Amber Heard’s riveting testimony took apart the Johnny Depp myth

[–] immersang 24 points

Heard has moved on with her life, but Depp keeps dragging her into courtrooms, forcing contact, attempting to kill her career

Finally someone says it.

He’s somehow still obsessed with her and uses the courts to deal with that obsession, but people claim she is the psychopath.

[–] doloresonthedottedline -3 points

He sued The Sun and Dan Wootton in June 2018. She was called as a witness, but I don’t think she was forced to testify for that one.

He sued Amber Heard in February 2019 over her WaPo op-ed that came out in December 2018. This is still that lawsuit.

She released the op-ed about him 6 months after he sued The Sun / Dan Wootton, and he responded within 2 months. As far as I can tell, he hasn’t done anything else to harass her legally, it’s just been their lawyers doing what they’re hired to do for the lawsuit.

Heard countersued in August 2020. The judge disqualified Depp’s lawyer in October 2020. Heard tried to have it dismissed after the UK verdict. The ACLU was forced to hand over documents in August 2021, and the trial started last month.

From what I understand, everything’s still just really slow and behind schedule because of covid. But he’s only sued her once and if he’s done anything else to try and harass her through the courts, I haven’t seen it mentioned.

[–] Boudicaea 6 points

The case is itself harassment because he can't win. Honestly if there were any justice in the world, it would have been dismissed before now. I really don't know why it wasn't dismissed on summary judgment but it should have been. Not surprised though as many courts simply will not grant dispositive motions, no matter how justified. It's not right (as evidenced by this case), but that's how it is.

[–] doloresonthedottedline -2 points

In an opinion on Tuesday, Fairfax County Chief Judge Penney Azcarate rejects Heard’s motion because of the lack of privity. While Heard may have argued that her interests were aligned with The Sun, the judge says those interests weren’t identical.

“The Sun‘s interests were based on whether the statements the newspaper published were false,” she writes. “[Heard’s] interests relate to whether the statements she published were false.”

In examining whether the U.S. and U.K. have judicial systems to the extent that Depp shouldn’t be able to re-litigate his claim of not being a domestic abuser, the judge later notes that Heard wasn’t a party in the U.K. case and wasn’t subject to the same discovery rules. “In fact, Defendant could not have been a named defendant to the U.K. litigation because her allegedly defamatory statements were made after the U.K. action commenced,” the judge adds.

This is also important because at a hearing last month, Heard’s lawyer argued that if Virginia didn’t accept the U.K. judgment, there would be nothing to stop Depp from bringing new cases anytime any publication repeated word he was a wife beater.

As for Heard’s argument of a chilling effect from not recognizing the U.K. ruling, Azcarate points to how the U.K. has a more favorable climate for defamation plaintiffs. “If anything, upholding English libel judgments in the United States would create the chilling effect and could create a dangerous precedent,” she writes.

source

The article also has a link to the full .. opinion? Idk what to call it, the full thing where the judge explains the decision.

I can agree that it's difficult for her, but that doesn't make it inherently wrong. If he can't win, then he won't, and the jury can make him pay for putting her through this--that's what her countersuit is about.

> In an opinion on Tuesday, Fairfax County Chief Judge Penney Azcarate rejects Heard’s motion because of the lack of privity. While Heard may have argued that her interests were aligned with The Sun, the judge says those interests weren’t identical. >“The Sun‘s interests were based on whether the statements the newspaper published were false,” she writes. “[Heard’s] interests relate to whether the statements she published were false.” >In examining whether the U.S. and U.K. have judicial systems to the extent that Depp shouldn’t be able to re-litigate his claim of not being a domestic abuser, the judge later notes that Heard wasn’t a party in the U.K. case and wasn’t subject to the same discovery rules. “In fact, Defendant could not have been a named defendant to the U.K. litigation because her allegedly defamatory statements were made after the U.K. action commenced,” the judge adds. >This is also important because at a hearing last month, Heard’s lawyer argued that if Virginia didn’t accept the U.K. judgment, there would be nothing to stop Depp from bringing new cases anytime any publication repeated word he was a wife beater. >As for Heard’s argument of a chilling effect from not recognizing the U.K. ruling, Azcarate points to how the U.K. has a more favorable climate for defamation plaintiffs. “If anything, upholding English libel judgments in the United States would create the chilling effect and could create a dangerous precedent,” she writes. [source](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/johnny-depp-allowed-libel-suit-against-amber-heard-despite-u-k-ruling-1234998895/) The article also has a link to the full .. opinion? Idk what to call it, the full thing where the judge explains the decision. I can agree that it's difficult for her, but that doesn't make it inherently wrong. If he can't win, then he won't, and the jury can make him pay for putting her through this--that's what her countersuit is about.

