Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[RobertoCarlos]

what do you mean their side, depps a domestic abuser and he walks the case i dont get it

Maybe Amber should have recorded that instead of him sleeping with Ice cream on himself and on the floor in his office.

She was filming every chance she got, shouldnt be that hard to ask him about his day and get the bumbling drunk in a fit of rage and get the ole fat freddy to the dote.

[PenguinChan]

what do you mean their side, depps a domestic abuser and he walks the case i dont get it

That’s exactly why he won the case. Amber couldn’t prove she was abused, and that she was defaming Johnny by her false statements. Is he an abuser, or the main one? From what we’re given, it does not seem that way.

If more evidence is given and has good credibility he abuses someone, then that’s how you’d know for sure he physically abuses someone. Heavy emphasis on credible, as that’s the entire crux of these arguments. Who is more honest, who can provide burden of proof? That’s why people believe Depp and so did the Jury in some fashion.

Again, as is, he wasn’t the abuser. But, if good evidence is brought up to prove otherwise then people will 180 at breakneck speeds.

[Calfredd]

what do you mean their side, depps a domestic abuser and he walks the case i dont get it

He walks because he proved Heard defamed him by calling him a domestic abuser when there was no proof of it. May as well call someone a child molester then get mad when that person isn't arrested because you decided to not submit evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

That’s exactly why he won the case. Amber couldn’t prove she was abused, and that she was defaming Johnny by her false statements. Is he an abuser, or the main one? From what we’re given, it does not seem that way.

If more evidence is given and has good credibility he abuses someone, then that’s how you’d know for sure he physically abuses someone. Heavy emphasis on credible, as that’s the entire crux of these arguments. Who is more honest, who can provide burden of proof? That’s why people believe Depp and so did the Jury in some fashion.

Again, as is, he wasn’t the abuser. But, if good evidence is brought up to prove otherwise then people will 180 at breakneck speeds.

And this is why Heard's appeal attempt will be both really important and pointless since people like jonnysensible already made up his mind and picked his "side".

[Snowfunk]

what do you mean their side, depps a domestic abuser and he walks the case i dont get it

And you are a puppy fiddler, I don't have any proof or evidence to support my claim, but apparently that doesn't matter.

[Nastard]

And you are a puppy fiddler, I don't have any proof or evidence to support my claim, but apparently that doesn't matter.

I can corroborate this story. I saw him doing it behind a Denny's just after Mother's Day to a labradoodle. Wow, you're right about it being easy to defame someone. And he wasn't even famous. Imagine the motivation if he had money?

[Snowfunk]

I can corroborate this story. I saw him doing it behind a Denny's just after Mother's Day to a labradoodle. Wow, you're right about it being easy to defame someone. And he wasn't even famous. Imagine the motivation if he had money?

This is starting to look a lot, like a mountain of evidence.

[beanman12345]

Hailing this trial as some sort of vindication of all abused men or falsely accused men, or some sort of big win for misogyny is frankly dumb.

Well, I saw that some talking head on fox make the argument it is, so yeah it's definitely a smooth brain talking point.

[Kaleredar]

Well, I saw that some talking head on fox make the argument it is, so yeah it's definitely a smooth brain talking point.

The only way I could see Fox commenting on this is that they somehow interpret this ruling as “owning the libs,” and a way to drum this up as a victory to validate their crusade to drive people to fear (in this specific case) women as potential oppressors with the not-so-subtle dog whistle that they need to be relegated to a more “traditional” role and that their viewers should feel content in unquestioningly believing in the morality of the power structures Fox News supports. Because anyone who questions or says otherwise might just be like that one lady who maliciously lied about Johnny Depp!

Now don’t get it twisted, that’s not what this trial means our its conclusion actually said at all. But you can bet that that’s the angle right-News mouthpieces are itching to spread.

And of course, Fox should really be the last in line to be casting aspersions about harassment suits… or should they ask Bill o’reilly?

[LilSaihah]

I mean...I think the reputation damage to each was done in the trial itself, no matter what the outcome of the jury verdict was. I'm honestly kinda surprised Depp won at all, since this seemed like a longshot lawsuit mostly aimed at rehabbing his public image.

