Johnny Depp/Amber Heard

[Sicks Bux]

Wonder when the decision on this going to be handed down?

[Jezza]

^ They say late September.

[Sicks Bux]

Thanks.

[Presti35]

Waiting.... waiting... wai... oh she's countersuing him now. And accusing him of avoiding the final date and smearing her name online...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2krXq8fw90

[Sicks Bux]

Where's the dignity?

[Presti35]

Aquaman came on right after the Brownlow last night, and I thought what the hell ended up happening here?

Still going to the courts I see.

I wonder how the new Fantastic Beasts film will be? Considering its being filmed around this case and Depp is in the film. Surely he'd be off his game?

[David]

I think a lot of actors are professional enough to put stuff like that to one side – consider Husbands and Wives, in which lead actress Mia Farrow discovered during the production that her then-partner, Woody Allen (who was both directing her and playing her husband in the film), was having an affair with her stepdaughter, Soon-Yi. They managed to complete the film anyway, and it’s still considered by many to be one of Allen’s best.

[David]

Depp has lost his case against The Sun:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/nov/02/johnny-depp-loses-libel-case-against-sun-over-claims-he-beat-ex-wife-amber-heard

[Sicks Bux]

The comments section on this thread seems pretty unanimous.

https://www.celebitchy.com/687296/johnny_depp_lost_his_libel_lawsuit_against_the_sun_after_they_called_him_a_wife_beater/#comments

[Presti35]

Unbelievable.

Channel 7 have just reported that "yes, Depp is a wife beater".

I really thought it may have been fabricated. Maybe he really is a bad guy.

Only thing left to do now is add him to the Collingwood board. Or better yet, the new Pres!

[think positive]

Depp wins!

I’ve watched and read a fair bit. I have no idea what the truth is, but certainly, she was referring to him in that article, and he was never charged or found guilty of anything. Free speech? Just another stupid US amendment right that is totally out dated. Free speech should not mean you can say anything you want about anyone, be it true or not.

I believe him where usually I wouldn’t, not because I love him as Jack sparrow, because of his previous girlfriends and partners, his relationship with the mother of his children. His statement is very humble. And if you know anything about his history he’s stayed on good terms with his ex’s, and especially the mother of his kids.

And I don’t believe her because in her own recordings you can tell she leading him, goading him, why would she take so many damning photos? Film so many conversations? Stay when she had the money and people around her to facilitate leaving? I had never heard of Heard until they got together. And I do believe she just wanted more fame and stuff who gets hurt.

Personally I think they had a terribly toxic relationship. I don’t know the truth, but I do believe she had no right to put him on blast like that with no proof and with no convictions against Depp for her claims. If she wants to make such accusations she should do it in a court of law and not in the papers.

I don’t for a minute believe a woman should automatically be believed, and that every man is guilty.

[David]

I haven't really been following this latest case closely, but I've found the social media discourse around it bewildering – people seem to be either Depp cheerleaders (mostly his fan club + opportunistic men's rights activists) or putting Heard on a pedestal as a champion of domestic violence survivors (the feminist op-ed crowd). Isn't it patently obvious that their relationship was terribly dysfunctional and mutually abusive? Why on earth would you – or should we – be picking sides in that context?

One of the most ironic aspects of defamation suits is that so much more of people's dirty laundry (in this case, literally!) gets dragged out in public, and neither side usually comes out looking good. Really not sure whom this case or this outcome really serves; if it's to get Depp's career back on track, well, I'm not sure if that's going to happen, but in any case it should never been in jeopardy over this to begin with. One more reason why we shouldn't be litigating people's private lives outside the specific context of criminal proceedings: it's just messy and ugly and serves nobody's interests.

[think positive]

I totally agree but I get why Depp pursued it, as he said in the blink of an eye she destroyed his reputation, his career, and hurt everyone around him. With no proof whatsoever.

Shame on the journalist for printed her story.

One thing I will say, is This probably cost him the settlement maybe more in lawyers, when he had enough to go away and quietly live his life.

Watch the innocence project, it’s really enlightening, men spending years, decades, in prison because the won’t admit to a crime they did not commit, they get to the parole board and say how can I be sorry and remorseful for something I did not do?

Guilty people generally don’t go to court to clear their name if they don’t get ordered to.

[David]

Really not sure that last part is true – seems to me that defamation suits have absolutely been weaponised in recent years by people to silence their accusers. It was the one reason nobody could ever report on Jimmy Savile or Harvey Weinstein for so many years; they knew that these men would have defamation lawyers on their doorstep in a minute and that the truth wouldn't be enough to stop them being bankrupted.

Of course I'm sympathetic to the falsely accused and think they need recourse to justice. In Depp's case, he's now lost a defamation case in one jurisdiction (i.e. finding that it was fair for a newspaper to call him a "wife-beater") and won in another (related to much vaguer allegations). Not sure where that leaves us.

[David]

On the divergent responses, this is what I find most perplexing from the pro-Heard camp:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/01/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-metoo-backlash