Part 3 AIBU to wonder why so many people assume Johnny Depp is the good guy and Amber Heard is the villain

[StormzyinaTCup]

Following on from parts 1 and 2
Trial has gone 'dark' this week as the Judge is at a conference so it's going to be quiet on that front and I expect this thread will run slower than the previous two, however, there is still plenty of material and evidence from the last three weeks that we can 'cross examine'.

Any and all opinions welcome.

How convenient that you refuse to watch anything that might credibly oppose yout opinion.

Instead you take a VICE article as gospel.....despite the blatant fact that main stream media has literally shown an incredible bias throughout the duration of the trial that opposes what we have seen with our own eyes via the live-streaming of the trial.

It's incredible for someone who claims to be superior in their critical thinking skills that you refuse to examine evidence for yourself or consider the motive that main stream media may have for denouncing coverage of the trial that doesn't come from them....

This comment makes me laugh!!

These lawyers go into DEPTH about the evidence, the law, and WHY they have formed their opinions.

If deciding based on the evidence that one side is lying .... is biased...I don't know what to say.

Totally agree. AH even said herself JD always wears his rings, never known them to take it off. Of course until his lawyers did say that if that was the case, there would be much worse marks. Which is very true, if someone beats you that brutally with rings on, you'd be lucky if nothing is broken. Let alone how bad the bruising would be.

You think Vice is impartial?

No media is impartial. Every media source - be it news or youtube just want revenue as their ultimate goal. They want readers, they want clicks, they want to make money. Many youtubers are also passionate about what they do but they wouldn't do it if it was free.

I would not take anything in Vice to be any less influenced and biased than a legal channel on Youtube. I am not sure why something in Vice would influence your thinking but not a legal analyst. Both are being paid and the legal analayst has more independent thought opprotunities than a journalist working for a source that has to keep a certain view.

Both JD and AH have PR teams that have been hired to be hard at work to make their client look how they want to be portrayed. Everyone has to choose what they will listen to and look at. Having all the trial documents and recordings and evidence is a big help and that is my primary source. I haven't watched many commentary videos or really read any news articles.

Peony I've watched legal byte's from the start,I am really enjoying it.
However there is a biased towards Johnny.
I'm on day 17 I think...Camilla is vicious and Shes a hot goddess, amber's lawyer is but she's a hulk smash...

Camilla interrupts but when Elaine does she's y etc.

Also what I don't like is how they jump on Amber when she show's the teenist bit of anger...or what they call a smirk... They critics her but When Johnny laughs which he has does done endlessly through the trial they love it.

That is biased.

Hoeg has been slightly more balanced.

There's a big assumption on this thread that people who don't believe AH are just ignorant sheeple and that's just plain insulting tbh.

Yes there's definitely a trend of, if you don't buy AH evidence it's because you're biased, a sheep, the analysis from lawyers you have watched is being paid by Depp/trying to ride the anti-AH wave.

Perhaps there's multiple good reasons there is an anti-AH wave in the first place? Oh no, sorry, all these people are depp Simps or normies who don't have brains.

While we're sharing videos that may or may not be biased, have financial or promotional information, I recommend the Behaviour Panel ones. I've found them come down on both sides, sometimes stating that JD isn't being truthful or when AH's body language is off. And there being 4 of them adds gravitas to their opinions.

I remember a PP stating that a video about the limbic response was 'junk science' though , so not everyone will be able to appreciate these.

They react like that now because they've formed their opinions against her.

There's valid reasons as to why they've formed these opinions.

If you've watched legal bytes from the start I fail to see why you think they're all biased, you must have watched Hoeg and Kurt - who knew nothing about the case - turn against her as the trial has gone on...?

You've said this better than I could.

Believe all women unless they dare to hold a different opinion then it’s ok to disparage them.

I'm not particularly saying 'believe all women', but statistically false allegations are rare. And anyway it's about believing a woman's own testimony as opposed to believing other women who don't believe her.

The thing is that this isn't an abuse trial where Depp could be convicted.

He is suing her because she said he abused her. Seems to me that at this point it's pretty irrelevant whether she was abusive too. She isn't suing him

Sets a pretty chilling precedent. On the one hand we tell victims to speak up. On the other hand they can be bankcrupted if they do but can't prove their claims in a law court. There was another case in the UK where a man strangled his wife and he sued her because she posted about it on Facebook. It was only overturned right at the end.

Libel laws ought to be much more limited. Only the rich have recourse to them so they are basically a tool for the wealthy and powerful to throw their weight around.

I think Depp doesn't care if he wins or not. He is enjoying putting her through the trial.

I agree this point @OnlyHippyInTheVillage

This is a problem for AH and it definitely stood out as an inconsistency in her evidence.
It absolutely gives weight to the opinion she can't keep her story straight, and she has changed her story and is lying about what happened in Australia.

