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

[Lucas Buck]

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.

According to Depps lawyers they could not compel discovery in the uk because Heard was not a defendent, which put Depp at a disadvantage.

What is the purpose of a discovery?

Discovery enables the parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. It's designed to prevent "trial by ambush," where one side doesn't learn of the other side's evidence or witnesses until the trial, when there's no time to obtain answering evidence.

The judge in the uk trial seems to affirm this in his statement in his ruling. Basically saying that Depp should have sued Heard if he wanted to treat her as a defendent.

At several times in the course of this litigation, Mr Sherborne has suggested that there was unfairness to the Claimant because Mr Depp's effective opponent was Ms Heard and yet she was not a party. She had no obligation to make disclosure and she provided information to the Defendants at different times and at her choice. I am not persuaded that these comments carry any weight. It is, of course, right that Ms Heard is not a party to the proceedings. Because she is not a party, she was not obliged to make disclosure. As a third party, the court can nonetheless order her to make disclosure but only if quite stringent conditions are satisfied (see CPR r.31.17). The Claimant did indeed apply for such third-party disclosure against Ms Heard. His application was unsuccessful. Mr Depp has not been short of legal advice. He would, I can assume, have been advised as to the consequence of suing the Defendants against whom the claim is brought, but not Ms Heard. It was a matter for him, with the benefit of that advice to decide, if he wished to pursue the claim against these defendants. The consequences of him doing so, are that they (and not Ms Heard) are subject to the obligations of a party to make disclosure. There has been no suggestion that the defendants have failed in that duty.Link

He then sues her when she gives him a reason, and people cry foul.

 

[cerebus]

According to Depps lawyers they could not compel discovery in the uk because Heard was not a defendent, which put Depp at a disadvantage.


View attachment 1336634


The judge in the uk trial seems to affirm this in his statement in his ruling. Basically saying that Depp should have sued Heard.

He then sues her when she gives him a reason, and people cry foul.

It's true that Depp wasn't expecting to be confronted with the sheer volume of evidence in the UK that he ended up against. He was caught out lying on multiple occasions. The text messages from Stephen Deuters were massively damning. He certainly learned some lessons from that trial. Unfortunately he learned how to manipulate a jury and the general public based on performances while throwing mud at the evidence and managing to get key pieces excluded on dubious grounds.

It is not enough to discredit the UK trial. As I keep saying the case was reviewed and upheld by 2 other court judges. Go read the damn verdict. It is awful.

 

[Lucas Buck]

It's true that Depp wasn't expecting to be confronted with the sheer volume of evidence in the UK that he ended up against. He was caught out lying on multiple occasions. The text messages from Stephen Deuters were massively damning. He certainly learned some lessons from that trial. Unfortunately he learned how to manipulate a jury and the general public based on performances while throwing mud at the evidence and managing to get key pieces excluded on dubious grounds.

It is not enough to discredit the UK trial. As I keep saying the case was reviewed and upheld by 2 other court judges. Go read the damn verdict. It is awful.

It had nothing to do with the volume of evidence, it's about the rules being the same for both plaintiff and defendent. The playing field was made even when Heard became the defendent. Depp was then given a fair opportunity to properly interrogate and expose her evidence.

I can only go by what I saw in the US trial and it was awful for Heard, she did not come out of it with any credibility.

 

[G'Wobblez]

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.

The veracity of her testimony wasn’t tested.. She was just deposed as a witness. Just like the witnesses in the USA trial. They were cross examined but the veracity of the testimonies weren’t tested.

Come on now. You are grasping here.

 

[cerebus]

The veracity of her testimony wasn’t tested.. She was just deposed as a witness. Just like the witnesses in the USA trial. They were cross examined but the veracity of the testimonies weren’t tested.

Come on now. You are grasping here.

The veracity of her testimony was absolutely tested. I already said she was cross examined for 3 days. You're the one grasping. Read the UK verdict. The judge is very balanced. He takes Depp's witnesses into account as well as the Sun's.

 

[cerebus]

It had nothing to do with the volume of evidence, it's about the rules being the same for both plaintiff and defendent. The playing field was made even when Heard became the defendent. Depp was then given a fair opportunity to properly interrogate and expose her evidence.

I can only go by what I saw in the US trial and it was awful for Heard, she did not come out of it with any credibility.

So now you're telling me Depp brought the lawsuit against the Sun, yet it wasn't a fair playing field? Hahaha you have no idea what you're talking about.

The US trial was a pure smear campaign. It was DARVO. Depp's lawyers were caught on tape meeting with TikTok influencers to run their online smear campaign. You're all so damn gullible and predisposed to take the side of confident-sounding celebrities that it worked. Well fk that.

