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?

I think this is his side and witnesses and then she is next so maybe the balance will shift.

I expected to see good evidence that Johnny Depp hit Amber Heard following the verdict in the UK

she hasn't presented her evidence yet

Maybe it will.

On the point of violence committed by males and females, thanks to all posters, whatever side of the case (or no one's) you might take, for taking the time to post these. Statistics are notoriously slippery to work with and can often be adopted to defend or support a given position.

Forgive the crude case in point here, but MN columns only have so much space and no one wants to read a boring essay. As PPs have pointed out, the vast majority of violent offenders are men. The vast majority of their victims are men. But then we boil it down to demographics, because within that statistic falls the fact that a good deal of violent crime is committed within specific contexts; usually gang-style contexts. Organised acts of violence like terrorism - for sure, women have shown themselves more than capable of committing acts like those. Statistically, however, the perpetrators are far more likely to be men.
As a further PP has pointed out, there's an overwhelming pattern emerging here. Men are the problem.

Then we see opportunistic crimes carried out against individuals, usually with a sexual motivation. Low-level harrassment carried out in public: everything from 'giz a smile luv' to following, groping or other similar issues. The perpetrators here are men. The overwhelming majority of their victims: women.

The following is C&P'd directly from the ONS:

Statistics on Male Victims of Domestic Abuse

Statistics

Below are statistics on male victims of domestic abuse. Please also consult the research page.

Key Document (summary below): Male victims of domestic abuse and partner abuse – 55 key facts and statistics

§ The Office for National Statistics figures show every year that one in the three victims of domestic abuse are male equating to 757,000 men (1.561m women).

§ One in 6-7 men and one in 4 women will be a victim of domestic abuse in their lifetime.

§ Of domestic abuse crimes recorded by the police, 26% were committed against men. This equates to c155,000 offences per year.

§ Only 4.4% of victims of domestic abuse being supporting by local domestic services are men according to SafeLives data. This highlights how few men are being supported for local domestic abuse services.

§ Over the pandemic period, the charity saw an increase of calls to its helpline by one quarter and visits to its website by 75%.

§ 61% of the men who call the ManKind Initiative helpline have never spoken to anyone before about the abuse they are suffering and 64% would not have called if the helpline was not anonymous.

§ There are 39 organisations with 238 spaces in refuges or safe houses for men – with only 58 of those places are dedicated for men.

§ Half of male victims (49%) fail to tell anyone they are a victim of domestic abuse and are two and a half times less likely to tell anyone than female victims (19%).

§ 11% of male victims (7.2% women) have considered taking their life due to partner abuse. The charity has seen an increase in calls regarding suicide ideation over the pandemic period.

§ Over the past five years (April 2015 to March 20), on average 12 men per year had been killed by a partner or ex-partner (74 women per year).

A number of issues arise here. There is insufficient support in place for men who have suffered violence: this needs remedying. Women have fought for our refuges, etc., now men need to do the same. Again quoting a PP, 'toxic masculinity' is key barrier to allowing that to happen.

More significant is the account of serious harm committed by one sex on another. The last bullet point speaks for itself. 12 men killed by a partner or ex-partner, 74 women.

The hashtag #CountingDeadWomen paints a sobering picture of women murdered at the hands of men. The figures since Sarah Everard are shocking. Yet the women behind the hashtag has received rape and death threats for not including male-born people (M to F trans people) in those statistics. The risks of trans women to be murdered as the result of gender-based crime are very low indeed in the UK.

The ones making those threats of rape and murder? First clue: they are not women.

Did his defence present the texts he sent or show the video of him damaging kitchen cabinets? I assumed that was her evidence.

Did his defence present the texts he sent or show the video of him damaging kitchen cabinets? I assumed that was her evidence.

It may form part of her evidence, the plaintiff (Depp) gets to set out their case first, this could take up to 3 weeks I believe because the trial is set for 6 weeks, once the plaintiff has set out the case the defence then gets to defend with their own version of events and then its up to the jury to decide, if the trial finds in Depps favour will that reopen the UK case against the S*n, because of the witness from the ACLU yesterday I'm wondering if that opens a case of perjury against Heard in the UK case

@Aspiringmatriarch wrote:

Marilyn Manson is now suing Evan Rachel Wood for defamation, apparently, due to her accusations which have derailed his career.

That doesn't surprise me, sadly. Reeks of male entitlement and the old dilemma faced by victims of sexual violence: 'don't speak about it, because it makes men look bad'.

I think cases like the one mentioned above, Depp vs. Heard, and the frivolous 'Wagatha Christie' case, are useful in the context of shining sunlight on exactly what function the civil courts are there to fulfil. It's not vengeance - even criminal courts are not about that - nor is it's not for trashing someone's reputation, or sanitizing your own at the expense of someone else's. It's worth remembering that most such cases are settled out of court, with the sole recourse of punitive damages as restitution for harm done. Most civil cases have a confidentiality clause written into them, meaning that settlements can't be publicly discussed and grievances on both sides of the case have to remain secret. Publicly holding someone to account is the job of the criminal courts, which rightly have a much higher burden of proof.

What we are seeing now is a succession of what looks very like vexatious litigation and a misuse of what the civil courts are actually there to do. Of course, this is an option open only to those with more money than sense. The rest of us have to swallow our grievances and crack on with life as best we may. But it would be interesting to see if this leads to debate within the legal profession as to the use, abuse or misuse of civil law. I hope it does.

Depp's position is baffling to me. As a powerful Hollywood male no one gives a shit about his reputation; or wouldn't have, before the ill-advised Sun case. That ilk are pretty much untouchable, and people are and were believing him regardless of what the courts found. He stands to gain nothing by this but vengeance. That merits scrutiny.

" I read the article and agreed with the sentiments expressed, also thought they would be interesting to share. Are you saying that what is being said on that thread discredits her knowledge?"

You agreed with her assessment so of course you would prefer her not to be discredited in any way and would instead like to discredit the other psychologist.

Once again people's beliefs about men, women and feminism are shaping which side they are on.

Depp's position is baffling to me. As a powerful Hollywood male no one gives a shit about his reputation; or wouldn't have, before the ill-advised Sun case. That ilk are pretty much untouchable, and people are and were believing him regardless of what the courts found. He stands to gain nothing by this but vengeance. That merits scrutiny.

Unless he really was the victim in all of this

Once again people's beliefs about men, women and feminism are shaping which side they are on.

Some people are just trying to look at the facts presented of the actual case.

It will be interesting to see. She certainly seems to have lied about a lot of things.

"Reeks of male entitlement and the old dilemma faced by victims of sexual violence: 'don't speak about it, because it makes men look bad'."

If they are innocent of the charges should men just shut up because 'male entitlement'?

"nor is it's not for trashing someone's reputation, or sanitizing your own at the expense of someone else's."

Hard to win a case like this without doing that. Either they were both abusive to each other or one or the other is the true abuser. You're going to have to dig through a lot of dirt to get near the truth. You're just annoyed that anyone has dared to suggest a woman could be abusive or a liar as if we are all poor abused angels.

"As a powerful Hollywood male no one gives a shit about his reputation; or wouldn't have, before the ill-advised Sun case."

Possibly, although I haven't seen Kevin Spacey in anything recently and Depp's agent testified that Heard's allegations led directly to him losing the Disney job. Giving that he was fired a matter of days after her allegations that seems highly plausible.

"He stands to gain nothing by this but vengeance."

If he wins he stands to gain a lot more than that but from what he has said he thinks he has already lost everything so getting his side out there is probably enough for him. Public sympathy outside of feminist circles is certainly more on his side.

I agree I am neither team AH or team JD. I'm just trying to find the middle ground where my personal belief this all lies.

In a very muddy, murky grey middle ground. With both at fault to a certain degree and both victims to a certain degree.

I do not believe that AH is 100% guilty or JD 100% guilty and neither do I believe they AH is 100% innocent or JD 100% innocent.

Oh dear god.

I asked the poster why they’d linked a thread without any explanation of why except something like ‘worrying’. If people link stuff it would be helpful to explain why. I’m tired of your constant reduction of us to our perceived interests and experiences and your frankly bizarre resentment of feminism and any suggestion Depp is wrong.

Reply if you like - I give you the last word as I won’t be replying to any more of your posts on this thread.

"Some people are just trying to look at the facts presented of the actual case."

Of course they are. But what they believe based on those facts (in many cases not really facts but witness statements and accusations and counter accusations) will be heavily influenced by their political/religious beliefs and biases.

