What do you think?
Rate this book
Depp v Heard: the unreal story
Johnny monstrous wife-beater?
Innocent victim of Amber Heard’s abuse?
Or is the reality more complex?
Depp v the unreal story is the definitive account of the gruelling court battles between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, by the reporter who was there. Using witness testimony and contemporaneous evidence, Nick Wallis has created a gripping reconstruction of the allegations of violence, drug-taking and wild extravagance which dominated two epic trials and made headlines around the world.
Nick also weaves in his own reportage and insights, bringing the courtroom drama to life and analysing how courts in the UK and USA arrived at conflicting conclusions.
If you want to know who to believe, Depp v the unreal story is your conclusive guide to what really happened.
Johnny monstrous wife-beater?
Innocent victim of Amber Heard’s abuse?
Or is the reality more complex?
Depp v the unreal story is the definitive account of the gruelling court battles between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, by the reporter who was there. Using witness testimony and contemporaneous evidence, Nick Wallis has created a gripping reconstruction of the allegations of violence, drug-taking and wild extravagance which dominated two epic trials and made headlines around the world.
Nick also weaves in his own reportage and insights, bringing the courtroom drama to life and analysing how courts in the UK and USA arrived at conflicting conclusions.
If you want to know who to believe, Depp v the unreal story is your conclusive guide to what really happened.
Innocent victim of Amber Heard’s abuse?
Or is the reality more complex?
Depp v the unreal story is the definitive account of the gruelling court battles between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, by the reporter who was there. Using witness testimony and contemporaneous evidence, Nick Wallis has created a gripping reconstruction of the allegations of violence, drug-taking and wild extravagance which dominated two epic trials and made headlines around the world.
Nick also weaves in his own reportage and insights, bringing the courtroom drama to life and analysing how courts in the UK and USA arrived at conflicting conclusions.
If you want to know who to believe, Depp v the unreal story is your conclusive guide to what really happened.
Johnny monstrous wife-beater?
Innocent victim of Amber Heard’s abuse?
Or is the reality more complex?
Depp v the unreal story is the definitive account of the gruelling court battles between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, by the reporter who was there. Using witness testimony and contemporaneous evidence, Nick Wallis has created a gripping reconstruction of the allegations of violence, drug-taking and wild extravagance which dominated two epic trials and made headlines around the world.
Nick also weaves in his own reportage and insights, bringing the courtroom drama to life and analysing how courts in the UK and USA arrived at conflicting conclusions.
If you want to know who to believe, Depp v the unreal story is your conclusive guide to what really happened.
- GenresNonfictionLaw
318 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 17, 2023
15 people are currently reading
29 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
May 23, 2023
Towards the end of Depp v Heard, Nick Wallis' promised chronicle of the so-called trial of the century, he writes the following, "neither protagonist was in court to watch the verdict...no one knew where Heard was."
This pretty much sums up the epic media fail that surrounded this egregious spectacle. An on-the-ground journalist, who attended both the UK and the VA trials, Nick Wallis closes his book by colossally fumbling the facts. (Edited to add: I have discovered this was a problem with the Amazon Kindle editions. It appears to be a copyediting error.)
Anyone who watched the trial knows that Amber Heard was in the Fairfax, VA courtroom as the verdict was read. A mistake this profound, so easily fact-checked, is a perfect coda for a celebrity news story that was nearly entirely fact-free, driven by an indifferent objective media, highly partisan social media, and a culture of monetized grift.
In an earlier, reasoned, and just trial in the UK Johnny Depp lost his libel claim against NGN, owners of The Sun tabloid. Their columnist Dan Wootten had called him a "wife-beater." A 129-page judgment spelled out why he was one: Depp is a drug addicted misogynist who was wildly jealous of his beautiful young wife. In one particularly grisly episode, he binged on drink and drugs for days, trashed a house he was renting in Australia, and chopped his own finger. He then wrote in his own blood on walls, messages to his wife.
If the objective media had been as informed as Justice Nicol was, Amber Heard would have stood a chance in the later defamation case in VA. Alas, a general indifference to her case meant that most mainstream journalists weren't doing due diligence. Most hadn't read the judgment, so they didn't know the supporting, contemporaneous evidence the judge had used. They also didn't know that some of that evidence was suppressed and misused by Depp's crack team.
Enter Nick Wallis. A journalist who attended both trials, he was in a unique position to chronicle them both and make sense of the incompatible verdicts.
Sigh. He is the wrong person to do this.
