Johnny Depp

[mrspickles]

Jun 5, 2022 16:16:35 GMT -4 Nysha said:

I follow gossip more here than anywhere else, but I do subscribe to the Washington Post and when I read the op-ed I assumed it to be about Johnny Depp. Going into the trial I thought this would be a slam-dunk win for Amber Heard, but the more I watched, the more I came to believe that just about everything that came out of her mouth was a well-rehearsed lie.
At about week 4 I started watching The Behavior Panel and they were very certain that Amber lied or exaggerated the abuse claims. Earlier, I watched a video on another lawyer channel, but the comment section was so revolting toward Amber that I quickly noped out and didn't read any more comments about the trial. I also didn't read or watch any other social media about the trial during the trial.

I love the Behavior Panel!

[Ginger]

Amber Heard's lawyer is making the media rounds saying that the jury MUST have been breaking the rules and soaking up anti-Amber social media every night in order to have ruled against her. I hate it when people would rather undermine the credibility of our justice system instead of accepting their own shortcomings. It's no better than Trump saying the election must have been rigged because he lost. And it's especially rich coming from a lawyer who pretty much everyone agrees was not only substantially less skilled than Johnny's lawyers, but had a fatally flawed strategy that involved Amber holding on tenaciously to a multitude of disproven lies which sank her on the larger issues.

I haven't been on twitter in ages, have NEVER been on TikTok (where the bulk of the anti-Amber social media seems to originate), so I don't buy that social media influence was inescapable by the jury. Also, I know that after watching even a portion of the testimony on any given day, I was unable afterward to read anything about it because it was all too much. I can't imagine that the jury went home every night after spending 9 hours in the courtroom and wanted to see, hear or read ANYTHING else about Amber and Johnny.

Jul 7, 2007 2:19:58 GMT -4 Nysha said:

but the more I watched, the more I came to believe that just about everything that came out of her mouth was a well-rehearsed lie.

I thought Amber was a good witness on her own behalf, but she's undergone so much coaching and practice since her original deposition in 2016. In that deposition, where there was no jury and it was just about the divorce settlement, Amber was incredibly aggressive, snarky, patronizing and rude (as was her divorce lawyer). She rolled her eyes and responded to every question with outright disdain and hostility, and then sometimes would pop a piece of candy in her mouth. At certain points in the current trial, portions of her testimony from 2016 were shown to illustrate various things, and I'm sure the jury noticed the really vast difference in her demeanor.

[Nysha]

I haven't seen her 2016 deposition. My impression was from the way she had one emotion when talking to the jury and a completely different one seconds later when addressing the lawyers, plus all that ugly crying and sniffling without one single tear.

[Ginger]

Jul 7, 2007 2:19:58 GMT -4 Nysha said:

My impression was from the way she had one emotion when talking to the jury and a completely different one seconds later when addressing the lawyers, plus all that ugly crying and sniffling without one single tear.

Apparently the jurors saw the same thing. One of them did an interview with ABC/GMA.

Various quotes from the GMA interview as summarized from different publications:

“It didn’t come across as believable,” ... “It seemed like she was able to flip the switch on her emotions. She would answer one question and she would be crying and two seconds later she would turn ice cold."..."Some of us used the expression 'crocodile tears'".

“They had their husband-wife arguments. They were both yelling at each other,” ... "I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong. That’s what you do when you get into an argument, I guess." ... “What I think is truthful was that they were both abusive to each other. But to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying.”

"She goes on a talk show in the U.K. The video shows her sitting there telling the host that she gave all that money away, and the terms she used in that video clip were, 'I gave it away,' 'I donated it,' 'It's gone,' but the fact is she didn't give much of it away at all," the juror said, summing up the situation as "a fiasco" for Heard.

“Social media did not impact us. We followed the evidence. We didn’t take into account anything outside [the courtroom]. We only looked at the evidence…They were very serious accusations and a lot of money involved. So we weren’t taking it lightly.”... "Myself and at least two other jurors don't use Twitter or Facebook. Others who had it made a point not to talk about it."

The juror also mentioned two things that stuck out to me. One: Amber gave Johnny as a birthday gift a BIG ASS scary knife, engraved with the words "Hasta la muerte, XX, Slim." It's odd to give a weapon to someone who you claim already had you in fear of your life at that point. Also, Amber made a big deal about how Johnny kept saying to her that he didn't want a prenup because "the only way out of their marriage was going to be death" which sounded really sinister and scary until you see that she used same expression to him as well, and it was probably more like an inside thing between them.

Second: Amber was accused of doctoring a photo of her face to enhance the color saturation to make it look like there was a severe bruise on her face, which was not really visible on the original photo. Amber insisted over and over again that the clearly identical photos were two different photos taken on two different days. She even testified as to the two different dates. The data expert proved from the metadata that both photos originated from her phone a few minutes apart on the same day.

The media is now churning out their Op-Eds fixated on what the juror said about "believability" and disregarding all of the evidence-based things he talked about.

[Ladybug]

The jury instructions the judge went over in court clearly said that the jurors could evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. “You may determine which witnesses are more believable and weigh that testimony accordingly.” Sounds like that’s what they did.

