Depp v. Heard

On: Trial by Social Media

here it is! my final paper for my media law class, and a paper i have been longing to write since 2022. because it was written for class, i had to say as impartial as possible, but let me make it clear, amber heard is an unambiguous victim, and i will not hear any argument from a depp fan who thinks otherwise.

a big thank you to the contributors at deppdive.net for any court documents on either case, they have almost anything you would need. and thank you to medusone for her timeline which helped me know where to start on certain incidents.

---

Before we begin: trigger warning for domestic abuse and sexual assault.

---

They say the best defense for a defamation suit is the truth. Unless you are a multi-millionaire, washed-up heartthrob from the 90s. Then, the best defense is a good offense. In 2022, fervor over the Depp v. Heard trial swept across the globe. Clips of lawyers, body-language experts, psychologists, and laypeople flooded social media, as everyone had something to say about the participants. When someone’s mind is made up, there is little one can do to change it. In the age of social media, it appears that winning a jury over is as simple as spreading a few well-placed lies on the internet. The question becomes what role do the press and social media play in preventing an impartial jury and a fair trial.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees that any lawsuit for over twenty dollars has the right to be seen before a jury, in a federal court.¹ That the 2022 case was seen before a jury is incredibly important to the matter at hand.

In 2020, Depp brought forth a similar defamation suit against News Group Newspapers Ltd. (NGN), the publishers of a United Kingdom (U.K.) based magazine The Sun. The Sun had published an article stating that Depp was a “wife-beater.” A U.K. judge, and later the U.K. Court of Appeal, found that the statement in The Sun was “substantially true”² and therefore NGN was not liable.

Depp and his attorneys filed their suit against Heard in 2019, around the same time they filed the UK suit. Heard countersued, on her own grounds of libel for statements made by Depp’s lawyer, Adam Waldman. The case was tried in the circuit court of Fairfax County, VA, rather than in California, where both Depp and Heard have their primary U.S. residences.³ The reasoning behind this is often attributed to Virginia’s lackluster anti-SLAPP laws.

A SLAPP suit or a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation is a lawsuit filed for the specific purpose of wrapping up someone in litigation, that is often expensive and can drag on for years, with the intent to silence that person. California has some of the strictest anti-SLAPP laws in the nation.⁴ Virginia, on the other hand, has been criticized for the holes in their anti-SLAPP legislation.

Virginia’s anti-SLAPP law, statute 8.01-223.2, does protect broadly against lawsuits brought to the courts on grounds of protected First Amendment speech, anything said at a hearing or before a governing body, or any Title IV disputes.⁵ However, critics say there are major holes surrounding how defendants may invoke protections, and in recovering fees if a suit does take place.

Like the U.K. case, the brunt of Depp v. Heard were libel claims lobbed by Depp. The accusations surrounded a 2018 op-ed Heard had written for the Washington Post. The article was about Heard’s experience as a “public figure representing domestic abuse.”⁶ Heard never calls herself a victim. Depp is never mentioned, though it is not necessary for a plaintiff to be mentioned by name for a statement to be libelous.

Libel is, in the most basic of terms, the willful publication of untrue material. For a statement to be found libelous in the United States the plaintiff needs to prove that it was a) seen by at least one other person, b) caused provable―usually monetary―harm to the plaintiff’s reputation, c) was at least negligibly published, and d) was untrue.⁷

It is difficult to discern the truth, in any context, but especially for a case where so much hearsay is slung by both sides. Photo, video, and audio evidence was submitted to the court on both sides, detailing the abuse both claimed. It is also important to reiterate that this was not a criminal case, and no one was―legally, at least―being accused of abuse. However, it is hard to discount the staggering amount of evidence Heard collected, as well as the witness testimony supporting her claims.

There are two instances that, during the trial and the media storm surrounding it, help point out how truth can be warped for a more sensational version of events. These will be referred to as the “Australia Incident” and the “Last Fight.”

Two sensational events were involved in the Australia Incident: Depp losing the tip of a finger, and Heard’s sexual assault allegation. Both are alleged to have happened during the same fight, in March of 2015, shortly after the two had gotten married. An enormous point of contention in the marriage was Depp’s use of drugs and alcohol. He claimed it was not an issue, and Heard claimed it made him a different person, and was constantly trying to get him sober. This is relevant to the Australia incident, because both sides have claims of sobriety being broken.

Depp was in Australia for the filming of the fifth movie of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, and Heard joined him after finishing filming on her film Danish Girl. Depp testifies that the fight started because Heard was upset about a potential post-nuptial agreement.⁸

Depp claims that he had been sober for the time of his filming in Australia, prior to Heard arriving,⁹ but that this argument with Heard led him to drink. When Heard discovered him drinking, Depp testifies that she flew into a rage and threw the bottle he had been drinking against the wall.¹⁰ He grabbed a second, larger bottle, and poured himself another shot. Heard then grabbed the second bottle, and threw it where his hand was resting on the bar. Depp claims that the shattering of the bottle cut his finger off.

Heard then left Depp bleeding, and Depp claims he had a nervous breakdown. In the midst of the breakdown, with his still bleeding fingertip, he wrote on the walls and other things around the home in his blood, about “lies he had caught her in.”¹¹ The next day, when Depp was treated by doctors, he testifies that he lied about how he sustained the injury, saying it was crushed in an accordion door.¹² A doctor’s note from Gold Coast Hospital’s emergency department, states that Depp claimed that he got the injury from a kitchen knife.¹³ In the same note, the doctor’s remark that it appears more in line with a crushing injury.

