Can you give me evidence please that he was a violent addict? Addict, yes of course and he admits that himself....but other evidence that he was violent other than smashing a few cabinets in anger? I can give you heaps of evidence to the contrary if you would like to hear it just in case you haven't been watching the trial closely

He was dropped from fantastic beasts after the sun article claiming he was a wife beater

She has passed a 'few'? .... Johnny Depp has been 'passing notes backwards and forwards'.

Are we watching the same trial? :joker:

I've rarely seen him do it, whereas I have seen Amber Heard do it more than a 'few' times. She is constantly writing away whether it be notes or just generally, talking to her attorneys.... I can't say I've seen Depp do it on any scale in comparison to Heard. I don't think he's as desperate, but that's just my opinion

Well he's been dropped by at least a couple, Fantastic Beasts being one of them.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertain...6-disney.html/

https://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/johnny-...-movies-708063

If his career does skyrocket after the case you do realise it will be because people are supporting him and don't advocate for those who make up false claims of domestic violence?

I really think Amber Heard's career is completely over. No one will want to take her on because of what she has done when the consumer will vow out of principle to never watch a movie she is in or buy a product she is promoting etc.

Ask yourself why he has 99.9% support and a very small minority support Amber? You're not telling me these are all huge Johnny Depp fans? That's not realistic. The case has gone global, I'm not a fan of either, but the case has genuinly interested in me.

both their careers are ****ed after this **** show

He has been arrested for, and outright admitted in televised interviews, being violent towards people such as photographers and others he felt were "in need of it". He also admitted to smashing up hotel rooms in a televised interview, which oddly enough, he now denies :think:.

The trial is only about his conduct towards Amber Heard and whether the re was violence in that relationship - when I call him a violent addict, I'm talking about his history of violence, which is documented (complete with arrest records, and straight from his own mouth) and not in question.

Can you give me evidence please that he was a violent addict? Addict, yes of course and he admits that himself....but other evidence that he was violent other than smashing a few cabinets in anger? I can give you heaps of evidence to the contrary if you would like to hear





What more evidence do you need when you've just described a violent act.....:joker:


So please, yes, I dont know about TS, but I would like to hear you rebutt your own admission by showing me something he did that wasnt him having a violent outburst in his kitchen..

Al get my popcorn.

In short? Because people don't really understand what domestic abuse looks like, because he's more charismatic than Amber Heard, because there's been a bizarre and unprecedented social media campaign in support of Depp driven mainly by high-profile MRA's (and bots) and last but not lease... because 99% of spousal abusers getting away it is pretty much standard.

I can see WHY people believe Depp over heard. I just also happen to know that not all victims of abuse live up to people's expectations of what an abuse victim looks like (victims of abuse are not always likeable people, funnily enough) and because I personally can see straight through Depp's "shy guy" ****-eating smirk.

Oh and because some of his best pals have been wife beaters (Marilyn Manson) and paedophiles (Roman Polanski).

Johnny Depp is paper thin to me. But I understand why people lap up the Jack Sparrow act. Again - he is a charismatic fellow if you don't know what you're looking at.

Heard’s career isn’t over, even if she loses there’ll still be opportunities for her, the advantage of being a women, even an admittedly abusive one, she’ll be made a a martyr by the radfems too

People like to pretend he slammed a couple of cabinet doors, and ignore the latter part of the video where he smashes his pint glass of wine down, and violently grabs her phone away from her (the video then cuts off abruptly - can be assumed he smashed the phone I'd say).

Of course a lot of people will also try to argue that if a punch wasn't thrown "it's not domestic violence".

Thanks for adding the Redpill perspective again Liam, always much appreciated.

That video also ended up the way it did because a wife dared to video her husband.

Yet hes not an abuser!!

Photographers? Well they do take some putting up with and pushing of buttons bit then you link that with DV?

I don't think he ever denied smashing up a kitchen, there's a video of it.

You've not given me any evidence.

The thing that concerns me most is the number of people saying, "well wouldn't you react the same if your wife tried to film you". No I would not.

He was already being nasty and then he got properly angry when he realised he was being filmed, that's clearly a panic response because he thought "oh no, I can't hide it if I'm on camera doing it". Turns out no one cares and will just do backflips making excuses for it anyway :shrug:.

Circumstantial evidence was provided RE him bashing up some cupboards on the trial.

My own admission was 'other than' if you cared to read my post.

Calling someone 'violent' in my book, is not justified by smashing up some cupboards. It's a violent 'act', buy does not constitute someone generally being violent.

I don't link it with domestic violence, I said he's a violent addict, punching paparazi (not just photographers by the way, some of them are just bar fights with random blokes) and smashing up rooms is violence. He was arrested for these things. He's a documented and admitted addict. Thus he is, or at least has been, a violent addict. It's just a statement of fact.

Did you not watch the whole video or have you just chosen to pretend the part at the end when he aggressively grabs the phone away from her and then the video abruptly cuts off didn't happen?

Is this the same video that she edited to cut out her laughing.?

Laughing at and taunting an abuser is VERY COMMON in domestic abuse situations. This falls under the part I talked about above; people thinking they know "what DV looks like", "what a victim should look like" when they in fact do not.

Again I understand WHY people don't know what they're looking at... but I also know that they DON'T know what they're looking at. DV victims are supposed to be small/meek/scared at all times right? That's simply not what DV looks like in the vast majority of cases. Most fight back. Most taunt. Most have massively complex relationships where they also deeply love their abuser. It's not all like Wee Mo and Trevor off EastEnders - in fact, it rarely is.

So can you explain to me then why the video was edited to cut out her laughing before being sent to the media? Then the full version coming out in court?

Yes I have watched the whole video. He was angry, I've admitted this, he's admitted it

I am aware of what domestic violence is and how it can present itself in many, many facets and how one person deals with it is not going to be the same.

People understand what evidence looks like though, those who've testified despite the implications of doing so, the videos, the pictures where they're suppose to be two separate ones that AH took but have the same name, time stamp etc, the audio evidence where she will not let him leave, the credible witnesses, the guy who did his deposition in his car and had no reason to lie and then had to go off to work, the dozens of people who saw Amber with no mark, the tnz footage literally proven to be leaked by AH as it came from the copyright owner, the 7 million donation money she had 13 months to pay before Depp sued her.... Do you want me to go on? Now tell me what evidence she had that he raped her with a bottle, broke her nose etc etc? Please show me!!!!

So don't you tell me it's because people don't know what domestic violence is. A man or woman can only be pushed so far before they snap and he did snap, verbally and physically with the cupboards...that does not constitute domestic abuse

Post the video. So we can discuss it...infact if you can, post both videos.

My pleasure

https://mobile.twitter.com/daisyland...23242108989447

He was angry and violent. We're simply going to disagree on that point. It's not that I can't show you evidence of what I'm saying is violence, you just don't think it's violence (or that it's acceptable violence e.g. against paps and in bars). There's no point in me offering up more examples of where I see violence only to get back "that's not violence in my opinion".

It is officially classed as Domestic Violence by the way, for example by DV services, in the UK at the very least. So whilst there may be debate in the public ... in official terms, smashing glasses and grabbing phones out of people's hands is DV whether people would like to see it that way or not.

JFC how can anyone watch this video and not see a worryingly aggressive man :facepalm: my mind absolutely boggles.

By the laugh and smirk... do you mean the "heh" when he throws a final insult at her? As for the smirk, I'd be grateful if you could screenshot it because I don't even see one. Wishful thinking and cognitive dissonance from people who have already made up their mind.

That's a drunk, volatile man in that video. There's just no two ways about it. HOW are people supporting this.