These morons have their talking point and no new (or old) evidence will EVER dissuade them. Its just like Michael Jackson and his fanatical defenders.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
- Status
These morons have their talking point and no new (or old) evidence will EVER dissuade them. Its just like Michael Jackson and his fanatical defenders.
It's just so disappointing because I keep seeing people in my contacts sharing this that I thought had at least half a brain. I don't know how many people I've had to unfollow in the past months but ugh
The Daily Beast journalist called out for lying about the court case (of a trial he didn't watch) by a reporter that was actually present and Depp supporters with receipts in the replies.
They have yet to correct a thing and simply tweeted the article once more.
This article was also retweeted by WAPO Taylor Lorenz who lied about reaching out to Youtubers that followed the case and was made to add a correction to her article on them.
They have yet to correct a thing and simply tweeted the article once more.
This article was also retweeted by WAPO Taylor Lorenz who lied about reaching out to Youtubers that followed the case and was made to add a correction to her article on them.
This guy also had beef with Ice Cube a couple years back. Due to him putting out an article that made it seem like I.C. threatened a guy.
This might've already been asked and answered, but what are the odds of Johnny's appeal being granted?
I mean... Considering the verdict against her, it's more than plausible that she'd do something akin to what Waldman claimed and Johnny himself never claimed those things.
I didn't think speculating about what she might've reasonbly done would constitute malicious intent. I'm hoping they grant him this appeal, she really doesn't deserve a dime nor any points with the media.
This needs to be as clear-cut as possible. No room for spin - No room for any of that shit to spread.
I mean... Considering the verdict against her, it's more than plausible that she'd do something akin to what Waldman claimed and Johnny himself never claimed those things.
I didn't think speculating about what she might've reasonbly done would constitute malicious intent. I'm hoping they grant him this appeal, she really doesn't deserve a dime nor any points with the media.
This needs to be as clear-cut as possible. No room for spin - No room for any of that shit to spread.
That's unlikely.
While the evidence is out there of the second call and the coordination between her friends and the divorce lawyer, it did not make it to the trial. The jury was simply not presented with enough compelling evidence to rule in Depp's favor on that.
The appeal won't have new evidence, so there's just no reason to set aside that verdict.
Ben Chew and Co. recognize that, too. Like they said in their appeal, they're only appealing to make sure the record is straight.
God this unsealed documents thing leading to online discourse about the Depp team 'editing' this or 'obscuring' that like only his side was allowed to present evidence. God help me I want to move on but I guess I will have to watch some LawTube stuff about what is actually in this stupid thing.
I think it is entirely within the realm of possibility that a new judge could find that there was not sufficient evidence to prove vicarious liability for Depp to pay for Waldman's statements and the issue should have been thrown out and not left to the jury. I think most judges will want to leave it as it is, as it is mostly a Depp win anyways, but I get the sense that most people in law aren't super thrilled with that aspect but generally don't dwell on it in the grand scheme of the verdict.
Depp's liability for Waldman's statements would be what is up for appeal really, rather than the idea if the statements themselves were defamatory. If anything were to change in the appeals process, I think it is this.
I think it is entirely within the realm of possibility that a new judge could find that there was not sufficient evidence to prove vicarious liability for Depp to pay for Waldman's statements and the issue should have been thrown out and not left to the jury. I think most judges will want to leave it as it is, as it is mostly a Depp win anyways, but I get the sense that most people in law aren't super thrilled with that aspect but generally don't dwell on it in the grand scheme of the verdict.
Depp's liability for Waldman's statements would be what is up for appeal really, rather than the idea if the statements themselves were defamatory. If anything were to change in the appeals process, I think it is this.
So what is up with this unsealed documents thing? I've seen more TikTok's and Twitter threads than normal exclaiming that they proved Depp was actually the abuser all along, that he edited a bunch of evidence, and that he's transphobic now.
Genuinely want to know; this whole thing's just so confusing to me now :(
Genuinely want to know; this whole thing's just so confusing to me now :(
This is all I can find. I mean there are plenty of posts but they regurgitate this.
