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

[2023]

I'd like to think I'm more just pro-the evidence. I didn't pay attention to the trial except for like Reddit where the pro-JD stuff was overwhelming so I assumed he was being vindicated and the whole narrative around Amber was right. Then afterwards I started to look at the evidence and it fell apart for me pretty quickly. Like how are you gonna defend someone who tells his friend that he wants to rape his wife's burnt corpse? Yeah I guess I think he's basically a POS.

You looking for evidence for the wrong type of trial, this was a defamation case remember. Different criteria, different rulings.

Was it reasonable to think Amber defamed Depp for selfish gains? No need for "beyond a reasonable doubt", just "is it more likely she did that for selfish gains?"

Yes? Then Depp wins this case. Most of the evidence in this trail was just them both dragging each other through the mud. All you needed was the phone call where she said she'd publish it to get her cred back and Depp wins.

 

[ShaunSA]

Wow, you are actually taking the White Knight gig to a whole new level.

He's gone off the deep end. Pity. He used to be fairly rational a few years back

 

[ToxicBunny]

He's gone off the deep end. Pity. He used to be fairly rational a few years back

He's heading straight into Nico territory if you ask me, and its sad.

 

[YoungSandwich]

I'd like to think I'm more just pro-the evidence. I didn't pay attention to the trial except for like Reddit where the pro-JD stuff was overwhelming so I assumed he was being vindicated and the whole narrative around Amber was right. Then afterwards I started to look at the evidence and it fell apart for me pretty quickly. Like how are you gonna defend someone who tells his friend that he wants to rape his wife's burnt corpse? Yeah I guess I think he's basically a POS.

This right here just proves you've ignored everything we've said, understand nothing about what happened in this trial, do not understand the evidence in play here, and are just being straight-up ignorant.

 

[SAguy]

I'd like to think I'm more just pro-the evidence. I didn't pay attention to the trial except for like Reddit where the pro-JD stuff was overwhelming so I assumed he was being vindicated and the whole narrative around Amber was right. Then afterwards I started to look at the evidence and it fell apart for me pretty quickly. Like how are you gonna defend someone who tells his friend that he wants to rape his wife's burnt corpse? Yeah I guess I think he's basically a POS.

You didn't watch the trial, but yet you know more than even the jurors.

You are the perfect example of why jurors aren't supposed to do their own research or take into account their own opinions prior to the case.

 

[Lucas Buck]

You didn't watch the trial, but yet you know more than even the jurors.

You are the perfect example of why jurors aren't supposed to do their own research or take into account their own opinions prior to the case.

Please don't re-open that door. He's already complained about the jurors being influenced by social media. Although he has provided no evidence yet to back up that claim, I'm sure that he will bring up the same argument again.

 

[G'Wobblez]

 

[HunterNW]

*Was hot.

Unfortunately the clock struck twelve when she was making this face:

That's the spit or swallow look. SHe's deciding.

 

[G'Wobblez]

Do you understand that the UK trial was about the article they wrote and the US trial is over the op ed after the article…
Verstaan?
Do we draw pictures?

 

[cerebus]

You looking for evidence for the wrong type of trial, this was a defamation case remember. Different criteria, different rulings.

Was it reasonable to think Amber defamed Depp for selfish gains? No need for "beyond a reasonable doubt", just "is it more likely she did that for selfish gains?"

Yes? Then Depp wins this case. Most of the evidence in this trail was just them both dragging each other through the mud. All you needed was the phone call where she said she'd publish it to get her cred back and Depp wins.

Actually you're completely wrong about the burden of proof in the US trial. Yeah it's defamation and the standard of proof is 'actual malice'.

defamation

www.law.cornell.edu

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Again I'm not legal at all but this is confirmed by every article I've seen. Depp brought the case so he had the burden of proving that the statements in the WAPO piece were intentionally false and set out to harm his reputation or career.

This article lays it out pretty well:

The Johnny Depp–Amber Heard Trial Is Not as Complicated as You May Think

The entirety of the case rests on twelve words.

www.newyorker.com

The careful legal vetting of her Post op-ed may be evident in the wording: Heard calls herself a “public figure representing” abuse, not a victim or survivor of it; she does not name Depp, nor does she specify a type of abuse. (Depp has denied ever hitting or assaulting Heard; she is countersuing him for a hundred million dollars.)

As for whether Heard has “felt the full force of our culture’s wrath,” a quick glance at Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms, where she is cast as the Medusa of Sunset Boulevard, may settle the question. The precise demographics of the pro-Depp coalition are diverse, if uncertain in their exact proportions: bots, shitposters, men’s-rights activists, women who were in middle school when “Edward Scissorhands” came out. According to Wired, the hashtag #JusticeforJohnnyDepp has surpassed ten billion views on TikTok. Parody videos of Heard’s emotional testimony are already a TikTok cliché. The conservative site the Daily Wire spent tens of thousands of dollars to promote mainly anti-Heard content on Facebook and Instagram about the trial, per a story in Vice World News. (The Daily Wire has not commented on the story.) NBC News has reported on the YouTube creators who pivoted to anti-Heard videos when they realized how much users and the algorithm liked them.