To be fair, Wallis has written an entertaining, page-turning book about his experiences. I loved getting a sense of both trials: the sleepy post-lockdown UK High Court and the more familiar Northern Virginia courthouse. He puts the reader there.
The problem is, his grasp of what's important -- the evidence -- is tenuous.
Here are three examples of how he gets it wrong.
1. He says that Johnny Depp offered "tacit" acknowledgement of physical violence. In fact, on audio tapes that Wallis should have reviewed more closely, Depp offers explicit confirmation that he got physical with his wife. He talks about "physical violence on each other" at one moment. In another he talks about "2 or 3 physical fights" they had in the past month. He says, "We are a f*cking crime scene waiting to happen." He says, "You started these things."
So, Johnny Depp's acknowledgement of physical violence is not tacit. It is explicit. Wallis should have considered why these audio clips were excluded at court and thought more about the ones that were. Depp explicitly admitted headbutting her. This was played in court. Why did no one care?
2. Wallis mentions that Amber Heard reported abuse to therapists throughout her four-and-a-half year relationship. Some of this was mentioned at trial. But what Wallis ignores completely is that Heard's therapist notes are now available on the VA court website. In them, her therapist records that early in her relationship, Amber told her that Johnny hit her and threw her to the floor. This aligns with the first alleged act of physical violence (called "the Wino slap"). She also reported sexual assault a few months later. Contemporaneous evidence of abuse should at least be considered in a thorough examination.
3. Most bizarrely, Wallis claims that Heard's former assistant, Kate James, was only disqualified by the UK judge because she was a disgruntled employee. In fact, James was caught lying on the stand about when she had last seen Depp. In addition, James had alleged in her witness statement that Amber stole her sexual assault story. She had to admit under cross examination that she had no way of knowing what the story was about because the allegation was confidential at the time. And when the story was later told in the VA proceeding, it was not similar. And Kate James wasn't asked about it in VA.
I hope that a fair-minded, thorough investigative journalist will eventually do this story right. While I enjoyed parts of this book, when it comes to the things that matter Nick Wallis has fallen short.
This pretty much sums up the epic media fail that surrounded this egregious spectacle. An on-the-ground journalist, who attended both the UK and the VA trials, Nick Wallis closes his book by colossally fumbling the facts. (Edited to add: I have discovered this was a problem with the Amazon Kindle editions. It appears to be a copyediting error.)
Anyone who watched the trial knows that Amber Heard was in the Fairfax, VA courtroom as the verdict was read. A mistake this profound, so easily fact-checked, is a perfect coda for a celebrity news story that was nearly entirely fact-free, driven by an indifferent objective media, highly partisan social media, and a culture of monetized grift.
In an earlier, reasoned, and just trial in the UK Johnny Depp lost his libel claim against NGN, owners of The Sun tabloid. Their columnist Dan Wootten had called him a "wife-beater." A 129-page judgment spelled out why he was one: Depp is a drug addicted misogynist who was wildly jealous of his beautiful young wife. In one particularly grisly episode, he binged on drink and drugs for days, trashed a house he was renting in Australia, and chopped his own finger. He then wrote in his own blood on walls, messages to his wife.
If the objective media had been as informed as Justice Nicol was, Amber Heard would have stood a chance in the later defamation case in VA. Alas, a general indifference to her case meant that most mainstream journalists weren't doing due diligence. Most hadn't read the judgment, so they didn't know the supporting, contemporaneous evidence the judge had used. They also didn't know that some of that evidence was suppressed and misused by Depp's crack team.
Enter Nick Wallis. A journalist who attended both trials, he was in a unique position to chronicle them both and make sense of the incompatible verdicts.
Sigh. He is the wrong person to do this.
To be fair, Wallis has written an entertaining, page-turning book about his experiences. I loved getting a sense of both trials: the sleepy post-lockdown UK High Court and the more familiar Northern Virginia courthouse. He puts the reader there.
The problem is, his grasp of what's important -- the evidence -- is tenuous.
Here are three examples of how he gets it wrong.
1. He says that Johnny Depp offered "tacit" acknowledgement of physical violence. In fact, on audio tapes that Wallis should have reviewed more closely, Depp offers explicit confirmation that he got physical with his wife. He talks about "physical violence on each other" at one moment. In another he talks about "2 or 3 physical fights" they had in the past month. He says, "We are a f*cking crime scene waiting to happen." He says, "You started these things."
So, Johnny Depp's acknowledgement of physical violence is not tacit. It is explicit. Wallis should have considered why these audio clips were excluded at court and thought more about the ones that were. Depp explicitly admitted headbutting her. This was played in court. Why did no one care?
