celeb news Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial

[favorite crime]

whats the deppists excuse for this?

[NausAllien]

10 minutes ago, favorite crime said:

whats the deppists excuse for this?

"theRe's nO EVideNce. tHEre's zeRO EVIdenCE!" 

 

Even Depp's own witnesses were able to see her bruises in person:

 

 

[Patient Zero]

I'm definitely sure Depp abused Heard in the past. In one way or another. Alcohol and drug abuse + toxic relationship? It's bound to happen eventually. And he will always be an ******* for that.

 

But I don't think this trial is about who abused who. Becaue they both abused each other.

 

It's about the defamation of Depp, and Amber's relevance in it. Ok, she's been abused in one way or another, but is all of her story correct? Didn't she use the abuse, or lie about the abuse to bring Depp down, ignoring her own toxic input in it?

 

Now that's the question.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Patient Zero

[Spark]

23 hours ago, Gaia said:

I don’t care for Johnny but it’s hilarious that even with Amber on TAPE calling him a baby, admitting to hitting him, and factually being exposed for lying in her testimonies, people are still acting like she’s an innocent domestic abuse victim

 

Yall are the reason the public is treating Johnny like a saint. The blind idiocy is only making people want to support him even more.

Amber: Has admitted to hitting him from the start (never denied it), and belittled him after he (allegedly) abused her, and maybe told a few 'lies' which were mainly small details someone could easily forget or have been explained once inquired

 

Johnny: Still to this day denies ever hitting her (), lied about her cutting off the top of his finger (multiple texts, witnesses, and a recording confirming this), tried to start a narrative she shat in his bed, has multiple texts of him saying he wants to kill and rape her dead corpse, has made it his mission to ruin her career (confirmed via texts he has sent), has been notoriously hard to work with in Hollywood for a number of years due to being an unstable alcoholic druggie

 

Don't see how it's an equivalency, but do you.

[Spark]

17 hours ago, Patient Zero said:

The problem with Amber supporters is that they only defend her because she's woman.

No, we defend her because she's getting defamed all across the internet with lies because Johnny Depp has used the money, power, and social influence to continue his abuse towards her by attempting to end her career. 

[Patient Zero]

8 minutes ago, Spark said:

No, we defend her because she's getting defamed all across the internet with lies because Johnny Depp has used the money, power, and social influence to continue his abuse towards her by attempting to end her career. 

They're both liars. And both toxic and evil. No one is better than the other, in my own opinion.

 

And Amber won't get a free pass from me just because she's a woman.

 

But yeah, I still stand with what I said a few days ago, answering your post more directly:

 

  

On 5/19/2022 at 12:27 PM, Patient Zero said:

Johnny already has won. No matter the outcome.

 

I don't think I agree because he seems vile as well. But everyone seems to choose him as the lesser of two evils.

 

And yes, I think it has to do with fame/power and a spark of misogyny. And of course with Amber being a total evil clown as well.

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Patient Zero

[NausAllien]

18 minutes ago, Patient Zero said:

It's about the defamation of Depp, and Amber's relevance in it. Ok, she's been abused in one way or another, but is all of her story correct? Didn't she use the abuse, or lie about the abuse to bring Depp down, ignoring her own toxic input in it?

 

Now that's the question.

Did you ACTUALLY read the op-ed? She doesn't mention any specific form of abuse OR incident. She just refers to herself as a "a public figure representing domestic abuse" so even by your own admission what she said was factually true. 

 

Furthermore, the article DOES NOT mention Depp's name (not even once) so it doesn't make sense to claim she was trying to bring Depp down when she doesn't mention his name OR any specific incidents.

 

Whether you think had an input in her own abuse (yuck!) is irrelevant. The issue isn't what she did in the relationship but what HE did and whether her referring to herself as a figure representing domestic abuse was false AND caused actual provable damage to his career AND there was ACTUA MALICE involved (actual malice in the legal sense, as defined by The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan).

[Headlock]

48 minutes ago, Patient Zero said:

But I don't think this trial is about who abused who.

