Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[Doctor Amadeus]

You know, you could take the time, while ignoring this tv circus, and read some of the past articles, about what amber accused JD of and how this case revealed that her lies started 6 years ago when filing for the restraining order.

Here have a read 6yo wapo article

some highlights:

"Heard, 30, who filed for divorce from Depp last week, accused the 52-year-old actor of repeated domestic violence. The filing was apparently fueled by an alleged incident on May 21 at Depp’s home, in which the Los Angeles police were called to a domestic dispute. Heard declined to press charges, and, according to the Associated Press, the cops determined “a crime did not occur.”

“Amber did not provide a statement to the LAPD in an attempt to protect her privacy and Johnny’s career,” Heard’s attorneys Samantha Spector and Joseph Koenig said in a statement. “In domestic violence cases, it is not unusual for the perpetrator’s playbook to include miscasting the victim as the villain.”

The attorneys reiterate that Heard wanted to keep everything private and that it was a third party who called the police to Depp’s apartment on May 21. They say the cops indeed saw “physical injuries” to Heard’s face. And, the lawyers add, Heard purposefully did not serve Depp with divorce papers until after his premiere of “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” two days later, and filed the restraining order when he was already out of the country.

“In reality, Amber acted no differently than many victims of domestic violence, who think first of the harm that might come to the abuser, rather than the abuse they have already suffered,” they wrote, adding that Heard wants to give Los Angeles police an opportunity to conduct “an accurate and complete investigation” into what happened that night.""

and here's what the police had to say about it back then:

"“On May 21, 2016, officers responded to a domestic incident radio call…” LAPD Sgt. Marlon Marrache says. “The person reporting the crime [Heard] did not insist on a report and no report was warranted. There was no evidence of any crime. A crime did not occur so the officers left the scene and left a business card.”

Marrache adds that if there had been any signs of abuse, officers would have conducted an investigation, regardless of what Heard said had happened."

So AH wanted to give the police time to investigate while also keeping the police from investigating which wouldn't have worked anyway because the police would've investigated regardless if they had reason to believe a crime occurred.

Some tidbits, JDs mother died may 20th 2016, and his daughters birthday is on may 27th, so the alleged abuse the police found no evidence for happened the day after his mother died and AH filed the restraining order on his daughters birthday. What a wonderful person.

Oh and since I am not sure if you know this because why would you, the wapo oped came 2 years prior to the sun article. So the article was based on the claims in the wapo oped, you know the one that according to you had no influence on anything whatsoever. Fun fact the incident on may 21st wasn't part of the 14 alleged assaults that were part of the UK trial, neither was the part when he cut his finger off and violently attacked her with a bottle.

Sounds like a possible Criminal matter not a Civil one.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This was absolutely not a criminal proceeding. This was a civil trial.

Oh She was Prosocuted alright, and yes it WAS SUPPOSED to be a Civil matter, this became a Criminal matter, when the Circus got involved. and decided to Punish Amber out of retaliation.

None of this had to do with Justice at this point.

[Edge-]

Oh She was Prosocuted alright, and yes it WAS SUPPOSED to be a Civil matter, this became a Criminal matter, when the Circus got involved. and decided to Punish Amber out of retaliation.

None of this had to do with Justice at this point.

It didn't. What are you even talking about, that's not how legal proceedings work.

[PenguinChan]

Oh She was Prosocuted alright, and yes it WAS SUPPOSED to be a Civil matter, this became a Criminal matter, when the Circus got involved. and decided to Punish Amber out of retaliation.

None of this had to do with Justice at this point.

Oh I see.

No, you're right - he should('ve) press(ed) charges about these incidents and got her sent to prison if they were (And seemingly are) true. But you're forgetting that the op-ed accused him of abuse, and that's exactly why it's being shown here in court to prove that she was lying.