2. Wallis mentions that Amber Heard reported abuse to therapists throughout her four-and-a-half year relationship. Some of this was mentioned at trial. But what Wallis ignores completely is that Heard's therapist notes are now available on the VA court website. In them, her therapist records that early in her relationship, Amber told her that Johnny hit her and threw her to the floor. This aligns with the first alleged act of physical violence (called "the Wino slap"). She also reported sexual assault a few months later. Contemporaneous evidence of abuse should at least be considered in a thorough examination.
3. Most bizarrely, Wallis claims that Heard's former assistant, Kate James, was only disqualified by the UK judge because she was a disgruntled employee. In fact, James was caught lying on the stand about when she had last seen Depp. In addition, James had alleged in her witness statement that Amber stole her sexual assault story. She had to admit under cross examination that she had no way of knowing what the story was about because the allegation was confidential at the time. And when the story was later told in the VA proceeding, it was not similar. And Kate James wasn't asked about it in VA.
I hope that a fair-minded, thorough investigative journalist will eventually do this story right. While I enjoyed parts of this book, when it comes to the things that matter Nick Wallis has fallen short.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 20, 2023
DNF and returned for a refund. How can a journalist that was at both trials miss so much? How did Bath Publishing allow this to be published and printed with no fact checking? I saw another reviewer say it was written by Amber’s PR but it reads more like Nick overlooked evidence to soften what Depp actually did. Painting their relationship as mutual abuse, rather than what it really was a powerful Hollywood actor abusing his young wife.
June 5, 2023
This book has received a lot of 1 star reviews but it seems none of those people actually bothered to read this book, because I found it to be very balanced and impartial, with the author simply reporting what was said in both the UK and the US trials by Amber Heard and Johnny Depp and their respective witnesses. Neither party comes out of this looking good at all, and together they were clearly a disaster. Incredibly exhausting to read - I can only imagine how exhausting it must have been to be in this relationship!!
June 4, 2023
Absolute trash.
I don't know what this so-called "journalist" think when he wrote this, but the amount of misinformation and biased reporting is staggering. There's 0 ounces of truth on this book and it's just a piece of garbage sensationalism written by a parasite.
The entire trial is on YouTube for free, so skip this book as each page of this book is more useful had it's being used as a toilet paper.
Nick Wallis is a bottom-feeding parasite and this book absolutely shows it.
I don't know what this so-called "journalist" think when he wrote this, but the amount of misinformation and biased reporting is staggering. There's 0 ounces of truth on this book and it's just a piece of garbage sensationalism written by a parasite.
The entire trial is on YouTube for free, so skip this book as each page of this book is more useful had it's being used as a toilet paper.
Nick Wallis is a bottom-feeding parasite and this book absolutely shows it.
May 19, 2023
This book is full of lies, Nick Wallis is just wanting his 15 minutes of fame.
I have no respect for this man
I have no respect for this man
May 18, 2023
It’s all rather ghastly.
April 11, 2023
I would rate it less if I could. Believe me, it's not worth it.
I suppose that "unreal" is because practically all the content seems invented by the author.
Wallis affirms that he attended the two trials that confronted the former leading couple, however, the content of his book suggests that he dedicated himself to copying and pasting the headlines of the most tabloid newspapers of the moment and filled in the spaces with assumptions ( or imaginations) of his, which can easily be refuted if compared with the televised trial and all the documentation available (for free on both the UK and US court websites) of both trials.
Really, this book is, in addition to a waste of time and money for the reader, a way (mediocre, I must add) of obtaining profits at the cost of the lives of others, squeezing a case that was left concluded with the 2022 Virginia verdict.
I expected better from the book.
I suppose that "unreal" is because practically all the content seems invented by the author.
Wallis affirms that he attended the two trials that confronted the former leading couple, however, the content of his book suggests that he dedicated himself to copying and pasting the headlines of the most tabloid newspapers of the moment and filled in the spaces with assumptions ( or imaginations) of his, which can easily be refuted if compared with the televised trial and all the documentation available (for free on both the UK and US court websites) of both trials.
Really, this book is, in addition to a waste of time and money for the reader, a way (mediocre, I must add) of obtaining profits at the cost of the lives of others, squeezing a case that was left concluded with the 2022 Virginia verdict.
I expected better from the book.
