• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Johnny Depp v Amber Heard

Kandi1977 said:
I think what he means is that this trial can sort of set precedence, and put men being abused on the agenda.
Click to expand...

Agree with what you’ve posted but I’m not sure if that was what little Barry was implying in his initial question of whether men can be victims of domestic abuse. Apparently sincerely trying to understand someone’s point of view rather than assuming the worst is being difficult and rude so hey ho.
 
Lilbaz said:
Not talking about this thread.
Click to expand...

That makes more sense! Fair enough, you don’t owe me any explanation but if you post things that come off as ignorant I will call you out in a non aggressive manner, if that gets too much then it may be best to block me.
 
Anyway thought today the witness wasn't great. Psychologist paid by ambers team. She went through loads of type of abuse and what an abuser looks like. Fitting johnny as the abuser. But they probably just as accurately fit amber especially as amber has admitted assaulting johnny on tape. Even going as far as calling him a baby.

Cross examination tomorrow will be interesting. Wouldn't be surprised if johnnys lawyers went through all the instances of the things amber has done to johnny. Asking her if they would be considered abuse under her (psychologists) terms. Then ask at the end, does that make amber an abuser?

Also everytime she talked about hypothetical situations of abuse, she always referred to the abuser as he/him and the victim as she/her. Whether that was to subconciously paint johnny as the abuser in the jurys eyes or if that's just how she thought i don't know.
 
Last edited:
Amber took the stand today. It made me realise how fudged this whole thing is.

She started very sweet articulate, then told her story. Which was horrible. She became very emotional, but any time there was an objection or break she became like a mannequin.

One of them or both are lying. Either one or both are really evil people.
 
Actors* gonna act.
(*Term loosely used.)

I think she lost a fair bit of credibility during Depp's part, but now is the chance for the waterworks to swing it again. I don't buy all of them either, when Depp was saying she did this and she did that, she was showing hardly anything.
But as you say, the whole thing is just fudged up.

Honestly thought this was just about proving the op-ed was about Depp and had cost him several roles, not who beat who.
 
Trixster said:
Actors* gonna act.
(*Term loosely used.)

I think she lost a fair bit of credibility during Depp's part, but now is the chance for the waterworks to swing it again. I don't buy all of them either, when Depp was saying she did this and she did that, she was showing hardly anything.
But as you say, the whole thing is just fudged up.

Honestly thought this was just about proving the op-ed was about Depp and had cost him several roles, not who beat who.
Click to expand...

To win, he has to prove he didn't abuse her. Although i think he just wants to show his side of the story more than anything. He's been cancelled by hollywood. If people believe him, he can work again (maybe not at the same level though).
 
Be interesting to see if kate moss is called up now amber opened the door. She also opened the door to violence in previous relationships, meaning depps team can bring up ambers previous domestic violence arrest when she attacked her previous girlfriend.
 
Copies of the recordings. They're in evidence, some have been used but some still to come. Can't see any possible way amber wins this case.

 
Last edited:
Dipped in an out without taking too much notice but whats clear is this is two people with issues who have depended on drink and drugs and its contributed to whats clear been a toxic relationship. Im not saying who is wrong who is right, I mean who knows but its a shame its got to this.

What is baffling is the money element here, she has none and he has done his dough, so who can afford to pay who even if they wanted to?
 
This video is great. Body langauge expert analysing Heard's testimony.


She's obviously lying a whole fudging lot.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Dipped in an out without taking too much notice but whats clear is this is two people with issues who have depended on drink and drugs and its contributed to whats clear been a toxic relationship. Im not saying who is wrong who is right, I mean who knows but its a shame its got to this.

What is baffling is the money element here, she has none and he has done his dough, so who can afford to pay who even if they wanted to?
Click to expand...


One of them will sell their story and make a bundle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back