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.

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

Except it doesn't. Abuse victims of both sexes are often disbelieved sadly. Men are less likely to report abuse, which is a different issue.

So you agree that even though Johnny gets angry and rages and screams - he could still be a victim of DV because there is no certain way to look or act as a victim.

I agree with you by the way. I don't believe a lot of what Amber says and I think her theatrical peformance on the witness stand is an interesting choice but I don't think either of those things determine whether or not she was a victim.

I also dont believe a lot of what Johnny says and his actions are clearly at times also very poor choices but I don't think that determines whether or not he was a victim.

'So you agree that even though Johnny gets angry and rages and screams - he could still be a victim of DV because there is no certain way to look or act as a victim.'

Yes, of course. I imagine that's how most people see things on the face of it, but I can't unread the judgements from the UK case - I do think he was abusive to AH.

It's frightening reading comments on FB, YouTube etc. I don't understand what's happening 😥

Too many people think he's Jack Sparrow. Every fibre of my being says he was abusive so abusive he had to trawl this through the courts as his over inflated ego couldn't handle her sticking up for herself.

I am not sure who was the intiator in the abuse towards who but if all that is required is evidence that he acted abusely at least one time towards her - then it seems like an uphill battle to win for him. It would be hard for a jury to dismiss all evidence against him - if that is what is needed for a win.

There is a lot of talk about reputation though in this case as well. Since he hasn't made a movie or had a major project since 2018 and she has the Aquamen movies - there is evidence his reputation suffered more but I am not sure they can tie that specfically to the Op Ed.

Happened to me and probably explains some of Amber's issues.

My parents were totally sucked in by my ex's nice guy act. I was covered in bruises around my face and neck but it still was my fault. It also gave him great leverage for my psychological abuse. I've never forgiven them.

This.

Last week I saw endless Facebook posts about how she hadn't acted like a real domestic violence victim and that usually people keep quiet about their abuse. Now all I see is people saying why didn't she leave, why didn't she make formal complaints with the police etc. Absolute witch hunt.

It's vital to look at the evidence in a case as opposed to what we think someone should look like or act like under a certain set of circumstances. I am only basing my observations on the evidence I have seen so far which I appreciate does not include much of Amber's evidence yet.

With regards to the evidence pertaining to Johnny Depp, it shows that he was emotionally abusive due to the name calling in person and in text to Amber Heard. At this juncture, I am unsure about whether he perpetrated physical abuse towards Amber just based on what we have seen so far but he demonstrated psychological abuse towards Amber by smashing up rooms and punching walls which can make someone very frightened and unsettled. Also his abusing drugs and alcohol could constitute abuse towards his partner due to what he is exposing her to.

With regards to Amber Heard, the evidence shows that she was physically abusive to Johnny Depp as she has admitted to hitting him. Whether it was a hit or a punch, even if it was just the one time, it is still physical abuse. The evidence shows that she was emotionally abusive due to the vulgar language she used which was directed at him in addition to the name calling. In terms of psychological abuse, Amber appears to have also demonstrated this by not allowing Johnny to retreat from an argument when he needed to. Following someone around, not giving them personal space and effectively smothering them in a figurative sense is abusive.

However, considering this case is solely based on whether Amber Heard can call herself a survivor of domestic violence at the hand of Johnny Depp, I think he will lose the case. He may not have physically abused her (cannot say for sure either way) but he certainly perpetrated the other forms of abuse, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Your reaction of never forgiving your parents based on their action of choosing to support your abuser post end of the relationship and still see him as family makes sense. Amber talks very positively about her mother and just named her baby after her.

I actually think this was just a toxic interpersonal dynamic. No point in blaming one or the other.

I've followed this case directly, not via the media.

Based on AH's testimony yesterday I can see why the psychologist was so convinced the physical and sexual abuse took place. However this is based on AH's report. I didn't get enough information from Dr Hughes' testimony or redirect as to what exactly she took from third party statements and accounts that corroborated all that. What she did mention was woolly. Referring to medical reports that only repeated what AH had told them, and nothing that showed physical visual evidence of that.

I'd like to know exactly what was in JD's deposition that made her believe AH's every word. But we didn't hear that. Only that she watched the video of him slamming doors in the kitchen after his mum had died. That suggests to me that there wasn't anything as otherwise AH's legal team would have made sure it was presented to the jury. Sometimes it's a case of also looking at what's not there and what couldn't be proved.

@BonnesVacances I don’t think they are allowed to mention third party statements in their testimonies which is why everyone objects on hearsay. Remember A wasn’t allowed to repeat what L-R said.

Also the door slamming is before his mum died:
‘Rottenborn said in the court, 'This is at your house in West Hollywood. That's you on the video. You were violent?'
Depp said on the stand, 'Clearly I was having a bad time. I don't know what with regard to, but being illegally recorded by your chosen other is quite fitting with the rest of the photographs and tape recordings. She tried to hide it from me and laughed and smiled at the end. That was the most interesting part.'’

Yes, absolutely. I'm fascinated by the finer details of cases such as this in which the media only reports the meatier, more salacious elements. Heard's testimony must be bread and milk to them.

I've also read his suit and her countersuit. There's plausibility in both. From the testimony heard so far it seems likely both have their basis in truth, and that there's exaggeration to whatever degree on both sides.

I'm watching the straw man play out on this thread, as it's playing out on myriad vox pop columns all over the internet. 'Men are victims too'. (Nobody says otherwise). 'Women can be hell on earth' (undoubtedly true). I'm also of belief that any misconception that women never perpetuated child abuse (wrong, just look at the number of posters on MN with abusive mothers/MiLs) or behave aggressively would be a serious danger to children. I've never seen anyone seriously try to claim the sugar and spice and all things nice vs. frogs and snails and puppydogs' tails divide when it comes to the sexes, though.

But just look at the statistics as to who commits the overwhelming majority of violent crime, particularly sexual offences, in the UK. Without scrabbling around on Google (again), the percentage of sex offenders is something like 98% male, whereas most women in prison in this country are serving for offences like non-payment of TV licence. QED.

Heard/Depp, IMO, are both objectionable, both likely abusive, both in some ways to be pitied. What I do know, that given the turn of internet debate right now and the clear prejudices that underpin much of it, is that they've done victims of domestic abuse - male or female - no favours whatsoever. For that I thank neither of them.

Unfortunately I do, all too well.

Exactly

What I do know, that given the turn of internet debate right now and the clear prejudices that underpin much of it, is that they've done victims of domestic abuse - male or female - no favours whatsoever. For that I thank neither of them.
Heard didn't bring any of these cases. She's been made to go to court where she's under oath so has to speak.
I don't think its fair to pin the way this is playing out regarding domestic abuse on her.

It's just sickening the way this is being played out live on tv, beamed across ttr world, with the rabble on SM shouting loudly, often not even appearing to understand what the legal case is about.

How is this beneficial to anyone?

But she did write the article. So should we allow abusers to create any narrative they want and to never challenge them?

Isn't the overwhelming agreement on MN that abusers should be called out and face the public. Should he have done nothing then nobody would have know what type of person she was

Granted, no, she didn't. And she's obviously hating it (whereas his response seems to be the opposite. I find that telling).

I'm going purely by the content of the recordings, both video and audio footage, which paints neither of them in a great light.

The question of whether or not her violence against him was reactive is yet to be presented by her defence, and decided on by the jury.

But she did write the article. So should we allow abusers to create any narrative they want and to never challenge them?
Have you read the article? She doesn't name depp. She doesn't even say she was abused. She says she became a public figure representing abuse. Which is true following the Sun headline, regardless of whether or not she was abused.

He's not "challenging the narrative" at all. There are many other ways he could have done that without suing her. For example, become involved in charity work to support abused men. Spoken out about the prejudice men face when they report DV.

He's used the courts to bully her and to me, that's the actions of an abuser. And people liking you fall for it without taking the time to read what she wrote and decide if what he is claiming is fair.

web.archive.org/web/20181219023525/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

She is abuser. That can no longer be denied, why should a man have to tip toe around highlighting this when women get celebrated for putting their abusers in the light to be shamed?

The argument is that they piece was blatantly about him and pointing the finger at him as an abuser and her a victim. He lost work.
If the judgement falls in his favour then he should be compensated.

I completely agree and feel I'm part of the problem in a way by discussing this, but the 'court of public opinion' has been so damning of Amber I just feel compelled to say something.