July 29, 2024
Many of you may have followed the Depp v Heard trial as it was televised at the time it happened, or watched the recent Netflix documentary covering the story. Some of you may have followed Johnny Depp’s original libel case against News Group Newspapers here in the UK in 2020. This book brings the whole sorry saga together in one place from beginning to end, told by the man who was present in court for both trials.
Nick Wallis is the freelance investigative journalist responsible for covering The Post Office Scandal from its earliest days. I listened to his book on that legal battle earlier in the year (you can find my review here) and I thought it was so fantastically comprehensive and accessible that his take on the Depp v Heard case would be equally worth listening to, and it was.
Whatever you think you know about the matter, and whosever side you have come down on, this book lays out the evidence from both cases clearly and without bias and it a way that is approachable and compelling. Some of the details of the matter I had missed, as I was not an obsessive observer, and it was interesting to hear it all chronologically and thoroughly explored. Wallis is matter of fact and analytical, but also interviews people who are not and, hearing their opinions, sheds light on why this whole process became such a circus.
I am not going to tell you what conclusions I have drawn from listening to this set out again from beginning to end in detail, you can listen and do that yourselves. I’ll just say that this book is addictive listening and I highly recommend it.
Nick Wallis is the freelance investigative journalist responsible for covering The Post Office Scandal from its earliest days. I listened to his book on that legal battle earlier in the year (you can find my review here) and I thought it was so fantastically comprehensive and accessible that his take on the Depp v Heard case would be equally worth listening to, and it was.
Whatever you think you know about the matter, and whosever side you have come down on, this book lays out the evidence from both cases clearly and without bias and it a way that is approachable and compelling. Some of the details of the matter I had missed, as I was not an obsessive observer, and it was interesting to hear it all chronologically and thoroughly explored. Wallis is matter of fact and analytical, but also interviews people who are not and, hearing their opinions, sheds light on why this whole process became such a circus.
I am not going to tell you what conclusions I have drawn from listening to this set out again from beginning to end in detail, you can listen and do that yourselves. I’ll just say that this book is addictive listening and I highly recommend it.
May 6, 2024
I read this after Wallis' magnificent exposé on the Post Office scandal, well before the ITV series brought it to the general public's attention. His unwavering focus on detail made me want to read more of his journalism, so I picked Depp v Heard up.
I don't understand why this book has such low ratings. I thought it was a well-balanced attempt to tell the story of this dispute. It can't have been easy, given how vehement supporters on both sides are. I can't help but think that the reason for the book's score in Goodreads is that people in both camps have downvoted it because the author didn't take anyone's side. I could be wrong, of course.
I hope to read more of this author's writing in the future!
I don't understand why this book has such low ratings. I thought it was a well-balanced attempt to tell the story of this dispute. It can't have been easy, given how vehement supporters on both sides are. I can't help but think that the reason for the book's score in Goodreads is that people in both camps have downvoted it because the author didn't take anyone's side. I could be wrong, of course.
I hope to read more of this author's writing in the future!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 13, 2023
4 stars not 5 because there were so so so many editorial errors in this book. Whoever edited did a terrible job, sorry to say. Absolutely great writing though.
June 28, 2023
Nick Wallis is a British journalist who found himself sent to cover the Depp vs NGN libel trial in London. Finding his live tweeting attracted an audience of millions, he obtained daily transcripts and official documents from the trial and posted them on his website, thus becoming a greatly appreciated source of information for fans of the warring actors around the world. Finding the interest in this subject did not diminish with Depp's loss in the UK, he was able to crowdfund a trip to Virginia for round two, where Depp was suing his ex wife directly for defamation after she had repeatedly, over the course of six years, accused him of abusing her. In the US Wallis interviewed fans and attendees, went into the courtroom as often as he could and watched the live TV feed when he couldn't. As such, he found himself in a unique position to write about the two trials, and the surrounding circus. Hence this book.
Depp v Heard: the Unreal Story is a good and informative read, written in a free flowing style with Wallis' British humour occasionally bubbling to the surface as a welcome break to the unrelenting insanity of this Hollywood nightmare made real. He also threads interesting, informative chapters throughout, about the nature of memory, unconscious bias and the taboos around gender based violence and spousal abuse for example. These help inform what we are reading about from the courtrooms and again provide a break from pages of testimony. Certainly there are parts missing - the VA trial alone spanned six weeks, so the sheer quantity of evidence was overwhelming. But he nonetheless does a good job of reporting most of the salient facts without bias and giving us detailed and witty descriptions of some of the colourful characters that showed up. I would have liked the conclusion to cover more about how the judgement in the UK differed so greatly from the jury verdict in the US (a resounding win for Depp) but overall it was a good and thought-provoking read.
