celeb news Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial

[Death On Two Legs]

52 minutes ago, hurricane326 said:

What in the f v cking f vck is WRONG with you. This just might be the most offensive thing in this thread yet said. 

 

""Real" victims of domestic abuse only behave a certain way". I'd love to see you go before women who have retaliated against their abuser and tell them that. See how far you get. 

 

As someone who was sexually harassed and more or less assaulted over a period of three years in my school envoronment due to my sexuality, I DID retaliate. It fell on deaf ears and reactions, but I did nonetheless. And there were plenty of times where I walked on eggshells, too

 

You are NOBODY to tell ANYONE who is a "real" victim based on their reaction. GTFO

WTF are you ranting about? My entire post just went over your head. Get lost. 

[Death On Two Legs]

6 minutes ago, Communion said:

This whole post is criminally wrong and warnable on misinformation alone.  This part in particular is like frighteningly wrong by just observed fact. You're so angry and resentful to those who get abused. Why?

I’m so sick of your lies, and delusional. You should be perma banned, imo. All you and others have done in this thread is trigger the crap out of real victims of domestic violence - like myself. 

[Raiden]

Look who joined tiktok just hours ago

 

 

[Daydream]

5 minutes ago, Raiden said:

Look who joined tiktok just hours ago

 

 

King.

[Chris]

This thread is still going?

[Chris]

43 minutes ago, Death On Two Legs said:

WTF are you ranting about? My entire post just went over your head. Get lost. 

[Communion]

47 minutes ago, Death On Two Legs said:

I’m so sick of your lies, and delusional. You should be perma banned, imo. All you and others have done in this thread is trigger the crap out of real victims of domestic violence - like myself. 

You are literally wrong. 

 

I don't care if you think someone hitting someone back or retaliating means then that what is occurring can no longer constitute as some abstract phenomena you want to define as the only thing we can call "domestic violence"; your claim that no instances of IPV ever result in either verbal or physical retaliation is wrong. We know it to be wrong from the data itself. We know it to be wrong from a myriad of lived experiences.

 

There are men and women who fight their abusers. There are men and women who kill their abusers.

Your assertion that fear can only manifest in a victim falling to the floor, quivering and begging to not be killed is rejected from simple observable knowledge of human psychology. 

 

Your desire to try and lie about the reality of abuse to silence victims who act differently isn't defensible via being a victim yourself. 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Communion

[NausAllien]

I had to block certain users because their disgusting and offensive comments were really triggering. And I'm not a even a victim of DV, but I can't imagine how some ATRLs who are feel like when reading those repulsive comments.

 

Blocking TRASH was the best decision I made for my mental health... 

 

I do have to wonder why mods don't take action against these users. Is this the type of environment they want to foster? The environment where the behavior of victims of DV and SA is judged, mocked and laughed at?

[BobBertran1992]

3 hours ago, Death On Two Legs said:

Can this thread just be closed? This is over. Heard supporters just keep going in circles, and posting bs tweets trying to come up with some false narrative that Heard is the victim. It was already pointed out by too many that the judge in the UK trial was biased, and refused the evidence. Heard also perjured herself by lying about donating the $7 million she extorted from Johnny to charity. Heard supporters have continuously bumped this thread - get a job and find something to do. All all the overwhelming evidence - how in the hell do you continuously, and vigorously defend a woman with zero evidence proving that she was physically assaulting by Depp? I’m a woman, and if my ****** was r apped by a bottle, I would seek immediate medical attention. Heard claim to have been beaten so bad by Depp with rings on his fingers, that she was left with two black eyes, a broken nose, busted lip and a swollen face. Yet appeared the very next day on the James Corden show looking like a 90’s supermodel with zero injuries to her face.
 

The same ole man haters circle jerking, and continuing to defame a man that has won what is a very difficult case to prove. Heard kept beating Johnny, chased him around his homes, and wouldn’t let him leave. She is literally on tape admitting to physically abusing Johnny, and starting the fights. The quote heard from around the world is Heard telling Johnny: Tell the world, Johnny. Tell the world that you are a victim of domestic violence and see how many people believe you. Humiliated and cursed him out on recordings by telling him to suck her d**k, calling him a washed up POS and cackling like a demon from hell. No legit victim of domestic violence would goad their abuser, trap and stop him from leaving. Heard: I was not punching you. I was hitting you. Babe, you’re not punched. Grow the *** up. 
 

