Over half of anti-Heard tweets were bots or paid trolls, many linked to Saudi government bots.

"According to an investigation by Tortoise Media, which examined more than one million tweets, more than 50 per cent of anti-Heard messages in the run-up to the 2022 defamation case were "inauthentic' - either from automated "bot" accounts or people hired to attack the actress."

"Bradley Hope, author of a book on Bin Salman, told the podcast that the pro-Depp tweets emanating from Saudi Arabia appear to be produced by "flies", a name for Saudi bot accounts."

"An intelligence professional who tracks online disinformation campaigns, said there was only a "0.1 per cent chance" that the hate directed at Heard was from genuine Depp fans.

The investigation also claims that bot networks in Thailand and Spain tweeted large numbers of pro-Depp messages."

"...more than 100 Twitter accounts sent 1,000 identical messages at exactly the same time to any company that had worked with Heard, reading: "This brand supports domestic violence against men."'

"The makers of the podcast argue that the criticism of Heard could have affected the jury in the 2022 US defamation trial which found in favour of Depp."

"So, if you couldn't tell the difference between a real-life Johnny Depp fan and a bot in 2022, then you probably won't be able to tell a Russian troll from a US election official in 2024. And that represents a serious problem for the security of our democracies."-Alexi Mostrous, presenter of the podcast.

"Johnny Depp and the Saudi Embassy did not respond to Tortoise's request for comment."

Just over a year ago, a woman told a crowded room that her ex-husband had kicked and slapped her. She described him throwing a phone at her face. She described him penetrating her with a wine bottle. “I remember not wanting to move because I didn’t know if it was broken,” she said. “I didn’t know if the bottle that he had inside me was broken.” While she said all these things, people laughed. People called her a whore and a liar. People cheered for her ex-husband, and made posters and T-shirts emblazoned with his face.

Only about 14 months have passed since Amber Heard was mocked and shamed on a global stage. But, apparently, that means it’s now high time to relive it. This week, a new three-part series from director Emma Cooper drops on Netflix (UK viewers can also watch via Channel 4 on demand). That’s right folks, we’re back in the hellscape that is Depp v Heard.

There are certain legal cases that transcend courtroom drama to become full-blown ‘where were you when’ cultural moments. Usually, these ‘trials of the century’ are criminal trials. Charles Manson in 1970; OJ Simpson in 1995. But, occasionally, a different calibre of case will grip the public consciousness – one that spins around sex and humiliation; one that strikes to the heart of how contemporary culture understands gender and power. In 1991, attorney Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her while she worked as an adviser to him. The Senate ultimately confirmed Thomas’ nomination, while Hill received death threats. Just a few years later, as the new millennium swam into view, another sex scandal rocked American society. This time, the main characters were President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Despite Clinton eventually admitting to having had an affair with Lewinsky, for many years the court of public opinion was clear in its verdict: Monica Lewinsky was either a whore, or a liar, or both.

In a sense, the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, which took place from April 11 to June 1 2022, in Fairfax County, Virginia, combined elements of all of these previous ‘trials of the century’. As with Clinton and Lewinsky, a relationship between a younger woman and an older, more famous and more powerful man was under the microscope. In an echo of Hill v Thomas, during which lawmakers accused Anita Hill of suffering from a ‘delusional disorder’, a psychologist hired by Depp’s legal team ‘diagnosed’ Heard with borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. Like Charles Manson, the man at the centre of proceedings was also the figurehead of an obsessive fan club. And if that fan club grew to resemble a cult, in its slavish devotion to Depp against all reason, it’s largely because, like Simpson’s trial, the whole thing was televised.

However, one key difference between Depp v Heard and these other previous high-profile trials, is the influence of social media on public opinion. The trial was not only ‘televised’ but also TikToked, live-streamed and memed. The tagline for Cooper’s three-parter Depp v Heard even bills the trial as ‘the first trial by TikTok’.

