Amber Heard divorcing Depp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What you are saying is the equivalent of saying the girl had on a short skirt before she got raped. Inflammatory adn irrelevant.

Amber's history of abuse has LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Because she hasn't been accused of abusing Johnny Depp. That would be the only fact that would make her police history relevant.

Yet you can point out Johnny had a volatile relationship with Winona and that is okay? We are not talking about rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are saying is the equivalent of saying the girl had on a short skirt before she got raped. Inflammatory adn irrelevant.

Amber's history of abuse has LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Because she hasn't been accused of abusing Johnny Depp. That would be the only fact that would make her police history relevant.

Yet you can point out Johnny had a volatile relationship with Winona and that is okay? We are not talking about rape.

WTF dude. The issue at hand is whether or not Johnny Depp abused Amber Heard. Therefore Amber Heard's past is not relevant because she is not being accused of anything. Johnny Depp HAS been accused of something, therefore his past behavior IS relevant. Logic, its not THAT hard.

[Anonymous]

How can you people get so worked up about two people you don't even know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can you people get so worked up about two people you don't even know?

I am actually more worked up about this other PP's complete lack of understanding of logical thought processes than anything to do with Depp.

But I think it is less to do with these two people and more to do with the common message repeated in this thread that what is reflecting badly on the woman here is how brazenly she is talking about it and loudly she is exposing him. And how that's seen as 'improper' and somehow also seen as proof of her guilt (of what??) and his innocence. Which is kind of just generally upsetting from a victim's rights perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amber was arrested for assaulting/domestic violence her girlfriend in 2009.

Just released...

I saw that. Curiouser and curiouser.

She also had a forensic specialist authenticate the text messages that essentially prove her story. I know Johnny Depp is beloved but she has a lot of pretty hardcore evidence. All he has is his friends saying they could never believe it (and people on his payroll saying it didn't happen that way).

And the girlfriend issued a statement saying that incident wasn't as reported and charges were never filed/amber never prosecuted. Although I'm not sure it really matters, she could have had a domestic incident with a girlfriend in the past and still have been beaten up by Depp, not mutually exclusive.

No she doesn't. She has a police report citing no injuries and the cops have reaffirmed that there were no injuries on the night she claims he hit her. She also has a now deleted Instagram pic from the next day that doesn't show any bruising.

She has witnesses photos and texts. What more do you want? And it is more subtle but there is also the fact that this is a major A-list movie star who most of hollywood will support de facto (and some in hollywood will aggressively support because he is their meal ticket like disney who doesn't want to launch pirates 5 next year with a wife beater). And the fact that every witness who comes out and supports Amber who is in the business, (like her friend talking about why she called 911 http://www.etonline.com/news/190431_amber_heard_friend_who_called_911_speaks_out_on_alleged_abuse/) is putting their careers in danger by supporting her and going against the machine. Meanwhile the only people on Depp's side are either on the payroll (and therefore have clear incentive to take his side, old costars who can't imagine him doing this or his family who have both a financial and an emotional incentive to support him.

The guys has a known substance abuse problem and a history of volatile relationships before Vanessa Paradis. So what is more likely, an addict with impulse control problems clearly going through a midlife crisis having some violent outbursts or a woman fabricating tons of evidence, producing lying witnesses and the most celebrity friendly magazine on the planet going against one of the biggest celebrities in hollywood solely on a b-list actresses' word?

If it makes you feel better Amber probably was also a gold digger. But being a gold digger and being a victim of abuse aren't mutually exclusive. And abusing someone is illegal.

Wow I'm just coming back to this page and I see you've worked yourself into quite the frenzy!

Let's be clear though. Amber has no witnesses of the abuse. And the only people who saw her the night of the supposed abuse have all stated that there was no evidence of injury. I hear you that the body guards are on his payroll. So you can ignore them. But the police are not. Neither are the doormen that saw her in the preceding days and stated their was no bruising until she released the pictures.

She also has no texts because the person she claims wrote them has already publicly stated that he did not state that Depp hit her.

Her photos are also meaningless because before she decided to claim that he hit her she posted pics of herself the next day, bruise free.

