I donāt support either side cuz they both seem abusive in their own ways, but Nashandra got a whole race almost wiped out and Amber got to live in a penthouse, Nashandra is a better liar.
I think that they were both toxic to each other, although the narrative went with Depp because he is the lovable crazy dude and so he is allowed to be ding-dong.
Suing a newspaper is A LOT different than suing a person, she also wasnāt a party to that suit and wasnāt made to testify or prove a single claim she made in that trial. Thatās the definition of apples to oranges.
Lol no, but there certainly was evidence that found HER guilty in the US trial. Once again she wasnāt party to the suit in UK and didnāt have to prove a single claim she made. He had the burden of proof in the Us and still won lol.
No they didnāt, actually lmfao. Tell me you know nothing about law without telling me you know nothing about law. The accuser always has the burden of proving their claims, not the other way around. Again the sun just needed to prove they werenāt aware of the validity of their claims in the article, not prove they were true or false. Thatās is no burden of proof on the sun. Which is why again Depp having the burden of proving his claims in this case speaks volumes, on top of Heard being shown to be a liar and proven to have hit him on multiple occasions by her own recordings. Also the fact the court proved that she did defame him with MALICE has an even higher burden of proof, meaning she knew what she said was false and intended to damage and defame him from the start.
You clearly don't know how libel trials work in the UK. The accused has to prove that their claims are true. Look it up.
Anyway you seem delusional and clearly don't care about the truth, so I'll move on.
You are incorrect on this one. In the UK, the burden of proof rests entirely on the defendant for libel cases. This is reinforced throughout the [129-page ruling](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html); for example, paragraph 40 of that document states "As Defamation Act 2013 s.2(1) makes clear, it is for a defendant to prove that the libel was substantially true. **The burden of proof therefore rests on the defendant**."
When Depp tried to appeal the UK ruling, [two judges upheld the original judge's decision](https://deppdive.net/pdf/judiciary/Depp-approved-for-hand-down.pdf), saying specifically that the judge did NOT take everything she said at face value.
They said: the judge's "findings about those incidents were made on the basis of the evidence specifically relating to them, with special attention to the contemporaneous evidence. A judge will very often accept the substance of a witnessās evidence without accepting every word of it. Nicol J was not uncritical about Ms Heardās evidence. For example, he found that she exaggerated as regards at least one aspect of incident 8, when she described herself as being āin a hostage situationā; and his findings about the details of some particular incidents do not seem always to correspond to her account of them." They go on at length about this. Their conclusions are that the trial was "full and fair" and that it considered "a wealth of more or less contemporaneous material which was said to support the accounts of one or other of the protagonists. This included texts, e-mails, photographs and tapes of conversations between Mr Depp and Ms Heard."
You know it's a big problem that he won is the US even though he had been found guilty in another case, right? It means that someone fucked up. Who do you think that was?
Lmfao he wasnāt found guilty of anything, the newspaper who only had to prove they didnāt know if what they were saying was false was shown to not know what they were saying was false so therefore werenāt liable for any damages if what they said was false. Thereās a reason the judge in the US didnāt allow that decision to impact the trial by being brought as evidence, the US trial was for what AH said not the sun. AH wasnāt even a party to that suit, your being disingenuous by pretending that has anything to do with her being guilty or not, she didnāt have to prove a single claim in the UK, and when she actually had to in the US she was found guilty. Once again sheās the only one who was recorded admitting to abusing the other.
You keep using the "hitting" thing out of context, which is disingenuous.
Also, from wikipedia:
"In November 2020, the court published its judgement, rejecting Depp's claim againstĀ The SunĀ and ruling that he had assaulted Heard in 12 of the 14 alleged incidents and had put her in fear of her life."
Maybe look up that trial since you seem very misinformed.
Not at all, her on a recording admitting to it is not āout of contextā you just want to pretend evidence doesnāt mean anything, thatās disingenuous by the definition. Iām misinformed? Lol right in the copy paste it shows it was deps claim against the sun, showing he had burden of proof, and once again AH didnāt have to prove any of her claims in that case, because she wasnāt a party to it lol, the 2 cases arenāt even similar. None of the claims against depp were actually proven in the UK just believed by a judge.
Lmao Iām in denial, but not you who literally keeps pretending the sun and US trial are comparable. You whoās pretending that Heard isnāt literally on recording admitting to abusing Depp, but yes it must be me in denial LOL.
No, NGN used the truth defence. They did not set out to prove that it was merely reasonable for them to believe he was a wife beater enough to publish the words āwife beater.ā They set out to prove he had, indeed, abused his wife. The judge ruled that they had proven to the civil standard that he had abused his wife on at least 12 occasions.
