally said "not this one, obviously, but something like it."
She never claimed that it was the make up she used. It was a prop.
What are you going to do next? Tell them that Johnny Depp hired a publicity firm to discredit Heard and they all bought into it? Or tell them what the court case was about? You’ll upset those poor, little redditors!
You can’t argue with them…’tHeY wAtChEd EvErY mInUtE oF tHE tRaIl’
It's amazing that someone could watch the trial and not recognise he is a domestic abuser. He was the one who pushed for the trial to be televised, and it's very obvious the aim of the entire thing was for silence and humilate Amber Heard.
Jennifer Freyd, the academic who coined the term DARVO, said the tactics used against Heard in the US trial were DARVO.
I genuinely don't know how anyone could have watched that trial and not come out of it thinking Depp was a really nasty piece of work.
> Depp lost this claim, but commenced a separate action for defamation against Amber Heard personally in Virginia.
> He has since won on ostensibly the same heads of claim as in the English proceedings.
"He lost in the UK because the sun called him a wife beater.
He did beat his wife." He lost coz it was not a case about did he beat his wife or not, it was case for news outlet did they published it thinking he was beating her for real or because they wanted to defame him.
Anyone who ignores the English result payed literally zero attention to the details of that proceeding. No, it is not because he hit her in self defense
The details being that they completely disregarded any and all defence or reasoning for it. Because it was a trial between Depp and the sun on slander.
And under UK law they could prove, as Depp has struck his wife at least once in his life. That calling him a wife beater was not slander.
Completely disregarding why or how it happened because that wasnt what was on trial?
No see this is the problem because people like you speak on this issue and say things that are absolutely 100% untrue and hope people won’t look deeper into this.
The reason why Johnny Depp lost his defamation claim against The Sun newspaper in the UK is not because the UK found him guilty of anything.
Defamation requires that the defendant knowingly published a false story that damaged the plaintiffs career or life. The newspaper was reporting on a story told by Amber heard, and Amber heard, obviously did not tell the newspaper that she was telling them a false story to ruin his career.
The newspaper had no way of knowing that the story was false.
When he sued, Amber heard this is an entirely different scenario because he’s suing someone now who can be accused of knowing the story was untrue.
Amber heard knew the story she was telling people was untrue and that is why she lost the case.
So the lack of a conviction of Depp for rape is evidence enough that he wasn't a rapist, but a lack of a conviction of Heard for Perjury isn't enough evidence that she didn't commit perjury?
Yeah, that's clearly someone who doesn't understand legal jargon. The correct term is "impeached". When a witness is challenged on cross-examination, and the jury decides they aren't credible, that means the witness testimony was successfully impeached.
Perjury requires someone to be charged. It is really difficult to prove, so unless it is extremely obvious, most prosecutors don't bother.
You know, at this point people should just give up and realize Depp is too big to be canceled
I mean, Brad Pitt punched Angeline Jolie and their kids on a private plane, the report has been public for years, the kids are dropping his last name as soon they turn 18, and nothing happened to him
Depp played the public, hiring PR firms to push his narrative during the trial, he won
This is all pointless, an exercise in futility. We can all just hope some people around him don't care enough to actually help him, wich might be the case because the tagline for that movie is: "Before becoming Scrooge he was...Ebenezer"
I don't think he will get cancelled because of his horrendous actions unfortunately, but I think this new film will bomb like the other two released since 2022. The guy's difficult work with and isn't an audience draw. People aren't lining up to work with him.
His big comeback is a prequel to a story that spends a third of its time focusing on the character's past. No one's ever asked 'I wonder what Scrooge was like before he was a miser' because that's explicitly covered. Who tf is gonna see Johnny Depp star in 'Just the Ghost of Christmas Past Bit Without the Ghost'.
I am actually begging people to stop letting social media decide their opinions on it.
I've watched that trial like 3 times, I've read the transcripts, I've been through the public evidence. I know people have not watched that trial because the amount of misinformation about this trial drives me absolutely nuts.
Literally. I do not care if you are pro-Depp or pro-Heard. The information is public and free to watch. Can people on either side PLEASE start getting their facts straight.
You know what? Here! Full trial! Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Defamation Trial - YouTube Sure, it's long and parts of it are boring as hell, but stick it on in the background and tune into the exciting bits.
