celeb news Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial

[NausAllien]

19 minutes ago, brazil said:

She looks like a regular beautiful woman there. The way most people hate Amber because she's beautiful, self assure and a fashionista

Masks off! These MISOGYNISTS are showing their true colors!

[clee95]

Why is Twitter so braindead? I saw many women saying **** about Amber, yet they conveniently forgot that Depp is a convicted wife beater. How did that even happen?

[simon_xcx]

Irls are discussing it and taking his side

Theyre repeating misogynistic talking points like Johnny got her that role in aquaman and he never abused her 

 

[Weld_E]

2 hours ago, Patient Zero said:

"I know Amber also did drugs and consumed lots of alcohol. I know she lied during court and that she was very toxic and manipulative during the relationship. But she was abused!!! I must protect her!!!!"

 

- average Amber cult member

 

“aMbEr CulT aMbEr CulT aMbEr CulT aMbEr CulT. i’M uNbIaSeD!!!111”

 

- Patient Zero in every post.

[Kylizzle]

24 minutes ago, Weld_E said:

“aMbEr CulT aMbEr CulT aMbEr CulT aMbEr CulT. i’M uNbIaSeD!!!111”

 

- Patient Zero in every post.

They'll only support victims who are perfect people and never did anything wrong in their victomhood.

Also the gag of a Johnny Depp stan coming for anyone ELSE for drug and alcohol use is just  

[Raiden]

1 hour ago, brazil said:

She looks like a regular beautiful woman there. The way most people hate Amber because she's beautiful, self assure and a fashionista

I wasn't making a comment on her looks but presentation. Her plot to make herself presentable and influence the jury that way. I'm not even blaming her as that is not inherently an evil thing by itself. I presume most people will dress in their prim and proper best when they are dragged in front of a judge. Will try to look like a librarian or something even tho they haven't seen the inside of a library in years. But AH being AH she did extra — she schemed: tried to look like a virgin Amish priestess that interrupted her busy schedule of praying and milking cows.

[Raiden]

2 hours ago, Kylizzle said:

They'll only support victims who are perfect people and never did anything wrong in their victomhood.

Also the gag of a Johnny Depp stan coming for anyone ELSE for drug and alcohol use is just  

Honey I'm not a JD stan. Just sticking to what's real, wherever that may lead. Believe it or not some of us so called JD stans are actually just fans of nothing other than facts and evidence. There is no absurd worldwide conspiracy united against a minor B level actress. It's just that most people everywhere are honest human beings: they follow facts and evidence wherever it leads them. They are not narrative-pushing or agenda-driven. They just observe and conclude on the merits — on what's in front of them.  They see what's presented, they see JD, they see AH and they see thru her.

 

And AH's problem is not "not being the perfect victim". Never mind perfection, she is far far from being even minimally decent human being. She's is the baddie in this relationship. And evidently in all her relationships. A bona fide careerist predator in other words.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Raiden

[Weld_E]

1 hour ago, Raiden said:

Believe it or not some of us so called JD stans are actually just fans of nothing other than facts and evidence.

Interesting how you deliberately ignored my reply to your previous flawed post:

 

Quote

 we know Johnny  abused her based on evidence presented such as texts of him confessing to physically hurting her, videos of him displaying violent tendencies, witness testimonies, pictures and medical reports of Amber’s injuries.

 

[NausAllien]

2 hours ago, Raiden said:

But AH being AH she did extra — she schemed: tried to look like a virgin Amish priestess that interrupted her busy schedule of praying and milking cows.

The way you just can't help yourself... You cannot stop vilifying a woman for the most trivial things, like dressing appropriately for a trial. 

 

You are a DISGUSTING MISOGYNIST, Raiden. And I will never stop saying it until you realize how repulsive your comments are.

[Headlock]

2 hours ago, Raiden said:

I wasn't making a comment on her looks but presentation. Her plot to make herself presentable and influence the jury that way. I'm not even blaming her as that is not inherently an evil thing by itself. I presume most people will dress in their prim and proper best when they are dragged in front of a judge. Will try to look like a librarian or something even tho they haven't seen the inside of a library in years. But AH being AH she did extra — she schemed: tried to look like a virgin Amish priestess that interrupted her busy schedule of praying and milking cows.

