Amber Heard v. Johnny Depp Legal Proceedings - "And on my side of the bed was human fecal matter."

Who is the real criminal in this trial?

  • Amber Heard

    Votes: 767 72.0%

  • Johnny Depp

    Votes: 43 4.0%

  • Both

    Votes: 256 24.0%
  • Total voters
    1,066
  • Poll closed .
Common Shadow said:
Monica Lewinsky had her own Sarkeesian moment and I could only skim through her crappy ass article, but for anyone wanting to see how full of shit she is, and how much she probably sucks on Satkeesian's unused milk bags, here you go. Some of what she says is accurate, but it drips of agenda driven feminism.
Click to expand...

I see Monica Lewinsky took her time out of telling tiresome blowjob jokes on Twitter to give her oh so important opinion on the trial.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Common Shadow and Michael Jacks0n
Fr if I was amber I woudl kms- it’s literally the only card she has left to play.
“Poor girl Jonny drove her to 41!”
Even without owing out 15 mil it’s gotta sting some bad.
 
Cross-posting from the Marilyn Manson vs Evan Rachel Wood & Co thread, people all over Twatter are already speculating about how this verdict might affect Manson's own defamation suit against his ex-fiance actress Evan Rachel Wood and her former partner Illma Gore. As some of you already know, Marilyn Manson was brought up a couple times during the lawsuit by Amber Heard's lawyers in some kind of guilt-by-association move that is very typical of these types of "divorce industry" lawyers. However, contrary to popular belief amongst Manson stans, Manson did not actually testify in Depp's case.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Snack Cracker, General Disarray, GenericReviewerDraco and 7 others
Manwithn0n0men said:
Why would they google a story?

Also: Why would they be concerned about libeling some one who just one a libel lawsuit?
Click to expand...

To find the actual articles talking about it. Although the number of random stories coming out after this done to get people to cancel a person is entertaining to see.

For example, I'm getting a laugh out of this:


Bye.png

Insert random celebrity liked Johnny Depp celebratory posts on Instagram. Time to cancel his career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maguyver16, madethistocomment, Snack Cracker and 8 others
Dolphin Lundgren said:
To find the actual articles talking about it. Although the number of random stories coming out after this done to get people to cancel a person is entertaining to see.

For example, I'm getting a laugh out of this:


View attachment 3347416
Insert random celebrity liked Johnny Depp celebratory posts on Instagram. Time to cancel his career.
Click to expand...
Why would journalists and other pod people want to be accurate?

They can't go out and destroy people for fun (see post above).

They go out to destroy people by and large because their lives are terrible. And hurting others is the only way they can feel good
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Cactuar King, Snack Cracker, Rossacciu and 6 others
Neil said:
I don't know if anyone capped Kat Tenbarge's meltdown over this:
(caps stolen)
View attachment 3347174View attachment 3347180View attachment 3347181View attachment 3347186
View attachment 3347188
Look at this cope. Look at it, throw your head back, and laugh.

This bitch is out of her mind if she thinks Amber Heard is even remotely like Brittney Spears.
Click to expand...
There is literally no connection. Britney Spears has more in common with Johnny Depp than Amber. Britney, like Johnny, is the cash cow being exploited by malicious grifters.
Neil said:
Spears' case was about her conservator ship brought about by years of her family turning her into a pop idol from a very young age and forbidding her from living a normal life.
Click to expand...
She was functionally enslaved by her father with the blessing of California courts. It wasn't until her insane fanbase refused to let the issue stay quiet and forced the issue publicly that any changes were made to the conservatorship. It might be the first case in celebrity history of a fanbase being good for the artist. Amber doesn't have a fanbase.
Neil said:
Amber's a bedshitting, soon-to-be-bankrupt BPD psychopath who tried to bring down her more famous ex-husband as petty revenge. You'll be waiting a long time until you're "on the right side of history".
Click to expand...
There are more than 2 sides in "history" and anyone who says they're on the "right side of history" is definitely in the wrong.
Neil said:
It's a minor discount. She's ruined, her net worth is varies between 2.5 million to 7 million. I have no clue how she's going to pay all it off, no one in hollywood is gonna hire her after this, not even Lifetime.
Click to expand...
It was a compromise to end deliberations and it helps Depp in the event of an appeal. As others have said previously, it's basically what Depp paid Amber in the divorce + interest.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Mammamia in Naziland, Snack Cracker, Rossacciu and 8 others
The UK Trial was against The Sun tabloid. Amber Heard was not a party to it; she simply testified as a witness on behalf of The Sun. Since she wasn't a defendant, there were limits to what Johnny Depp's team could ask her. There's a different set of laws that protect the media than those that cover individuals. Also, English law has completely different laws regarding speech, and don't have anything like the 1st Amendment to protect their rights to free speech--at all. So, the core issue in the UK trial wasn't "Did Johnny Depp abuse Amber Heard?" but rather "Was the UK tabloid The Sun within their legal rights to call Johnny Depp a wifebeater based on their (The Sun's) supporting evidence and sources?" The Sun is not required to prove any of this happened, only that their sources are telling them it did.