ETA - I am a bit skeptical that the person who was interviewed by GMA was actually on the jury.

[Nysha]

Mar 13, 2005 12:45:42 GMT -4 Ginger said:

Also, Amber made a big deal about how Johnny kept saying to her that he didn't want a prenup because "the only way out of their marriage was going to be death" which sounded really sinister and scary until you see that she used the same expression to him as well, and it was probably more like an inside thing between them.

My husband had been divorced previous to me and used to tell me he'd rather use his backhoe to bury my dead body in the ravine than have another divorce. The 6th & last time we moved I told him the only way he was leaving our new home was to go to his new one in the county cemetery. These were jokes. We both had a somewhat sarcastic sense of humor that was in no way connected to violence, abuse, or drugs.
BTW, I won. (OK, not funny, per se.)

[cubanitafresca]

This warms my cold cold heart. Finally, there's proof of what a totally manipulative abusive scumbag Johnny Depp is.

"Johnny Depp fans paid to unseal court records and it backfired badly"

One in particular shows Heard's team opposing evidence Depp's team submitted - such as the nude photos of Heard and details of her job as an exotic dancer. Some said the attempt to introduce nudes to the trial's evidence was a form of revenge porn.

Johnny Depp suffers from erectile dysfunction.

(to be fair, this is a medical condition and not abuse. But I'm sure he didn't want this information out in the world. And I think it's funny that it was his own cult that did it.

Although Depp was awarded $10.3 million in damages for defamation made by Heard in a 2018 op-ed, many people online felt the unseen evidence painted Depp more negatively than Heard.

This Twitter thread has a great breakdown of court documents

Johnny Depp actually submitted manipulated photographs of his “injuries” with altered metadata

Johnny Depp intentionally manipulated audio tapes of arguments between him and Amber, and refused to provide any recordings that weren’t edited or altered. The metadata also confirms they were manipulated.

Johnny Depp blocked testimony from his own expert witness that concluded Amber Heard’s photos of her injuries were NOT edited and had accurate metadata. Instead he focused on 2 differently colored versions of the same image to imply she faked them.

[Ginger]

Per usual, never trust one side or the other giving their own cherry-picked "breakdown". Or even the media, who have not had time to do more than skim the 1,000 pages of documents.

The documents show both sides accusing each other of altering text messages, photos and recordings. Both sides also had the opportunity to present that argument to the jury when going over the evidence at trial.

One in particular shows Heard's team opposing evidence Depp's team submitted - such as the nude photos of Heard and details of her job as an exotic dancer. Some said the attempt to introduce nudes to the trial's evidence was a form of revenge porn.

This is being widely quoted in the media. Not being quoted is Johnny's reply: "Mr Depp does not currently anticipate introducing evidence of (1) nude pictures of Amber Heard (though it is possible to envision a scenario in which such photographs might become very relevant in the context of this case, for instance to show a lack of visible injuries, as a result of which the Court should not finally resolve this issue in limine; (2) Whitney Henriquez's past romantic relationships prior to 2011; or (3) Ms. Heard's stint as a stripper or rumors that she was an escort early in her career (and it should be noted that Ms. Heard has not cited any exhibits on Mr. Depp's exhibit list that relate to those issues).

So...actually he never did that.

Johnny Depp blocked testimony from his own expert witness that concluded Amber Heard’s photos of her injuries were NOT edited and had accurate metadata. Instead he focused on 2 differently colored versions of the same image to imply she faked them.

I saw Amber on the stand doggedly insist that these two identical photos - exactly the same but for the color - documented two separate attacks 4-5 days apart. She submitted each photo into evidence to support the separate alleged attacks. She testified that one was taken "with a vanity light" and that's why the color was different. These are the "two" photos.

Whether or not a metadata expert said she did or did not run the photo through a filter, at the heart of it, she was lying. Because those were definitely the same photo. And, rather significantly, she refused to admit it when confronted with the identical photos - or even just say "Whoopsie, my bad". Which is why Amber lost the trial.

[cubanitafresca]

Aug 1, 2022 19:29:13 GMT -4 Ginger said:

Per usual, never trust one side or the other giving their own cherry-picked "breakdown". Or even the media, who have not had time to do more than skim the 1,000 pages of documents.

The documents show both sides accusing each other of altering text messages, photos and recordings. Both sides also had the opportunity to present that argument to the jury when going over the evidence at trial.

For months, the narrative has been that Amber falsified/doctored evidence about injuries and arguments that occurred, so she was the villain in the situation, the liar and abuser. But what these documents show is that there was expert testimony that Johnny Depp himself did the same thing. Metadata on evidence Depp produced had multiple dates and he refused to provide the originals of the images or the audio files so they could be verified. He did the same damn thing that Amber had been attacked and vilified for. Does that make Amber innocent? Obviously, not. But there has been clear cut bias in Depp's favor. He was/is, at best, equally devious and manipulative

One in particular shows Heard's team opposing evidence Depp's team submitted - such as the nude photos of Heard and details of her job as an exotic dancer. Some said the attempt to introduce nudes to the trial's evidence was a form of revenge porn.

