celeb news Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial

[Liafen]

2 minutes ago, Communion said:

...but a defamation suit is literally a legal examination of he said she said? 

Umm, I was replying to your comment literally implying that he should've kept this in the press instead of taking legal action, because that somehow is better - and that him taking legal action somehow means that "he doesn't view himself as a victim of abuse"? Wtf? He launched it because Heard's op-ed got out and his career suffered in turn.

 

3 minutes ago, Communion said:

You keep trying to use the coverage of "well I think they both did something wrong" while ignoring that Depp deciding to pursue a defamation case means he is rejecting the notion that he did anything wrong

I'm not ignoring that, I know that under the defamation case he can't and will not admit to anything done because that's an instant defeat. As I was saying, what bothers me is "the possibility that one party can express in a widely circulated op-ed how he or she was a victim of abuse and thus ultimately destroying his or her partners' professional reputation when it was a two-sided matter." I know that under the US law, that isn't defamation, but if, IF the physical and mental abuse that was happening in the relationship was started, fueled, or even reciprocated by Heard (not "fighting back", I'm talking about actual abuse), then she is truly disgusting for going public about this and leaving out the dirty details that would incriminate her as well. That's enough for me to call it defamatory and/or morally wrong on Heard's part.   

 

14 minutes ago, Communion said:

"He's not saying he's not abusive, but that it's wrong for her to leave out she was abusive too" is so ridiculous and obtuse of a defense

Again, I don't get the quotation marks - those are your words and thoughts, not mine. You cannot prove your points by twisting mine into something I haven't said, thought or argued for.

[Communion]

6 minutes ago, Liafen said:

- and that him taking legal action somehow means that "he doesn't view himself as a victim of abuse"? Wtf?

A defamation suit is literally predicated on the claim that someone is lying; something can't be defamation if what was communicated was truthful. So yes, him suing her for defamation is literally saying "no, I was not abusive to her"??  How do you not get this? He is absolving himself and denying any claims of committing abuse. \

 

6 minutes ago, Liafen said:

I know that under the defamation case he can't and will not admit to anything done because that's an instant defeat.

So you know this entire thing is a sham but you feel that the end goal - Amber's career negatively suffering - is righteous justice because she was possibly abusive too and he was negatively impacted by the truthfulness of her op-ed despite Depp falsely asserting his innocence in all of this. 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Communion

[JCsNumba1Fan]

I just went to Starbucks and they had an Amber tip jar and a Johnny tip jar. Nevermind how inappropriate and unethical it is, given the dark nature of the case, but the Amber jar was but a few dollars, while Johnny’s was half full with even a $10 at the top (probably the most money I’ve ever seen in a tip jar in that particular store). Just an observation of the perception of the outside world. Has anyone else seen this at Starbucks? 
 

Edit: Nvm apparently this is really a thing. 

Edited May 9, 2022 by JCsNumba1Fan

[Liafen]

1 minute ago, Communion said:

A defamation suit is literally predicated on the claim that someone is lying; something can't be defamation if what was communicated was truthful. So yes, him suing her for defamation is literally saying "no, I was not abusive to her"??  How do you not get this? He is absolving himself and denying any claims of committing abuse.

Honey, you have said, and I quote: "That in itself shows that Depp likely doesn't view himself as a victim of abuse."

Maybe you meant to say Depp doesn't view himself as an aggressor. In that case, you're right. But that's not what you have said, and him taking legal action doesn't mean that he likely doesn't view himself as a victim of abuse. Quite the contrary.

 

4 minutes ago, Communion said:

So you know this entire thing is a sham but you feel that the end goal - Amber's career negatively suffering - is righteous justice despite Depp falsely asserting his innocence in all of this. 

Jesus, stop with the "putting words, feels, thoughts in my mouth" thing for once. I have repeatedly said that I feel that IF the abuse was started/reciprocated by Heard, it's morally wrong to publish an op-ed destroying the others' career while you paint yourself as a saint who had done nothing wrong. And what I also said is that it is a very likely possibility of them being both abusive. The other point I made is that Heard absolutists are just as laughable as Depp bootlickers. If you still feel like arguing, these are the points you can argue about, do not come up with something I haven't even thought about saying.

[Starchild]

I’m so tired of the morons on here that tear other women to shreds but are seriously defending this awful woman. As if men can’t be abused. Anyway this a defamation case, she ruined his career therefore he deserves compensation. And the fact she went up there to storytell with basically no evidence is insane, I’m glad the judge cut her off like 15 times 

[Communion]

1 hour ago, Liafen said:

Honey, you have said, and I quote: "That in itself shows that Depp likely doesn't view himself as a victim of abuse."

Maybe you meant to say Depp doesn't view himself as an aggressor. In that case, you're right. But that's not what you have said, and him taking legal action doesn't mean that he likely doesn't view himself as a victim of abuse.

Except it does because the entire point of filing a defamation suit is to argue that Amber is lying when saying he abused her; either he views neither of them as victims or, if he views himself as a victim, his suit then means he believes himself to be the sole victim - which in itself is an egregious claim even people on here have trouble defending.

 

Those trying to support him have to reconcile with and acknowledge that. You can't argue, like I said, that "they both abused each other' when the entire point of his suit is to deny any claims of abusing her at all.

 

You yourself even admit this:

1 hour ago, Liafen said:

I know that under the defamation case he can't and will not admit to anything done because that's an instant defeat. 

Let alone, again, you're angling for some kind of inadvertent justice that doesn't satisfy the legal reality being argued for because you admit what Amber did was not defaming him:

1 hour ago, Liafen said:

I know that under the US law, that isn't defamation

And no, vaguely referencing her experiences with domestic violence in op-eds that never mention Depp by name while not also highly detailing the reactionary violence and toxicity she may have participated in, would not "be defamatory". That's not what defamation is. If his goal was to shine light on male victims of domestic violence, arguing that the numerously recognized-by-British-law instances of abuse he committed onto her were somehow all faked is not the way to go about that. He's not looking for recognition of his own trauma but denial of her's.

 

Depp knows this because he lost his UK trial on this same argument - that he was wronged not for experiencing abuse too but for being framed as an abuser (by The Sun), even when evidence of such simply shows as true!

 

No one is "putting words in your mouth" - you're trying to claim legal arguments or facts and being shown the logical conclusions of such claims (and largely how the conclusions end up making no sense with reality and facts). You're again recognizing that the idea that Amber could have defamed him is a poor legal argument and that he will almost positively lose this case once again, but you're fine with this hysteria because she deserves in the moral sense the ***-for-tat on her image too.

 

The goal was never to win the trial but to try and make a public case against Amber - own that.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Communion

[More Than A Melody]

4 hours ago, Liafen said:

She's also mocking his defense when he says that she started it, as if it doesn't matter who started the abuse because she wasn't able to "knock him off of his feet". When he asks if she believes that she physically abused him, her only answer to that is the same inconclusive argument you also pulled out - that she's 115 lbs and that he is bigger in size. (Glad that Depp also called this out in the audio.) As if that somehow nullifies aggressive behavior she might (or might not) have pulled off on him. [Cue the 'I can't promise you I won't get physical, I just get so mad audio'] 

 

In the end, you weren't there to know whether it was always about 'fighting back' or not, or whether it was mutual physical and verbal abuse or not. From the outside, it sure does look like Heard did her fair share of wrongdoing in this to the overwhelming majority of people. 

But MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE SAID HE BEAT HER TO A PULP MULTIPLE TIMES. And he has A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

 

You can't divorce a video from its context and ignore literally everything else to claim that she's somehow also an abuser, when victims of domestic violence OFTEN FIGHT BACK.

 

The problem y'all seem to have, for the most part, is that Amber Heard is not a likeable or perfect victim, so you punish her for it by demeaning her, ignoring the mountains of proof she has on her side, and act like it was in any way a fair fight.

 

You keep acting like the only reason we don't believe she was abusive towards him was that he was bigger (which is a fact, Amber is so thin that Johnny's nickname for her was "slim"). But the power dynamic... they were living in HIS houses, spending HIS money, surrounded by HIS people. He was the powerful man, the A list celebrity, the rich one who owned an island. He was 20+ years older than her. They met when she was 22 and had barely any life experience under her belt, while he'd been married before, had kids, had been a Hollywood leading man for decades...

 

I really don't want to argue this anymore. It's incredibly triggering to see the abuse the victim received by people who repeat the same tired arguments that make no sense over and over.

 

Someone above just quoted the Tasyn thing again, despite the fact that it's been linked here that Amber doesn't actually have a history of domestic violence and that her ex is testifying on her behalf and the incident was explained. People refuse to actually do an inch of research and just parrot back the most absurd of defenses.

