celeb news Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial

[Cloudy]

The Kesha fan unable to justify his hatred and dismissal of Amber's proof while supporting Kesha who is in a similar situation and with less proof than her is something else, only on ATRL 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Cloudy

[Raspy]

16 minutes ago, Daydream said:

She will probably have to give him everything she has at the moment, then file for bankruptcy and then an order will be put in place so that any income she receives going forward has to go straight to Johnny until the debt is paid off.

 

 

What's turd gonna eat then? Her own poo?

[brazil]

3 minutes ago, Ari29 said:

What’s with the assumptions? I didn’t say I agreed with the acquittal I used it as an example that the US courts do go by facts, evidence and the law…sometimes to a fault. 
 

But yes I agree to an extent with you about prosecutors 

That case doesn't prove facts were considered over bias, wasn't the jurors predominantly white? Bias whether conscious or unconscious can play either way. Of course judges are not perfect either, but theyre  usually more objective in their decisions and checks and balances work better. Jury verdicts are hardly ever overturned in the US.

[anastasha]

29 minutes ago, Daydream said:

The fact that the Little Heardsters are deflecting by trying to accuse the jury of misconduct and talking about cases irrelevant to this case like Kesha and football players. They really are grasping at straws because they known damn well there is no way to justify Amber’s awful actions.

 

Thank you to the wonderful jury and the US judicial system for doing the right thing.

The jury was too stupid to even enter damages afforded and had to go back to fill it in, they also clearly did not understand the standards for defamation. They are dumb, and most likely were taken in by the hate campaign against her (since they weren't sequestered)... a juror who admitted his wife told him Amber was a "psycho" was still allowed to sit on the jury ffs.

[anastasha]

25 minutes ago, Gaia said:

It’s absurd their “overwhelming evidence” is “so and so said xxx happened”

 

If he was consistently abusing her, and to the point where she feared for her life, there would be more concrete evidence. The fact that even police didn’t see any abuse/bruise markings on her face after proclaiming to be beaten by Johnny, but no they’ll ignore that. They’ll rather stick with hearsay. 

The police were going to arrest Gabby Petito because they thought she was the abuser, and the man who killed her was a victim. Their power of deduction and perception are incredibly unreliable, people don't see what they don't want to see and vice versa.

[Communion]

24 minutes ago, Gaia said:

It’s absurd their “overwhelming evidence” is “so and so said xxx happened”

"It doesn't matter if people saw you get abused, or saw your injuries from getting abused, anything less than a formal police report is an admittance of deception" is one of the most far-righf talking points there is in victim-blaming. One removed from the realities of those who experience DV who know police enable more DV than they help stop. It was literally a cultural norm just 3 decades ago that domestic violence was just "domestic affairs between a man and his wife". 

 

He literally is on tape admitting to both headbutting her and using the door to hurt her foot. 

[Ari29]

1 minute ago, brazil said:

That case doesn't prove facts were considered over bias, wasn't the jurors predominantly white? Bias whether conscious or unconscious can play either way. Of course judges are not perfect either, but theyre  usually more objective in their decisions and checks and balances work better. Jury verdicts are hardly ever overturned in the US.

The prosecutor called him an “active shooter” the jury was shown video of him casually walking around with the rifle…by definition not an active shooter. As well as one of the states witnesses corroborating an important detail of Rittenhouses account of events. 
 

With the jurors instructions there was only one way for them to vote…

 

Judges should be objective but wouldn’t you say the judge in the UK dismissing Johnny Depp’s testimony due to his substance abuse was not objective and leans into bias?

[anastasha]

3 hours ago, for lovers said:

 

And the jury? How did they follow the case? 

They weren't sequestered so they also likely succumbed to the botted PR campaign by his team.

[TasteOfYourLips]

53 minutes ago, KeshaSwift said:

Why will I have sympathy for a certified abuser? and as if Kesha's case is comparable  get out of this thread if you're too sensitive.

-

OT: How do y'all think the abuser's gonna pay that much money? 

Of course those cases are comparable KeshaSwift, both Kesha's and Amber's cases are defamation cases, only Kesha doesn't have even 1/3 of Amber's evidence and her alleged defamation isn't about one pre checked vague headline only.

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by TasteOfYourLips

[anastasha]

9 hours ago, Mohit said:

Did she really poop on bed to piss off JD? Im happy that he won the case if this is the case 

Nope. It was most likely their sick dog (who had previously **** ON Depp himself), and there's more reason to believe it's Johnny than Amber.

 

The only person who claims Amber admitted it is Depp's bodyguard, someone on his payroll. Depp also has texts he sent to a friend where he proposed the idea of having someone **** on their floor as a 'prank' on Amber. This gets ignored though.

[Raiden]

41 minutes ago, Communion said:

I hope you realize the same laws that helped Depp win will be what helps Luke win his defamation case. 

So?

 

Why are you worried that more fake metoo acts will be exposed in the court of law?