But that half-sentence in the Post—that’s the whole case. That’s fifty million dollars. Depp lost a 2020 defamation lawsuit against a British tabloid, the Sun, which was far more brazen in its language—it called Depp a “wife beater”—and, despite the United Kingdom’s strict libel laws and a reversed burden of proof, the High Court in London found the vast majority of Heard’s claims to be “substantially true.” And yet, earlier this month, the presiding judge in the Virginia case, Penney Azcarate, rejected Heard’s motion to dismiss. Azcarate cited “evidence that jurors could weigh that the statements were about the plaintiff, that the statements were published and that the statement was false, and that the defendant made the statement knowing it to be false or that the defendant made it so recklessly as to amount to willful disregard for the truth.”

People are allowed to publish articles to restore their cred. That doesn't make them de facto defamatory.

 

[cerebus]

Do you understand that the UK trial was about the article they wrote and the US trial is over the op ed after the article…
Verstaan?
Do we draw pictures?

What do you mean?

 

[tetrasect]

I'd like to think I'm more just pro-the evidence. I didn't pay attention to the trial except for like Reddit where the pro-JD stuff was overwhelming so I assumed he was being vindicated and the whole narrative around Amber was right. Then afterwards I started to look at the evidence and it fell apart for me pretty quickly. Like how are you gonna defend someone who tells his friend that he wants to rape his wife's burnt corpse? Yeah I guess I think he's basically a POS.

"Inception is an awesome movie"

"No, it's a crap movie, the CGI looks like it's from the 80's"

"Huh? Did even you watch it?"

"No."

PS are you gonna respond to my previous reply? Or no?

 

[TelkomUseless]

Wow, you are actually taking the White Knight gig to a whole new level.

I wonder if he does spend 1/2 the effort on his wife in real life. He does white knight for Amber big time...

 

[TelkomUseless]

I'd like to think I'm more just pro-the evidence. I didn't pay attention to the trial except for like Reddit where the pro-JD stuff was overwhelming so I assumed he was being vindicated and the whole narrative around Amber was right. Then afterwards I started to look at the evidence and it fell apart for me pretty quickly. Like how are you gonna defend someone who tells his friend that he wants to rape his wife's burnt corpse? Yeah I guess I think he's basically a POS.

Nee fok my ou....

 

[cerebus]

"Inception is an awesome movie"

"No, it's a crap movie, the CGI looks like it's from the 80's"

"Huh? Did even you watch it?"

"No."

PS are you gonna respond to my previous reply? Or no?

Yeah i'll get round to it, bear with me. I have a lot on my plate on the best of days and it took me like an hour this morning to compile the first post that you just brushed over. There is so much evidence of physical abuse. Not all people bruise the same.

 

[TelkomUseless]

Yeah i'll get round to it, bear with me. I have a lot on my plate on the best of days and it took me like an hour this morning to compile the first post that you just brushed over. There is so much evidence of physical abuse. Not all people bruise the same.

Are you sending your findings to Amber's team ?

 

[tetrasect]

Yeah i'll get round to it, bear with me. I have a lot on my plate on the best of days and it took me like an hour this morning to compile the first post that you just brushed over.

Yeah I bet it's exhausting trying to find stuff that supports your position here.

There is so much evidence of physical abuse. Not all people bruise the same.

What nonsense. The absence of bruising indicates the absence of abuse, not the presence of super-healing powers.

This is real life, not a Rambo movie where some people can take 4 bullets to the chest and then get up off the floor to do some roundhouse kicks.

 

[TelkomUseless]

Yeah I bet it's exhausting trying to find stuff that supports your position here.

When you doing research alone you can draw almost any conclusion for the outcome you want. That is why research papers work as teams, and have reviews from external sources..

But Cerrie single handedly find all the issues one time.... that 100s of people missed and is proving all wrong.

 

[cerebus]

Yeah I bet it's exhausting trying to find stuff that supports your position here.

It's exhausting trying to wade through the mountains of pro-jd garbage on social media yeah. But finding evidence that supports the position that JD abused AH and not the other way round? It couldn't be easier. There is so so much of it. Honestly the amount of hassle I'm getting on here, I would have dropped it a long time ago if there wasn't so much damn evidence.

What nonsense.

This is real life, not a Rambo movie where some people can take 4 bullets to the chest and then get up off the floor to do some roundhouse kicks.

It's not nonsense at all. Speak to experts in domestic abuse cases. Speak to medical experts. The whole internet suddenly turned into forensic photography experts. But it's a basic fact that people bruise differently, people recover differently, and makeup can do wonders.

Why do you think Amber's makeup artist is lying? All the people who saw her bruises? All the photographs and commentary going back as far as 2012? Do you think Amber set it up as a long game con just so that she could get divorced, take 1/4th of what she was entitled to, never mention the abuse again, then drop an op-ed in 2018? That was her end-game? This conspiracy theory makes absolutely no sense.

 

[ShaunSA]

Nee vok even an intervention won't work on this oke

No wonder all his mates ran away