In addition, tabloids like The Sun around the world are experts in using weasel words like "allegedly" and "An anonymous source says" and other legal dodges in order to print stories that are completely false without suffering any kegal repercussions for doing so. They have their own teams of high-paid lawyers (better than the ACLU's lawyers lol) to vet every article to make sure there's no grounds for defamation. Tabloids rarely lose because of this.

teriyakiburns said:
BBC is running cover for Heard, for some reason.

www.bbc.co.uk

Depp-Heard trial: Why Johnny Depp lost in the UK but won in the US

Experts say key factors included having a jury trial and his lawyers using a specific legal tactic.
www.bbc.co.uk
archive.ph

Depp-Heard trial: Why Johnny Depp lost in the UK but won in the US - …

archived 2 Jun 2022 14:38:44 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph

They go out of their way to paint Depp's attempts at defence in the UK as DARVO, as well as trying to minimise Heard's actual behaviour. It's surprising, actually. I would have expected the BBC to go full bore supporting Depp, simply because it would be the contrary position to the Murdoch papers. But I suppose they have to toe the loony line, in the end.
Click to expand...
It's because they're trying to protect their own court system, among other things. The UK trial looks unfair in hindsight.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Melankia, Snack Cracker, Rezza and 8 others
HTTP Error 404 said:
Her career is over.

She dragged Disney AND Warner Brothers into her trial, which made them admit things publicly they would have preferred not to admit to.

She supposedly has no money left.

Still owes 7 million to charities she "pledged" to. (Note: This will never happen)

She owes who knows how much to her legal team.

And now owes 10 million to Depp, on top of that.

Depp owes her 2 million but I'm sure there's some math there where he gets to take what she's owed out of what she owes him.

So, 8.35 million dollars in the hole. No career. Aquaman 2 is coming, I think that's 2 million dollars, but after that, she's not getting any more roles. There's a non-zero chance Depp might go after her for that 2 million, too.
Click to expand...

I guess she should have purposely gotten knocked up by Elon Musk.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ForTheHoard
Allanon said:
Elaine has a responsibility to her client to maintain that Amber is innocent and continue to fight to her best ability to say Amber was innocent and the jury found wrongly. Especially if Amber is appealing. Still seems like a bad choice to go for things like 'the jury was unduly influenced', but she's probably still stuck walking to the tune of whatever Amber demands with the pledge of getting money if only Amber gets her 100m

But quite clearly this is the real reason they sealed the jurors. They pretended it was to 'protect them' to allow them to find in favor of Amber, and probably thought that them doing this would curry favor with the jury, but it's really so they can make outrageous claims like 'the jury went home and read social media and was influenced by it' with the expectation that no one can fact check them, because until a juror comes forward there's no way to ask them their experience.

I don't believe the jury was influenced by social media, though. Because first they'd need to get through MSM, and MSM was overwhelmingly trying to manipulate things in Amber's favor, including photoshopping tears where there were none. And then, after they got through pro-Amber media, they'd have to go to social media to look through the pro-Johnny media. If they did that, they would not have taken 13 hours to find in favor of Depp and they would not have felt Waldmann was lying about Amber setting up her apartment. People said repeatedly the jury looked to be taking the case extremely seriously, and I think that likely also means they didn't break the rules.

But also, Amber doesn't deserve to have a sequestered jury. She's not accused of murder, she's accused of defamation. Deal with it.


There's plenty of truth in those accusations. In that Amber truthfully made them. None of them happened, though.

The account has an accurate name though. You gotta give them that.
Click to expand...

