Amber Heard - new accusations

[ThistlesAndUnicorns]

Amber Heard has now alleged Johnny Depp sexually assaulted her at the start of the defamation trial. Thoughts?

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-court-updates-b2056201.html

Now been reported from court that a psych evaluation has concluded AH displays as having both Borderline Personality Disorder and Histrionic Personality Disorder

This has been blindingly obvious for years to people who are familiar with these conditions.

Note that it stops short of suggesting this is a defacto diagnosis, only that AH 'displays' behaviours typical of both.

It's not surprising to me in the slightest this is the shrink's conclusion, as it marries entirely with my own thoughts about Heard's behaviours, not just those alluded to in the testimony and provided as evidence, but also the way she acts in the court itself, and how she interacts with the media.

They've clearly both abused each other.

That's the crux of it.

We can all go home now.

Are you watching this case or being an MN armchair judge?
Ah wait, no need to answer, your replies answer that perfectly
Court journalist my arse

So one side is that one psychologist - who went to JDs house for dinner and to socialise - corroborates his story. How about the other 4/5 psychologists Johnny has chosen not to put on the stand?

She says she went for an interview with Depp and his legal team, not for dinner and to socialise. The other psychologists mentioned in that report were ones Heard consulted. Depp could not call them as witnesses. If he had, they would have been bound by client confidentiality so would have been of no help to either side. Heard, however, can call them if she wishes.

And even if it was true, so what? It is JD whose behaviour is under the
micros. All those tactics designed to distract seem to be working on the clueless majority but they mean nothing in a court of law.

I might not be a court journalist but I would imagine given the majority of 'evidence' has been produced by AH that any disorder which includes attention-seeking and manipulative behaviours would cast doubt on the validity of her testimony and the circumstances surrounding video footage etc (and no, that's not me saying 'she drove him to it' before anyone jumps on me!) This isn't criminal court where you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt - it's on the balance of probabilities and more is taken into consideration.

This has been blindingly obvious for years to people who are familiar with these conditions.

I don't actually follow any celebrities, I had no idea who AH was before this and only knew about JD as much as Edward Scissorhands and Captain Sparrow so had no idea what their personalities were like.

The case is only interesting me because it is getting people worldwide talking about abuse, including people who may not have been aware about the different ways someone can be abused or people who are being gaslit into believing they are 'crazy' for thinking their partner is abusive. It also highlights the fact that men can be abused. Whether it's true or not, it is now a big talking point which can only be a good thing.

The phrase that immediately springs to mind with this case is 'if you throw enough shit, some sticks'.

No matter that half the allegations each side has slung at the other have had no basis in evidence whatsoever. No matter that Depp wasn't even living with Heard during the bedshitting incident, meaning that if she'd perpetrated it the only person to suffer would have been herself. No matter that he's admitted to headbutting her and to slicing off his own finger, or that she's apparently had bruises on her fact that disappeared one moment and reappeared the next.

Whatever the court does or doesn't decide, these issues are now cemented as fact in the opinion of the public. It's that which will determine the future direction of their careers, of lack of them.

It's a pity these cases were ever brought to court. His addictions have ruined him and she apparently displays traits associated with a personality disorder. Those two only have a chance at recovery and at moving on with their lives once they are out of each other's orbit permanently.

Childhood trauma has a lot to answer for, being a known trigger of both addiction and various mental health issues, and it seems both need help to deal with their demons. I hope they get it.

Just to add to this, her two examinations of Heard lasted a total of 12 hours, so a long way away from your assumption that she has never met her. Of course, a psychologist who had never met Heard would not have been allowed to give evidence as anyone with even a passing knowledge of the way courts work and the rules around expert testimony would know.

Also, the reason Depp was allowed to have Heard examined was that Heard herself made her mental health an issue in this case by claiming she suffers from PTSD. This is not smoke and mirrors as you claim. It is expert evidence that appears to support Depp's case.

