Johnny Depp bought 'happy pills, whitey stuff and a bag of MDMA' before abusing ex Amber Heard, texts reveal
A series of texts, referred to as 'Australia drugs texts', were sent between late February and early March 2015, just before the incident with Heard
Johnny Depp allegedly hid the fact that he consumed an increased amount of various types of illegal drugs during his marriage with Amber Heard, the lawyers for News Group Newspapers (NGN) revealed, during a trial following a lawsuit that the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' actor filed against the media company over a 2018 story in the Sun which branded Depp a "wife-beater."
The High Court heard on Thursday, June 25, that Depp requested his assistant to get him "happy pills" and "whitey stuff" only days before he reportedly assaulted his ex-wife. In her own 300-page declaration, Heard claimed that the actor cut off the tip of his finger when he slammed a "hard plastic phone against the wall" in March 2015 after he had downed eight pills of MDMA and stayed awake for nights in a row while shooting a movie in Australia. She also added that every night was filled with instances of various domestic abuse that Depp inflicted upon her that she would try to escape by barricading herself inside her bedroom.
Adam Wolanski, a lawyer for the publisher, said in court that Depp's "rage on that occasion had been triggered by Heard seeing him use drugs and challenge him about his use of drugs." He added that the actress "confronted" him after he had produced "a bag of MDMA." At the time, Depp allegedly told her it wasn't on a list of things he wasn't allowed at the venue.
In Depp's version of the events, he “expressly denies” he took the drugs or that he had any conversation about drugs with his ex-spouse. Instead, he insisted in his deposition that his argument with his then-wife on the night was sparked by a discussion of a post-nuptial agreement that Heard was unwilling to sign. On Thursday, Wolanski urged the High Court judge to throw out Depp's claims, alleging that he failed to disclose texts exchanged with his assistant which allegedly proved that he was trying to buy drugs in Australia. He further added that his client had obtained messages between Depp and his assistant Nathan Holmes from Heard's lawyers.
A series of text messages, referred to as the “Australia drugs texts”, were sent between late February and early March 2015 – shortly before the alleged incident between Depp and Heard. On March 7 Depp allegedly texted Holmes: "May I be ecstatic again?" Wolanski said that the text was “a reference to ecstasy” and that the use of the word “again” meant he was placing “a request for further ecstasy”. On the same day, Depp reportedly sent another text where he wrote the “need more whitey stuff ASAP." Wolanski believed that it “must be a reference to cocaine”. At one point, he also requested his assistant to bring him "happy pills."
The lawyer said that another text after that, reading “F**king give me the goddamn numbers, I will take care of this s**t, don’t bother" showed Depp’s “increasing exasperation about the fact that he doesn’t have any drugs there and then”. On being told by Holmes, “If they don’t have it, I can’t get it. It’s someone that works on the film, not a professional dealer. I will bring it to you," Depp told his assistance that he did not want anyone lecturing him about drugs.
Depp was “getting enraged with Holmes on the topic of the supply of drugs just a day before the Australia drugs incidents are alleged to have taken place," the lawyer said. Wolanski told the court that Depp became violent toward Heard only after her “lecturing him about drugs." He added that by not disclosing the text messages in evidence, Depp had breached the court order.
David Sherborne, representing Depp, said the actor had not deliberately withheld evidence, arguing that he did not know the text messages were “relevant” because the main issue in the case was not about his drug abuse. “The defendants claim, wrongly, that Depp has withheld this document because it is ‘profoundly damaging to his case’; their implied accusation being that he withheld it deliberately. This is untrue. First, the claimant has already provided this document in the US libel proceedings," he said.