View: https://twitter.com/k4mil1aa/status/1554299871980531712?t=8wYo5-MAevUbDJX4fdZV2Q&s=19
Note none of them are picking up the other stuff, like the clear admission that AH threw the bottle and it DID cut off his finger.
But y'know, media is gonna media.
LMAO, look who is going on an anti-Heard spree...
www.tmz.com
Disgusting people. I hate TMZ.
I love that this was somehow "unearthed" because of the transcripts... Anyone who followed this trial, knew this. Jennifer wasn't allowed to speak...
I guess it would've been hersay to quote Whitney... Although Jennifer had mail conversations as proof as well.
Whitney's a piece of shit too. I don't care if she was afraid. Lying infront of the person you were freeloading off of and to try to continue to ruin said person's life is just... Fuck all of her lying friends too.
Monsters, the lot of them.
Whitney Henriquez Allegedly Confessed to Amber Cutting Off Johnny's Finger
More revelations from the unsealed docs. Per reports, there's a deposition transcript detailing the Australia fingertip incident ... as told by Amber's sister's former boss, who claims Whitney admitted her sister was responsible.
www.tmz.com
Disgusting people. I hate TMZ.
I love that this was somehow "unearthed" because of the transcripts... Anyone who followed this trial, knew this. Jennifer wasn't allowed to speak...
I guess it would've been hersay to quote Whitney... Although Jennifer had mail conversations as proof as well.
Whitney's a piece of shit too. I don't care if she was afraid. Lying infront of the person you were freeloading off of and to try to continue to ruin said person's life is just... Fuck all of her lying friends too.
Monsters, the lot of them.
I initially wanted to quit digging into the unsealed documents, but I admit I had to go through the pro-Heard crowd Twitter threads on them just to amuse myself.
It seems it's difficult to a lot of people to realize that in a lawsuit, lawyers will try to include as much as possible that favors their client, and as little as possible that works against them.
This whole freak out over omg check out what they're hiding, or oh look confirmed they wanted or didn't want the cameras (as if it was ever in question that Depp wanted the cameras from day0)... It's just more nonsensical drama.
I'm looking at all the conclusions being drawn from the pretrial motions and I just have to smh, yeah so what if they said we reserve the right to use Heard's criminal record and her team said they didn't want charity donations to be brought up... Well, they both lost on that, and many other motions. They also won on various motions. So who gives a shit?
The best case scenario for the pro-Heard crowd is they find some evidence that points to Depp hitting her once. Congrats, I guess, your best case scenario is a miracle that proves... What? The jury had to subscribe to Rottenborn's insane argument that fuck the details of what she alleged, if you think there's a small chance he was remotely abusive towards her in any shape or form then you gotta rule against him...?
I dunno, I guess my view is that it doesn't matter if Depp is a piece of shit or not. I wasn't a fan of him, nor do I think I need to like or admire him to side with him in this case.
Ultimately, regardless of everything else, Heard stood on that stand, testified under oath that he assaulted her violently and said here's a picture showing my horrible injuries. And her evidence did not match her story. At all.
It seems it's difficult to a lot of people to realize that in a lawsuit, lawyers will try to include as much as possible that favors their client, and as little as possible that works against them.
This whole freak out over omg check out what they're hiding, or oh look confirmed they wanted or didn't want the cameras (as if it was ever in question that Depp wanted the cameras from day0)... It's just more nonsensical drama.
I'm looking at all the conclusions being drawn from the pretrial motions and I just have to smh, yeah so what if they said we reserve the right to use Heard's criminal record and her team said they didn't want charity donations to be brought up... Well, they both lost on that, and many other motions. They also won on various motions. So who gives a shit?
The best case scenario for the pro-Heard crowd is they find some evidence that points to Depp hitting her once. Congrats, I guess, your best case scenario is a miracle that proves... What? The jury had to subscribe to Rottenborn's insane argument that fuck the details of what she alleged, if you think there's a small chance he was remotely abusive towards her in any shape or form then you gotta rule against him...?