[More Than A Melody]

1 hour ago, Starchild said:

I’m so tired of the morons on here that tear other women to shreds but are seriously defending this awful woman. As if men can’t be abused. Anyway this a defamation case, she ruined his career therefore he deserves compensation. And the fact she went up there to storytell with basically no evidence is insane, I’m glad the judge cut her off like 15 times 

She has plenty of evidence. The case is resting and her witnesses haven't been called yet. Her witnesses which include one of Johnny Depp's exes, btw.

 

Also the judge never interrupted her. That was Johnny's lawyer, and if you had watched the full raw footage of Amber testifying you'd realize that Johnny's lawyer made a fool of herself by objecting multiple times before the questions were even formulated and the judge and Amber's lawyer were like ????? and her objections were overruled.

 

I can guarantee you that the bullying tactic pissed off the jury because anyone with a brain could tell she was just interrupting Amber for the sake of it.

 

PS Johnny lost his career himself, by sheer volume of being a cokehead drunk mess who couldn't remember his own lines and never showed up on time. He lost Pirates of the Caribbean before Amber ever wrote her Op Ed and a year later, when he was filming his comeback movie, he was arrested on the set for being violent. AGAIN. That's why he doesn't have work.

 

He lost his UK case and will likely lose his US case. He'll get his career back on the premise that the audience is now on his side, but then his self destructive personality will get him in trouble again and everyone will reckon and realize how disgusting this whole thing was.

 

I've seen this play out multiple times. So enjoy it while it lasts.

[for lovers]

7 hours ago, More Than A Melody said:

She has plenty of evidence. The case is resting and her witnesses haven't been called yet. Her witnesses which include one of Johnny Depp's exes, btw.

 

Also the judge never interrupted her. That was Johnny's lawyer, and if you had watched the full raw footage of Amber testifying you'd realize that Johnny's lawyer made a fool of herself by objecting multiple times before the questions were even formulated and the judge and Amber's lawyer were like ????? and her objections were overruled.

 

I can guarantee you that the bullying tactic pissed off the jury because anyone with a brain could tell she was just interrupting Amber for the sake of it.

 

PS Johnny lost his career himself, by sheer volume of being a cokehead drunk mess who couldn't remember his own lines and never showed up on time. He lost Pirates of the Caribbean before Amber ever wrote her Op Ed and a year later, when he was filming his comeback movie, he was arrested on the set for being violent. AGAIN. That's why he doesn't have work.

 

He lost his UK case and will likely lose his US case. He'll get his career back on the premise that the audience is now on his side, but then his self destructive personality will get him in trouble again and everyone will reckon and realize how disgusting this whole thing was.

 

I've seen this play out multiple times. So enjoy it while it lasts.

Many of her objections were sustained actually. It's normal in court to do this, Amber's lawyers did it a tremendous amount to the point of ridicule. But the point of lawyers is to find holes in people's arguments and test the law/rules as much as possible which is what both teams of lawyers were doing. People should stop trying to discredit the lawyers as a way of discrediting the clients, it's dumb. 

[for lovers]

8 hours ago, More Than A Melody said:

But MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE SAID HE BEAT HER TO A PULP MULTIPLE TIMES. And he has A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

 

You can't divorce a video from its context and ignore literally everything else to claim that she's somehow also an abuser, when victims of domestic violence OFTEN FIGHT BACK.

 

The problem y'all seem to have, for the most part, is that Amber Heard is not a likeable or perfect victim, so you punish her for it by demeaning her, ignoring the mountains of proof she has on her side, and act like it was in any way a fair fight.

 

You keep acting like the only reason we don't believe she was abusive towards him was that he was bigger (which is a fact, Amber is so thin that Johnny's nickname for her was "slim"). But the power dynamic... they were living in HIS houses, spending HIS money, surrounded by HIS people. He was the powerful man, the A list celebrity, the rich one who owned an island. He was 20+ years older than her. They met when she was 22 and had barely any life experience under her belt, while he'd been married before, had kids, had been a Hollywood leading man for decades...

 

I really don't want to argue this anymore. It's incredibly triggering to see the abuse the victim received by people who repeat the same tired arguments that make no sense over and over.

 

Someone above just quoted the Tasyn thing again, despite the fact that it's been linked here that Amber doesn't actually have a history of domestic violence and that her ex is testifying on her behalf and the incident was explained. People refuse to actually do an inch of research and just parrot back the most absurd of defenses.