This should be in the Oxford English dictionary under the definition for misogyny, the way you are describing a victim of domestic abuse holy **** 

[suburbannature]

Glad we can all agree that the Raiden user is just a misogynist vilifying an abuse victim.

 

He continues to ignore the actual receipts thrown his way in favor of his ridiculous talking points.

[BraveNewSeth]

3 hours ago, Raiden said:

I wasn't making a comment on her looks but presentation. Her plot to make herself presentable and influence the jury that way. I'm not even blaming her as that is not inherently an evil thing by itself. I presume most people will dress in their prim and proper best when they are dragged in front of a judge. Will try to look like a librarian or something even tho they haven't seen the inside of a library in years. But AH being AH she did extra — she schemed: tried to look like a virgin Amish priestess that interrupted her busy schedule of praying and milking cows.

I’ve been avoiding this thread because, admittedly, I haven’t been following the trial all that closely. But this comment made my jaw hit the floor. I hope mods are sifting through this thread and watching some of these comments…

[That Bad Eartha]

3 hours ago, Raiden said:

Honey I'm not a JD stan. Just sticking to what's real, wherever that may lead. Believe it or not some of us so called JD stans are actually just fans of nothing other than facts and evidence. There is no absurd worldwide conspiracy united against a minor B level actress. It's just that most people everywhere are honest human beings: they follow facts and evidence wherever it leads them. They are not narrative-pushing or agenda-driven. They just observe and conclude on the merits — on what's in front of them.  They see what's presented, they see JD, they see AH and they see thru her.

 

And AH's problem is not "not being the perfect victim". Never mind perfection, she is far far from being even minimally decent human being. She's is the baddie in this relationship. And evidently in all her relationships. A bona fide careerist predator in other words.

If you aren’t a JD stan, then truly why do you care so much about this trial? You just stumbled across it from all the conservative meme sh*t posts and fell for the plight of this poor innocent rich man narrative? Do you spend a lot of time watching live-streamed trials?
 

Like make it make sense at least if you are just gonna type out nonsense

[suburbannature]

Here are the decision of the judgement of the Depp vs. News Group Newspaper case.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html

And the rejection of the appeal.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Depp-approved-for-hand-down.pdf

[State of Grace.]

4 hours ago, Raiden said:

I wasn't making a comment on her looks but presentation. Her plot to make herself presentable and influence the jury that way. I'm not even blaming her as that is not inherently an evil thing by itself. I presume most people will dress in their prim and proper best when they are dragged in front of a judge. Will try to look like a librarian or something even tho they haven't seen the inside of a library in years. But AH being AH she did extra — she schemed: tried to look like a virgin Amish priestess that interrupted her busy schedule of praying and milking cows.

Literally what the actual **** did I just read

 

[Ghiles]

4 hours ago, Raiden said:

It's just that most people everywhere are honest human beings: they follow facts and evidence wherever it leads them. 

sure!

[worldwide angel]

4 hours ago, Raiden said:

Believe it or not some of us so called JD stans are actually just fans of nothing other than facts and evidence. There is no absurd worldwide conspiracy united against a minor B level actress. It's just that most people everywhere are honest human beings: they follow facts and evidence wherever it leads them.

 

its always the girls that claim to follow the facts that never do

 

and misogyny + class privilege are not conspiracy theories….

[Assassin]

I am a bit worried that with 5 men on the jury, it might not go Amber's way.

[simon_xcx]

13 minutes ago, Assassin said:

I am a bit worried that with 5 men on the jury, it might not go Amber's way.

Most likely. With Depp’s “humour” and the fact that they probably adore his POTC role, she’s starting with a huge disadvantage. 