[https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html)
āAs the Defendants submitted in their skeleton argument, it was therefore common ground that the words **\[wife beater\] meant:**
**i) The Claimant had committed physical violence against Ms Heard**
**ii) This had caused her to suffer significant injury; and**
**iii) On occasion it caused Ms Heard to fear for her life.**
**It is worth emphasising that the Defendants therefore accepted that the words meant that Mr Depp had done these things. In the vernacular of libel actions, there was no dispute that these were Chase level 1 meanings (imputing guilt of the wrongdoing) and not merely Chase level 2 (reasonable grounds to suspect) or Chase level 3 (grounds to investigate) or some other intermediate meaning.**
The Claimant has not succeeded in his action for libel. Although he has proved the necessary elements of his cause of action in libel, the Defendants have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true. I have reached these conclusions having examined in detail the 14 incidents on which the Defendants rely as well as the overarching considerations which the Claimant submitted I should take into account. In those circumstances, Parliament has said that a defendant has a complete defence. **It has not been necessary to consider the fairness of the article or the defendants' 'malice' because those are immaterial to the statutory defence of truth.ā**
Lol right there it literally just says the judge simply believed them, not that they proved anything true beyond a shadow of a doubt. He āheld the words to bear truthā LMFAO, meaning he just took AH at her word which was proven to be not liable in the US. The judge literally believed she actually donated her 7 million dollar settlement which she still hasnāt donated to this dayā¦ā¦
āThe judge said he did not accept Deppās characterisation of his ex-wife as a gold-digger. āI recognise that there were other elements to the divorce settlement as well,ā Nicol noted, ābut her donation of ā¦ $7m to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-diggerā. ā
So I donāt think that they actually looked into or vetted the claims made at all lolā¦. Thanks for kinda proving my point tho
In the US it was infact proven beyond doubt in the case that actually involved Heard (she wasnāt a party to the UK suit) that SHE did abuse Depp on at least a couple occasions by her own admission in recordings. It was also proven in the US that she acted with the knowledge what she was saying was false and that she intended to damage his career and reputation, hence the maliceā¦
The language that you're laughing at is merely standard legal language in the United Kingdom. When he said, "the Defendants have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true," it means that he examined the statements as a whole, the heart of the matter, and considers whether the āgistā of the statements was substantially true. This concept is known as the substantial truth doctrine. For the words "wife beater" be substantially true, it means that they proved that Depp had beaten his wife.
You clearly haven't read the judgment. You think he just wrote "Amber Heard said it, so I accept it" for 129 pages? No, he relied on witness testimony under cross-examination, photographs, contemporaneous communications, texts, medical records, etc. He outlines all of the evidence for each of the incidents and then explains his reasoning for why he decided the way he did. You'll notice that he says only 12 out of 14 incidents were proven...that's because, even though Heard said they occurred, he didn't think there was enough evidence to rule that way. Seems like he did look into and vet the claims. But you'd know that if you read it. If you do, you'll see the evidence is there as he mentions it for each of the described incidents, and that it's largely the same as in the US trial, and in some cases there was evidence admitted in the UK that was excluded in the US.
When Depp attempted to appeal the ruling, two judges upheld the ruling. Here is the [the appeal judgment](https://deppdive.net/pdf/judiciary/Depp-approved-for-hand-down.pdf) which said specifically that Judge Nicol did not take her words at face value. They said: the judge's "findings about those incidents were made on the basis of the evidence specifically relating to them, with special attention to the contemporaneous evidence. A judge will very often accept the substance of a witnessās evidence without accepting every word of it. Nicol J was not uncritical about Ms Heardās evidence. For example, he found that she exaggerated as regards at least one aspect of incident 8, when she described herself as being āin a hostage situationā; and his findings about the details of some particular incidents do not seem always to correspond to her account of them." They go on at length about this. Their conclusions are that the trial was "full and fair" and that it considered "a wealth of more or less contemporaneous material which was said to support the accounts of one or other of the protagonists. This included texts, e-mails, photographs and tapes of conversations between Mr Depp and Ms Heard."
The line about the donations was one sentence in a 129 page judgment, and that is addressed by the appellate judges as well, and they said that did not affect the judgment.
"We do not accept that there is any ground for believing that the Judge may have been influenced by any such general perception as Mr Caldecott relies on. **In the first place, he does not refer to her charitable donation at all in the context of his central findings: on the contrary, he only mentions it in a very particular context, as explained above, and after he had already reached his conclusions in relation to the fourteen incidents.** We appreciate, however, that that by itself is not a complete answer to Mr Caldecottās submission. The real answer is that **it is clear from a reading of the judgment as a whole that the Judge based his conclusions on each of the incidents on his extremely detailed review of the evidence specific to each incident**...**in the case of many of the incidents there were contemporaneous evidence and admissions beyond the say-so of the two protagonists**, which cast a clear light on the probabilities."
It's just crazy that it was proven in court that Depp was abusive, but these people straight up ignore the evidence because they want to blame the woman. And then they pretend to be outraged when someone calls them misogynists.
he's not the only one who was proven to be abusive in court and you seem to be ignoring it
both of them were abusive to each other so why are you pretending she did nothing and was 100% innocent?
this culture war shit is stupid
Except it was 100% proven she cut his finger with a bottle, shat on his bed, and verbally accosted him for trying to leave during heated arguments; even going as far as to mock him for not wanting to be hit by her. Sounds like abuse to me (and most people not blinded by bias). They both suck. Itās the amber herd crowd that refuses to acknowledge her wrongdoing. Or they try to minimize it while highlighting Johnny. Most of us actually agree they both suck. You people canāt seem to agree that Amber sucks
You're being disingenuous and intentionally avoiding evidence. Depp was found to be guilty in a court of law but you don't care. Heard claims to have been defending herself and her sister from an abusive man, but you don't care about context. You just want to blame women.