I agree with most of this. Although I think both of them have massive ******* issues relating back to their awful childhoods and both do share blame in the abuse I think the evidence suggests Johnny was mostly to blame. A 22 year old girl getting into a relationship with a 46 year old powerful movie star is treading on thin ice at the best of times but when you mix in substance abuse and the myriad of issues Johnny clearly has then it's unfortunately not surprising things turned out the way it did. What's even worse is Johnny's career will probably make a comeback after this and Amber's career is in the gutter. Her life has been ruined by this. Amber absolutists and Depp weirdo fans aside that's pretty horrible to think about.

[Liafen]

8 hours ago, Communion said:

Except it does because the entire point of filing a defamation suit is to argue that Amber is lying when saying he abused her; either he views neither of them as victims or, if he views himself as a victim, his suit then means he believes himself to be the sole victim - which in itself is an egregious claim even people on here have trouble defending.

Ok, for the last time, I'm going to spell it out because it seems that you're still arguing about something else.

 

You have said: He likely doesn't view himself as a victim because [instead of publishing similar op-eds as Heard] he filed a legal lawsuit.

Your reasoning is: In the defamation lawsuit, he argues that he wasn't abusive towards Amber.

 

Based on these two points, it cannot be inferred that he doesn't view himself as a victim. What can be inferred from the lawsuit is that he doesn't view Amber a victim of his abuse. 

 

"If he views himself as a victim, his suit then means he believes himself to be the sole victim." - So he can view himself as a victim, then. Correct, you got it. I know it's an egregious claim, that's why I also said that Depp bootlickers are laughable [just like Heard ones].

 

Ultimately, just because he is suing for one thing doesn't mean that he can't believe in another thing. Him thinking of himself as a victim and him suing for defamation aren't in any way mutually exclusive.

 

9 hours ago, Communion said:

You yourself even admit this:

Let alone, again, you're angling for some kind of inadvertent justice that doesn't satisfy the legal reality being argued for because you admit what Amber did was not defaming him.

Yes, I have said that it's not defamation under current US law (so these gotcha! quotes ain't it when I was very clear on that). But Heard publishing only her side of the story and leaving out that she was abusive, IF she was abusive - I'd consider that maliciously unmoral, an action aiming to tear down Depp. Argue with this, not the defamation lawsuit which I already said is bollocks under current US regulatory definition if they were both abusive. I know he is trying to prove he wasn't abusive towards Heard, all the points I'm making is not about the justification of the lawsuit.  

 

9 hours ago, Communion said:

He's not looking for recognition of his own trauma but denial of her's.

Yes. Once again, that's not what I'm talking about. You started quoting me whether this lawsuit can nullify his feelings and believes that she was abusive to him. It can't because the topic of the lawsuit is as you stated, and they aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

 

9 hours ago, Communion said:

No one is "putting words in your mouth" - you're trying to claim legal arguments or facts and being shown the logical conclusions of such claims (and largely how the conclusions end up making no sense with reality and facts).

 

No, I'm making moral arguments, not legal ones. You're quoting me with "so you think/so you feel/so you say" phrases then end up misarguing because you quote points I haven't made. That's putting words in my mouth.

 

9 hours ago, Communion said:

You're again recognizing that the idea that Amber could have defamed him is a poor legal argument and that he will almost positively lose this case once again

Yes.

 

9 hours ago, Communion said:

but you're fine with this hysteria because she deserves in the moral sense the ***-for-tat on her image too.

That is once again something I haven't said. 

 

9 hours ago, Communion said:

The goal was never to win the trial but to try and make a public case against Amber - own that.

Possibly.

[KeshaSwift]

It is beyond me how a tiny margin of people still defend this woman. the abuse WASNT two sided - He might've said nasty things to her, but obviously he will since he's a HUMAN who's being abused both physically and verbally by this woman. That means he has basic emotions.
She deserves all the lashings for this. And what are her evidence basically? c'mon, her side on the trial is a joke and everybody knows it. I felt it all along since her 2016 testimony in which she ate snacks or smth through out her speech and having this pathetic acting of being 'abused'. Not to mention the countless evidence Depp brought along the trial such as the poogate, her former personal assistant testifying, her admitting to hitting him on a recording, and so much more.
This woman is the pits and should be rightfully held acountable for her actions. 