It was just the pill box thing doesn't prove anything.

Sets a pretty chilling precedent. On the one hand we tell victims to speak up. On the other hand they can be bankcrupted if they do but can't prove their claims in a law court.

It's not that she can't prove her claims. More that there is actual evidence that disproves them. This is important.

I'm more worried about the chilling precedent that says "believe all women, irrespective of what the evidence is telling us".

Statistically we know very little about the statistics of false allegations. There are studies that show it isn't that rare, there are studies that show it is. The range of percentage is wide if you look at a range of studies (I think it ranges from 2% to 25% last time I had looked). The number is determined by the definition, the source, how the information was collected, the information being missed, the lack of access to the true numbers etc. For example you get a very different number if you define it as conviction for false allegation vs what was reported to police vs a survey asking about false allegations.

I personally know of two cases where false allegations were made. One went to court and one didn't (but had police and child protective services involvement). In both cases the person who was accused was exonerated and over time it became clear why the young women (both were minors) had made the false allegations. However neither young woman was ever charged or formally identified as a false allegation and likely wouldn't be in any data set.

Peony, have you ever watched the brilliant series, the people v oj Simpsons?

It's absolutely brilliant and shows exactly what the law is!
Just because one lot of lawyers are doing this means zilch.

It doesn't mean there is nothing there on amber's side.

@BonnesVacances but nothing is happening to Jonny Depp. No one ever brought any abuse case against him. All he needed to do was either nothing, or an interview or statement refuting her allegations. Instead he takes all manner of expensive legal actions. It looks to me like an unpleasant man continuing his oppressive and controlling behaviour through the legal system.

My own opinion at the moment is that amber has massively exaggerated any skirmishes she and Johnny may have had. Hitting her in the Face with a ringed hand and nothing to see the next Day?

Thats the unbelievable part.

What I find sad is that Johnny Depp has ended up hurting the children he said he desperately wanted to give a good child hood too.
He hasn't hurt them like his mum did to him but he's traumatized Lilly rosé to the point of panic attacks then Johnny blames amber Heard.

If JD could admit and properly accept his demons have traumatized the people around him,life for everyone around him would be a lot better.

Really? Fucking hell! What an opinion!

For most accused they don’t lose their careers, the don’t get called “wife beaters” on a global level unless it goes to criminal cases. In most circumstances Friends and families pick sides. There is a problem that “innocent until proven guilty “ in a court of law is made redundant. In the instance deep was found in probability could be called wife beater by uk trial. Depp himself and through Waldman have called her a liar. I would say technically there have been lies so they are not completely wrong. They have took each other down regardless of the trial and damaged domestic abuse victims.

Alexandra

Why didn't he write his own op ed?

Stating his points?

He could have made a film or document ary about it.

No one wins here for them.

Think this was a previous conversation so scrolled back - you've missed my meaning, I was referring to using body language via video as a sole tool primarily:

@BonnesVacances I'm commenting on these videos - it's so bizarre to me that adults make cod psychology videos/ true crime 'what's in the shadows!!' videos etc and people pay to watch / get paid via advertising. I can't understand why anyone would take the word of a YouTuber for anything. Body language is one part of any analysis not the be all and end all. Expanding that to the limbic system and exactly when she should react as per a video is getting into junk science.
As for AH, I've been posting I'm doubting some of her stuff - I'm not closed to the possibility some of it is fakery.

What do you mean nothing happened to him?

She filed TRO against him after he wouldn't give in to her demands, she spent 2. 5 years presenting herself as the face of domestic violence victims, she wrote stories about him as an abuser, she leaked pictures and recordings to the media, she sold recordings to TMZ, she had tabloid and magazine covers about him as an abuser / her a victim and then she used the ACLU and her movie and the TimesUP and MeToo movements to try and maxmize her reach of attacking him. Who knows if or when she would have stopped if he hadn't taken action. He took it quietly for 2.5 years while she publicly released her side and her 'evidence' to media and the public.

Her abuse matters because she presented herself in the article as a "public figure representing domestic violence". She also said that institutions protected her abuser but she faced wrath for speaking up.

Both of those are misrepresentations - whether they reach the definition of defamation is for the jury to decide.

@ICanSmellSummerComing they have a non disclosure agreement. Technically this could bring another case as now she has admitted it was about him.

Maybe I'm gullible but listening to real-time analysis from lawyers, Including a former district attorney, has me pretty convinced they have valid reasons for their opinions. No matter the fact its their 'job' to gain viewers, they explain in detail when somethings bad for JD as well as AH and why, based on their experience with victims, perpetrators and their knowledge of the law.

I give their reasoned, explained arguments a lot of weight.