Load more (1 comment)

[–] Korok 26 points

I believe Amber, and here’s a great article on challenging the idea of when “both parties are abusive”.

[–] hellamomzilla 27 points

Edited

A male entertainment critic wrote the following piece (behind a paywall, so I'm pasting it) as this trial started. He predicted what was bound to happen fairly well. Also, the header of this piece was a photo of Wilde next to a current photo of Depp and the similarities are spot on.

I can't feel badly for Depp -- as stated, he brought this on himself. The previous trial was unequivocal in that Depp physically beat Heard. We now know that the WaPo opinion column she wrote was revised by lawyers from the ACLU -- it's a document which is as airtight against libel as probably humanly possible. And now we're seeing Heard's side and it's like a bucketful of cold water. Depp is a FOOL. I don't like that men can just wait out their horrible behaviors. But, if he wants to hoist himself with his own petard? Here it comes.

In 1895, Oscar Wilde had his boyfriend’s father, the Marquess of Queensberry, arrested for accurately suggesting that Wilde was a homosexual. Forced to prove that Wilde was indeed a “somdomite,” as Queensberry had put it in the misspelled note that sparked a chain reaction of misery, Queensberry’s lawyers lined up testimony from several young men who had had sex with Wilde. The evidence not only vindicated Queensberry but damned Wilde: Though it was seldom prosecuted, gay sex was illegal in Victorian England, and for many years thereafter. Her Majesty’s prosecutors had little choice but to follow through on the evidence yielded by the first trial and put Wilde himself in the dock. Convicted of gross indecency, he wound up in a filthy jail cell for two years of hard labor. By the time he emerged, the prancing japester of the era was a broken husk, and he died three years after that.

The Oscar Wilde of our times is Johnny Depp: a fantastically talented yet unimaginably self-deluding fool who has, for the second time in two years, demanded a trial that he is sure to lose, and which is sure to further disgrace him. Like Wilde, he should have declined to make himself a public spectacle and simply gone back to work. We can only hope Depp’s fate is not as dire as Wilde’s.

In late 2018, when the #MeToo movement was still flooding the media and entertainment with the molten lava of accusations, Depp’s former wife Amber Heard published an op-ed in which she contended that Hollywood had turned against her because she “spoke out against sexual violence.” Four days later, Depp was fired from a Pirates of the Caribbean movie that Disney was then developing. (The movie has still not been made.)

If Depp had simply allowed the moment to blow over, he could have recovered. Hollywood understands better than most institutions that relationships can be complicated. The situation appeared to have been resolved by the couple’s divorce settlement, at which point Heard dropped a restraining order against Depp and the pair issued a conciliatory joint statement that appeared to turn down the heat on the dispute: “Our relationship was intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love. Neither party has made false accusations for financial gain. There was never any intent of physical or emotional harm.”

After a suitable period of benign forgetting, the industry likely would have concluded that people locked in an unhappy marriage sometimes treat each other abominably and let Depp gradually rebuild his reputation. Warner Bros. remained willing to work with Depp on its successor to the Harry Potter series, the Fantastic Beasts franchise.

Then, in 2020, Depp conjured up the most sensational celebrity trial since O. J. Simpson’s. Stupidly suing the London tabloid newspaper the Sun for having called him a wife-beater, Depp appeared on the stand, as did Heard, and the two of them peeled back the veil on their tempestuous association with a series of shocking, humiliating, degrading, and not infrequently hilarious revelations. One of the world’s biggest movie stars made himself a laughingstock. British libel laws are much more favorable to plaintiffs than American ones, but even so, the judge could hardly do otherwise than rule the Sun vindicated. By bringing his sordid story out of the realm of tabloid gossip and into the bright light of official acknowledgment in London’s High Court, Depp made the situation a hundred times worse.