Heard testifies that the Australia incident was a three-day ordeal.¹⁴ In her words, the timeline of events is very “non-linear” as it was very difficult to remember. Before arriving in Australia, she claims Depp had been calling her, paranoid about her cheating.¹⁵ Friend, and witness for Heard, iO Tillet Wright, testified that when Depp took MDMA or other similar drugs, he had a tendency to become paranoid.¹⁶

Upon arriving in Australia, Heard said that things were mostly fine for the first day, with Depp looking a little thin. However, after preparing a meal, she claims Depp pulled out a bag of MDMA and suggested the two take some together.¹⁷ This caused Heard to get angry, and for an argument to begin. At some point later in the night, as the two had been arguing off and on, the fight became physical. Heard claims that Depp physically threw her across the floor.¹⁸ She says he grabbed her by the throat and slammed her against a fridge. In response, she screamed at him and slapped him.¹⁹

The next day, she said that it had appeared that Depp had not slept the entire night, and that he had likely taken eight to ten MDMA pills. He was very paranoid about her relationships with current and former co-stars. She said he was acting incoherently. At one point he began ranting about their post-nup. Heard alleges that she was amenable to a post-nup, and that her domestic relations attorney was fired by Depp sometime that night. Michele Mulroney, Heard’s attorney testified that she received a call where Depp called her “a bitch” and fired her on behalf of Heard.²⁰

Later in that night, Heard again approaches Depp. She claims he is acting belligerently and yelling at her. She states that he slams her against a wall, “hard.”²¹ He begins calling her misogynistic names. She states that she shoves him in order to get free from his grasps. She then states that Depp grabbed her by her nightgown and threw her against a “games table.”²² He begins taunting her with a bottle of alcohol, and when Heard gets a hold of the bottle, she smashes it against the ground. She claims that this “really sets off” Depp.

He then begins to throw bottles at her, and at one point grabs the neck of a broken bottle and holds the shattered end up to her face, saying that he will “cut up her face.”²³ She tries to get free several times, but Depp continues to get a hold of her. She claims he tears her nightgown off her, leaving her completely naked.²⁴ He starts punching a wall, right beside her head, while yelling how he hates her. He grabbed a wall mounted telephone, and began smashing that into the wall, while Heard stood and watched him.

He eventually pinned her again, holding her by her neck, against the countertop of one of the bars in the house. She states that he’s yelling at her, hitting her, and threatening to kill her.²⁵ She says she “feels a pressure”²⁶ against her pubic bone, which she realized was Depp sexually assaulting her with a bottle of alcohol.

The next day, when she woke up, she found the home covered in messages scrawled in blood, paint, and various foods.²⁷ One message, on a mirror, read “starring Billy Bob Easy Amber”²⁸ in reference to Billy Bob Thornton, who Heard had co-starred in a film with the year prior. She left Australia later that day.

Heard never wanted to testify, and she especially did not want to testify about her sexual assault.²⁹ She did not want to testify in the U.K. trial. The judge who decided that case, honored her privacy, ruling that the testimony of said assault was too personal to be released to the public.

Depp and Heard’s relationship was a major talking point for Men’s Rights Activists (MRA), before the trial even started. An audio clip of Heard admitting that she “hit”³⁰ Depp was leaked online in 2020.³¹ Their relationship was one MRAs pointed to as demonstrable proof that women are believed about false accusations.³² Depp was heralded as a voice for male victims of abuse, and Heard was a heartless victim who was heaped with praise from the “#MeToo” crowd.

This is juxtaposed to Heard. After sharing her testimony of the Australia Incident, people online began to mock the way she cried on stand, using the audio of her assault with captions like “I don’t know what Johnny did wrong.”³³ One company, Twisted Fantasies, an adult toy company based in Florida, launched a toy shaped like a bottle, in response to Heard’s testimony.³⁴

The Last Fight was preceded by Heard’s thirtieth birthday celebration, which several people testify to that Depp showed up late and drunk.³⁵ The day after her birthday, Heard and several friends went to Coachella. That morning, Depp’s housekeeper finds excrement in his bed.³⁶ It was initially claimed that it was either Heard’s dog Boo, who had known bowel issues,³⁷ or a friend of Heard’s who had defecated on the bed. It is only later claimed that Heard herself was the one who defecated on the bed. This event led to the less-than-glowing nickname for Heard “Amber Turd.”

The Last Fight happened on May 21, 2016. Depp and Heard were living separately at this point. On Depp’s recollection of the Last Fight, and the events surrounding it, he states he came to find out about the excrement in the bed from his bodyguard Sean Bett. He testifies Bett showed him an image of “human fecal matter”³⁸ on his side of his and Heard’s shared bed. If there was evidence that the excrement in the bed was human, there was no evidence of this presented at trial.

On the day of May 21, Depp testifies that Heard asked him to come over to talk things out.³⁹ He claims that once he arrived at their penthouse―penthouse three of the East Colombia (EC) Building―she was the one who brought up the excrement, blaming it on the dogs.⁴⁰ Depp, wanting to settle the matter, said they should call his estate manager, Kevin Murphy. While on the phone, Heard berated Murphy, who would then hang up.

Depp left to gather some things from the apartment, and when he returned to the living space where Heard was, he claims that she was on the phone with her friend iO Tillet Wright, laughing about how someone had defecated on his bed. He then says he grabbed her phone and yelled at Tillet Wright “you can have her”⁴¹ and dropped the phone on the couch.

