With how much smoking he does, im actually surprised they don't look worse.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Was going to say the same. They probably need a good clean from a hygienist because of his smoking but if they are healthy then don't go sanding them and sticking fake veneers on top just for vanity.
Did anyone watch the Depp v Heard Channel 4 series this week? They missed out a lot of the damning evidence - like the audio where Heard was cackling. They also failed to point out that the 'bruise' to Amber's face on the day of the restraining order was 6 days old ....and the next day, when photographed with Rocky, the bruise had vanished completely. They did point out that the so called text messages from Deuters to Heard, were in a totally different format to the rest of the text messages she handed over....and so their validity was questioned.
I wonder if Andy Signore was made aware of this show as it shows Popcorned Planet in a bad light - showing clips of Andy begging for money through cash app/paypal etc etc during the trial.......
I wonder if Andy Signore was made aware of this show as it shows Popcorned Planet in a bad light - showing clips of Andy begging for money through cash app/paypal etc etc during the trial.......
The documentary is what JD would call a ‘hit piece’. What I can’t work out is why the media in general are so keen to avoid admitting that a high profile man could, at least potentially, be a victim of domestic violence. He admitted his faults and has a nervous demenour that comes across as sarcasm, she acted like a perfect princess who turns on the overdramatics like turning on and off a tap. If you only watch clips, as per the c4 documentary presents, you cannot appreciate what is happening.
They seem to want to keep pushing this stereotype that it is always the man/older person in the relationship that is a danger to the other. This ‘abuse of power’ nonsense, rather than ‘abuse of another person’. I suspect it is because of the money…all these women’s rights groups, refuges, magazines and legal aid groups etc…if we start admitting that women sometimes tell lies and men need to be protected from that…their ethos and funding is at risk. So any women’s organisation/charity with a PR officer or paying an agency will be pushing the narrative that AH was wronged.
The JD/AH case shows that televising court cases is a real eye-opener, we cannot trust what the media reports from the court-room, they pick and choose a few lines of testimony to push their own narratives or to create a sensationalised story.
The most interesting point for me came in ep1 of the c4 documentary, when asked about abuse…AH refers to being abused online. The case was about what happened between them during the marriage…and whether she lied about it or not in the 2018 op-ed. AH was trying to make the trial about her unfair/excessive negative treatment from social media commentators…which is exactly what c4 did by including them in the documentary. Yet…the social media stuff is irrelevant to the case itself…none of it was perpetrated by JD….so in fact it was AH who was speaking to the media/cameras, even though it was her who didn’t want them present.
The documentary also fail to mention that the unsealed docs showed it was AH who demanded a trial by jury, would not negotiate another outcome, and so knew when she did that it would likely end up televised due to media interest (each party get to object, but it the judge/court who out forward to motion to televise depending on how many journalism requests they receive). So she pushed it down this route, and I think she was hoping that the social media angle and press coverage could help her at appeal or get a mistrial (biased jury etc).
What is crazy about all of this is that there is a 6 week trial, every minute of it on youtube, unsealed docs and lots of audio etc, yet we as the public are still not being left alone to make our own opinions on who we believe. A whole year later and people are still trying to change the opinions of others on Twitter and with articles and documentaries.
JD is not reacting, trying to avoid any questions etc, he appears to be genuinely trying to put the situation behind him and move forward, he has not made any mention of AH since the trial, not even in his post trial statement, all he did was thank the judge/jury etc. AH on the other hand did a tv interview, and appears to be manipulating things still. She disappears for months…then just when JD will be out in public again (film premiere), she suddenly is out running, at the park with her child, signing autographs, having the police visit her home etc…all within the space of a week. She can easily stay out of view if media have located her and she wanted privacy…but no…she is back out walking the streets again day after day, maxing up her publicity while she can…because she is only noteworthy to the daily mail etc if they can write about her in connection with JD.
L’Oréal appear to be dropping her as brand ambassador very quietly, she’s under contract so they are listing her on their website (to avoid unfair dismissal claim?), but it appears they are not using her image anywhere or providing her with any work. What is going to be interesting is how WB handle the aquaman 2 release…if she is still in the movie, will it negatively affect ticket sales? If it does, it will be a case of the public causing cancel culture, not the media.
They seem to want to keep pushing this stereotype that it is always the man/older person in the relationship that is a danger to the other. This ‘abuse of power’ nonsense, rather than ‘abuse of another person’. I suspect it is because of the money…all these women’s rights groups, refuges, magazines and legal aid groups etc…if we start admitting that women sometimes tell lies and men need to be protected from that…their ethos and funding is at risk. So any women’s organisation/charity with a PR officer or paying an agency will be pushing the narrative that AH was wronged.