 

You should rejoice! As that means the movement will be cleaner and sanitized from hoaxsters who try to scam their way to advance their monetary situation. That's not bad but good news. #metoo wasn't meant for bad faith actors to profit at the expense of the innocent.

 

By the way have you noticed the contrast between the two, now that the case is over? Once side overflows in gratitude and humility — the other explodes in a narcissistic tirade, once again exposing the contrast in their heart.

 

 

 

[brazil]

1 minute ago, Ari29 said:

The prosecutor called him an “active shooter” the jury was shown video of him casually walking around with the rifle…by definition not an active shooter. As well as one of the states witnesses corroborating an important detail of Rittenhouses account of events. 
 

With the jurors instructions there was only one way for them to vote…

 

Judges should be objective but wouldn’t you say the judge in the UK dismissing Johnny Depp’s testimony due to his substance abuse was not objective and leans into bias?

The dismissal of evidence in the UK was related to documents that were not relevant to determining whether the abuse happened or not, these documents were aimed at conveying public opinion in one way, like him and his legal and PR team did so cleverly in the US trial

 

Say, Depp's sob story about his mom yelling at him plays no part in determining if he abused Amber or not, rather its a tactic to portray him from the let go as a victim and excuse whatever faults he might have. The video of her in an elevator with James Franco after the every accusations of domestic abuse is irrelevant to the fact of whether he hit her or not, still, it was one of the most talked about pieces of "evidence" in this case.

[Gaia]

32 minutes ago, anastasha said:

The police were going to arrest Gabby Petito because they thought she was the abuser, and the man who killed her was a victim. Their power of deduction and perception are incredibly unreliable, people don't see what they don't want to see and vice versa.

This goes both ways which is so blatantly ignored by Amber supporters. People close to Amber/on her side would clearly see “abuse” if she told them she was being abused even if there wasn’t actually much. 
 

If a friend I cared about had a cut lip and said it’s because someone hit them, yes I’d believe it (originally) without proof unless it didn’t make sense. This can also make their testimonies unreliable. 
 

People see what they want to see and see what they think they’re supposed to see. 
 

If you’re going to use that judgement on people on Johnny’s side but then act like everyone who testified against Johnny was different, then you’re disingenuous and clearly biased (not saying you, but in general). 
 

 

 

 

[Communion]

28 minutes ago, Raiden said:

Why are you worried that more fake metoo acts will be exposed in the court of law?

Kesha's not a ******* liar. What's wrong with you? 

[Ari29]

20 minutes ago, brazil said:

The dismissal of evidence in the UK was related to documents that were not relevant to determining whether the abuse happened or not, these documents were aimed at conveying public opinion in one way, like him and his legal and PR team did so cleverly in the US trial

 

Say, Depp's sob story about his mom yelling at him plays no part in determining if he abused Amber or not, rather its a tactic to portray him from the let go as a victim and excuse whatever faults he might have. The video of her in an elevator with James Franco after the every accusations of domestic abuse is irrelevant to the fact of whether he hit her or not, still, it was one of the most talked about pieces of "evidence" in this case.

His story about his mom was allowed tho..? Have you read the ruling over there? 

Ok so you don’t think that situation showed bias, how about: 

Kate James, former Amber Heard assistant who was dismissed as an unsatisfactory witness simply because she no longer worked for Amber. She testified to one of Amber’s lies to the US Department of Homeland Security AND she had physical proof, which Amber acknowledged but side stepped with an obvious lie. 
 

There was definitely less objectivity over there than here in the US

[brazil]

10 minutes ago, Ari29 said:

His story about his mom was allowed tho..? Have you read the ruling over there? 

Ok so you don’t think that situation showed bias, how about: 

Kate James, former Amber Heard assistant who was dismissed as an unsatisfactory witness simply because she no longer worked for Amber. She testified to one of Amber’s lies to the US Department of Homeland Security AND she had physical proof, which Amber acknowledged but side stepped with an obvious lie. 
 

There was definitely less objectivity over there than here in the US

I highly doubt that's the ONLY reason for her dismissal, do you mind providing me with the decision related to her dismissal? I'm sure there is going to be more to it

[Ari29]

3 minutes ago, brazil said:

I highly doubt that's the ONLY reason for her dismissal, do you mind providing me with the decision related to her dismissal? I'm sure there is going to be more to it

Sure…the part I’m referencing is in section 109

 

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

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Ari29

[Communion]

19 minutes ago, Ari29 said:

His story about his mom was allowed tho..? Have you read the ruling over there? 

Ok so you don’t think that situation showed bias, how about: 

Kate James, former Amber Heard assistant who was dismissed as an unsatisfactory witness simply because she no longer worked for Amber. She testified to one of Amber’s lies to the US Department of Homeland Security AND she had physical proof, which Amber acknowledged but side stepped with an obvious lie. 
 

