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?

And the two years earlier comment links back to their divorce settlement and statement where she withdrew her DA case and the restraining order.

amp.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/16/amber-heard-assault-allegations-johnny-depp-divorce

so now it makes more sense contextually - restraining order, divorce, settlement (2016)
article (2018)
subsequent cases.

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

I don't think that necessarily lets her off the hook. A court would likely ask whether a reader would reasonably deduce that Depp was the person she was referring to here. Given Heard was married to Depp, that Depp is an extremely high-profile entertainer and that the marriage had ended in a divorce which had every appearance of being acrimonious, I think it's highly likely a court would decide readers would infer he was the subject of the article.

AFAIK this might already have happened at the deposition stage, as if the article's subject was in doubt then it's less likely the case could have proceeded to trial. But this is conjecture: I haven't read deeply enough into the court documentation to know for sure whether this is the case.

I think it’s more nuanced because she says she became a figure for DA two years ago, which links directly to the divorce and DA claims. So I can see how his case works.

I don't think that necessarily lets her off the hook. A court would likely ask whether a reader would reasonably deduce that Depp was the person she was referring to here.

yes, agreed. I'm not disputing that.

what I'm questioning is whether Heard claimed she was a 'sole' victim of a 'sole' perpetrator.

In response to TheSillyMastiff point upthread

Got you. I missed that part of the thread when scrolling through, sorry.

Having read the article she doesn't appear to infer that she was abusive back, or instigate abuse on occasion.

Which we now know to possibly be the case by some of the evidence produced.

Like others have said I don't think it would have even got to trial if the courts deemed that the article drew no inference to JD being the unknown abuser.

I don't think JD will win this, by the way, but I suppose he's managed to get his side of the story out but at what cost. Not a gamble I would have taken but he seems set on it.

Having read the article she doesn't appear to infer that she was abusive back, or instigate abuse on occasion.

but where, in law, would it suggest that she should have done this?

the question is very simply, is it accurate to call herself a victim of abuse? I don't see any legal reason why that would need to be accompanied by a full disclosure of everything else she's done.

It's a defamation suit, not a criminal case or as someone pointed out upthread a reckoning of who was the biggest bad.

The way I read it, and I may be wrong, was that she was getting abuse for having accused JD, via the divorce process incl restraining orders, of domestic abuse and this article wasn’t meant to reveal him as an abuser in a ‘shock! New revelations!’ way, more in a ‘look how I was treated by other people for saying this, and how it fits with my loved experience as a woman.’ Probably she felt it was saying something about the female experience but it’s just been taken quite literally as a shot at JD. I don’t think she should have written it, or she could have written it more about divorce etc rather than DA and likened it to yoko Ono/ Heather McCartney etc.

I don't think JD will win this, by the way, but I suppose he's managed to get his side of the story out but at what cost. Not a gamble I would have taken but he seems set on it.

He doesn't need to win it necessarily. Previously, people thought he was physically abusive to Amber Heard and that will have affected his career. If she can't demonstrate that he was abusive physically he may get work again whether or not he wins the case. She might also think twice about portraying herself as a "victim" of domestic abuse in the future given there is quite a lot of evidence she is an abuser herself.

@ENoeuf

If you saw the ACLU testimony yesterday, the article was about Johnny Depp. ACLU actually proposed the article idea to her and wrote it then sent it to her for edits. The author did speak to Amber by phone to get input from her as well. Amber asked for specifics about Johnny to be added into it and drafted some sentences but those were removed by the lawyers due to the NDA she had signed.

It was interesting testimony as it wasn't her idea or her words. ACLU proposed the release to coincide with her movie release for maximum impact.

The back and forth emails were very telling and also quite political.

ACLU also testified regarding the $3.5 million that was supposed to come to them from the settlement and that Amber testified in the Sun case had been donated.

They received $100,000 from Depp in Heard's name
They received $300,000 from Heard
They received $500,000 from Elon Musk in Heard's name (while they were dating)

That’s not reflected in the article though- I did see some of it yesterday but as I said , the way I read it is as a response to the abuse from eg social media. It’s not a ‘this is my life with an abuser piece.’
whichever way, I think she would have been better off not writing it. But her testimony will be interesting to see if the balance shifts or if the JD fandom in the media remains resolute she is dreadful.
at the end of the day they are only calling witnesses that will be sympathetic to their side. It’s such a public mess.

@ENoeuf

It is interesting as it is clear from the emails that Amber's intention and desire was that the article tell the world that Johnny was a wife beater. The only reason it didn't explicitly say that was because the lawyers took out all those parts but it is clear from the public reaction to the article that the public perceived Amber's intention and got the message that it was about Johnny. It was ACLU who actually wrote the piece and who ensure the political slant they wanted it to have.