Depp's explanations of the events where he's accused of battery are frankly pathetic. How did his finger get sliced off again? How did the headbutting event go down? You just believe him because he tells you that they wrestled and their heads somehow bumped together? That's not what he told her, or her dad. It's not what Io Wright heard on the phone. It's not what her makeup artist said under oath. It's not what the photos show. But he's more credible right, why exactly?

 

[rambo919]

Can someone please tell me what redeeming qualities this woman has that deserves this kinda white knighting?

Or is it fear that people can see what a load of BS #MeToo was because such a terrible person almost got away with it?

 

[Emjay]

It's true that Depp wasn't expecting to be confronted with the sheer volume of evidence in the UK that he ended up against. He was caught out lying on multiple occasions. The text messages from Stephen Deuters were massively damning. He certainly learned some lessons from that trial. Unfortunately he learned how to manipulate a jury and the general public based on performances while throwing mud at the evidence and managing to get key pieces excluded on dubious grounds.

It is not enough to discredit the UK trial. As I keep saying the case was reviewed and upheld by 2 other court judges. Go read the damn verdict. It is awful.

Again, none of the evidence was tested fairly.

You compel others to look at evidence when you refuse to watch the trial yourself?

 

[2023]

Can someone please tell me what redeeming qualities this woman has that deserves this kinda white knighting?

Or is it fear that people can see what a load of BS #MeToo was because such a terrible person almost got away with it?

I don't think it's Amber. It's either trolling or delusions of grandeur.

It's the typical "I'm smarter than everyone else" type of thing you see in conspiracy theorists.

 

[ShaunSA]

Can someone please tell me what redeeming qualities this woman has that deserves this kinda white knighting?

Or is it fear that people can see what a load of BS #MeToo was because such a terrible person almost got away with it?

All you need to know is it's @cerebus

 

[Lucas Buck]

So now you're telling me Depp brought the lawsuit against the Sun, yet it wasn't a fair playing field? Hahaha you have no idea what you're talking about.

The US trial was a pure smear campaign. It was DARVO. Depp's lawyers were caught on tape meeting with TikTok influencers to run their online smear campaign. You're all so damn gullible and predisposed to take the side of confident-sounding celebrities that it worked. Well fk that.

Depp's explanations of the events where he's accused of battery are frankly pathetic. How did his finger get sliced off again? How did the headbutting event go down? You just believe him because he tells you that they wrestled and their heads somehow bumped together? That's not what he told her, or her dad. It's not what Io Wright heard on the phone. It's not what her makeup artist said under oath. It's not what the photos show. But he's more credible right, why exactly?

I'm saying that it was a level playing field between Depp and Heard in court when she couldn't hide behind not being the defendant in a trial in order to circumvent the rules of discovery.

You’re right it was Darvo. Heard denied that she abused Depp. Attacked his drug abuse to make it seem that he was not credible. Reversed who the victim and offender really were. Luckily the jury managed to see through her blatant attempt at DARVO.

I'm not sure why you're moaning about Heard not being believed on social media. No matter what happened on social media the trail was taking place in court. Peoples reactions on social media had nothing to do with the outcome of the trial.

You've so far blamed incels, conservatives, social media, and Depps lawyers conspiring with social media influences for Heard losing the case. What more will you pull out of your sleeves? Maybe look at the woman herself and the people who enabled her to think that she could get away with her abusive and manipulative behaviour.

 

[marine1]

So now you're telling me Depp brought the lawsuit against the Sun, yet it wasn't a fair playing field? Hahaha you have no idea what you're talking about.

The US trial was a pure smear campaign. It was DARVO. Depp's lawyers were caught on tape meeting with TikTok influencers to run their online smear campaign. You're all so damn gullible and predisposed to take the side of confident-sounding celebrities that it worked. Well fk that.

Depp's explanations of the events where he's accused of battery are frankly pathetic. How did his finger get sliced off again? How did the headbutting event go down? You just believe him because he tells you that they wrestled and their heads somehow bumped together? That's not what he told her, or her dad. It's not what Io Wright heard on the phone. It's not what her makeup artist said under oath. It's not what the photos show. But he's more credible right, why exactly?

Where is this proof you speak of because I watched the whole trial and followed it all the way through and everything you are saying sounds like rubbish.

I never thought i would ever actually find an Amber supporter. The chick is bat **** crazy.
Who shits in a bed ?

 

[ToxicBunny]

Where is this proof you speak of because I watched the whole trial and followed it all the way through and everything you are saying sounds like rubbish.

