To not feel sorry for Amber Heard even in light of evidence

[Wheresmywoolyjumpers]

I always loved Johnny Depp. Was really wanting to take his side, but the evidence being presented is making that impossible for me. But as much as I want to support women, I cannot warm to Amber Heard. is it patriarchal brainwashing? Is it that they both seem spoiled and behaving badly? Or something else?

People upthread have shared the verdict of the UK libel case - it is fairly horrifying reading. People saying they don't believe he abused her may think differently if they read why the judge found it substantially true that he is a 'wife beater' and The Sun can refer to him as such.

Despite having lost that case, he is now bringing another case against her and I suspect this will go the same way. She is countersuing him, but ONLY because he sued her. He is the instigator in all of the legal stuff and I have no idea why his judgement is so poor because all it's done is drag both of them through the mud.

I think they're both fairly awful but having read the evidence from the previous trial I can't help but feel sorry for her.

What I find strange is it’s like the whole multi million pound U.K. case never happened. The judge found (in an extremely long and detailed judgment) that it was true that Depp was a wife beater. All of these issues are being brought up and re-litigated as if we have never heard of them before. Depp was found to have chopped off his own finger in a drunken rage and smeared abusive messages on the walls with his blood. The crap in the bed? It was found to be the dog. Johnny was said to be an inconsistent witness who was deluded about the extent of his drink and drug problems.

In this lawsuit, Depp is suing Heard for defamation for saying she was a “victim of domestic violence.” I would be very surprised if Depp wins this case. The evidence he abused her is very strong. And in the USA he has to prove she lied about this … he doesn’t get the benefit of the burden of proof like in the U.K.

As for Heard’s counterclaim , she is suing Depp for saying her domestic violence and sexual violence claims are fake and a hoax. Note , there is nothing here about her being an abuser… the case is not about who really abusers who, and are they just as bad as each other ? Amber could very well have been abusive to Depp, but this is not what the case is about. The two questions are … is it true that Depp domestically abused heard? And, is it true that heard made up the domestic/sexual abuse claims as part of a hoax or fraud?

I think people get tripped up on this case because Depp is beloved and sympathetic and Heard is not very well liked. We WANT to believe Depp is a victim. And also, it seems unfair to solely castigate depp when amber appears to have behaved poorly and treated him in an abusive way. Unfortunately, pointing out that heard abused depp too doesn’t do anything to disprove that Depp was abusive. Which is the central issue in the case.

He said he wanted to drown her then set her on fire then rape her burned corpse. Said it openly to a friend. Like not even ashamed.

I think they’re both extremely toxic people and it’s unfortunate that they ended up in a relationship but this silly babying of a grownup man insisting he’s ‘more likely to hurt himself than anyone else’ is just contrary to the facts. He sounds extremely violent and very misogynistic. Good men don’t joke about raping the burned corpse of their much much younger girlfriend.

And honestly you can’t cry over someone calling you a fucking baby when you said to your friend you wanted to rape their burned corpse after drowning them. I mean come on?

Anyone trying to ‘side with’ either of them is looking pretty pathetic and overlooking the fact that they both seem very abusive and manipulative individuals and just because Johnny Depp was cute in Edward Scissorhands and you loved him in 21 Jump Street and he does a good job of playing the sweet, shy, reserved type doesn’t mean he’s somehow a lovely man in real life.

You aren’t even close to right…the uk ruling was about whether or not the paper had acted appropriately in their reporting…do some research.

it was about whether they could call him a 'wife beater'

the judge concluded that was accurate.

there's a link to the whole judgement upthread.

i suggest you read it as it obvious that you're the one that needs to educate yourself

No, the UK ruling was not about whether the Sun acted appropriately. It was a libel trial. The Sun used the defence that their allegation that Depp was a wife beater was substantially true. "Acting appropriately" is not a defence in a libel case. The judge decided that Depp is a wife beater and that most of Heard's accusations were true.

There are reasons to think the judge in the UK might have got it wrong. For example, one of the reasons he decided to believe Heard's evidence was her claim (made under oath) that she had given the $7M divorce settlement to charity. It now appears that claim was false. Note that I am not saying he did get it wrong, just highlighting one of the reasons some people might question the judgement.

However, the ruling was absolutely not about whether the Sun acted appropriately. It was about whether they could convince the judge that, on the balance of probabilities, Depp is a wife beater.

The Judgement is worth reading. It seems that many, many incidents were submitted as argument and the judge gives significant attention to all of them in their conclusion.

@Hutchy16

You aren’t even close to right…the uk ruling was about whether or not the paper had acted appropriately in their reporting…do some research.

Oh dear, you're the one who has got it completely wrong about that I'm afraid!

Here's an overview for you so to get you started on your research journey:

Depp’s case was that the article made seriously defamatory allegations which bore the meaning that he was guilty of serious domestic violence against his former wife. The defence maintainedd_ that the evidence showed the claimant “was violent towards Ms Heard on multiple occasions” during their relationship, and thus the “wife-beater” claim was justified.

They relied on 14 alleged incidents of serious physical assault against Heard which had occurred between 2013 and 2016. However, Depp consistently deniedd_ the “reputation-destroying and career-ending” allegations.

The case was heard over the course of 16 days at London’s Royal Courts of Justice in July 2020. Importantly, neither Depp nor Heard was on trial. And this wasn’t a criminal trial either. In this libel dispute, there were two central issues: the meaning of the articles complained of; and whether the imputation conveyed by them (that the Hollywood actor engaged in unprovoked attacks and violent conduct against his ex-wife) was true in substance and fact. Mr Justice Nicol heldd_ that the meaning of the words complained of was as contended for by The Sun, namely that Depp was violent to Heard, “causing her to suffer significant injury and on occasion leading to her fearing for her life”.

The judge also expressly acknowledged that Depp proved the necessary elements of his cause of action, that his reputation had been damaged. But, under UK defamation law, if a defendant proves that the published words are “substantially truee_”, they will have a complete defence: they cannot be successfully sued regardless of the gravity of the allegations. In this case, the judge found that the great majority of alleged incidents of violent physical assault against his ex-wife were proved to be substantially true and dismissed Depp’s claim.

I think they're a gruesome twosome. Although their joint apology for flouting Australian pet immigration laws was comedy gold, I'll give them that.

I don't want her to win her case against him. And I really, REALLY don't want him to win his case against her.

If the case comes down to which of the two the jury believes looks like less of a strung-out, unwashed cokehead, I'd say he's fucked.

I don't want her to win her case against him. And I really, REALLY don't want him to win his case against her.

she isn't bringing a case against him though.

he is suing her for defamation for saying she was a victim of domestic abuse.

I read she was countersuing - is that a mistake?

Anyway, better if she's not. Then he can lose in high style and that be the end of the matter (hopefully).

I tended to err on the side that she was a victim and he was an abuser, full stop. Now, I think that both of them were abusive to each other in different ways. She was seen bruised when she finally left him. Did he do that? I don't know. Probably? Who knows.

He, however, is making a fool of himself with this case. My understanding is that it's all to do with the article she wrote about being a victim of domestic abuse. His name is not mentioned. Of course, most people will think she is talking about him. She either definitely or probably is talking about him, but given free speech in the US and how he could have just kept his head down after the UK case and tried to rebuild his career, suing her was a really bad idea. I've seen a bit of him giving evidence and heard some on the radio and he looks and sounds like an ageing addict who is full of self-pity and why me, why me, why me.

Neither of them is a particularly likeable character but it's very interesting that on social media it is all about what an evil bitch he is and poor Johnny Depp who would never do a bad thing and oh I've just loved him forever and Amber Heard deserves to die.

Maybe if he hadn't pissed so much money up the wall, maybe if he had got some help with his addiction issues, he'd have enough money to get him through the hiatus in his career and be clear-headed enough to know that this too will pass if you're a white actor in the US who is prepared to wait for your time to come again. cf. Mel Gibson. Oh and I think he's said at this trial that her behaviour had led him to drink and drugs again which is almost certainly bullshit given his lifelong relationship with illicit and licit substances.

It's ex-cunt that makes it so demeaning though.
Not just 'she's a cunt' (which is often used) but the fact that his ex is reduced to her genitals. For some reason it really offended me (and I swear all the time)

It's ex-cunt that makes it so demeaning though. Not just 'she's a cunt' (which is often used) but the fact that his ex is reduced to her genitals. For some reason it really offended me (and I swear all the time)

This is exactly why I felt it was such a horrible phrase, this nuance feels different to calling someone a cunt.

I read she was countersuing - is that a mistake?

I don't know, I've never heard that, but that doesn't mean it isn't true

She is countersuing.

Yes, she is counter suing him for $100m

I have no sympathy for either of them. They seem to have been in a mutually abusive and toxic co-dependence spiral. Equally at fault, equally victims of their own making.

Wow! Calling her that is beyond disgusting. What we seem to have here is a dyed in the wool misogynist who is vile about all the women who've been unlucky enough to get entwined with him.

Neither of them seem to be an ideal spouse.

Very well said

Based on her behaviour prior to divorce up until now I have never felt sorry for her. She loves the media attention and will say or do anything to be in it. Negatively or positively she'd be loving all the press about her right now...

In saying that I'm not a fan of him either but she is an attention seeker.

What, an actress!