Depp came out of it as badly scarred as Edward Scissorshands with a case of full-body eczema.

Immediately after the judge’s decision, Warner Bros. fired Depp from Fantastic Beasts: Secrets of Dumbledore (which is just now hitting screens), replacing him with Mads Mikkelsen. Depp has not worked on a major studio project since playing the title role in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald in 2018. Last year, he told the Sunday Times (the Sun’s sister newspaper) that he was thinking about “Hollywood’s boycott of, erm, me? One man, one actor in an unpleasant and messy situation, over the last number of years? . . . But, you know, I’m moving towards where I need to go to make all that . . . to bring things to light.”

Bad idea. Really, spectacularly bad idea. The shade of Oscar Wilde screams: “Don’t ‘bring things to light’ that are better left in the dark.”

This week, Depp is appearing in the Fairfax County Courthouse in Virginia to sue Heard for defamation. His chances of success this time are negligible. Depp’s claim that Heard libeled him in a Washington Post op-ed is absurd. The piece in question not only didn’t mention Depp, it didn’t even discuss him. The closest thing to a reference to him is this sentence: “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” It’s clearly true that she “became a public figure representing domestic abuse,” and Depp won’t be able to demonstrate otherwise. The rest of the piece is about Heard’s experiences before she met Depp, her complaints about the entertainment industry, media persecution, Donald Trump, federal legislation, etc. Proving that Heard was making a false and malicious claim about him will not be possible. His prospects of winning the case are roughly zero.

And the chances that even more salacious and embarrassing gossip about him will emerge? One hundred percent. Heard’s list of exhibits includes texts between Depp and his friend, the actor Paul Bettany, in which the pair made ghastly jokes (previously made public in the London proceeding) about murdering Heard. In court, dark jokes about burning and drowning people tend not to come across as amusing.

Depp’s suit predictably caused a Queensberry-like counterattack. Heard launched a suit of her own against Depp while her lawyers alleged that he “regularly abused Amber Heard — both physically and emotionally — through much of their relationship.” Depp has ripped open a scab that Heard seemed willing to allow to heal when they announced their divorce.

The trial is expected to drag on for six or seven unspeakably salacious weeks. Like Wilde before him, Depp is stringing up his reputation like a tabloid piñata. J. Ben Rottenborn, a lawyer for Heard, can hardly believe his good fortune: “Mr Depp’s team is going to try to turn this case into a soap opera,” he said in court. “Why, I’m not sure, because the evidence isn’t pretty for Mr. Depp.” Indeed not, as we have already seen in the London trial. For reasons understood only by himself, Captain Jack is making himself walk the plank.

A male entertainment critic wrote the following piece (behind a paywall, so I'm pasting it) as this trial started. He predicted what was bound to happen fairly well. Also, the header of this piece was a photo of Wilde next to a current photo of Depp and the similarities are spot on. I can't feel badly for Depp -- as stated, he brought this on himself. The previous trial was unequivocal in that Depp physically beat Heard. We now know that the WaPo opinion column she wrote was revised by lawyers from the ACLU -- it's a document which is as airtight against libel as probably humanly possible. And now we're seeing Heard's side and it's like a bucketful of cold water. Depp is a FOOL. I don't like that men can just wait out their horrible behaviors. But, if he wants to hoist himself with his own petard? Here it comes. > In 1895, Oscar Wilde had his boyfriend’s father, the Marquess of Queensberry, arrested for accurately suggesting that Wilde was a homosexual. Forced to prove that Wilde was indeed a “somdomite,” as Queensberry had put it in the misspelled note that sparked a chain reaction of misery, Queensberry’s lawyers lined up testimony from several young men who had had sex with Wilde. The evidence not only vindicated Queensberry but damned Wilde: Though it was seldom prosecuted, gay sex was illegal in Victorian England, and for many years thereafter. Her Majesty’s prosecutors had little choice but to follow through on the evidence yielded by the first trial and put Wilde himself in the dock. Convicted of gross indecency, he wound up in a filthy jail cell for two years of hard labor. By the time he emerged, the prancing japester of the era was a broken husk, and he died three years after that. > The Oscar Wilde of our times is Johnny Depp: a fantastically talented yet unimaginably self-deluding fool who has, for the second time in two years, demanded a trial that he is sure to lose, and which is sure to further disgrace him. Like Wilde, he should have declined to make himself a public spectacle and simply gone back to work. We can only hope Depp’s fate is not as dire as Wilde’s. > In late 2018, when the #MeToo movement was still flooding the media and entertainment with the molten lava of accusations, Depp’s former wife Amber Heard published an op-ed in which she contended that Hollywood had turned against her because she “spoke out against sexual violence.” Four days later, Depp was fired from a Pirates of the Caribbean movie that Disney was then developing. (The movie has still not been made.) > If Depp had simply allowed the moment to blow over, he could have recovered. Hollywood understands better than most institutions that relationships can be complicated. The situation appeared to have been resolved by the couple’s divorce settlement, at which point Heard dropped a restraining order against Depp and the pair issued a conciliatory joint statement that appeared to turn down the heat on the dispute: “Our relationship was intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love. Neither party has made false accusations for financial gain. There was never any intent of physical or emotional harm.” > After a suitable period of benign forgetting, the industry likely would have concluded that people locked in an unhappy marriage sometimes treat each other abominably and let Depp gradually rebuild his reputation. Warner Bros. remained willing to work with Depp on its successor to the Harry Potter series, the Fantastic Beasts franchise. > Then, in 2020, Depp conjured up the most sensational celebrity trial since O. J. Simpson’s. Stupidly suing the London tabloid newspaper the Sun for having called him a wife-beater, Depp appeared on the stand, as did Heard, and the two of them peeled back the veil on their tempestuous association with a series of shocking, humiliating, degrading, and not infrequently hilarious revelations. One of the world’s biggest movie stars made himself a laughingstock. British libel laws are much more favorable to plaintiffs than American ones, but even so, the judge could hardly do otherwise than rule the Sun vindicated. By bringing his sordid story out of the realm of tabloid gossip and into the bright light of official acknowledgment in London’s High Court, Depp made the situation a hundred times worse. > Depp came out of it as badly scarred as Edward Scissorshands with a case of full-body eczema. > Immediately after the judge’s decision, Warner Bros. fired Depp from Fantastic Beasts: Secrets of Dumbledore (which is just now hitting screens), replacing him with Mads Mikkelsen. Depp has not worked on a major studio project since playing the title role in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald in 2018. Last year, he told the Sunday Times (the Sun’s sister newspaper) that he was thinking about “Hollywood’s boycott of, erm, me? One man, one actor in an unpleasant and messy situation, over the last number of years? . . . But, you know, I’m moving towards where I need to go to make all that . . . to bring things to light.” > Bad idea. Really, spectacularly bad idea. The shade of Oscar Wilde screams: “Don’t ‘bring things to light’ that are better left in the dark.” > This week, Depp is appearing in the Fairfax County Courthouse in Virginia to sue Heard for defamation. His chances of success this time are negligible. Depp’s claim that Heard libeled him in a Washington Post op-ed is absurd. The piece in question not only didn’t mention Depp, it didn’t even discuss him. The closest thing to a reference to him is this sentence: “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” It’s clearly true that she “became a public figure representing domestic abuse,” and Depp won’t be able to demonstrate otherwise. The rest of the piece is about Heard’s experiences before she met Depp, her complaints about the entertainment industry, media persecution, Donald Trump, federal legislation, etc. Proving that Heard was making a false and malicious claim about him will not be possible. His prospects of winning the case are roughly zero. > And the chances that even more salacious and embarrassing gossip about him will emerge? One hundred percent. Heard’s list of exhibits includes texts between Depp and his friend, the actor Paul Bettany, in which the pair made ghastly jokes (previously made public in the London proceeding) about murdering Heard. In court, dark jokes about burning and drowning people tend not to come across as amusing. > Depp’s suit predictably caused a Queensberry-like counterattack. Heard launched a suit of her own against Depp while her lawyers alleged that he “regularly abused Amber Heard — both physically and emotionally — through much of their relationship.” Depp has ripped open a scab that Heard seemed willing to allow to heal when they announced their divorce. > The trial is expected to drag on for six or seven unspeakably salacious weeks. Like Wilde before him, Depp is stringing up his reputation like a tabloid piñata. J. Ben Rottenborn, a lawyer for Heard, can hardly believe his good fortune: “Mr Depp’s team is going to try to turn this case into a soap opera,” he said in court. “Why, I’m not sure, because the evidence isn’t pretty for Mr. Depp.” Indeed not, as we have already seen in the London trial. For reasons understood only by himself, Captain Jack is making himself walk the plank.

