So…when she decided to crap on his bed, did she then clean herself or just pull up her underwear? 
Amber shitty pants Heard
Amber shitty pants Heard
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
So…when she decided to crap on his bed, did she then clean herself or just pull up her underwear?
Amber shitty pants Heard
Probably an awkward waddle to the bathroom.
Shes one fkd up person!
I'd rather be known to have problems with substance abuse than wife abuse.
Not sure how much he can get even if successful. Might be lucky to cover the legal bill. And showing her as an abusive loon (again) doesn't make him a saint or rehabilitate his reputation necessarily.
I'm not defending him, just playing devil's advocate... you would think with all the video and audio that was recorded that if he was physically violent that there'd be at least one piece of the audio/video that proves it. Is there? I don't know, it sounds like most of it is them being dysfunctional.
He's suing for 50 million I think, but if she settles will probably be less. I think the latter part is what will drive societal change, not necessarily something that needs to help him but worth doing regardless.
Yes - I got bored and did some digging into the English judge. He is an author of a Media Law textbook, generally had a positive view of the press (Depp was suing a newspaper rather than Heard) and had some dodgy decisions in the past overturned on appeal. I suspect he viewed Depp negatively from the start, but since the trial wasn't televised and I don't have the transcripts, that is supposition and part guesswork.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is weird.
None of this sounds in any way fun.
You do realise he is an actor don't you? And if you are rich (or indeed not) I don't think you need Dan-Utd's permission to dress in any particular way. I tend to think they are both mad as a bag of squirrels but yours is a very weird take.
For defamatory law, yes. Defamatory statements are presumed false and the person sued has to prove the truth of what they said.
In the US it goes the other way. NYT v Sullivan is a good starting point for anyone interested.
There are also different standards for who the claimant is. Public officials, public figures, private figures.
Oh for god's sake.
Civil standard is 50%+1 likely. In a 'he said, she said' a lot of weight is put into credibility of the witnesses.
In the UK Court, my understanding is the judge was unimpressed by Depp's admitted drug and alcohol abuse but had no similar reservations about Heard's. He was sceptical of Depp's witnesses because they were 'biased towards him', but accepted Heard's sister and best friends at their word.
He also ignored evidence from police and medical staff because they were probably busy or not paying attention and didn't notice the injuries..
The fact Depp apologises a lot and accepts blame in texts during reconciliation periods was also used against him, but the judge did not have access to evidence from Heard's records to scrutinise her credibility.
Judges have large discretion to weigh evidence how they see fit, the Court of Appeals doesn't get involved in correcting where the judge has made a legal but perceived incorrect decision and only will even listen to arguments about how a judge misapplied the law or abused their discretion.
Use your own brains to determine what you think. One judge can and often will be wrong, it doesn't arbitrarily become reality just because one judge says its more likely than not. Its nowhere close to a criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil standard is 50%+1 likely. In a 'he said, she said' a lot of weight is put into credibility of the witnesses.
In the UK Court, my understanding is the judge was unimpressed by Depp's admitted drug and alcohol abuse but had no similar reservations about Heard's. He was sceptical of Depp's witnesses because they were 'biased towards him', but accepted Heard's sister and best friends at their word.
He also ignored evidence from police and medical staff because they were probably busy or not paying attention and didn't notice the injuries..
The fact Depp apologises a lot and accepts blame in texts during reconciliation periods was also used against him, but the judge did not have access to evidence from Heard's records to scrutinise her credibility.
Judges have large discretion to weigh evidence how they see fit, the Court of Appeals doesn't get involved in correcting where the judge has made a legal but perceived incorrect decision and only will even listen to arguments about how a judge misapplied the law or abused their discretion.
Use your own brains to determine what you think. One judge can and often will be wrong, it doesn't arbitrarily become reality just because one judge says its more likely than not. Its nowhere close to a criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't think it will since most people don't follow these proceedings.
Yes but differentiates him from metaphorically shitting the bed with substance abuse and literally shitting the bed. We can now say the only two people that intentionally shit on people’s belongings are Amber Heard and @Mr Pigeon
Ya she sounds like a real hoot. My wife never poops on my bed.
Tell us your into violet scat porn without telling us your into violet scat porn
Good post. She's hot. He's not.
Send him down for 10 years and name a national bank holiday in her honour.
Have you asked? Maybe she's just waiting for sign off
Yh I had assumed they were referencing another trial or something because the U.K. case was basically the Sun knowing what it can and can’t print. We have such odious media in the country.He wasn't found to be an abuser. He just couldn't prove that The Sun lied. In a case with no jury, just a single judge that wasn't able to review any substantial evidence due to Amber Heard not being involved in the case. A single judge with ties to Rupert Murdoch, one of the most powerful men on the planet & owner of The Sun. Keep trotting out your shite about him being a proven abuser though, I guess you can just stick your fingers in your ears and scream any time real evidence is provided. Good luck in the rest of your case Mr Rottenborn
The Turdsday before Good Friday?
That's what I took from it at least. I am super disconnected with this anyway and don't think i fall in either camp - but objectively, both Depp and Heard have massive issues and it's a toxic coming together.
Hopefully, Depp gets something of his reputation back after this trial. The little pieces of the information that I've seen seems to suggest that he wasn't normally the aggressor - but I'm not watching this fully so can't really comment.
Will watch this with some interest when it becomes a movie that summarises everything in 2 hours
Don't think it's preference per se. People have a strong reaction to an abusive woman playing the victim. The reaction against Depp and the general dislike of him as a person was extreme when the news broke. People are just realising that they were played by Amber and therefore are showing lot of sympathy to Depp.
That's my problem with it too.
I think they both were in the very minimum verbally abusive (there is more "evidence" that she was the physically abusive one) and toxic so I don't think anyone comes out of it smelling like roses.
HOWEVER its absolutely disgusting that she could be an active participant in the toxicity / abuse and then try and make out that she was completely innocent.
Both are cnuts (to varying degrees) but at least Depp is an upfront cnut.
Apparently Heard lied to the judge in the UK about that she had donated her divorce settlement to charity.
She agreed to do so, got the credit for it, then Johnny Depp and Elon Musk paid the best part of $1.3m of the $3.5m (3.5 was to go to another charity) to the ACLU and kept the bulk of the $7m settlement.
The ACLU helped write the article that is the subject of this lawsuit and spent $100k in lawyers fees to fight disclosing their part in this mess.
Last edited:
there is something weirdly addictive about watching bits of this trial
it feels so wrong to be watching it but I can't stop myself
it feels so wrong to be watching it but I can't stop myself
Anger turd taking the stand Monday apparently...
Presumably to get angry and talk about turds
@Dan-Utd is stocking up on Kleenex in preparation
Last edited:
I know what you mean. I spent all of last Friday evening watching clips.
It's probably the same buzz people get from watching reality TV
Was he abusive though? I mean, he's not the type you'd want as your boyfriend given his drug and alcohol addiction, but there is very little if any evidence to suggest he was abusive. Hell, the "bad thing" about Amber he said were sent to his friends in text, not even to Amber.
And let's not pretend Amber wasn't an alcohol and drug addict, as well. Maybe less so than Depp, but she certainly indulged herself in those vices regardless.
So far he's been raging and cursing about her in texts whereas based on the audio clips she has physically abused him. Leyd see what else comes out but as of now she's coming out of this far worse.