 

It literally is 

Depp is saying he never abused her, that is what he is saying is defamation. He factually did, therefore he will lose the case 

[Headlock]

34 minutes ago, Patient Zero said:

Johnny already has won. No matter the outcome.

 

You're literally admitting that you don't care if Johnny is innocent or not, because you think this is just about him "winning" to the public 

[tiagol88]

7 minutes ago, Headlock said:

You're literally admitting that you don't care if Johnny is innocent or not, because you think this is just about him "winning" to the public 

He's just saying the truth though. If she wins the public won't start to like her out of nowhere...if he wins justice was served. That's how the public will see it anyway. 

[rzal]

1 hour ago, favorite crime said:

whats the deppists excuse for this?

"Nobody saw him hitting her!!!!"   The bruises magically appeared I guess. 

 

[Headlock]

Just now, tiagol88 said:

He's just saying the truth though. If she wins the public won't start to like her out of nowhere...if he wins justice was served. That's how the public will see it anyway. 

Thank you for explaining the rampant misogyny that exists in our patriarchal society I guess? 

[NausAllien]

Another article about Depp by a major publication who paints him in a very bad light:

 

The article breaks down all the testimonies we heard yesterday and goes into detail about Depp's career implosion of his OWN making, way before Amber published the op-ed. They also mentioned the profile they wrote about Depp in 2018, before the op-ed, which described him as a "desiccated rock god with a cast of hangers-on and enablers to help feed his appetites and laugh at his jokes."

 

This tidbit is also interested as it pertains to this case:

Quote

But the damage was done. Jacobs, the agent, testified that the story further harmed Depp’s already battered reputation. A Disney executive, Tina Newman, testified in another tape played on Thursday that the Rolling Stone article circulated among executives at the studio that would decide whether or not to greenlight another Pirates sequel, the sixth, and whether Depp would have a role in the movie. In an internal Disney email, Newman called the story “depressing.”

That pretty much DISPROVES Depp's argument that he lost the Pirates sequel gig due to Amber's article. It was the Rolling Stone article that ruined him.

 

I think that when it's all said and done, Depp will regret having sued Amber. Just like it happened after he lost the UK trial, he will face repercussions and probably lose the little bit of credibility and respect he still has in the industry. His issues go far beyond what happened with Amber, and show a clear lack of professionalism, a substance abuse issue which he cannot control, and history of being nasty and prone to anger since he was young.

 

[Looolqueen]

It's interesting how his personal and professional life were relatively fine before and how that completely went to **** after Amber and her family/friends entered his life.

[NausAllien]

5 minutes ago, Looolqueen said:

It's interesting how his personal and professional life were relatively fine before and how that completely went to **** after Amber and her family/friends entered his life.

What the f-ck is this revisionist history?

 

And that tweet doesn't mention that time he assaulted a paparazzo in 1999.

 

But sure, let's blame the woman he abused for his issues... 

[brazil]

3 hours ago, Looolqueen said:

It's interesting how his personal and professional life were relatively fine before and how that completely went to **** after Amber and her family/friends entered his life.

Johnny Depp has a history of substance abuse and out of control behavior including punching and getting into fights that started long before Amber, many of his defenders see it as "just a man being a man", funny because the same people cried out for Will Smith to be punished after the Oscar slap, what's the difference? One is black and one is white? 

 

Amber just happened to be his partner in a time he probably got worse and more violent because his body couldn't take his vices as well as it did before due to aging.

[MAKSIM]

6 hours ago, NausAllien said:

Did you ACTUALLY read the op-ed? She doesn't mention any specific form of abuse OR incident. She just refers to herself as a "a public figure representing domestic abuse" so even by your own admission what she said was factually true. 

 

Furthermore, the article DOES NOT mention Depp's name (not even once) so it doesn't make sense to claim she was trying to bring Depp down when she doesn't mention his name OR any specific incidents.

 

Whether you think had an input in her own abuse (yuck!) is irrelevant. The issue isn't what she did in the relationship but what HE did and whether her referring to herself as a figure representing domestic abuse was false AND caused actual provable damage to his career AND there was ACTUA MALICE involved (actual malice in the legal sense, as defined by The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan).

Thank you for pointing out the actual legal standards  like no one ever wins for defamation in the US against public figures unless it is something truly truly outrageously false. 

[FameFatale]

 

 

 

 

 

[kawk]

Amber supporters want this video deleted from the internet 

 

 

[Jack!]

I kinda hope both parties know at the end of this neither are going to come out winners and both have probably done MORE damage going forward career wise, which is ironic since the case is about clearing defamation. I think both of them have issues and I think their relationship was like oil and water and neither have clean records on one another. The whole thing is tumultuous.

[JoTy]

15 hours ago, rzal said:

"Nobody saw him hitting her!!!!"   The bruises magically appeared I guess. 

 

YIKES 
I know just enough about her that she would and did "magically" put bruises on herself to set things up.

[Gaia]

15 hours ago, NausAllien said:

Another article about Depp by a major publication who paints him in a very bad light:

 

The article breaks down all the testimonies we heard yesterday and goes into detail about Depp's career implosion of his OWN making, way before Amber published the op-ed. They also mentioned the profile they wrote about Depp in 2018, before the op-ed, which described him as a "desiccated rock god with a cast of hangers-on and enablers to help feed his appetites and laugh at his jokes."

 

This tidbit is also interested as it pertains to this case:

That pretty much DISPROVES Depp's argument that he lost the Pirates sequel gig due to Amber's article. It was the Rolling Stone article that ruined him.

 

I think that when it's all said and done, Depp will regret having sued Amber. Just like it happened after he lost the UK trial, he will face repercussions and probably lose the little bit of credibility and respect he still has in the industry. His issues go far beyond what happened with Amber, and show a clear lack of professionalism, a substance abuse issue which he cannot control, and history of being nasty and prone to anger since he was young.

 

Nah I don’t see him regretting it. I don’t think any decent sized studio will touch Amber with a 10 foot pole seeing how much the public hates her now. 
 

So even if Johnny’s credibility isn’t “restored,” Amber’s marketability has been completely tarnished. 
 

I feel like his main issue was him feeling like his gigs were cancelled, but Amber was going to just continue as normal when she also did some ****** up things. I feel like he’ll be satisfied if she’s not booking any gigs either. 
 

But with public so overwhelming on Johnny’s side… I’m sure he’ll book big gigs if he stops being difficult.

[Mobility Mary]

Let my first post be dedicated to defending innocence. I believe Johnny Depp.  It is time to start believing men when they tell us they are abusive. The face of Men’s Rights Activists, the official spokesperson of Minor Attracted Individuals, the defender of pedophiles, the pioneer of necrophilia, the king of domestic abusers and the founder of “Equal Rights, Equal Fights” will lose yet another trial. The truth always has a way of revealing itself.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Mobility Mary

[TasteOfYourLips]

4 hours ago, Gaia said:

Nah I don’t see him regretting it. I don’t think any decent sized studio will touch Amber with a 10 foot pole seeing how much the public hates her now. 
 

So even if Johnny’s credibility isn’t “restored,” Amber’s marketability has been completely tarnished. 
 

I feel like his main issue was him feeling like his gigs were cancelled, but Amber was going to just continue as normal when she also did some ****** up things. I feel like he’ll be satisfied if she’s not booking any gigs either. 
 

But with public so overwhelming on Johnny’s side… I’m sure he’ll book big gigs if he stops being difficult.

If Johnny loses deframation trial for the second time there's a great chance any large studio won't hire him either. In fact he can start worrying about his dior contract

 

I don't know if putting himself, his family and friends through all of that and spending a fortune on lawyers just to crush Amber was worth it but at the end of the day I'm a sane person 

[rzal]

5 hours ago, JoTy said:

YIKES 
I know just enough about her that she would and did "magically" put bruises on herself to set things up.