Johnny Depp has played a blinder

[bennetmoore]

Johnny Depp’s legal team really have played an absolute blinder. He probably won’t win the case as defamation trials are nigh on impossible to win in the USA but he’s ruined her life and so that’s a win for him. I don’t think she’s necessarily an angel but a woman having a fairly brash/mouthy personality does not mean violent retaliation from the man is justified, nor does she deserve to be raped by the man. And no, I don’t believe Johnny in his 50s with his fame, money and power was frightened or intimidated by an early 20s Amber. He wanted a young, blonde accessory girlfriend, a ‘bangmaid’, so to speak. That’s why he describes her withholding drugs from him during active withdrawal (and it was said that this is the recommend way to help the addict during withdrawal) as ‘cruel’.

I know intelligent, switched on women who have completely fallen for the ‘Amber is Satan’ bandwagon. A relative’s wife who was a child protection social worker for decades in the USA, Kentucky, explicitly said on Facebook “I don’t believe her, she doesn’t act like the many abuse victims I’ve seen.” I was stunned. She also shared a post written by a man describing how Amber’s baby needs to be removed from her, Amber doesn’t deserve to be a mother, speculating that Amber probably physically abused her daughter etc. Also petitions to have Amber’s baby removed from her, which I think is absolutely vile. This is an actual living child, not a prop for entertainment.

I think Johnny knows exactly what he is doing. His laughing in court is vile, it reminds me of my abusive ex laughing and belittling me. Watching the laughing and his smug was actually very triggering for me, and the way Amber became anxious in response. He made a huge deal about being absolutely gutted about not getting to say a ‘proper’ goodbye to the Jack Sparrow character. Again, I’m not convinced. He’s trying to get people to see him as their favourite movie character in an attempt to get them to sympathise with him, I can’t believe people are falling for it. I personally won’t be having Pirates Of the Caribbean on in my home again.

But the makeup would need to be very thick and caked on. I've hidden a bruise before and I had to use a full colour correcting kit, then concealer then different shades of foundation. It was heavy heavy makeup.

The issue was the colour to conceal were yellows, green, orange and plum. This then even with concealer and highlighter left the area looking sallow in appearance.

In the candid paparazzi photos even if she is wearing makeup it's minimal at best for the "natural look" there's no way she's wearing enough to cover 2 black eyes.

Again I'm not saying he hasn't hit her or abused her (because I can't know that), I'm just questioning her testimony on the alleged assaults aggression and the reported injuries sustained.

(btw in my long post that should be "an unreliable witness", not "unrealisable")

I took my niece to A&E with what turned out to be fractured nose and there was no sign other than pain and tenderness. (Broken noses don’t generally need medical attention, I only took her because she had also fractured her arm).

Bruising gets worse over time.
Someone gave me a black eye in a club once and it wasn't fully visible until a couple of days later. Straight after it was just puffy.
Anyway - who cares? Is hitting someone acceptable if it doesn't leave a mark?

All these posts saying "she makes it worse for real victims" have no idea how much they are re-victimising those who were not 'perfect' victims

It’s all these posts/people saying “she makes it worse for real victims” who make it worse for real victims.

She did lie. She said she'd given $7m to charity whereas in fact she'd given $0.55m and most of that had been paid directly by Depp. The judge believed her. She had no evidence supporting her claim and the judge took her on her word.

Mr Justice Nicol said of Heard: "Her donation of the $7m to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-digger."

So I dont know if the judge decided by using the 'eeny meeny miny mo' method, or by a tossed coin, or sucking his finger to see which way the wind was blowing, but he definitely didn't use an evidentiary method.

Maybe you're not as familiar with the English Justice system as you imply. 🤔

Yes, your sentence is clearer than mine - I meant the same.
That those who claim "real victims don't do x" (because she does x) are victimising those who are real victims and did in fact do x.

Does that make sense?

Apologies for any lack of clarity - I have had covid in the last couple of weeks and my brain hasn't quite caught up! 😄

I totally understood and I think your point was very important.

No it's not acceptable, which is why I still believe abuse and violence happened against AH. The same way I believe abuse and violence occured against JD.

Screaming at eachother, smashing up houses, throwing bottles and cans at eachother, defecation in beds, not allowing a spouse/partner to escape, manipulation, insults all are wrong. All is abusive and that's not even an exhaustive list.

It's just a very sad and horrific state of affairs by both of them.

Hogwash.

Genuine question as I'm clearly one of the idiots on this thread who knows fuck all about our justice system (although enough about it that if my daughter was ever raped and was hesitant to report due to fears of not being believed, to 100% understand) ...

If the uk judge was indeed a gullible numpty would JD have had grounds to challenge the verdict? If so why wouldn't he?

He was denied an appeal. Maybe that particular incident wouldn't have materially changed the outcome so there was no point. But it does show that the judge had some bias towards believing what Heard said even when it was proved to be untrue.

I mean there are conspiracy theories that as the judges son worked for a sister company to The Sun, the judge was biased but I think that's far-fetched myself. Judges do sometimes buy into the honesty of someone, remember the judge and the fragrant Mary Archer?

Do you seriously dispute that hearing your experience of abuse either minimised or twisted to make you the villain - by the general public - revictimises someone?

So if you think that's abusive, do you not think it's weird for Depp to claim Amber defamed him by claiming he was abusive in the Op Ed?
I find it so weird he has clearly committed abusive acts against her and now is suing her for implying he was abusive. Surely if they were both as bad as each other he wouldn't have wasted so much time and money on a trial he's bound to lose?
I can't get the logic behind those supporting Depp, why do they think he keeps suing people even though he's already lost once?

My Ex would tell you that i was abusive towards him. For the record, I was not. I did hit him back in the past once or twice too. Mostly his violence was psychological

All abusers do love a bit of manipulation to make their victim look guilty

I knew a guy - big guy - who was horrendously abused by his little wife. She battered him black and blue. It was only when one of the kids got hurt that he acted.

I can't get the logic behind those supporting Depp, why do they think he keeps suing people even though he's already lost once?

The cases are in different countries, under different legal systems where evidence allowed to be presented is different. And it is televised so people can see for themselves which witnesses are credible to them and which not. I think he'll lose the case but if he can overturn the view that he was the abuser and Heard the innocent victim, he might take that as a win.

I find it so weird he has clearly committed abusive acts against her and now is suing her for implying he was abusive.

He would say he wasn't abusive which I don't agree with. But it's possible that people will see their relationship as so dysfunctional and messed up, with tapes and recordings and lies and unfathomable, dusgusting behaviour, that they can't say that one is more guilty of abuse than the other. So it's not spouse-beating, it's just their fucked up way of communicating.

I don't know but I do think her legal team need to start earning their money. I've watched a few US lawyer YouTube rs who all started out on Heard's side but are shocked at the incompetence of her team and are beginning to lean Depps way. (Although all think he'll lose the case!)

I don't know but I do think her legal team need to start earning their money. I've watched a few US lawyer YouTube rs who all started out on Heard's side but are shocked at the incompetence of her team and are beginning to lean Depps way. (Although all think he'll lose the case!)

Experienced lawyers have swapped sides purely on the basis of the lack of expertise of her lawyers? Or do you mean they have swapped who they think is most likely to win.

I find it so weird he has clearly committed abusive acts against her and now is suing her for implying he was abusive.

Well he’s just trying to save his career and reputation isn’t he. Rich lawyers have told him he could. But all it’s done is destroy him further.

I always found him too damaged and fey to be attractive, but now I actively dislike him.

They went into the court case believing Amber Heard and that she'd win. They're now less certain about her telling the truth, that her case is much weaker than they thought, but because the jury only needs to believe one case of abuse against her, then it's more likely than not she'll win. It's just not the slamdunk they thought it'd be. They're not swapping sides because her team are incompetent, but they think the poor way they're dealing with the case and witnesses may very well impact negatively on the jury which obviously weakens the chance of her winning. (They still think he'll lose.)
I hope I expressed that right. Does that make it clearer?

Mmmm I'll look into the judge a bit more.
Ta.

Although interesting that Camp JD didn't make more of appeal being denied.

Meant to say - thanks anyway.

Oh and,@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz, Dan Wooton who wrote the Sun article works on Talk Radio with Robert Palmer who is the son of Andrew Nicol the Judge in the Depp/Head case. Again, I'm sure the judge was capable of hearing the case without being influenced but it doesn't really have the best look.

Honestly, because his ship has sunk and he's taking her down with him.

He's not willing to be solely portrayed as the only bad party. He's willing to admit warts and all to expose her behaviour. Which he has done.

He knows he isn't winning this, he knows he has lost everything, but she is now going to suffer the same.

I can't blame him really. If I'd had someone chop my finger off and shit in my bed and then sit on a throne of lies as a ambassador for DA. I'd not just burn my house down, I'd burn the whole street down 🤷🏻‍♀️

I hope I expressed that right. Does that make it clearer?

Yes, much clearer.