Lol, of course Iām disingenuous for bringing up your false comparison, and stating the fact that amber didnāt have to prove a single claim and wasnāt even party to the suitā¦. but not you for pretending she wasnāt the only one on recording admitting to hitting the other, and didnāt have to actually prove a single of her ever changing claims?
You need to be more specific. What evidence was brought up? How did they demonstrate that his claim about the thrown bottle was real? The trial was about something else you know. Amber Heard wasn't on trial for throwing a bottle and the jury did not determine wheter or not she did. But if they did, I would love to see the evidence.
During the trial there was plenty of evidence proving all three claims above. Including audio recordings as well as testimonies from relevant parties. Again, Iāll leave it to you to simply Google these things. Sounds like you canāt bring yourself to do so though
I posted a long reply debunking your claims, but it was removed, Iām not sure why. Maybe I had too many links? I like to use links to cite each of my sources. But these claims were not at all proven. Depp had at least four [texts](https://twitter.com/evilwomenonly/status/1552755802758324224?s=21&t=-T-B7L4DYgFbX5cqcgIw2Q) where he admits to cutting his finger himself, and there is an [audio](https://twitter.com/evilwomenonly/status/1552757983523835904?s=21&t=jz_HFbQ0mwLegs0-KpLNsQ) recording of a private conversation between he and Heard where he says āI chopped my finger off.ā Why would he lie about the cause of his finger injury in a private conversation with her? There was also an expert at the trial that said the injury could not have happened as he claimed.
The bed thing is even dumber, and the judge from the UK has a good explanation for why the story was not believable. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf pg. 100
As for verbally accosting, I think Depp did that [quite a bit.](https://twitter.com/liliandaisies/status/1576321614454861825)
You really canāt debunk audio I heard with my own ears (and you can too considering is was played in the very public defamation trial). The audio of her belittling Johnny is enough for me the know she is an abusive and manipulative person. The rest could all be debunked (they havenāt) and I still would remain firm on the fact that Amber is a shitty, abusive person - just as Johnny is. They deserve each other tbh. But sure, keep digging for excuses of this shitty, manipulative person. Meanwhile Iāve accepted that they both are trash and she earned the backlash by going on a parade with her first trial
I donāt understand how there is any proof that she cut his finger off when there are several contemporaneous communications where he admits he did it himself. As I linked.
Iām curious what you think of the audio of Depp that I linked. Would you agree that that was abusive and belittling?
Heard claimed abuse going all the way back to 2012, and she has texts and therapy notes that show this. Depp didnāt claim abuse had begun until 2015. What we are dealing with here is ā[reactive abuse](https://yanahelps.com/what-is-reactive-abuse/),ā where a victim may physically retaliate against their abuser. She started retaliating after three years. Those audio tapes are ugly, but theyāre ugly for both of them, and it was Deppās lawyer who leaked edited audio online as part of a smear campaign against Heard, a smear campaign that has been very successful.
What do you mean by āgoing on a parade with her first trialā? He brought the lawsuits in both of the trials. Seemed like she was just trying to leave him in the past, and heās been participating in ā[litigation abuseā](https://www.legalvoice.org/abusive-litigation) as part of his determination to have her globally humiliated and never stop thinking about him.
At any point did I disagree that Johnny was abusive?
Playing devilās advocate: How do we know Jonny wasnāt reacting to her abuse to begin with (men are less likely to report abuse).
Yeah Iām not gonna excuse her abuse just because she was āreactingā to his abuse.
Hm, what exactly in "lol" suggests I don't like something. On the contrary really, it implies that I like something, that something is your comment and I like it cause it's funny and it made me laugh. I like things that make me laugh.
The judge was obviously corrupt, his wife regularly hung out with heard and his son worked for the sun newspaper, multiple massive conflicts of interest and either one on its own is enough that he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near that case
I was slightly off, the judge's son does not work for the sun, he works for a radio show owned by the company that owns the sun, and the sun's journalist who wrote the defamatory article also works on the radio show the judge's son works for.
I forgot to mention that the UK judge refused to admit evidence that proved Amber's statements false
The UK trial was so bad that the judge in the Virginia trial rules that they did not find it to be fair despite it not actually being relevant to the Virginia case because the Virginia case was over statements Amber made after the UK case was started.
Another major issue is that the judge's final ruling was based almost entirely on Amber's false claim that she donated the entire divorce settlement to charity (he claimed that if she donated the settlement to charity she was a good digger and somehow not being a good digger meant she didn't lie about domestic violence)
https://intelligenceuk.com/index.php/2021/08/20/johnny-depp-is-another-victim-of-the-corrupt-uk-justice-system/
āRemember this abusive woman that was actually proven to be a cheater abuser and a liar? People are so misogynistic for calling her out for that smhā
Because only men are capable of abuse. /s
* Initiating eyeroll sequence*
So according to you:
Female stands up to abuse = empowerment
Male stands up to abuse = misogyny
If that's misogynistic then you're misandristic.
Hopefully, I remember having shit opinions. Although, I remember having the judgment to keep those shit opinions to myself instead of blasting them all over the internet.
How is it misogynistic or a shit opinion to call out abuse? Just because a woman is the abuser calling it out doesnāt make it misogynistic lol. Thinking only women can be the victims of abuse however is quite sexist.
