AIBU to wonder why everyone is saying ruling wrong in Johnny Depp libel case?

[WorkQuery]

Jury believed that Johnny Depp was violent to Amber Heard. All I keep reading on Facebook etc is comments from people who believe that the ruling was wrong. Why do people assume that it's wrong? Clearly there must have been very strong evidence to support that Depp was abusive to Amber?

Misogyny.

It was a judge's ruling.

Because Amber Heard admitted to abusing Johnny Depp in recorded Deposition

@ConstantlySeekingHappiness

Misogyny.

No. Misandry

What jury? It was a libel case not a domestic violence criminal case.

Johnny Depp until now has been a much loved actor. Perhaps denial is as a result of this being a shock to them that he has been violent or abusive to someone.

Because misogynists have clung onto this case as the thing to point at and say “see, women abuse men too!!!” To dismiss every other incidence of domestic violence.

There's a lot of 'he said, she said' about what happened with each blaming the other, and friends of both coming out with different stories. There's the allegations that she threw a bottle at him and severed his finger and audio was played in court which showed that she hit him - Sherborne played the court an audio recording in which Heard says to Depp “I didn’t punch you” but adds “I was hitting you.” Others have said that Johnny Depp is the victim and that Amber is manipulative. Katherine Kendall, alleged that Heard appropriated a violent rape that happened to Kendall for her own ends. Some people think it's self defense.

There wasn't a jury as it wasn't a trial, it was a libel case against the Sun newspaper, a judge decided.

I have no horse in this race but neither of them come out of it as anywhere near clean or truthful. I think they've both told lies so it's difficult to see which parts are true and which are not.

It wasn’t a jury, it was a judge. But to answer your question, I think it’s because so many people grew up idolising Depp and can’t accept the loss of a hero. It’s so much easier to blame Amber Heard; she’s so far from the perfect victim. She’s generally unlikeable, attention-seeking and problematic. She herself has behaved abusively. It makes it too easy for people to believe that she’s lying, or that she asked for it, or that she deserved it, or some combination of all three.

It doesn’t change the truth, of course. Johnny Depp is a man who abused his wife (and also a man who clearly has a significant drug and alcohol problem and treats his staff absolutely appallingly). Amber Heard doesn’t need to be a perfect victim, or even a good person, for us to rightfully condemn Depp.

I agree that mysogyny had got to be behind all the stuff I keep reading from people who insist the judge's ruling is wrong.

@SpeccyLime

It wasn’t a jury, it was a judge. But to answer your question, I think it’s because so many people grew up idolising Depp and can’t accept the loss of a hero. It’s so much easier to blame Amber Heard; she’s so far from the perfect victim. She’s generally unlikeable, attention-seeking and problematic. She herself has behaved abusively. It makes it too easy for people to believe that she’s lying, or that she asked for it, or that she deserved it, or some combination of all three.

It doesn’t change the truth, of course. Johnny Depp is a man who abused his wife (and also a man who clearly has a significant drug and alcohol problem and treats his staff absolutely appallingly). Amber Heard doesn’t need to be a perfect victim, or even a good person, for us to rightfully condemn Depp.

Agree with this wholeheartedly.

Who is everyone? Some people on Facebook isn't everyone.

The trial was about determining whether The Sun had libelled him in calling him a "wife beater". The judge ruled that it hadn't because the evidence overwhelmingly showed that he had beaten her. What she did is neither here nor there. Even if she'd given as good as she'd got (unlikely given she's a barely there, blow over in a breeze woman and he's a well built man), it wouldn't make their description of his behaviour any less accurate. Misogyny is strong, especially where glamorous male film stars are concerned. I didn't even know about Sean Connery being an abuser until after he died and I spend my life on FWR!

I wasn't following it closely but the leaks from the trial seemed to be all about her bad behaviour.
We heard that he was a heavy drinker who takes too many drugs and has rages where he hurt himself and smashed stuff. We also heard about her admitting to physically attacking him but I didn't really hear any suggestion about him being as violent as she was iyswim. Obviously the question posed in this trial was whether or not he was violent but the press reporting focused on her behaviour

129 pages of watertight judge's summing up, apparently, so that any appeal will be bound to fail. Fancy dragging the victim in as a reluctant witness to her own abuse when she won't benefit in any way, and having the whole world watch while you sling mud in an attempt to salvage a wrecked reputation.

Better to ignore a tabloid splash and live it down but it's too late now.

As an aside - who would have thought The Sun, of all rags, would have inadvertantly brought about such a landmark moment in the pushback against misogyny?!

@RuffleCrow

The trial was about determining whether The Sun had libelled him in calling him a "wife beater". The judge ruled that it hadn't because the evidence overwhelmingly showed that he had beaten her. What she did is neither here nor there. Even if she'd given as good as she'd got (unlikely given she's a barely there, blow over in a breeze woman and he's a well built man), it wouldn't make their description of his behaviour any less accurate. Misogyny is strong, especially where glamorous male film stars are concerned. I didn't even know about Sean Connery being an abuser until after he died and I spend my life on FWR!

Agreed.

Well, he lost the libel case, but her reputation has suffered in the process, so she doesn't come out of this a winner either. The Sun and the lawyers have done alright though - very lucrative for them.

It has nothing to do with her behaviour because only his was in question. From what I've heard and read they were both awful in an awful mistake of a relationship.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that the case was not Johnny vs Amber but Johnny vs the sun in a libel case. Johnny would have had to prove significant loss of reputation and earnings and demonstrate that the accusations were false - he couldn't, so he didn't win.

It's not really a big win against misogyny, it's a victory for the media to continue writing what they like. Women aren't going to benefit in any way.

@RuffleCrow

As an aside - who would have thought The Sun, of all rags, would have inadvertantly brought about such a landmark moment in the pushback against misogyny?!

This

Yeah, who knew?! It is indeed a landmark, RuffleCrow, in a very muddy battlefield. All the better because it forces us to put aside society's demand that female victims must be perfect - innocent, beautiful, fragrant, virtuous - before we decide they don't deserve a beating. 🙄

"Oh, she's no angel!" "Well that's OK, then, we don't need to care that she got beaten up, do we?!"

It doesn’t change the truth, of course. Johnny Depp is a man who abused his wife (and also a man who clearly has a significant drug and alcohol problem and treats his staff absolutely appallingly). Amber Heard doesn’t need to be a perfect victim, or even a good person, for us to rightfully condemn Depp

Absolutely!!

I don’t trust either of them an inch.