Poll: This Johnny Depp Stuff

Who wins?

  • Total voters
    361
  • Poll closed .
I agree with Eva there, it will be, this will finally be over and he can move on with his life with his name restored as the whole world now knows far more about than any other celebrity, people will relate to him far easier than before. It was clear from his therapist that he knows he has drink/drug issues and has been actively seeking help. I suspect his time with AH made things worse in that no matter how much he tried she messed it up, she had control while he was under the influence.
 
MatsyLR said:
It makes me wonder how delusional anyone must be to believe Amber.
Johnny isn't perfect, but there is 0 proof he ever laid a finger on her.
Click to expand...
Listening to the audio clips Johnny definitely isn't a Saint, he's at minimum verbally abusive but you are right in that there's no concrete evidence he was physically abusive, I think we can all agree though that their relationship was completely toxic
 
Is it toxic if his actions were retalatory in nature. If AH was giving him verbal/physical abuse is it not fair for him to use harsh language back?

The only incidence of him hitting her by accident, he told the jury. Outside of that one incident, not a single person could say he ever hit anyone.

If your curious it was when AH was hitting him, he went to restrain her in a bear hug sort of thing and bumped heads, which is entirely possible and believable unlike everything AH said happened.
 
I think it's comical to be debating it still really. We know a number of facts already as outsiders watching the trial live, all the evidence, all the outside leaks and details coming out, actually we have more info to go off than the people inside the courtroom assuming that everyone there abides by the law and does not talk to anyone or watch/read news/internet about the case...

Known facts:

1: Amber's story has changed multiple times
2: She has caught herself out multiple times, as well as being caught out a number of times during the cross.
3: She says all evidence was given to her lawyers, yet none of said evidence that supposedly proves Depp did anything wrong was submitted to the court. She threw her lawyers under the bus.
4: She has not once admitted to any wrongdoing, it has always been someone else, like at least 3 police officers lied or were wrong, her lawyers were wrong, witnesses were wrong etc etc. It's always someone else wrong when the known information shows otherwise.
5: She submitted a pair of Photoshopped photo claiming they were from two different times. They are the exact same photo.
6: No photo evidence submitted has any metadata to at least hint at some confirmation of time/date of events captured
7: None of the audio recordings capture any physical violence, it's all stupid arguing and shouting at each other.
8: Her constant body language displaying the typical "I am above you, you are not worth my time" when answering questions from Depp's team or when talking about others.
9: Where the hell is the old phone on the wall that she clams Depp broke in a fit of violent rage?
10: Other Photos submitted as evidence that are clearly doctored.
11: Lying about financial commitments, changing what actual words mean (pledge vs donate??).

And above all else, everything she claims is exactly that, a claim, with no actual evidence so far shown indicating that Depp was physically abusive to her.

In an ordinary world this sort of thing should have been laughed out of court as an open and shut case really.


And now, this:

 
Last edited:

Soo Waldman's statements will be considered as Depp's statements if the reporting is correct. Lawtubers are surprised the decision has been made this early, so not sure on the validity. But if it's true this means Heard's countersuit won't be thrown out and JD would have to prove that Waldman's statements were true if he wants to avoid handing her a countersuit win. That's my understanding anyway. I think the fact that WB said they held back from casting her in Aquaman 2 because of 'creative issues' and the fact that she didn't get on with Mamoa doesnt do her in favours in that regards.
 
mrk said:
9: Where the hell is the old phone on the wall that she clams Depp broke in a fit of violent rage?
Click to expand...
dunno if you caught it but Camille's dryness gave me a genuine LOL about that. they were looking at the pics Turd, or one of her cohorts, had taken of the bar - which showed basically SFA - and Camille asked where the phone was. Turd says "just behind where you'd be standing to take that photo," and Camille's "hmm, that's convenient." :-D

re the "pledge" nonsense, another vid showed the pledge agreement for the ACLU, and Turd hasn't even bothered signing it. obviously had no intention whatsoever to hand that money over.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mrk
wolfie138 said:
re the "pledge" nonsense, another vid showed the pledge agreement for the ACLU, and Turd hasn't even bothered signing it. obviously had no intention whatsoever to hand that money over.
Click to expand...

Indeed, thats why she spazzed out when the initial payment went from Depps accountant to the charity directly. She wanted short term positive publicity and had zero intention of paying anything to the charities anytime soon (why else would she object to the money going straight to the charity direct Instead of it going to her account first??) she has had the full amount around a year but claims it's the lawsuit that preventing her paying it to the charities, despite the lawsuit only appearing around a year after she got the final payment.

To believe anything this dumb bitch says you would probably need to be off your **** on an overdose of the strongest drug imaginable or severely brain damaged to the point you have a drool collecting bucket strapped to your chin.
 
These trials are usually stacked against the man, for obvious reasons I guess because it usually is the man.

But in this case the evedence is brutally clear against her.

That doesn't stop a jury getty in wrong though, they did in the UK

Good luck JD
 
bris said:
These trials are usually stacked against the man, for obvious reasons I guess because it usually is the man.

But in this case the evedence is brutally clear against her.

That doesn't stop a jury getty in wrong though, they did in the UK

Good luck JD
Click to expand...

The UK trial didnt have a jury iirc.
 
I love Bens face. Not just that poster, but, sitting in his chair in court and his expression is so good. I don't know what expression it is, it's just, I dunno, thinking he can't wait to do the closing arguments type of look because he knows theres, bugger all on Johnny,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom