Johnny Depp

[cubanitafresca]

Aug 2, 2022 10:03:57 GMT -4 Ginger said:

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.

He's just a better actor than Heard and it showed on the stand.

[Ginger]

Johnny had easy questions to answer on cross examination:

1. Did you drink to excess and pass out? Yes.
2. Did you do a bunch of different drugs? Yes.
3. Did you send these misogynistic texts to your friends? Yes.
4. Did you refer to yourself as dealing with "the monster" in these texts? Yes.
5. Did you smash the kitchen cabinets? Yes.
6. Did you call Amber "fatass" on this recording? Yes.

Never hit my wife though.

Amber had much harder questions to answer, like:
-Why her face was photographed looking perfect 24 hours after she claimed that Johnny punched her in the face with fists covered in chunky rings so many times that she lost count, breaking her nose

-Why she was photographed on multiple occasions appearing makeup-free and still showing absolutely no signs of injury despite describing attacks so severe they should have put her in the hospital

-Why she was on tape admitting to initiating physical fights, prolonging fights, hitting (but not punching!) Johnny.

-Why she claimed that she lived in fear of Johnny and spent all of her time strategizing how to appease his temper and avoid fights, yet is on tape verbally abusing him for extended periods of time, refusing to end arguments, and not sounding afraid of him in the slightest.

-Why she claimed she wanted nothing more than to get Johnny sober, and whenever she was witnessed or recorded physically attacking him (scratching at him, clawing at him, restraining him from getting away from her), it was only because she was desperate to keep him from going to use drugs. And yet, she got drunk and did drugs in front of and with him on a near-daily basis, and even scheduled "do drugs together" as an activity on their wedding weekend agenda.

-Why she claimed that Johnny destroyed the interior of their vacation cabin, even though the manager of the place testified that it was fine. Or why witnesses saw Amber attack Johnny on that occasion, but not the other way around.

-Why she lied about donating her divorce settlement; how it's possible she could have "no idea" how TMZ got ahold of an unflattering video of Johnny smashing cabinets that she took on her phone; how it's possible she had "no idea" how People Magazine got photos of her face that she took on her phone (distorted photos, at that); how it's possible she had "no idea" TMZ would be at the courthouse to photograph her filing for a restraining order even though they testified that they were told exactly where to wait to get a picture of the bruise on the right side of her face.

Etc, etc, etc. It's not even possible to list all of the inconsistencies that Amber had to come up with answers for.

[scarlett210]

I don't believe for a second he didn't hit his wife. But like most narcissists he probably believes his own lies. The crux of the case was "is Johnny Depp a man who hit his wife" and the answer to that question is most definitely: Yes.

[matti]

Aug 3, 2022 9:59:15 GMT -4 Ginger said:

Johnny had easy questions to answer on cross examination:

1. Did you drink to excess and pass out? Yes.
2. Did you do a bunch of different drugs? Yes.
3. Did you send these misogynistic texts to your friends? Yes.
4. Did you refer to yourself as dealing with "the monster" in these texts? Yes.
5. Did you smash the kitchen cabinets? Yes.
6. Did you call Amber "fatass" on this recording? Yes.

Never hit my wife though.

Amber had much harder questions to answer, like:
-Why her face was photographed looking perfect 24 hours after she claimed that Johnny punched her in the face with fists covered in chunky rings so many times that she lost count, breaking her nose

-Why she was photographed on multiple occasions appearing makeup-free and still showing absolutely no signs of injury despite describing attacks so severe they should have put her in the hospital

-Why she was on tape admitting to initiating physical fights, prolonging fights, hitting (but not punching!) Johnny.

-Why she claimed that she lived in fear of Johnny and spent all of her time strategizing how to appease his temper and avoid fights, yet is on tape verbally abusing him for extended periods of time, refusing to end arguments, and not sounding afraid of him in the slightest.

-Why she claimed she wanted nothing more than to get Johnny sober, and whenever she was witnessed or recorded physically attacking him (scratching at him, clawing at him, restraining him from getting away from her), it was only because she was desperate to keep him from going to use drugs. And yet, she got drunk and did drugs in front of and with him on a near-daily basis, and even scheduled "do drugs together" as an activity on their wedding weekend agenda.