That's that, end of. However, in a civil case like this it's 'who is more believable' with a degree of evidence. IIRC, criminal charges are 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which he may not have won due to some ambiguity and other evidences (That weren't used in this trial) where he had retaliated once or twice due to her (Alleged) abuse.

That's why the cut finger, the incidents, and everything there was brought to light. She opened that door to Johnny by writing things about him, and he's using that in retaliation.

[Doctor Amadeus]

If you didn’t regularly follow the trial, how can you say that Depp didn’t prove it was defamation? Only seeing bits and pieces here and there on social media and in the news doesn’t give you a clear, unbiased view on the case and what evidence was presented.

And this was a civil trial, not criminal.

I didn't need to watch the entire trial to know he didn't prove that, I am aware of the case the circus more than anything else, but I did watch it. Yes, I am also aware that it's a civil trial.

As I mentioned before, the elements of defamation, where they met Winter?


What is your opinion on the trial honestly and what pieces of evidence do you think were important?


As for me if you think I am wrong and trying to change my opinion what do you think at this point I am missing in terms of the evidence as it relates to the burdens for Johnny Depp?


I might not agree, I might change my mind depending on how you arrived there.


However, what I really don't care about is what shit people either of them are or unsubstantiated accusations of a crime not relevant to Defamation which is Civil.

- - - Updated - - -

It didn't. What are you even talking about, that's not how legal proceedings work.

It shouldn't be how legal proceedings work, however that didn't stop the judge or the people involved with this case from making it about just that. Hell along with shitting on pillows people calling for Amber Heard to be arrested and put in prison purely based on testimony and evidence no relevant in this case or established anywhere else with any kind of authority.

[Mayhem]

I didn't need to watch the entire trial to know he didn't prove that, I am aware of the case the circus more than anything else, but I did watch it. Yes, I am also aware that it's a civil trial.

As I mentioned before, the elements of defamation, where they met Winter?


What is your opinion on the trial honestly and what pieces of evidence do you think were important?


As for me if you think I am wrong and trying to change my opinion what do you think at this point I am missing in terms of the evidence as it relates to the burdens for Johnny Depp?


I might not agree, I might change my mind depending on how you arrived there.


However, what I really don't care about is what shit people either of them are or unsubstantiated accusations of a crime not relevant to Defamation which is Civil.

You just keep on not getting it. I am not sure if private citizens can file criminal charges in these examples. I doubt it though.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Oh I see.

No, you're right - he should('ve) press(ed) charges about these incidents and got her sent to prison if they were (And seemingly are) true. But you're forgetting that the op-ed accused him of abuse, and that's exactly why it's being shown here in court to prove that she was lying.

That's that, end of. However, in a civil case like this it's 'who is more believable' with a degree of evidence. IIRC, criminal charges are 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which he may not have won due to some ambiguity and other evidences (That weren't used in this trial) where he had retaliated once or twice due to her (Alleged) abuse.

That's why the cut finger, the incidents, and everything there was brought to light. She opened that door to Johnny by writing things about him, and he's using that in retaliation.

I am not forgetting, I am of the mind if what came out here IS true Amber should be in Prison, however that should be stablished by an authority charged with validating that or not.

This is about a civil matter or Should have been her is suing for defamation, the reason people sue for defamation is because their reputation and they themselves have been personally harmed.

The fact neither of hem handled these powerful allegations through authorities, says that if it wasn't important enough to seek justice there, then neither of them should be rewarded here.

Maybe there were good reasons not to press charges or get police involved.


Believing victims isn't the same as treating their every statement as fact. Just as not everything wrong is illegal or should be punished by the courts.

[Draco-Onis]

i am talking about bias. you are talking about winning and losing.
so wtf is your problem?

It's not bias relax it's just press freedoms give them a lot of leeway.