[–] RisingUp 13 points

That is such a strange article.

You can’t compare Depp and Wilde here without implicitly comparing homosexuality with domestic abuse. (IIRC Wilde didn’t treat his partners well, which might make the comparison more valid, but the author doesn’t mention that.)

people locked in an unhappy marriage sometimes treat each other abominably

Oh that’s cool then.

We can only hope Depp’s fate is not as dire

You can hope that, I’m absolutely fine with karma doing its thing

I get why you posted it, his analysis of Depp’s hubris is interesting. I’m just absolutely thrown by the writer’s miscalibrated moral compass.

[–] platypus 3 points

Wasn't Wilde a pedophile?

[–] Stealthygal 4 points

IIRC Wilde was exceedingly nice to Bosie, despite Bosie being a monstrously troubling boyfriend who probably had borderline personality or a narcissistic personality related at least partly to his hideous family. Bosie treated Oscar like an ATM and was very very mean, and Oscar put up with it because he was so smitten. Indeed he went to court basically because Bosie pressured him to. Robbie Ross, his first lover, remained a very close friend and I think he was always decent to Robbie.

When he first married Constance he was besotted but once he had effectively left her for the mlm life, he made some very cruel remarks, and he would periodically get really snitty about her in relation money, because Constance's brother had (at Constance's insistence) set things up so that the allowance he got after the divorce was rather meagre compared with what Wilde was used to spending. Constance rightly wanted to make sure their sons had SOMETHING left to come down to them after her death, which she knew was likely to come early. Oscar was one of those people who would spontaneously buy drinks and meals for everyone in a restaurant, and lavished expensive gifts on his friends (including the ones he slept with). He lived far beyond his means both before and after his period of comparative wealth when his plays were doing well. He was tremendously remorseful at times for his treatment of Constance. I think he was one of those people who enjoyed being mean if it came across as funny, had a rather high sense of entitlement, and then if things went wrong he'd get very very remorseful - but a bit late.

[–] Boudicaea 2 points

That's a reach. Just because they are similar legal postures doesn't mean anything about whether homosexuality laws or domestic abuse laws are right or wrong. It just shows that they both are idiots for putting themselves in terrible legal positions for no real reason than their own egos. No one is making a value judgment about the underlying laws except you.

[–] RisingUp -2 points

The writer’s trivialisation of Depp’s behaviour is quite clear throughout the article and in the quotes I posted.

[–] proudcatlady 4 points

Thanks for sayin this. I thought I was losing it.

[–] immersang 5 points

Edited

Thank you for sharing this, very interesting.

To other comments: It is also clearly not making a moral comparison between homosexuality and domestic abuse. If that’s your conclusion, maybe read it again.

[–] hellamomzilla 1 points

Yeah, I didn't post this because I agreed with every word within it, but I do not think it's really about what each man did or didn't do or how we contextualize their specific behaviors. It's about men who initiated a legal proceeding when they should have known that they were being reactive to the truth and that, in libel/slander cases, the speech has to be FALSE.

And, Depp already knew he had a losing case. He lost against a paper which printed his name and described him as a wife-beater. Heard was called as a witness. Honestly, I can't believe any attorney would even bring this case -- Heard wrote an op-ed which never named Depp and didn't mention any of his actual behaviors and now it's back out in the world, he beat and raped his ex-wife.

[–] butchplease 5 points

Uhm... homosexuality is not comparable to rape and abuse.

[–] SarahTheGreen 8 points

No, but stupidly expecting to be able to use the legal system to get people to back off is comparable.

[–] SarahTheGreen 3 points

This helped me to understand what is going on a lot better. I remember reading about Wilde and wondering how he could be so stupid. Is there a name or an award for this kind of stupidity?

