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.

It is misogyny to blame a woman for a man hitting her; SHe baited him, wouldn't let him leave, followed him around and pressed his buttons.

Thats because he is sueing her for defamation. So he has to prove his case. You know, burden of proof is on the claimant and all that.

And this is a forum where people can discuss both sides, including Ambers

No, there's a moment where she leaves the stand and he approaches her.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox5dc.com/video/1066359.amp

Looking at this tape it looks like he purposely heads in her direction which wasn't what I originally thought. The initial video I saw was posted be pro Drpp fans laughing at her reaction. It was suggested then that he had to approach her for him to go where he needed to but now it seems like they were exiting the Courtroom and he purposely goes in her direction which is even worse.

"It is misogyny to blame a woman for a man hitting her; She baited him, wouldn't let him leave, followed him around and pressed his buttons."

What is your evidence for this happening - that he hit her?

What is it called when people blame a man for a woman hitting him?

He clearly has a lot of faults and issues but the body of evidence to date supports his testimony over hers.

But isn’t that the direction and door he normally enters/leaves from? I really don’t think it was anything other than unfortunate timing that he nearly walked into her and then realises (there were a couple of people in front of them both at the time). He looks a bit awkward and shrugs and smiles/grimaces .I expect he was quite keen to get out after listening to her testimony. At least that’s how I viewed it.

I completely agree and I perceived the laugh he did to be based on her recoiling and basically acting. He probably knows it's all an act so just laughs it off as ridiculous. That's my take on it anyway.

Intersting fact that doesn't seem to get much airtime.

The police officer (Beverley Leonard) who arrested Amber in the 2009 Domestic violence case was an out gay woman who had been involved in LGBT activism in LA for many years. She spoke out in 2016 about her anger at being portrayed as homophobic or mysogynistic by Amber and Tasya. She witnessed the assault, and spoke with Tasya who at that moment was very upset. Tasya's pendant had been ripped from her neck and broken and Amber did not just gently grab her arm. Amber was arrested because of her actions and her actions were called domestic violence because they were perpetrated on her domestic partner as it would be for anyone who assaulted someone while in a domestic relationship. It had zero to do with them being in a same sex relationship. They way they twisted the scenario to sound homphobic was to say she wasn't going to be arrested for domestic violence until they found out we were together - yes that is true but she would have been arrested for assault and battery if they hadn't been together. The language changed as to what the assault was called because of the context of the relationship in which it took place.

And Tasya refused to testify against her so the charges were dropped (without prejudice - meaning they could have chosen to come back and charge her later if Tasya had decided she wanted to testify) . Not at all uncommon for abuse victims.

Whilst also excusing any of his behaviour.

It's also pretty vile to say there is no evidence when there is or be dissatisfied at the lack of evidence that will make you sufficiently happy that she was sexually assaulted. Sex assaults rarely have the evidence that people are demanding here.

As I've said previously, I was raped and the words people are using, the cruel memes of what is a serious matter and the disbelief that she could have been sexually assaulted despite the fact that there is video evidence of him being very aggressive has been incredibly traumatic for me. I'm sure there are people out there, male and female, who have been sexually assaulted or raped going through the same thing.

YOU might not be satisfied that she was sexually assaulted but you cannot definitively say she wasn't and if she was, this trial, the memes and comments, videos laughing at her or saying she is acting on the stand (whilst also saying she's a bad actress) are also abusive. They will literally be party to the psychological abuse of rape and sexual assault. They should be removed. All of it. Have your opinion but it shouldn't be allowed to become what it has. Even when we do have evidence of people abusing others it doesn't turn into this.

I was abused too, by a former partner, I recognise abusive behaviour in both parties. It’s very upsetting but I have to take a step back and realise what is triggering for me and that this is no longer my situation or my truth nor does it mean I can tell who is telling the truth and who is not, just because of my experiences. I imagine the real truth lies somewhere in between. I don’t think you can go around wildly accusing people of being misogynistic just because they see something in AH they don’t trust, She has not been wholly truthful and so that makes people suspicious and question what else is a untrue. Admittedly there are a lot of people blindly following Depp because he is (was) attractive, charismatic and part of many of our lives growing up. This does not mean, however, that we truly know the man or what he is capable of.
Unfortunately the televising of the trial has turned into a complete circus. Neither will recover from this.

I wasn't commenting on whether he hit or or not, I was simply commenting on what poster was saying. Blaming any woman for being hit.

Regardless, he is violent and punches walls and smashes up things. It's not a stretch for me to believe he hit her. After all we all know that being physically violent and smashing things is a form of violence and abuse and usually leads to physical violence against a woman.

It's funny how I manage not to hit people who 'press my buttons'

He has been smashing things up for 30 plus years - but no one else reports it led to physical violence. I don't think it is an automatic connection. Also in the tapes when they talk, her issue isn't him being violent - she even agrees she is the one who throws things, not him. She agrees she hits him first. When they are argue, her issue isn't about him being violent - it is always about him walking away or leaving the argument or refusing to continue the fight.

“It's also interesting that someone else has mentioned that the younger generation don't seem to creating this never ending defence of Depp”

I can’t comment for entire generations of people, but my DSDs (14 and 20s) and DDs (mid teens) all think she’s exaggerating and/or lying. I hadn’t talked to them about it until this weekend, as it hasn’t interested me that much, but they had (separately) seen a lot on various SM sites and the younger two had discussed it with friends at the two different schools they attend.