Childhood trauma has a lot to answer for, being a known trigger of both addiction and various mental health issues, and it seems both need help to deal with their demons. I hope they get it.

Yes, I agree with you. They both need help and I would think if they had been taken to a criminal court they would both have been found guilty of offences. Neither of them will win out of this case (unless they use it as a catalyst to seek professional help) but it is publicising domestic abuse so some good will come out of it.

To correct myself slightly, she said it was an interview over dinner, not a social event. She said that all Depp's lawyers were there.

I don’t think it is doing any good for either men or women who suffer domestic abuse actually. It feeds in to the idea that either has to be the ‘perfect victim’ to be believed because we are all naturally choosing to believe one side or the other based upon our own experiences.

Domestic abuse is usually grey, it isn’t black and white - and for women, who are already devalued and generally have less power in society it doesn’t tend to work out well. So it mirrors a lot of what women suffer and is likely harming and ‘triggering’ a lot of previous victims. Me and 1 other on this thread at the very least!!

Domestic abuse is very black and white, in my opnion.
It is so fascinating how transparent she is to me.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.

Toxic relationships are grey. In an abusive relationship I believe there is always one in control. Victims can absolutely lash out because of what they have been through but I do not believe two fully fledged abusers can be in a relationship and if they were, neither are really victims.

I showed an interest in this case BECAUSE I have been a victim of abusive relationships more than once. I am female and believe me I haven't spent years of my life never having stood up for myself or having never lashed out. It doesn't make me any less a victim so I actually think your take on how everyone is equal in an abusive relationship to be quite offensive.

@ThistlesAndUnicorns agreed.

Thank you. I shouldn't have said 'equal' though when PP only said grey area. Got myself a bit worked up so apologies to PP for putting words in their mouth.

It’s ok, I was a bit confused then. I definitely didn’t say equal. In the eyes of the law it’s perceived as grey - perhaps that would be a better phrase to express what I mean?

However, your perception of a ‘toxic relationship’ may be one persons reality of abuse. The power dynamic is always in favour of the man, within the relationship and through the viewpoint of society. An example is if AH had written she wanted to burn and kill JD in a text…people would believe her…with JD it is brushed aside, he didn’t mean it, right? Abuse doesn’t include words? Actually it definitely does. The court of public opinion is heavily weighted in misogyny. Open your eyes, are women killing men daily? Is the probability of a drunk, drug addled has-been abusing a young actress high, or low in this case?

Again, I do not agree with that. When pushed to my limit I have said appalling things to my DSis, which would hopefully go nowhere, in my case. No one was damaged by this.

A friend of mine said to me that i meant domestic cruelty, he couldn[t comprehend domestic abuse.

I had 50 cents in my bank account to feed my DD, his DD. He had millions.
I may have had a glass of wine? I may have srceamed? he abused me in a country in which he had isolated me. I was underweight and he told me I was a disgusting fat bitch etc.

I would have loved him to tell his friends, they would have laughed.

Toxic? He was abusive and I ran away to protect DD. It was terrifying.

Abuse is not a toxic relationship where one party is mute.

I'm not a JD fan but having watched the trial and from the evidence I've seen AH was emotionally abusive towards Johnny Depp. She gained his trust and learnt about all his vulnabilities and slowly used it against him, breaking him down and isolating him from his friends and family even his children. The finger incident where he even lied about how it happened to protect her or out of embarrassment maybe. The belittling of him about being a abuse victim and gaslighting him constantly.This is all abuse and I actually now feel sorry for the guy.

Reports that Heard has sacked her PR team suggest she is not happy about the way the trial is going, at least in the press. Of course, we have only heard Depp's evidence so far. If it wasn't going well for him at this stage, he would have no chance of winning.

For those that missed it, possibly the most significant evidence last week came from ACLU's Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel (ACLU= American Civil Liberties Union). ACLU were involved in drafting the article by Heard that this case is about. There were two significant points in his evidence.

