The Judge has ruled that Amber Heard's drinking and claims that she doctored vaccination certificates to smuggle her dogs into Australia WILL be used against her in ex-Johnny Depp's libel case against The Sun. That’s pretty huge, as it shows Ms. Heard’s disregard for the law.
Court has also ruled that Heard’s former PA can testify. Mr. Justice Nicol declared that some, limited testimony from Kate James, a former personal assistant to Heard, will be included in the forthcoming trial. Specifically, Kate never saw any bodily injuries on Amber Heard’s body or face.
Likewise, Mr. Justice Nicol will admit testimony from Vanessa Paradis, Johnny Depp’s partner of 14 years and the mother of his two children. Vanessa has written letters of support for Johnny and has been vocal about the fact that Johnny is kind and gentle, and has never been abusive toward her
Winona Ryder’s, Johnny’s past girlfriend, will also testify that Johnny was never abusive towards her in any way. In her statement, Ryder said: “I cannot wrap my head around [Heard’s] accusations. He was never, never violent towards me. He [Depp] was never, never abusive at all towards me.”
Heard was not happy about the ruling. A spokeswoman for Heard said: “As the judgment today shows, Mr. Depp’s team has been attempting to introduce irrelevant evidence. This is one of the defining characteristics of their strategy – to adduce irrelevant evidence designed to smear Ms. Heard and distract from the facts so that people do not focus on Mr. Depp’s behaviour.”
In other words, she’s all butthurt that his past girlfriends get to say what a nice guy he is.
Unfortunately, testimony from David Killackey, Johnny Depp’s mechanic, was ruled irrelevant and will not be admitted. If you remember, Killackey was witness to threats from both Amber Heard and her father, as well as being sexually harassed by Heard herself.
We need to keep in mind that this is ONLY Johnny’s libel case against the Sun. ONLY about whether Johnny was abusive toward Amber Heard, not about her being abusive to him. Evidence that may be irrelevant to the libel case in the UK will probably be admissible in Johnny’s Defamation case in VA. We’ll most likely heard from Mr. Killackey then.
I for one can't wait to see how this plays out. What do you think?