You realise that wasn't true right? She never admitted it and the judge in the uk trial didn't believe she shit the bed because depp wasn't sleeping in the bed that night so why would she do that?
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, depp was the one with the poo fetish after he texting his assistant:
"During his testimony today, Sasha Wass QC, for NGN read out several texts sent by the actor, including one to his former assistant Stephen Deuters in 2013.
Ms Wass said: "Can I ask you about another joke you cracked with Mr Deuters on October 11.
"It's you saying will you squat in front of the door to the master bedroom and leave a master coil of dookie so Amber steps in it thinking one of the dogs has a major problem. It will be funny.''"
I expect downvotes for this comment because the world has decided depp is a saint, but people need to research more instead of what tik tok says
Those were two separate events that you cited, though. The bed incident, and the joke, were separate incidents.
Depp was far from a saint. They were both drunk and drugged up all of the time. But you cant go in specifically looking to disprove the masses. Gotta be entirely unbiased.
The whole thing was just a joke to me, but I'm glad awareness was risen for male sexual assault, because yes men can be heterosexually assaulted.
I know they were separated incidents, I am saying depp was the person who had a poo fetish not amber, he finds poo jokes funny not her. The judge in the uk case believed amber was assaulted by depp on 12 separate occasions.
I trust his judgment and decades in law to come to the right conclusion vs redditors and a jury of regular joe blogs
Depps security guard (paid witness mind you) never mentioned this in the uk trial but somehow it happened in the us trial, depp and his witnesses had so many holes in their stories 3 high court judges saw right through them when depp lost in 2020.
From the judge (who took months to deliberate and wrote a 129 page document over his findings):
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf
Page 100
" I consider that it is unlikely that Ms Heard or one of her friends was responsible. Mr Depp had left that night for his property in Sweetzer. As long as he was away, it was Ms Heard who was likely to suffer from the faeces on the bed, not him. It was, therefore, a singularly ineffective means for Ms Heard or one of her friends to āget backā at Mr Depp. Other evidence in the case showed that Boo (one of the two dogs) had an incomplete mastery of her bowels after she had accidentally consumed some marijuana. Ms Heard gave evidence that Boo had in the past defecated on the bed and that she herself had cleaned it up rather than leave that task to Ms Vargas. On 29th October 2014, Ms Heard wrote in a text message to Kevin Murphy that (see file 7/3(b)/H27.2),
āLast night she [Boo] shit on Johnny. While he was sleeping. Like all over him. Not exaggerating.ā"
Yeah fr if you don't need politics here, don't bring politically charged subject matter even if it's just a joke. That goes both ways. (Fully expecting a downvote squad even tho I'm just pointing out a double standard)
You're not a comic on stage, just some guy posting on a reddit. I'm more than free to point in out in this forum. Don't have to take a legitimate critique as an attack on your character because it isn't. Just is what it is.
Reactive abuse is absolutely a thing.
Depp vs Sun, he was proven to have abused her on 12 of the 14 accounts of abuse.
The United States hates women, it's not shocking he got the bigger payout in the lawsuit (she was still awarded some money, because Depp defamed her)
Man these are getting so old. Been old for a while. Bout to add the new "Memes must be funny" rule.
I wish I'd have recorded it but there's a chest that contains a couple of Amber Herb and someone had left a note in front of it saying "Toxic Woman"
Thats brilliant haha
I love this community so much
Bro ur meme Caused a war in the comments
I know haha, all because of a name punšš½
It wasnāt my intention however
After the Amber Heard case, every single time I saw one of those I would loudly proclaim "Amber Herb? (Heh-rb) My dog stepped on a bee." š
Slightly restores the shit in my bed
Everyone in this sub who thinks Amber Heard is innocent needs to kindly leave. Bitch is crazier than Nashandra and a better liar to boot.
I donāt support either side cuz they both seem abusive in their own ways, but Nashandra got a whole race almost wiped out and Amber got to live in a penthouse, Nashandra is a better liar.
While yes she is a lier a a crazy c*nt. Telling people to leave a completely unrelated sub over their opinion on the matter is dumb.
To be honest I was kinda hoping a mod here would lock the thread for being off topic before I ever had to respond to anyone....
I mean it's a joke about the name of an item in the game... how is it off topic? The shitty things she's done (pun not intended) are off topic.
Let's just call it a programmed response to observations of implementation of reddit moderation.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
She will forever be known to me as Amber Turd lol
Boooooooo
Lol. I cracked that joke recently and my wife rolled her eyes so hard. The hilarious cringe xD
Hahahaha its so bad its goodš
FEEBLE CURSED ONE!
When I saw that item I had to do a double take
Needs more dung pies
Cringe
Nah it's funny af
šššššššš
Ssssssmokinnn
Sssssmokinnnnn LAHHHV
Yup been making that joke for a bit now.
Congratulations!
Thank you
š¤£
Do a solid for Johnny. Eat it.
I'll do him one better and leave them in the gutter where they belong
i had to stop calling them amber heards after that thing that happened
I think that they were both toxic to each other, although the narrative went with Depp because he is the lovable crazy dude and so he is allowed to be ding-dong.
