Resurfaced tweet shows Amber Heard mocking Johnny Depp’s ‘short’ lawyer

Attorney Adam Waldman had claimed Amber Heard’s accusations of domestic violence were ‘a hoax’

<p>Amber Heard’s 2021 tweet in response to Johnny Depp’s attorney </p>

Amber Heard’s 2021 tweet in response to Johnny Depp’s attorney

An old tweet has resurfaced showing Amber Heard mocking Johnny Depp’s lawyer over his height after he alleged that her claims of domestic violence were a “hoax”.

On Tuesday, jurors at the former couple’s multi-million-dollar defamation trial were shown a social media post from Ms Heard dated 26 March 2021 where she replied to a tweet from her ex-husband’s former attorney Adam Waldman.

Mr Waldman had tweeted a picture of the actress seeking to discredit her allegations of abuse after a UK court refused Mr Depp the right to appeal his case against The Sun newspaper.

Mr Depp had lost his libel lawsuit against The Sun in October 2020 over an article where the tabloid called him a “wife beater”.

“12/15/15 allegation ‘I had bruised ribs. Bruises all over my body, bruises on my forearms from trying to defend the blows. I had 2 black eyes. I had a broken nose. I had a broken lip,” he tweeted.

“Justice Nichols - I believe her. UK Appeals Court - we believe him. But oops ... PHOTO SHOOT! [sic]”

Ms Heard fired back that she was wearing make-up and mocked Mr Waldman for being “short”.

“Yes Mr Waldman, I may be wearing makeup on this occasion but on every occasion you will still be short,” read the tweet.

Mr Waldman’s original tweet has since been removed after his account was suspended by Twitter for violating the site’s private information policy.

Ms Heard’s social media post was presented in court by Mr Depp’s legal team during Tuesday’s intense cross-examination of the Aquaman actress.

Mr Depp is suing his ex-wife for defamation over a 2018 op-ed she penned for The Washington Post where she described herself as a “a public figure representing domestic abuse”.

The Pirates of the Caribbean actor is not named in the article, which is titled “I spoke up against sexual violence – and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change”.

However Mr Depp claims that it falsely implies that he is a domestic abuser – something that he strongly denies – and that it has left him struggling to land roles in Hollywood. He is suing for $50m.

Ms Heard is countersuing for $100m, accusing Mr Depp of orchestrating a “smear campaign” against her and describing his lawsuit as a continuation of “abuse and harassment”.

Her defamation counterclaim was initially filed over Mr Waldman’s comments where he accused Ms Heard of lying about the domestic violence she said she suffered at the hands of Mr Depp.

Mr Waldman branded her accusations “fake”, a “sexual violence hoax” and an “ambush”.

The attorney was later dropped from Mr Depp’s legal team.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in