Part 2 -AIBU to wonder why so many people assume Johnny Depp is the good guy and Amber Heard is the villain

[StormzyinaTCup]

Just thought I would start a follow on thread for anyone interested in the trial. I have kept it in AIBU so that it is easier for previous posters from Part 1 to find.
We are halfway through and have heard JD's testimony so next week we will hear from AH.

And by the way I initially heard the tapes of them arguing and thought Johnny seemed really nice, really reasonable and she was treating him terribly. I was 100% sympathetic until I read his text messages which really jarred me, and then I looked into it more and came to a different conclusion. I definitely wasn't knee-jerk supporting the woman so the way that keeps being repeated and repeated gets quite frustrating.

@Midlifemusings from the very first post I have made in this I have pointed out that Amber is not being believed because she is not society’s view of the perfect victim.

Women who aren’t presenting themselves as kind, nurturing, everything women are “supposed to be” are allowed to be victims too.

abuse victims often stick up for themselves, have enough and crack and can react to their abuse.

not sure how you translated this into thinking that I view women as kind and nurturing etc … bullshit conclusion to come to after what I have written.

you cannot deny that domestic abuse is heavily gendered. despite this knowledge men are still believed over women even with the kind of evidence we have been so far presented with in this case.

Nobody is denying men can be victims too but yes is in a lesser scale and the murder rate if men killing women each week should not be dismissed.

You are heading into the NAMALT whataboutery zone.

It isn't a straw man at all. There are many bristling on this thread about these very facts and are angry they are even brought up. Men can be victims and women can be perpetrators. Victims of any sex / gender deserve support and validation. Determination of who is a victim and who isn't shouldn't be made based on sex or gender.

Men can be victims and women can be perpetrators

I haven't seen a single person on here denying this, it's a total straw man

My opinion is.

He abused her, she abused him (don't know what came first the chicken or the egg) round and round in circles they went. One did something that set off the other one and disaster followed.

He is an abuser and a victim
She is an abuser and a victim.

Honestly I hope the jury award neither damages or win, and tells them both to go home and become better people.

One can easily have confusing and contradicting emotions and diagnoses.
surely somebody with experience in mental health would know that this would not be uncommon in trauma victims?

I posted a link to an interview earlier with a psychologist who specialises in domestic violence and she was really interesting on the gender differences.

One comment she made was that men who make a report and are not believed will say it's because they're men and they don't fit the profile of a victim. But women will be disbelieved in exactly the same ways. This idea that nobody believes men seems to be a whole load of hot air tbh. Yes, people will rightly observe that men have the potential to do more physical damage but beyond that I do not think this prejudice actually exists.

Nah I think people are angry at the siding with somebody because they have a dick. Not based on the evidence. Which incidentally has so far been completely one sided. Nit picking about tiny observations on the lack of chin quivering and dismissing the evidence such as person with the dick sending messages about wanting to kill then rape the corpse of the person without a dick.
Im not sure I quite understand why the one with the dick is coming off better. Oh yes… patriarchy

No one is a perfect victim. There is no such thing. Johnny could be an angry, addict who swears and yells mean things and also be a victim. Anyone can be a victim regardless of who they are. Anyone can also be a perpetrator - regardless of how they act or come across.

The idea that everything Amber says must be taken as truth because she is woman or else that is misogyny is ridiculous. I am not going to just believe everything (especially with evidence that shows not everything she has said is believable) because of her sex or gender.

I have no idea what NAMALT is.

Of course murder of women is a major issue - but that doesn't negate the experiences of anyone who is abused but not murdered. I don't quite get that. We aren't talking about murder here.

This was a toxic relationship with two damaged toxic people. Who initiated what - I don't know. There is no clear victim / perpetrator in this relationship. And I won't make that determination based on the gender / sex of the two parties.

Avoidance typically means you would not go where the person was, even take a different route to avoid seeing reminders, change your routines. How is that symptom congruent with wanting to go to the same place he lives and to want to be in a situation where you run into him.

PTSD doesn't necessarily start immediately after the traumatising event. Maybe at the point where they were separating, she knew the relationship was unhealthy and needed to end but was also trauma bonded and wanting to cling on to some fantasy of an 'amicable' outcome.

As time went on, things became more antagonistic, she was accused of being the abuser herself, and she had to repeatedly mentally relive the trauma, the PTSD could have set in and she became avoidant.

The idea that everything Amber says must be taken as truth because she is woman or else that is misogyny is ridiculous.

yet again, absolutely no one on here is saying that

I am not going to side with anyone because they have a dick and I am not going to side with anyone because they have a vagina. I think both those positions are indefensible.

Absolutely nobody is saying that. Not at all.

That wasn't the evidence / testimony given by the psychologist.

Then why is there a resistance to any critique or comment on Amber's presentation and testimony?

I haven't/don't have time to watch all the testimony so what did the psychologist specifically say?

Then why is there a resistance to any critique or comment on Amber's presentation and testimony?

Well it depends what that is. When it's couched as 'she isn't crying right' would you expect people to support that kind of critique?

The idea that everything Amber says must be taken as truth because she is woman or else that is misogyny is ridiculous.

Nobody. Is. Saying. That.

There's actually quite a lot of good solid evidence for what she's saying, but that gets either completely ignored or dismissed for spurious reasons by certain individuals.

Your viewpoint defies logic, research, and actual laws and practices.

I don't even know what to say - you are denying a prejudice that is so blatant that I have never even heard a person deny that before.

In the same way people are critiquing Johnny's facial expressions and humor as meaning he must be an abuser?

Everyone is doing the same thing.

What are the pieces of evidence that you see as solid that prove to you that what she is saying is truth?

In the same way people are critiquing Johnny's facial expressions and humor as meaning he must be an abuser?

I haven't been doing that personally, so the comparison doesn't apply to me at least

'Then why is there a resistance to any critique or comment on Amber's presentation and testimony? '

Because 'she doesn't act like a victim', 'her chin doesn't quiver enough' and 'she doesn't look like a victim of abuse, she's wearing a shirt!' type comments are so prevalent about AH and it's important for everyone to know that you don't have to look or act a certain way to have been a victim of DV. You can get angry and rage and scream and still be a victim of DV. You don't have to be frail and beaten, you don't have to cry when you talk about it, you don't have to wear a twin set and pearls to be the right kind of victim.

And similarly, you can be charming, you can appear to be a gentleman, you can be funny, you can be handsome and you can also be someone who is physically violent towards your spouse.

So you can pick them apart? Sorry, not playing. The information is freely available and like the judge in the UK trial I find it convincing.

And naturally most people taking an interest in the case here will have read the judgements from the UK case and watch this case knowing that a judge here found JD on the balance of probabilities did carry out various acts of violence against AH.