Amber Heard’s avengers: her team in Britain fight back against online hatred

@AdamRyan
You keep saying the word innocent in regards to Depp. No one else here is using that word. Everyone else does think that Depp has issues.
It seems to me you are determined to cling to your world view of things irrespective of the evidence. Maybe your brain couldn't handle the idea that both of them were abusive towards each other. Both of them were on drugs. Evidence was presented during the trial that both of them took coke. One piece of evidence was a message from Heard demanding that Depp got her some coke.
I think in your mind bacause Heard is a woman that she is incapable of being abusive, and that because Depp is a man he must always be in the wrong.
Evidence was presented that Heard has physically abused former girlfriends. She is an abusive person, it's not because she's a woman, it's because she is an abuser. Depp is also an abuser in his own way, but no evidence of Depp being a physicaly abusive was presented during the trial.
I don't think you can handle the idea of the world not being quite as black and white as you think it is. No one is saying Depp is innocent, but your brain assumes we must be because you can't handle the idea of them both being abusive so this is your way of coping.

You are mistaking being critical of Amber Heard with defending Johnny Depp. They are not mutually exclusive. Amber Heard has also been shown to be a nasty abusive liar but you seem pretty blind to that for some reason.

you are naive to think that people only settle when they aren’t innocent

I don't think that. I think lawyers advise their clients for the best outcome they can hope to get. And what Depp settled seems low compared to the court award. Which makes me think his lawyers advised him that going through an appeal was a bad idea.

In any case, my opinion of him hasn't changed. He's a nasty abusive drunk with severe problems. I don't understand why so many people on the Internet defend his behaviour.

It could be he was worried about losing further action but you are naive to think that people only settle when they aren’t innocent. I mean you could also say why did Amber Heard settle if she was telling the truth.

Really they both settled because their legal bills were already in the millions. Amber Heard has liquidated all her assets and run off to Spain and is being sued left right and centre by insurance companies and has little chance of ever paying £10mil, and it was obviously never about the money for him.

Let’s see if Depp will donate the £1mil to charity, not just pledge to donate like Heard. Interestingly the UK judge put a large emphasis on Heard having donated her divorce settlement when she hadn’t at all. She pledged to donate it then never did. That’s one lie that was really easily proved.

The truth was well and truly outed in the US trial.

There verdict still stands, because it’s not been successfully appealed. Therefore she cannot repeat her libellous claims. She has her voice ‘going forward’, which I think is deliberately ambiguous- it’s not saying she is going to repeat claims she was physically and sexually abused, notice she doesn’t mention he’s an abuser in her statement.

If I'm right in assuming what point you are trying to make, you believe that she can say anything she wants about Depp without any consequences as part of the settlement?
My point is that if Depp was innocent, he had all the power and could have insisted on paying the full settlement and insisted Heard didn't repeat her "truth"
Instead he's agreed 10% of the court settlement and no restrictions on her
That suggests to me that he knows he could lose any further actions. Others may disagree.

He settled because he just wanted his truth out. The only reason he had an appeal was because Heard's team filed an appeal. The jury ordered Heard to pay 10 million in a libel case of which it was fully expected that Depp would lose because defamation is hard to prove. He was guaranteed to lose but he just wanted to get on a stand that was publicly filmed and say what happened.

The jury decided there was "actual malice" from Heard. They saw enough proof that Heard lied.

I'm not sure you understand how much bullshit and lying had to surface before a jury would even come to this conclusion. Before this trial started, there was no way any lawyer thought he would win.

Depp does not need her 10 million, Heard does not have 10 million, his team have announced that the million dollars she paid will be pledged and donated to charity.

For what it’s worth (not much I’m sure), I tend to default to believing women when they speak out about violence and abuse. I was really shocked at what I was seeing in the trial. I have been the victim of abuse at the hands of a stepparent (stepmother) and a lot of Amber’s behaviour resonated with my experience of an abuser. I think Depp’s behaviour and addiction probably created an abusive atmosphere but my point was I don’t understand how people can watch that trial and think Amber is some innocent bastion of truth and build their campaign around her.

That's her statement on the settlement.
I assume you are concentrating on this bit? "There are no restrictions or gags with respect to my voice moving forward"
It's true, there are no restrictions on her voice going forwards APART from the laws that must all live by every day. If she commits libel again he is free to sue her again, or apply for a court injunction. She may not libel Depp anymore than you or I without Depp deciding how he wants to deal with it.

If I'm right in assuming what point you are trying to make, you believe that she can say anything she wants about Depp without any consequences as part of the settlement? ( You've not stated your point in posting her statment so I have no choice but to assume. )

Less interested in her but his motivation to agree these terms are interesting.

Anyway the truth will out eventually I'm sure.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-12-19/amber-heard-johnny-depp-settle-defamation-case-appeal-trial%3f_amp=true

She's settled the defamation case so won't pursue the appeal. She's paying Depp $1m instead of the court awarded $10m.

She said "Now I finally have an opportunity to emancipate myself from something I attempted to leave over six years ago and on terms I can agree to. I have made no admission. This is not an act of concession. There are no restrictions or gags with respect to my voice moving forward.”

I don't think anyone has said Depp wasn't abusive, or that he was innocent. I have said that there was no evidence that he was physically abusive e.g. hit her. Taking lots of drugs, being drunk a lot, verbal abuse are all considered forms of abuse, but they are not the same as physical abuse.
As to why would Depp drop his claims Heard is broke. Her insurers have paid out some, but there is more than one insurer and they are fighting each other legally as well as suing Heard. With Heard being broke there's no point Depp trying to go after more money than she has. Also it will look like bullying if Depp insists on taking everything e.g. her home. Depp has won quite comprehensivly against her. I think Depp feels he has cleared his name ( of the violence charge ). There comes a point where it's time for both parties to just walk away and get on with their lives.
Heard should be carefull of what she says in the future. If she were to publicly says things that Depp considered libellous it might be pointless to sue her when she has no money, but he could get a court injuction forcing her to stop. If she broke that injunction she could go to prison.
The best thing for both of them is to get on with rest of their lives and put the past behind them. Time to start building a new future not dwell on the past.

What do you mean about settling the appeal. Amber dropped her appeal, and on that basis he’s dropped his (it being a more minor point of appeal). I suspect he’s happy to drop it so he can finally move on and it was never about the money for him, he’s proved his point.

Also, why would he reach for a gagging order? He’s not out to silence her, but if she says anything untrue she will face legal action for libel. I suspect any publisher will be very cautious about accepting ‘her truth’ now.

If its so obvious she's a liar and he is innocent and never abused her, why has his legal team settled the appeal for far less than the court awarded and without constraining what she can say?
That sounds like he's not convinced he'd win an appeal to me

The UK trial wasn’t Heard vs Depp, is was Depp vs the sun. This had huge impacts on the witnesses Depp could call, if Heard said something blatantly untrue, he could call a witness if the Sun hadn’t already called them.

The judge also took ambers word, under oath, that she had donated the money, was never after the money etc, all proved by witnesses in the Depp vs heard case not to be true.

She blatantly lied about physical and sexual abuse - she wasn’t taken to court because she said he was verbally abuse. Her ‘team’ in my view give feminist a bad name, blindly following the woman’s side despite evidence. They are trying to generalise and make her some universal symbol of abuse to avoid the detail which proves otherwise.

That said, I think the online abuse has been OTT and I have worried about her mental health, child killers have had less backlash.

@RoyalCorgi
I think where I would dispute what you say is I believe they were both abusive in their relationship. Depp has admitted the consumption of many drugs including alcohol but denied ever comitting any violence towards Heard. Heard's attempts to show she had been the victim of violence were laughable. At one point she said Depp hit her in the face and split her lip. Depp's defense showed a pitcure of her appearing on a talk show the very next day where you could see her talking, her mouth was open, and there was no split lip. Another time she accused him of punching her in the face hard too many times for her to count. Depp wears lots of large heavy rings all the time. Heard's pictures showed no injuries at all to her face. I googled Rhianna Chris Brown beating and saw the real horror of what a woman beat in the face by a man looks like. It's clear Heard lied over and over and over.
While I believe both of them behaved abusivly, I did not see any evidence that Depp ever laid hands on her. But I did see evidence that Heard has laid hands on previous girlfriends and severed Depp's finger in a fit of rage. I'm pretty sure that Heard cited domestic violence in her article, and that is why she lost the libel. Along with all the blatant lies in court that turned the jury and public off her.
If Heard had said in her article that they were abusive towards each other I think Depp could never have sued or won. If Heard hadn't lied so much during the libel trial I think she might have won. Heard wanted to play the victim rather than acknowledge they were both abusive towards each other, that was her downfall. Not taking responsibility for her own actions. Depp admitted his drug use and unpleasant language, that's the difference, and the reason he won in my opinion. He owned what he did.
I think Heard's actions have really harmed women in domestic abuse situations. It's not the jury's verdict that has hurt women, it's Heard's blatant lies and attempt to manipulate the jury that has caused damage.
It's long been acknowledged that while by far the greater majority of domestic violence is comitted by men, that in a small number of cases women too are capable of domestic violence. Holding up a domestic violence perpetrator like Heard as a victim to represent the many real women victims of domestic violence is sick and twisted. It does nothing to help, It only causes damage to the goal of reducing domestic violence against women.

What is ridiculous is that you don't even understand that the UK trial did not prove any of Heards accusations.

I didn't mention the UK trial.

What is ridiculous is that you don't even understand that the UK trial did not prove any of Heards accusations. Al that was decided is that the Sun is not liabel because they believed Heard.

A tweet in bad taste when someone is angry does not make someone an abuser. I would be curious to know what Heard tweeted about Depp but we will never know because she refused to give up her phone data unlike Depp.

What makes someone an abuser is dozens of witnesses proving she lied, bruises on Depp, his cut off finger, her arrest for punching her girlfriend in an airport, her own admittance of hitting him, that weird tirade of hers where she laughs like the joker, Heard admitting Depp always ran away from her, Heard's own testimony that was just utterly ridiculous and a bunch of staged and edited photos of which none of them were originals judging by the metadata.

I didn't pay any attention to the first trial in the UK at the time. It sounds to me like the judge was just one of those out of date fossils that had all sorts of internal prejudices running amok. To describe one party as "fragrant" seems creepy. I wonder if the judge would have been so amenable if she was a suffragette trying to get the vote, or wanted an abortion, I suspect the judge's feelings towards her may have swung the other way.

@lechiffre55

Yes that trial was all sorts of weird. At some point I was actually wondering if Heard had something on the judge because the judge was anything but objective.

The past few posts are ridiculous. A reminder: this was a libel trial. The question at the heart of the libel was whether Depp was a domestic abuser. It doesn't really matter whether you think Heard also behaved badly or even if she's a sociopath (great to have so many amateur psychologists sharing their diagnoses). The point is: did Depp abuse her? And obviously he did. There was plenty of evidence that Depp not only abused Heard but that he behaved violently and unpredictably in other contexts. Do we really think that a man who writes “Let’s drown her before we burn her!!! I will fuck her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she’s dead" is in practice treating his wife with respect and consideration?

@OneMorePlant
The UK ruling was also really weird. Basically it came down to the judge saying Heard never lied (because who would do that not a sociopath!) and thus all the testimonies of other people in favour of Depp were all lies so the Sun had no reason to think Heard was lying.

Apparently ( I've not been able to verify this ), during the UK trial at one point Heard was accused for throwing something at Depp in anger. Heard's defense to this claim was that she could not possibly have thrown something at him because she was wearing pyjamas. The judge accepted this reasoning.
The judge also called Heard "fragrant" which sounds a tad creepy.

@Flapjackquack I watched the trail too. I live over here now, and was fascinated watching a televised trial. Went into it thinking AH would win, totally believed JD was an abuser. Came out believing she was a liar who jumped on the Me Too band wagon. I think she has done a lot of damage to victims of domestic violence.