Edited May 31, 2022 by simon_xcx

[emile20]

2 hours ago, suburbannature said:

Here are the decision of the judgement of the Depp vs. News Group Newspaper case.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html

And the rejection of the appeal.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Depp-approved-for-hand-down.pdf

I'm going to send this to anyone who is too lazy to do their research and use tiktok and twitter as newssources 

[Ari29]

7 hours ago, Raiden said:

Honey I'm not a JD stan. Just sticking to what's real, wherever that may lead. Believe it or not some of us so called JD stans are actually just fans of nothing other than facts and evidence. There is no absurd worldwide conspiracy united against a minor B level actress. It's just that most people everywhere are honest human beings: they follow facts and evidence wherever it leads them. They are not narrative-pushing or agenda-driven. They just observe and conclude on the merits — on what's in front of them.  They see what's presented, they see JD, they see AH and they see thru her.

 

And AH's problem is not "not being the perfect victim". Never mind perfection, she is far far from being even minimally decent human being. She's is the baddie in this relationship. And evidently in all her relationships. A bona fide careerist predator in other words.

The fact this even has to be said is wild. But it’s easy to see why they’re so hellbent on siding with Amber.

 

She’s literally on the stand saying everyone, including some of her own witnesses are wrong, and only she’s right. Much like they’re acknowledging majority of people who have come across this situation overwhelming side with Johnny. 
 

Everyone is wrong except them. Crazy 

[suburbannature]

1 minute ago, Ari29 said:

The fact this even has to be said is wild. But it’s easy to see why they’re so hellbent on siding with Amber.

 

She’s literally on the stand saying everyone, including some of her own witnesses are wrong, and only she’s right. Much like they’re acknowledging majority of people who have come across this situation overwhelming side with Johnny. 
 

Everyone is wrong except them. Crazy 

There are literally texts of Depp's friends saying he kicked her, a witness to abuse, a half dozen who saw bruises, a couple who heard the physical abuse and screams, a makeup artist who described in detail to covering it, a doctor's record of the broken nose that wasn't allowed to be admitted in court, therapist notes dating back to 2013, endless photographs, videos of him destroying property. Most abuse victims don't even have a fraction of this, but when a woman does produce it she's called a liar.

 

He lost the UK court case when the burden of proof was on the defendant (The Sun). Full details here:

Quote

Conclusions on Incident 14

Incident 14 is one where the conflict in evidence is particularly sharp. I have listed those who saw Ms Heard in the days following the incident and who said that her face had no sign of injury. On the other hand, there is evidence which I find compelling of witnesses who saw Ms Heard with injuries to her face and who took photographs of these. I prefer the evidence of the latter for several reasons:
i) Some of their evidence is contemporaneous. Thus, for instance, Mr Tillett Wright heard Ms Heard yelp down the phone. He was sufficiently alarmed for her safety to call 911 even though he was in New York at the time. Other parts are near contemporaneous. Thus, the accounts given by Mr Drew and Ms Pennington were drafted on the following day. Mr Tillett Wright also sent his email (which I have quoted above and which broadly accords with his subsequent statement) on 22nd May 2016.
ii) There are the photographs. The metadata is not disputed and shows that one of the photographs of Ms Heard's face was taken before the first pair of police officers arrived. I have quoted above what Mr Sherborne said was the Claimant's position. Since one of the photographs was taken before the arrival of the police it could not have been the product of later manufacture or fakery of some kind. I appreciate that the photographs were taken in different lighting conditions and that is a good reason why what can be seen differs from one to another. I do not agree with the submission that they are valueless as evidence of Ms Heard suffering some injury to her face. They clearly show (at least) some reddening to her cheek, as Mr Depp in the course of his cross-examination admitted. There are also the photographs of spilled wine (file 6/148(e)/F894.185 and F894.187) which were taken, according to the metadata, on 21st May 2016 at 21.04, which was just before the police officers arrived in the apartment.
iii) In my view Mr Drew was an impressive witness. He gave his evidence carefully and conceded some matters even when alternative answers would have better suited Ms Heard and the Defendants. I accept his evidence, including his account of what he saw of Mr Depp that night, the injury to Ms Heard's face, and his denial that the photographs of her face and the damage to the apartments was staged in any way.
iv) While I accept that the views I have reached are in conflict with the evidence of Officer Saenz and Officer Hadden, I maintain them nonetheless. It is notable that the officers took no contemporaneous notes. While it is not for me to criticise the methods of another police force, the absence of contemporaneous notes means that their evidence does not carry the same weight as it would otherwise. Their first account appears to have been when they gave their depositions some two months later. The absence of contemporaneous notes means that they did not note the names of the man and woman they first encountered in the penthouses (although this was likely to have been Mr Drew and Ms Pennington). They significantly over-estimated the length of time that they were in the apartments. Officer Saenz said it was 30-60 minutes. I have noted above the times that they were captured on the CCTV in the lift going up and then going down from the apartment. While there is no evidence as to the accuracy of the timer on CCTV, that would not affect the interval between those two which was 15 minutes. The officers would have known that Ms Heard did not wish to make a complaint. While a visiting card was left with contact details in case she changed her mind, in the absence of a complaint the officers would have known that no further criminal action could be taken. Officer Saenz did observe reddening on Ms Heard's cheek. Although she attributed this to Ms Heard crying, an ambiguity remains. I accept that the officers said there was no damage to the property, no broken glass and no spilled wine, but that evidence has to be contrasted with the spilled wine which Mr Barruch did see and the photographs of wine stains which were taken just before their arrival. The officers' evidence of the absence of damage to property has also to be seen in the context of the very limited time they were in the apartment and their knowledge that no further action was likely to be taken in the absence of a complaint by Ms Heard. Only Officer Saenz gave oral evidence. I had the deposition of Officer Hadden. In view particularly of the limited time, I would not hold against the Defendants their decision not to require Officer Hadden to give oral evidence. To the extent that Mr Sherborne in his closing written submissions suggested that this course was not open to me, I do not accept his proposition. The Civil Evidence Act 1995 s.4(1) obliges the court to take into account 'any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence'. One of the factors which may be taken into account is 'whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness' (Civil Evidence Act 1995 s.4(2)(a)). I have taken that into account, but maintain the view which I have expressed nonetheless.
v) That night Ms Heard called her lawyer and her publicist. Since she was contemplating seeking a divorce from Mr Depp, it is unremarkable that she called her lawyer. Contacting her publicist might seem a little more surprising. However, given the prominence of Mr Depp and Ms Heard in Hollywood, Ms Heard was right to anticipate a media storm when the news of their divorce broke and, in those circumstances, I accept that a publicist may offer useful advice and therefore her contact with Ms Gottlieb is not a reason to doubt her account.
vi) I reach the view that Mr Depp did assault Ms Heard as she alleges in Incident 14 despite the testimony of the witnesses who I have previously listed. In brief:
a) Sean Bett's first loyalty I find was to his employer, Mr Depp. I accept Ms Heard's evidence that he was not likely to intervene to protect her from Mr Depp. As was apparent when various explanations were given in Australia for the injury to Mr Depp's finger, his security team were acutely conscious of the potential for adverse publicity to harm Mr Depp's reputation. I do not accept Mr Bett's evidence to the extent that it conflicted with the evidence of Ms Heard, Ms Pennington, and Mr Drew.
b) The same may be said of Mr Judge. In any event, Mr Judge's evidence is unreliable in several respects; he said that Ms Heard did not threaten to call the police if Mr Depp hit her again, but Mr Depp heard her say that; Mr Bett and Mr Depp both agree that he went into PH5, Mr Judge says that Mr Depp did not; Mr Judge does not mention in his declaration that Mr Depp left his phone in PH3, yet this plainly did occur and Mr Drew had to bring it down to Mr Judge and Mr Bett. Had Mr Judge been still alive, he might have been able to address these matters, but I must decide the case on the evidence I have seen and read, not speculate as to what other evidence there might have been.
c) I accept Ms Heard's evidence that she usually went out of the apartment wearing makeup and she did so because of the enthusiasm of the paparazzi to try to photograph her. In particular I accept that she was wearing makeup on 22nd May when she went to Ms Pennington's exhibition, on 23rd May when she went Ms de Cadenet's party (Ms de Cadenet had made a declaration in the Virginia libel proceedings explaining why she was not going to be a witness for Ms Heard in the current action. The Defendants wished to cross-examine Ms de Cadenet on this statement. I refused permission since I considered her evidence to be marginal at best and it would not have been proportionate to permit her cross-examination). I find that Ms Heard was wearing makeup when seen by Mr Harrell, Mr Barruch, Ms McMillen, Ms Esparza, Ms Vargas and Mr Romero. Since she was not at these stages willing to go public with her allegations against Mr Depp, one purpose of the make-up would have been to do her best to conceal the injuries and marks.
d) Mr Harrell had said that he and Ms Heard had spoken for about 8 minutes in total. That is an over-estimate. CCTV from the lift shows that the interval between Ms Heard exiting the lift and returning with her parcel was a little over 2 minutes.
e) I place no weight on the evidence of Ms Esparza regarding the fake punch. The CCTV to which she referred had never been produced and no explanation has been given for that omission. In any case, in the absence of that evidence, it is impossible to form a view as to what should be made of any incident of that kind.
f) So far as Mr Romero is concerned, his evidence as to dates was plainly unreliable.
g) I have explained already why I cannot place any weight on the evidence of Ms Devinere.
vii) I do not accept that Ms Pennington had been hiding in a closet of PH3. She was plainly summoned by a text from Ms Heard. Ms Pennington herself says that she initially found the door to PH3 locked when the text came and she went back and got her own set of keys for PH3. I find that the reason her arrival was not seen by Mr Judge and Mr Bett was because they were waiting in the 'cubby hole', as was their usual practice.
viii) Ms Marz's evidence was that she saw Ms Heard with a red, puffy and swollen face. She also said that Mr Depp had been flailing around with a wine bottle and that there was spilled wine on the floor.
Stepping back and considering the evidence as a whole

I have said above that, after considering the detail of the evidence regarding the individual incidents, I would step back and consider to what conclusion I should come in view of the evidence as a whole.
I have found that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard (bearing in mind what has been said about the evidence necessary to satisfy that standard when serious allegations are in issue). The exceptions are Incidents 6, 11 and the additional confidential allegation regarding Hicksville. I do not regard the Defendants' inability to make good these allegations as of importance in determining whether they have established the substantial truth of the words that they published in the meanings which I have held those words to bear.
At several times in the course of this litigation, Mr Sherborne has suggested that there was unfairness to the Claimant because Mr Depp's effective opponent was Ms Heard and yet she was not a party. She had no obligation to make disclosure and she provided information to the Defendants at different times and at her choice. I am not persuaded that these comments carry any weight. It is, of course, right that Ms Heard is not a party to the proceedings. Because she is not a party, she was not obliged to make disclosure. As a third party, the court can nonetheless order her to make disclosure but only if quite stringent conditions are satisfied (see CPR r.31.17). The Claimant did indeed apply for such third-party disclosure against Ms Heard. His application was unsuccessful. Mr Depp has not been short of legal advice. He would, I can assume, have been advised as to the consequence of suing the Defendants against whom the claim is brought, but not Ms Heard. It was a matter for him, with the benefit of that advice to decide, if he wished to pursue the claim against these defendants. The consequences of him doing so, are that they (and not Ms Heard) are subject to the obligations of a party to make disclosure. There has been no suggestion that the defendants have failed in that duty.
A recurring theme in Mr Depp's evidence was that Ms Heard had constructed a hoax and that she had done this as an 'insurance policy' – presumably in the event that the marriage broke down. Mr Sherborne commented in his closing submissions that Ms Heard had said that she recorded some of her conversations with Mr Depp to show him what he was capable of doing when the Monster prevailed and yet many of these were never played to or shown to Mr Depp. She was, according to this scenario, nothing more than a gold-digger. I have in the course of this judgment given reasons why I do not accept this characterisation of Ms Heard. Looking at the evidence as a whole, I come to the same conclusion. There is a multiplicity of emails, texts and messages and diary entries in the papers before me. I have quoted some. Some, but by no means all, are from Ms Heard. I recognise, of course, that previous statements by her are not independent evidence of the truth of the allegations, yet they are not, on the other hand, inadmissible or irrelevant for that reason. There are also as I have shown sometimes statements from third parties which do corroborate her. I had evidence as to what Ms Heard had received as a result of the divorce settlement. I have explained that there was no expert evidence to compare those figures with what she would otherwise have been entitled to under Californian divorce law. The principal element of that settlement was payment to her by Mr Depp of US $ 7 million. Ms Heard's evidence that she had given that sum away to charity was not challenged on behalf of Mr Depp and the joint statement issued by Mr Depp and Ms Heard as part of the Deal Point Memorandum acknowledged that this was her intention (see file 9/139/L78) . I recognise that there were other elements to the divorce settlement as well, but her donation of the $ 7 million to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-digger.
As Ms Wass said in her closing submissions, if Ms Heard had been constructing a hoax there are various measures which she might have taken, but which she did not (see paragraph 91 of the Defendants' closing submissions). I agree that those points add further force to the conclusion I would anyway have reached, which is to reject the 'hoax' or 'insurance policy' thesis.
I also accept that Ms Heard's allegations have had a negative effect on her career as an actor and activist. She said in her 4th witness statement (made on 19th March 2020) that her allegations had attracted considerable publicity and,
'Following this publicity, I have been subjected to a campaign of targeted online abuse on social media as well as online petitions calling for me to be removed from any future sequel to Aquaman and from my association with L'Oreal. This has not been limited to my professional and commercial projects. It has also been aimed at what is most important to me: my humanitarian work, including my partnership with the United Nations (UN) and other non-governmental organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and many others, and the important work these organisations do.'
This part of Ms Heard's evidence was not challenged either. I accept it.

