Hang on, we are to believe a woman who says he was a violent person (and therefore, according to you, an abuser) but we are not to believe another woman (more than one, in fact) who says that during their relationships, he was not abusive, and moreso, it’s ok for you to suggest Ryder was in an abusive relationship, she was just too young and stupid to know it? That’s a wild take from someone who is supposed to be on the side of women. She also had an
The problem with the Depp case is, people want it to be black or white to suit their own prejudices. This particular relationship appeared to be very complex and from the standpoint of Heard saying she was the voice of domestic abuse survivors everywhere, she has done them no favours.
Speaking as someone who came to the case with very little knowledge of the back story of either of them, and has never seen a Johnny Depp movie, nor wanted to, I think it’s fair to say I was a fairly objective viewer. I watched this case from start to finish, (even the “dull” legal arguments that nobody else seemed to care about) not because it was the two of them, but because I find court cases fascinating and watch a lot of them online. From the start her evidence seemed weak. She did not come across as a convincing witness, her testimony seemed contrived, her emotion did not appear to be genuine, as if she was putting on a show. Indeed, one of her assistants came forward to say her own story of abuse was given by Heard in detail, as if it happened to her.
What solidified it for me was, she claimed that after being assaulted by a broken bottle, she claims she needed no medical attention. I believe she was exaggerating that incident, and if she exaggerated that, what else was she untruthful about? What makes it worse for me is, the particular episode she was describing was bad enough without that part, why add it? I have no doubt what she lived through with him was not good, that he has a very volatile character in their very volatile relationship, but for some reason she wanted to paint it as being entirely one sided when all of the evidence shows that was not the case.
In recordings of their discussions and by her own admission, he frequently tried to walk away from volatile situations and she refused to let him. He often recognised when he was reaching a tipping point and went away to take the heat down. She followed him and didn’t let that happen. Then there was the point where he said he was going to publicise her abuse of him and she essentially said “sure, do that, who do you think will believe you”. If you are going to paint yourself as a someone standing up for survivors of domestic abuse, making comments like that is not going to help your cause.
Women can be abusive as protection and in retaliation. That doesn’t mean they aren’t victims of abuse. Women are not responsible for men being abusive, no matter what they have done. But it is also true that women can be abusive to men. And where an abusive woman meets an abusive man, it ends in a relationship like Depp/Heard.
It is absolutely true he had a better legal team, the online abuse against her was abhorrent and she does not deserve to be treated the way she is. However, having watched many, many online trials, there are few which have such a lack of evidence, and in the end I believe the judgement was the correct one. Using it as an example of how powerful men win all the time just cheapens that argument because it is very easy to show that was not the case here.