Thread by @ShadowTodd

Ho boy.

So, with all this anti-Amber Heard stuff floating around, I got to wondering: If Amber Heard has so definitively proven to be the abuser not the victim, how did Depp lose his first case so bad?

So I read the actual ruling. And it is DAMNING.

bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…

I was suspicious of the Twitter narrative because the only real evidence I heard was the call where she admitted hitting him. But he admitted to striking her too; they both claim self-defense. So I started looking in the ruling for corroborating evidence

theblast.com/c/amber-heard-…

...and what I found in the court documents was literally just years of texts from Johnny's staff talking about him having rage tantrums, Amber telling people he's scary out-of-control as early as 2013, Johnny admitting to breaking shit, Johnny admitting he has blackout rages...

Depp's assistant admitted in a text that Depp abused her. Did you know that? He now claims he was just trying to tell her what she wanted to hear, but *every other verifiable piece of evidence* says that he had issues with anger, jealousy, drugs, violence

https://twitter.com/drugproblem/status/1517264473433595904

Maybe Amber is a bad person, maybe she isn't, but Depp lost the first case in the libel-happy UK because every text, email and testimony from someone not on Depp's payroll says that he was a raging maniac. You can read it yourself, it's thorough. Like, even the poop was debunked.

The one thing that the court wasn't able to determine is what happened to Depp's finger; the best anyone has is guesses. The night of, and in the immediate aftermath, Depp would claim that he did it to himself and that Amber did it and other witness accounts are muddled...

However, immediately afterward, he wrote graffiti on the wall with the blood from his severed finger calling Amber a slut. The court didn't think this (along with Depp's heavy drinking) sounded like the behavior of an abuse victim who feared for his safety and neither do I.