The JD/AH case shows that televising court cases is a real eye-opener, we cannot trust what the media reports from the court-room, they pick and choose a few lines of testimony to push their own narratives or to create a sensationalised story.
The most interesting point for me came in ep1 of the c4 documentary, when asked about abuse…AH refers to being abused online. The case was about what happened between them during the marriage…and whether she lied about it or not in the 2018 op-ed. AH was trying to make the trial about her unfair/excessive negative treatment from social media commentators…which is exactly what c4 did by including them in the documentary. Yet…the social media stuff is irrelevant to the case itself…none of it was perpetrated by JD….so in fact it was AH who was speaking to the media/cameras, even though it was her who didn’t want them present.
The documentary also fail to mention that the unsealed docs showed it was AH who demanded a trial by jury, would not negotiate another outcome, and so knew when she did that it would likely end up televised due to media interest (each party get to object, but it the judge/court who out forward to motion to televise depending on how many journalism requests they receive). So she pushed it down this route, and I think she was hoping that the social media angle and press coverage could help her at appeal or get a mistrial (biased jury etc).
What is crazy about all of this is that there is a 6 week trial, every minute of it on youtube, unsealed docs and lots of audio etc, yet we as the public are still not being left alone to make our own opinions on who we believe. A whole year later and people are still trying to change the opinions of others on Twitter and with articles and documentaries.
JD is not reacting, trying to avoid any questions etc, he appears to be genuinely trying to put the situation behind him and move forward, he has not made any mention of AH since the trial, not even in his post trial statement, all he did was thank the judge/jury etc. AH on the other hand did a tv interview, and appears to be manipulating things still. She disappears for months…then just when JD will be out in public again (film premiere), she suddenly is out running, at the park with her child, signing autographs, having the police visit her home etc…all within the space of a week. She can easily stay out of view if media have located her and she wanted privacy…but no…she is back out walking the streets again day after day, maxing up her publicity while she can…because she is only noteworthy to the daily mail etc if they can write about her in connection with JD.
L’Oréal appear to be dropping her as brand ambassador very quietly, she’s under contract so they are listing her on their website (to avoid unfair dismissal claim?), but it appears they are not using her image anywhere or providing her with any work. What is going to be interesting is how WB handle the aquaman 2 release…if she is still in the movie, will it negatively affect ticket sales? If it does, it will be a case of the public causing cancel culture, not the media.
Some early screenings suggest she is in the movie for 10 minutes in total.........
I am angry thinking about the C4 documentary episodes... I knew rightly they would do this. Why are the MSM still so reluctant to see that Johnny was a victim to this psycho witch? It's absolutely awful.
It's crazy how the Aquaman 2 saga is still ongoing though, it feels like it's the longest film to ever be made! Have they still not finished it
JD was dropped like a stone from Disney the minute she opened her lying trap with her lies, yet WB can't even find the guts to do the same to her. Why are they so hesitant? Why are they keeping her at all, even if they've cut her down to 10 minutes? If it had have been a man, there would be no will-they-won't-they, no question or cutting down to a lesser time, it would have been a recast, no matter how inconvenient it might have been. I am wondering if they're trying to use the situation for hype and get more people to go and watch the film, but I personally find it would do the opposite, it's off putting.
It's crazy how the Aquaman 2 saga is still ongoing though, it feels like it's the longest film to ever be made! Have they still not finished it
JD was dropped like a stone from Disney the minute she opened her lying trap with her lies, yet WB can't even find the guts to do the same to her. Why are they so hesitant? Why are they keeping her at all, even if they've cut her down to 10 minutes? If it had have been a man, there would be no will-they-won't-they, no question or cutting down to a lesser time, it would have been a recast, no matter how inconvenient it might have been. I am wondering if they're trying to use the situation for hype and get more people to go and watch the film, but I personally find it would do the opposite, it's off putting.
There are rumors she had something with the director or someone else and then blackmailed them to stay in the film. For anyone else I would take reports like this with a grain of salt but with her...even if you ignore the 'give me what I want or you will be sorry' threats to Johnny, there are also stories from her past as well about blackmailing to get what she wanted and just a few months back, there was a story of her doing it to Elon Musk as she had footage of him at parties that got out of hand and he didn't want it being made public.I am angry thinking about the C4 documentary episodes... I knew rightly they would do this. Why are the MSM still so reluctant to see that Johnny was a victim to this psycho witch? It's absolutely awful.
