Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Johnny Depp Libel Case

I did look for that recording of him on coke and alcohol sounding really violent but can't find it. Not sure whether I've exaggerated it in my own mind but I found it a bit of a shock.

Heard isn't the only one that doesn't come out of this well for me, though.
I agree.
 
It's probably already been posted above but I cant be arsed reading. The Mail has an 'exclusive' with a juror who said the kicker was the fact she lied about giving her previous winnings in the UK to charity. That didn't play well. Understandably.

Does it say anything about whether they accessed social media or read emails or went on the web with their phones?
 
Depp's side is what we've mainly heard, but I thought that article you linked to above put Heard's side of the story very well.
 
What’s the nearest thing anyone has come across to a neutral run down of everything raised? Ideally described as such by both “sides” on here. Does such a thing exist?

Wherever exactly the division of shitty actions and culpability lays, the absolute vilification of Heard as the “wrong” kind of victim against a popular man has been horrific. Much of it wouldn’t have been justified even if he was entirely blameless, which it really does not sound like he was.

I hope she’s got some good, genuine support around her because if she is already this emotionally fragile, I’d be quite concerned about where her mental health will take her over the next few months.
 
The hand wringing would be naught if AH was a man.
She has literally played the victim using her sex as cover. Shaming JD to not take action.
It is amusing to see people defending her though.
 
In the London trial, he denied having committed a string of assaults that the judge found were proven to have happened.

Of course, there's a bit of cart-and-horse to the question in the first place.
Yes he did find that. I understand (haven’t read the Judgment personally) that one of his reasons for that belief was the charity donation that AH told him about
 
I’m just trying to think of one example of a man being treated by the media in quite the same way. I’m open to suggestions if I’m missing them.

But even though famous men actually proven to rapists and murderers get huge media focus and character analysis, I’m struggling to think of one with such a mass “they deserved it”, “they’re crazy/unstable” (with that being used to discredit rather than justify), “this one man justifies my hatred of ALL men the fucking whores” etc.
 
That’s one of the reasons I don’t think Depp comes out of this well. His reason for suing her was selfish and played right into the hands of the far right/appalling people that inhabit the spaces where women try and assert their rights not to be abused and killed.
 
That’s one of the reasons I don’t think Depp comes out of this well. His reason for suing her was selfish and played right into the hands of the far right/appalling people that inhabit the spaces where women try and assert their rights not to be abused and killed.

I thought he'd sued her for saying he had beaten her up, which is understandable in his field where reputation means so much, plus it's a really hurtful thing to be unjustly accused of, especially if they have been abusive toward you.
I may be missing elements or just be flat wrong tbf.
 
I thought he'd sued her for saying he had beaten her up, which is understandable in his field where reputation means so much, plus it's a really hurtful thing to be unjustly accused of, especially if they have been abusive toward you.
I may be missing elements or just be flat wrong tbf.
This is one of the things that’s confused me, and tbf I haven’t been following it too closely. But I thought it was because she had said “me too” applied to her, without naming him. Me too started as acknowledging sexual assault, coercion and intimidation but I have no issue with it also encompassing DV. But DV isn’t just “beating people up”, there’s a whole host of abuse that happens without leaving a physical mark. So I’ve got a bit confused at how the he’s allegedly innocent of it all because it couldn’t be proved he physically beat her, but there’s recorded evidence of intimidation :confused:
 
I thought he'd sued her for saying he had beaten her up, which is understandable in his field where reputation means so much, plus it's a really hurtful thing to be unjustly accused of, especially if they have been abusive toward you.
I may be missing elements or just be flat wrong tbf.
Yes, that’s my understanding too. That he sued her for writing and re-publishing an op ed about physical and sexual abuse, that anyone reading it would draw the conclusion it was about him. Yes I believe that victims of DV should have a voice and men victims apparently under-report. But I think there are other ways of illustrating your point/asserting your rights when you are a celebrity and very rich. For example all of those lawyers fees would have been better of in DV charities and he could have become an activist for DV victims rights.
 
This is one of the things that’s confused me, and tbf I haven’t been following it too closely. But I thought it was because she had said “me too” applied to her, without naming him. Me too started as acknowledging sexual assault, coercion and intimidation but I have no issue with it also encompassing DV. But DV isn’t just “beating people up”, there’s a whole host of abuse that happens without leaving a physical mark. So I’ve got a bit confused at how the he’s allegedly innocent of it all because it couldn’t be proved he physically beat her, but there’s recorded evidence of intimidation :confused:
Her op ed wasn’t about all abuse (as I understand it) I think it was about physical and sexual abuse. If it had been all abuse he never would have been successful imo.
 