He states that Heard’s friend Raquel Pennington, who lived across the hall in penthouse one―which Depp also owned―came running in yelling at him to leave Heard alone. He says Heard was shrieking for Depp to stop hitting her, while he was across the room from her.⁴² His body guards, Bett and Jerry Judge, who passed away in 2019, then entered the apartment, and Depp left soon thereafter.⁴³

Testifying on Depp’s behalf were Bett, who was still employed as his body guard, Isaac Baruch, a close friend for forty years, who lived in penthouse two of the EC Building, and three police officers who had responded to a call that day: Melissa Saenz, Tyler Hadden, and William Gatlin. Testifying for Heard were her friends iO Tillet Wright, Raquel Pennington, Joshua Drew, and Elizabeth Marz.

Bett, who had been working for Depp since 2006,⁴⁴ said he, Judge, and Depp arrived to the EC Building around 7:30p.m.⁴⁵ He and Judge did not stay at the penthouse, but went to a guard station, close to penthouse five.⁴⁶ He testifies that Depp was not under the influence.⁴⁷ He said that he heard shouting from Heard, and that he and Judge then entered penthouse three. He testifies that Heard was separated from Depp, and that, upon their arrival, she shouted “This is the last time you’ll do this to me.”⁴⁸ He stated that he saw no visible injuries on Heard.

Baruch, who had known the couple through their relationship, stated that he had not seen them be violent towards one another.⁴⁹ On the 22nd, he saw a man dressed in black outside penthouse three and stated that Heard told him that she was changing the locks on penthouses one, three, and five, because Depp had been violent.⁵⁰ He testified that he did not see any marks on her face.⁵¹

There were two police units that responded to a call placed by Tillet Wright. The first was comprised of Officers Saenz and Hadden. Hadden was a probationary officer at the time, and Saenz was his training officer.⁵² Hadden states he has no recollection of other incidents he responded to that day.⁵³ According to their notes from that night, they arrived at the scene at 8:57p.m. and they left the scene by 9:22p.m. Heard did not give a report and refused to give any further information, stating that it was just a verbal dispute.⁵⁴ Neither Hadden, nor Saenz took any contemporaneous notes, pictures, or recordings at the scene.⁵⁵ Hadden testifies that he was never close enough to see Heard’s face.⁵⁶

Of his recall of certain events of the incident, he stated “It’s five years ago. I don’t remember.”⁵⁷ Saenz stated that she did not remember anything about the other witnesses there that day, and only remembered Heard, stating that she did not see any visible injuries on Heard, and that the redness on her face was concurrent with crying.⁵⁸

Gatlin arrived to the scene at 10:24p.m. with his partner Officer Diener, who did not testify. He stated that the lighting in the penthouse was dim and that he couldn’t see Heard’s face. He did not ask to see her face to identify if she had any injuries.⁵⁹ He stated that the occupants of the penthouse were uncooperative. Neither he nor Diener interviewed anyone on the scene. Of Heard, he said that based on her refusal to give a statement, that she was not a victim of domestic abuse.⁶⁰

Heard testified that while in Italy shooting a campaign, she received a phone call from Depp, where he was ranting about “scientists and DNA and human feces.”⁶¹ Shortly after this event, Depp’s mother passed, and Heard states that Depp called her saying that he needed to see her. She stated that it started out relatively peacefully, though she did note that he appeared to be under the influence. However, she says that he then starts talking about feces again, and he accuses a friend of Heard’s of defecating on their bed.

She states that she called the friend, who did not pick up, and then called Tillet Wright, who had also been accused.⁶² Depp then grabbed her phone and began yelling homophobic and misogynistic language at Tillet Wright. When Heard got her phone back, she states that Tillet Wright told her it was not safe for her to be in that situation. Depp heard him say that, and grabbed the phone back, yelling at him again. Depp then threw the phone at Heard. He then began to taunt and hit her.⁶³

Pennington then entered the room and stepped between Depp and Heard, trying to de-escalate the situation.⁶⁴ Depp’s bodyguards entered after Pennington, and Depp then grabbed a magnum bottle of wine and began smashing things around penthouses one, three, and five.⁶⁵

Heard contacted her entertainment attorney and chose not to give a statement to the police. She stated that she wanted to protect him, and did not want him to get arrested.⁶⁶

Tillet Wright testified that he received a phone call from Heard, and was put on speakerphone to speak to Depp.⁶⁷ He states that he and Heard laughed at the accusation of his defecating on Depp’s pillow. He says he heard Depp say “Oh, you think I hit you?”⁶⁸ to Heard, and then hearing Heard screaming. He hung up the phone and called Pennington, then called emergency services.⁶⁹

Pennington testified that she received a text message from Heard while she was in penthouse one, and went over to penthouse three upon receiving it. She states that she could hear arguing from outside of the door.⁷⁰ She stepped between Depp and Heard. Depp’s security came in, and as Depp was leaving, he began smashing things in the penthouse.⁷¹ She, with Drew, then began to take pictures of the damage and of Heard’s injuries.

Drew spoke most with the officers who arrived on the scene that night, testifying that he walked them through the penthouses, showing the damage to them.⁷² Saenz testified that the only thing she could recall of Drew was that he was a generic male.⁷³ On Amber’s condition, he stated that he remembered a red mark and a small bruise on her cheekbone.⁷⁴

Marz stated that she was in penthouse five when Depp burst in and began yelling at her.⁷⁵ Of his condition she stated that he was “angry and combative” and “sloppy.”⁷⁶ She ran out of the room, and joined Pennington, Drew, and Heard in penthouse three. She states that she remembers the right side of Heard’s face being swollen.⁷⁷

This is not the only litigation where Depp’s supposed violent tendencies have been brought up. There is, of course, the U.K. trial, as well as a domestic abuse restraining order that Heard was granted prior to their divorce. In 2017, Depp sued his former management group, aptly named The Management Group (TMG).⁷⁸ He had been with TMG from 1999 up until a bitter dispute ended the relationship in 2016. TMG countersued, and in 2018 the suit was settled out of court.

During fact finding for Depp v. Heard, Heard and her legal team submitted a petition for records from Depp’s time with TMG that were used in the suit. Among these, they claim TMG had knowledge of Depp’s history of “violent abuse” and “efforts to strong arm others to lie on his behalf.”⁷⁹ One instance of this strong arming is a text from Depp’s assistant apologizing for Depp’s behavior. According to the petition, Depp intimidated his assistant into stating that the texts had been manufactured by Heard. TMG refused to submit to the petition, stating that the records were under protective order, and that producing them would cause “unduly burden” to the cost of around five thousand dollars.⁸⁰

All Heard needed to do to not be liable in this case, was to prove, with a preponderance of evidence, that she wasn’t lying about “being a public figure representing domestic abuse.”⁸¹ And on June 24, 2022, the jury decided that she was liable for all three statements. Interestingly, the jury also found that Depp’s team was liable for one statement. From Adam Waldman to the Daily Mail, about the Last Fight, “Quite simply, this was an ambush, a hoax…”⁸²

The outcome of this case being opposite of the U.K. case was an odd turn of events, to say the least. The standards for defamation in the U.K. work, functionally, opposite of those in the U.S. The burden of proof rests on the defendant. The defendant must prove that what they have said is not a lie.⁸³ Conversely, in the U.S., the plaintiff must show that a potential defamatory statement reaches the standards of actual malice.⁸⁴

This is why it is easier for a plaintiff to win a defamation case across the pond. That the outcome of Depp v. Heard was the reverse of this speaks to the issues with the case itself. Though it is not an issue, necessarily, that the U.S. case was seen by a jury, and not decided by a judge like the U.K. case, it is a likely cause of the discrepancies between the outcomes. One would be wont to point out that The Sun claimed that Depp was a “wife beater”⁸⁵ whereas Heard only claimed that she was representing victims.

Cemented in the Seventh Amendment is the right to an impartial jury in a civil suit. However, it is always difficult to find twelve people who are unmoved about a trial and its participants, prior to the trial beginning. In a high-profile case concerning a beloved actor and contentious topics such as abuse and #MeToo, this is increasingly difficult.

There are several different, extreme measures a court can take to attempt to prevent outside influence on a jury. One specific measure is sequestration, which limits the influence of the outside world and media on the jury. Most prevention methods are not used in civil proceedings.⁸⁶ None were used for Depp v. Heard.

Press, including live television, were allowed in the court room, at the behest of Depp and his team.⁸⁷ Jurors, who would be deciding whether or not Amber Heard had lied about being a victim of abuse and if Depp’s lawyers had lied about her assault being a hoax, were allowed to leave to their homes after court adjourned each day. Though they were told by the judge to not look at anything relating to the case, there is no way to know whether this was followed. Due to how large the press coverage got, unless the person had no access to news and social media, it is unlikely that they did not, at least unintentionally, run in to some coverage of the case.

The amount of media―including social media―coverage this case garnered cannot be understated. Because of the decision to allow live broadcasting, people across the globe had front row seats to the most salacious trial of the decade thus far, all through their cellphone screens. Over the six weeks that the trial lasted, the live broadcast gained over 80 million cumulative hours watched.⁸⁸ At the trial’s peak, viewership on the YouTube channel “Law & Crime,” which dutifully covered the case, was at 3.5 million people.⁸⁹ The hashtag #IStandWithAmberHeard had around eight million uses. #JusticeForJohnnyDepp had fifteen billion.⁹⁰

Social media is a fantastic tool for spreading information. It is also a fantastic tool for spreading misinformation. Because of the velocity that information spreads online, users have constant access to the most recent news and information. When it comes to information that is especially complex, or requiring significant thought, humans are more likely to employ heuristics―a subconscious mental shortcut.⁹¹ The parts of the brain that activate when people approach this type of information, is often not the rational, decision-making part of their mind, but the emotional, pleasure-seeking part of the brain.

When approached with new, difficult information, people are more likely to make intuitive assumptions.⁹² People naturally seek out information that is satisfactory, and coincides with current beliefs, even if it conflicts with fact. Further, people are more likely to believe and make assumptions based on actions of people in their immediate social circle. Because of this, online and in real life, people are prone to falling into echo chambers.⁹³

Misinformation spreading online is grounded in the age-old principle of rumor: “I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend.” Misinformation has many different definitions; however, the most widely regarded definition is incorrect information spread without malicious intent. This is opposed to disinformation, which is incorrect information spread on purpose, with intent to deceive.⁹⁴ Both are relevant to the case at hand.

With the greater resources provided by the technological advancements of the last century, people outside of academia have the ability to research any number of topics with incredible ease. While, widely, this is a good prospect, people have more opportunities to interpret information without gathering all the relevant information.

Studies have shown that when determining truth from a lie, people have a barely over fifty percent accuracy.⁹⁵ When applying this statistic to discerning misinformation from truth―especially when that misinformation is salacious and feeds on base beliefs―it is not difficult to understand why misinformation spreads easily on the internet.⁹⁶ Humans also tend to overestimate their own objectivity. When presented with evidence that serves their own bias, it is rationalized as objectively correct. Any opposing information is irrational or incorrect.

Though people often feel awkward or ashamed when discovering they have shared misinformation,⁹⁷ this does not prevent the spread. Stories that have lurid or emotion-inducing, “clickbait-y” titles are more likely to be shared, whether true or false. Misinformation also spreads to entertain or please a user’s followers. Even accurate news, like that of the live streamed trial, can become distorted as more people see and add their own opinions and interpretations.

Because of the largely unregulated manner of social media, bots―automated software mimicking social media users―are prevalent. These bots can be used, with great efficiency, to spread disinformation. These bots can also be used in organized campaigns, to help influence public opinion. There is evidence that this may have been done in 2022, to generate support for Johnny Depp.

One must question how organically fifteen billion tweets can use a hashtag in only six weeks. In an independent review done by Bot Sentinel, a disinformation tracking tool, the company reviewed around fourteen thousand tweets and three thousand individual accounts tweeting negatively about Heard. Of these accounts they identified at least 627 unique accounts with suspicious, bot-like activity. Of these accounts, 24.4 percent were created within the past seven months; the average for other topics is 8.6 percent. The accounts engaged in various platform manipulation tactics. Among these is hashtag spamming and copypasta―the copy and pasting of duplicated content. This group of accounts not only engaged in harassment of Heard, but also in those who showed support for her online.⁹⁸

This alone is not evidence of a concentrated bot campaign against Heard. However, in 2024, the podcast Who Trolled Amber, led by investigative journalist Alexi Mostrous, looked into the online harassment that Heard and her supporters faced.

Anyone with enough money can buy bots to support a certain cause. The more money, the more sophisticated the campaign. The campaigns work to create opinions by flooding people’s feeds with content that promotes a certain view point.⁹⁹ For this case, it worked by using bots to get certain hashtags trending, so that real people would take notice, and engage in the conversation.

Ron Schnell, an expert witness hired by Heard’s team, compiled a data set of around 1.2 million tweets directed at Heard.¹⁰⁰ He was hired to witness about the impact Waldman’s online claims had on Heard’s career, and to testify about a potential organized online harassment campaign, targeted at Heard. Because of errors in the pretrial evidence, the second claim was thrown out, and discussion of a potential bot campaign was barred during the trial.¹⁰¹

Two experts in bot activity, Zhouhan Chen and Kai-Cheng Yang, analyzed the Schnell data set for potential bot behavior in the tweets. By Chen’s estimation, at least fifty percent of the tweets were generated by inauthentic accounts.¹⁰² The behavior the bots were engaging in was the same that the Bot Sentinel report identified, with several notable tells. Among these were the use of anonymous accounts, suspicious amplification, common content, a change in language among accounts, and spamming.¹⁰³

Yang noted that most accounts went through three stages. Pre-2019, the accounts would tweet in foreign languages about hot button topics in the countries the accounts originated from. Then there was a period of dormancy on the accounts. Around November of 2020, the accounts would pick up again, this time tweeting in English about support for Johnny Depp.¹⁰⁴

Large groups of accounts would target specific brands tweeting one phrase: “This brand supports domestic violence against men.”¹⁰⁵ This is what is known as “coordinated inauthentic behavior”¹⁰⁶ and is one of the major signals of a bot campaign. Most of these tweets were generated within a manner of hours on November 7, 2020. On November 6, Depp had announced on Instagram that he had been fired from the Fantastic Beasts franchise.

Though there is no way to know who orginated the bot campaigns, there are a few clues. There are two important people in Depp’s life that have troubling connections to this data. The first is the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, known familiarly as MBS.¹⁰⁷ Depp’s relationship to Saudi Arabia, is a flowering one. The Saudi non-profit organization, Red Sea Film Foundation, funded Depp’s last two movies. Depp also has an apparent friendship with MBS. The friendship was born out of being portrayed as villains in the media. Depp, for his relationship with Heard. MBS, for his role in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The Saudi government was revealed to run troll farms to help silence dissidence online.¹⁰⁸ During and after the Fairfax trial, many accounts that used to post in Arabic, switched to suddenly show support for Depp. Mark Owen Jones, an expert on Middle East-specific disinformation campaigns, stated he would not be surprised if this campaign was ordered through pro-Saudi government bots.¹⁰⁹

However, most of the suspected Saudi bot activity begins during the trial. The data in the Schnell set comes from April 2020 to January 2021, before the trial began.¹¹⁰ These earlier campaigns were likely to lay the groundwork, to turn the court of public opinion against Heard.

The second figure connected to the potential bots is a man who is possibly the most important person in this case, barring Depp and Heard themselves. He has already been mentioned a few times.

Adam Waldman was hired as Depp’s attorney in October 2016, to help with his upcoming divorce proceedings.¹¹¹ With Waldman hired on, Depp’s PR strategy changed from trying to stay under the radar, to one of attack. Waldman was so aggressive that he was told off by the judge in the U.K. trial for posting menacing tweets about Heard. At the U.S. trial, Waldman was thrown off of the case, because he violated a protective order surrounding confidential information.

Waldman has a complicated history with Russia, which has a complicated history with disinformation. He worked as an attorney and lobbyist for Russian billionaire, Oleg Deripaska. This connection caused the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to look into Waldman’s ties to the Russian interference of the 2016 election.¹¹² He also worked directly with the Russian government, when he advised Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergei Lavrov, on political, legal, and diplomatic matters.¹¹³

Of the over one million negative tweets gathered in the Schnell data set, Waldman is mentioned in around two hundred thousand of them.¹¹⁴ In the deposition he gave for the Fairfax trial, Waldman admits to providing information to what he calls “internet journalists.”¹¹⁵ Among these is a man named Brian McPherson, who, at the time went online by “ThatBrianFella.”¹¹⁶

McPherson made content related to Depp and Heard’s relationship, and the trial, when it came to pass. Initially the content he made was working with what was available in the public record. However, in 2020, McPherson released a video with a previously unheard audio clip, that paints Heard in a negative light.¹¹⁷ Later releases of the audio clip showed, however, that the clip used had been significantly altered.

Definitive proof on who ordered the bot campaigns is likely never to be found. Waldman may have suspicion surrounding him, but nothing totally damning. However, even if who is behind these attacks is never revealed, that there were attacks is evidence in itself. Evidence to prove that the fervor surrounding the trial was, in part, created by bad actors. And that Amber Heard may have been prevented a fair trial because of it.

Both parties appealed the decisions made by the jury, and by the end of 2022, they had settled out of court. On Instagram, Heard said of her decision to settle that she had lost faith in the American court system.¹¹⁸ This case may have been civil in nature, but to the court of public opinion, the judgment handed down was as damning as a death sentence. Because of the deluge of content from the trial on social media, a total character assassination was carried out.

Misogyny and money allowed for a miscarriage of justice. It is perhaps too early to tell how this case will affect the future of the U.S. court system. Not every plaintiff will have the power and pocket change to put into buying online influence. However, the outcome of this trial does show that with the ever evolving nature of technology, the justice system does not have time to play catch up.

The human mind is easy to influence, and sensational news is easy to sell. This is not a new issue, as Monica Lewinsky and the family of Nicole Brown Simpson would likely attest. And there must be a place for press in the courtroom, lest other, separate miscarriages of justice take place. So, what can the balance be, when anyone with enough money can buy a jury with a few well-placed hashtags?

The onus falls to the consumer, to better research what they see on their timelines. It falls to lawmakers, to better regulate social media. And it falls to the billionaire ruling class, who can employ attorney-lobbyists like Waldman. It falls to them, by way of dispersing their wealth and ending their plutocracy. Maybe then justice will resume being blind.

---

1. U.S. Constitution, amend. 7

2. Nicol, Andrew. John Christopher Depp II v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. (High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division February 11, 2020).

3. Lewis, Jeff. “Depp’s Choice of Virginia Trial in Heard Lawsuit Shows Strategy.” Jefflewislaw.com, May 20, 2022. https://www.jefflewislaw.com/depps-choice-of-virginia-trial-in-heard-lawsuit-shows-strategy/.

4. Lewis, “Depp’s Choice of Virginia Trial in Heard Lawsuit Shows Strategy.”

5. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “Virginia,” November 17, 2023. https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-guide/virginia/.

6. Heard, Amber. “Amber Heard: I Spoke up against Sexual Violence — and Faced Our Culture’s Wrath. That Has to Change.” Washington Post, December 18, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html.

7. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.

8. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Seven," 1761:2-5, April 20, 2022.

9. Bellinger, “Day Seven” 1765:15-17, April 20, 2022.

10. Bellinger, “Day Seven” 1766:14-15, April 20, 2022.

11. Bellinger, “Day Seven” 1768:17-18, April 20, 2022.

12. Bellinger, “Day Seven” 1771:16-18, April 20, 2022.

13. Def360. April 11, 2022. Trial Evidence. https://deppdive.net/evidence_us/def360.pdf.

14. Nicol, Andrew. John Christopher Depp II v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. (High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division February 11, 2020).

15. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Sixteen," 4492:1-5, May 5, 2022.

16. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Eighteen," 5416:16-20, May 17, 2022.

17. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Sixteen," 4500:6-8, May 5, 2022.

18. Bellinger, “Day Sixteen” 4502:7-10, May 5, 2022.

19. Bellinger, “Day Sixteen” 4503:5-6, May 5, 2022.

20. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Twenty," 6112:14-16, May 19, 2022.

21. Bellinger, Judith E. “Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Sixteen,” 4512:2-4, May 5, 2022.

22. Bellinger, “Day Sixteen” 4515:11-16, May 5, 2022.

23. Bellinger, “Day Sixteen” 4516:5-7, May 5, 2022.

24. Bellinger, “Day Sixteen” 4518:1-6, May 5, 2022.

25. Bellinger, “Day Sixteen” 4535:20-21, May 5, 2022.

26. Bellinger, “Day Sixteen” 4521:10-17, May 5, 2022.

27. Bellinger, “Day Sixteen” 4524:2-18, May 5, 2022.

28. Def374. April 11, 2022. Trial Evidence. https://deppdive.net/exhibit/Def374-CL20192911-042122.pdf.

29. Pylas, Pan. “Amber Heard Tells Court She ‘Did Not Want to Expose’ Johnny Depp.” HuffPost. Huffington Post, July 23, 2020. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amber-heard-no-expose-johnny-depp_n_5f19d6edc5b6f2f6c9f34cdf.

30. Plt368. September 26, 2015. Trial Evidence. https://deppdive.net/exhibit/Plt343-CL20192911-042022.m4a.

31. Mostrous, Alexi. Who Trolled Amber. “Public Enemy.” Podcast. Tortoise Media, 2024. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/who-trolled-amber.

32. Reddit.com. “R/MensRights on Johnny Depp,” 2026. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/search/?q=johnny+depp&cId=8223287d-2222-4de5-b34f-2e5f1477633c&iId=cfaf41ed-613c-43dc-ae92-da1732890796.

33. Melodie, Cora. “TikToks Using Sound of Heard’s Sexual Assault Testimony.” X (formerly Twitter). X, 2026.

CoraMel@cora_melodie_

Btw, this woman 'aaryn.mj', the first bully seen in this viral TikTok sexualizing and mocking Amber Heard's testimony about her rape, has since been sleeping in jail sentenced for hitting her mom. #AmberVoodoo #AbusersSupportingAbusers #IStandWithAmberHeard

6:59 PM · Jul 12, 2022

---

6 Replies · 31 Reposts · 160 Likes

34. Twisted Fantasies (@Tw_Fantasies), “Reach a new Depp-th with the new Amber’s Mark Liquor Bottle Dildo. Designed with a solid base and a girthy shaft with textured drips for extra pleasure!” Deleted. Twitter, June 2022.

35. Bellinger, Judith E. “Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Nineteen,” 5622:2-6, May 18, 2022.

36. Walsh Cherer, Marten, "Transcript of Proceedings - Day Six," 1052:7-9, July 14, 2020.

37. Walsh Cherer, Marten, "Transcript of Proceedings - Day Seven," 1185:2-7, July 15, 2020.

38. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Seven," 1823:18-20, April 20, 2022.

39. Bellinger, “Day Seven” 1828:14-15, April 20, 2022.

40. Bellinger, “Day Seven” 1829:6-9, April 20, 2022.

41. Bellinger, “Day Seven” 1834:6-7, April 20, 2022.

42. Bellinger, “Day Seven” 1834:19-21, April 20, 2022.

43. Bellinger, “Day Seven” 1835:10, April 20, 2022.

44. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Five," 1427:3-4, April 18, 2022.

45. Bellinger, “Day Five” 1465:19-20, April 18, 2022.

46. Bellinger, “Day Five” 1468:1-5, April 18, 2022.

47. Bellinger, “Day Five” 1469:3, April 18, 2022.

48. Bellinger, “Day Five” 1470:18-19, April 18, 2022.

49. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Three," 680:9, April 13, 2022.

50. Bellinger, “Day Three” 692:10-21, April 13, 2022.

51. Bellinger, “Day Three” 694:16-22, April 13, 2022.

52. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Eleven," 2851:9-11, April 27, 2022.

53. Bellinger, “Day Eleven” 2853:2-5, April 27, 2022.

54. Bellinger, “Day Eleven” 2860:9-13, April 27, 2022.

55. Bellinger, “Day Eleven” 2862:12-22, April 27, 2022.

56. Bellinger, “Day Eleven” 2868:5-10, April 27, 2022.

57. Bellinger, “Day Eleven” 2870:4, April 27, 2022.

58. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Ten," 2775:7-11, April 27, 2022.

59. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Eleven," 2921:1-10, April 27, 2022.

60. Bellinger, “Day Eleven” 2955:4-13, April 27, 2022.

61. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Seventeen," 4757:10-11, May 16, 2022.

62. Bellinger, “Day Seventeen” 4755:7-20, May 16, 2022.

63. Bellinger, “Day Seventeen” 4760:16-22, May 16, 2022.

64. Bellinger, “Day Seventeen” 4762:4-8, May 16, 2022.

65. Bellinger, “Day Seventeen” 4764:2-9, May 16, 2022.

66. Bellinger, “Day Seventeen” 4768:13-15, May 16, 2022.

67. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Eighteen," 5457:9-19, May 17, 2022.

68. Bellinger, “Day Eighteen” 5758:3-4, May 17, 2022.

69. Bellinger, “Day Eighteen” 5458:12-13, May 17, 2022.

70. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Nineteen," 5538:1-4, May 18, 2022.

71. Bellinger, “Day Nineteen” 5542:11-21, May 18, 2022.

72. Bellinger, “Day Nineteen” 5631:18-20, May 18, 2022.

73. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Ten," 2768:18-20, April 27, 2022.

74. Bellinger, Judith E. "Transcript of Jury Trial - Day Nineteen," 5635:6-11, May 18, 2022.

75. Bellinger, “Day Nineteen” 5757:8-10, May 18, 2022.

76. Bellinger, “Day Nineteen” 5759:3-6, May 18, 2022.

77. Bellinger, “Day Nineteen” 5762:10-13, May 18, 2022.

78. Kaplan, Roberta A., John C. Quinn, and David Brook. Letter to The Mandel Company, Inc. “Petitioner Amber Laura Heard’s Petition and Memorandum to Enforce Subpoena.” Petition to the Court, October 29, 2019.

79. Kaplan et. al, “Petition and Memorandum,” October 29, 2019.

80. Kaplan et. al, “Petition and Memorandum,” October 29, 2019.

81. Heard, Amber. “Amber Heard: I Spoke up against Sexual Violence — and Faced Our Culture’s Wrath. That Has to Change.” Washington Post, December 18, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html.

82. Azcarate, Penney. John C. Depp, II v. Amber Laura Heard (Circuit Court of Fairfax County June 1, 2022).

83. Parliament.uk. “Press Standards, Privacy and Libel,” 2024.

84. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court of the United States March 9, 1964).

85. Wootton, Dan. “How Can JK Rowling Be ‘Genuinely Happy’ Casting Wife-Beater Johnny Depp in the New Fantastic Beasts Film?” The Sun. News Group Newspapers, Ltd., April 27, 2018. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/6159182/jk-rowling-genuinely-happy-johnny-depp-fantastic-beasts/.

86. USLegal Inc. “Jury Sequestration – Courts.” courts.uslegal.com, n.d. https://courts.uslegal.com/jury-system/issues-pertaining-to-the-jurys-performance-of-its-duties/jury-sequestration/.

87. Maddaus, Gene. “Why Was Depp-Heard Trial Televised? Critics Call It ‘Single Worst Decision’ for Sexual Violence Victims.” Variety, May 27, 2022. https://variety.com/2022/film/news/johnny-depp-amber-heard-cameras-courtroom-penney-azcarate-1235280060/.

88. Zaveruha, Bohdan. “Johnny Depp and Amber Heard Trial — How Many Viewers Gathered on YouTube and How It Was Discussed on Twitch?” Streamscharts.com, June 2, 2022. https://streamscharts.com/news/johnny-depp-vs-amber-heard-trial-viewership.

89. Nolan, Emma. “Insatiable Thirst for Johnny Depp, Amber Heard Trial Broke Viewing Records.” Newsweek, June 9, 2022. https://www.newsweek.com/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-broke-viewing-records-law-crime-network-court-1714247.

90. Tsioulcas, Anastasia, and Ayesha Rascoe. “On Social Media, Johnny Depp Is Winning Public Sympathy over Amber Heard.” NPR, May 23, 2022, sec. Law. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100685712/on-social-media-johnny-depp-is-winning-public-sympathy-over-amber-heard.

91. Toomey, Anne H. “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds: Insights from Cognitive Science for the Improved Communication of Conservation Research.” Biological Conservation 278 (February 2023): 109886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109886.

92. Toomey, “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds.”

93. Del Vicario, Michela, Gianna Vivaldo, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. “Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook.” Scientific Reports 6, no. 1 (December 2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37825.

94. Adams, Zoë, Magda Osman, Christos Bechlivanidis, and Björn Meder. “(Why) Is Misinformation a Problem?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 18, no. 6 (February 16, 2023): 1436–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221141344.

95. Bond, Charles F., and Bella M. DePaulo. “Accuracy of Deception Judgments.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 10, no. 3 (August 2006): 214–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2.

96. Adams, Zoë, Magda Osman, Christos Bechlivanidis, and Björn Meder. “(Why) Is Misinformation a Problem?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 18, no. 6 (February 16, 2023): 1436–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221141344.

97. Adams et al., “(Why) Is Misinformation a Problem?”

98. Bot Sentinel Inc. “Targeted Trolling and Trend Manipulation: How Organized Attacks on Amber Heard and Other Women Thrive on Twitter Report,” July 18, 2022. https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/ce7d97ed-1354-4442-b5cd-58f25931877e/Bot%20Sentinel%20Report.pdf.

99. Mostrous, Alexi. Who Trolled Amber. “Missing Evidence.” Podcast. Tortoise Media, 2024. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/who-trolled-amber.

100. Mostrous, Alexi. Who Trolled Amber. “Gold Dust.” Podcast. Tortoise Media, 2024. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/who-trolled-amber.

101. Mostrous, Alexi. Who Trolled Amber. “Into the Dark.” Podcast. Tortoise Media, 2024. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/who-trolled-amber.

102. Mostrous, “Into the Dark.”

103. Mostrous, “Into the Dark.”

104. Mostrous, “Into the Dark.”

105. Mostrous, “Into the Dark.”

106. Mostrous, “Into the Dark.”

107. Mostrous, Alexi. Who Trolled Amber. “The Special Relationship.” Podcast. Tortoise Media, 2024. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/who-trolled-amber.

108. Benner, Katie, Mark Mazzetti, Ben Hubbard, and Mike Isaac. “Saudis’ Image Makers: A Troll Army and a Twitter Insider.” The New York Times, October 20, 2018, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/20/us/politics/saudi-image-campaign-twitter.html.

109. Mostrous, Alexi. Who Trolled Amber. “The Special Relationship.” Podcast. Tortoise Media, 2024. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/who-trolled-amber.

110. Mostrous, Alexi. Who Trolled Amber. “Into the Dark.” Podcast. Tortoise Media, 2024. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/who-trolled-amber.

111. Mostrous, Alexi. Who Trolled Amber. “Public Enemy.” Podcast. Tortoise Media, 2024. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/who-trolled-amber.

112. Grassley, Charles L. Letter to Adam Waldman. “Letter to Adam Waldman Regarding Oleg Deripaska.” Letter, February 26, 2018.

113. Mostrous, Alexi. Who Trolled Amber. “Public Enemy.” Podcast. Tortoise Media, 2024. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/who-trolled-amber.

114. Mostrous, Alexi. Who Trolled Amber. “Gold Dust.” Podcast. Tortoise Media, 2024. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/who-trolled-amber.

115. Stryker, Amy L. “Transcript of Adam Waldman Deposition,” 217:1-4, February 15, 2022.

116. Mostrous, Alexi. Who Trolled Amber. “Public Enemy.” Podcast. Tortoise Media, 2024. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/who-trolled-amber.

117. Mostrous, “Public Enemy.”

118. Kennedy, Merrit, and Jaclyn Diaz. “Amber Heard Said She Has Decided to Settle Johnny Depp’s Case against Her.” NPR, December 19, 2022, sec. Law. https://www.npr.org/2022/12/19/1144132687/amber-heard-johnny-depp-settlement.