There was definitely less objectivity over there than here in the US

Kate James' testimony was thrown out because her testimony was a conspiracy that Amber was obsessed with her and stole her story of sexual assault despite that their stories drastically varying from one another.   James' own story of abuse was that she was raped in Brazil at knifepoint. Literally none of Heard's accusations, which would have been confidential in the UK case and not available to James to even know what Heard claimed, match the scenario of being assaulted at knifepoint. James' story is horrific and she is undeniably a victim of rape, but it was quite literally impossible for the conspiracy that Amber stole her story to be true. 

 

You're again doing what you just said Depp didn't- focusing on attacking Heard's character instead of recognizing if Depp hit her or not. 

[anastasha]

37 minutes ago, Gaia said:

This goes both ways which is so blatantly ignored by Amber supporters. People close to Amber/on her side would clearly see “abuse” if she told them she was being abused even if there wasn’t actually much. 
 

If a friend I cared about had a cut lip and said it’s because someone hit them, yes I’d believe it (originally) without proof unless it didn’t make sense. This can also make their testimonies unreliable. 
 

People see what they want to see and see what they think they’re supposed to see. 
 

If you’re going to use that judgement on people on Johnny’s side but then act like everyone who testified against Johnny was different, then you’re disingenuous and clearly biased (not saying you, but in general). 

She didn't just tell them, they saw it.

 

As far as I'm aware, Amber isn't even friends with some of the people who testified anymore, they have no allegiance to her. Unlike the people on Depp's payroll that testified for him. One of the officers also said that Amber's face was red but that she thought Amber had just been crying and that she THOUGHT it wasn't consistent with being hit, no confirmation, just an assumption.

 

Hopefully more people wake up to what a violent monster he is when he's around for his next trial concerning him assaulting a crew member on set.

[NausAllien]

6 minutes ago, anastasha said:

Hopefully more people wake up to what a violent monster he is when he's around for his next trial concerning him assaulting a crew member on set.

This is pretty much my take. I believe he's deep down an awful person, but he's a very good actor and has tricked most people into thinking he's a good man. However, when he's drunk or high, his true nature is revealed. Alcohol and drugs don't turn him into a monster, they show who he truly is.

 

He will mess up again and reveal his true colors. It's only a matter of time. 

 

[Raiden]

I have no shadow of a doubt that AH was the predator in the relationship. One can't even bothsides it here. He wanted to de escalate — she never wanted deescalation.

 

Here is the evidence of that, straight from the horse's mouth:

 

 

AH is JD's Catherine Tramell. Like Catherine, AH just couldn't it — couldn't help but reveal her true nature: i.e. that she can't even promise the minimum: that she won't be violent, and hurt him physically. Even that absolute minimum level human decency was a bridge too far for her. Of course it is — for anyone with a billionaire-rocket size ego and narcissism.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Raiden

[brazil]

48 minutes ago, Ari29 said:

Sure…the part I’m referencing is in section 109

 

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

 

So yeah, she was terminated and resentful towards Amber, and the only "evidence" she showed of employement was a single check of 1k, hardly constitute evidence of employement, and again the matter discussed is irrelevant to the veracity of Amber's claim of abuse, if her friend was indeed hired as her assistant in the US not in compliance with US immigration laws, it might as well be that JD also knew about it.

Edited June 3, 2022 by brazil

[suburbannature]

Each time I post lengthy receipts and provide comprehensive explanations of what happened, the same three users in here ignore it and change the subject to TikTok narratives, poop, or edited audio. It’s happened a half dozen times in the last week. I wonder why that is.

[anastasha]

18 minutes ago, NausAllien said:

This is pretty much my take. I believe he's deep down an awful person, but he's a very good actor and has tricked most people into thinking he's a good man. However, when he's drunk or high, his true nature is revealed. Alcohol and drugs don't turn him into a monster, they show who he truly is.

 

He will mess up again and reveal his true colors. It's only a matter of time. 

It's inevitable, and when he abuses the next woman he's with, not if but when, she will be too scared to speak up because of this; maybe she'll have less evidence than Amber, maybe more, but either way this has guaranteed her silence.

 

It's upsetting because he's been showing glimpses of his true colours for over 30 years, his first arrest for assault that we know of being in 1989 (when Amber was just a toddler).

 

What's also wildly uncomfortable and confusing is even if people believe she was abusive, the person shown in the messages he's sent, and the actions he's admitted to do not reveal a good man or one to stand behind outside of this case. The homophobia, transphobia, racism, and misogyny is shocking and alarming yet ignored.

[Ari29]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

Kate James' testimony was thrown out because her testimony was a conspiracyt

 I am afraid that I did not find Ms James a satisfactory witness. She had been dismissed by Ms Heard in February 2015 and the circumstances of her termination still appeared to be a cause of rancour with Ms James. 
 

Are you seriously going to argue with me over the judges reason when this is literally straight from the case. These are his words. 
 

you are so delusional and argumentative it’s alarming