Amber Heard’s avengers: her team in Britain fight back against online hatred

Jessica is that you?

(Every time people criticise her on sm she then turns round and says everyone is mean to her because they are jealous of her success.)

I watched the trial. Heard is a lying sociopath abuser. In this instance, the woman abused the man.

Agreed with both of you. It was clear Heard is a sociopath when you watched the entire trial. I already had a strong suspiscion of this because in certain videos that were leaked she behaved exactly my mother who had cluster B personality disorders. The signs were there for me to notice.

The UK ruling was also really weird. Basically it came down to the judge saying Heard never lied (because who would do that not a sociopath!) and thus all the testimonies of other people in favour of Depp were all lies so the Sun had no reason to think Heard was lying.

The covering of these trials was as biased as any gender critical issue. The media chose a side instead of reporting the truth.

Oh I see the bat signal has gone up

Of course, the one facing the full wrath and censure of the public was the woman.

TBF she was the one who started it, and what's more she did it in a way that aligned herself with women who are actual victims and JD with men who are actually abusive.

It seems pretty clear their relationship was toxic, with violence and abuse happening from both sides. Perhaps more from AH - from the available evidence she seems to be much more deliberately goading as opposed to snapping and lashing out in the moment.

What people generally despise is being manipulated and made mugs out of. When AH wrote that original article angling for public sympathy, she did just that.

@Flapjackquack
This will probably go down like a lead balloon but here goes. I watched the whole of the Depp v Heard trial (I was at home on gardening leave). I am no Depp fan, I went into it thinking meh two toxic people fighting each other. I came out of it thinking Depp is an addict and all the crap that comes with living with that, but Heard, I wouldn’t be surprised if she was a sociopath. I was shocked at how traditional media was portraying it because that was not what I was watching.

I agree. I watched maybe 50% of it live from the courtroom incluidng 100% of Depp and Heard's testimony. I thought Amber came across as a complete liar. She may well have experienced domestic violence, but she lied so frequently and brazenly that she destroyed any credibility she had for me. She is a very manipulative and deceitful person in my opinion. I had no opinion before the trial, and if Amber had not lied so much I think she could have won.
The media did then what they still do now, report not the facts but what they think the facts should be. Put a slant on everything to make sure it aligns with their world views.
How people can see how deceitful the media are when reporting on a subject where they have differing views to the person, e.g. gender critical, but then expect the media to be honest unbiased and fair on other topics is a mystery to me. There are some good ones out there, but on any topic of contention expect the media as a whole to follow the party line in lockstep.

@Flapjackquack I also watched the whole trial and agree with you. I recognised the same patterns of words and behaviour of my violent and abusive ex in one of them only and it wasn't JD.

Amber Heard claimed she was injured but the only injury ever verified was one to Depp.

For what it's worth, I agree with you.

I missed that there was now a settlement so no appeal
www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-12-19/amber-heard-johnny-depp-settle-defamation-case-appeal-trial%3f_amp=true

I really feel for her

I completely agree. It was also surprising the amount of essential evidence which was excluded from the trial.

The flight on which he kicked her in the back so that she fell - the evidence from HIS friend's text telling Heard how contrite and mortified he was and confirming what he'd witnessed him do - is a very compelling case in point.

This against his own testimony: 'I have never struck any woman in my life'.

If Heard was embellishing, she wasn't the only one. This was a demonstrable lie.

Of course, the one facing the full wrath and censure of the public was the woman.

It's worth remembering that the Depp v Heard case in the US was a libel trial, it was not a criminal trial. Depp accused Heard of libel because she stated in a newspaper article that she was a victim of domestic violence. She didn't even name Depp.

The hurdle for libel in the US is supposed to be very high (see eg Elon Musk winning a libel case after he addressed a perfectly blameless cave rescuer as "pedo boy"). Even if you don't think Amber Heard is particularly sympathetic, it was obvious from the evidence that Depp behaved in an abusive way. His tweets to his friends about Heard were vicious and sadistic. One of his exes referred to him throwing a bottle across the room. There were other examples that showed he had a violent temper during which he was capable of breaking things around him. It is really difficult to understand why the jury found Heard to have committed libel, given the mountain of evidence. I can only assume they were swayed by Depp's team of lawyers clever use of video clips on social media to portray Heard as a liar.

I watched it too and was horrified at the total vilification of AH when you heard the stuff that her friends testified to seeing and that JD admitted to.

I'm glad I don't live in the USA tbh, no idea what the jury were thinking

I didn’t say he was a victim

It was Depp vs. The Sun, and the claim upheld was that their description of him as a 'wife beater' was substantially true. I heard nothing in Depp vs. Heard that painted one party as an injured innocent in any of this. I saw an addled substance abuser who was abusive to his spouse (him) and a gross embellisher/liar and manipulator (her, therefore an emotional abuser) who likely exaggerated the extent of his abuse in order to paint herself in a better light.

Depp's argument that she was the sole abuser is one he refuted out of his own mouth.

Oddly enough the media censure of Heard tends to prove Taylor's point about women always bearing the entirety of the blame.

Heard did herself no favours in the Virginia court, but Depp is no 'victim' and his conduct was also appalling.

Fair enough. I haven't followed her since the ethical question came to light, so was vague as to the exact nature of her practice. At first I thought she was doing an amazing job in highlighting the fact that women are routinely blamed for everything. But some of the advice she peddles about pathologizing mental illness has been refuted by bona fide professionals and researchers as dangerous. I also do understand professional ethics and could not in all conscience get behind someone who behaves like this. To use someone's stories of sexual violence and trauma is particularly wrong, and I say that as a victim of sexual trauma myself. I believe the victims.

This will probably go down like a lead balloon but here goes. I watched the whole of the Depp v Heard trial (I was at home on gardening leave). I am no Depp fan, I went into it thinking meh two toxic people fighting each other. I came out of it thinking Depp is an addict and all the crap that comes with living with that, but Heard, I wouldn’t be surprised if she was a sociopath. I was shocked at how traditional media was portraying it because that was not what I was watching.

I don’t agree with how she was treated on social media, but I don’t think Heard is the person to rally round on this one, I think it will come back to bite them.

I am also not sure why the UK trial is held up as some bastion of truth when we have completely different laws and the grounds the case was based on was different. It wasn’t even Depp v Heard for a start.

But she is not a clinician.

My thoughts exactly!

@DworkinWasRight

She is a forensic psychologist by profession. Good luck to her for challenging the status quo around mental illness. I think she’s very brave and the world needs people like that.

Jess Taylor is not a clinician. She has a PhD in psychology, not a clinical qualification.

Good post Marie.

There's been a number of points that Jess has made in the past that have made me think but I'm just not sure what's going on there now.

I think she's on a tv prog soon.

SM crucified AH and perhaps choosing these SM women is how she hopes to gain some control back.

Ah, so I see, and should have read it properly! I don't know much about her. I do believe, though, that both she and her wife were the target of the kind of trolls whose antics have frequently been commented on on these boards (going back to before the ethics question).

That on its own is just as horrible, and shows exactly what happens to women who speak out about male abuse.

Divide and rule, divide and rule.

I was referring to Jaime, but your points stand.