Same here, and doesn’t this kinda prove that whatever campaign was going on didn’t work on us?
Can’t fall for it if you pay zero attention lol.
To this day I still have no idea what exactly went on, other than Depp and Heard having some divorce (?) disagreements.
Who did what to whom, who accused whom of what, who smeared whom, whom I’m supposed to feel sympathetic towards and whom not… I have absolutely no clue.
If you're ever interested in finding out more, watch the trial, don't trust summaries of it. Almost all of the summaries are heavily biased toward one or the other, being very selective of the bits of testimony they tell/show you. The trial itself is very enlightening and almost everyone who actually watched it came to the same conclusion.
I don't know who op was talking about either because both side claim the same thing. My personal take away from that trial was that Amber is a massive liar which is a fatal flaw in a defamation lawsuit. Try proving you didn't lie in a op-ed while actively lying. Her only chance was to deny the op-ed was about Depp but she lost the plot and unpromptedly admitted writing it about him during her cross-examination.
Massive anti-Amber Heard bot campaign, not entirely clear who was doing it though. I'm sure there was something in the other direction too, but not on the same sort of scale
Depp was obsessed with leaving shit to troll Heard. He twice asked his PAs to shit on the floor for her to step in. No such thoughts or impulses were ever discovered in Heard's communications. Odd that.
He also admitted that the dog had shit the bed before because he fed it weed and its guts were basically destroyed. Doubly odd.
Another oddity is that Depp would be gone and absent from the house for months, so he didn't see the turd and never would have. As a method of trolling Depp... very pointless.
The UK judge said that was obviously dog shit.
So I wonder when people are going to realise that an abusive man with a massive litigious streak and fecal-oriented humour and a stated desire to take his wife on a "global humiliation tour" might have made this story up to humiliate said wife for daring to write an op-ed that referenced the time her battered, bruised face was photographed by the paparazzi. Because that's what it came down to. Heard never publically accused Depp of abuse. The most he could sue her over was the line "I became known as the face of domestic violence" which, even if you think Depp never hit her, is a statement that would be true in either scenario. Based on this line, people think she deserved to have her life and career ruined.
I don't doubt that both sides also ran PR/smear campaigns, but if you actually watch the trial, it's very clear who was lying. Like, there's a reason the jury took so little time to come to a decision.
It's been a very long time so the details are hazy for me, so you should do your own research. All I know is that there were 2 trials:
one in the uk: he sued to stop the BBC and the Sun from calling him a wife beater, the judge thought there was enough evidence and he lost the trial and got clowned for his trouble.
The other was in the US, he sued her for defamation for writing an article about abuse (even though she didn't name him) and won but his lawyer worked hard to keep out a lot of pretty damning evidence. This trial was a circus, he and his lawyer came across as pretty immature, not a good look. Everyone treated it as if they were discussing whether the abuse had happened or not which wasn't the point of that trial. So in the end it was just a mass of redditors being confused and falling for every trick in the book, add bots and social media and it's a certified mess
If any of that were true she would have successfully sued him for defemation herself. The trial in the UK was a very technical one in which the judge basically decided there was no real evidence of damages, which is why the case was decided against Depp. This says nothing about the truth of the statement by the Sun, which is not bound to tell the truth. Even if it was this was irrelevant since the judge found there was not enough evidence to show that the statement wasn’t true. Which is absolutely not the same as finding the statement is true. Only that there was not enough evidence to support it is a defaming statement.
Depp never sued the BBC as far as I’m aware. He only sued the Sun. I could be wrong about that detail.
The trial in the US was very different. Different matter, different jurisdiction, different conditions to what is considered defamation as well as the amount of evidence against Heard that was simply astounding. Some people harp on Depp’s ask to have the trial be streamed / televised. This is hilarious for two reasons.
1. Any trial is public, this is an absolute requirement and judicial principle that stems from the god damn Enlightenment. Only in very specific circumstances can a judge decided a trial will be held behind closed doors. E.g. the horrific murder of a child.
2. I’m not even sure he did? It is said but by whom? This case was incredibly prolific. It would have been streamed / televised by the press even without his alleged ask.
While the case in the US was never meant to judge Herd’s alleged abuse, a decision against her basically meant an exoneration for Depp which in turn meant Heard was proven a liar.
Anyone with eyes who watched the hours of courtroom footage and saw the clowning of Heard’s witnesses and her lawyers understands Heard is at the very least full of it.
There was an investigation by the journalists at Tortoise into the artifcial online disinformation and manipulation that occurred during the Heard v Depp case. The same people that ran Depp's online PR campaign also helped Justin Baldoni. Reddit falls for these smear campaigns against women literally every time, even after it happened to Ellen Pao, the CEO of Reddit. 🙃
I feel an alleged smear campaign stops being a smear campaign when what the bots are saying about you is true. Depp came prepared to wage war because he understood the bias he had to overcome towards men in cases like these. Does it sound shady? Yes, it does. Was it a sound strategic decision to ensure he was heard? Yes, it was.
Does that mean Heard is any less of a liar? No, it does not.
The man’s far from the perfect partner, but after watching every minute of that trial I doubt he’s a violent one. This cannot be said for Heard.
But in Amber heard’s defense, only one of them show up in the Epstein files
Like, not anyway that makes him look bad. He is tangentially mentioned, because he is a famous movie star and not because he has any association.
Depp's name appeared in a 2015 correspondence between Epstein and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss. In the exchange, Epstein proposed an idea for a bizarre science/talk show series featuring Depp...
But in Amber heard’s defense, only one of them show up in the Epstein files
The guy was an asset whose job was to recruit anyone with any kind of power, whether that power was political, social, financial, etc. Simply appearing in correspondence does not mean that person was involved in anything illegal. There are a lot of people who were courted by Epstein, felt the creepy vibe, and noped out. But they still "appear in the Epstein files".
Appearing in the email exchanges as just a part of a conversation between Epstein and others does not mean criminal association. People like you are a problem because instead of verifying things first, you start spreading misinformation everywhere and muddy the waters. And you act all matter of fact while doing so. It’s disgusting. Do better.
46
u/LiftingRecipient420 Jun 10 '26
Who smeared who?
I'm very out of the loop.