Fandoms are interesting as they often forget about the humanity of people behind the costumes and roles and currated public images. They ideolize or reject people based on little that is fact.

Much of what we were hearing now was already know. I remember reading documents from years ago (maybe after the divorce or the article) that detailed much of what has come out in court. I am not sure how anyone could be a fan of either's behaviour regardless of how much they like or dislike them as actors or public figures. There is clear evidence that both initiated and participated in very unhealthy and abusive behaviour. It muddies the language of victim and perpetrator and whether both should apply or neither. I do find it disingenuous for Amber to play the victim card in the article without any added context, as I would if Johnny had written a similar piece painting himself as a victim without context.

Yes, the children's charity didn't get much (if anything) either. It seems she kept most of the divorce settlement to herself despite stating that she was going to give it all to charity. Arguably she did this to make herself look good to swing public opinion in her favour.

Prior to this I had no idea who Ambrr Heard is and only knew Depp through Pirates. Its great, like a soap opera. I was looking at stuff on the net with a recording of her complaining that he was running off an hiding in the bathroom because he dididn'want her punching him, she was telling him she wasn't punching him she was only hitting him. He was hiding in the bathroom apparently because she was trying to smash the door down, but she was only doing that because he wouldn't come out and face her.

She's great, true actress. What a victim.

I agree that he doesn’t need to win. His reputation was already in the gutter, he didn’t really have anything to lose. He only needs two or three films or sponsorship deals to recoup the legal costs. Amber is probably on the verge of losing everything, she will need some strong defence to sway the court of public opinion. This has done world wide public damage to domestic violence cases as well as damaging ACLU.

Well I'd never heard of Amber and certainly wouldn't have bothered to read an OpEd by her.

Ive now read a pretty damning judgement on Depp (UK), have seen him smash up a room in a drunken frenzy and have been exposed to the disgusting and depraved way he talks about women.

So my take is 'spectacular own goal by Depp' to be honest. I don't think any of the big studios would touch him with a barge pole after all this, whereas the Op Ed would have been forgotten quickly enough.

@Midlifemusings I don’t disagree with your last post. I loved pirates of the Caribbean because the character was so funny, but I’d never seen Jd in anything before that (that I remember). It would be easy to confuse the character with the person I guess, I remember coronation street stars taking about getting told off in the street!

My only musing on it, because it's a civil case is the social morality of it all.

Can one say they are a victim and present this as fact, in the effort to gain sympathy from society, when in fact, both parties seemed to have acted badly and there is far more to the story that was told.

So it's about perception isn't it. Did the readers take the article to perceive that JD was the sole abuser.

I agree with you, it shouldn't really matter you can be both victim and abuser. Which is why things like The Drive Project exist.

But here we are watching an absolute car crash. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Actors can move on from smashing rooms, foul language by simply apologising and entering rehab. Recovering from domestic violence accusations is much more difficult especially as depp was often cast in family friendly films.

If she can't demonstrate that he was abusive physically he may get work again whether or not he wins the case.

That's reckoning without the issue that no insurer will touch someone in his advanced state of addiction unless he shows serious commitment to cleaning up his act (rather than expending his energies in chasing down his ex through the civil courts).

There's also the small issue of his being sued by someone else for violence on set, the videos showing his inability to keep his temper and his nasty, misogynistic attitudes towards women, including his partner of 15 years and mother of his children.

I think he's on pretty murky ground regardless of the outcome; that said, men seem to have perfected an amazing ability to be given a free pass. As a case in point, Mel Gibson's still acting irrespective of his bizarre roaring of 'WHO WANTS TO FUCKIN' EAT!', complete with DUI, documented cases of anti-Semitism and horrible threats and violence (admitted on tape) against his own ex. QED.

So my take is 'spectacular own goal by Depp' to be honest. I don't think any of the big studios would touch him with a barge pole after all this, whereas the Op Ed would have been forgotten quickly enough.

I don't think the texts would have ruined his career or smashing kitchen cabinets although no maybe not suitable for Disney. Being known as domestically violent is much worse and much more likely to ruin a career.

One good thing about Depp that has come through is how incredibly generous he is with his money and resources. People had often said he was generous - his gifts, visits to kids hospitals etc but you never know how much is real and how much is PR but the trial has shown he is actually very generous in day to day life.

Indeed, male celebrities get a much bigger "free pass"

Mike Tyson was sentenced to 6 years for rape. He came out having served just 3 and continued with his boxing career, and recently films like The Hangover.

He has a long history of violence against women, against men, against the public.

But hey ho "that's just Mike Tyson" and he's in the boxing hall of fame and regarded as one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time by pundits 🤷🏻‍♀️

I mean I suppose you can't take his wins and boxing career away, but you could have not put him in the boxing hall of fame and carried on like he was this amazing person and Hollywood personality 🙄