EXCLUSIVE: 'I can't promise I won't get physical again, I get so mad I lose it.' LISTEN as Amber Heard admits to 'hitting' ex-husband Johnny Depp

[Emjay]

I never said she had burns on her face did I? Not everything that happens in an abusive relationship has corresponding medical records to go with it. If there's a recording of it happening and a woman telling him not to abuse her and he telling her to 'shut up fat ass', it's pretty clear what transpired.

You know killing a cigarette on skin will leave a burn and a scar? A burn requires medical treatment, especially a burn on an actress who makes money based on her looks.

I am going to call BS. The Jury did too.

 

[Splinter]

I never said she had burns on her face did I? Not everything that happens in an abusive relationship has corresponding medical records to go with it. If there's a recording of it happening and a woman telling him not to abuse her and he telling her to 'shut up fat ass', it's pretty clear what transpired.

bwaaa hahahah.

Is this your evidence?

 

[cerebus]

Cool man

Glad she gave you access to all the secret evidence so you can be 100% sure Depp is super guilty of being super nasty to your princess.

The evidence is hardly secret. The UK trial is available for public viewing. I still have no idea why it needed to be re-litigated when he already lost so decisively and with such an overwhelming body of evidence. It's a joke.

Another major factor that the US trial omitted to allow into evidence were the text messages of Stephen Deuters apologizing to Heard for Depp kicking her down stairs in an airplane. In the UK trial he admitted that they were legitimate and intended to 'placate' Heard. Since then in interviews he claims that they're fake, but since he's still on the payroll of Depp and is basically his personal leech, his credibility is zero.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf

A few seconds later Mr Deuters responded, ‘He was appalled. When I told him he kicked you, he cried ... It was disgusting. And he knows it.’ 258. Again, Mr Deuters said that he was saying to Ms Heard what he thought she wanted to hear. He had done what the Claimant instructed him to do: try to placate Ms Heard.

 

[cerebus]

bwaaa hahahah.

Is this your evidence?

Yes audio recordings are evidence. Her telling him "you beat the **** out of me" and him not denying it in a private conversation is evidence.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451321096993652736

 

[Splinter]

Yes audio recordings are evidence. Her telling him "you beat the **** out of me" and him not denying it in a private conversation is evidence.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451321096993652736

Umm, I asked you for the evidence led in the trial, thanks.

Any when we start ignoring your BS in future, much like I'm sure Depp eventually did with Ms Turd, it is not an admission of guilt, ok

 

[UrBaN963]

The evidence is hardly secret. The UK trial is available for public viewing. I still have no idea why it needed to be re-litigated when he already lost so decisively and with such an overwhelming body of evidence. It's a joke.

Another major factor that the US trial omitted to allow into evidence were the text messages of Stephen Deuters apologizing to Heard for Depp kicking her down stairs in an airplane. In the UK trial he admitted that they were legitimate and intended to 'placate' Heard. Since then in interviews he claims that they're fake, but since he's still on the payroll of Depp and is basically his personal leech, his credibility is zero.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf

It wasn't re-litigated - this was their first litigation. Unless you believe Amber Heard to be a newspaper, of course.

Also, I don't need to watch a trial between Johnny Depp and a newspaper because this thread is about a trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, or the haves and the used-to-haves, as I like to call it.

 

[cerebus]

It wasn't re-litigated - this was their first litigation. Unless you believe Amber Heard to be a newspaper, of course.

It was relitigated in the sense that the fact of Depp abusing Heard was firmly established in the UK then got re-decided in the US for some absurd reason. There is no room for ambiguity in the UK judgement. She does have a res judicata basis for appeal.

 

[cerebus]

Umm, I asked you for the evidence led in the trial, thanks.

Any when we start ignoring your BS in future, much like I'm sure Depp eventually did with Ms Turd, it is not an admission of guilt, ok

I said I already posted it above.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540116486848651265

the other clip there is also his own words btw. "We had a fight on the train which was physical".

 

[Splinter]

It was relitigated in the sense that the fact of Depp abusing Heard was firmly established in the UK then got re-decided in the US for some absurd reason. There is no room for ambiguity in the UK judgement. She does have a res judicata basis for appeal.

Stop deflecting and answer my question.

 

[Splinter]

I said I already posted it above.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540116486848651265

Ok - saw twitter at top and ignored the rest of the post.

So the judge and the jury thought it was BS, but yet you think it stands?

 

[cerebus]

Stop deflecting and answer my question.

I posted the link. I'm not deflecting anything.

 

[cerebus]

Ok - saw twitter at top and ignored the rest of the post.

So the judge and the jury thought it was BS, but yet you think it stands?

It's a thread of unedited clips from the trial. You're just ignoring evidence now.

 

[UrBaN963]

It was relitigated in the sense that the fact of Depp abusing Heard was firmly established in the UK then got re-decided in the US for some absurd reason. There is no room for ambiguity in the UK judgement. She does have a res judicata basis for appeal.

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard have NEVER had a litigation on this point, their legal interactions have been a wedding, a TRO and a divorce and THEN this court case. The defendant in the previous case was a Newspaper.

 

[Splinter]

It's a thread of unedited clips from the trial. You're just ignoring evidence now.

And you're ignoring the fact that this "evidence" was totally dismissed in the trial, and are clinging onto it like a baby onto a bottle.

 

[cerebus]

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard have NEVER had a litigation on this point, their legal interactions have been a wedding, a TRO and a divorce and THEN this court case. The defendant in the previous case was a Newspaper.

Yeah I know the facts of the case. The facts are:
1. Depp litigated against the Sun for calling him a wife beater. He lost and the judge ruled that he was a wife beater.
2. Depp litigated against Heard for implying that he abused her. He won because the jury decided that he was not a wife beater.

The basic claim at the heart of the two lawsuits was already decided in the UK. That is res judicata.

Res judicata - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Claim preclusion bars a suit from being brought again on an event which was the subject of a previous legal cause of action that has already been finally decided between the parties[4] or those in privity with a party.

And I have absolutely no reason why you think the UK trial is less valid than the US one. It was reviewed by 2 court judges who upheld the decision.

 

[UrBaN963]

Yeah I know the facts of the case. The facts are:
1. Depp litigated against the Sun for calling him a wife beater. He lost and the judge ruled that he was a wife beater.
2. Depp litigated against Heard for implying that he abused her. He won because the jury decided that he was not a wife beater.

The basic claim at the heart of the two lawsuits was already decided in the UK. That is res judicata.

Res judicata - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And I have absolutely no reason why you think the UK trial is less valid than the US one. It was reviewed by 2 court judges who upheld the decision.

I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head but I'll just rattle a couple off and you can have fun with them.

A) Different country with different laws
B) Different evidence and witnesses
C) Different requirements to be met to ascertain guilt/innocence
D) Different parties involved
E) The UK Judge's bias was questioned. Here's one article, there are others. - https://www.newsweek.com/johnny-dep...neutrality-question-amber-heard-trial-1712025
F) Opinion of one judge vs opinion of multiple jurors AND one judge (not to mention the general public's disbelief of Amber based on actual trial proceedings made public)

I'm sure there are many more but that'll keep you busy for now.

 

[G'Wobblez]

It wa

She had plenty of medical records. Some of them were excluded from the US trial for unfathomable reasons. But they're all there in the UK trial.

It has been explained. Medical records were not excluded.
Therapist notes were.
Why?
Because it was just what AH told a therapist so she could have told it all to a jury.
It wasn’t medical records of her injuries.

 

[G'Wobblez]

Yeah I know the facts of the case. The facts are:
1. Depp litigated against the Sun for calling him a wife beater. He lost and the judge ruled that he was a wife beater.
2. Depp litigated against Heard for implying that he abused her. He won because the jury decided that he was not a wife beater.

The basic claim at the heart of the two lawsuits was already decided in the UK. That is res judicata.

Res judicata - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And I have absolutely no reason why you think the UK trial is less valid than the US one. It was reviewed by 2 court judges who upheld the decision.

No.
The judge ruled that the article in the sun wasn’t defamation because they reported on what AG said.
She was just a witness and her testimony wasn’t tested.

 

[Lucas Buck]

It was relitigated in the sense that the fact of Depp abusing Heard was firmly established in the UK then got re-decided in the US for some absurd reason. There is no room for ambiguity in the UK judgement. She does have a res judicata basis for appeal.

The Doctrine of Res Judicata was addressed in 2021. I'm don't see how the Virginia courts are going to change their mind on the issue. I doubt that this will be an avenue that Heard's team will explore again.

Defendant's claim of res judicata is especially puzzling. At the time Plaintiff initiated his suit against The Sun, Defendant had not even released her op-ed. Plaintiff's defamation claim in the UK was based on completely different statements than the present case. The specific statements uttered in defamation cases are incredibly important. See Carwile v. Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 196 Va. 1, 8 (1954). That is why this Court, after Defendant's demurrer, analyzed the four statements originally sued upon to determine if each statement met the requirements for defamation. The statements from The Sun and from Defendant are not related in time; several months passed between the publication of the two collective statements. They are not related in motivation; they are not related in space. The only relation is the origin, as both statements arose from Plaintiff's alleged abuse. However, it would be nonsensical to find that any statement relating to whether Plaintiff abused Defendant arose from the same transaction or occurrence simply because they come from the same origin. Therefore, given the lack of privity and the separate occurrences in question, res judicata is inapplicable ...

Given the differences between Virginia and UK law regarding trials by jury and libel
laws, the Court is hesitant to apply preclusive effect to the UK finding, especially considering
Defendant was not a party in the UK suit and was not subject to the same discovery requirements in that suit. Thus, even under the factors of Hilton, the substantive and procedural differences between this case and the UK case do not warrant a granting of comity. Link

 

[cerebus]

No.
The judge ruled that the article in the sun wasn’t defamation because they reported on what AG said.
She was just a witness and her testimony wasn’t tested.

I can’t imagine how that statement could possibly be more wrong. She was cross-examined for 3 days. All her evidence was scrutinised and each individual claim was judged. The judge ruled that she had reason to fear for her life.