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
Jvuddie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Donated = pledged, maybe? I agree that pledged would have been the better choice, but can also see that someone could *maybe* say that they’d earmarked all the money for charity rather than themselves, therefore it had been donated. I wouldn’t die on this hill though 😃
 
Interesting, the cross examination of Dr. Curry, was "And do you recall Doctor so and so said in their deposition. The best question she asked was about the scoring of 65% on testing. This cross examination is much more detailed.
 
Jvuddie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you have access to celebrity’s tax dealings/ financial statements whether the ones who have said they’ve donated x amount at a point in time (say at a charity fundraising ball) when actually they have paying x/t (t = time , x = amount paid) , yearly or bi yearly depending on the tax filing dates/tax planning over a 5 or 10 or whatever year or period. it’s a common thing. if you did a bit of digging on the internet you would probably find an announcement on a charity’s website the person a is donating x amount and then see in there filing reporting to FEC (in US) of donations over the past 5 years that person a has donated x/5 per year . you wouldn’t see the exact figure on the yearly statements but you would see a range. you would not have access to see which HNW individuals which have these arrangements in place as they don’t have a duty to report to companies house in UK or the FEC in US

They probably didn’t try to explain whatever tax planning she had in place at the time as to a jury because it’s abit confusing and not really relevant at all to the case at hand? although it was brought up through cross and JD team were ok at first with paying in installements there was a document that proved as much. until JD said that he will pay the charity directly instead of through AH. AH team refused this saying if this is true then he should pay $14 mil to charity as he would benefit with the reduction of taxable income or paying off his unpaid tax bill at the time if he paid directly to the charity . which is so slimey
IE he had a $5m or around that of unpaid taxes at to the IRS due to late payments and tax evasion over the years. if he paid directly to the charity he would have probably been able to partially or complexity clear that

I don’t believe AH was lying and from a financial /accounting perspective surrounding non profits i doubt it would be viewed as lying. the lawyer at the charity testified the as much.
 
Last edited:
donutwitch said:
I agree with every word of this. Both toxic, both abusers, but I do think Ambers age and power hierarchy in the relationship at the time (in terms of career, reputation, means etc) mean that I hope she still had time to learn lessons, get help and have a chance to fix some of her issues. I think it’s a shame that this relationship will now follow her for the rest of her life and has likely destroyed her career (although she’s also massively to blame for that). JD seems like a complete man-child, constantly smirking and playing up to the jury during what should be the most excruciating and humiliating experience of his life tells me that he really doesn’t take any responsibility, not to mention the fact that he’s brought all of this to the fore to destroy his ex-wife 6 years after the divorce with no concern to the impact it will have on his family (despite his claim that this was his main motivation for the suit). I noted he claimed he was suing his managers for losing all his money in the rolling stone article ‘for his kids’ also, and didn’t display a grain of self-awareness or personal responsibility there either. I think he’s a lost cause, I was pretty indifferent to him at the beginning of all of this and was just interested in the case but now he turns me off completely.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Interesting that you see it that way. I see it from a totally different angle. Amber got with Johnny after his divorce- probably one of the most vulnerable times in a person's life. The fact that she was younger doesn't make her vulnerable. He probably couldn't even believe his luck, that a woman like her would want him in his old age, after divorce. And just like many men, they are all weak for attractive women (yes, this is his fault). But she played up to this. I think she was very calculated from the beginning, ans was using him. Whereas he was just dumb.
 
AnonyGoss said:
Hmmm. Interesting that you see it that way. I see it from a totally different angle. Amber got with Johnny after his divorce- probably one of the most vulnerable times in a person's life. The fact that she was younger doesn't make her vulnerable. He probably couldn't even believe his luck, that a woman like her would want him in his old age, after divorce. And just like many men, they are all weak for attractive women (yes, this is his fault). But she played up to this. I think she was very calculated from the beginning. Whereas he was just dumb.
Click to expand...

I don’t think he was married to Vanessa Paradis and didn’t get divorced, and also it seemed to me that he got with AH before he’d ended his previous relationship. So I don’t really consider middle aged men doing that to be at their lowest ebb and particularly vulnerable… it’s just one big cliche
 
AnonyGoss said:
Hmmm. Interesting that you see it that way. I see it from a totally different angle. Amber got with Johnny after his divorce- probably one of the most vulnerable times in a person's life. The fact that she was younger doesn't make her vulnerable. He probably couldn't even believe his luck, that a woman like her would want him in his old age, after divorce. And just like many men, they are all weak for attractive women (yes, this is his fault). But she played up to this. I think she was very calculated from the beginning, ans was using him. Whereas he was just dumb.
Click to expand...

I just find this narrative ridiculous. It’s demeaning to men to insist that they can be so vulnerable to scheming sexy women. He was a middle aged man with several relationships under his belt and millions in the bank he was hardly going to be floored at hot young actress being interested in him.
 
yeoy3y3 said:
Do you have access to celebrity’s tax dealings/ financial statements whether the ones who have said they’ve donated x amount at a point in time (say at a charity fundraising ball) when actually they have paying x/t (t = time , x = amount paid) , yearly or bi yearly depending on the tax filing dates/tax planning over a 5 or 10 or whatever year or period. it’s a common thing. if you did a bit of digging on the internet you would probably find an announcement on a charity’s website the person a is donating x amount and then see in there filing reporting to FEC (in US) of donations over the past 5 years that person a has donated x/5 per year . you wouldn’t see the exact figure on the yearly statements but you would see a range. you would not have access to see which HNW individuals which have these arrangements in place as they don’t have a duty to report to companies house in UK or the FEC in US


I don’t believe AH was lying and from a financial /accounting perspective surrounding non profits i doubt it would be viewed as lying. the lawyer at the charity testified the as much.
Click to expand...

No offence, but this feels like a reach given literally all she had to say was 'I am donating' or 'I have pledged' to avoid all future doubt. I get that you support her and everything, but this feels like a naive assessment and still doesn't even nearly explain why she just didn't say those words. It was a planned interview, and I'm sure she's thought about this question before (or would have been warned it may arise). I don't know anything about tax, but have worked in the world of celebrity for a bit.
Also she, surely, would have been extra careful about this question, and would have thought out a response long in advance - given all the heat about it over the years.
Finally, I also don't think an assessment of her financial or tax situation is that relevant tbh - if she chooses to be ignorant of her own circumstances as to whether she has or hasn't donated everything, that's still on her.
 
donutwitch said:
I don’t think he was married to Vanessa Paradis and didn’t get divorced, and also it seemed to me that he got with AH before he’d ended his previous relationship. So I don’t really consider middle aged men doing that to be at their lowest ebb and particularly vulnerable… it’s just one big cliche
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction there. If that's the case, then yes, he's a fool for that!
I still don't believe she was a naive just because she was young. But she was naive or overly confident in her ability to fool the public, that's for sure. Something about her just strikes me as someone who always expects to get their own way.
I am still open minded and waiting to hear from her on the stand, nevertheless.
 
Jvuddie said:
No offence, but this feels like a reach given literally all she had to say was 'I am donating' or 'I have pledged' to avoid all future doubt. I get that you support her and everything, but this feels like a naive assessment and still doesn't even nearly explain why she just didn't say those words. It was a planned interview, and I'm sure she's thought about this question before (or would have been warned it may arise). I don't know anything about tax, but have worked in the world of celebrity for a bit.
Also she, surely, would have been extra careful about this question, and would have thought out a response long in advance - given all the heat about it over the years.
Finally, I also don't think an assessment of her financial or tax situation is that relevant tbh - if she chooses to be ignorant of her own circumstances as to whether she has or hasn't donated everything, that's still on her.
Click to expand...


Is this a talk show interview your referring to ?

Also in your opinion is it only JD that can bring up the details of his financial circumstances over the years in this trial ?

I support her because it’s true. like i would support any victim of SA DV. one of the top uk libel judges found it to be on 12 out of 14 occasions of abuse in a damming judgement and she’s having to go through hell and back at the moment because JD libel shopped for a corrupt judge to take his case. but i’m in industry and accreditation's etc in the field - i’ve watched the entirety of the trial and was shocked by the falsehoods and untruths JD team were presenting with expert witnesses etc about bias data which can easily be debunked

Jvuddie said:
No offence, but this feels like a reach given literally all she had to say was 'I am donating' or 'I have pledged' to avoid all future doubt. I get that you support her and everything, but this feels like a naive assessment and still doesn't even nearly explain why she just didn't say those words. It was a planned interview, and I'm sure she's thought about this question before (or would have been warned it may arise). I don't know anything about tax, but have worked in the world of celebrity for a bit.
Also she, surely, would have been extra careful about this question, and would have thought out a response long in advance - given all the heat about it over the years.
Finally, I also don't think an assessment of her financial or tax situation is that relevant tbh - if she chooses to be ignorant of her own circumstances as to whether she has or hasn't donated everything, that's still on her.
Click to expand...


I’ve explain why AH and the charity has come to an agreement and paused donation instalments further back in the thread
 
Last edited:

Noodles5
Chatty Member
51 minutes ago

Bluenose70💙 said:
Dr Hughes comes off arrogant to me. I think she might get riled today 🤣.
Click to expand...
Yes she seems like an ignorant witch
She's gone quite red in the face
Click to expand...
Come on, I am team depp, but Dr. Hughes is certainly not an ignorant witch. She is very much a cocky New Yorker, (it's part of the culture) so she does come across as arrogant. Back talking to the judge, was not a helpful display on her part. She is currently being hammered in cross examination, without the notes she relies on, and she is holding her own. People who resort to name calling tend to lose their credibility. This is a very high profile, high stress case , the cross examination by depp's lawyer's is much more detailed, intricate, and credibly critical than what Dr. Curry endured (Snotty 'and do you recall' questions.)
The way she filled out the PTSD test documentation was lax, court documents require doting of i's and crossing of t's , so she is defensive of her work. Based on what I read about her, she does some very important work; I think that somehow she lost her objectivity with misheard, and has become very protective of her, as if she were a treating Doctor rather than a forensic one. Perhaps she spent too much time with misheard.
 
Noodles5 said:
Who did she have a baby with?? Don't remember ever hearing about her pregnant..
Click to expand...

Feel free to join us for further discussion on said baby daddy

Elon Musk

He's taken over twitter and he's taken over space, so I think it's about time we tattle about his face! (and the rest!) There's this in the news today, why would he want to control where people gossip? Ohhhhhhh! 'Rebellious staff claim their new boss is 'dangerous for democracy'...
tattle.life
 
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