[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

It makes everything relevant actually

“Everything”? I don’t actually know what you’re talking about with this one sorry.

Originally Posted by ThomasC

If you watched the trial and the parts where this is discussed in depth then it wouldn't be total guess work at all.



It does having bearing because it factors into whether she is a trustworthy person and if she's going to lie about that then what else can she lie about. It was part of the very messy divorce settlement in a marriage she claims was sexually and physically abusive so why would it not be relevant?. You can't just come to a conclusion without discussing all the events that led up to that op-ed article. It's called foundation.

So your contention is that people should always be assumed to be liars (and thus likely to be guilty of libel) if it can be proven that they’ve ever been dishonest?

That’s a pretty high bar I have to say, but each to their own I suppose. I don’t think that’s how the legal system actually works but we’ll see what happens I suppose.

[GoldHeart]

You do know TS , if someone promises to do something and then DOESN'T then how can anyone take them seriously again?? . Especially when that same person parades on TV talking about how 'good they are ' ,for giving money to charities to help other victims / less fortunate people.

This was clearly done to gain sympathy and she never had any intention of donating the money. She sat on her ass on the money ,she had 13 months to do it . She can't blame JD on this one.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

You do know TS , if someone promises to do something and then DOESN'T then how can anyone take them seriously again?? . Especially when that same person parades on TV talking about how 'good they are ' ,for giving money to charities to help other victims / less fortunate people.

This was clearly done to gain sympathy and she never had any intention of donating the money. She sat on her ass on the money ,she had 13 months to do it . She can't blame JD on this one.

I’m not saying it’s a good thing to do but I don’t live in make-believe land where anyone is perfect, in fact I don’t even expect people to be particularly “good” most of the time.

Her being dishonest about this has nothing to do with the DV claim to me. I don’t believe for a second that you, me or ThomasC could claim that we’ve never been dishonest about anything in our lives. Show me anyone who would and I’ll show you the real liar.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I’m not saying it’s a good thing to do but I don’t live in make-believe land where anyone is perfect, in fact I don’t even expect people to be particularly “good” most of the time.

Her being dishonest about this has nothing to do with the DV claim to me. I don’t believe for a second that you, me or ThomasC could claim that we’ve never been dishonest about anything in our lives. Show me anyone who would and I’ll show you the real liar.

But the difference being ...how many of us would publicly LIE about donating money to charity, it was clearly done to give herself a' halo image' . It's a pretty decieving thing to do , and it doesn't look good . I honestly think she's a selfish person.

And now the fact she's claiming to be poor ,is another tactic to get out of paying or to not pay the full amount. This woman has been living in luxury ,for the past 6 weeks in some fancy expensive home. There's no way she's struggling financially.

Plus she still has the money from the divorce settlement that she NEVER donated. She just wants to keep everything. She's selfish & greedy. I wonder if she'll beg Musk to help her.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

But the difference being ...how many of us would publicly LIE about donating money to charity, it was clearly done to give herself a' halo image' . It's a pretty decieving thing to do , and it doesn't look good . I honestly think she's a selfish person.

I honestly don’t mean to be flippant here but … so what? Where is the idea that only good people can be domestic abuse victims coming from? A lot of people who end up in troubled relationships are troubled people.

And now the fact she's claiming to be poor ,is another tactic to get out of paying or to not pay the full amount. This woman has been living in luxury ,for the past 6 weeks in some fancy expensive home. There's no way she's struggling financially.

Plus she still has the money from the divorce settlement that she NEVER donated. She just wants to keep everything. She's selfish & greedy. I wonder if she'll beg Musk to help her.

She can’t just say “don’t have it sorry lol” and then not pay it - they can look into her finances, it doesn’t rely purely on what she says she has, there’s be no point in lying. Obviously people can’t get away with avoiding court fines by just playing poor. That would be a pretty useless system.

There is of course a pretty big gap between “struggling financially” and “having over $10 million dollars in liquid assets immediately available”.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I honestly don’t mean to be flippant here but … so what? Where is the idea that only good people can be domestic abuse victims coming from? A lot of people who end up in troubled relationships are troubled people.



She can’t just say “don’t have it sorry lol” and then not pay it - they can look into her finances, it doesn’t rely purely on what she says she has, there’s be no point in lying. Obviously people can’t get away with avoiding court fines by just playing poor. That would be a pretty useless system.

There is of course a pretty big gap between “struggling financially” and “having over $10 million dollars in liquid assets immediately available”.

This isn't just lying about giving £100 to charity, which would be pocket change to her anyway. This is a really huge amount. which makes it worse.

Legally they're supposed to pay, but i'm sure i've heard of cases where people still haven't paid the damages that they owe.... and a long time has past . whether it's due to claiming bankruptcy or what i don't know .