- - - Updated - - -

As I understand it he lost his case against the Sun because the judge inexplicably discarded most evidence he provided and ignored his witnesses (friends and employees) because they were biased in his favor, yet chose to hear out Heard's witnesses (also friends and employees). A big factor in it as well was her claiming to have donated the money. Apparently that convinced the judge that her intentions were pure. Realistically it was a dumb thing to look at in either case. Donating the money or keeping it doesn't really matter in my eyes; it's clear she was after his reputation. Still that judge probably feels like an absolute moron now.

One thing I do find funny is the constant pushing by Heard and her team that "we won in the UK" when really they weren't on trial in the UK. They aren't the Sun.

It's another country's laws so I reserve passing judgement because I don't know.

[Nurasu]

I am not forgetting, I am of the mind if what came out here IS true Amber should be in Prison, however that should be stablished by an authority charged with validating that or not.

This is about a civil matter or Should have been her is suing for defamation, the reason people sue for defamation is because their reputation and they themselves have been personally harmed.

The fact neither of hem handled these powerful allegations through authorities, says that if it wasn't important enough to seek justice there, then neither of them should be rewarded here.

Maybe there were good reasons not to press charges or get police involved.


Believing victims isn't the same as treating their every statement as fact. Just as not everything wrong is illegal or should be punished by the courts.

So it's a travesty of justice because JD sued her and won for defamation, but also because he didn't go far enough and land her in jail. Got it.

[Draco-Onis]

From what I’ve been told, the UK has some strict libel laws. Supposedly it was far harder to sue Heard for defamation than it was (theoretically) to sue the sun. That’s what makes this win even more extraordinary.

The odds of Depp winning are pretty low, the combination of her bad acting and the mountain of evidence against her narrative sank her case. It probably didn't help that her lawyers seem to be from the cheap section on craigslist.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You just keep on not getting it. I am not sure if private citizens can file criminal charges in these examples. I doubt it though.

I don't know either. I certainly think they should, if Ambers out here telling porky's yeah it's called fraud. Maybe not seems like a good conversation to have. But then this still wouldn't be Justice. Because Amber isn't being questioned by authorities, and investigated.

Forget money, nothing amusing about any of this or a small thing if what came to light in trial is true, but it's a pretty ass backwards run at justice.

As for the other end and the behavior or OTHERS or the Populace IF anybody ever has or legitimately did act based on unsubstantiated bullshit, anybody that knows better are in the same people cheering this BS verdict.

- - - Updated - - -

So it's a travesty of justice because JD sued her and won for defamation, but also because he didn't go far enough and land her in jail. Got it.

No The Travesty is that a lot of unsubstantiated bullshit got introduced into a civil trial about defamation. I don't know if JD beat her, I also don't KNOW if she made any of that up, no authority investigated any of that in any criminal proceeding, there for it's he said she said.

People testifying on both sides I wouldn't trust especially the TMZ guy and people of that ilk, publishing or engaging in un substantiated rumors, I really never trust people who are that fucking shady who suddenly have a stroke of integrity, the same could be said for Ellen Barkin, A lot of bad actors.

Nobody had any integrity I found credible or believable.

[Edge-]

It shouldn't be how legal proceedings work

That's good, because it's not.

however that didn't stop the judge or the people involved with this case from making it about just that.

Still hasn't happened. Please share the link if you think this has happened.

[korijenkins]

Not "inexplicably", the Judge believed Depp was using a DARVOs defense. Can't say I disagree.

It's inexplicable considering the judge elected not to use Depp's biased witnesses and agreed to use Heard's biased witnesses. The Sun's team successfully convinced the judge as well that Depp's testimony was worthless because of substance use (not considered in Heard's case, despite her own heavy substance use). Factor in his personal ties to the Sun and the verdict makes sense.

It's "inexplicable" in that there's no good explanation for him. He came out of it looking like a corrupt moron, and looks even more like one now.

[Doctor Amadeus]

From what I’ve been told, the UK has some strict libel laws. Supposedly it was far harder to sue Heard for defamation than it was (theoretically) to sue the sun. That’s what makes this win even more extraordinary.