This case is likely to have long-lasting repercussions around the issue of spousal abuse and false accusations, trial by media vs legal due process so this book is a good start to becoming informed about the "libel case of the century!" The entire US trial is still up on You Tube, but if you don't have six weeks to spare, this book should do the trick!
Note: I was going to give it four stars, but opted for five to counter, in a small way, the legions of people who have clearly not read this book but who came here to vote it down anyway because Wallis was not sufficiently pro their favourite. When a journalist manages to upset BOTH sides of a case you can be sure they've actually done a good job at being impartial!
Depp v Heard: the Unreal Story is a good and informative read, written in a free flowing style with Wallis' British humour occasionally bubbling to the surface as a welcome break to the unrelenting insanity of this Hollywood nightmare made real. He also threads interesting, informative chapters throughout, about the nature of memory, unconscious bias and the taboos around gender based violence and spousal abuse for example. These help inform what we are reading about from the courtrooms and again provide a break from pages of testimony. Certainly there are parts missing - the VA trial alone spanned six weeks, so the sheer quantity of evidence was overwhelming. But he nonetheless does a good job of reporting most of the salient facts without bias and giving us detailed and witty descriptions of some of the colourful characters that showed up. I would have liked the conclusion to cover more about how the judgement in the UK differed so greatly from the jury verdict in the US (a resounding win for Depp) but overall it was a good and thought-provoking read.
This case is likely to have long-lasting repercussions around the issue of spousal abuse and false accusations, trial by media vs legal due process so this book is a good start to becoming informed about the "libel case of the century!" The entire US trial is still up on You Tube, but if you don't have six weeks to spare, this book should do the trick!
Note: I was going to give it four stars, but opted for five to counter, in a small way, the legions of people who have clearly not read this book but who came here to vote it down anyway because Wallis was not sufficiently pro their favourite. When a journalist manages to upset BOTH sides of a case you can be sure they've actually done a good job at being impartial!
January 16, 2024
I stumbled across this book because of the other book Nick Wallis wrote about the Post Office Scandal. Having watched every day of the VA trial of Depp v Heard I was interested to see what an investigative journalist would make of the whole debacle. Having not been privy to the UK trial (as this was not televised), I was intrigued to get the juicy background behind that too.
I did find it all fascinating, especially the behind-the-scenes of the UK trial. It seems even Nick Wallis was a bit incredulous with the findings and the rationale of those findings from the judge. I have seen some of the transcripts from this trial, and for me, I found that it was incredibly one-sided, also, it seemed that there was also the possibility of bias and the fact that the judge should have recused himself. His retirement after this trial also seemed rather convenient. I will add that I only looked at the UK trial after watching the US trial.
When I started watching the US trial, I was ambivalent. I went in with no pre-conceptions about guilt, to be honest, I couldn't really care and just wanted to see what all the fuss was about. After the first day, I was hooked. The more the trial progressed, the more I flip-flopped. Umming and ahhing and weighing up the facts that were presented. Like the jury, I was swayed by the evidence, or lack of, or fabrication of. Heard was just not believable, inconsistent, and got caught in more than one lie. I made up my own mind.
Nick Wallis is impartial, however, when he brings to the fore some of the facts and witnesses from the VA case, you can sense his incredulity and how he then compares this to the UK and the reliance on that verdict. He can see the holes. Having read this way after it was published (listened to) any of the editing/copyediting errors I've seen mentioned are not present. As with the post office book, Nick Wallis narrates this book himself, so you also get the benefit of his humour and inflections while reading.
The one thing I didn't like about this book was the jumping around. I wish he had stuck to a timeline rather than jumping around witnesses.
I did find it all fascinating, especially the behind-the-scenes of the UK trial. It seems even Nick Wallis was a bit incredulous with the findings and the rationale of those findings from the judge. I have seen some of the transcripts from this trial, and for me, I found that it was incredibly one-sided, also, it seemed that there was also the possibility of bias and the fact that the judge should have recused himself. His retirement after this trial also seemed rather convenient. I will add that I only looked at the UK trial after watching the US trial.
When I started watching the US trial, I was ambivalent. I went in with no pre-conceptions about guilt, to be honest, I couldn't really care and just wanted to see what all the fuss was about. After the first day, I was hooked. The more the trial progressed, the more I flip-flopped. Umming and ahhing and weighing up the facts that were presented. Like the jury, I was swayed by the evidence, or lack of, or fabrication of. Heard was just not believable, inconsistent, and got caught in more than one lie. I made up my own mind.
