AIBU to wonder why so many people assume Johnny Depp is the good guy and Amber Heard is the villain? ..

[Cowslip4567]

People (from what I am reading in a variety of places on the internet) seem to have decided this even before the trial has been concluded. Presumably, we won't know all of the evidence until the trial ends.

The previous trial in the UK concluded that there was indeed evidence that JD was indeed a wife beater. How come everyone feels that they are sure previous trial had the wrong verdict?

Case 1: was The Sun guilty of libel in describing Depp as a wife beater?

Case 2: is Heard guilty of libel in describing herself as a victim of domestic violence?

Now in a moral sense, the idea that she's setting herself up as a Poster Woman for victims of DV is pretty offensive and of dubious moral fibre if she herself is also an abuser. It sticks in the craw, even. But tough. That's not within the remit of the civil courts. If she can show him also to have been the perpetrator: if there's any compelling evidence whatsoever that he abused her irrespective of what she might have done, she wins.

It's entirely possible that someone can be a perpetrator of abuse and a victim of it at the same time. If she once fell into the category of the latter - and the UK court ruled this was the case - she wins. Both Depp and Heard are on record as admitting they struck the other. On this basis I don't fancy Depp's chances of winning this case any more than he did the last.

No matter who wins in this sordid farce, both have already lost. The outcome barely seems to matter anymore: his sole objective seems to be taking her down with him. On that score he might well succeed.

She's awful. He's awful. But the one pursuing this like a dog with a bone is Depp.

If they do all this it certainly does make them a wifebeater.

Forcibly penetrating her with a wine bottle also makes him a rapist.

Depp didn't expose himself in the text messages.

They were said behind her back, not to her face and in their ludicrous hyperbole and Gothic imagery obviously aren't to be taken as a literal statement of intent.

We've all said horrible things about other people and many of us have wished people dead in print, if not in reality. Even where we would really like someone to die that isn't the same as actually killing them or plotting to. I wish Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin were dead but I have no intention of bringing about their deaths by my own hand or anyone else's.

Saying mean things, even violent things about someone who isn't there is a world away from actually being violent. Most people can understand that difference, even if it gives them a less than favourable impression of the one saying those things.

If it happened it would. But we only have her word it did. And her word isn't very credible at this point.

Where has he admitted to deliberately striking her?

I haven't said the legal system should be dismissed in its entirety. That is an absurd claim to make. I have merely said that judges are fallible and their legal qualifications doesn't guarantee that they make wise decisions in all cases and that because they have a legal degree and I don't I must always bow to their decisions. The law like everything else has significant problems and often creates poor results. Getting true justice is something of a lottery.

It was upheld as true in court. Whether you think that’s credible or not is irrelevant. It’s a matter of record.

So, missatan do you believe JD to be completely innocent of any abuse?

Do you believe that JD has never struck, intimidated, emotionally or psychologically abused AH?

If he has done any of the above regardless of what prompted the behaviour such as substance misuse and or goading he is, guilty of Domestic Abuse, to what level, I mean there are mitigating circumstances one could argue this minimises the abusers role as reactionary, but ultimately if any of the above has occured then no defamation of character has occured and he will loose this civil case.

AH is also however possibly guilty of the above but crucially Amber is not defending her character she's merely responding to the claim that she has defamed him, but then by the evidence he's providing himself, his own actions has resulted in this, AH just brought it to light regardless of her "motives" for doing so (which again are not on trial here)

Like I said nobody is coming out of this looking great, JD is sinking the ship and taking her with him. And that's it in a nutshell.

Of course you have. Judges can’t be trusted, and the court of public opinion is just as good, according to you. That absolutely dismisses the legal system.

If judges are wrong, and we can confidently state that they’re wrong even with a total lack of evidence to support that assertion (as in this case), then what value does the role of judge even have? Why have a judge when you can just ask Shirley, who’s read a few bits on twitter, what she thinks?

Presumably missatan should be on to The Sun about the damages they should be paying Depp for their libel. As her opinion is more valid than the courts and all.

It takes talent to captain save a ho Johnny Depp with absolutely zero legal training when his expensive legal team haven’t even managed to do so.

But I bet they'll end up getting married and it'll be brilliant because then he'll see what real love is and probably end up giving up drugs and everything.

‘They were said behind her back, not to her face and in their ludicrous hyperbole and Gothic imagery obviously aren't to be taken as a literal statement of intent. ‘

OMG. Like what do you say to this. He is a creative genius and Wuthering Heights had nothing on him for creative use of language.

No, that isn't what I said. My position is considerably more nuanced than you choose to acknowledge.

I said judges are fallible and not all decisions they make are correct. That I would of thought is hard to dispute. They are also influenced by government pressure, societal pressure and their own prejudices.

The court of public opinion is neither more or less likely to be correct in particular cases where a strange decision has been made, such as the Maya Forstater case. In the majority of cases I would agree that legal training will help as you as you understand it is no guarantee of being infallible.

If Shirley has looked at the evidence and she is on a jury her decision is more important than anyone else's other than the other jurors and she is free to not follow the guidance offered in a judge's summing up. Her lack of legal training is not an issue.

I'm gay so he's really not my type.

JD is suing her because she is accusing him of being a abuser, so surely her credibility is totally in question?!

Yet Shirley from Twitter hasn’t gone through the process or jury selection, or sat through a trial, unlike Shirley from the jury. It’s also not really relevant when Johnny Depp wasn’t judged by a jury of his peers (as is usual in civil cases), but by a judge.

Your insistence that a legal education (and years of legal experience) is only ‘helpful’ and that public opinion is of equal value is absurd, especially when you’re also claiming you’re not attempting to undermine the legal system. At least work on your consistency if you insist on neglecting quality of argument.

And once again, like a record stuck on repeat, no one said the justice system is infallible. You are claiming that it is, whilst providing absolutely no evidence to support your assertion in this case.

Attacking Amber Heard and calling her an abuser is not a defence of Johnny Depp. She may be an abuser, but that is not proof that he isn’t one. Ripping her apart does not constitute proof that Johnny Depp is not what he has been found to be.

Your opinion may indeed be nuanced, but much like Johnny Depp’s innocence, you’ve failed to demonstrate it.

The decision made by the UK court is irrelevant in this case. It also neither makes Heard's claims true or false. The truth and legal decisions sometimes coincide and sometimes don't. That is why we have miscarriages of justice and why guilty people often walk free from court.

I never said public opinion was of equal value to a legal one. I said in some instances it is, especially where a bizarre decision has been made and I used the original Maya Forstater judgement as a good example.

My point about Shirley is that her lack of legal training isn't an obstacle to her decision being counted as the legally binding one.

The evidence in the UK trial is a matter of public record. Witness statements show that Heard was lying about the damage to the flat and her bruises. She also lied about the makeup. There are other problems with her claims and her character which are also a matter of public knowledge. It is hardly unreasonable given what she admitted to on tape to conclude that she was the abuser, not Depp. If her credibility is undermined sufficiently and she is shown to be a consistent liar it will make her claims of being abused considerably weaker and strengthen his claim to have been defamed by her.

There really is no evidence that he deliberately struck her other than what she has claimed. There is evidence that she hit him. She said so.

A snippet of tape conversations does not account for the whole story. We know Amber Heard hit him. That is not proof that he didn’t didn’t abuse her. There is evidence that he did, his own recorded statements included. It was proven in civil court that he did on at least 12 occasions. You not liking the judgement does not mean that you get to dismiss it as inconsequential. It is a matter of legal record that he is a wifebeater.

This is getting boring. He has been found, in court, to be a perpetrator of domestic violence. He’s likely to also lose this case, and imagine you’ll make the same arguments about the justice system if/when that happens.

Btw, witness statements are also subject to scrutiny as to credibility. Amber Heard also has witness statements, yet I’m sure you’ll call those lies. Incidentally, one of the witnesses in support of Depp has been dismissed from the trial. Another witness provided a testimony that largely consisted of ‘I don’t recall’. His sister is another witness, and she downplayed his drinking and drug problems, yet in texts messages acknowledges how serious they were. Witness statements alone are not proof.

Oh, one more thing. Going back to the text messages. According to you those are understandable and quite reasonable things to say about someone, displaying no unpleasantness of character of the person saying them. You said you hate Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin and that’s fine, they’re public figures that people view negatively, but would you say those things about someone you claimed to love? A partner? If not, why not? There’s been times I’ve wanted to vent about people I love, can’t say I’ve ever used such violently detailed language as to what I’d like to do to them though. You?

If a friend showed you texts like that, would you so readily write them off as ‘just blowing off steam’?

At the very least the texts prove he has violent ideation, which is often a predictor of abuse.

Come on now, that’s just silly.

Some more of Depp’s own words, taken from recordings:

Heard: 'I cry in my bedroom after I dumped you a week prior after you beat the shit out of me. A week later you show up saying you want to say goodbye.'
Depp: 'I made a huge mistake. I won't do it again.'

Heard:'Put your fucking cigarette out on some one else.'
Depp: 'Shut up fat ass.'

that’s a keen legal mind you’ve got there

this post has absolutely killed me

@whumpthereitis

that is pretty damning as a transcript! Where did you find that? Christ