Something of Mr Depp's feelings towards Ms Heard can be seen in a text that he sent to Christian Carino on 15th August 2016 in which he said (see file 6/119/F697.194),
'She's begging for total global humiliation. She's gonna get it. I'm gonna need your texts about San Francisco brother ... I'm even sorry to ask ... But she sucked Mollusk's [I assume a reference to Elon Musk] crooked dick and he gave her some shitty lawyers ... I have no mercy, no fear and not an ounce of emotion or what I once thought was love for this gold digging, low level, dime a dozen, mushy, pointless dangling overused flappy fish market ... I'm so ******* happy she wants to fight this out!!! She will hit the wall hard!!! And I cannot wait to have this waste of a cum guzzler out of my life!!! I met ******* sublime little Russian here ... Which makes me realize the time I blew on that 50 cent stripper ... I wouldn't touch her with a goddam glove. I can only hope that karma kicks in and takes the gift of breath from her ... Sorry man ... But NOW I will stop at nothing!!! Let's see if Mollusk has a pair ... Come see me face to face ... I'll show him things he's never seen before ... Like the other side of his dick when I slice it off.'
I have said above that I did not regard it as necessary or proportionate to resolve the disputed evidence as to what occurred in the Bahamas in December 2015. For the avoidance of doubt, my views would have been the same even if I had taken that evidence into account.
Despite the excessive length of this judgment I have not been able to address every one of the submissions made on the Claimant's behalf, but I have taken all of them into account.
For all of these reasons I accept that the Defendants have shown that the words they published were substantially true in the meanings I have held them to bear.
Conclusion and summary

It follows that this claim is dismissed.
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 bear was 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. The parties will have an opportunity to make submissions in writing as to the precise terms of the order which should follow my decision.

 

 

as said here:

 

 

 

 

 

[FOCK]

Alexa, what is dis henny?! 

 

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSdbkLN6n/?k=1

 

 

[tellem]

8 hours ago, Raiden said:

It's just that most people everywhere are honest human beings: they follow facts and evidence wherever it leads them. They are not narrative-pushing or agenda-driven. They just observe and conclude on the merits — on what's in front of them. 

[suburbannature]

Notice how the Deppsters always ignore posts with evidence