This is one of the things that’s confused me, and tbf I haven’t been following it too closely. But I thought it was because she had said “me too” applied to her, without naming him. Me too started as acknowledging sexual assault, coercion and intimidation but I have no issue with it also encompassing DV. But DV isn’t just “beating people up”, there’s a whole host of abuse that happens without leaving a physical mark. So I’ve got a bit confused at how the he’s allegedly innocent of it all because it couldn’t be proved he physically beat her, but there’s recorded evidence of intimidation :confused:

Yes, that’s my understanding too. That he sued her for writing and re-publishing an op ed about physical and sexual abuse, that anyone reading it would draw the conclusion it was about him. Yes I believe that victims of DV should have a voice and men victims apparently under-report. But I think there are other ways of illustrating your point/asserting your rights when you are a celebrity and very rich. For example all of those lawyers fees would have been better of in DV charities and he could have become an activist for DV victims rights.

I read somewhere that he had been dropped from the Pirates of The Caribbean franchise based on this. Not sure if that was based on an initial accusation not naming him, or after she had elaborated, at which point the accusation was specifically about physical abuse.
 
Her op ed wasn’t about all abuse (as I understand it) I think it was about physical and sexual abuse. If it had been all abuse he never would have been successful imo.
Thanks, that does make the verdict make a bit more sense.

That does come across a bit “it’s fine because I didn’t do this absolutely awful abuse, I only abused her a little bit/in an OK way” 🤮
 
This is one of the things that’s confused me, and tbf I haven’t been following it too closely. But I thought it was because she had said “me too” applied to her, without naming him. Me too started as acknowledging sexual assault, coercion and intimidation but I have no issue with it also encompassing DV. But DV isn’t just “beating people up”, there’s a whole host of abuse that happens without leaving a physical mark. So I’ve got a bit confused at how the he’s allegedly innocent of it all because it couldn’t be proved he physically beat her, but there’s recorded evidence of intimidation :confused:

As the New Yorker puts it:

“One time, ladies and gentlemen, one time—if he abused her one time, Amber wins,” Rottenborn told the jury. “Actually, if he fails to prove that he never abused her one time, Amber wins.”

And yet she lost. She lost despite vile text messages from Depp, spinning out violent fantasies of rape and murder. She lost despite photograph after photograph of cuts, bruises, and swelling. She lost despite audio recordings of Depp verbally abusing her. She lost despite her sister, multiple friends, a makeup artist, and a couples counsellor attesting to seeing her injuries. And she lost despite facing the jury and recounting graphic, painful episodes of alleged physical and sexual violence.



The writer also notes that her legal team could not present evidence in Heard’s favor that the judge, Penney Azcarate, ruled out as hearsay, including testimony from seven medical professionals that Heard had reported contemporaneous episodes of abuse to them and a series of text messages from one of Depp’s employees, Stephen Deuters, in which Deuters appears to acknowledge that Depp physically harmed Heard on an airplane. (“When I told him he kicked you, he cried.”)
 
Her op ed wasn’t about all abuse (as I understand it) I think it was about physical and sexual abuse. If it had been all abuse he never would have been successful imo.

When you have a relationship like that with toxic shit flying in both directions, he might still have cause to react legally to her playing the victim where it has only affected his career.
But that's all speculative.
 
Thanks, that does make the verdict make a bit more sense.

That does come across a bit “it’s fine because I didn’t do this absolutely awful abuse, I only abused her a little bit/in an OK way” 🤮
It was properly toxic both ways, and the jurors heard her admitting that she physically abused him. I dislike that she thinks it’s ok to hit people.
 
“One time, ladies and gentlemen, one time—if he abused her one time, Amber wins,” Rottenborn told the jury. “Actually, if he fails to prove that he never abused her one time, Amber wins.”

That's very interesting. Wasn't aware that the judge had put it that way.
Just thinking back to my previous relationships, though...

Would I ever have been in a position to prove that I had never abused any of them?
Would they ever have been in a position to prove they had never abused me?

Seems like a big ask.
 
When you have a relationship like that with toxic shit flying in both directions, he might still have cause to react legally to her playing the victim where it has only affected his career.
But that's all speculative.
Yes, I definitely get that argument. I just don’t think that he comes out of this looking like it was all one way. I heard/saw some nasty stuff he said in his text messages about her for example.
 
That's very interesting. Wasn't aware that the judge had put it that way.
Just thinking back to my previous relationships, though...

Would I ever have been in a position to prove that I had never abused any of them?
Would they ever have been in a position to prove they had never abused me?

Seems like a big ask.
Rottenborn was one of AH’s legal team. That statement was from the closing submissions for AH. Depp’s legal team said along the lines of, you either believe all of what she’s been telling you, or you believe none of it.
 
Don't think he did, her counsel did.

Rottenborn was one of AH’s legal team. That statement was from the closing submissions for AH. Depp’s legal team said along the lines of, you either believe all of what she’s been telling you, or you believe none of it.

Gotcha - thanks for clarifying.

I would have expected that to be challenged. Well, maybe not tactically wise, I dunno.
 
Back
Top Bottom