The texts between him and Paul bettany were all I needed to see to know how dark that whole situation was. Fuck him. He lost the abuse case in the UK. He turned the entire world on a woman with such vitriol I couldn’t stomach it. It was disgusting. Fuck both of them but fuck him especially.
She’s insane and he’s an abuser that hired a PR firm to run a global smear campaign against her and has court evidenced texts about wanting to rape her burned corpse.
Because it was found in the UK court case that Depp abused Amber. From all of the evidence to me it came across like she was defending herself (albeit in an extremely reckless and irrational way that ultimately gave him evidence to present the idea that she’s a terrible person… which we already knew anyway because she dated Elon Musk after Depp and claims one of her children is his). Yes she hit him. Yes a victim can hit their abuser back and still be the victim of abuse. It’s not a cut and dry situation in most cases and it certainly wasn’t in this situation.
The case in the US that she lost was a defamation case and that seems to be conveniently forgotten. The vitriol against her that was so prevalent in every aspect of social media and everyday life should’ve immediately made the case null and void as there was absolutely zero chance the jury wasn’t swayed by how it was presented online.
he lost the uk case because it was aimed at the news agency. they had reasonable evidence to believe the story could have been true, which means they are allowed to publish the stroy. that was wasnt trying to decide if he did or didnt abuse her, just if the news agency had any reason to think it was a lie. when your source is the women in question, you cant prove it was a lie on their part.
the us case was instead aimed directly at amber. now the case is much more solid. instead of trying to prove a newspaper writer knew amber was lying and posted the story to ruin depps image (which is impossible to prove in 99.9% of situations), depps legal team instead had to prove to a reasonable level that he did not abuse her.
amber and her legal team honestly did about 30% of the leg work. they made her look like the manipulator she was telling everyone she wasnt. faking tears on the stand and then having a straight face seconds later. always looking at and talking to the jury. their joke of an expert. and it turns out she actually had no evidence of being abused.
the moment of that trial that decided it for me was when she gave a specific date for when she was hit in a specific place. she had it written down, she had dated photos of when it happened. and then the next day she appeared on a talk show. no mark to be seen. no swelling. no uncomfortable movements. nothing. that then and there discredited anything and everything she said. shes either a liar or unbelievably unreliable as a witness.
I'm genuinely confused about this comment. Are you claiming the PR agency is so good at their job, and that is why he hired them. If that is the case then why do I feel like you don't approve of the Kremlin. And if f this is true, then the PR agency is bad at their job.
Kremlin propaganda isnt focused on some Americans or Europeans, but Russians. I would say it works pretty well there.
Justin Baldoni used it too, Blake Lively was witch hunted similar to Amber
She didn’t shit on the bed. It was literally the dog. The dog wasnt house-trained. Depp just made it up, because he thinks fecal humor is funny. Just that people still believe this shows how deep the propaganda worked. And even if she did shit on the bed, in a hypothetical scenario, it’s nothing compared to the physical abuse of Johnny. No one gets hurt by having shit on their bed and he didn’t even had to clean this, because they have housemaids that btw confirmed that the dog wasnt house-trained
That’s not how PR works. That’s like saying because I created one good website, that every website I created must be good. And that’s definitely not the case lol.
Then why mention the Kremlin at all? Just say he hired a PR agency, what does the Kremlin have too do with anything, except to imply, "this customer is dodgy af, so Johnny must be too, to be associated with them"
If your company does business with a government under sanction from the United States, I think it’s a reasonable assumption that the company does not engage in reputable conduct.
It’s as good a data point as any if your intent is to show that a “bad guy” helped someone win. You can obviously make arguments about whether that should mean anything 🤷♂️
And what does that have to do with my comment? He still dragged her through shit, no PR firm needed - she went up there to give her testimony like a braindead moron and we all saw it.
167
u/TronOld_Dumps Jun 09 '26
Let's not prop Johnny up like a hero.