To think if a woman complains of domestic violence, our first response should not be calling her a liar.

[mrgrouper]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36403396

Amber Heard has been granted a restraining order against Johnny Depp. There are photos circulating on the Internet of her with a nasty bruise over her right eye which she states occurred Depp caused by throwing an iPhone at her.

Many comments on Twitter claim the photos are faked, (apparently there was a photo taken a day later which does not show a bruise), people calling her manipulative and others pointing out as she is an actress, this is probably just a Machiavellian piece of show acting.

I have been through DV on two occasions and each time was branded a liar. About time both male and female victims of DV are supported and not shamed.

I think we may be using different definitions of 'support'. False accusations are of course very damaging.

What I mean in this context is emotional support (I.e. not verbally attack the alleged victim) and to take their accusation seriously.

I also don't think one should 'attack' the alleged perpetrator. You just don't know what will come out in the wash. I don't subscribe to the no smoke without fire way of thinking. Anyone can be unlucky enough to come across someone with an axe to grind.

Of course this 'support' shouldn't go as far as 'blind faith' hence why seeking proof (the 'then verify 'bit ), necessary in our legal system - burden of proof etc.

My thrust is at first blush, being non committal or non judgemental, if not supportive is totally cool and rational. Assuming the victim is lieing sits weirdly with me.

Also re the bruises. Sometimes bruises can take a day or two to show.

But then that also overlooks the fact that no criminal complaint has been made so nobody is doing that anyway Good point

Capricorn76, once again you cannot say 'but he's rumoured to have done this, that and the other', it's all hearsay. She has recently been shown to be a liar for her own gain, there is actual evidence of that. It's why we as the general public really don't know these people and what really happened, why it's impossible to 'take sides and sympathise' from bits of given information, mixed in with past behaviour.

The legal presumption of innocence only applies in a court of law. If you're not on a jury, it's perfectly reasonable to believe someone when they claim to have been the victim of a violent crime. It's horrible to be hurt by someone and for people to say you're making it up. Fine, you don't know and you feel you can't trust the alleged victim, but there's no need to be dismissive or indulge in shitty victim blaming speculations about what happened, is there?

Re the spousal support issue, in England, lawyers will advise you to tick all the boxes claiming financial remedies, regardless of whether you have any intention to actually do so. The reason for this is firstly because if you don't claim at the outset, you have to make a separate application and secondly, the claims need to be 'live' in order to then be dismissed by the court. So, I would imagine something similar to be the case in the US. I wouldn't therefore read an excessive amount into the fact that the box is ticked on her divorce petition (which will have been prepared by her lawyer anyway).

Agree it's awful about the disbelief and I have also seen comments suggesting that even if true, she deserved it. Absolutely awful. The man has a history of drug and alcohol abuse and also got arrested for smashing up a hotel room and threatening Kate Moss. Why is him throwing a phone at her and threatening her so extremely hard for people to believe?

I thought Johnny Depp was married to Vanessa Paradis, until this hit the headlines the other day. I'd heard of Amber Heard but I thought she was his daughter. I have clearly fallen behind the times when it comes to celebrity gossip.

If you're not on a jury, it's perfectly reasonable to believe someone when they claim to have been the victim of a violent crime.

Is it? Would you like to tell that to the families of the Liverpool 96? Colin Stagg? People have had their lives destroyed because people have decided that they must be guilty of something and prevailing social attitudes sanctioned that. And just on the basis of rumour and conjecture.

Exactly what's happening in this case considering that no crime report has been made so JD doesn't even have the opportunity just to be officially cleared.

Yes, it is. I'm sorry, Bill but I don't accept that as a reason for not believing people in good faith when they allege sexual assault or domestic violence. We need to combat the default assumption that people ( women) are more likely to be lying than not. And you're not taking a neutral position are you?

I always believe someone if they tell me they are a victim.

I don't require evidence

Oh and if people spout ignorant apologist views here, I imagine this thread will go the same way of the other one.

Interestingly it seems she wanted the divorce to be handled out of the public eye including offering three X judges to mediate on the matter to bring it to a close quickly. I don't think she wanted this type of attention and slurring.

I also find it interesting that she is slurred regarding her divorce petition timing - directly after the most recently alleged attack - by the media due to the close proximity to the death of Depp's mother
I notice that he has been playing concerts with his band and this hasn't been called into question regarding his grieving process.

Well actually I very much take a neutral position because I'm of the view that neither side should be believed or disbelieved until a case has been through due process.

I can't see any reason why possession of a vagina makes anyone more or less likely to be a liar. I think generally it's better to allow justice to take it's course.

BUT in this case, justice can't take it's course because the alleged victim has chosen only to pursue civil avenues which don't involve the thorough type of investigation of her claims which a criminal investigation would involve.

So basically he's only ever going to be convicted in a kangaroo court of public opinion. Which is a notoriously unreliable and frankly uncivilised form of mob justice.

I believe her. And I am disgusted by the daily mail reports of her smiling and laughing, as if this is somehow evidence that she should not be believed.

No you're not taking a neutral position Bill. You were all over that other thread with "Aha, she hasn't pressed criminal charges, how odd". Don't get sanctimonious with me when you're speculating in such a judgemental way about AH's behaviour, none of which actually has any bearing on what actually happened.

Thank you Buffy, I couldn't think how to articulate that.

Also how social and general media works is not the fault of victims.

venusinscorpio but you don't know what happened, more than anyone else does. We apparently not assume in anyway AH has told any lies (even though she has lied in the past to avoid trouble), but his past is fine to bring up. No sides should be taken, we don't know anything about it. All there is at the moment is her word against his, with the police claiming there is no evidence of it happening. No one else has come forward to say it did or did not, no one saying they heard a disturbance. Social media works by causing an irrational mob hunt, once again it seems to be working.

At no point did I suggest I did know what happened. Read Buffy's post.

And again, the way social media works is not the fault of victims of crime.

But it is odd. And that is not a personal judgement. It's based on hard legal facts.

Temporary restraining orders are based on a low very low burden of proof and she will be required to up the level of proof to have it extended at the next hearing. As what she is alleging are criminal acts, the expectation of the judge and the court will be that she will report them so that they can be properly investigated and the findings reported back to the court to substantiate them. Given that AH has good legal representation, has been able to attend court and has very much engaged with the civil proceedings that expectation will be very, very strong in this case.

There doesn't appear to be any mental, physical, safety or practical reason for AH not to make that report. So when she goes to the next hearing the court are going to make any judgement based on the fact that no report of a crime has been made. And yes, the judge will read into that, that either no crime occurred or she reason not to want it looked into too closely. In other words the court itself will view it as odd and read into it what it will.

As I said, that is not a personal judgement. It's based on how it will be viewed legally. And the answer is very dimly.

Any chance you might admit the point that you're not neutral, Bob?