[Anonymous]

Why wouldn't she be available? A costume fitting? Really? Poor excuse not to be there for a deposition.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/06/10/amber-heard-deposition-johnny-depp-dress-fitting/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't she be available? A costume fitting? Really? Poor excuse not to be there for a deposition.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/06/10/amber-heard-deposition-johnny-depp-dress-fitting/

She wants $$$$$ to make it go away. She avoided giving a statement under oath. Interesting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't she be available? A costume fitting? Really? Poor excuse not to be there for a deposition.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/06/10/amber-heard-deposition-johnny-depp-dress-fitting/

She wants $$$$$ to make it go away. She avoided giving a statement under oath. Interesting

And yet Depp hasn't sued her for defamation yet. If I was a rich celebrity with bajillions of dollars at my disposal and my $$$$ coming from a lot of family films I'd be pretty concerned about clearing my name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are saying is the equivalent of saying the girl had on a short skirt before she got raped. Inflammatory adn irrelevant.

Amber's history of abuse has LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Because she hasn't been accused of abusing Johnny Depp. That would be the only fact that would make her police history relevant.

Yet you can point out Johnny had a volatile relationship with Winona and that is okay? We are not talking about rape.

WTF dude. The issue at hand is whether or not Johnny Depp abused Amber Heard. Therefore Amber Heard's past is not relevant because she is not being accused of anything. Johnny Depp HAS been accused of something, therefore his past behavior IS relevant. Logic, its not THAT hard.

If someone has a record for being being physically violent in the past, I would think they were more likely the guilty party. All of the "evidence" against Depp, I could make up in a weekend. None of it is verifiable. She has a huge motivation to get him to settle. Her only leverage is persuading the public to hate him enough to stop buying his product. Once he thinks that will happen, and it's not worth the fight, he settles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't she be available? A costume fitting? Really? Poor excuse not to be there for a deposition.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/06/10/amber-heard-deposition-johnny-depp-dress-fitting/

She wants $$$$$ to make it go away. She avoided giving a statement under oath. Interesting

Exaaactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't she be available? A costume fitting? Really? Poor excuse not to be there for a deposition.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/06/10/amber-heard-deposition-johnny-depp-dress-fitting/

She wants $$$$$ to make it go away. She avoided giving a statement under oath. Interesting

And yet Depp hasn't sued her for defamation yet. If I was a rich celebrity with bajillions of dollars at my disposal and my $$$$ coming from a lot of family films I'd be pretty concerned about clearing my name.

Not really. All of this back and forth, whether true or not, keeps Heard in the news. Good for her. Not good for him. For defamation, he would have to show some harm. There hasn't been any harm to his earning capacity because of this. Half the people who are following it, don't believe her.

BYW, She did not show up for her deposition. Getting her on record and having the trial would clear his name far quickly. If you believe him and not her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you people get so worked up about two people you don't even know?

I am actually more worked up about this other PP's complete lack of understanding of logical thought processes than anything to do with Depp.

But I think it is less to do with these two people and more to do with the common message repeated in this thread that what is reflecting badly on the woman here is how brazenly she is talking about it and loudly she is exposing him. And how that's seen as 'improper' and somehow also seen as proof of her guilt (of what??) and his innocence. Which is kind of just generally upsetting from a victim's rights perspective.

The past history of both people should be an open book.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the abuse story is the light version of some darker truths between them. She may just be rattling his cage for money but potntially holds something far more damning.just a thought

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What you are saying is the equivalent of saying the girl had on a short skirt before she got raped. Inflammatory adn irrelevant.

Amber's history of abuse has LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Because she hasn't been accused of abusing Johnny Depp. That would be the only fact that would make her police history relevant.

Wrong. Amber's history of abuse is relevant in that it paints a picture of her potential for domestic abuse towards other partners, especially if she hasn't addressed her anger management problems.

Relapse is real when your cash cow scenario a'int working according to plan... Calculating Amber wants to get paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't she be available? A costume fitting? Really? Poor excuse not to be there for a deposition.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/06/10/amber-heard-deposition-johnny-depp-dress-fitting/

She wants $$$$$ to make it go away. She avoided giving a statement under oath. Interesting

And yet Depp hasn't sued her for defamation yet. If I was a rich celebrity with bajillions of dollars at my disposal and my $$$$ coming from a lot of family films I'd be pretty concerned about clearing my name.

Ted Cruz didn't sue for defamation of character when he was accused of cheating on his wife. Not all people decide to go that route.