 

12 hours ago, Communion said:

A defamation suit is literally predicated on the claim that someone is lying; something can't be defamation if what was communicated was truthful. So yes, him suing her for defamation is literally saying "no, I was not abusive to her"??  How do you not get this? He is absolving himself and denying any claims of committing abuse. \

 

So you know this entire thing is a sham but you feel that the end goal - Amber's career negatively suffering - is righteous justice because she was possibly abusive too and he was negatively impacted by the truthfulness of her op-ed despite Depp falsely asserting his innocence in all of this. 

 

11 hours ago, Starchild said:

I’m so tired of the morons on here that tear other women to shreds but are seriously defending this awful woman. As if men can’t be abused. Anyway this a defamation case, she ruined his career therefore he deserves compensation. And the fact she went up there to storytell with basically no evidence is insane, I’m glad the judge cut her off like 15 times 

 

You two spilled.

Edited May 9, 2022 by KeshaSwift

[Gui Blackout]

The Johnny Depp stans are giving far-right Trumpsters tea

 

I mean those tiktoks alone are absolutely repulsive

[KeshaSwift]

3 minutes ago, Gui Blackout said:

The Johnny Depp stans are giving far-right Trumpsters tea

 

I mean those tiktoks alone are absolutely repulsive

Tiktok is the newest, most relevant form of press. Catch up with the times.
And what do you mean by "far right-trumpsters" tea? should people be sorry for actually showing an abuser's personality and acts to the masses?

[NausAllien]

26 minutes ago, KeshaSwift said:

And what are her evidence basically? c'mon, her side on the trial is a joke and everybody knows it. I felt it all along since her 2016 testimony in which she ate snacks or smth through out her speech and having this pathetic acting of being 'abused'. Not to mention the countless evidence Depp brought along the trial such as the poogate, her former personal assistant testifying, her admitting to hitting him on a recording, and so much more.

First of all, do you realize her side has JUST started to make her case? All you have seen is Depp's evidence and witness. Next week, she'll be cross-examined and afterwards they'll start calling HER witnesses and showing the evidence SHE has. 

 

Second, there was ALREADY a trial in which he presented most of the things you claim "prove" he was abused. And the result of the trial was that HE had abused HER. Even the famous "poogate" incident that you mention was rejected by the judge for the lack of evidence and considered to be not relevant at all to the issue of whether he was abused or she was abused. There were also reasons to believe one of the dog had pooped on the bed.

 

So far, Depp has really struggled to produce any substantial evidence to prove he was abused. A recording in which she admits to hitting him is NOT prove of abuse. It's prove that she hit him, which she never denied. Abuse is not the same as reactive violence. Sometimes victims of domestic abuse hit back. That doesn't make them the abuser. It is important to look at the entire picture, rather than just one snapshot.

[NausAllien]

2 minutes ago, KeshaSwift said:

Tiktok is the newest, most relevant form of press. Catch up with the times.
And what do you mean by "far right-trumpsters" tea? should people be sorry for actually showing an abuser's personality and acts to the masses?

They should definitely feel sorry for spreading FAKE NEWS. If they have the "truth" on their side, why do they feel they need to spread so much disinformation that can be SO EASILY DEBUNKED?

 

Lucia Osborne-Crowley, a journalist who works for Law360, took it upon herself to debunk some myths:

 

Even Snopes had to do a fact-check.

 

Depp fans, particularly on TikTok, are behaving like QAnon believers. Taking conspiracy theories as facts.

 

[KeshaSwift]

2 hours ago, NausAllien said:

First of all, do you realize her side has JUST started to make her case? All you have seen is Depp's evidence and witness. Next week, she'll be cross-examined and afterwards they'll start calling HER witnesses and showing the evidence SHE has. 

 

Second, there was ALREADY a trial in which he presented most of the things you claim "prove" he was abused. And the result of the trial was that HE had abused HER. Even the famous "poogate" incident that you mention was rejected by the judge for the lack of evidence and considered to be not relevant at all to the issue of whether he was abused or she was abused. There were also reasons to believe one of the dog had pooped on the bed.

 

So far, Depp has really struggled to produce any substantial evidence to prove he was abused. A recording in which she admits to hitting him is NOT prove of abuse. It's prove that she hit him, which she never denied. Abuse is not the same as reactive violence. Sometimes victims of domestic abuse hit back. That doesn't make them the abuser. It is important to look at the entire picture, rather than just one snapshot.

