Johnny Depp and Amber Heard #4

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
MavisWilton said:
In what way was the 52 year old multi multi millionaire "forced" to sign the divorce statement?
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know....

Perhaps because she's parading outside the courthouse with bruises from apparent emotional abuse, as her lawyers appeared to imply yesterday.

Or that he had been in hock to the extent that he was asking for money up front on films, beginning circa 2010 according to Tracey Jacobs, which from her deposition (and no doubt her upcoming testimony) says was as a result of drink and drugs - as opposed to, say, being invested in property in 2008.... and wanted to get the matter settled to not have the current matter dealt with in the divorce courts at a time when according to Rottenborn his finances were 'catastrophic'.

Maybe metoo and cancel culture was in full swing, and studios were proclaiming the 'future is female', and audiences will flock to see the New Ghostbusters... and the last thing he needs when he's already in hock, and his career is on a downward path through either a) drink and drugs or b) over-exposure or (imo more likely) c) a combination of both (chicken or egg).... he was advised to settle.

Or maybe she has a pegging video....

Who knows.

Oh for the good old days when Cary Grant could drop acid with rent boys in Sharon Tate's garden....
 
wibble said:
Oh I don't know....

Perhaps because she's parading outside the courthouse with bruises from apparent emotional abuse, as her lawyers appeared to imply yesterday.

Or that he had been in hock to the extent that he was asking for money up front on films, beginning circa 2010 according to Tracey Jacobs, which from her deposition (and no doubt her upcoming testimony) says was as a result of drink and drugs - as opposed to, say, being invested in property in 2008.... and wanted to get the matter settled to not have the current matter dealt with in the divorce courts at a time when according to Rottenborn his finances were 'catastrophic'.

Maybe metoo and cancel culture was in full swing, and studios were proclaiming the 'future is female', and audiences will flock to see the New Ghostbusters... and the last thing he needs when he's already in hock, and his career is on a downward path through either a) drink and drugs or b) over-exposure or (imo more likely) c) a combination of both (chicken or egg).... he was advised to settle.

Or maybe she has a pegging video....

Who knows.

Oh for the good old days when Cary Grant could drop acid with rent boys in Sharon Tate's garden....
Click to expand...

Poor, poor Johnny. My heart bleeds.
 
MavisWilton said:
Again I take your point, I am the one who asked whether age is relevant here. I just find it hard to believe that a man in his position was so easily manipulated by this woman. Even if he was, he's responsible for his own addiction, responses and behaviour, which includes the disgusting texts to Paul Bettany- ("I will duck her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she's dead), etc. I've heard people say "they're the types of unsavoury texts you send after a row/breakup"- wtf? They're not texts I would ever, ever send about my spouse, regardless of how we ended, and they say something about the type of person he is, IMO.

Is the fact that we are asked to feel sympathy for a man who had *everything*, then lost some/most of it, at least in part due to his own awful behaviour, not a bit ludicrous to begin with? I know that defamation means she damaged his reputation, but again, I would argue that he did that himself. He's the one damaging his own reputation more and more by dragging absolutely every detail of this damaging relationship through the courts, twice now. Streisand effect, anyone?
Click to expand...

It is ok if you find it hard to believe. But it is still possible - and there were wealthy / famous men that had been taken for a ride by their exes, there are plenty in history.

Also, financial abuse is a thing, it is even a crime in the UK since 2015.
If you follow your argument than financial abuse of elderly should not be a problem, but there are whole organisations just devoted to this problem.

The loss of earnings have been specified in the trial and it was argued that there was a link to the OP'ed.

Finally, nobody asks for sympathy.

It just seems like you haven't followed the trial / read the transcripts and just state your own opinion - which is fine, but your opinion is not a fact.
 
MavisWilton said:
Paul Bettany- ("I will duck her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she's dead), etc. I've heard people say "they're the types of unsavoury texts you send after a row/breakup"- wtf?
Click to expand...

Or they are a way of apologising for you fiance/girlfriend humiliating your friends teenage son....
But you are of course right.... the lad should have manned up..... crying indeed.....
 
I think a telling part of Depp's testimony was when he stated (and I am paraphrasing) that in the beginning if their relationship, he would come home from work and she would take his boots off and bring him a glass of wine, and that was something he had never experienced in a relationship. And that one day she was on the phone when he came home so he took his own boots off and grabbed a glass of wine and she became incensed.

The sound recording where misheard barked couch, couch, couch was not suggestive of someone who was cowering in fear, or who had no power in the relationship.

I found the sound recording wherein misheard was crying and begging depp not to leave, that the stress was killing her, to be very telling. Her fear of abandonment is displayed over and over (BPD?); clearly she is a deeply troubled human, they both are. I think his age may have played into her power, she was such a beautiful young woman with whom he was clearly besotted. The narrative that he was a fat, old washed up actor narrative clearly played into the dynamics of their relationship.
 
Last edited:
whathastheworldcometo said:
It is ok if you find it hard to believe. But it is still possible - and there were wealthy / famous men that had been taken for a ride by their exes, there are plenty in history.

Also, financial abuse is a thing, it is even a crime in the UK since 2015.
If you follow your argument than financial abuse of elderly should not be a problem, but there are whole organisations just devoted to this problem.

The loss of earnings have been specified in the trial and it was argued that there was a link to the OP'ed.

Finally, nobody asks for sympathy.

It just seems like you haven't followed the trial / read the transcripts and just state your own opinion - which is fine, but your opinion is not a fact.
Click to expand...

Ok, financial abuse of elderly is hardly comparable to an incredibly rich and powerful addict actor getting into a messy relationship with a woman 23 years younger than him.

Secondly, no I have not read every trial transcript nor followed every detail, but neither have 99.99% of the population. Both I, and everyone I speak to about this, thinks both of them come off terribly from the whole circus. That's my point- that to the casual observer, they both just seem horrible, and the specifics of the defamation are secondary.
 
MavisWilton said:
Ok, financial abuse of elderly is hardly comparable to an incredibly rich and powerful addict actor getting into a messy relationship with a woman 23 years younger than him.

Secondly, no I have not read every trial transcript nor followed every detail, but neither have 99.99% of the population. Both I, and everyone I speak to about this, thinks both of them come off terribly from the whole circus. That's my point- that to the casual observer, they both just seem horrible, and the specifics of the defamation are secondary.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can tell by your statements
 
knoddle said:
I think a telling part of Depp's testimony was when he stated (and I am paraphrasing) that in the beginning if their relationship, he would come home from work and she would take his boots off and bring him a glass of wine, and that was something he had never experienced in a relationship. And that one day she was on the phone when he came home so he took his own boots off and grabbed a glass of wine and she became incensed.

The sound recording where misheard barked couch, couch, couch was not suggestive of someone who was cowering in fear, or who had no power in the relationship.

I found the sound recording wherein misheard was crying and begging depp not to leave, that the stress was killing her, to be very telling. Her fear of abandonment is displayed over and over (BPD?); clearly she is a deeply troubled human, they both are. I think his age may have played into her power, she was such a beautiful young woman with whom he was clearly besotted. The narrative that he was a fat, old washed up narrative clearly played into the dynamics of their relationship.
Click to expand...

That couch couch couch stuff unsettled me. I read that JD used to rub his Mums feet when she got home from work and then there's Turdle making him take it himself. That's a bit weirdo woo woo.

You make a lot of sense to me too. She was projecting her unresolved shite with her crappy Daddy on Daddy Depp. When Daddy D needed to get away she went into crisis abandonment mode. Whereas he was projecting his unresolved shite for his crappy Mum on Turdle.

Therein lies the lessons for us mere mortals. Take off your own shoes. Sort out your own shite. And don't leave it in the bed.
 
yeoy3y3 said:
I think the reason why is because although amber heard is a celebrity she probably doesn’t have the means to pay the tax bill all in one go on the donation. Meaning if she would have paid a lump sum 7mil to the the charity after the divorce the charity may have only received 6.75mil due to 0.25mil having to be paid to taxes as AH couldn’t afford to pay 0.25mil in taxes on top of it at that time. Paying in instalments means she can afford the tax on top of the donation ie she will pay the full 0.25mil taxes out of her own pocket over the ten years and the charity will receive the full 7mil. i don’t think i explained that very well hope it makes sense


They came to an agreement AH and charity and have paused the donation payments because of a change in AH financial circumstances re having to pay for attorneys legal stuff because JD is financially abusing her through the courts. Understandable.
Click to expand...

While this is lovely info, no one seems to have answered the actual question... I still don't understand why this would have made her say in an interview that she'd donated 7 million (I just listened to it)?

I am pretty new to this all, so apologies, but everyone seems to be skirting round the issue and no one on her side has given any valid explanation that makes any sense as to why she wouldn't just say the above (e.g I am 'paying' 7 million, rather than I have 'paid') if the above is the case.. (and I'm not really on anyone's side at this point).

She's an actress - she knows words matter. It just makes zero sense.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top