I dunno, I guess my view is that it doesn't matter if Depp is a piece of shit or not. I wasn't a fan of him, nor do I think I need to like or admire him to side with him in this case.
Ultimately, regardless of everything else, Heard stood on that stand, testified under oath that he assaulted her violently and said here's a picture showing my horrible injuries. And her evidence did not match her story. At all.
If the judge didnt think any of the stuff that she rejected being used in court had strong enough evidence to be used. That pretty much says it all with Amber considering the stuff she was allowed to use.
We know she was willing to lie and fabricate evidence to try to prove her story. Why would anything the judge rejected have any more credibility than what was allowed?
We also know that Depp had evidence which proved she was responsible for cutting his finger off. That evidence was rejected because it was hearsay and Heard, her lawyers and hired professionals were then allowed to lie about scenarios in which Depp did it to himself and she did nothing. But Amber couldn't very well have someone recounting what her sister had said when she had asked her sister to lie in court for her and say the opposite.
None of Depps evidence was in question really. All of Heard's evidence is questionable. She has no issue lying under oath or spinning stories with zero evidence to back them up and will happily fabricate evidence that still doesn't go close to backing up her claims. So easy to poke holes in her stories.
Not sure about all of them, but I do know the nude photos thing I'd say is perhaps oversimplification if not misleading.
It's in a response from Depp's lawyers for a motion from Heard's side over excluding evidence that includes those nude photos and I think her work in a strip club and I don't know what else, sorry they all kind of meld together... Both sides sought to exclude and include a ton of evidence which they won and lost on pretty fairly imo
Anyway, they responded with something along the lines of we weren't planning on doing any of that, however if the photos end up corresponding to specific dates/incidents of alleged abuse then they reserve the right to use them to show injuries or lack thereof and if that's the case they shouldn't be excluded.
Funny how amber's evidence was just her team trying to defame JD and JD's team had evidence that amber assaulted himLMAO, look who is going on an anti-Heard spree...
Whitney Henriquez Allegedly Confessed to Amber Cutting Off Johnny's Finger
More revelations from the unsealed docs. Per reports, there's a deposition transcript detailing the Australia fingertip incident ... as told by Amber's sister's former boss, who claims Whitney admitted her sister was responsible.
Disgusting people. I hate TMZ.
I love that this was somehow "unearthed" because of the transcripts... Anyone who followed this trial, knew this. Jennifer wasn't allowed to speak...
I guess it would've been hersay to quote Whitney... Although Jennifer had mail conversations as proof as well.
Whitney's a piece of shit too. I don't care if she was afraid. Lying infront of the person you were freeloading off of and to try to continue to ruin said person's life is just... Fuck all of her lying friends too.
Monsters, the lot of them.
It is filled with a bunch of pre-trial motions of both sides trying their best to get things admitted into evidence, so people are scrounging through the things that didn't get in because of hearsay and being irrelevant or prejudicial etc etc etc
If any of them are what did have to do with the case?
Johnny Depp has ED? so do a lot of men.
The nude photos were rejected so who cares. They weren't used as evidence.
Yeah Marylin Manson is a rapist and a creeper. Nothing in the evidence said Johnny asked for the pictures.
She walked away from money in the divorce? Obviously.
None of that mattered to the case.
With the first the Heard supporters argue that insecurity over ED/potential ED would be a motive for the alleged assault via bottle/fingers.
The nude photo one is just false but they'll never admit it.
And the last is meant to say "Seeeee she really wasn't after money/clout."
Makes sense what you're saying, thanks for the clarification.
I found this oversimplifying the matter a little? Like the one with Marylin Manson, I find to be the worst. As in, why associate yourself or have contact with someone like that at all even if Johnny didn't ask for any of it? Do keep in mind that I didn't look into MM's connection with Johnny and still don't know if they're considered friends. The one with ED, I can understand it causing issues in a relationship or wanting to break up over it if you can't deal with it. But then again, she should have known of this well ahead in advance. She could have opt out of it in a mature way if it really bothered her.
You are right that it's probably just used as an ammo, a lot of info left out and it sure as hell doesn't explain or make it okay the shit she did. I should have thought more of that. I guess I just panicked for a moment which is exactly what her side wants.