Nick Wallis is impartial, however, when he brings to the fore some of the facts and witnesses from the VA case, you can sense his incredulity and how he then compares this to the UK and the reliance on that verdict. He can see the holes. Having read this way after it was published (listened to) any of the editing/copyediting errors I've seen mentioned are not present. As with the post office book, Nick Wallis narrates this book himself, so you also get the benefit of his humour and inflections while reading.
The one thing I didn't like about this book was the jumping around. I wish he had stuck to a timeline rather than jumping around witnesses.
May 20, 2023
This author actually wrote that Heard wasn’t present in court for the US verdict. When the reality is millions of people worldwide know this to be blatantly false. That’s one of many other mistakes made by this author. As an avid follower of the case, I could call him out on so much more BS, but I don’t need to. He has already proven himself to be an unreliable narrator with zero credibility. Wouldn’t waste your money. If you want the facts of the case , read the UK decision and watch the US trial. You will learn far more than what Mr Wallis has divulged. Selective indeed,
May 18, 2023
Disgusting attempt of Nick Wallis to try and cash in on the publicity surrounding the JDvAH trial.
The book reads like it was written by AH‘s PR directly.
One sided, biased, opinion based which often includes outright lies.
Save your money and watch the trial rather than pay for the irrelevant bought opinions of a once was journalist.
The book reads like it was written by AH‘s PR directly.
One sided, biased, opinion based which often includes outright lies.
Save your money and watch the trial rather than pay for the irrelevant bought opinions of a once was journalist.
May 14, 2025
As a former journalism student and someone who followed the court proceedings as they were livestreamed to the world, this book perfectly incapsulates the trials and tribulations of both parties. Written from the POV of a journalist who worked extremely close to the case and made me feel like I was in the court room experiencing the intense media popularity this case had.
May 18, 2023
Terrible book, full of misinformation and deception to confuse readers. I also found it to be poorly written, confusing to follow, and too much unnecessary and wrong information. The lazy writing makes you snooze.
I think we've got more entertainment from the 6-week trial available on Youtube.
I think we've got more entertainment from the 6-week trial available on Youtube.
May 20, 2023
Not a bad first draft but the author has failed to grasp some key elements... and,in his attempts to demonstrate his lack of bias, has fumbled the ball.
Mildly distracting but not comprehensive enough to add value to the debate.
Mildly distracting but not comprehensive enough to add value to the debate.
May 27, 2023
Well done. Reports facts and nothing but facts. Ignore the amber turd pr bots. Wallis knows what he's on about.
June 20, 2023
Diligent, comprehensive, but why?
April 29, 2024
Educational and impartial - an entertaining and insightful view into the case from start to finish detailing every aspect without prejudice. Excellent!
May 28, 2024
I don’t get why people hate this, I thought it was balanced, comprehensive and entertaining
May 21, 2023
Contains inaccurate information regarding Heard's attendance during the verdict.
February 27, 2024
I hadn't taken all that much notice of the UK libel trial but did watch some clips of the US one, where it seemed to me that Depp was simply the better actor of the two. Nick Wallis was drawn into covering the trials almost by accident during the pandemic and got a book out of it. His analysis of the witness evidence, particularly in the UK trial, is painstaking, and he doesn't shy away from the fairly obvious criticisms to be made of the judge's curiously unquestioning approach to Heard's fairly obvious exaggeration of some aspects of her case. I left the story of two these two substance abusing and pampered movie stars, used to getting their own way and with teams of people to cover up their messes, feeling the violence and control in their relationship was six of one and half a dozen of the other. The current public embargo on ever refusing to say within a dysfunctional relationship that there is a victim and a perpetrator of domestic abuse, and the insistence that one is always the abusive partner and the other simply reacts in defence seems barmy to me, and these two are the perfect example of mutually abusive spouses. Heard, for all she seems pathologically prone to exaggeration and outright lies, seems the harder done within this fiasco of the marriage and public show-trials, due to the level of public vilification heaped on her after an aggressive social media campaign, which may well have emanated from the Depp camp. Notwithstanding his charm and acting talent, I ended up thinking less well of Depp, though he wasn't the only abusive one in this relationship. And I learnt that a 'growler' is a poop in American English!
April 11, 2023
Really poorly-written fantasy. But if you are into the genre, go for Wheel of Time, Mistborn, Malazan, Terry Pratchett, etc
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews