Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[Aurrora]

lmfao... I see mmo champ is as classy as ever...

Seems more like mmo-simp.

[MCMLXXXII]

Wait y'all, TERF isle, habibi. More ranting.

[Elegiac]

Not really, I think most of your arguments are useless at best or just reactionary rambling. You are somehow absolutely fine with one side not just committing perjury in front of everyone but also accusing everyone else of committing perjury. At the same time, all the other arguments presented by that very same side would easily explain everything JD went through and they'd be more believable too.

But but but they were both shitty because the victim reacted to the abuser is just stupid as an argument and in no way makes them both abusers regardless of the case in question.

I go solely by what has been presented and one side lied more than once with proof that they were lies and trying to wiggle themselves out of these lies, I couldn't care less about gender or race of either side.

Good for you.

You still apparently don't know what 'reactionary' means and are tossing out strawmen since I've nowhere claimed "perjury is okay"; you're literally just getting your knickers in a twist because not everyone is #teamdepp and some of us are capable of recognizing that toxic relationships can in fact be mutually abusive, especially when there has already been a court ruling regarding the credibility of said claims in an arena that has a far stricter standard than Virginia - which is itself an arena that was strategically selected by one of the parties due to the ease of facilitating a jury trial there rather than letting the facts of the case stand on their own merit, no less.

lol... brings up some shit about terf something....

"Some shit about terf something", also known as the court proceedings in the UK regarding Heard and Depp? That something?

[Sorshen]

especially when there has already been a court ruling regarding the credibility of said claims

Lol. Credibility of claims from a person that commits perjury.

[Nastard]

Okay, so I have a question that I legitimately don't know the answer to. There's audio of Amber admitting that she (accidentally) severed the tip of Johnny's finger. The audio was unable to be used in this suit because of a technicality. Can Amber still be prosecuted for perjury for lying while under oath for this specific thing, or does the technicality protect her?

[Orange Joe]

"Some shit about terf something", also known as the court proceedings in the UK regarding Heard and Depp? That something?

You are the one that named it so you tell me?

"Better question is if you're actually capable of sticking to the subject of the thread,"

??

[Veggie50]

Okay, so I have a question that I legitimately don't know the answer to. There's audio of Amber admitting that she (accidentally) severed the tip of Johnny's finger. The audio was unable to be used in this suit because of a technicality. Can Amber still be prosecuted for perjury for lying while under oath for this specific thing, or does the technicality protect her?

Im not aware of this audio fragment, but let’s say it does exist.

Perjury is rarely prosecuted, especially in civil cases. People are “threatened” with it, but it’s mostly bark without bite.

[Endus]

Okay, so I have a question that I legitimately don't know the answer to. There's audio of Amber admitting that she (accidentally) severed the tip of Johnny's finger. The audio was unable to be used in this suit because of a technicality. Can Amber still be prosecuted for perjury for lying while under oath for this specific thing, or does the technicality protect her?

What hard evidence do you have of the lie? I'm not being an ass, here, this is just how the legal system works. You can't cite that audio, because it was excluded. And perjury's a crime; that means the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies. So you need strong evidence that makes it clear Heard lied about the situation, knowingly (or through gross negligence, though that's harder to prove).

This is why perjury basically doesn't get charged unless you've got a slam-dunk bit of evidence that lays it all right out, often in the accused's own words, often by admission (either from cross-examination or accidental slip-up).

Even without the technicality, it wouldn't be a slam dunk, but with the exclusion of the evidence in question, there's literally nothing to base the accusation on, because what you've got left doesn't come anywhere close to the reasonable doubt standard.

[Omians]

Im not aware of this audio fragment, but let’s say it does exist.

Perjury is rarely prosecuted, especially in civil cases. People are “threatened” with it, but it’s mostly bark without bite.

This recording. Couldnt use it because both teams made an agreement of no recordings of voices that are of anyone but johnny and amber

And Johnny's old head of secuirty passed away and can't testify himself

[Omians]

LOL... that lying bitch. Thanks for sharing

Your welcome. Though this recording has been around for a long while but basically gets buried. No mainstream media wants to play it ect ect

[Omians]

I never even knew it existed.

I think most of us knew Johnny abused drugs and alcohol, but this recording definitely sheds more light on her being completely mentally unstable and mixing drugs/alcohol with her medication... if she was even taking her medication regularly. And she claimed, in court, that this fight is when Johnny sexually assaulted her with the liquor bottle, but based on her reaction in the recording, with her apologizing and pleading to stay cause she "loves him so much and needs to be with him etc, etc", it's pretty clear that assault didn't happen.

And the recording talks about that they needed to get him into surgery quickly to save that part of his finger. I doubt he would of had all that time to do the stuff she said he did.

Edit: oh i am sure he did. But i also think she made it worse and it was an escape for him.

[Daymanmb]

Your welcome. Though this recording has been around for a long while but basically gets buried. No mainstream media wants to play it ect ect

It doesnt get played in court because someone no longer alive is in it. She also just apologizes and never says for what, so its not as much a slam dunk as its made out to be.

[Omians]

It doesnt get played in court because someone no longer alive is in it. She also just apologizes and never says for what, so its not as much a slam dunk as its made out to be.

Well right i specified because he passed away. Was mainly linking the audio that was being asked about.

[Mayhem]

Good for you.

You still apparently don't know what 'reactionary' means and are tossing out strawmen since I've nowhere claimed "perjury is okay"; you're literally just getting your knickers in a twist because not everyone is #teamdepp and some of us are capable of recognizing that toxic relationships can in fact be mutually abusive, especially when there has already been a court ruling regarding the credibility of said claims in an arena that has a far stricter standard than Virginia - which is itself an arena that was strategically selected by one of the parties due to the ease of facilitating a jury trial there rather than letting the facts of the case stand on their own merit, no less.

Oh no, you are a reactionary. You somehow despite all the evidence believe someone that committed perjury multiple times in a trial because it's a woman (best guess because I can't see another reason that would explain it, you can of course change my mind). That's reactionary, that is opposing social progress, that a man can also just be the victim.

Right, let's use the trial that was based solely on the words of the abuser, case closed. Can't quite wrap my head around your last sentence, the facts show that one side constantly lies but apparently that's irrelevant just because. I mean, even AHs own lawyer said in the closing that even if there was just verbal abuse that still would be abuse. Even they see how bad their evidence is, else saying something like that wouldn't make any sense.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Oh no, you are a reactionary.

They're using reactionary (Wiki) to call some Depp supporters, or, more specifically, Heard haters, hateful for disliking her for reasons other than her conduct. This could be because she's a woman, because she may be neurodivergent (and would therefore make things like body language analysis useless), etc. Reactionary is a loaded word and doesn't mean what many people think it does. Elegiac is not being a reactionary, but they are reacting, and I would argue with undue hostility and in a way that both derails the thread and induces unnecessary confusion, to what is being said.

[Kumorii]

This recording. Couldnt use it because both teams made an agreement of no recordings of voices that are of anyone but johnny and amber

And Johnny's old head of secuirty passed away and can't testify himself

Curious why Depps team would agree to that.

It's thanks to all of these recordings this suit even happened. It's when these got leaked Depp started to get support that maybe there's more to the story. Which I think helped him to finally go through the lawsuit.

[Omians]

Curious why Depps team would agree to that.

It's thanks to all of these recordings this suit even happened. It's when these got leaked Depp started to get support that maybe there's more to the story. Which I think helped him to finally go through the lawsuit.

If i had to guess, both sides had recordings that painted the opposite in bad light. Like Johnny was venting/raging hard to someone in confidence and not knowing he was being recorded.

[Kumorii]

If i had to guess, both sides had recordings that painted the opposite in bad light. Like Johnny was venting/raging hard to someone in confidence and not knowing he was being recorded.

Yeah, was thinking that too... Just curious what that would be.

[Omians]

Yeah, was thinking that too... Just curious what that would be.

oh im sure Heard will leak it through some source later just to try and drag him down more Depending on the Jury verdict.


To me Johnny seems to be the type that doesn't have a Filter when hes Pissed and/or inebriated via Drugs and or Alcohol.

Like the video she took of him Slamming Cupboard doors and swearing. was around the time his mother on her deathbed/died. i would imagine being pissed too and she was more then likely provoking him off Camera

Edit: lol, saw this video of her " writing down notes" https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeForJ...being_genuine/ im sure she had written some actual ones. but why pretend to be writing at all

[Nastard]

What hard evidence do you have of the lie? I'm not being an ass, here, this is just how the legal system works. You can't cite that audio, because it was excluded. And perjury's a crime; that means the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies. So you need strong evidence that makes it clear Heard lied about the situation, knowingly (or through gross negligence, though that's harder to prove).

My question was a bit more theoretical in nature and about technicality protection regarding perjury. It's supposing there's an example where someone lies in court and there IS hard evidence showing it's a lie, but during a civil trial the evidence was unable to be presented for various reasons. Is lying under those circumstances something they can nail you on in a future criminal case? Or is it an example where the evidence was previously inadmissible in court so there's precedent to not allow it in a future case? My guess would be there is no protection but US law can be weird sometimes and I honestly don't know the answer.

- - - Updated - - -

If i had to guess, both sides had recordings that painted the opposite in bad light. Like Johnny was venting/raging hard to someone in confidence and not knowing he was being recorded.

My initial thought was the same, but then I figured if such a recording existed then Amber would have leaked it by now. Maybe she's just saving it for after the trial.