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.

I think it is also telling that the #MeToo and #TimesUP movements really haven't come out vocally in support of her or fighting for her - one of their own activitists who worked tirelessly for the cause.

Like most political movements, they're interested in optics. Amber is an unlikeable victim up against probably the biggest PR campaign I've ever seen against an individual. They don't want to go down with her, understandably I guess.

Commentators like Emily Baker etc all have built a solid viewership and reputation for giving excellent analysis - before the depp trial. I just don't think people like her would throw that foundation away to gain more viewers. She backs up every opinion she makes with explanations of the evidence.

I've watched some of her commentary and she's not terrible, but nor is she even-handed.

Example - she nicknames Amber's lawyer (Elaine Brederhoft) 'Umbridge', apparently because she reminded her of the character in opening statements and she struggles to pronounce Brederhoft. Then when Elaine was saying Camille Vasquez's surname with a 'w' sound in it she was got worked up about it and corrected it every time. It's just things like that, but also a lot of her takes seem to be based on vibes and likeability and then following that up with the legal analysis.

She simply doesn't pay attention to the majority of points that go against JD's case so it's pretty selective, typical lawyer really. She seems quite genuine but that's not the same as unbiased.

Do you move in those circles? Do you know how large charity donations actually work? The vast majority of them are done on a payment plan and yes they are described as donated.

When the first allegation came out, there was no PR campaign for Johnny. I've never believed her froM day one. (There is personal experience background to this)

However, since and watching her in the trial my instincts are now screaming at me. Having been a survivor and also married to a survivor (male) everything I see has only fortified my initial gut instinct.

I'm trusting my gut on this one

@mummyrocks1 Just thought I'd respond to this.

I simple don't believe he did these things over that level of broken glass. She said it was everywhere. She was walking over it, dragged over it and laying on it.

I rewatched some of her testimony. She does talk about the glass but mainly being underfoot and cutting her arm. I don't remember she said she was dragged bodily over it, can you find that bit?

I don't believe he did trash the house after cutting his finger. I think he and she did the writing on the mirror. If he had there would have been blood everywhere not just the drops of blood she photographed . Why did her reflection not appear on the mirror ? If she had bad injuries then why did she not evidence this in the mirror.

If you've heard the long recording afterwards (they aren't at a medical centre, unless you're referring to a different one? They're at the house looking for his finger) then you know he did in fact trash the house after cutting his finger, as evidenced by what they say about blood all over the place and his having paint on the open wound on his hand. This is also consistent with his past behaviour.

I think she may have done the bit on the mirror with the lipstick which looks to me to be on top of the paint, but apart from that it's all JD's writing style and messages 'for her'.
As for her reflection...I mean, she's probably a vampire. Or I guess she just took the photo at that angle? Why does that have anything to do with being hurt or not? If anything it's consistent with her hiding the abuse which is what she has said, and what probably the majority of victims do.

There is absolutely no sign of the photo she says he cut his finger on.
The phone? OK. Inconclusive then. She said she didn't see him do it and was piecing things together after the fact. No reason to lie about a smashed phone so I would judge it as true.

There is a very long recording of JD getting medical help afterwards. AH is there too at the medical centre. In the recording at no point is there any reference to AH being treated, showing any signs of injury. No concern whatsoever for her, nor does she report any. She is repeating sorry, sorry. Dr K says she cut his finger off. Unfortunately this can't be shown to the jury. Very unfortunate as it really is pretty damning.

Dr K thought she did it, Jerry Judge thought her cuts were self-harm. They tried to sedate her with double her usual dosage. None of them suggest they've actually witnessed the events or that she's confessed to it? I agree, they're not concerned with her. They don't examine her. They literally say JD is the priority. To be fair, he had a missing digit at the time. But that whole team were sleazy and shady AF if you ask me.

I’ve been watching the trial only - not any commentaries, and fwiw my gut feeling as a DV survivor myself is that Amber was by far the more abusive of the two and is not being completely truthful in what she has testified.

What I don’t get is, Amber is being referred to (on here and elsewhere) as an ‘imperfect victim’. Johnny Depp could also be described as an imperfect victim. Both of them have used drugs and alcohol. They both had traumatic childhoods. They have both been abusive to each other in lesser or greater degrees.

Yet it seems that we’re supposed to overlook all that in Ambers case and believe her anyway, no matter what she says and no matter what the evidence does or doesn’t verify - because she’s an ‘imperfect victim’ - but not Johnny?