Heard told every lie on the stand - even with all of the evidence presented to rebuff each and every lie she told. These Heard supporters clearly did not follow this case, because I don’t see how anyone could continue to side with Heard. And if some of them did follow this case, yet still believe Heard just shows that once again make victims of domestic violence are not to be believed because they are men. Heard verbally assaulting Johnny:
 

Get over yourselves and move the *** on. This is over. Yeah I’m gonna tell my abuser to suck my d**k, belittle his career, call him a joke, a sellout and washed up. Real victims of domestic violence would never speak to their abuser the way Heard spoke to Johnny. They walk on eggshells, and do what they can not to set off their abuser. Intentional bed sh*tter Heard is one dangerous and terrifying person.  

OMG you Depp apologists are still taking that quote out of context  

 

AH: Tell the world, Johnny, tell them ''Johnny Depp, I, Johnny Depp, man, I-I'm a victim too of domestic violence, and I, you know, it's a fair fight'' and see how many people believe or side with you.

JD: It doesn't matter a f-f-fair fight my ass.

AH: Exactly, because you're big, you're bigger and you're stronger. And so when I say that I thought that you could kill me, that doesn't mean you counter with you also lost your own finger.  I, I'm not trying to attack you here, I'm just trying to point out the fact of why I said call 911. Because I was, you had your hands on me after you threw a phone at my face. 

[Death On Two Legs]

21 minutes ago, hurricane326 said:

Again, here you are gatekeeping survivors of domestic abuse. As we know, there is no one set behavior a survivor exhibits. There is no set way they react to triggers. What might trigger apanic response in one might be completely innocuous in another. My biggest trigger is people yelling loudly in excitement/energy, as it reminds me of being yelled at in rage. 

 

We, as survivors of abuse, must respect and understand the experiences of all others who have been through the same. You are doing the exact opposite, and it is disgusting.

Amber Heard is not a victim of domestic violence by Johnny Depp - which is what my post was all about. She’s on recordings laughing, belittling Depp and telling him to suck her d**k. All of this while in the same room with him. She would probably be in a coma if he put his hands on her.  No victim of domestic violence is going to goad, and poke the bear. The both of you clearly didn’t read my post, but decided to take that one comment I made, and misconstrue my words. Doing just like Amber, and gaslighting to make it seem like I am against victims of domestic violence. I really need you to sit your ass down somewhere, and stop looking for an argument where there is none. Read the room. 

 

10 minutes ago, NausAllien said:

I had to block certain users because their disgusting and offensive comments were really triggering. And I'm not a even a victim of DV, but I can't imagine how some ATRLs who are feel like when reading those repulsive comments.

 

Blocking TRASH was the best decision I made for my mental health... 

 

I do have to wonder why mods don't take action against these users. Is this the type of environment they want to foster? The environment where the behavior of victims of DV and SA is judged, mocked and laughed at?

Why would they take action against us? Because we are on the right side of the facts - while you and the other delulus continuously and blindly support a liar, perjurer and man beater? Even though the facts are right in your face? You are all only siding with Heard because she’s a woman. Disgusting.

[Daydream]

1 minute ago, Death On Two Legs said:

Why would they take action against us? Because we are on the right side of the facts - while you and the other delulus continuously and blindly support a liar, perjurer and man beater? Even though the facts are right in your face? You are all only siding with Heard because she’s a woman. Disgusting.

This. All we are doing is just agreeing with the verdict given by the jury in good faith. But the Little Heardsters are acting like they’re the righteous ones, when in fact they are the ones going against the law and saying they are better qualified than the jury and judge who actually know the ins-and-outs of the case.

[Patient Zero]

5 hours ago, Raiden said:

Holy sh*t — that was quick

 

 

 

A winner. A powerful woman worth admiring. Queen of exposing LIARS

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Death On Two Legs said:

Can this thread just be closed? This is over. Heard supporters just keep going in circles, and posting bs tweets trying to come up with some false narrative that Heard is the victim. It was already pointed out by too many that the judge in the UK trial was biased, and refused the evidence. Heard also perjured herself by lying about donating the $7 million she extorted from Johnny to charity. Heard supporters have continuously bumped this thread - get a job and find something to do. All all the overwhelming evidence - how in the hell do you continuously, and vigorously defend a woman with zero evidence proving that she was physically assaulting by Depp? I’m a woman, and if my ****** was r apped by a bottle, I would seek immediate medical attention. Heard claim to have been beaten so bad by Depp with rings on his fingers, that she was left with two black eyes, a broken nose, busted lip and a swollen face. Yet appeared the very next day on the James Corden show looking like a 90’s supermodel with zero injuries to her face.
 

The same ole man haters circle jerking, and continuing to defame a man that has won what is a very difficult case to prove. Heard kept beating Johnny, chased him around his homes, and wouldn’t let him leave. She is literally on tape admitting to physically abusing Johnny, and starting the fights. The quote heard from around the world is Heard telling Johnny: Tell the world, Johnny. Tell the world that you are a victim of domestic violence and see how many people believe you. Humiliated and cursed him out on recordings by telling him to suck her d**k, calling him a washed up POS and cackling like a demon from hell. No legit victim of domestic violence would goad their abuser, trap and stop him from leaving. Heard: I was not punching you. I was hitting you. Babe, you’re not punched. Grow the *** up. 
 

Heard told every lie on the stand - even with all of the evidence presented to rebuff each and every lie she told. These Heard supporters clearly did not follow this case, because I don’t see how anyone could continue to side with Heard. And if some of them did follow this case, yet still believe Heard just shows that once again make victims of domestic violence are not to be believed because they are men. Heard verbally assaulting Johnny:
 

Get over yourselves and move the *** on. This is over. Yeah I’m gonna tell my abuser to suck my d**k, belittle his career, call him a joke, a sellout and washed up. Real victims of domestic violence would never speak to their abuser the way Heard spoke to Johnny. They walk on eggshells, and do what they can not to set off their abuser. Intentional bed sh*tter Heard is one dangerous and terrifying person.  

Another powerful woman

[suburbannature]

7 minutes ago, Death On Two Legs said:

Amber Heard is not a victim of domestic violence by Johnny Depp - which is what my post was all about. She’s on recordings laughing, belittling Depp and telling him to suck her d**k. All of this while in the same room with him. She would probably be in a coma if he put his hands on her.  No victim of domestic violence is going to goad, and poke the bear. The both of you clearly didn’t read my post, but decided to take that one comment I made, and misconstrue my words. Doing just like Amber, and gaslighting to make it seem like I am against victims of domestic violence. I really need you to sit your ass down somewhere, and stop looking for an argument where there is none. Read the room. 

 

Why would they take action against us? Because we are on the right side of the facts - while you and the other delulus continuously and blindly support a liar, perjurer and man beater? Even though the facts are right in your face? You are all only siding with Heard because she’s a woman. Disgusting.

Disgusting, loud, and wrong but not surprising coming from someone who has written essays on atrl about Michael Jackson being innocent. 

[Guest]

31:00 wait, queen spilled and debunked everything

[suburbannature]

Quick refresher for a few ignorants here. I’m tired of reading about mutual abuse or, worse, references to Amber being an abuser or the “such a baby” tape.

 

Another point of clarification: Amber Heard never said she abused Johnny Depp. She said she struck him in defensive moves (both of herself and her sister). Abuse victims often face this kind of accusatory rhetoric in legal proceedings to undermine their accusations of abuse as there is typically some kind of evidence of defensive wounds.

 

Having worked with both victims and perpetrators, it is not unusual for victims to actually aggregate physical aggressions at some stages in relationships. This can be due to hyperarousal (i.e. perceiving a threat at all times - sometimes innocuous moments, sometimes genuine threats). The amygdala in the emotional brain immediately sends the person into survival or reptilian brain rather than moving to the prefrontal cortex to determine whether or not there's a genuine threat - the result is panic. This is a major characteristic of people who have experienced trauma or survived abuse.

 

In other situations, the victim may begin to aggregate physical contact after long periods of abuse. This is called reactive abuse.The victim may scream, toss out insults, or even lash out physically at the abuser. The abuser then retaliates by telling the victim that they are, in fact, the abuser. Reactive abuse is often used to discredit victims during litigation, and one of many reasons why an overwhelmingly small number of accusations of abuse actually result in convictions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a must read:

 

 

and finally, the UK trial - in which the burden of proof was on The Sun and Heard as the star witness - that found 12 legally-verified instances of abuse and described Depp's lies in detail:

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

 

excerpt:

 

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.

 

[vuelve88]

6 hours ago, Raiden said:

Holy sh*t — that was quick

 

 

Shakira needs to hire her for her tax problems 

[Death On Two Legs]

38 minutes ago, BobBertran1992 said:

OMG you Depp apologists are still taking that quote out of context  

 

AH: Tell the world, Johnny, tell them ''Johnny Depp, I, Johnny Depp, man, I-I'm a victim too of domestic violence, and I, you know, it's a fair fight'' and see how many people believe or side with you.

JD: It doesn't matter a f-f-fair fight my ass.

AH: Exactly, because you're big, you're bigger and you're stronger. And so when I say that I thought that you could kill me, that doesn't mean you counter with you also lost your own finger.  I, I'm not trying to attack you here, I'm just trying to point out the fact of why I said call 911. Because I was, you had your hands on me after you threw a phone at my face. 

Those are pure lies, and the jury saw right through them. Since you wanna post this abusers lies, why don’t you tell me why Heard couldn’t produce any evidence of this alleged abuse? Only thing she had was a few set up photos of Johnny sleeping/passed out, and banging up a couple of kitchen cabinets. Where is the EVIDENCE  of this horror of physical and sexual abuse she endured at the hands of her former husband? Why didn’t the police find any evidence of physical abuse when they were called to Johnny’s home? Why did Amber just walk away when they showed up - refusing to talk to them? Why did witnesses find injuries on Johnny, but not on Heard? Where are her medical records, and photographs documenting this horrible abuse? Johnny’s injuries were documented and presented in court. She literally has zero evidence, and thought she could manipulate the jury and sway them with words only. Thank God they are smarter than she is. This is a lost cause - arguing with Heard supporters is like talking to a brick wall. 

 

I’d rather watch paint dry.

 

31 minutes ago, Daydream said:

This. All we are doing is just agreeing with the verdict given by the jury in good faith. But the Little Heardsters are acting like they’re the righteous ones, when in fact they are the ones going against the law and saying they are better qualified than the jury and judge who actually know the ins-and-outs of the case.

!!!!!!!

Edited June 7, 2022 by Death On Two Legs

[FOCK]

6 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

Quick refresher for a few ignorants here. I’m tired of reading about mutual abuse or, worse, references to Amber being an abuser or the “such a baby” tape.

 

Another point of clarification: Amber Heard never said she abused Johnny Depp. She said she struck him in defensive moves (both of herself and her sister). Abuse victims often face this kind of accusatory rhetoric in legal proceedings to undermine their accusations of abuse as there is typically some kind of evidence of defensive wounds.

 

Having worked with both victims and perpetrators, it is not unusual for victims to actually aggregate physical aggressions at some stages in relationships. This can be due to hyperarousal (i.e. perceiving a threat at all times - sometimes innocuous moments, sometimes genuine threats). The amygdala in the emotional brain immediately sends the person into survival or reptilian brain rather than moving to the prefrontal cortex to determine whether or not there's a genuine threat - the result is panic. This is a major characteristic of people who have experienced trauma or survived abuse.

 

In other situations, the victim may begin to aggregate physical contact after long periods of abuse. This is called reactive abuse.The victim may scream, toss out insults, or even lash out physically at the abuser. The abuser then retaliates by telling the victim that they are, in fact, the abuser. Reactive abuse is often used to discredit victims during litigation, and one of many reasons why an overwhelmingly small number of accusations of abuse actually result in convictions.

 

Literally all of this could apply the other way around, if that’s the argument. 

[Seiko Oomori]

y'all are really still wasting precious moments of your life writing essays over these multimillionaire cockroaches

 

 

[suburbannature]

Just now, FOCK said:

Literally all of this could apply the other way around, if that’s the argument. 

No...it couldn't and that's such a cheap cop-out reply to avoid reading and acknowledging the added threads of evidence and articles supporting it. 

[tellem]

2 hours ago, Raiden said:

Look who joined tiktok just hours ago

Keep him away from the kids there 

[Weld_E]

6 hours ago, Raiden said:

One instance of admitted abuse would have been enough to tank his case. He only admitted to his forehead touching her forehead in one of their supposed heated arguments (that's not what domestic abuse means).

 

This alone is enough to discredit any opinion you have of this case because it reeks with deliberate ignorance and bias. You know Depp head butted her, but you're just downplaying the severity of it and conveniently dismissing it as "not abuse". There is verbal and written evidence of him head butting her, kicking her, and throwing a phone at her. Whether or not you choose to "count" those instances as "abuse" is not something I am interested in.

 

 

6 hours ago, Raiden said:

That's not how a real DV victim behaves. Such a victim would be relived when their aggressor goes away from them. AH failed to give any impression that she wanted to get away from JD (something that DV victims do feel constantly). Instead time after time in the various recordings it's she who is coming to wherever he was.

What gives you the right to decide how a DV victim is suppose to behave? Amber was not a perfect victim, and fought back on occasion and was stuck in this toxic relationship. She did in fact leave him, as she admits in one of the tapes (the one you all love to cite but conveniently ignore the context of the conversation). Regardless, that does not mean that he never abused her. The fact that some Deppsters truly believe he never abused her despite his own confession, medical records, and witnessing proving he did is so absurd to me. But seeing how you twisted the head butting incident to "his forehead touching her", I'm sure you have a list of excuses to dismiss all the other evidence as well .

 

6 hours ago, Raiden said:

All of the tapes completely failed to portray this picture of a supposed monster terrifying a damsel in distress.

This is it. This is your idea of a DV should be, this is the sentence that displays your naivety to the entire situation. Amber can not be DV victim because she was not a damsel in distress, she didn't suffer enough, she wasn't afraid enough, she didn't sit back and take it like a real DV would.... 

What's interesting about this logic is that not Amber nor her defenders ever claimed she was a "damsel in distress", it's the Deppsters who love to paint him as a harmless, innocent man who was constantly abused by an evil woman, despite the evidence of his abuse. 

6 hours ago, Raiden said:

Even when he was banging on the kitchen cupboards she was so casual. I mean who the f*ck flips out a phone when someone is banging and smashing everything in your kitchen? You live in that house — it's your own damn stuff even if not all of it. AH should have either freaked out and ran away to cops or else that was one moment that she actually had license to threaten him or yell at him to stop. 

 

Once again, you are ignoring Depp's problematic and aggressive behavior and instead focusing on how Amber didn't react the way you expect her to. Can you not see your clear bias when you write this? You just cited evidence of Depp's intimidating and dangerous behavior, but completely looked passed it to instead focus on how Amber reacted. Maybe she seemed casual because it was not the first time she saw that kind of behavior from him? Regardless, what you expect Amber to have done does not diminish his abusive behavior, nor does it undermine the abuse she went through. Just because Amber didn't behave in the way you naively expect every DV victim to act, does not erase the form of abuse that you just described yourself.

 

6 hours ago, Raiden said:

Instead she appears to be amused and in chatty philosophical mode like a nanny talking to a baby, while fiddling with her phone cam to make sure it was all captured

She tried to de-escalate the situation by trying to stay calm and ask him what was aggravating him. She wanted to know what problem was causing his sudden aggressive behavior. How she reacted though is irrelevant to the fact that he was being aggressive, and so is your subjective opinion on how Amber reacted. It is interesting that you keep contradicting yourself in your own post. In one paragraph, you describe Amber as the aggressor because she wasn't 'scared enough', and now you have a problem with her trying to stay calm. I'm sure if she started yelling at him back in the video that still wouldn't have been good enough for you, you would have then used that against her to prove that she's 'provoking him. In any case, the only objective thing we can gather from that video is Depp finishing an entire bottle early in the morning, destroying their house, and displaying clear signs of aggressive behavior. 

 

Regarding her capturing it on video, she's damned if she does and she's damned if she doesn't. When she films or records it, she is scheming against him. When she doesn't record it, she is lying as she has 'no evidence'. 