It's crazy how the Aquaman 2 saga is still ongoing though, it feels like it's the longest film to ever be made! Have they still not finished it
JD was dropped like a stone from Disney the minute she opened her lying trap with her lies, yet WB can't even find the guts to do the same to her. Why are they so hesitant? Why are they keeping her at all, even if they've cut her down to 10 minutes? If it had have been a man, there would be no will-they-won't-they, no question or cutting down to a lesser time, it would have been a recast, no matter how inconvenient it might have been. I am wondering if they're trying to use the situation for hype and get more people to go and watch the film, but I personally find it would do the opposite, it's off putting.
I remember when the petition to get her removed started on Change and one of the producers laughed about it saying they didn't care. Funnily enough, the producers of The Stand said the same thing when fans said as much as they loved Stephen, if she was in it they weren't watching and it flopped big time. The petition is now at nearly 5 million so they seemingly have taken notice as every time we hear about it, her time on screen is lessened.
If WB isn't going to do anything about Ezra Miller they aren't going to do anything about Amber HeardI am angry thinking about the C4 documentary episodes... I knew rightly they would do this. Why are the MSM still so reluctant to see that Johnny was a victim to this psycho witch? It's absolutely awful.
It's crazy how the Aquaman 2 saga is still ongoing though, it feels like it's the longest film to ever be made! Have they still not finished it
JD was dropped like a stone from Disney the minute she opened her lying trap with her lies, yet WB can't even find the guts to do the same to her. Why are they so hesitant? Why are they keeping her at all, even if they've cut her down to 10 minutes? If it had have been a man, there would be no will-they-won't-they, no question or cutting down to a lesser time, it would have been a recast, no matter how inconvenient it might have been. I am wondering if they're trying to use the situation for hype and get more people to go and watch the film, but I personally find it would do the opposite, it's off putting.
Not followed the story for a while regarding Heards other cases but seen this, this morning
www.dailymail.co.uk
Amber Heard finally pays Johnny Depp $1million settlement she owed
Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard eventually settled their defamation claims against each other in December after five years of furious legal battles.
It annoys the hell out of me as I have seen many headlines saying she paid him when she didn't give him a penny, it was the insurance company who had to fork out.Not followed the story for a while regarding Heards other cases but seen this, this morning
Amber Heard finally pays Johnny Depp $1million settlement she owed
Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard eventually settled their defamation claims against each other in December after five years of furious legal battles.
are the cases between the insurance companies and her still ongoing?
I mean she's bankrolled now with a Musk baby so doubt she has a care in the world but I still like to think the court cases stress her. Is she still with that Barlow woman?
She's still defending her although I have no idea why. Amber only ever used her as a dogsbody and someone to get stuff out there to people. Even after she supposedly attacked her in a hotel and gave her a black eye, she is still kissing her ass.
As for the insurance, it's still on the go as far as I am aware. A few lawyers have quit and things keep getting stalled.
Depp is splitting the 1 million between five charities
Does that mean her insurance company lost the case and had to fork out?
It was seemingly Travellers that paid it but last I heard they were still wanting the other insurance company NYM to fork over half as well and that case is still ongoing. I think it is NYM that is suing Amber for deliberately misleading them to get the insurance. So while she didn't have to pay the $1m, she still might have to fork out eventually as Travelers could end up deciding to sue her if they lose the case against NYM and she can't claim she is skint this time seeing as how she forked out for the house in Spain.
I'm pretty sure she and Fartlow broke up and her old girlfriend reappeared on he scene.
......She might sit on the carpet and notice how dirty it is.......
Well this is disgusting - today’s Sun. How much did
Inside Amber Heard's incredible comeback from life in Spain to Hollywood deal
AS she strode the red carpet for the first time in four years, Amber Heard held her head high – despite being aware of the threats to her life. Extra police had been drafted in to the Taormina Film…
www.thesun.co.uk
If this case has taught me anything is to not believe mainstream media. Amber was never mobbed by fans. In fact she was booed. LolView attachment 2271155
Well this is disgusting - today’s Sun. How much didElonthe Turd pay for this vile spread?
Inside Amber Heard's incredible comeback from life in Spain to Hollywood deal
AS she strode the red carpet for the first time in four years, Amber Heard held her head high – despite being aware of the threats to her life. Extra police had been drafted in to the Taormina Film…