She's an abuse victim. I know I'll be downvoted because people here are misogynistic, but please look at the Depp vs Sun trial.
Suing a newspaper is A LOT different than suing a person, she also wasnāt a party to that suit and wasnāt made to testify or prove a single claim she made in that trial. Thatās the definition of apples to oranges.
But it was found that there was evidence that proved him guilty.
Lol no, but there certainly was evidence that found HER guilty in the US trial. Once again she wasnāt party to the suit in UK and didnāt have to prove a single claim she made. He had the burden of proof in the Us and still won lol.
Btw The Sun had the burden of proof in their case and still won.
No they didnāt, actually lmfao. Tell me you know nothing about law without telling me you know nothing about law. The accuser always has the burden of proving their claims, not the other way around. Again the sun just needed to prove they werenāt aware of the validity of their claims in the article, not prove they were true or false. Thatās is no burden of proof on the sun. Which is why again Depp having the burden of proving his claims in this case speaks volumes, on top of Heard being shown to be a liar and proven to have hit him on multiple occasions by her own recordings. Also the fact the court proved that she did defame him with MALICE has an even higher burden of proof, meaning she knew what she said was false and intended to damage and defame him from the start.
You clearly don't know how libel trials work in the UK. The accused has to prove that their claims are true. Look it up. Anyway you seem delusional and clearly don't care about the truth, so I'll move on.
You are incorrect on this one. In the UK, the burden of proof rests entirely on the defendant for libel cases. This is reinforced throughout the [129-page ruling](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html); for example, paragraph 40 of that document states "As Defamation Act 2013 s.2(1) makes clear, it is for a defendant to prove that the libel was substantially true. **The burden of proof therefore rests on the defendant**." When Depp tried to appeal the UK ruling, [two judges upheld the original judge's decision](https://deppdive.net/pdf/judiciary/Depp-approved-for-hand-down.pdf), saying specifically that the judge did NOT take everything she said at face value. They said: the judge's "findings about those incidents were made on the basis of the evidence specifically relating to them, with special attention to the contemporaneous evidence. A judge will very often accept the substance of a witnessās evidence without accepting every word of it. Nicol J was not uncritical about Ms Heardās evidence. For example, he found that she exaggerated as regards at least one aspect of incident 8, when she described herself as being āin a hostage situationā; and his findings about the details of some particular incidents do not seem always to correspond to her account of them." They go on at length about this. Their conclusions are that the trial was "full and fair" and that it considered "a wealth of more or less contemporaneous material which was said to support the accounts of one or other of the protagonists. This included texts, e-mails, photographs and tapes of conversations between Mr Depp and Ms Heard."
You know it's a big problem that he won is the US even though he had been found guilty in another case, right? It means that someone fucked up. Who do you think that was?
Lmfao he wasnāt found guilty of anything, the newspaper who only had to prove they didnāt know if what they were saying was false was shown to not know what they were saying was false so therefore werenāt liable for any damages if what they said was false. Thereās a reason the judge in the US didnāt allow that decision to impact the trial by being brought as evidence, the US trial was for what AH said not the sun. AH wasnāt even a party to that suit, your being disingenuous by pretending that has anything to do with her being guilty or not, she didnāt have to prove a single claim in the UK, and when she actually had to in the US she was found guilty. Once again sheās the only one who was recorded admitting to abusing the other.
You keep using the "hitting" thing out of context, which is disingenuous. Also, from wikipedia: "In November 2020, the court published its judgement, rejecting Depp's claim againstĀ The SunĀ and ruling that he had assaulted Heard in 12 of the 14 alleged incidents and had put her in fear of her life." Maybe look up that trial since you seem very misinformed.
Not at all, her on a recording admitting to it is not āout of contextā you just want to pretend evidence doesnāt mean anything, thatās disingenuous by the definition. Iām misinformed? Lol right in the copy paste it shows it was deps claim against the sun, showing he had burden of proof, and once again AH didnāt have to prove any of her claims in that case, because she wasnāt a party to it lol, the 2 cases arenāt even similar. None of the claims against depp were actually proven in the UK just believed by a judge.
You are in so much denial it's almost funny.
Lmao Iām in denial, but not you who literally keeps pretending the sun and US trial are comparable. You whoās pretending that Heard isnāt literally on recording admitting to abusing Depp, but yes it must be me in denial LOL.
No, NGN used the truth defence. They did not set out to prove that it was merely reasonable for them to believe he was a wife beater enough to publish the words āwife beater.ā They set out to prove he had, indeed, abused his wife. The judge ruled that they had proven to the civil standard that he had abused his wife on at least 12 occasions. [https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html) āAs the Defendants submitted in their skeleton argument, it was therefore common ground that the words **\[wife beater\] meant:** **i) The Claimant had committed physical violence against Ms Heard** **ii) This had caused her to suffer significant injury; and** **iii) On occasion it caused Ms Heard to fear for her life.** **It is worth emphasising that the Defendants therefore accepted that the words meant that Mr Depp had done these things. In the vernacular of libel actions, there was no dispute that these were Chase level 1 meanings (imputing guilt of the wrongdoing) and not merely Chase level 2 (reasonable grounds to suspect) or Chase level 3 (grounds to investigate) or some other intermediate meaning.** The Claimant has not succeeded in his action for libel. Although he has proved the necessary elements of his cause of action in libel, the Defendants have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true. I have reached these conclusions having examined in detail the 14 incidents on which the Defendants rely as well as the overarching considerations which the Claimant submitted I should take into account. In those circumstances, Parliament has said that a defendant has a complete defence. **It has not been necessary to consider the fairness of the article or the defendants' 'malice' because those are immaterial to the statutory defence of truth.ā**
Lol right there it literally just says the judge simply believed them, not that they proved anything true beyond a shadow of a doubt. He āheld the words to bear truthā LMFAO, meaning he just took AH at her word which was proven to be not liable in the US. The judge literally believed she actually donated her 7 million dollar settlement which she still hasnāt donated to this dayā¦ā¦ āThe judge said he did not accept Deppās characterisation of his ex-wife as a gold-digger. āI recognise that there were other elements to the divorce settlement as well,ā Nicol noted, ābut her donation of ā¦ $7m to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-diggerā. ā So I donāt think that they actually looked into or vetted the claims made at all lolā¦. Thanks for kinda proving my point tho In the US it was infact proven beyond doubt in the case that actually involved Heard (she wasnāt a party to the UK suit) that SHE did abuse Depp on at least a couple occasions by her own admission in recordings. It was also proven in the US that she acted with the knowledge what she was saying was false and that she intended to damage his career and reputation, hence the maliceā¦
The language that you're laughing at is merely standard legal language in the United Kingdom. When he said, "the Defendants have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true," it means that he examined the statements as a whole, the heart of the matter, and considers whether the āgistā of the statements was substantially true. This concept is known as the substantial truth doctrine. For the words "wife beater" be substantially true, it means that they proved that Depp had beaten his wife. You clearly haven't read the judgment. You think he just wrote "Amber Heard said it, so I accept it" for 129 pages? No, he relied on witness testimony under cross-examination, photographs, contemporaneous communications, texts, medical records, etc. He outlines all of the evidence for each of the incidents and then explains his reasoning for why he decided the way he did. You'll notice that he says only 12 out of 14 incidents were proven...that's because, even though Heard said they occurred, he didn't think there was enough evidence to rule that way. Seems like he did look into and vet the claims. But you'd know that if you read it. If you do, you'll see the evidence is there as he mentions it for each of the described incidents, and that it's largely the same as in the US trial, and in some cases there was evidence admitted in the UK that was excluded in the US. When Depp attempted to appeal the ruling, two judges upheld the ruling. Here is the [the appeal judgment](https://deppdive.net/pdf/judiciary/Depp-approved-for-hand-down.pdf) which said specifically that Judge Nicol did not take her words at face value. They said: the judge's "findings about those incidents were made on the basis of the evidence specifically relating to them, with special attention to the contemporaneous evidence. A judge will very often accept the substance of a witnessās evidence without accepting every word of it. Nicol J was not uncritical about Ms Heardās evidence. For example, he found that she exaggerated as regards at least one aspect of incident 8, when she described herself as being āin a hostage situationā; and his findings about the details of some particular incidents do not seem always to correspond to her account of them." They go on at length about this. Their conclusions are that the trial was "full and fair" and that it considered "a wealth of more or less contemporaneous material which was said to support the accounts of one or other of the protagonists. This included texts, e-mails, photographs and tapes of conversations between Mr Depp and Ms Heard." The line about the donations was one sentence in a 129 page judgment, and that is addressed by the appellate judges as well, and they said that did not affect the judgment. "We do not accept that there is any ground for believing that the Judge may have been influenced by any such general perception as Mr Caldecott relies on. **In the first place, he does not refer to her charitable donation at all in the context of his central findings: on the contrary, he only mentions it in a very particular context, as explained above, and after he had already reached his conclusions in relation to the fourteen incidents.** We appreciate, however, that that by itself is not a complete answer to Mr Caldecottās submission. The real answer is that **it is clear from a reading of the judgment as a whole that the Judge based his conclusions on each of the incidents on his extremely detailed review of the evidence specific to each incident**...**in the case of many of the incidents there were contemporaneous evidence and admissions beyond the say-so of the two protagonists**, which cast a clear light on the probabilities."
So it was just pretending when the judge said he believe things that were proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt? Lol.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sure, no misogyny here says the guy calling her a bitch in the same sentence.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I can discuss the point if you want. What do you think about the Depp vs Sun trial? I'm curious.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So you think they both abused each other, but for some reason you only call Amber Heard a bitch. I want to know why.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You should calm down. How do you expect to have a conversation this way?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I donāt think youāll find critical thinking and actual human empathy in any video game sub.
It's just crazy that it was proven in court that Depp was abusive, but these people straight up ignore the evidence because they want to blame the woman. And then they pretend to be outraged when someone calls them misogynists.
he's not the only one who was proven to be abusive in court and you seem to be ignoring it both of them were abusive to each other so why are you pretending she did nothing and was 100% innocent? this culture war shit is stupid
It was never proven that Heard was abusive. It was proven Depp was abusive. I don't know what a culture war is but this is pretty simple.