-Why she claimed that Johnny destroyed the interior of their vacation cabin, even though the manager of the place testified that it was fine. Or why witnesses saw Amber attack Johnny on that occasion, but not the other way around.

-Why she lied about donating her divorce settlement; how it's possible she could have "no idea" how TMZ got ahold of an unflattering video of Johnny smashing cabinets that she took on her phone; how it's possible she had "no idea" how People Magazine got photos of her face that she took on her phone (distorted photos, at that); how it's possible she had "no idea" TMZ would be at the courthouse to photograph her filing for a restraining order even though they testified that they were told exactly where to wait to get a picture of the bruise on the right side of her face.

Etc, etc, etc. It's not even possible to list all of the inconsistencies that Amber had to come up with answers for.

Well ... Depp had all of his witnesses/ staff lie for him ( hearsay that is untrue is still a lie) and that batshit therapist who saw Amber for 1 hour in totality and was dining with Depp and his team even though she was supposed to be impartial. Let's not pretend that Depp didn't manipulate things to his advantage as much as he could.

He didn't have to do his own dirty work I suppose.

I am not sure how blocking an ex gf/ ex friend/ex employee's testimony ( which would have been hearsay at best and most certainly would have been slanted in Johnny's favor as she started texting and hanging out with him shortly after he and AH broke up) is more telling than Johnny doctoring photos and testimony. The legal motion said "doesn't anticipate" - that is very telling. It is not an " I will not now or ever use nude photos in this trial".

Gotta love a little slut shaming from a misogynistic and delusional celeb. If she feared he would do that, is it because he threatened her with the same during their marriage & divorce. Textbook behavior for an abuser.

And I am on twitter, insta, fb and my kids are on TT: the vitriol spewed at Amber was and still is disgusting. It came from everywhere. You couldn't escape it. People were using her in their advertising ( albeit grassroots) and you had a cheap brand of makeup jumping into the fray under the guise of " setting the record straight". The stuff that was said was downright chilling and as a woman who was physically abused by her spouse it was incredibly triggering. I can guarantee many other women feel/felt the same.

There is NO way social media didn't play a part in this. Even the most sequestered jury still manages to get info from the outside.

[Ginger]

May 21, 2021 13:40:58 GMT -4 matti said:

and that batshit therapist who saw Amber for 1 hour in totality and was dining with Depp and his team even though she was supposed to be impartial.

Dr Dawn Hughes, who seemed competent and in no way "batshit" to me, sat with Amber for six sessions totaling 29 hours, not one hour.

The main way Amber's lawyers tried to discredit her testimony was by accusing her of "partying with Johnny Depp". She testified that she had dinner with Johnny and his legal team one time, and it was a business dinner, the purpose of which was to interview her for the job of expert witness. The dinner was held in Johnny's home as he is famous and it is not a meeting he wanted to be held in a public place.

The most convincing part of her testimony was not on her personal observation of Amber, but her analysis of Amber's PTSD test results. She believed Amber was faking PTSD, not because Amber reported extreme symptoms, but because she reported moderate symptoms in every category. Amber said she had all the symptoms, and nobody has all the symptoms. The test also includes some symptom questions that are fake and meant to throw off people trying to manipulate the test; Amber, of course, said she had those symptoms too.

Nonetheless, for every expert witness Johnny had, Amber had her corresponding expert witness. So the jury also heard Amber's expert psychologist back up everything she was claiming.

The juror who was interviewed by Good Morning America said that the jury put almost no stock in testimony from expert witnesses, paid employees or family members. They mainly cared about what Johnny and Amber had to say, and it was the many, many inconsistencies in Amber's testimony that caused them not to believe her.

May 21, 2021 13:40:58 GMT -4 matti said:

There is NO way social media didn't play a part in this. Even the most sequestered jury still manages to get info from the outside.

Hypothetically, if the jury saw one of the things you saw on social media - why wouldn't they be as disgusted as you were? Why would an Amber meme magically change their minds against Amber, but not yours?

When juries do outside research, which is what they were instructed against, it usually comes to light. Because whichever jury member think they found something out, they bring it to deliberations and the others report it to the judge. In this case, the juror who was interviewed said half of jury was not on social media at all, and the other half did not bring anything from social media to the jury room.

People would rather blame the magical mind control powers of social media than admit Amber's case had major weaknesses.