There's not a chance he actually cares about the money Amber has been ordered to pay him. 8mil is pocket change. He made $300 mil from Pirates, apparently.

I've seen a few rumors about RDJ wanting to get Depp into some of his work. Repairing his reputation enough to be able to do that would be worth more than Amber could make in ten lifetimes. That reputation repair was everything he wanted with this public execution.

The only way I could see Fox commenting on this is that they somehow interpret this ruling as “owning the libs,” and a way to drum this up as a victory to validate their crusade to drive people to fear (in this specific case) women as potential oppressors with the not-so-subtle dog whistle that they need to be relegated to a more “traditional” role and that their viewers should feel content in unquestioningly believing in the morality of the power structures Fox News supports. Because anyone who questions or says otherwise might just be like that one lady who maliciously lied about Johnny Depp!

Now don’t get it twisted, that’s not what this trial means our its conclusion actually said at all. But you can bet that that’s the angle right-News mouthpieces are itching to spread.

And of course, Fox should really be the last in line to be casting aspersions about harassment suits… or should they ask Bill o’reilly?

It's really not hard for people to draw connections between the malicious accusations made by Amber, and accusations of sexual abuse levelled against characters like Kavanaugh and Trump. There's definitely enough space there for Fox to provide commentary.

[Veggie50]

I think it bears consideration that Depp didn’t win this case, Heard lost it.

With all the lack of evidence Heard has, it’s her own testimony that lost her the case. Because the burden of proof (strangely) wasn’t on Heard to proof she was abused, the burden was on Depp to proof that he didn’t do so.

Her testimony was so over the top it was easy to disprove though, and that’s why the case went his way. Not because his argument was so incredibly good, but because hers was so incredibly bad.

[jonnysensible]

He walks because he proved Heard defamed him by calling him a domestic abuser when there was no proof of it. May as well call someone a child molester then get mad when that person isn't arrested because you decided to not submit evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

And this is why Heard's appeal attempt will be both really important and pointless since people like jonnysensible already made up his mind and picked his "side".

In the UK you can call him a domestic abuser because he is one.

The multiple witnesses of him kicking her, him hitting her etc.

The whole story of him being a loving guy but as soon as he got on the gear and booze he knocked her around is pretty standard tbh and it was evidenced. I just dont understand how he got off on it when its quite obviously true.

To me this is just the mad US system, no wonder rittenhouse or OJ got off and epstein did what he did for so long.

[Kumorii]

Really bugs me that some media are trying to send the message that victims of abuse should be afraid... Don't they realize how much damage that do? Seems odd to be acting like you are championing for victims by making them fear something through lies.

Media should go the other way. Saying victims should keep going forward, that it works. This isn't a case of a victim not being believed, but a case about a liar being exposed by believing a victim. Depp spoke up and people believed the victim. But I guess it's not about making things better, it's about pushing a narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

In the UK you can call him a domestic abuser because he is one.

Not what the UK trial was about or proved.

The multiple witnesses of him kicking her, him hitting her etc.

What witnesses? There were 0 witnesses saying they saw him abusing her. Except her sister, who had a different version than AH of the same event.

The whole story of him being a loving guy but as soon as he got on the gear and booze he knocked her around is pretty standard tbh and it was evidenced. I just dont understand how he got off on it when its quite obviously true.

There was no such evidence produced.

Where do you get all these evidence that no one else saw? Is it in the same mountain AH were talking about?

[Rennadrel]

In the UK you can call him a domestic abuser because he is one.

The multiple witnesses of him kicking her, him hitting her etc.

The whole story of him being a loving guy but as soon as he got on the gear and booze he knocked her around is pretty standard tbh and it was evidenced. I just dont understand how he got off on it when its quite obviously true.

To me this is just the mad US system, no wonder rittenhouse or OJ got off and epstein did what he did for so long.

Parroting a bunch of patently false talking points spouted by MSM fuckwits that were never proven in either trial, just makes you look like an even bigger clown. Heard failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he physically abused her. Doctored photos was all she had which is garbage evidence and witness testimony and even police investigations into domestic disputes found no evidence that he abused her physically.