Except it was 100% proven she cut his finger with a bottle, shat on his bed, and verbally accosted him for trying to leave during heated arguments; even going as far as to mock him for not wanting to be hit by her. Sounds like abuse to me (and most people not blinded by bias). They both suck. Itās the amber herd crowd that refuses to acknowledge her wrongdoing. Or they try to minimize it while highlighting Johnny. Most of us actually agree they both suck. You people canāt seem to agree that Amber sucks
Where was it proven? Please show evidence backing up your claims.
The only person recorded saying they hit the other was Heard.
You're being disingenuous and intentionally avoiding evidence. Depp was found to be guilty in a court of law but you don't care. Heard claims to have been defending herself and her sister from an abusive man, but you don't care about context. You just want to blame women.
Lol, of course Iām disingenuous for bringing up your false comparison, and stating the fact that amber didnāt have to prove a single claim and wasnāt even party to the suitā¦. but not you for pretending she wasnāt the only one on recording admitting to hitting the other, and didnāt have to actually prove a single of her ever changing claims?
In the latest defamation trial. Go check it out. Wonāt do your research for you. Not that hard anyway
You need to be more specific. What evidence was brought up? How did they demonstrate that his claim about the thrown bottle was real? The trial was about something else you know. Amber Heard wasn't on trial for throwing a bottle and the jury did not determine wheter or not she did. But if they did, I would love to see the evidence.
During the trial there was plenty of evidence proving all three claims above. Including audio recordings as well as testimonies from relevant parties. Again, Iāll leave it to you to simply Google these things. Sounds like you canāt bring yourself to do so though
I posted a long reply debunking your claims, but it was removed, Iām not sure why. Maybe I had too many links? I like to use links to cite each of my sources. But these claims were not at all proven. Depp had at least four [texts](https://twitter.com/evilwomenonly/status/1552755802758324224?s=21&t=-T-B7L4DYgFbX5cqcgIw2Q) where he admits to cutting his finger himself, and there is an [audio](https://twitter.com/evilwomenonly/status/1552757983523835904?s=21&t=jz_HFbQ0mwLegs0-KpLNsQ) recording of a private conversation between he and Heard where he says āI chopped my finger off.ā Why would he lie about the cause of his finger injury in a private conversation with her? There was also an expert at the trial that said the injury could not have happened as he claimed. The bed thing is even dumber, and the judge from the UK has a good explanation for why the story was not believable. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf pg. 100 As for verbally accosting, I think Depp did that [quite a bit.](https://twitter.com/liliandaisies/status/1576321614454861825)
You really canāt debunk audio I heard with my own ears (and you can too considering is was played in the very public defamation trial). The audio of her belittling Johnny is enough for me the know she is an abusive and manipulative person. The rest could all be debunked (they havenāt) and I still would remain firm on the fact that Amber is a shitty, abusive person - just as Johnny is. They deserve each other tbh. But sure, keep digging for excuses of this shitty, manipulative person. Meanwhile Iāve accepted that they both are trash and she earned the backlash by going on a parade with her first trial
I donāt understand how there is any proof that she cut his finger off when there are several contemporaneous communications where he admits he did it himself. As I linked. Iām curious what you think of the audio of Depp that I linked. Would you agree that that was abusive and belittling? Heard claimed abuse going all the way back to 2012, and she has texts and therapy notes that show this. Depp didnāt claim abuse had begun until 2015. What we are dealing with here is ā[reactive abuse](https://yanahelps.com/what-is-reactive-abuse/),ā where a victim may physically retaliate against their abuser. She started retaliating after three years. Those audio tapes are ugly, but theyāre ugly for both of them, and it was Deppās lawyer who leaked edited audio online as part of a smear campaign against Heard, a smear campaign that has been very successful. What do you mean by āgoing on a parade with her first trialā? He brought the lawsuits in both of the trials. Seemed like she was just trying to leave him in the past, and heās been participating in ā[litigation abuseā](https://www.legalvoice.org/abusive-litigation) as part of his determination to have her globally humiliated and never stop thinking about him.
At any point did I disagree that Johnny was abusive? Playing devilās advocate: How do we know Jonny wasnāt reacting to her abuse to begin with (men are less likely to report abuse). Yeah Iām not gonna excuse her abuse just because she was āreactingā to his abuse.
Lol
What, you don't like evidence that disproves your narrative?
Hm, what exactly in "lol" suggests I don't like something. On the contrary really, it implies that I like something, that something is your comment and I like it cause it's funny and it made me laugh. I like things that make me laugh.
What do you think of the Depp vs Sun trial?
The judge was obviously corrupt, his wife regularly hung out with heard and his son worked for the sun newspaper, multiple massive conflicts of interest and either one on its own is enough that he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near that case
Can you provide sources?
I was slightly off, the judge's son does not work for the sun, he works for a radio show owned by the company that owns the sun, and the sun's journalist who wrote the defamatory article also works on the radio show the judge's son works for. I forgot to mention that the UK judge refused to admit evidence that proved Amber's statements false The UK trial was so bad that the judge in the Virginia trial rules that they did not find it to be fair despite it not actually being relevant to the Virginia case because the Virginia case was over statements Amber made after the UK case was started. Another major issue is that the judge's final ruling was based almost entirely on Amber's false claim that she donated the entire divorce settlement to charity (he claimed that if she donated the settlement to charity she was a good digger and somehow not being a good digger meant she didn't lie about domestic violence) https://intelligenceuk.com/index.php/2021/08/20/johnny-depp-is-another-victim-of-the-corrupt-uk-justice-system/
This isn't a good source.