Actually no, Amber Heard making a claim is completely different than the Sun, who was a third party meaning hearsay, JD Lost there for especially the same reason he should have lost here, even IF you feel JD was wronged.


Amber heard writing an Op-Ed without mentioning Johnny Depp is completely different than me or anybody else doing the same thing and saying making accusations or inferring he committed domestic abuse. That would for sure be defamation and in the U.S that's only exclusively what it's for.


Nobody can make an unsubstantiated claim about someone else that slanders or libels another person UNLESS it's evaluated by a court and credibility challenged, OR one of the parties involved is not making a claim but more giving unqualified perspective.

It's specifically why say Films that involved true life human beings, don't need to be authorized IF the what said or shown is presented as a perspective of the person telling it.

- - - Updated - - -

That's good, because it's not.
Still hasn't happened. Please share the link if you think this has happened.

So you didn't watch the Trial then or hear about it.

[Edge-]

So you didn't watch the Trial then or hear about it.

Hit me with that link that "it became a criminal matter", broseph.

[Nurasu]

I don't know either. I certainly think they should, if Ambers out here telling porky's yeah it's called fraud. Maybe not seems like a good conversation to have. But then this still wouldn't be Justice. Because Amber isn't being questioned by authorities, and investigated.

Forget money, nothing amusing about any of this or a small thing if what came to light in trial is true, but it's a pretty ass backwards run at justice.

As for the other end and the behavior or OTHERS or the Populace IF anybody ever has or legitimately did act based on unsubstantiated bullshit, anybody that knows better are in the same people cheering this BS verdict.

- - - Updated - - -



No The Travesty is that a lot of unsubstantiated bullshit got introduced into a civil trial about defamation. I don't know if JD beat her, I also don't KNOW if she made any of that up, no authority investigated any of that in any criminal proceeding, there for it's he said she said.

People testifying on both sides I wouldn't trust especially the TMZ guy and people of that ilk, publishing or engaging in un substantiated rumors, I really never trust people who are that fucking shady who suddenly have a stroke of integrity, the same could be said for Ellen Barkin, A lot of bad actors.

Nobody had any integrity I found credible or believable.

So you don't like the concept and proceedings of defamation cases period, and it has nothing to do with this case in particular.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Hit me with that link that "it became a criminal matter", broseph.

The moment JD triad to suggest she made up the allegations of Domestic Violence it's called fraud especially when you seek to gain monetarily from it.

[Mayhem]

I don't know either. I certainly think they should, if Ambers out here telling porky's yeah it's called fraud. Maybe not seems like a good conversation to have. But then this still wouldn't be Justice. Because Amber isn't being questioned by authorities, and investigated.

Forget money, nothing amusing about any of this or a small thing if what came to light in trial is true, but it's a pretty ass backwards run at justice.

As for the other end and the behavior or OTHERS or the Populace IF anybody ever has or legitimately did act based on unsubstantiated bullshit, anybody that knows better are in the same people cheering this BS verdict.

The shit that could start a criminal investigation came out in this civil trial. And JD won because he could prove that her accusations were untrue, and AH lost 2 of her 3 claims because she couldn't prove that the hoax claims were defamatory.

So the jury believed after reviewing the thousands of evidence that AH and her friends used fake sexual violence allegations both as a sword and shield depending on the target audience.

[Doctor Amadeus]

So you don't like the concept and proceedings of defamation cases period, and it has nothing to do with this case in particular.

Nope not at all, if it had been proven Amber lied by an authority, and she then made this Op-Ed but only left out his name, then he should sue her ass for defamation, because that is defamation.

[Nurasu]

Nope not at all, if it had been proven Amber lied by an authority, and she then made this Op-Ed but only left out his name, then he should sue her ass for defamation, because that is defamation.

An authority like a court, maybe? Cause that just happened.