Firstly, he stated that the article was definitely about Depp, which may undermine the apparent attempt by Heard's lawyers to argue that it could have been about any of her previous partners.

Secondly, and perhaps most significantly, he told us how much Heard has given to ACLU. In the UK case, Heard testified that she had given half her divorce settlement of $7M to ACLU, with the other half going to Children's Hospital Los Angeles. According to the ACLU witness, she has only been credited with giving $1.3M to date. Also, $100k of this amount actually came from Depp and another $500k appears to have come from Elon Musk, who dated Heard after her break-up with Depp (and possibly during the marriage as well).

Whilst this isn't direct evidence as to whether Depp abused her, it may affect the jury's view of her. Given that it seems she has lied about something that was relatively easily checkable, they may wonder what else she has lied about.

Christ that is just laughable.

a scurrilous rumour that AH has sacked her PR team is a pathetic attempt by the opposition to muddy the waters.

and are you genuinely suggesting that a donation of “only $1.3M” discredits her? Because why, because most people routinely donate millions?

Yes, it discredits her evidence because she claimed, under oath, that she had personally given $3.5M to ACLU. The evidence from the ACLU witness is that this claim is false. Yes, she has given a substantial amount of money ($700k even if we exclude the donations from Depp and Musk). Yes, that is a lot more than most people can give. Yes, it is to her credit that she has given this. But, in terms of evaluating her evidence, she lied under oath, making a grossly inflated claim as to how much she had given. It therefore goes to her credibility as a witness.

As for the "scurrilous rumour", where you have no evidence whatsoever that it came from Depp's team, it has now been confirmed that she has sacked Precision Strategies and appointed Shane Communications. So not a rumour at all.

She's a liar and definitely is not representative of those who are victims of domestic abuse. Listening to some of behaviour she appears to be very manipulating and controlling. The way she took his boots off every night and gave him a drink, and the one night he did it himself she flipped telling him she was the only one that did that. The way she didn't approve of his friends and the difficult relationship she had with his children, putting him down as a father and trying to isolate him from them. This is all classic signs of an abuser. The slowly breaking them down, isolating them, twisting things and using their weaknesses against them. She is vile.

Watched her team try to move to dismiss the case today after Depp’s evidence closed. It was a very poorly argued motion and it was rightly dismissed. The outcome remains to be seen; she now has to present her evidence and be subjected to cross-examination. I will be very interested to see her on the stand being scrutinised. She has lied about lots of things so her credibility is low.

I think they both behaved badly, but what concerns me is the way Amber is being portrayed - with Depp as a ‘victim’, I believe she was a victim too - but I see very little sympathy or empathy coming her way. Every time I go on YouTube I’m seeing ‘Team Johnny’ clips, and I don’t know why these are coming up on my lists? Propaganda?
Has she instigating these trials? I don’t think so. I read her Washington Post piece and I felt she should have been ‘allowed’ to say that I not censored with a deformation trial.
Her demeanour in the court room is far more measured than Depp who is sniggering.
I believe she was abusive towards him, but that doesn’t mean she should be ‘wrong to speak out’ over the abuse she received.
And I’m concerned that this may stop a victim of abuse speaking out.

This case is about whether she was a victim. If she was not, Depp's action will fail. If she was, Depp's action may succeed but, given the way US libel laws work, that is not guaranteed. It is open to the jury to conclude that he did not abuse Heard but she did not libel him.

So far, we have only been hearing Depp's case. Over the next few weeks we will hear Heard's case. That may alter what you see on YouTube, but there are a lot more Depp supporters out there than Heard supporters so it may not change.

If Depp abused her, she was absolutely entitled to write what she did in the Washington Post. However, if she was making it all up as Depp claims, she should not have written that article.

You are clearly starting from the position that she was abused. We don't know that for sure. The evidence that she was abused is far weaker than some posts on social media suggest. Of course, as there does not appear to be any hard evidence that Depp abused Heard, we will never know for sure.