[Weld_E]

5 hours ago, Death On Two Legs said:

Can this thread just be closed? This is over. Heard supporters just keep going in circles, and posting bs tweets trying to come up with some false narrative that Heard is the victim.

Why? Because it challenge your own critical thinking skills and questions the evidence you gathered from Tiktok? Also, what BS tweets? Here is a list of the reputable publications that disagree with the verdict and explain how harmful it is:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/the-depp-defamation-suit-should-outrage-and-appall-you

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/01/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-metoo-backlash

 

https://www.thecut.com/2022/06/johnny-depp-verdict-proves-amber-heards-point.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/02/depp-heard-verdict-is-gag-order-women/

 

https://time.com/6183505/amber-heard-perfect-victim-myth-johnny-depp/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/arts/depp-heard-trial-malice.html

 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-depp-heard-verdict-is-chilling

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-verdict-metoo-trial-1361356/

 

https://variety.com/2022/tv/opinion/johnny-depp-amber-heard-verdict-entertainment-1235283022/

 

https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/06/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-tiktok-video-conspiracy.html

 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ab3yk/daily-wire-amber-heard-johnny-depp

 

Before you respond to me, I suggest you take some time to educate yourself and read at least three of the articles I kindly provided for you.

 

5 hours ago, Death On Two Legs said:

It was already pointed out by too many that the judge in the UK trial was biased, and refused the evidence.

Receipts?

5 hours ago, Death On Two Legs said:

She is literally on tape admitting to physically abusing Johnny, and starting the fights. The quote heard from around the world is Heard telling Johnny: Tell the world, Johnny. Tell the world that you are a victim of domestic violence and see how many people believe you. 

Can you inform us of the entire of the conversation in that recording?

5 hours ago, Death On Two Legs said:

These Heard supporters clearly did not follow this case, because I don’t see how anyone could continue to side with Heard. And if some of them did follow this case, yet still believe Heard just shows that once again make victims of domestic violence are not to be believed because they are men.

Actually, most of us followed this case and the previous case in the UK, and looked at all the provided evidence. Did you follow the case? Or did you see edited clips on Tiktok of Camile being a girlboss and Amber apparently snorting coke on the stand? 

 

Even if you believe us Amber supporters are all delusional, how can you explain the list of articles I provided that share our sentiment? Are all these major publications scheming against Depp as well?

 

 

 

 

 

[Weld_E]

2 hours ago, suburbannature said:

Disgusting, loud, and wrong but not surprising coming from someone who has written essays on atrl about Michael Jackson being innocent. 

Oh, that explains everything....

Seems to be a pattern of that user to defend abusive men.

[Death On Two Legs]

6 minutes ago, Weld_E said:

Why? Because it challenge your own critical thinking skills and questions the evidence you gathered from Tiktok? Also, what BS tweets? Here is a list of the reputable publications that disagree with the verdict and explain how harmful it is:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/the-depp-defamation-suit-should-outrage-and-appall-you

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/01/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-metoo-backlash

 

https://www.thecut.com/2022/06/johnny-depp-verdict-proves-amber-heards-point.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/02/depp-heard-verdict-is-gag-order-women/

 

https://time.com/6183505/amber-heard-perfect-victim-myth-johnny-depp/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/arts/depp-heard-trial-malice.html

 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-depp-heard-verdict-is-chilling

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-verdict-metoo-trial-1361356/

 

https://variety.com/2022/tv/opinion/johnny-depp-amber-heard-verdict-entertainment-1235283022/

 

https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/06/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-tiktok-video-conspiracy.html

 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ab3yk/daily-wire-amber-heard-johnny-depp

 

Before you respond to me, I suggest you take some time to educate yourself and read at least three of the articles I kindly provided for you.

 

Receipts?

Can you inform us of the entire of the conversation in that recording?

Actually, most of us followed this case and the previous case in the UK, and looked at all the provided evidence. Did you follow the case? Or did you see edited clips on Tiktok of Camile being a girlboss and Amber apparently snorting coke on the stand? 

 

Even if you believe us Amber supporters are all delusional, how can you explain the list of articles I provided that share our sentiment? Are all these major publications scheming against Depp as well?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heard lost and so did you - no matter what twisted media that are clearly biased against Depp. Check out videos about the UK trial.

 

Bye now.