Stop spouting bullshit, it's pretty evident that you didn't at any point watch the trial or see the evidence being presented by Heard's legal team. She lost because they couldn't prove anything other than Adam Waldman making defamatory statements about her.

[Magical Mudcrab]

In the UK you can call him a domestic abuser because he is one.

The multiple witnesses of him kicking her, him hitting her etc.

The whole story of him being a loving guy but as soon as he got on the gear and booze he knocked her around is pretty standard tbh and it was evidenced. I just dont understand how he got off on it when its quite obviously true.

To me this is just the mad US system, no wonder rittenhouse or OJ got off and epstein did what he did for so long.

Where is this evidence? Why was it not admissible in this trial? We know there were examples of Heard's abuse of Depp that was not admissible, such as her admitting to have caused the damage to his finger, which I believe @Kumorii linked earlier in the thread, but I've not seen or heard of any evidence that speaks to this. If you have examples, please show them.

[Veggie50]

Parroting a bunch of patently false talking points spouted by MSM fuckwits that were never proven in either trial, just makes you look like an even bigger clown. Heard failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he physically abused her. Doctored photos was all she had which is garbage evidence and witness testimony and even police investigations into domestic disputes found no evidence that he abused her physically.

Stop spouting bullshit, it's pretty evident that you didn't at any point watch the trial or see the evidence being presented by Heard's legal team. She lost because they couldn't prove anything other than Adam Waldman making defamatory statements about her.

Sorry, but that’s not what happened. A couple points you seem to be unclear on:

- in a civil suit the standard is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” it’s “more likely than not”.

- the burden of proof was not on Amber to prove she was abused. It was on Depp to prove that she wasn’t, which is nearly impossible of course, and perhaps unreasonable, but he succeeded. Largely due to Amber’s own (over the top) testimony.

[rarhyx]

if he is a domestic abuse wouldn't every ex girlfriend/wife say the same thing?
(let's say he does this when he took drugs and without he is a carin g dude)

[jonnysensible]

Where is this evidence? Why was it not admissible in this trial? We know there were examples of Heard's abuse of Depp that was not admissible, such as her admitting to have caused the damage to his finger, which I believe @Kumorii linked earlier in the thread, but I've not seen or heard of any evidence that speaks to this. If you have examples, please show them.

i thought this was good if you are interested https://www.readthepresentage.com/p/...mber-heard?s=r

Look i am biased, i know guys like JD its a type. They are sweet as anything and then they get on the gear and become complete cunts. The 60 year old who hits on the 18 year old at the bar. Hes that fucking guy except hes got a few more bob than the daft cunts i see most weeks.

[Daymanmb]

if he is a domestic abuse wouldn't every ex girlfriend/wife say the same thing?
(let's say he does this when he took drugs and without he is a carin g dude)

Johnny Depp's ex-girlfriend, Ellen Barkin, testified on Thursday about the actor once throwing a wine bottle in her direction, and said he could be "jealous" and "controlling."
https://www.insider.com/ellen-barkin...rection-2022-5

Probably fake though..

- - - Updated - - -

Where is this evidence? Why was it not admissible in this trial? We know there were examples of Heard's abuse of Depp that was not admissible, such as her admitting to have caused the damage to his finger, which I believe @Kumorii linked earlier in the thread, but I've not seen or heard of any evidence that speaks to this. If you have examples, please show them.

Weak evidence without context. You have an audio recording of her blanketly apologizing and doesnt mention causing damage to his finger. Your bias is filling in the gaps. For all you know, he may have made her feel guilty for making him so mad and shes apologizing for that.

[Veggie50]

i thought this was good if you are interested https://www.readthepresentage.com/p/...mber-heard?s=r

Look i am biased, i know guys like JD its a type. They are sweet as anything and then they get on the gear and become complete cunts. The 60 year old who hits on the 18 year old at the bar. Hes that fucking guy except hes got a few more bob than the daft cunts i see most weeks.

The claim people hate Amber due to misogyny is much like saying people hated the Charlies Angels movie due to misogyny.

Amber is an awful person, and therefore hated. “Misogyny” is just the rock she hides behind.

[MCMLXXXII]

That was a totally unbiased read.
...witnessed by a friend on the other end of the phone call...