Yep rino and she has played the me too and believe all women no matter what. I see it. As clear as day.

I'm married to a male survivor and I can tell you right now, she's textbook.

Btw I'm a female survivor too so I am not biased.

I could tell you all how many lines applied to my husband what his ex said with Amber bit being a survivor myself I'm no fool.

She's lying. Her whole life is built this way. Her whole life.

She said she was lying on broken glass on the worktop. The fact that none of the others in the recordings said anything about her injures and no reference was made it them makes me think she had none. After the terrible attack she is describing she would 100% have visible injuries and likely be traumatised. She said she was bleeding from the bottle inside her.Not to be graphic but I have terribly heavy periods. It is very obvious when I have a leak. There is no chance the doctors missed that. She was screaming I am sorry, I am sorry. It doesn't add up.

Why would she lie about the phone? I don't know. Why did she change her story to him cutting his finger on a glass bottle himself? It would have been much easier to prove imo.

I think he might have trashed the place before having his finger cut off, or they both did during the argument. I don't believe he could do that afterwards. There would be more blood, he would be too impaired. He was writing on the mirror. I think she wrote too- I think his lawyers are saving up handwriting analysis to show her writing on the mirror. I don't believe we have all sides of the story yet and there is more to come.

@Rinoachicken I completely agree, it seems you can only be an imperfect victim if you are a female displaying negative behaviours.

Similarly, as I commented previously, the recordings of AH being abusive are often dismissed as reactive abuse, yet in stark contrast, JDs texts, spiralling substance misuse etc. are portrayed as evidence of his abusiveness and misogyny, rather than responses to abuse.

I have definitely witnessed a lot of gender bias interpretations of JDs and AHs behaviours during this case and think if the evidence against AH was reversed and we heard JD saying those things on voice recordings etc. there would be absolute uproar and very little excuse making for him.

I'm not a massive Depp fan either, just someone who has followed this case closely. It does make me worry about male victims of DV coming forward in the future. Female on male DV is already incredibly under reported and when men see someone as famous, popular and wealthy as JD struggling to be taken seriously as a DV victim, it may well prevent even more men from speaking out and seeking help.

The angle in the mirror is important as it begs the question did she deliberately take the picture so she didn't appear in the mirror because it would show she had no injuries? Normally if you took a picture of the mirror like that wouldn't you be face on? Why take pictures of the trashed house but not of herself? Why not take pictures when she had on other occasions, when this sounds like one of the worse attacks? It all leads to more questions and doesn't make logical sense to me.

I think he might have trashed the place before having his finger cut off, or they both did during the argument. I don't believe he could do that afterwards. There would be more blood, he would be too impaired. He was writing on the mirror. I think she wrote too- I think his lawyers are saving up handwriting analysis to show her writing on the mirror. I don't believe we have all sides of the story yet and there is more to come.

Ok, so believe the evidence you choose to give credence to and ignore the fact that his own team were talking about the fact that he'd lost his finger several hours before and rampaged through the house writing on things with the stump?

What you're still missing is the fact that she wasn't documenting her abuse. She has said this time and again. She was actively hiding it. Who knows why she took pictures of the house? From the angle of the mirror photo it looks like a bathroom and she was standing at the door and took a photo from there. Again, so what?

She said she was bleeding from the bottle inside her.Not to be graphic but I have terribly heavy periods. It is very obvious when I have a leak. There is no chance the doctors missed that.

Sorry to hear that. It's really irrelevant to this though. She didn't say she was gushing blood from her vagina.

Do you move in those circles? Do you know how large charity donations actually work? The vast majority of them are done on a payment plan and yes they are described as donated.

I have no doubt it could be on a payment plan, however she made no donations in over a year before JD sued her. She also said she had donated the $7mm, not is due to donate. And also donations can be made in a lump sum, they don't have to be on a payment plan.

She said she was bleeding. You would expect in the real world when applying logic that the doctors would have noticed that. Along with the kind of bruises and likely trauma you would be experiencing directly after an attack like the one she describes.

Neither of the clean up guys remember seeing a phone and she managed to photograph lots of other things trashed but not the phone. Surely again its logic you would photograph that?