The show opens with the Hollywood sign flickering into Amber Heard’s face on a red carpet. There’s old footage of Depp and Heard on the Hollywood walk of fame, at a dinner, and stepping off a boat in Venice glitch and distort into shots of Los Angeles freeways. News anchors read headlines about the couple, and about the trial. The screen glitches again, into a tree lined highway in Virginia. More clipped footage, more contextualising news clips. Then one anchor raises an important issue – a crucial factor in the trial proceedings that, a year on, often gets lost in the heady internet fog of misinformation, conspiracy, clout-chasing and PR campaigns. Why was the whole sorry spectacle staged in Virginia, when neither Heard nor Depp live or work there?

Well, the ‘official’ reason Depp was allowed to sue in the state is because the news outlet that ran Heard’s article, The Washington Post, “houses its printing press and online server in Fairfax County.” Yet, it’s also because, under Virginia law, the trial judge can decide whether to allow cameras in the courtroom.

Heard’s team tried to exclude the cameras from the trial. At a pre-trial hearing in February, attorney Elaine Bredehoft noted there was already a huge amount of media attention on the trial, as well as scrutiny from what she described as “fearful anti-Amber networks”. “What they’ll do is take anything that’s unfavourable,” Bredehoft said, “they’ll take out of context a statement, and play it over and over and over and over again.” Depp’s team, on the other hand, wanted the trial televised. “Mr. Depp believes in transparency,” his lawyer, Ben Chew declared. It should have been a sign of what was to come that the judge sided with Depp. “I don’t see any good cause not to do it,” Penney Azcarate, the chief judge of Fairfax County, announced. Others saw it differently. “Allowing this trial to be televised is the single worst decision I can think of in the context of intimate partner violence and sexual violence in recent history,” Michele Dauber, a professor at Stanford Law School said in May 2022. “It has ramifications way beyond this case.”

One of the ramifications of Judge Azcarate’s decision is that Depp v Heard is now on our screens. But, none of those quotes from various legal professionals are taken from the series. Indeed, there are no expert voices at all. There is no narration. No one who was involved in the trial is involved in this directly. There is no ‘broad view’, or ‘behind the scenes’, or ‘recontextualising with the benefit of hindsight’. This is a documentary in the loosest of senses. Early takes from the other side of the pond have been split – some critics have suggested it “casts the trial of the decade in a new light”, while others have deemed it “nothing more than a tactless win for pro-Johnny fans”. Perhaps this shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that the trial itself was so notoriously divisive. Personally, I’m inclined to agree with Audra Heinrichs of Jezebel, who described the docuseries as playing “like a highlight reel from hell”. 

If Depp v Heard suggests anything, it’s that people consuming the trial were biased. Well, that’s hardly a scoop, and to my mind, it’s certainly not worth the full, three-hour docuseries treatment. The series doesn’t dig into the motivations of the anti-Amber content creators or their backgrounds. For example, one prolific poster and top Depp stan who is featured extensively but anonymously in Cooper’s three-parter is Andy Signore. Not long before the Depp v Heard trial began, Signore had been fired from Screen Junkies, the YouTube-focused company he founded, for a variety of sexual misconduct allegations. Having set up his channel Popcorned Planet after being dismissed, Signore now posts livestreams about ‘daily news’ and ‘pop culture justice.’ Mainly, he covers what he characterises as the injustice of the #MeToo movement. Signore more than doubled the following of his YouTube channel during Depp v Heard. He made more than 300 videos about the trial, ratcheting up millions of views as he built a new reputation as a crusader for ‘justice’ and, crucially, making money in the process.

All the content creators immortalised in this series, and many more besides, were making money – but this also isn’t discussed or made explicit in Depp v Heard. Cooper presumably believes this allows the content to speak for itself, and lets the viewer weigh up their own thoughts, becoming another member of the public jury. But the true effect is just blur – an endless stream of stuff. Just how much money were all these #JusticeForJohnny content creators making? Was there a coordinated and well funded online PR campaign for Depp throughout the trial, fuelled by bots, as many alleged post-trial? Depp v Heard has no answers, just more clips. He said, she said. No thoughts, just vibes.

