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

[ToxicBunny]

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

No wonder all his mates ran away

Norman No-Mates

 

[tetrasect]

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.

Yeah, ask them if getting punched continuously in the face by a man with rings on will A. cause zero swelling and bruising or B. heal in a single day.

Anyone could claim they were abused if showing actual injury is not a requirement.

I personally got beaten half to death just yesterday but I bruise and heal really well so you can't see it now. (that's literally what she expects us to believe)

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.

Did her makeup artist describe the kind of injuries Amber was testifying she sustained? No. She said her lip was a bit swollen and maybe it was from a small cut.

Just watch the trial it's all there plain as day.

 

[cerebus]

Yeah, ask them if getting punched continuously in the face by a man with rings on will A. cause zero swelling and bruising or B. heal in a single day.

Anyone could claim they were abused if showing actual injury is not a requirement.

I personally got beaten half to death just yesterday but I bruise and heal really well so you can't see it now. (that's literally what she expects us to believe)

She showed actual injuries. Plenty of them. Her injuries are also medically consistent. For example a bruise under the eye is an indicator of a broken nose.

Google photos of domestic abuse victims or car accident victims. There's a huge range of reactions. My father in law would have a tiny fall and it would make the whole side of his body blue.

Is It Normal For A Bruise To Spread?: Vascular & Interventional Associates: Board Certified Vein and Vascular Specialists

Bruising tends to look worse than it is, and its appearance changes over time. Bruises are part of your body’s natural response to injury and healing process.

www.viaveincenter.com

Not every victim of DV is going to look like Rihanna. You're doing a massive disservice to abuse victims to insist that they do. Thing is as well, if she was doing all this to make up a false abuse charge against Johnny, why would she publicly minimize the evidence of her bruises? That also doesn't make an ounce of sense. If you want to falsely accuse someone of DV, you'd be plastering the bruises on yourself.

Did her makeup artist describe the kind of injuries Amber was testifying she sustained? No. She said her lip was a bit swollen and maybe it was from a small cut.

That is not true at all. She gave a detailed description of Amber's injuries.

Swelling and bruising on the eye. Split lip.

Not to mention the registered nurse in the UK, which I already posted above. For some reason that evidence was excluded from the US trial. Honestly if you want a much more detailed description of her injuries and the medical evidence, you need to look at the UK trial verdict.

Just watch the trial it's all there plain as day.

I've watched enough of the trial by now. If there's any particularly compelling part you want me to see that will change my whole mind, be my guest.

 

[tetrasect]

She showed actual injuries. Plenty of them. Her injuries are also medically consistent. For example a bruise under the eye is an indicator of a broken nose.

What about this picture suggests that she has just been repeatedly and continuously punched in the face for an extended period of time by a man with metal rings on his fingers??

Google photos of domestic abuse victims or car accident victims. There's a huge range of reactions. My father in law would have a tiny fall and it would make the whole side of his body blue.

Is It Normal For A Bruise To Spread?: Vascular & Interventional Associates: Board Certified Vein and Vascular Specialists

Bruising tends to look worse than it is, and its appearance changes over time. Bruises are part of your body’s natural response to injury and healing process.

www.viaveincenter.com

Was every one of those people repeatedly and continuously punched in the face for an extended
period of time by a man with metal rings on his fingers??

That is not true at all. She gave a detailed description of Amber's injuries.

Swelling and bruising on the eye. Split lip.

What about this testimony suggests that Amber had been repeatedly and continuously punched in the face for an extended period of time by a man with metal rings on his fingers??

Not to mention the registered nurse in the UK, which I already posted above. For some reason that evidence was excluded from the US trial. Honestly if you want a much more detailed description of her injuries and the medical evidence, you need to look at the UK trial verdict.

What about her testimony suggests that Amber had been repeatedly and continuously punched in the face for an extended period of time by a man with metal rings on his fingers??

I've watched enough of the trial by now. If there's any particularly compelling part you want me to see that will change my whole mind, be my guest.

Which part of the evidence suggests that Amber had been repeatedly and continuously punched in the face for an extended period of time by a man with metal rings on his fingers??

Because that was her testimony. Not that he gave her a paper cut on her lip.

Making excuses for or trying to explain away the lack of evidence doesn't count as evidence.

You can't say that amber is so special that her face doesn't bruise and her skin is so thick that it doesn't tear and her head is so hard that she cannot get concussed and her blood is so thick that she doesn't bleed and that she heals so super fast that any kind of swelling disappears within a single day and her memory is so bad that she took pictures of everything but forgot to take a picture of the actual injury and also forgot to call a doctor or go to the hospital and her makeup skills are so great that she could make a zombie look like a supermodel and then present that as evidence of a savage beating.

Also worth mentioning is that she said he raped her with a bottle but “didn’t know if the bottle was broken”.
I mean come on... how could anyone actually believe that crap? She's a total psycho.

 

[Looney]

Come now man... leave the man be in his white knighting for Turd Heard....

Maybe one day she will read this thread and be so overcome with emotion that she'll offer to kak in his bed.

I think he wants to eat Turd Heard’s Turd.

 

[cerebus]

What about this picture suggests that she has just been repeatedly and continuously punched in the face for an extended period of time by a man with metal rings on his fingers??

The black eye and the broken nose are a little suggestive of that. How long was she meant to have been pounded in the face for exactly?

Was every one of those people repeatedly and continuously punched in the face for an extended
period of time by a man with metal rings on his fingers??


What about this testimony suggests that Amber had been repeatedly and continuously punched in the face for an extended period of time by a man with metal rings on his fingers??


What about her testimony suggests that Amber had been repeatedly and continuously punched in the face for an extended period of time by a man with metal rings on his fingers??



Which part of the evidence suggests that Amber had been repeatedly and continuously punched in the face for an extended period of time by a man with metal rings on his fingers??

Because that was her testimony. Not that he gave her a paper cut on her lip.

She said her lip was split and her eye was swollen and black. That does suggest being punched hard repeatedly yeah.

Making excuses for or trying to explain away the lack of evidence doesn't count as evidence.

You can't say that amber is so special that her face doesn't bruise and her skin is so thick that it doesn't tear and her head is so hard that she cannot get concussed and her blood is so thick that she doesn't bleed and that she heals so super fast that any kind of swelling disappears within a single day and her memory is so bad that she took pictures of everything but forgot to take a picture of the actual injury and also forgot to call a doctor or go to the hospital and her makeup skills are so great that she could make a zombie look like a supermodel and then present that as evidence.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying you can't generalize bruising for everyone. I hardly bruise. It's basic medical stuff.

But yes you could certainly use makeup to cover enormous physical damage. I've already proven that.

 

[tetrasect]

The black eye and the broken nose are a little suggestive of that. How long was she meant to have been pounded in the face for exactly?

Countless times.

She said her lip was split and her eye was swollen and black. That does suggest being punched hard repeatedly yeah.
I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying you can't generalize bruising for everyone. I hardly bruise. It's basic medical stuff.
But yes you could certainly use makeup to cover enormous physical damage. I've already proven that.

I've already uncovered that Laura Sanko's bruises were sustained one week before that show during "open hand" sparring and even provided a video. Don't you think getting fist-punched in the face by a guy wearing rings "countless times" would cause more damage than what you see in that video?

Second pic means nothing unless those injuries were sustained the day before the photo was taken and that they were caused by getting fist-punched in the face by a guy wearing rings "countless times". Neither is true.

Below is a real abuse victim who was actually beaten in the manner Amber describes (except for the rings maybe) and took selfies during her recovery.
Amber Heard looked unscathed and was smiling and laughing a single day after the claimed beating.
If she was telling the truth she would have looked like the first picture in this series:

'I took selfies after domestic abuse'

A woman who was hospitalised by her ex-boyfriend tells BBC Radio 5 live she shared selfies to help victims of domestic abuse.

www.bbc.com

Honestly if this is not enough to convince you I don't think anything can. It's becoming like trying to convince Nico that Bucha wasn't a green screen and/or staged and/or false flag operation.

 

[2023]

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

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

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

I mean, if you want to use that website as reference, lets use it:

burden of proof

www.law.cornell.edu

In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

If you follow the link for "preponderance of the evidence" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidence) you read the following:

Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.

So I quote myself

"is it more likely she did that for selfish gains?"

And the fact finders (AKA Jury for you to understand) found it greater than 50% chance she did it.

Yeah yeah, malice blah blah and other instructions, but the jury found that all to be with in preponderance of the evidence on counts for Depps side, and only 1 count for Ambers side.

This is probably why you are so confused over whats going on. Again and again, different laws and different standards.

 

[Zyzzyva]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[cerebus]

I mean, if you want to use that website as reference, lets use it:

burden of proof

www.law.cornell.edu

In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

If you follow the link for "preponderance of the evidence" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidence) you read the following:

Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.

So I quote myself


And the fact finders (AKA Jury for you to understand) found it greater than 50% chance she did it.

Yeah yeah, malice blah blah and other instructions, but the jury found that all to be with in preponderance of the evidence on counts for Depps side, and only 1 count for Ambers side.

This is probably why you are so confused over whats going on. Again and again, different laws and different standards.

Sorry you're talking nonsense. The standard isn't whether she acted with selfish intent.

What Johnny Depp needs to prove to win his case against Amber Heard

As a public person, Depp has to show evidence of ‘actual malice’ on Heard’s part

www.independent.co.uk

What must Johnny Depp’s team prove in order to win?

Depp’s complaint lists three counts of alleged defamation on Heard’s part: one for the print edition of the op-ed, one for its online edition, and one for when Heard tweeted the op-ed.

Depp is a public figure. In the US, public figures have a heavier burden of proof when it comes to winning a defamation case: they must show the defendant (in this case, Heard) acted with “actual malice”.

That standard dates back to the landmark New York Times Co v Sullivan Supreme Court case, which was decided in 1964.

“Actual malice for defamation law purposes means that the statement was made either with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was false,” Lili Levi, professor of law and dean’s distinguished scholar at the University of Miami School of Law, told Poynter for a piece about the Depp v Heard case and what it might mean for media law.

Daniel Gutenplan, an entertainment litigator, defamation expert, and a partner at Enenstein Pham & Glass, told People Depp is facing “an uphill battle” in meeting that standard of proof, adding that “defamation is very hard to prove”.

 

[2023]

Sorry you're talking nonsense. The standard isn't whether she acted with selfish intent.

Now you are nitpicking on words. Why don't you focus on the important things I'd said there and try to understand "preponderance of the evidence".

Do you understand the different levels of burden of proof and that in Depp vs Heard only preponderance of the evidence is required?

You do know when I said "selfish intentions" from Amber I was referring to her knowing the OP-ED would damage Depp in order to gain her credibility in the public eye? That is ill intent, or malice that you are looking for. Come now, keep up and understand what I was referencing there.

Why do you think Amber won as well? It's impossible to (legally) prove without reasonable doubt that Depp told his lawyer to make those statements. Thats why preponderance of the evidence allows the jury to basically say "yes, more than likely the lawyer acted under instruction from Depp and thus Depp is liable"

It really feels like you are focusing on all the wrong things because you don't get some of these concepts from the US trial. This is why you keep going back to the UK one, and focus on abuse rather than defamation.

 

[cerebus]

Now you are nitpicking on words. Why don't you focus on the important things I'd said there and try to understand "preponderance of the evidence".

Do you understand the different levels of burden of proof and that in Depp vs Heard only preponderance of the evidence is required?

You do know when I said "selfish intentions" from Amber I was referring to her knowing the OP-ED would damage Depp in order to gain her credibility in the public eye? That is ill intent, or malice that you are looking for. Come now, keep up and understand what I was referencing there.

Why do you think Amber won as well? It's impossible to (legally) prove without reasonable doubt that Depp told his lawyer to make those statements. Thats why preponderance of the evidence allows the jury to basically say "yes, more than likely the lawyer acted under instruction from Depp and thus Depp is liable"

It really feels like you are focusing on all the wrong things because you don't get some of these concepts from the US trial. This is why you keep going back to the UK one, and focus on abuse rather than defamation.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. You're just pulling legal opinion out of your ass. You're shifting the burden of proof from actual malice to selfish intention. I've cited credible articles laying out the nature of the case and you're still just babbling about irrelevant distractions.

Defamation is very hard to win in the US. The reason he lost so badly in the UK is that the judge knew more about the laws in question, and domestic abuse cases in general, than uninformed jurors who probably thought much the same as you.

 

[cerebus]

Countless times.

In that case it seems she unfortunately never took any photos of the facial damage, only her arm.

I've already uncovered that Laura Sanko's bruises were sustained one week before that show during "open hand" sparring and even provided a video. Don't you think getting fist-punched in the face by a guy wearing rings "countless times" would cause more damage than what you see in that video?

Why would it? Sparring can result in serious injuries.

Second pic means nothing unless those injuries were sustained the day before the photo was taken and that they were caused by getting fist-punched in the face by a guy wearing rings "countless times". Neither is true.

Neither of those pics are shown to prove Amber's level of abuse. They're just examples of how makeup can cover huge bruising.

Below is a real abuse victim who was actually beaten in the manner Amber describes (except for the rings maybe) and took selfies during her recovery.
Amber Heard looked unscathed and was smiling and laughing a single day after the claimed beating.
If she was telling the truth she would have looked like the first picture in this series:

'I took selfies after domestic abuse'

A woman who was hospitalised by her ex-boyfriend tells BBC Radio 5 live she shared selfies to help victims of domestic abuse.

www.bbc.com

I keep saying, you simply cannot compare two abuse victims based on the level of bruising they sustained. It doesn't work that way. Domestic abuse is already massively underreported and often claims are dismissed because of a lack of obvious physical damage.

No Visible Bruises: Domestic Violence and Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injury is only starting to be addressed in the domestic-violence community.

www.newyorker.com

90% of domestic abuse victims don't have nearly as much evidence as Amber did in this trial. You think this is a vindication of Depp's innocence? You're fooling yourself mate. This is a vindication of how powerful rich people can buy their way out of trouble and manipulate the public and it's going to do enormous harm to victims coming forward. Amber's life has been ruined not just once, but immeasurably more by just coming forward in the most circumspect possible way about her abuse. Go do some research into Adam Waldman and see the kind of people Depp has running his legal campaigns.

Honestly if this is not enough to convince you I don't think anything can. It's becoming like trying to convince Nico that Bucha wasn't a green screen and/or staged and/or false flag operation.

I don't know what that is. I feel quite the same. I've presented years of physical evidence from photos taken by third parties, general observations at the time that she was always bruised whenever she was in public, scratches in paparazzi pics, evidence that her broken nose was genuine... Multiple people have attested to seeing it, her makeup artist testified to covering it up. There are nurse reports of seeing it. Even Johnny Depp's own witnesses testified to seeing it. But "rings". I mean.. that's good enough for you, really? What would you do if your sister showed up looking like Amber in the pic above? You'd moer the guy.

 

[2023]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

jurors who probably thought much the same as you.

Yeah, you're completely clueless about how this all works.

 

[tetrasect]

Why would it?

You're asking why getting punched in the face by a guy wearing rings "countless times" would cause more damage than this?

Sparring can result in serious injuries.

Maybe read what it says in the article? The guy sustained several severe head injuries and spent a week in a coma just months before this when he got knocked out in a fight, then decided to spar with another trainer which is "just madness – absolute madness." according to the guy who put him in the coma the first time.

Now imagine they took the boxing gloves off and put rings on instead, you think that would have made the injuries less severe?

Really not sure if you're trolling now.

Neither of those pics are shown to prove Amber's level of abuse. They're just examples of how makeup can cover huge bruising.

I asked for evidence, not excuses for why there isn't any.

I keep saying, you simply cannot compare two abuse victims based on the level of bruising they sustained. It doesn't work that way. Domestic abuse is already massively underreported and often claims are dismissed because of a lack of obvious physical damage.

No Visible Bruises: Domestic Violence and Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injury is only starting to be addressed in the domestic-violence community.

www.newyorker.com

I'm saying you can compare two abuse victims who sustained the same specific type of abuse, namely being punched in the face "countless times". How do you not get that yet?

You think if two different women get punched in the face countless times they don't both sustain severe injuries and don't both need to be hospitalized?

90% of domestic abuse victims don't have nearly as much evidence as Amber did in this trial. You think this is a vindication of Depp's innocence? You're fooling yourself mate. This is a vindication of how powerful rich people can buy their way out of trouble and manipulate the public and it's going to do enormous harm to victims coming forward. Amber's life has been ruined not just once, but immeasurably more by just once coming forward in the most circumspect possible way about her abuse. Go do some research into Adam Waldman and see the kind of people Depp has running his legal campaigns.

I don't know what that is. I feel quite the same. I've presented years of physical evidence from photos taken by third parties, general observations at the time that she was always bruised whenever she was in public, scratches in paparazzi pics, evidence that her broken nose was genuine... Multiple people have attested to seeing it, her makeup artist testified to covering it up. There are nurse reports of seeing it. Even Johnny Depp's own witnesses testified to seeing it. But "rings". I mean.. that's good enough for you, really? What would you do if your sister showed up looking like Amber in the pic above? You'd moer the guy.

I'm actually starting to get irritated with these replies now cause you are completely ignoring the specifics and instead you're waffling on about some whataboutism crap. I'm not talking about scratches or bruises or swollen lips.

I'm talking about a very specific thing:

Amber Heard testified that Depp beat the absolute crap out of her and yet the next day she's looking like a ray of sunshine.

There is zero evidence showing the kind of injuries she would have sustained, in fact the evidence shows that she had zero swelling on her face (you can't un-swell your face with make-up).

Now when you compare that to someone who did actually get punched in the face countless times you see that the one who was actually beaten is hardly recognizable. No amount of magic DNA and makeup can explain the difference between the two.

It is absolutely undeniable that Amber was lying.

 

[tetrasect]

Yeah, you're completely clueless about how this all works.

If only he had watched the trial where the judge explained all of this to the jury...

 

[ponder]

If only he had watched the trial where the judge explained all of this to the jury...

Who needs trials when you have social media with selected extracts.

 

[ShaunSA]

If only he had watched the trial where the judge explained all of this to the jury...

You expect him to watch the trial when he already made up his mind the moment Amber opened her mouth? Wtf magic is this?

 

[cerebus]

If only he had watched the trial where the judge explained all of this to the jury...

Oh please, where? You're talking shyte.

btw I love all the "Did you even watch the trial???" guys who just ignore 70% of what actually went down during the trial.

Opinion | How the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard jury got it wrong — twice

No one should have won. Everyone should have lost.

www.nbcnews.com

The first statement was the headline, which read, “Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”

Then, within the op-ed, was the second statement: “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”

And the third: “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”

For every one of those statements, Depp had to prove each of these elements by a preponderance of evidence:

1. That it was “false.”

2. That it communicated to someone else something “defamatory” and that it was “about” Depp.

3. That Heard intended it to be defamatory.

4. Then, by clear and convincing evidence (a higher burden), Depp had to prove that Heard made the defamatory statement either knowing it was false or was highly aware it was probably false.


Because as Heard attorney Ben Rottenborn told the jury in his closing argument: “If Amber was abused by Mr. Depp even one time, then she wins. And we’re not just talking about physical abuse,” he said. It also included “emotional abuse, psychological abuse, financial abuse, sexual abuse.”

He’s right. The jury could have found Heard to have exaggerated. It could have even found her at times not credible. All the jurors needed was one instance of abuse and Depp should have lost. They apparently found none.

But the jury should have concluded that Depp was physically or otherwise abusive at least once. Along with Heard testifying to the abuse, there’s plenty of evidence of abusive, aggressive language and behavior by Depp. A jury should have drawn inferences from that evidence, in which case Depp would have lost. Depp denied the abuse allegations. The jury found him credible.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Oh please, where? You're talking shyte.

btw I love all the "Did you even watch the trial???" guys who just ignore 70% of what actually went down during the trial.

Opinion | How the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard jury got it wrong — twice

No one should have won. Everyone should have lost.

www.nbcnews.com

Them ignoring 70% of what went on in the trial is infinitely better than you ignoring 100% of what went on in the trial.