[peace47]

Aug 5, 2022 10:08:46 GMT -4 Ginger said:

May 21, 2021 13:40:58 GMT -4 matti said:

and that batshit therapist who saw Amber for 1 hour in totality and was dining with Depp and his team even though she was supposed to be impartial.

Dr Dawn Hughes, who seemed competent and in no way "batshit" to me, sat with Amber for six sessions totaling 29 hours, not one hour.

I did not follow the trial because the morass of misogyny was too depressing for me to face on a daily basis. But I looked this up, and Dawn Hughes was Amber’s expert psychologist, not Johnny’s. (She was relentlessly review-bombed online for daring to go against the great and powerful Johnny.) Shannon Curry was Johnny’s expert witness, and she testified that she interviewed Amber for a total of 12 hours in 6 sessions, according to two contemporaneous news articles I just read.

On cross-examination, Amber’s lawyer questioned why this “interview” for expert witness testimony lasted 3-4 hours, and included the serving of alcoholic drinks at Johnny’s house. That does strike me as odd because I would think that expert witnesses would be interviewed at the law offices of Johnny’s attorneys and would not involve alcohol, or if it were a working dinner interview, that it wouldn’t last 4 hours.

[Ginger]

Mar 17, 2020 16:49:51 GMT -4 peace47 said:

On cross-examination, Amber’s lawyer questioned why this “interview” for expert witness testimony lasted 3-4 hours, and included the serving of alcoholic drinks at Johnny’s house. That does strike me as odd because I would think that expert witnesses would be interviewed at the law offices of Johnny’s attorneys and would not involve alcohol, or if it were a working dinner interview, that it wouldn’t last 4 hours.

Sorry, I got the name wrong. Shannon Curry, you are correct. She said she was interviewed by Johnny and his legal team, and when the interview ran over a few hours, she said she was hungry and asked for something to eat and they ordered takeout. She said thinks she may have had a cocktail at some point. I thought it was particularly weak when Amber's lawyer tried to make this sound like something outrageously debauched and unprofessional because it didn't sound that way to me but the testimony is here if anybody wishes to see for themselves.

Amber's lawyers harping on her for having a cocktail with dinner, or for how much she was paid (all the expert witnesses were paid) left the impression that they couldn't refute the substance of her testimony and therefore had to resort to other tactics.

IMO, very little of the expert testimony at the trial was useful or conclusive, including the psychologists or the metadata experts. Johnny and Amber each hired people to say what they wanted them to say and they complied. I think the jury was wise to set that testimony aside.

[Nysha]

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

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.

This doesn't make him a wife beater. Just as having erectile dysfunction doesn't make a man sexually assault his wife. Nor does punching and slamming the doors on kitchen cabinets.
This case came down to who was the most believable by the jury and they believed Johnny. I watched a lot of Amber and Johnny's testimony (not live & at 1.5x when Depp testified because he was speaking soooo sloooow) and came to the same conclusion.
The court documents that the YouTube Law Nerds crowdsourced to pay for don't change anything. It says more about their lawyers than it does Johnny and Amber. And Johnny definitely had better lawyers.

[cubanitafresca]

Aug 15, 2022 14:52:00 GMT -4 Nysha said:

This doesn't make him a wife beater. Just as having erectile dysfunction doesn't make a man sexually assault his wife. Nor does punching and slamming the doors on kitchen cabinets.
This case came down to who was the most believable by the jury and they believed Johnny. I watched a lot of Amber and Johnny's testimony (not live & at 1.5x when Depp testified because he was speaking soooo sloooow) and came to the same conclusion.
The court documents that the YouTube Law Nerds crowdsourced to pay for don't change anything. It says more about their lawyers than it does Johnny and Amber. And Johnny definitely had better lawyers.

Depp doesn't just punch and slam doors. He just settled a lawsuit for punching a crew member multiple times because he didn't like what the guy said to him.

[Ginger]

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

Depp doesn't just punch and slam doors. He just settled a lawsuit for punching a crew member multiple times because he didn't like what the guy said to him.

I know a lot of adult men who, at some point in their lives, have gotten into a physical fight with another man, but would never hit a woman.

Someone exhibiting red flags is not the same as proving that they actually did something.

If it were, Amber would be convictable for having many of the same red flags as Johnny, such as chronic substance abuse, physically beating up her sister, and having a domestic violence charge on her record for an incident witnessed by a police officer.