I wrote about Depp v Heard last year as the trial was ongoing. Then, I felt like I had to maintain some semblance of neutrality in my discussion of the ‘facts’ of the case itself. The piece wasn’t about who was ‘right’, or who was telling ‘the truth’ – it was about how strange the spectacle of the case had become, and how dangerous a precedent it seemed to set, if trials about intimate partner violence could be spun into comic TikTok clips. I didn’t want to come down on one ‘side’. I wrote that “treating an ongoing defamation trial, featuring graphic and distressing testimony about physical violence, coercive control, and sexual assault, like […] Netflix’s latest true crime documentary series is, at best, distasteful and, at worst, actively dangerous.” Now, as Netflix’s latest documentary series opens up the can of worms again, the only true takeaway is how little we’ve learnt since then.

People with personality disorders are more likely to be VICTIMS of violence, not perpetrators, but people believe it’s the other way around because of the media, and that garbage fucking trial has already caused a new surge of people talking about people with cluster B personality disorders as if they’re inherently perpetrators of abuse on the basis that they simply have a PD.

ok this is pissing me off. body language is a pseudoscience. there is no way one can become a certified "expert" in body language bc there are no fucking verified certifications for it. there are no schools or degrees for body language. there are psychology degrees, and you get a license to be a psychologist. there are law degrees, and you pass the bar exam to become a lawyer. but there is no quality regulation or standards of practice in the body language field. it's entirely subjective (based on the individual and their biases and their training that varies bc, again, there's NO FUCKING REGULATION) and highly discredited by psychologists and lawyers (you know, the actual experts) when discussing mental stability and legal culpability. the fact that so many people are claiming body language as a legitimate source and using it as a defense is making me break out in hives. it's so embarrassing for you guys please fuck off.

A complete timeline of the relationship between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp

Can't believe people are back on this

Genuinely what the fuck

I am still waiting for even one Amber Supporter to answer basic questions:

If Johnny has cut Amber more times than he has even punched her, then why doesn't she have an photo evidence of that? Why did she take a photo of Johnny sleeping on the floor as evidence that he passed out after cutting her in a drug-fueled rage and when Camille asked why she didn't take a picture of the actual puncture wound, all Amber could do was stare blankly and say that didn't occur to her...

Why is it that when Amber went to a hospital claiming to have two black eyes, a busted lip and a broken nose, the medical report described nothing of the sort? Amber insists the report isn't complete, even though the report shown in court had the complete description of Amber's face highlighted? Why doesn't Amber's lawyers have the complete one if this is just obfuscation?

Why is it that four police officers, including one female officer who is specifically trained to intervene and domestic abuse cases, in a state that requires domestic abuse reports even if no one charges, not think domestic abuse occured in Johnny's apartment?

Why did Amber give Johnny a hunting knife for his birthday when she also claimed that just a few months prior he was regularly cutting her with glass?

Why is this entire case built on Amber Heard claiming she didn't want anyone to know that Johnny ever abused her, therefore every single media exclusive was made by her friends, lawyers, family, and agents without her knowledge or approval.... And yet... Not a single friend, family, lawyer, or agent can corroborate this story, and Amber doesn't actually name anyone?

Why is it that on a secretly recorded 8 minute long rant where Amber lists everything she hates about her husband, she calls him passive, week, and a coward who runs away at the first sign of conflict, all of which are the exact opposite descriptions of physical abuser, but not once in these 8 minutes does she mention 4 years of cutting, beating, punching, pinning down, or raping her? She spends more time mocking 21 Jump Street then claiming he made her life a living hell by beating her.

Why is it that Johnny Depp has more than three different secret recordings of Amber being a colossal, unfiltered bitch admitting to slapping him, calling him in a pathetic excuse of a man for not giving her children, mocking him for doing the exact opposite of what an abuser does - run AWAY from conflict - and Amber's ONLY video after FOUR years of abuse that she claims started before she even married Johnny (lol) is a video of him slamming doors... And then WALKING AWAY FROM CONFLICT.