Either way SHE HAS the MONEY , we all know that.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

This isn't just lying about giving £100 to charity, which would be pocket change to her anyway. This is a really huge amount. which makes it worse.

Legally they're supposed to pay, but i'm sure i've heard of cases where people still haven't paid the damages that they owe.... and a long time has past . whether it's due to claiming bankruptcy or what i don't know .

Either way SHE HAS the MONEY , we all know that.

all these comments on her pledge to charity are purely vindictive. People change their minds all the time. That's life

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

“Everything”? I don’t actually know what you’re talking about with this one sorry.




So your contention is that people should always be assumed to be liars (and thus likely to be guilty of libel) if it can be proven that they’ve ever been dishonest?

That’s a pretty high bar I have to say, but each to their own I suppose. I don’t think that’s how the legal system actually works but we’ll see what happens I suppose.

It's not as black and white as that otherwise there wouldn't have been a 6 week trial, but I strongly disagree that the divorce settlement has nothing to do with the trial. ...and no it is innocent until proven guilty, she was found guilty of a lot of stuff with the evidence.

A guy testified from ACLU who said that the only money received was from Elon Musk on behalf of Amber Heard.

Amber had said she has donated the money,
In 2018, Heard appeared on Dutch talk show RTL Late Night and said: ‘$7million in total was donated – I split it between the ACLU and the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. I wanted nothing.’

There's video of her saying it. When asked about this in court she admitted she hadn't paid anything. Took her a while and she said she used pledge and donate interchangeable when we all know they mean two different things. She said she couldn't because she was being sued despite Depp not sueing her until 13 months later. .....and he only sued her back in 2018 because of allegations she made about him.

So yeah I think it does have relevance.

Other factual evidence

1) Heard admitting on audio to hitting Depp. Taunting him telling him how he should feel, telling him that she didn't punch him, she hit him.....telling him he's fine. She goes on saying she started a physical fight and telling him to grow up

2) Audio clip, Amber admitting to throwing pots and pans at Depp.

3) Audio clip, Amber taunting him telling him to tell the world and see who believes him.

4) Audio clip, Johnny asking for space, saying he wants to see his daughter. Amber Heard being very histrionic

5) pictures of Depps face, scratched saying Amber came at him with her nails

6) faeces in bed.
Depps security guard testified that Amber left this in his bed and that it was a joke gone wrong

7) make up that Heard claimed to have used during their relationship to cover up bruises seems to have been a lie. The company of the product came forward and said the product wasn't released Until 2017

8) Depps severed finger although I will admit that this can't be 100% proved in evidence so how it actually happened we don't know, one word against another.

9) Edited photos of bruises. Claimed to be taken at different times but same time stamp and file name.

10) TMZ footage where Amber tipped off papps so they knew where she'd be, file getting restraining order. Pictured with bruise on face as came out court. Not there next day when papped. This footage/tip to TMZ was verified to be from Heard because of the time it came in and when it was published, 15 minutes, and that could only be if it came from the copyright holder.

11) Many, many others who did not see these bruises and injuries.

12) inviting others to Johnny's apartment,,,remember that her and her sister lives their rent free.

13) divorce settlement which we've already discussed.

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I’m not saying it’s a good thing to do but I don’t live in make-believe land where anyone is perfect, in fact I don’t even expect people to be particularly “good” most of the time.

Her being dishonest about this has nothing to do with the DV claim to me. I don’t believe for a second that you, me or ThomasC could claim that we’ve never been dishonest about anything in our lives. Show me anyone who would and I’ll show you the real liar.

Of course I have been dishonest in my life, but saying I've donated to charity when I know full well I haven't then change my story later on and lie again to say I couldn't pay because I was being sued, no fecking way. It's sick in my opinion. If you change your mind, fine, but don't lie about it. She says the money meant nothing to her,,,really.

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

all these comments on her pledge to charity are purely vindictive. People change their minds all the time. That's life

Don't put people into your own brackets.

I've been dishonest in life, I'm sure we all have. I wouldn't lie about giving money to dying children and to support abused women. If she wanted to change her mind then she should have just said, she didn't. She went on national TV and said outright she had donated 7 million to charity. Lie. Then when questioned on this she makes out pledge and donate are the same thing and she hasn't paid because of the legal fees with Depp sueing her...he didn't sue for 13 months later after she made allegations.

[Toy Soldier]

There’s a lot to work through here but honestly I keep coming back to the same overall message, which is what I keep coming back to a lot with this thread (and the social media on this);

“If he did hit her, it’s OK because she provoked him, and it’s justified because she’s not a good person [with evidence of her doing stuff]”.

I don’t think this is an uncommon mindset, in fact I know it isn’t because there’s been some study into the correlation between the extent that victims are believed, and their perceived “innocence” or “worthiness” (these papers broadly come under the heading of “The Imperfect Victim” if you’re inclined to look up the concept).

I find it a pretty loathsome mindset to be honest, no “poor behaviour” justifies violence and even mutual abuse is still abuse. She should still be able to speak out about it. As I’ve said before; if he has a different view or recollection of their relationship, there’s never been anything stopping him from publishing a counter-narrative.

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There’s a lot to work through here but honestly I keep coming back to the same overall message, which is what I keep coming back to a lot with this thread (and the social media on this);

“If he did hit her, it’s OK because she provoked him, and it’s justified because she’s not a good person [with evidence of her doing stuff]”.

I don’t think this is an uncommon mindset, in fact I know it isn’t because there’s been some study into the correlation between the extent that victims are believed, and their perceived “innocence” or “worthiness” (these papers broadly come under the heading of “The Imperfect Victim” if you’re inclined to look up the concept).

I find it a pretty loathsome mindset to be honest, no “poor behaviour” justifies violence and even mutual abuse is still abuse. She should still be able to speak out about it. As I’ve said before; if he has a different view or recollection of their relationship, there’s never been anything stopping him from publishing a counter-narrative.

Absolutely not. I don't condone any violence, but will always try and understand the psychology to it....what makes that person reach that level of 'crisis'. Maybe it's my job which has made me think like that. As I will try to understand why Heard has blatantly lied about certain stuff... My personal take, and it's one that some will disagree on, is because she has traits of HPD, BPD. ...or at least part of the reason.

She should be able to speak about it, but someone else should be able to sue against it too. These sort of accusations ruin people's lives, regardless of whether a celebrity or not. It's either going to ruin the accused or ruin the abused....or both...

[Toy Soldier]

The ability to successfully sue someone speaking about abuse is functionally no different to saying that people can't speak about abuse, the requirement for some sort of concrete proof might as well be saying "Yeah you can speak about it, but you must first ride to the lollipop kingdom atop a unicorn and ask permission from the leprechaun king".

At the very least the burden of proof needs to be substantially higher than it was in this trial, and it should be assessed by legal and domestic violence experts and not a jury of peers. I have my misgivings about trial by jury in general but that's a different discussion and I can see why jury trials exist to mitigate things like authoritarianism and corruption. But I don't think it's appropriate for DV. Nor was the public nature of the trial - the judge's decision to allow it to be televised is hugely questionable.

[bitontheslide]

the judge knew it would be a media circus and you have to wonder what the motivation was behind televising it. I'm fine with jury trials though

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

the judge knew it would be a media circus and you have to wonder what the motivation was behind televising it. I'm fine with jury trials though

It was supposedly because of the number of people trying to access the courtroom, as obviously the public are allowed to "spectate".

I think she failed to consider "the internet element" though, and how significantly that could potentially influence proceedings.

[parmnion]

When some jurors are coming out to say they were influenced by he internet element then you know there is a massive chance of his being a mis trial

[Liam-]

The judge chose to televise it to lessen the burden on the courtroom because she knew it was going to draw a large number of eyes

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Liam-

The judge chose to televise it to lessen the burden on the courtroom because she knew it was going to draw a large number of eyes

I think she failed to consider the modern-day impact of this though, i.e. the TikTok meme snowball effect and the large amounts of editing/manipulation of the footage on YouTube. The situation with a televised high-profile trial isn't the same now as it was even 3 years ago... let alone the last time there was a celebrity trial of a similar scale (decades since there was anything that got THIS much attention).

[GoldHeart]

AH failed because of her lies ,she kept digging a bigger hole each time.

[Niamh.]

Non violent hero back in court for assault

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/c...8a18b45ca.html

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Non violent hero back in court for assault

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/c...8a18b45ca.html

Brave man, the last person to civily sue him hasnt been seen since.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Non violent hero back in court for assault

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/c...8a18b45ca.html

His defence was he couldn’t hit any one, he got a bad finger, remember.

[Zizu]

It reads like just one more chancer ... trying it on .. 4 years later .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Non violent hero back in court for assault

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/c...8a18b45ca.html

I find it quite odd and a coincidence that this has come out just now.

Apparently another script supervisor has proof it never happened.

[Toy Soldier]

“Everyone else is liars except Johnny Depp reeeee!!!”



In other news, there’s talk that he might drop the money he was awarded in the Heard case if she agrees not to appeal (so the civil judgement would stand, but she wouldn’t have to pay him anything).

Tells me one of two things. Either he thinks she has a decent chance on appeal, OR he’s just basically admitting that the point of the trial was to publicly shame her and not about the money and he considers it “job done”.

Some of the anti-Heard mob will not be happy though… the pitchfork sad sacks don’t just want Depp vindicated, they want to see her punished as well. Some of the MRA crowd will likely even turn on Depp for being “weak” and not following through, if this does go ahead. Because a big part of Depp’s support base in this trial doesn’t give two hoots about Johnny Depp, they came to watch a witch trial and they want to see the punishment.