"Some people are just trying to look at the facts presented of the actual case."

Of course they are. But what they believe based on those facts (in many cases not really facts but witness statements and accusations and counter accusations) will be heavily influenced by their political/religious beliefs and biases.

I do not believe that AH is 100% guilty or JD 100% guilty and neither do I believe they AH is 100% innocent or JD 100% innocent.

Guilty of what though? The question is whether he was physically violent towards her rather than anything else, surely? Either he was or he wasn't.

I don't agree that most people have political or religious views that would cause them to be heavily biased about this case.

"Reply if you like - I give you the last word as I won’t be replying to any more of your posts on this thread."

Yes, I will reply thank you. I don't need your permission. I really don't care whether you reply or not. If you want to go off and sulk that is fine by me. I won't miss your pearls of wisdom

" I’m tired of your constant reduction of us to our perceived interests and experiences"

You are free from all forms of bias then? Not what it looks like to me. You have a very clear agenda based on your political views.

"and your frankly bizarre resentment of feminism"

Only bizarre to a feminist. Most people are not feminists and would recognise that a lot of my criticisms of feminism are just.

@TheSillyMastiff

I do not believe that AH is 100% guilty or JD 100% guilty and neither do I believe they AH is 100% innocent or JD 100% innocent.

Agreed. Relationships are complex and things are usually more nuanced than the position that X is an abuser and Y is wholly the innocent party. (Which is, incidentally, Depp's position).

I believe that much of what's in both the suit and countersuit have a degree of truth to them. I also think that the abuse by each against the other is likely exaggerated to vindicate themselves and make the other party look worse. There are claims on each side of this case in which the truth is questionable: the bedshitting incident, donation of funds to charity being two of many cases in point.

The two questions the court is being asked to decide: 'did Heard defame Depp in writing of herself as a DV victim?', and 'did Depp conduct a public smear campaign against Heard and misuse the court system to continue pursuing her?'

Much of the evidence we've seen from Depp seems to be weighted toward proving Heard is the type of person who would be capable of behaving in such a way. If both didn't abuse each other, and she is the sole perpetrator, she's employing classic DARVO (a known tactic of abuse). Some of it appears a digression tactic from what's really in the suit. Other testimony, particularly yesterday's, appears very damning of Heard.

What her team has to prove is whether he ever actually hit her. That case is still yet to be presented.

"I don't agree that most people have political or religious views that would cause them to be heavily biased about this case."

Most people might not. Most people won't be paying any attention to the case. However, many on this site certainly do have views which makes them take a particular side.

If I go on a site like Jezebel or the MarySue I know what a majority of posters will think there. If I go on a site like A Voice for Men I know what they will think. It's utterly predictable and based on a selective interpretation of the evidence heavily informed by their political positions.

No the question for the court
is did AH article defame JD by insinuating he was the sole perpetrator of domestic violence and she the sole victim.

This is what his defence are arguing, and they are setting out a clear picture that whilst JD's behaviour is not fully acceptable that it is AH who is the main aggressor and should not be painting herself as a victim. They are also attempting to prove that any DA back from JD is in self defence or retaliation of the aggressor. They are doing a good job of this, this is what they are paid to do.

It will be interesting when AH takes to the stand. We could see some major curve balls handed out, and this is why I don't think it appropriate yet to say in favour of one or the other at this time.

But when I look at their complex and toxic relationship from the evidence already supplied, I'm willing to give the opinion that I at this present moment in time believe them both to have committed acts of DA against one another, and that none have the superior moral ground, and that the article written by AH is one sided and omits much truth.

is did AH article defame JD by insinuating he was the sole perpetrator of domestic violence and she the sole victim.

I don't think that's true. I don't think she ever suggested she was a 'sole' victim, so she can't have defamed him in that way.

The article doesn't even name him, let alone go into details of the exact dynamics if they're relationship.

Here is a copy of the article, thought it would be useful to have read it rather than just the headlines or about it. I think the damning but is saying two years ago (written in 2018 so 2016, when the couple split) she became a public figure re DA because you would have to be quite daft not to link that to JD and her.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html

its not in question that he's identifiable on the basis of the article. That's agreed.

But in not naming him, all she's stated publicly is that she is a victim of DA. The case would surely rest on proving or disproving that one claim, regardless of what else went down.