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.

Oh absolutely I agree, she comes across as impossible to deal with and more as the aggressor, she clearly refers to getting angry and physical. It does sound as if Johnny is laid back partly because he's on xanax during that conversation as she refers to it possibly wearing off. He's very explicitly saying that she starts physical fights (almost sounding as if he's saying it for the recording actually), which is why I initially was very supportive of him (I heard clips a while ago I think before there was ever a trial).

I would be interested to hear her take on this recording as I'm sure it will come up next week. It's not good and I'm not justifying that behaviour, I just think it needs to be taken in the context of all the evidence on both sides, which is obviously what the trial is for. She has made some particularly horrific allegations which if true would make it difficult for me to see him as the primary victim. And I obviously refer back to the fact that the UK court found that they were substantially true, and in fact denied Depp's appeal.

We'll have to see what the outcome is in this trial. It's possible I will come back with a very different perspective but for now I would say they were both very flawed individuals but he was the primary aggressor. He was clearly fuelled by a lot of drugs, which bring out a very different side of him that these recordings don't show because in these he's not in the grips of 'the monster', as he puts it.

It does sound as if Johnny is laid back partly because he's on xanax during that conversation as she refers to it possibly wearing off.

I found that actually quite disturbing, that she felt she needed to give him a (or another) Xanax for anxiety when he was showing no signs of anxiety. If anything he was trying to make himself heard and get his point across.She was controlling him in my view.

He's very explicitly saying that she starts physical fights (almost sounding as if he's saying it for the recording actually)

She is explicitly saying she is violent towards him.

I am very prepared for some, as JD said himself, ‘heinous’ things to come out this coming week but she has to be able to provide evidence to back these up. She is not looking that reliable at the moment. If she can back up her accusations then I too will come back with a different perspective on the trial and how I view him.

It will be very interesting to see how Amber presents on the witness stand. Not only what she says but just her general demeanor and expression. She has been very stoic with little emotion while Johnny testified..

Just a correction to my post - I think she may have said ‘physical’ and not ‘violent’ but don’t really want to listen again to check!

Yes, it will be interesting.

I haven’t read the first thread. During the London case, I didn’t pay much attention, and just assumed that they were both as toxic and as bad as each other.

But hearing about Johnny Depp’s childhood, in particular about his abusive mother, and knowing that if we carry childhood traumas that are unresolved we act them out in our adult relationships, I believe he has married his mother and is recreating his childhood dynamics.

It’s really, really sad.

Status and wealth aside, I think Johnny Depp is far more vulnerable than many people think.

I am enjoying the idea that JD is sadistic for going after AH "knowing she won't come across well". She went after him in the Op Ed, in defiance of the NDA and having bled the guy for $7m. That fits the profile of abusive women who use the threat of filing abuse allegations to continue the abuse, as did her appearing to give fantasy evidence for the Sun. She alleged "a three day hostage situation" in Australia, involving her crawling through broken glass, which neither injuries to her person, nor the account of any other witness - of the six there - has corroborated. Imo the last verdict was a scary indication of just how far Rupert Murdoch's power stretches.

@KTheGrey

She got $14.2 million from him in the divorce settlement. The $7 million was what she had promised to donate to charity. Don't think either of those amounts bled him dry but her list of demands did make it seem like money was a key motivation.

That marriage cost him a million a month in severance and a lot of grief and pain. Oh to turn back time.

I found that actually quite disturbing, that she felt she needed to give him a (or another) Xanax for anxiety when he was showing no signs of anxiety. If anything he was trying to make himself heard and get his point across.She was controlling him in my view.

Yes, I understand this view but I would say there's no evidence that she was pressuring him to take it. It sounds as if he was already using it to stay level during what must have been a stressful conversation, and I think there's also a history there of her reminding about his medication as well as trying to help him stay 'clean'. She appears to have taken a bit of a caretaking role in that way which apparently was appreciated at times. They obviously both have quite a range of prescription drugs they use more or less legitimately, so I see it as reflecting that dynamic.

It doesn't say much for their relationship obviously if that was necessary in order to have a conversation but that does tie in with her witness statements that basically they couldn't have a productive conversation about any difficult issue. Anyway, I would agree that on the basis of that conversation he seems far more level-headed than she does. The evidence seems to show that he's a very different person depending on what substances he's been ingesting.

She is explicitly saying she is violent towards him.

She is, but my point remains that there is a wider context which may shed a different light on that dynamic. Not to suggest that it makes what she's saying/admitting ok, but abusive relationships are complicated. So I think we need to look at the evidence as a whole. And I think he's obviously aware of the recording and perhaps making statements in light of that which may not reflect the entirety of their relationship.

It can tries to deescalate at times, but that it doesn't necessarily follow that he's always so reasonable (and there is at least one incident - in the plane - that pretty much prove that as far as I'm concerned with the texts between her and Nathan somebody). And as I said, some of her accusations are really terrible. I have no idea how well evidenced they are but that may become clearer over the next couple of weeks. They may be untrue, but if they are true then that puts him firmly in the abuser role as far as I'm concerned.

I am enjoying the idea that JD is sadistic for going after AH "knowing she won't come across well".