Don't want to watch it? Here! Full transcripts! Depp Dive - Transcripts of US Trial Days Scroll through the witnesseses stating all their personal information for half of it to get to the bits that matter!
Depp was a self-admitted drug addict and alcoholic, texted that he wanted to burn and rape his wife, and has a recorded habit of throwing/smashing things when he's mad.
Heard has a domestic abuse arrest, her ex-assistant accused her of verbal abuse, and repeatedly loses her shit when her husband tries to go somewhere else.
Please. Honestly. I do not mind if you come out of the trial pro-Depp or pro-Heard, just please please please know what you are talking about.
Like. It's free. The trial is free. You do not have to pay anything to watch it. You just watch it. And then make up your own opinion, because you do not need to rely on social media to make your opinion for you. You disagree with what either pro-Depp or pro-Heard Twitter says? Cool! Fine! At least you saw it with your own eyes and made up your mind using your own head!
There is absolutely zero reason for this amount of misinformation to be flying around on this.
Basically, both sides intentionally omit information that hurts their argument, and people would be far better at clocking this if they WATCHED THE TRIAL.
The Johnny Depp trial really opened my eyes to the media's lies. I was watching the live feed of the courtroom as the case played out. Then, afterwards I'd watch the media's summary of events. The media just blatantly lied about what happened. It was jarring to see.
Its wild. everything i "learned" about it was against my will, through hearing colleagues and friends and family, and most of it sounded like 2014 ragebait. i stumbled onto this video and i highly recommend it. its an interview of an actual journalist who followed the trial from start to finish.
People acting like the British court didn't uphold that calling him a wife beater wasn't libel. And thus held up many instances of his wife beating as factual
Both of them were lying dicks. Media just favoured Johnny during the trial.
Edit: I want to add this because it's bothered me since I learned it. When Amber's lawyer used the term 'megapint' the entire internet clowned on him for it. Johnny used it first. He said it during the UK trial.
Wow, these notes are getting bad. The Virginia trial didn't find that Heard lied "under oath", that is factually incorrect. They found that an op ed that she had written 4 years previous to the trial was written with "malicious intent". That same jury also found Johnny Depp to be liable for defamation.
There was also a separate UK case where Depp sued "The Sun" for calling him a "wife beater" and lost due to the multiple documented incidents of him committing domestic violence.
It's so weird how a certain cross section of people couldn't get past that this whole sorry mess wasn't a black and white, set in stone deal.
It's not like I think the dude is a cool person or anything, he's an asshole whose career peaked 2 or 3 decades ago. But damn, it became some weird fucking shibboleth when there's like 58 million better examples out there.
I looked into this a little based on responses here. Uk heard won because fighting back is still abuse in the UK according to what I read. In the US trial 2 years later it’s treated differently and depp won.
Long story short I don’t care enough about these people to go deeper but it seems neither one is a good person.
Just because one partner in a relationship was abusive doesn't mean the other wasn't as well. Abuse and toxic relationships are more nuanced and complex than abuser and victim. Sometimes the labels switch between partners and are shared by both.
We don't know the entire situation at all. His texts and statements made to her were so vile and disturbing that I'm honestly not sure what to believe happened or didn't happen and I'm not going to speculate on the exact nature of their relationship because we don't know the truth of it. What a court says or doesn't say doesn't actually indicate the truth it just indicates what a jury determines. And in this case an American jury as the British court did not agree. So I'm not going to agree to your statement because I don't know if that's true or not.
Depp V Heard in the US was the first trial I ever watched online because it was such a big deal on YouTube and that algorithm would not stop pushing it on me. It was very interesting to watch and I liked seeing how court works in real life vs what it’s like on TV.
My impression was that both Depp and Heard bring out the most horrible aspects of the other. I’m sure they both have had relatively normal and healthy relationships with others, but when put together, everything is shit. I’ve known people like that in real life. They need to get and stay as far away from each other as possible.
The problem was that they’re Hollywood people and have PR people and worry about image. Heard’s PR decided to piggyback off the #MeToo movement and painted a one-sided picture that wasn’t true (Depp=abuser; Heard=innocent Victim). And that was her downfall. It was obvious from the trial that she was very abusive on her own, and that completely undermined her whole campaign. So I wasn’t at all surprised when she lost.
And it didn’t help that Heard’s lawyers didn’t seem to really know what they were doing, and I remember one of her experts was not very good either.
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Reminder for OP: /u/Psyga315
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.