[–] Sesostris 1 points

It's an apt comparison and I agree. The case against the Sun was foolish and an act of self-sabotage. So is this current trial.

[–] Boudicaea 11 points

If you read what Jennifer Gray has said about their engagement, he abused her too. Maybe not physically, or maybe she just didn't put that part in her memoir. But he definitely was doing the whole controlling abuse thing, the love bombing thing.

[–] platypus 5 points

His other ex, Kate Moss, is also about to release a memoir which he tried to interfere with. It's looking like she'll have some choice words for him as well.

[–] Boudicaea 3 points

Oh yeah, he trashed that hotel room when he was with her, and she has been very quiet through the whole ordeal. Not standing up for him like Winona Ryder has. I bet you are right.

[–] platypus 2 points

Yup some "pop blast" type youtube channels are claiming she defended him, and bringing up old old quotes from her speaking positively about him. But she's actually been notably silent since the allegations came out. I guess we'll see when her book is released. He tried to get her to edit out the parts about him, and she refused.

[–] doloresonthedottedline 12 points

Edited

Both sides are pushing their PR as hard as they can right now to make the most of existing biases that might be useful (the judge is out of town next week so they have a full week to influence the public). For anyone who can, PLEASE skip the media spin and watch the actual testimony. The full uncut videos, not transcripts or highlight reels or commentary videos or parts out of context. Watch Amber’s full testimony, as much as you’re able to. Even if you don’t care what’s true or not true in this case, TONS of people around the world are watching this and seeing this as the most visible example of a domestic violence claim. It’s important to see it in context, because IMO it’s going to have a significant effect on discussions of DV for years.

Amber’s testimony starts around 4h:20m

Amber’s testimony day 2

[–] platypus 2 points

Johnny Depp? More like Johnny Crap.

[–] Elizabelch [OP] 1 points

This is such an interesting read on Johnny Depp. He's complicated, to say the least.

https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/the-trouble-with-johnny-depp-666010/

[–] JacquelineBeauvoir 3 points

“I have never, ever in my life been the bully kid,” Depp tells me. “I never went out of my way to hurt anybody. When I was a little kid, what I was taught was never fucking start a fight, but if somebody fucking tags you or invades your fucking world, finish the fucking fight. To my mom’s exact words, ‘Lay them out with a fucking brick.’ ”

😣

[–] Elizabelch [OP] 6 points

Translation: "Don't do anything to piss me off and we'll get along just fine."

Abuser logic. The crunching sound of walking on eggshells probably never stops around him.

[–] Sesostris -5 points

I've watched the whole trial so far, and I've been listening to all of the conversations between them that are in evidence. These two recorded hours of their arguments and discussions so its an unusual case in that people can hear some of their interactions first hand.

So far, I think both are minimising in part and exaggerating in part. However, I struggle to believe much of AH's testimony for several reasons; First, it doesn't match with alot of the physical evidence,

Secondly it doesn't match with D & H's own recorded conversations at the time (which you can find at this channel if you have a few hours to waste (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIpzokSaWAMZPmSNDr93fVw), the full evidence can also be found here (https://ffxtrail.azurewebsites.net/handler=Dir&directory=Plaintiff%20John%20C.%20Depp,%20II/4-20-2022)

Thirdly, they both, but especially Heard have a strong incentive to exaggerate or lie here. She could lose all her money, she has a kid to support, limited career prospects,

I look forward to seeing corroborating witnesses on her side, and and stronger physical & recorded evidence.

[–] jessebelleinhell 3 points

He has spent over 50 million dollars to slander her on social media.. literally employing trolls and bots to spread lies and defend him. Esp on YouTube, those videos and recordings have been proven to be heavily edited and taken out of context to make her look as bad as possible. For instance- she never said anything about nobody believe him because he was a man..she said, " oh man" not referring to his gender at all. You are falling for the bullshit Depp propaganda.

[–] Sesostris -2 points

Don't patronise me please. I listened to the recordings that AH and JD made of themselves during their relationship. Thats hours of recordings, and no, they are not heavily edited. Feel free to form your own opinion, but I'll form mine based on the evidence available.

Article Amber Heard’s riveting testimony took apart the Johnny Depp myth

37 comments

/o/Women