Ironically even in defending amber post loss, she chose among the worst possible appeal avenues. Courts have no interest in discovering the what jurors do beyond closed doors after a verdict, possibly because we would be horrified on how they make their decisions. Most states have a no-impeachment rule that prevents jurors from even testifying on what happened behind closed doors. The Supreme Court carved out a narrow exception for pretty extreme racist jury discussions, but nothing as vague and nebulous as some pressure or social media reaching jurors from "the umbrella guy". Such appeals almost never win and by definition can't.

Then again this might all just be stupid PR bluster.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Associate Rick, Rezza, Narr Then and 2 others
AfghanBlue said:
Fr if I was amber I woudl kms- it’s literally the only card she has left to play.
“Poor girl Jonny drove her to 41!”
Even without owing out 15 mil it’s gotta sting some bad.
Click to expand...
She quite literally won't be able to pay it, I have heard claims of she paid upwards of 6 milly for the trial (lawyers, court fees,etc). Her net worth is was 2 million before this trial. This will has ruined her career prospects and stability if I were her just make an only fans.
 
Neil said:
I don't know if anyone capped Kat Tenbarge's meltdown over this:
(caps stolen)
View attachment 3347174View attachment 3347180View attachment 3347181View attachment 3347186
View attachment 3347188
Look at this cope. Look at it, throw your head back, and laugh.

This bitch is out of her mind if she thinks Amber Heard is even remotely like Brittney Spears. Spears' case was about her conservator ship brought about by years of her family turning her into a pop idol from a very young age and forbidding her from living a normal life.

Amber's a bedshitting, soon-to-be-bankrupt BPD psychopath who tried to bring down her more famous ex-husband as petty revenge. You'll be waiting a long time until you're "on the right side of history".

It's a minor discount. She's ruined, her net worth is varies between 2.5 million to 7 million. I have no clue how she's going to pay all it off, no one in hollywood is gonna hire her after this, not even Lifetime.
Click to expand...
Britney was abused and probably shaved her head as a cry for help that went ignored. Amber is an abuser. If you're going to say Amber is gonna get a redemption arc, at least pick some abuser who got a redemption arc, not a victim. Britney was never proven in court to have lied about being abused, especially not with the implication of her actually perpetuating the abuse. They are not the same.

Also, Britney is not a 'comparable' actress to Amber. Amber wishes, in her wildest dreams, to be as popular as Britney Spears was at any point in her career.
xXxFat_CuntXxX said:
>Right side of history
Everyone on the wrong side of history has a weird obsession with "being on the right side of history" and destroying everything to "make history" and to brag about the historical event in the making for virtue signal points and when something doesn't go their way they get physically violent to the point innocent people just trying to live their lives get beat into retardation or to death

>just like Britany Spears
What you can make out from the testimony's from this trial shows that Amber and her squad of termites treated Johnny like a walking ATM almost like how Britany's family groomed and treated her like one.
Click to expand...
There is no 'right or wrong' side of history. There is only the victors who write it. So when someone says they want to be on the 'right side' of history, what they're really saying is they want to try to control culture and the formation of history so that their opinion is the one written in history books.
Dolphin Lundgren said:
To find the actual articles talking about it. Although the number of random stories coming out after this done to get people to cancel a person is entertaining to see.

For example, I'm getting a laugh out of this:


View attachment 3347416
Insert random celebrity liked Johnny Depp celebratory posts on Instagram. Time to cancel his career.
Click to expand...
They think that they can just cancel Depp in the usual way because they failed in court, but they don't realize that their weak-wristed attempts at cancellation don't work on celebrities as big as Depp or Waititi. It only works on little babies like youtubers and minor actors like Amber Heard. And usually it works because those people admit to fault when the trends start. It also works because they're not going to court and can insinuate horrible behavior that way. Johnny was vindicated in court.

If OJ Simpson can be believed to kill his ex wife and her boyfriend in a horrifyingly brutal way and yet still get interviews and a book deal, you're not going to cancel Depp just because he was accused of beating his ex wife.

but please do illustrate for the world how little anyone cares about angry tweet storms and "problematic comments". continue to scream into the abyss.
PickwickPub said:
Ironically even in defending amber post loss, she chose among the worst possible appeal avenues. Courts have no interest in discovering the what jurors do beyond closed doors after a verdict, possibly because we would be horrified on how they make their decisions. Most states have a no-impeachment rule that prevents jurors from even testifying on what happened behind closed doors. The Supreme Court carved out a narrow exception for pretty extreme racist jury discussions, but nothing as vague and nebulous as some pressure or social media reaching jurors from "the umbrella guy". Such appeals almost never win and by definition can't.

