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

[G'Wobblez]

Nothing I gave was debunked. Just because you can throw mud at evidence doesn't mean you're debunking it. Here, debunk this.

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

"You beat the **** out of me..." "I made a huge mistake"

"I headbutted you in the ****ing forehead"

"You had your hands on me after you threw the phone at my face." "Oh my god."

Why doesn't Depp deny any of the things she says in private conversation? How do you even rationalise those conversations in your head to imagine that they could be anything other than an admittal of his abuse?

Look at the words in that transcript.

"You can throw a punch.... you can headbutt someone"
"I headbutted you in the ****ing forehead".

He is acknowledging and admitting to her over the phone that he punched and headbutted her and trying to defend himself because he thinks a headbutt wouldn't cause a broken nose. If this hadn't happened he could have just said "wtf crazy bitch" and been done with it. I don't know how anyone can get past that in all honesty.


This is all so stupid. Once you've decided that Depp is innocent there's just no getting past it.

I didn’t throw mud at it.
I asked you if you watched the trial.
AH testimony wasn’t believable.
JD’s testimony made sense.

It’s hearsay.
There is no evidence to her testimony.

 

[G'Wobblez]

Headbutt:

She was swinging wildly at me, and I … from behind, as I was walking away from the argument to my office, she was hitting me in the neck, ear, back, everything.

‘I turned to cover my head and she was swinging quite wildly so the only thing I could do in that situation was either to run or to try to get hold of her, to get my arms around her to stop her flailing and punching me, so I did so, as I did so it seems there was a collision.’

 

[G'Wobblez]

The huge mistake he was talking about, if you bothered to watch the trial and the complete transcripts, was about meeting with her after she had a restraining order against him. She begged to see him.

He kept saying it was a huge mistake.
In relation to meeting with her. She was also recoding him illegally.

 

[G'Wobblez]

Context is a wonderful thing. And you didn't make any effort to listen and read the whole transcripts of the conversations.

I do not have twatter.
So if you could please link these transcripts on the court website or any other official site that shows the whole conversation it would be great.


And rather going all Elaine on us and trying to confuse the poop out of everyone.
Debate one instance at a time with the transcripts.

I'm here for a healthy debate. I'm 100% open to be wrong. But you post so much at once you loose me.
Like AH defense lost the jury. Chronological order and not stopping halfway through showing facts.
JD's team showed more context and found to be more reliable by the jury.

It's as simple as he said she said and they had to choose which side was more believable.

 

[cerebus]

Headbutt:

She was swinging wildly at me, and I … from behind, as I was walking away from the argument to my office, she was hitting me in the neck, ear, back, everything.

‘I turned to cover my head and she was swinging quite wildly so the only thing I could do in that situation was either to run or to try to get hold of her, to get my arms around her to stop her flailing and punching me, so I did so, as I did so it seems there was a collision.’

Firstly that is still a terrible explanation. Secondly it contradicts the testimony of Io who heard him clearly over the phone. Thirdly in the UK trial he first claimed that he never touched her till they played that clip then he changed his tune and said it was um self defense or something. Fourthly look at the context of what she's saying: "you can throw a punch, you can headbutt"...”I headbutted you in the fkng forehead”. He’s completely acknowledging the truthfulness of what she’s accusing him of but trying to play down the seriousness of the headbutt.

The evidence all points in one way. The only thing about this particular instance that doesn’t corroborate Heard’s account is the fact that the police didn’t see clear bruises on her face. But the UK judge was also quite critical of their account since they never even took notes.

 

[ponder]

Amber Heard loses effort to set aside defamation verdict and get a new Johnny Depp trial

The Virginia judge who presided over the Depp vs. Heard defamation trial made quick work of Amber Heard's effort to get a new trial. She was denied.

www.usatoday.com

 

[cerebus]

Context is a wonderful thing. And you didn't make any effort to listen and read the whole transcripts of the conversations.

I do not have twatter.
So if you could please link these transcripts on the court website or any other official site that shows the whole conversation it would be great.


And rather going all Elaine on us and trying to confuse the poop out of everyone.
Debate one instance at a time with the transcripts.

I'm here for a healthy debate. I'm 100% open to be wrong. But you post so much at once you loose me.
Like AH defense lost the jury. Chronological order and not stopping halfway through showing facts.
JD's team showed more context and found to be more reliable by the jury.

It's as simple as he said she said and they had to choose which side was more believable.

In fact I have listened to hours of their conversations with full context. I urge you to do the same. Depp doesn’t come off any better, quite the opposite. It’s only the twitter/TikTok sphere where they take sentences out of context, usually to give the impression that she’s the abusive one. This thread is based on such an out-of-context clip.

I’m a bit staggered by the irony of you telling me that I’m not paying attention to context to be frank. That’s all you’ve been doing this whole thread.

 

[Howdy]

Firstly that is still a terrible explanation. Secondly it contradicts the testimony of Io

The person that magically transposes between CA and NY, that describes events in an apartment where the floor planks grew wider by 50%? That one?

Such an honest person.

 

[G'Wobblez]

Firstly that is still a terrible explanation. Secondly it contradicts the testimony of Io who heard him clearly over the phone. Thirdly in the UK trial he first claimed that he never touched her till they played that clip then he changed his tune and said it was um self defense or something. Fourthly look at the context of what she's saying: "you can throw a punch, you can headbutt"...”I headbutted you in the fkng forehead”. He’s completely acknowledging the truthfulness of what she’s accusing him of but trying to play down the seriousness of the headbutt.