I never thought i would ever actually find an Amber supporter. The chick is bat **** crazy.
Who shits in a bed ?

Well if one white knights for her, one may still have a chance that she shits in your bed... might be a kink that some people are into you know.

 

[cerebus]

Again, none of the evidence was tested fairly.

That is complete horseshit. The evidence was not only tested thoroughly, it was reviewed by 2 court judges who upheld the findings

UK court rejects Depp bid to appeal 'wife beater' ruling

LONDON (AP) — A British court on Thursday refused Johnny Depp permission to appeal a judge’s ruling that he assaulted ex-wife Amber Heard, saying his attempt to overturn the decision had “no real prospect of success...

apnews.com

The justices, James Dingemans and Nicholas Underhill, said the earlier court hearing was “full and fair” and the trial judge’s conclusions “have not been shown even arguably to be vitiated by any error of approach or mistake of law.”

They concluded that “the appeal has no real prospect of success and that there is no other compelling reason for it to be heard.”



But I'm sure the 7 jurors had a much better understanding of the law than the 3 court judges, and weren't at all manipulated by the DARVO and online smear campaign of Depp's lawyers.

You compel others to look at evidence when you refuse to watch the trial yourself?

I've watched hours of the trial by now. It doesn't change how I feel. I can't believe people could have been taken in by the 'performance' of Depp and his lawyers. You still can't look at the evidence objectively.

 

[HunterNW]

JD is a poofter.

 

[UrBaN963]

That is complete horseshit. The evidence was not only tested thoroughly, it was reviewed by 2 court judges who upheld the findings

UK court rejects Depp bid to appeal 'wife beater' ruling

LONDON (AP) — A British court on Thursday refused Johnny Depp permission to appeal a judge’s ruling that he assaulted ex-wife Amber Heard, saying his attempt to overturn the decision had “no real prospect of success...

apnews.com

The justices, James Dingemans and Nicholas Underhill, said the earlier court hearing was “full and fair” and the trial judge’s conclusions “have not been shown even arguably to be vitiated by any error of approach or mistake of law.”

They concluded that “the appeal has no real prospect of success and that there is no other compelling reason for it to be heard.”



But I'm sure the 7 jurors had a much better understanding of the law than the 3 court judges, and weren't at all manipulated by the DARVO and online smear campaign of Depp's lawyers.



I've watched hours of the trial by now. It doesn't change how I feel. I can't believe people could have been taken in by the 'performance' of Depp and his lawyers. You still can't look at the evidence objectively.

This thread and the constant back and forth is a lot of fun, but please, do not use the word objectively, ever, in this context. You do not have a clear grasp of the meaning of the word and it's implications and it shouldn't be waved around casually when discussing serious topics.

 

[cerebus]

This thread and the constant back and forth is a lot of fun, but please, do not use the word objectively, ever, in this context. You do not have a clear grasp of the meaning of the word and it's implications and it shouldn't be waved around casually when discussing serious topics.

Yeah ok whatever

 

[UrBaN963]

Yeah ok whatever

Cool, glad we understand each other on this point.

In other news, Amber Heard doesn't have the money to appeal this verdict so she either borrows some (to lose it again) or she just gives it up and accepts she was wrong and now tries to make something of her life.

 

[cerebus]

Cool, glad we understand each other on this point.

In other news, Amber Heard doesn't have the money to appeal this verdict so she either borrows some (to lose it again) or she just gives it up and accepts she was wrong and now tries to make something of her life.

It will depend on whether Depp drops the lawsuit winnings. Either way she's been seriously bodied by losing this suit. Ironically in her divorce settlement she could have accepted $30mil but settled for $7mil, which she pledged to donate to charity. And now Depp is suing her for every penny she has and more. But sure she's the golddigger right?

 

[UrBaN963]

It will depend on whether Depp drops the lawsuit winnings. Either way she's been seriously bodied by losing this suit. Ironically in her divorce settlement she could have accepted $30mil but settled for $7mil, which she pledged to donate to charity. And now Depp is suing her for every penny she has and more. But sure she's the golddigger right?

Umm, yes. That's correct.

They've basically stated, unofficially, that he isn't going to chase her for the money. But if she continues to pursue this fallacy then he'll probably take her to the cleaners again.

Her $7m divorce settlement is more than she's made from her movies, or close enough anyway, so she's made some decent coin from this relationship (right up until she lost $8.35m + lawyer's fees anyway).

Also, the pledge cannot be counted because as Ms. Vasquez taught her, pledges are not donations.