School / their friends’ opinions are also that Amber’s not credible, according to them.

That is a pretty accurate perception if they have actually watched / read available evidence. My guess is thought it is more based on headlines and soundbites versus formed from their own deep dive into the available materials.

The suggestion that's there is absolutely no evidence that he was violent to her is absolutely ridiculous and exactly what I am taking about here.

He states in a text message he head butted her. No contemporaneous evidence to suggest this was an accident.

The UK Court foundation 12 out of 14 assaults did happen. It starts in the judgement that it was not just based on he said/she said. And yet people like you are still trying to suggest that he's absolutely innocent of physical violence against her.

Meanwhile Heard admits hitting him (and absolutely should take responsibility for that) but that's now elevated to a catalogue of abuse that absolves Depp of any responsibility for anything he does.

The body of evidence doesn't support his testimony over hers else he would have won in the UK Court. The crazed supporters of Depp have decided that but I think we should leave that to the judge and jury.

There is some belief that believing or not believing one side is an indication you blindly support the other. Especially if you don’t find Amber credible, then the assumption that you are some sad Depp fan. People can hold more than one view point, they are capable are changing their views. Most of these discussions have not been TikTok or Twitter level. As for the uk trial it’s becoming clear that there are contradictions in testimonies and I’m most interested on the evidence regarding the photographs.

@Laaaaslalala They (& JD I imagine) were laughing at her reaction in the clip you mentioned as AH had left the witness box at least twice already by then (morning break and lunch) without being too scared to walk past JD.

The clip I linked was from the morning break at 1:24:35 (ish) where they walked past each other (JD to leave by the door next to the witness box as he does every day and AH back to her legal team) and AH looked at JD and was not surprised, spooked or scared.

So to recap:

Morning break - fine
Lunch - fine
Afternoon break -

Hardly surprising that the officer has defended herself.

And whilst yes, I am well aware that any domestic violence victims choose not to speak out - all these years later Van Ree is still stating it wasn't an assault.

Meanwhile, if we compare and contrast the situation suggesting Kate Moss was pushed down the stairs, which has been around for a whole and we haven't had any denial from Moss that it didn't happen but that's being totally ignored.

Now, personally I think that without Van Ree or Moss stating that those assaults did happen then I think they are null and void. But given the people who are pro- Depp keep saying about the Van Ree situation, shouldn't they also consider the possibility that Depp also has do.estic violence in his past? Its even one or the other surely. Not "we can keep shouting about the negative stuff about Heard but ignore anything negative about Depp because it doesn’t fit our line that he was out of control but not violent ".

Oh come, on. They literally came head to head when she wasn't expecting it.
People are literally seek to deny her any emotion or reaction and then commenting that she isn't emotional enough.

Crazed Heard suppporters who dismiss all perspectives and views that don't fit with their views.....

Personally I am not a supporter of anyone. I don't watch movies and as I am old I have heard of Depp's inebriated issues since the 90s in the news. For this case, I have read evidence, listened to recordings, looked at pictures, listened to testimony and come to my own ever evolving perspective...so far. The trial isn't over. Maybe in cross Amber will have really credible explanations to the questions asked.

I would put more faith in the UK trial if the judge hadn't been friends with the Murdochs who own the Sun and if the judge's son didn't work with Dan Wootten. Also in reading the UK judgement and many of the related documents, the judge just believed everything Amber said - some of which we know was untrue and dismissed much of what Johnny's side said with no explanation other than I believe her and not him. Which fits with already having a bias due to personal connections.

I would put more faith in the UK trial if the judge hadn't been friends with the Murdochs who own the Sun and if the judge's son didn't work with Dan Wootten.

There was an appeal. It was thrown out. So your issue is with the court of appeal.

I don't know about this specific court of appeal but often the evidence isn't reviewed in determining if an appeal should move forward. They are often more technical in terms of was proper procedure followed - they don't reexamine the specifics and decide if the judge made the right or wrong decision - just whether or not technically the process of determination of judgment was legally sound.

Again, the burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove their case, not for the Defendant to prove them wrong. Claimants need evidence to prove their cases. If the judge thought that there was even a grain of truth in what she said, then Depp loses his case. Thats also the way the US case should work, although with a civil jury, who knows!

@AchatAVendre

These quotes threads get really long so I am starting afresh! In the US case, the defamation is not broad based as in any act at all - but rather specific to 3 sentences in the op-ed.

1. Title: I spoke up against sexual violence—and faced our culture's wrath "sexual violence," 2) the paragraph in which Heard describes herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse" and 3) the paragraph in which she mentions "institutions [that] protect men accused of abuse."

That is why the lawyers argued a lot about the title of the op-ed that stated sexual violence. Amber's lawyers initially argued that Amber didn't write the title and so they didn't have to prove sexual violence and Johnny's lawyers argued shw put her name on it and so she does. And that is why Amber's psychologist and then Amber spent so much time on the sexual violence allegations. They have to prove sexual violence in this case.

And if Amber goes ahead with her countersuit for defamation, they will have to go through all this again. Her suit is based on his legal team using the words “fake” and a “sexual violence hoax.”