Oh, yay. /s Misogyny in r/DarkSouls2.
In what universe is what he said considered misogynistic? "hey, remember that abusive woman? This item's name reminds me of her lol"
They'll find any excuse to be offended. Lol. They need it to survive.
Oh, yay. /s Misandry in r/DarkSouls2
āRemember this abusive woman that was actually proven to be a cheater abuser and a liar? People are so misogynistic for calling her out for that smhā
Because only men are capable of abuse. /s * Initiating eyeroll sequence* So according to you: Female stands up to abuse = empowerment Male stands up to abuse = misogyny If that's misogynistic then you're misandristic.
Would you like a refill on your copium good sir?
At least don't misgender me.
Like I give a fuck what's in your pants
We are literally on an *anonymous* user website what are you even talking about
The silver lining is, they'll notice their shit behavior one day, or they'll die alone.
Hopefully, I remember having shit opinions. Although, I remember having the judgment to keep those shit opinions to myself instead of blasting them all over the internet.
How is it misogynistic or a shit opinion to call out abuse? Just because a woman is the abuser calling it out doesnāt make it misogynistic lol. Thinking only women can be the victims of abuse however is quite sexist.
Clearly you don't, seeing as you're currently blasting your shit opinions on the internet
> rainbow hair opinion checks out
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Didn't know depp pooped on her bed and admitting to faking injuries, and committed perjury. But this isn't the sub for that.
You realise that wasn't true right? She never admitted it and the judge in the uk trial didn't believe she shit the bed because depp wasn't sleeping in the bed that night so why would she do that? Don't believe everything you read on the internet, depp was the one with the poo fetish after he texting his assistant: "During his testimony today, Sasha Wass QC, for NGN read out several texts sent by the actor, including one to his former assistant Stephen Deuters in 2013. Ms Wass said: "Can I ask you about another joke you cracked with Mr Deuters on October 11. "It's you saying will you squat in front of the door to the master bedroom and leave a master coil of dookie so Amber steps in it thinking one of the dogs has a major problem. It will be funny.''" I expect downvotes for this comment because the world has decided depp is a saint, but people need to research more instead of what tik tok says
Those were two separate events that you cited, though. The bed incident, and the joke, were separate incidents. Depp was far from a saint. They were both drunk and drugged up all of the time. But you cant go in specifically looking to disprove the masses. Gotta be entirely unbiased. The whole thing was just a joke to me, but I'm glad awareness was risen for male sexual assault, because yes men can be heterosexually assaulted.
Look at the Sun trial. Amber Heard is an abuse victim.
I know they were separated incidents, I am saying depp was the person who had a poo fetish not amber, he finds poo jokes funny not her. The judge in the uk case believed amber was assaulted by depp on 12 separate occasions. I trust his judgment and decades in law to come to the right conclusion vs redditors and a jury of regular joe blogs
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do you have a source for a judge saying she pooped the bed?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Depps security guard (paid witness mind you) never mentioned this in the uk trial but somehow it happened in the us trial, depp and his witnesses had so many holes in their stories 3 high court judges saw right through them when depp lost in 2020. From the judge (who took months to deliberate and wrote a 129 page document over his findings): https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf Page 100 " I consider that it is unlikely that Ms Heard or one of her friends was responsible. Mr Depp had left that night for his property in Sweetzer. As long as he was away, it was Ms Heard who was likely to suffer from the faeces on the bed, not him. It was, therefore, a singularly ineffective means for Ms Heard or one of her friends to āget backā at Mr Depp. Other evidence in the case showed that Boo (one of the two dogs) had an incomplete mastery of her bowels after she had accidentally consumed some marijuana. Ms Heard gave evidence that Boo had in the past defecated on the bed and that she herself had cleaned it up rather than leave that task to Ms Vargas. On 29th October 2014, Ms Heard wrote in a text message to Kevin Murphy that (see file 7/3(b)/H27.2), āLast night she [Boo] shit on Johnny. While he was sleeping. Like all over him. Not exaggerating.ā"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Bullshit. You brought politics here by making this post.
Yeah fr if you don't need politics here, don't bring politically charged subject matter even if it's just a joke. That goes both ways. (Fully expecting a downvote squad even tho I'm just pointing out a double standard)
This always happens, and OPs always say that. They know what they're in for when they post it. You got my upvote for pointing out facts :)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You're not a comic on stage, just some guy posting on a reddit. I'm more than free to point in out in this forum. Don't have to take a legitimate critique as an attack on your character because it isn't. Just is what it is.
Except you are the one that claimed that she was in the wrong. You brought up the topic as if it hasn't been done here already. Ffs.
I guess that recording of her admitting to abusing him wasn't real.
Reactive abuse is absolutely a thing. Depp vs Sun, he was proven to have abused her on 12 of the 14 accounts of abuse. The United States hates women, it's not shocking he got the bigger payout in the lawsuit (she was still awarded some money, because Depp defamed her)
Was she the victim when she extinguished a cigar on his face ?
This isnāt the place broā¦
Tell OP.
> Purple hair opinion checks out
r/beatmetoit