Marilyn Manson, until very recently was considered a great musician.
To the point that even the Born Again Christian, Alice Cooper made him and Johnny Depp part of a superband for a few years, until Manson couldn't stay sober on tour, which Alice hated. Manson is a rapist and possibly worse, but him texted Depp does not make Depp a domestic abuser.
Depp however got to stay in that band.
Erectile dysfunction, is definitely a reason to end a relationship. It can make your partner feel undesired. It has nothing to do with domestic violence.
The nudes thing is a litle harder to defend, because I does suggest that Heard is a "slut" thus she "deserved it" but everything submitted was using it in a different way.
And finally, because she divorced him before the latest Pirates money came in also doesn't mean she had no reason to defame him.
Yes I oversimplified, but that's because I assumed every one of this thread had already been following the trial and it was actually going on.
I mean if that is the case, Amber Heard is also in contact and still friends with Eve Barlow, a known zionist (literally in her Twitter profile)... so yeah, both of them being friend with problematic peoples, and I don't think its relevant to the case
It's only relevant to the case in that it makes a person believable or not with their claims. If you're hanging out with horrible people, it could mean different things. Such as you being a horrible person yourself and you're just hiding it. Or you didn't know better since it's hidden from you too. Or you're the type who's too nice and afraid to stand up for your believes. Those kind of things. If you're that bad, then it can make me question the claims and whether they're capable of doing those terrible things or not.
In the case of Amber, I'm aware of her involvement with Eve Barlow. Based on what we know of Amber (a horrible person), it makes sense and it's fitting that she's associated with a nutcase like Eve. That's why I was very surprised about MM and J. It makes perfect sense now with what deimos mentioned.
Amber supporters currently losing their minds because Britney Spears posted and continues to keep up a Johnny Depp quote on IG (even after deleting her other IG posts made before and after said post).
She's also removing all comments criticizing her for posting it.
She's also removing all comments criticizing her for posting it.
The CUNY (City University of New York) was pressured by student/faculty/alumni into taking down an article/newsletter profiling an alumni that was one of Depp's lawyers;
The only current article is from The Daily Wire but if you search CUNY on Twitter you'll find the information/controversy/issued apology.
The only current article is from The Daily Wire but if you search CUNY on Twitter you'll find the information/controversy/issued apology.
I keep trying to tell people that the support that Amber receives is far from insignificant.
Edit: https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1555354177051705345?t=aP8f8tC4iUYcJPb-A7Fp_w&s=19
Last edited:
This is sad.
The girl took part in a very prominent trial. Her professors must have been proud of her.
I understand that it's a polarizing case & some still get offended, but they could have changed the title or tuned the article instead of removing it.
The articles and tweets claiming such are likely exaggerated. Take this CinemaBlend article as an example. It claims that 1. Among the unsealed documents was evidence that Disney and Depp stopped working together for reasons other than Heard's accusations against Depp and 2.the documents prove that Heard should have won the case.
The problem with step 2 is that the claim is about whether Heard falsely accused Depp of being a domestic abuser. The Disney-Depp relationship only affects how much monetary damage Depp suffered from the accusations. It does not affect the truth or falsehood of Heard's accusations. Therefore, the documents referenced in the article could only affect the size of the award that Depp received.
Last edited:
This poster isn't coming back.
I really wish Amber people could actually post here or were brave enough too because Ik a large portion of the userbase shares that stance, then there could be actual dialogue.
I don't think they're actually interested in dialogue, so that's the crux of the issue.
No? I've now read a few dozen pages, but I didn't get that impression from what little I've read. And it is admittedly little, the entire unsealed documents are 6000+ pages, so I've far from read everything that was unsealed from the pretrial.
If something in them drastically changes how people should view the trial I'd honestly like to know what it is.
What specific claims do the unsealed documents prove? And where can I read those specific unsealed documents you might be referencing. The unsealed documents are all located here: https://andreaburkhart.com/documents Because again it's 6000+ pages of documents. Exactly which PDF you're talking about, and page number would also be super helpful for discussion.