Why did Amber refuse top-of-the-line private security after telling her boyfriend that Johnny raped her, saying that it'll be okay because she "put out a restraining order"?

Why was Johnny able to record Amber begging for his attention and for him to hug her after she not only claimed he raped her, but already put out a restraining order? Why was Amber breaking her own restraining order to beg for a hug from her rapist, but her rapist was saying "I'm nothing to you and I never have been. We'll never see each other again. You will never see my eyes again."

Why did Amber dismiss the restraining order immediately after winning her $7 million and then issue a joint statement saying that their "relationship was intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love. Neither party has made false accusations for financial gain. There was never any intent of physical or emotional harm"?

Why hasn't Amber donated the full $7 million she promised from her divorce to the ACLU and LA Children's Hospital, and why didn't she do it in the 13 months before Johnny ever sued her, but she uses Johnny suing her as the reason she only ever gave $350,000? Why did she ask friends to give their money in her name? She literally told everyone she doesn't need this money but pocketed it all and asked her new boyfriend to donate for her.... Also, by that logic, even IF Johnny had paid the full divorce settlement, why didn't she and her new billionaire boyfriend just pay the children's hospital and why hasn't Amber ever filed any petition with the courts to get the money she claims Johnny failed to give her?

If you're only response to any of these questions is "rot in hell" or "how dare you", you are doing a disservice to yourself as a woman. Don't men say we are illogical and rules by our emotions? Wouldn't it be nice to..

Prove we aren't?

I am trying really, really hard not to get too into this because it frankly enrages me every time I try, but as a small part of a very big emotional thing:

literally all I do all day is talk to victims of DV. that's my job. a lot – a lot – of my clients have mental health problems. they can be emotionally needy and constantly demand attention; they can overreact to things that a more mentally healthy person would not react to because their capacity to handle even small problems has been totally fried; they can sometimes react violently, even as the "aggressor," because they lack other means (emotionally or physically) to de-escalate conflict; they often self-medicate with substances, which then also means they are more likely to be treated poorly when interacting with law enforcement or child protective services.

that doesn't mean that they weren't abused. it just means they are reacting to trauma.

now, my adverse parties also often have mental health problems. they also abuse substances and handle conflict poorly, usually with violence but often with coercion and control. they will often try to get their partners back by enrolling in therapy or addiction treatment or anger management classes, to prove that they are trying to "fix the relationship," because of course the problem isn't them and their attitude towards romantic partners: it's the drugs, or their terrible childhoods, or their inability to handle their anger, or their partner not being supportive enough of them, or or or.

DV isn't about specific actions. it's about power and control. And what I get from Depp is that he was the one in control in the relationship, and he blamed his violence on his drug addiction, which he then refused to treat. And all this trial has been is people trotting out every single stupid attitude against domestic violence victims I have ever encountered and it pisses me off.

What comes to mind when you think of Amber Heard? Liar? Survivor? Narcissist? Millions of us watched the celebrity trial of the century, Depp v Heard, in 2022. Amber Heard lost and Johnny Depp was vindicated. But what if Amber was actually the victim of an organised trolling campaign? What if the online hate against her was manufactured? Alexi Mostrous, the reporter who brought you Sweet Bobby and Hoaxed, investigates what happened to Amber and who might have been responsible. It’s a story about how our own thoughts and opinions can be moulded without us even realising.

The judge really let that “psychologist” go on and on and on and on, talking a whoooole bunch of hearsay. And she brought up things that weren’t even talked about initially???

This smells rotten.

Not to mention how biased she was. Acting like these things don’t happen to men as well. Ugh.

@ depp supporters in my mentions & askbox, my dear children, my  trolls who’ve developed an unhealthy parasocial relationship with an abusive alcoholic drug addicted male actor, i beg of thee, read the linked article. i know you won’t. 

Part Two -> Amber Heard vs The Cult of Johnny Depp

↳ How Johnny Depp primed the world to fall for an absurd conspiracy theory.

Part One -> Amber Heard is an Unambiguous Victim