This is being widely quoted in the media. Not being quoted is Johnny's reply: "Mr Depp does not currently anticipate introducing evidence of (1) nude pictures of Amber Heard (though it is possible to envision a scenario in which such photographs might become very relevant in the context of this case, for instance to show a lack of visible injuries, as a result of which the Court should not finally resolve this issue in limine; (2) Whitney Henriquez's past romantic relationships prior to 2011; or (3) Ms. Heard's stint as a stripper or rumors that she was an escort early in her career (and it should be noted that Ms. Heard has not cited any exhibits on Mr. Depp's exhibit list that relate to those issues).

So...actually he never did that. That doesn't rule out that they considered doing it, or that Johnny made her think they were going to - but her motion cut them off at the pass. Her legal time clearly thought it was a possibility

Johnny Depp blocked testimony from his own expert witness that concluded Amber Heard’s photos of her injuries were NOT edited and had accurate metadata. Instead he focused on 2 differently colored versions of the same image to imply she faked them.

I saw Amber on the stand doggedly insist that these two identical photos - exactly the same but for the color - documented two separate attacks 4-5 days apart. She submitted each photo into evidence to support the separate alleged attacks. She testified that one was taken "with a vanity light" and that's why the color was different. These are the "two" photos.

Whether or not a metadata expert said she did or did not run the photo through a filter, at the heart of it, she was lying. Because those were definitely the same photo. And, rather significantly, she refused to admit it when confronted with the identical photos - or even just say "Whoopsie, my bad". Which is why Amber lost the trial.

Again, I've never said that Amber wasn't toxic, that she never lied or didn't manipulate evidence. It's about the narrative that many have pushed forward that Amber was the only toxic villain in that relationship. Many of his fans practically infantilized him, as this poor poor innocent man who would never hurt a fly. But these documents show that Depp is *at best* just as bad as Heard.

Personally, I think when you look at the totality of this case and this man's life - he is so much worse than Heard. He's just as manipulative and as much of a liar. He's got plenty of violence in his history. And when you look at the comments between him and Manson or Bettany - they are vile, misogynistic, and just plain gross. Just like he is.

[Ginger]

Dec 30, 2015 21:40:13 GMT -4 cubanitafresca said:

That doesn't rule out that they considered doing it, or that Johnny made her think they were going to - but her motion cut them off at the pass. Her legal time clearly thought it was a possibility

"Johnny tried to revenge porn Amber" versus "Amber's lawyers accused Johnny of trying to revenge porn Amber based on the idea that he might think about doing so in the future, even though he made no identifiable attempts to do so." Two very different things, in my opinion. The headlines are certainly going with the former.

If you wanted to write a story from a different perspective, how about Amber attempting to humiliate Johnny in open court by revealing that he experienced impotence, despite the judge ruling that it wasn't relevant? Instead, people are laughing at that and cheering Amber for scoring a point off of him.

Recently, Amber's lawyers tried to claim that there was an "imposter juror" who schemed and lied months in advance to get into the jury so he could vote in Johnny's favor. The actual situation is that there was a clerical error made by the court on a summons form, and it had no impact on the case whatsoever. So to take either side's claims of malfeasance at face value is a mistake.

More relevant to me is the part where Amber successfully excluded testimony from a confidant of Whitney Heard's, who Whitney was reporting Amber's abuse of Johnny to throughout 2014-2016, including that Amber cut off Johnny's finger with the bottle, that Amber punched Johnny (rather than the other way around), and that she was afraid that Amber was going to seriously injure or kill him. And I understand why that was excluded - it was hearsay, and that was inadmissable on both sides, but I think it's much more significant than the grandstanding of the two legal teams.

Dec 30, 2015 21:40:13 GMT -4 cubanitafresca said:

He's just as manipulative and as much of a liar. He's got plenty of violence in his history. And when you look at the comments between him and Manson or Bettany - they are vile, misogynistic, and just plain gross. Just like he is.

I agree that he's disgusting and a misogynist, and that his friendships say a lot about him, and the worship of him by his fans is gross.

I don't agree that he's as much of a liar because when it came to the specifics of this case, his testimony on the whole was more consistent, plausible and made sense with the evidence. There were only one time when he seemed to be fibbing was when confronted with some unsavory text messages that were new to him and his reaction was, "I didn't write that, I wouldn't have written something like that."

Amber, on the other hand, I watched brazenly lie on the stand at least a dozen times about important issues, and it was really revelatory how persistent and unashamed she was when doing it. There were times when she was backed into a corner and just pretended she didn't understand the questions so she could keep answering the way she wanted to answer.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). It's the legal principle that a witness who lies about one thing, is not credible to testify about anything else, and it applies 100% to Amber. What I really object to is how skewed the media coverage of this has been in Amber's favor. To go solely by the media coverage of the trial (and now the unsealed documents), one would believe, as the Guardian put it, that it was all just an "orgy of misogyny". When in fact the jury came to a very sensible and solid verdict based on the testimony they heard.