Johnny Depp

[Numero Veinticinco]

.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Anyway, I don’t see how he can win this. Given the state law is that they just need to find one single instance of verbal abuse, and her lying about sexual assault and all the other bollocks, isn’t significant. You’ll get some loud mouth saying how it proves he raped her with a bottle or whatever. He knew this going in, so it has all been about getting the actual story out as he sees it. 

[redheart]

Actually the claim is not just that he abused her but that he encouraged the destruction of her career.

 

So she has to show more than one incident of verbal abuse.

 

Depp not only that the statements harmed him but that they were malicious also. This is the tough bit. The jury will only find this if they have taken against Heard and believe she lied, and set him up.

 

Her claim for £100m has absolutely no chance.

[Numero Veinticinco]

40 minutes ago, redheart said:

Actually the claim is not just that he abused her but that he encouraged the destruction of her career.

 

So she has to show more than one incident of verbal abuse.

 

Depp not only that the statements harmed him but that they were malicious also. This is the tough bit. The jury will only find this if they have taken against Heard and believe she lied, and set him up.

 

Her claim for £100m has absolutely no chance.

Need to take that up with her lawyers then mate, because that’s what they keep saying. I even think the judge said it. I think you are maybe mixing two things up as there’s a suit and a counter suit. To stop him winning they need to just prove one aspect of abuse. 

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Anyway, I don’t see how he can win this.

 

Given he couldn't win it in the UK, where defamation is easier to prove, that's surely a foregone conclusion. 

 

It's not about winning the case though, just about destroying her career. Some may see that as further abuse.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Strontium said:

 

Given he couldn't win it in the UK, where defamation is easier to prove, that's surely a foregone conclusion. 

 

It's not about winning the case though, just about destroying her career. Some may see that as further abuse.

Out of interest, what do you think about her violent abuse against him, that she admitted, and her own expert witness admitted. 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

It must be wearying being right about everything Strontz.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

20 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Given he couldn't win it in the UK, where defamation is easier to prove, that's surely a foregone conclusion. 

 

It's not about winning the case though, just about destroying her career. Some may see that as further abuse.

But it’s ok for her to destroy his career? 

[Strontium]

20 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Out of interest, what do you think about her violent abuse against him, that she admitted, and her own expert witness admitted. 

 

She's admitted to hitting him in self-defence, hasn't she? Not that it would be relevant to the case. Her hitting him would not erase any abuse she got from him.

 

1 minute ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

But it’s ok for her to destroy his career? 

 

If his career is destroyed as a result of him abusing her (doubtful, considering the people Hollywood continues to employ), then that wouldn't be her fault.

[Strontium]

14 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

It must be wearying being right about everything Strontz.

 

I promised myself I wouldn't weigh in on this one. I need to listen to that guy more.

[Bjornebye]

It's like narcissists live on a different planet where the lies exist as reality. The s*n newspaper won a flimsy case. This case is pretty much showing that up to be absolute bollocks. Depp clearly isn't blameless but fuck me... it's clear as day that she's a liar, a manipulator, an abuser and a narcissist. 

 

 

[J-V]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

It's like narcissists live on a different planet where the lies exist as reality. The s*n newspaper won a flimsy case. This case is pretty much showing that up to be absolute bollocks. Depp clearly isn't blameless but fuck me... it's clear as day that she's a liar, a manipulator, an abuser and a narcissist. 

 

 

They only won the case as the lying cunt was the star witness of all things.

[Numero Veinticinco]

15 minutes ago, Strontium said:

Not that it would be relevant to the case. Her hitting him would not erase any abuse she got from him.

Her own recordings say it, many times; which makes her look like a liar when she sits and denies it. Her expert witness said that he had physical acts of violence perpetrated upon him as well as psychological aggressive acts perpetrated upon him. How relevant that is (and you're obviously right to question that) will rest upon whether or not the jury see him as the abused party and if they think any of the abuse claimed by Heard is actually real. I'd suggest if you believe Heard is the abuser and a bit of a psycho liar, you might well be more inclined to believe she staged shit. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

It's like narcissists live on a different planet where the lies exist as reality.

Well, that's the thing with personality disorders and compulsive liars. I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist (I can barely look after my own feet, let alone anybody else... budumtish) but I believe they do believe their own shit to be true sometimes. Dr Curry absolutely destroyed their 'expert' who clearly didn't do the relevant tests just so she could make it look like she was worse than she was. Then there was that absolute loon with cotton mouth. Fucking hell, mental.

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, that's the thing with personality disorders and compulsive liars. I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist (I can barely look after my own feet, let alone anybody else... budumtish) but I believe they do believe their own shit to be true sometimes. Dr Curry absolutely destroyed their 'expert' who clearly didn't do the relevant tests just so she could make it look like she was worse than she was. Then there was that absolute loon with cotton mouth. Fucking hell, mental.

Yep. That's why playing a victim is so natural to them... 

 

Despite being so fucking transparent to everyone. See the way she took them steps back from the stand when Depp had stood up? Worst acting ever. Embarrassing, laughable. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

10 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Yep. That's why playing a victim is so natural to them... 

 

Despite being so fucking transparent to everyone. See the way she took them steps back from the stand when Depp had stood up? Worst acting ever. Embarrassing, laughable. 

That first time she was testifying, the fake crying, the 'my dog stepped on a bee' thing where she basically forgot to stop pretending she was recalling abuse, and then totally just switches off and is fine. No tears... just 'end scene'. And the way her story changes time and again. It's so fucking bizarre. Apparently, and this is just 'heard it on the grapevine, pinch of salt' stuff, but rumours from the people in the gallery are that her and her counsel are always arguing and Elaine turned around and said 'well represent yourself then', and then the other thing was that three of the jurors just rolled their eyes at her, turned their chair to Camille Vasquez and wouldn't look at Amber. That said, most of the people there are supporting Johnny Depp. So who knows. 

[cloggypop]

Mad that people are so invested in this before the match tomorrow. I'm on ciggy break watching Guitar Wolf and The Monsters in Haarlem myself. 

 

Each to their own I guess. 

[Captain Howdy]

2 hours ago, cloggypop said:

Mad that people are so invested in this before the match tomorrow. I'm on ciggy break watching Guitar Wolf and The Monsters in Haarlem myself. 

 

Each to their own I guess. 

Guitar Wolf are shite

[Skidfingers McGonical]

9 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

She's admitted to hitting him in self-defence, hasn't she? Not that it would be relevant to the case. Her hitting him would not erase any abuse she got from him.

 

 

If his career is destroyed as a result of him abusing her (doubtful, considering the people Hollywood continues to employ), then that wouldn't be her fault.

Well, he has binned off a film franchise that he was the lead in because of her accusations. It has been destroyed.
 

 

 

[redheart]

18 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

Given he couldn't win it in the UK, where defamation is easier to prove, that's surely a foregone conclusion. 

 

It's not about winning the case though, just about destroying her career. Some may see that as further abuse.

 

Defamation is easier to win here than the USA but difference was that the defamation cause here was decided by a judge and not a jury.

 

That can make a massive difference

[sir roger]

On 28/05/2022 at 14:21, redheart said:

 

Defamation is easier to win here than the USA but difference was that the defamation cause here was decided by a judge and not a jury.

 

That can make a massive difference

And the judge involved appearing to be besotted by Heard.

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61631185

[Anubis]

1 hour ago, VERBAL DIARRHEA said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61631185

Parties don’t have to attend court for the verdict and it’s widely speculated he may not attend.

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

29 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Parties don’t have to attend court for the verdict and it’s widely speculated he may not attend.

I know mate, he really doesn’t give a shit.

[Bjornebye]

Looks like Macca doesn't believe the s*n newspaper either.