The evidence all points in one way. The only thing about this particular instance that doesn’t corroborate Heard’s account is the fact that the police didn’t see clear bruises on her face. But the UK judge was also quite critical of their account since they never even took notes.

IO wasn’t on the phone with her when the headbutt happened.
I’m obviously confused because this wasn’t one incident.

 

[G'Wobblez]

In fact I have listened to hours of their conversations with full context. I urge you to do the same. Depp doesn’t come off any better, quite the opposite. It’s only the twitter/TikTok sphere where they take sentences out of context, usually to give the impression that she’s the abusive one. This thread is based on such an out-of-context clip.

I’m a bit staggered by the irony of you telling me that I’m not paying attention to context to be frank. That’s all you’ve been doing this whole thread.

Staggered?
Ok , so I’m wrong and confused.
But please show me the transcripts of one incident at a time.

 

[G'Wobblez]

It was the cell phone incident when IO called 911.

Just to get you going.

 

[tetrasect]

He’s completely acknowledging the truthfulness of what she’s accusing him of but trying to play down the seriousness of the headbutt.
The evidence all points in one way. The only thing about this particular instance that doesn’t corroborate Heard’s account is the fact that the police didn’t see clear bruises on her face. But the UK judge was also quite critical of their account since they never even took notes.

BWAHAHAHAHA

 

[tetrasect]

Amber Heard loses effort to set aside defamation verdict and get a new Johnny Depp trial

The Virginia judge who presided over the Depp vs. Heard defamation trial made quick work of Amber Heard's effort to get a new trial. She was denied.

www.usatoday.com

Love the fact that the judge didn't even entertain any of the BS Amber and her lawyers wrote and instead just says:

Defendant Amber Laura Heard's Post-Trial Motions I through VI are DENIED for the reasons stated on the record.

Only thing she does address is the fake juror theory, which she shot down rather nicely:

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Depp-Heard-Post-Trial-Motions-judge.pdf

 

[Lucas Buck]

Here is something that Heard's groupies somehow find hard to wrap their heads around.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1547341886402199554

 

[G'Wobblez]

Love the fact that the judge didn't even entertain any of the BS Amber and her lawyers wrote and instead just says:



Only thing she does address is the fake juror theory, which she shot down rather nicely:

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Depp-Heard-Post-Trial-Motions-judge.pdf

But But
Even if the court believes that the juror was vetted correctly and can show proof, If AH believes the Juror was not vetted correctly the court’s believe and proof doesn’t change the fact that AH still believes the juror was not vetted correctly and that should be grounds for a mistrial….


The fact that they knew this and didn’t object and kept it in their pocket seems like they knew they were going to have to appeal this. Makes you think they knew they were going to loose…
Strange I thought she would win.

 

[Splinter]

In fact I have listened to hours of their conversations with full context. I urge you to do the same. Depp doesn’t come off any better, quite the opposite. It’s only the twitter/TikTok sphere where they take sentences out of context, usually to give the impression that she’s the abusive one. This thread is based on such an out-of-context clip.

I’m a bit staggered by the irony of you telling me that I’m not paying attention to context to be frank. That’s all you’ve been doing this whole thread.

Then why do you quote out of context and drop vital words when relaying your vast knowledge here?

 

[konfab]

Love the fact that the judge didn't even entertain any of the BS Amber and her lawyers wrote and instead just says:



Only thing she does address is the fake juror theory, which she shot down rather nicely:

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Depp-Heard-Post-Trial-Motions-judge.pdf

Very transphobic of the court to assume that only mothers can breast feed.



Amber Heard's legal team should have raised this as a concern as it excludes all her fans who are men who are breastfeeding their children.

 

[TelkomUseless]

Here is something that Heard's groupies somehow find hard to wrap their heads around.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1547341886402199554

Holy moly these people are nuts. NBC is just coining from the court case... any angle to make some $$$

 

[G'Wobblez]

I keep thinking:
How do the AH fans think the jury was appointed. Their side had just as big of an influence as the JD team.
And how do they think the trial ( with all this evidence) didn’t sway at least one, just one juror. Just one would have resulted in a hung jury.
7 rando’s
Not one could be swayed to just even be sure. Not straight out convinced was even necessary.
Just create reasonable doubt.

Strange.

And they didn’t even know about the things going on like the Eve Fartlow poopshow.

 

[konfab]

I keep thinking:
How do the AH fans think the jury was appointed. Their side had just as big of an influence as the JD team.
And how do they think the trial ( with all this evidence) didn’t sway at least one, just one juror. Just one would have resulted in a hung jury.
7 rando’s
Not one could be swayed to just even be sure. Not straight out convinced was even necessary.
Just create reasonable doubt.

Strange.

And they didn’t even know about the things going on like the Eve Fartlow poopshow.

The legal strategy of throwing $hit against the wall and hoping some of it sticks doesn't work when your client is a pathological liar.

As soon Depp stepped into the private plane, he began berating her about Franco, she said. She got up and walked away, but Depp followed her. At one point, he slapped her, Heard testified. Later, she said, he kicked her, and not one person on board intervened on her behalf.

"I felt this boot in my back," she said. "I fell to the floor. And no one said anything. No one did anything. You could have heard a pin drop. I just remember feeling so embarrassed."

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-testimony-court-boston-plane/

Funny how her team couldn't get a single person on that plane to testify to the truthfulness of the event. One or two people from that plane saying that they saw Depp hurt Heard and it would have been absolutely over Depp.