There's no room for dialogue. Shortly after the verdict, I posted that it was rough how no one here was talking about how bad this was for women who are victims of abuse -- that regardless of the actual facts of the case, it validated the myth of the "woman lying about abuse to destroy a man's career", which will make abuse victims even less likely to come forward, and make the dismal rates of prosecution and conviction even lower. It felt like the tone here lacked any nuance or introspection. Just a celebration of a woman getting caught in a lie.
I caught a one-month ban for that post. Not even arguing the case at all, just commenting on how it was a Conservative wet dream with terrible, long-lasting consequences. If discussing the case in a broader light is ban-worthy, I can't imagine how anyone actually arguing or debating the facts of the case itself would survive.
I still think that's an important conversation -- how incredibly shitty this is for women and victims of abuse. A lot of major news sites have reported on that at length, especially on how a lot of the reporting on the case was being pushed by right-wing networks. But despite how left-learning this forum usually is, this is one place that is super resistant to talking about this beyond a surface level "she lied, he won, and it's a good thing that a male victim of abuse was heard" -- because that's all true, but the circus around the case hurt everyone.
There's really nothing new in terms of evidence. Any admissable evidence that proves or disproves something, you have seen it in trial.
The things that didn't come in during trial ranges from fabricated evidence, to hearsay of hearsay, to just not being best evidence when the testimony of the witness supplants the document.
More importantly, claims during pretrial are not themselves evidence of anything. I mean ffs, Dr. Spiegel was meant to evaluate Depp, and when he wasn't allowed to he thought watching his movies and some interviews are good enough to come to a psychiatric diagnosis lol
So far I found the documents to be more of a rare opportunity into the legal process, otherwise it's just emails between lawyers that REALLY didn't get along, and weird motions over stuff that don't materially matter to the case, but the internet would find deliciously salacious.
The things that didn't come in during trial ranges from fabricated evidence, to hearsay of hearsay, to just not being best evidence when the testimony of the witness supplants the document.
More importantly, claims during pretrial are not themselves evidence of anything. I mean ffs, Dr. Spiegel was meant to evaluate Depp, and when he wasn't allowed to he thought watching his movies and some interviews are good enough to come to a psychiatric diagnosis lol
So far I found the documents to be more of a rare opportunity into the legal process, otherwise it's just emails between lawyers that REALLY didn't get along, and weird motions over stuff that don't materially matter to the case, but the internet would find deliciously salacious.
Problem is they're not actually here to have any dialogue in good faith. Their minds are already made up. They're just here to JAQ-off and drive-by shit post like that last user.
It's VERY telling that I have yet to meet a single Heard stan that actually watched the fucking trial.
Edit: Just look at the post RIGHT below this one LMAO.
Last edited:
User Banned (Permanent): Continued disruptive behavior in spite of multiple past infractions.
We are lol. I've been banned twice simply stating that Johnny depp is a textbook abuser with a history of violent outbursts and jealous, coercive controlling behaviour. I might catch another ban for this but I'm not going to stop saying it. It's been public knowledge virtually his entire career. He's always been….kind of a scumbag.
I don't care if amber heard is a piece of shit. She probably is. But I fully believe she and depp were together at the height of his depravity and she was abused by him.
I'm not going to acknowledge any replies to this either cause y'all are just vicious as hell and really just mean and behaving like bullies, imo.
I've tried the dialogue, y'all are scary as hell in here. No thanks.
"We DO want dialogue!"
*Proceeds to whine about being banned and ends with stating they won't reply to anyone*
Thanks for proving my point! 👍
I love that all you're doing is affirming that post you quoted. lol bye
The problem is the only argument to take away from that discussion is that he shouldn't have brought this case.
Which no victim should have to consider.
Sorry, fixed!
Last edited:
The issue is though...there is no history of violent outbursts, coming from reliable sources. Heard tried her very best to paint him in as bad a light as possible. And the only thing she made clear...was that there was nothing really of note.
Doesn't really matter of you're going to respond to it or not. That's just what it is.
- Status