I didn't exactly say that. I believe choosing to have the trial televised is quite a vindictive move and he's aware that the majority of people are 'team Johnny'.

As far as the Australia situation goes, he was clearly out of his mind on drugs. You would have to be, to use your bloodied wound to write things on a house being rented for you by a film studio. And to refuse medical help for a number of hours, and to send multiple texts demanding staff members bring you drugs. Who knows what happened, but all the witnesses were basically his handlers whose job was to try and clean up the mess and prevent a PR disaster. I take them with a big pinch of salt, personally. I have no idea what Amber's injuries may have been other than the scratches to her arms which are visible in photos.

I think the idea that Rupert Murdoch's influence extends to the UK courts is quite far-fetched, but you're entitled to your opinion, obviously .

The incident on the plane Johnny assistant claimed he never saw the kick but used Ambers words. It’s one of the biggest problems is that both rely on friends and employees for much of the collaboration.

The incident on the plane Johnny assistant claimed he never saw the kick but used Ambers words

Hmm... I'm calling bullshit on that.

He texted this: "Think he's just texted you. He's incredibly apologetic and knows that he has done. He wants to get better now. He's been very explicit about that this morning. Feel like we're at a critical juncture."
Also "He was appalled. When I told him he kicked you, he cried. It was disgusting. And he knows it. He's a little lost boy. And needs all the help he can get. He is so very sorry, as he should be."

Also TMG, Johnny's previous management who were countersuing him made a couple of interesting comments including this one:
“Depp and his long-time assistant publicly denied the messages and outrageously accused Heard of manufacturing them. TMG is informed and believes that Depp knew full well that the text messages were genuine, but pressured and berated his assistant to falsely challenge the texts publicly.”
Those court documents are quite interesting to read too if you want to go down another rabbit hole. And again, they paint a picture of Johnny Depp that is very much at odds with the one he is presenting.

It might. be bullshit or it could be the easiest way to de-escalate an abusive person. It’s a common tactic with someone who has changed the narrative to their truth or someone where debate is futile. This was seen in BB when Ryan was apologising to a third party (can’t remember who) for Roxy exaggerated punching. This could easily apply the other way round this could be Johnny doing similar on tape. Most of this case in regards to the public watching is the abuse they recognise or the person who has more credibility. For Amber to win the court the of public opinion will not necessarily be by what she can persuade people to believe Johnny did but why she should be believed.

It might. be bullshit or it could be the easiest way to de-escalate an abusive person. It’s a common tactic with someone who has changed the narrative to their truth or someone where debate is futile.

I understand this can be a tactic but that just doesn't apply here. Texts saying "it was disgusting", a "critical juncture" - clearly an order of magnitude more serious than property damage because Johnny makes a joke of that. Saying Johnny cried when he was told. So that also means Johnny was 'blackout drunk', which is further attested by Johnny's text to Paul Bettany about that night.

So this member of Johnny's employ lied to him and sent strong words of support to someone he believed to be an abuser, describing his boss's actions as disgusting?

Bear in mind that Depp's team first claimed the texts were doctored and when this was disproven they moved on to this alternative explanation. It's not credible.

Also, kicking someone in the back isn't self-defence last time I checked, so there goes that narrative.

Yes, I historically thought the idea that Murdoch had that kind of power was conspiracy theorist, but I have listened to all the tapes and read the judgements and I believe she is a dangerous person and a compulsive liar - much more so than he is - and yet the judge believed her. It is not just the judgement, it was his reasoning that I found flawed.

AH also has staff - but they keep testifying for JD. She seems to drink two bottles of red a day and take both prescription and recreational drugs, so quite as likely to be out of her mind as he was. Do you have a view on the dog smuggling for the perjury she is accused of in that case? Her witnesses are all her family and friends and I think they are at least as unreliable as she or JD's entourage would be, which leaves you with the police and hospital evidence.

.

Started up again with his agent talking through deals in 2016 onwards. Think they might be trying to show a loss of earnings but so far he seems to be earning a lot

Into the Op Ed and what happened. Lots of objections from her lawyer. 50/50 sustained although comment section appear to think that lawyers shouldn’t object. Wonder if they will think the same when AH witnesses appear.

Break before cross examination

👍🏻@ENoeuf
just checking in to say I’m reading here (and also watching) just got to finish up a work ‘thing’.

Hi stormzy keen to see what happens on cross examination but having to drop kids !

I think they both have behaved appallingly and are making it a media circus for whatever reason. Any publicity is good publicity comes to mind.

I do think from evidence so far she has performed more physical violence and intimidating behaviour whereas he's been more threatening, unpredictable and erratic which has lead to its own brand of psychological abuse.

Neither shine brightly to be honest- they've both made things all about them.

It's any kids and family involved I feel sorry for, not either of them.

So obvious how helpful the witnesses are when asked by Deeps lawyers and then very forgetful/need glasses etc when on cross.

Elaine has woken up ready to 'kick ass' this morning (she is quite rude though).

They both are giving as good as they get lawyer wise, which is good - at least it’s a ‘fair’ fight.

I just nodded off - have I missed anything😂