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.
Feminism: chat
Johnny Depp has played a blinder
bennetmoore · 10/05/2022 16:36
ThrowawayBerna · 15/05/2022 18:35
'And neither of the charities were expecting it on a schedule.'
You are misled, that is absolutely false with reference to ACLU.
10 year installments expected. An optional, legally enforceable pledge form was not signed, but a committment made.
(From recall, yearwise) ACLU did communicate when 2019 monies to be attributed to AH didn't come through, but told financial difficulties.
Day 11 testimony, Terence Dougherty, general counsel, ACLU.
Boulshired · 15/05/2022 19:15
If people believed she had donated the money, then her words mislead, and on purpose especially the talk show. She sat and took the praise that she had donated 7 million. Who needs a 10 year pledge when she had the money. Depp even offered to pay the money direct to the charity.
BoredZelda · 18/05/2022 16:10
Her testimony has more holes in it than a large piece of Swiss cheese, yet people are ignoring this and going but but but..... she has a vagina so she must be the victim and he the abuser, naturally. That is a massive step back for all abuse victims.
I agree.
I was totally on the fence. I’ve never been a fan of Depp and up until now had no knowledge of Amber Heard. I didn’t know about the previous trial, and the only thing I had ever seen was that video of him throwing a hissy fit in the kitchen. I drew the conclusion that their relationship was utterly toxic, on both sides and they should just leave each other alone. I even had to Google what this trial was about as I had no idea.
Someone I spent time with was talking about the trial and said she had been watching it, she’s very pro Depp and I was skeptical. I hadn’t known it was being broadcast and said I’d watch it before we next met. So, I have just watched everything up to today.
Everything he is saying adds up. He was open and honest about things that most would try and avoid, he contextualised some stuff but not others. He came across as genuine and his evidence was quite compelling.
At the start of her testimony I began to swing to Heard’s side. But as it went on and it transpires she has no evidence of him hitting her, despite having (in her words) given hundreds of thousands of documents for evidence. Of the number of times she claims horrific injuries there are a dozen photos of one bruise on her face. Her account of the Australian incident is horrific, and she claims she was badly injured but there is not one single piece of evidence of her injuries. I can understand some women might be reluctant to seek help, but she documented every other part of the abuse, at that time, just not the injuries. That doesn’t mean she is lying, but it does mean her account is at least questionable.
Perhaps the issue is her lawyers are crap, certainly Camille Vasquez absolutely destroyed her on cross, and Elaine Bredehoft just totally messed up the re-direct to the point that even the judge was annoyed by her, but even bad lawyers present the evidence if they have it.
I think he will lose, because the case to be answered is very, very narrow. Just as it was in the case against the Sun. She spoke about abuse in the Op-Ed, clearly she has shown he had been as verbally abusive as she was and in fact, even if she can show a single episode of abuse, the case could go her way. But, in my opinion, it is absolutely clear Amber Heard was physically abusive to him, it is far less clear that she was to him. She has shown herself to be delusional, a fantasist and a liar.
QuotetheLaw · 14/05/2022 20:23
@IrisVersicolor The UK judgment made no sense at all. Apparently the Judges son worked with Dan Wooten which does not give the best start to the case. It reads like he had an agenda from the start and twisted and manipulated the evidence to fall in line with that agenda. I've read a lot of case law and I have never ever come across a case with reasoning as absurd as the UK trial.
BoredZelda · 18/05/2022 16:10
Her testimony has more holes in it than a large piece of Swiss cheese, yet people are ignoring this and going but but but..... she has a vagina so she must be the victim and he the abuser, naturally. That is a massive step back for all abuse victims.
I agree.
I was totally on the fence. I’ve never been a fan of Depp and up until now had no knowledge of Amber Heard. I didn’t know about the previous trial, and the only thing I had ever seen was that video of him throwing a hissy fit in the kitchen. I drew the conclusion that their relationship was utterly toxic, on both sides and they should just leave each other alone. I even had to Google what this trial was about as I had no idea.
Someone I spent time with was talking about the trial and said she had been watching it, she’s very pro Depp and I was skeptical. I hadn’t known it was being broadcast and said I’d watch it before we next met. So, I have just watched everything up to today.
Everything he is saying adds up. He was open and honest about things that most would try and avoid, he contextualised some stuff but not others. He came across as genuine and his evidence was quite compelling.
At the start of her testimony I began to swing to Heard’s side. But as it went on and it transpires she has no evidence of him hitting her, despite having (in her words) given hundreds of thousands of documents for evidence. Of the number of times she claims horrific injuries there are a dozen photos of one bruise on her face. Her account of the Australian incident is horrific, and she claims she was badly injured but there is not one single piece of evidence of her injuries. I can understand some women might be reluctant to seek help, but she documented every other part of the abuse, at that time, just not the injuries. That doesn’t mean she is lying, but it does mean her account is at least questionable.
Perhaps the issue is her lawyers are crap, certainly Camille Vasquez absolutely destroyed her on cross, and Elaine Bredehoft just totally messed up the re-direct to the point that even the judge was annoyed by her, but even bad lawyers present the evidence if they have it.
I think he will lose, because the case to be answered is very, very narrow. Just as it was in the case against the Sun. She spoke about abuse in the Op-Ed, clearly she has shown he had been as verbally abusive as she was and in fact, even if she can show a single episode of abuse, the case could go her way. But, in my opinion, it is absolutely clear Amber Heard was physically abusive to him, it is far less clear that she was to him. She has shown herself to be delusional, a fantasist and a liar.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.