Then again this might all just be stupid PR bluster.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure even if she wanted to impeach the jurors she shot herself in the foot by sealing their identities. The court is probably not going to be amused by her pulling a 180 from 'hide their identities for a year uwu' to 'drag them into court to reveal confidential jury discussions to prove I was cheated by social media'.

Even if she could prove the jurors witnessed social media, which she can't, she'd have to then prove that social media unduly influenced their decision. Which she doubly can't. A juror would have to come right out and admit that they saw evidence that was banned from court (like the australia tape) and that specifically influenced their decision. And even then, there's a bunch of other jurors. They'd have to all agree they came to a decision based on information not presented in court...and that is not going to happen, because if they were willing to rat themselves out in favor of Amber, they'd have just ruled in favor of Amber.

This is probably just Amber's stupid decisions and PR moves. The actual appeal will probably argue that they weren't allowed to produce certain evidence or dispute some that Johnny could, rather than argue the poisoning of the jury. The 'SOCIAL MEDIA BAD' angle is just to get the MSM attention because the MSM really wants to push that right now.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Dislike
Reactions: Snack Cracker, Narr Then, Dickens Cider and 5 others
Thot Crimes said:
The UK Trial was against The Sun tabloid. Amber Heard was not a party to it; she simply testified as a witness on behalf of The Sun. Since she wasn't a defendant, there were limits to what Johnny Depp's team could ask her. There's a different set of laws that protect the media than those that cover individuals. Also, English law has completely different laws regarding speech, and don't have anything like the 1st Amendment to protect their rights to free speech--at all. So, the core issue in the UK trial wasn't "Did Johnny Depp abuse Amber Heard?" but rather "Was the UK tabloid The Sun within their legal rights to call Johnny Depp a wifebeater based on their (The Sun's) supporting evidence and sources?" The Sun is not required to prove any of this happened, only that their sources are telling them it did.

In addition, tabloids like The Sun around the world are experts in using weasel words like "allegedly" and "An anonymous source says" and other legal dodges in order to print stories that are completely false without suffering any kegal repercussions for doing so. They have their own teams of high-paid lawyers (better than the ACLU's lawyers lol) to vet every article to make sure there's no grounds for defamation. Tabloids rarely lose because of this.


It's because they're trying to protect their own court system, among other things. The UK trial looks unfair in hindsight.
Click to expand...
it was unfair in foresight too. Especially in how it was used. UK Speech laws are different, in that they are LESS permissive then they are in America. All things being equal, Depp should have won in the UK and lost in the US. This is also not really a subject of debate. Pretrial motions were made on the admissability of the UK courts findings, and the US court found that the rulings of the UK court were not even to be used as secondarily persuasive evidence, as the trial itself was "unfair". That's not an opinion, that is a formal declaration of the Virginia court that judge Penny affixed her signature too. The formal position of the State of Virginia is that the opinions of Her Majesties Justice Andrew Nicole, are less the worthless because his opinion was adjudged to be unjust and not in keeping with the precepts of the Law of Virginia or Common Law. They are in fact prejudicial, and not allowable as evidence in a fair trial.

The UK court system can complain all it wants about it, but its manfiestly obviously to everyone the judge was bent and he sabotaged the entire trial for Rupert Murdoch.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Snack Cracker, Dumbledore's Onlyfans, Rezza and 7 others
Nykysnottrans said:
Cross-posting from the Marilyn Manson vs Evan Rachel Wood & Co thread, people all over Twatter are already speculating about how this verdict might affect Manson's own defamation suit against his ex-fiance actress Evan Rachel Wood and her former partner Illma Gore. As some of you already know, Marilyn Manson was brought up a couple times during the lawsuit by Amber Heard's lawyers in some kind of guilt-by-association move that is very typical of these types of "divorce industry" lawyers. However, contrary to popular belief amongst Manson stans, Manson did not actually testify in Depp's case.
Click to expand...
I kept hearing Manson brought up.


Apart form Deep admitting to druging Manson tk shut him up I don’t have a clue what the particulars are with Manson and his female issues.

Personally I thought the guy was gay based on his manner of dress and the time he dressed up in a body suit that gave him tits and no bag like a Barbie doll.


I suppose someone will have to make a thread about a Manson once his trial is a thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cactuar King, Rezza, Dolphin Lundgren and 1 other person
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Saturnalia-1918, Cactuar King, Snack Cracker and 6 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back