I've seen enough, it's not like she hasn't made so many assumptions , "evidence" that she brought during the years of her recording him through his darkest hour, (as in the day he broke a cabinet which was believed to be the day his mother died, and when asked by depp's lawyers what was the date of the day of the recording - Heard's lwayer avoided answering), her obvious fake crying through her testimony, her failed attempts of bringing legit witnesses while Depp has many (including Heard's OWN formar personal assistant), her 2016 EMBARRISING "testimony" and so much more info online. But, you're right about the cross examinations being a critical point of the trial - let's both wait and see that. I'll be perched for the comments in this thread after that. 
btw, all of the things you have mentioned AT LEAST prove that she was an abuser herself, which she failed to mention in the washington post op-ed where she claimed to be a represenative victim of domestic violence, which is clearly not the case.
 

[NausAllien]

7 minutes ago, KeshaSwift said:

I've seen enough, it's not like she hasn't made so many assumptions , "evidence" that she brought during the years of her recording him through his darkest hour, (as in the day he broke a cabinet which was believed to be the day his mother died, and when asked by depp's lawyers what was the date of the day of the recording - Heard's lwayer avoided answering), her obvious fake crying through her testimony, her failed attempts of bringing legit witnesses while Depp has many (including Heard's OWN formar personal assistant), her 2016 EMBARRISING "testimony" and so much more info online. But, you're right about the cross examinations being a critical point of the trial - let's both wait and see that. I'll be perched for the comments in this thread after that. 
btw, all of the things you have mentioned AT LEAST prove that she was an abuser herself, which she failed to mention in the washington post op-ed where she claimed to be a represenative victim of domestic violence, which is clearly not the case.
 

Maybe you should just educate yourself. Reactive violence is not abuse. It is a common tactic for abuser to push and push until their victim lashes out, and then rely on that to justify their abuse. It's typical DARVO behavior (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender). 

 

I had to educate myself these past weeks about abuse, I suggest that you do the same. For example, I learned that "mutual" abuse doesn't exist, and the key thing to determine who's the abuser and who's the victim is to see who was the one in CONTROL. Abuse is about power and control over another person.

 

But it's pretty clear you don't care about the fact, you don't want to educate yourself, you don't care about what's right and wrong. You have already made up your mind based on cherry picked facts and a clear lack of knowledge of the subject.

[Maybe]

 

[More Than A Melody]

3 hours ago, KeshaSwift said:

And what are her evidence basically? c'mon, her side on the trial is a joke and everybody knows it. I felt it all along since her 2016 testimony in which she ate snacks or smth through out her speech and having this pathetic acting of being 'ab

 

Johnny is "Him" in these texts:

Audio above:

Johnny: Want to cut me somewhere?

Amber: Just don’t cut your skin, please don’t. Why would I do that? Please don’t cut yourself

Johnny: I need you. Cut me

The conversation was then interrupted by a hotel housekeeper, with Mr Depp telling her to leave as “there’s sperm on the pillows”. Mr Depp then urged Ms Heard again to cut him, adding, “You f***ing hate me”.

“Put the knife down! Put the f***ing knife down. Do not do that Johnny,” Ms Heard told him. He then told her that he wanted to look at her and that would make the pain “go away”.

source

[KeshaSwift]

the essays in here.  Some people can trick themselves into believing everything they want to believe. The bottom line is; Amber heard has ZERO proof of being physically abused, Depp has. Both physically and mentally. There is no need to read the scripts of the trial, as some of us have a job and life to maintain. There is more than enough proofs anywhere online.

 

But lemme stay perched when Amber gets cross examined and exposed per usual to quote some of y’all 

[suburbannature]

3 minutes ago, KeshaSwift said:

the essays in here.  Some people can trick themselves into believing everything they want to believe. The bottom line is; Amber heard has ZERO proof of being physically abused, Depp has. Both physically and mentally. There is no need to read the scripts of the trial, as some of us have a job and life to maintain. There is more than enough proofs anywhere online.

 

But lemme stay perched when Amber gets cross examined and exposed per usual to quote some of y’all 

Not you straight-up lying after talking about people being delusional

[More Than A Melody]

1 hour ago, suburbannature said:

Not you straight-up lying after talking about people being delusional

That user: Amber had zero proof of being physically abused

They're quoted by someone who shows extensive proof of her being physically abused

That user: lmfaooo the essasyyasdsfdskdajkldsjafada

 

[Looolqueen]

Idk I kind of just feel bad for both of them at this point.

[KeshaSwift]

Let’s wait for the cross examinations shall we? Well continue seeing amber turd embarrassing herself per usual