He isn't without fault, but no one is. He openly admitted to plenty of wrong doings, especially where substance abuse is involved. Amber has maintained a I don't lie and did nothing wrong front the whole time. When asked about bringing drugs to events they would both be at she didn't seem bothered at all by that even though she knew Depp was trying to get clean. Maybe it's just a psychological thing but I'm way more inclined to believe the story of someone who owns part mistake than someone who claims to be blameless

It's possible but there's no real evidence on that though. At the same time pretty much everybody seems to love Johnny Depp saying how kind and lovely he is, while she has an apparent history of being abusive and on occasion violent towards not only him but also staff, family, ex partners etc. Case is pretty strong but I don't think there'll be a conviction, will depend on the jury though. Oh yeah and everyone involved was pretty much off their tits high and drunk all the time...

Pretty sure she has fans on her side too, but her blatant lies will make it hard for people to justify why they're on her side. Perhaps she really was abused, I don't know I certainly wasn't there, but claiming that she was literally beat to death, just a bloody pulp on the floor and yet she has no scars and no medical history makes it rather obvious she's lying. He probably was crazy too, but in a conflict where one person's story is believable and has evidence to prove at least some of it and the other person's story is wildly exaggerated with no evidence it's rather clear which is the "worse" person.

I do believe their relationship was volatile, and I don't think that Johnny Depp is an innocent angel and patron saint of the abused, but Amber Heard's claims sound suspicious to say the least. Trashing your ex is one thing, but if she's playing a victim while in fact she was an active perpetrator - that's the whole new level of f****d up.

The only reason why Johnny Depp lost his case in the UK is because of corruption. The judge that was presiding over the case on the Op-ed published by The SUN slandering and defemating Johnny Depp, calling him a wife beater, despite damning evidence against the allegations. The judge failed to reccuse himself from the case when he found out his son who works for The SUN was involved with the publishing of the Op-ed. Even the chief judge didn't step in and reassign the case to a different judge to avoid a huge conflict of interest. Some Brits admit that the legal system in the UK is not too far off from the level of corruption in the US legal system. Therefore not surprised this happened. An appeal made by Johnny Depps lawyers in the UK was denied.

Or anyone on her side just cause ?

See, this is why you have to keep up with the trial before commenting on it

Yes, constant abuse against him, ruining his career, and then making false accusations is MUCH WORSE than he is. He is no saint, and he'll be the first to tell you that. She lies, cheats and abuses.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I've been mostly trying to avoid the trial. With that said, from the little I know about law (IANAL), the whole trial seems more about harassing Heard than much else. The chances of Depp winning a trial like this seem fleeting, at best. He lost against the Sun, in the UK, where the lack of a 1st ammendment means that lible laws are much more winnable than in the US (where they're practically impossible). The Sun also called him a "wife-beater", while Heard just alleged that she was a victim of DV (while not naming the perpetrator). Effectly, Depp has to prove that 1) Heard did lie about being a victim of DV (hard to do - since how in the heck do you prove that she *isn't* something?) AND 2) that it was her lies (in the WA Post) that caused his career to tank (not, y'know, litigating against a tabloid which I suspect is the real reason studios stopped hiring him. Studios tend to be really cautious around people who are litigious.)