I just think much of her testimony just does not make sense. There is no logic behind it and it's not believable in the terms of what a body can and can't do and injuries from that kind of assault. Even if those cuts on her arms were from the attack like she says they were they aren't consistent with her descriptions of what happened. Where are the other injuries? We are meant to believe the doctors didn't notice any or they simply weren't observed on the audiotape.

It has her saying I am sorry, I am sorry repeatedly. There are no injuries observed on her, no phone. She is heard saying she doesn't want to leave JD. If she was that scared why wouldn't she use that as an opportunity to go? Then there is an email from Whitney's friend saying that Witney herself told her Amber has done it now, she's cut off JDs finger

Weighing up all of that leads me to believe this didn't happen. One story make sense the other doesn't. It's common sense.

Btw ~ I actually think JD was abusive to AH but not to the extent she is claiming.

Aspire- well. There are many different interruptions of the same thing. You think so what? I think it's significant and doesn't add up. There are things like this that are pretty convenient for AH. Imo you would think take pictures of a trashed house and not of yourself. If you are actively trying to hide the abuse don't take pics of the house.

That's what is interesting about the case and I guess what the jury will need to do too. I expect many will think so what? and many will think it doesn't add up.

Had she not taken any other photos of her injuries before this attack then? I don't know when she started?

She said she was bleeding. You would expect in the real world when applying logic that the doctors would have noticed that. Along with the kind of bruises and likely trauma you would be experiencing directly after an attack like the one she describes.

They didn't examine her. I don't know if that's what you're misunderstanding? Otherwise I'm very confused as I'm assuming you and me and everyone else is familiar with sanitary towels.

This whole argument about injuries isn't gaining any traction with me although I recognise it is with others. People will anecdotally say how terrible their bruises, swellings, cuts whatever were and use that to prove she's lying. But if you go looking for it you can find plenty of people saying the opposite, not necessarily in relation to Amber but could be they had a broken nose without much swelling, etc.

And you're acting like she was rolling around on so much broken glass she would have been cut to smithereens but that's not really what she's said.

No clue on the phone. Maybe it was missed in the general chaos. Shit happens.

Btw ~ I actually think JD was abusive to AH but not to the extent she is claiming.

I agree to a lesser degree. Some of it is a bit overdramatised. But there is no earthly way I will believe someone is sobbing their way through an entirely fabricated sexual assault story when they could have just... not done that.

I don't think it is a bruise kit as it looks flat however I do think this picture is a little suspect. The ice cream is still partly in the cup and just starting to turn to liquid which means it hasn't been all that long since he was eating it - and yet his dominant hand is in his pocket. This photo doesn't look like he passed out while eating the icecream.

I wouldn't be surprised if she dumped the ice cream on him to make his passing out look worse so her friends would think it was funnier or sadder. She was a little obsessed with documenting him in vulnerable positions when he wasn't consenting and sharing those photos with friends. Which again is something that if a man did to a woman would not be glossed over.

Had she not taken any other photos of her injuries before this attack then? I don't know when she started?

Sorry, I keep half-reading your replies. In response to this, she may have texted a picture of a bruised arm to her mum? She said her mum was the only person who wouldn't judge her for staying. AFAIK she never took pictures as a matter of course, except at the very end and before getting the TRO.

Also, I actually don't think all the photos of the house are hers. Some were taken by Ben King after partial cleanup.

You think the MeToo and TimesUp movements require likeable victims? THey went against Harvey Weinstein who is far more powerful in Hollywood than Johnny. They didn't back down even when there was opposition and their voices on their own were strong. She had been likeable enough to be a spokeperson for them so it doesn't seem they saw her as an unlikeable person.

Why do you think her friend who was active in those movements and who had been supporting her said she felt used and disappointed?

I am curious if you believe everything Amber has testified to on the stand? Do you believe she is 100% truthful?

I am not going to reply again after this as I think we will have to agree to disagree.

They didn't examine her- yes because there were 0 injuries.

After an attack like that she would at least have some injuries, regardless of how different people bruise. She said she was lying on glass and she was walking on glass. Later I think she said she showed her friends her feet. She said JD had her by the neck and i think she said he punched her. The attack she describes would for any normal person have significant injuries. She said herself she was bleeding from the bottle inside her. You wouldn't expect that to be a small amount of blood.

The doctors did not at any point examine her or make any reference to any injuries. The security guard the next day said no injuries, as did her assistant and the photos. So thinking logically and taking into account any normal human in that situation I am thinking after an attack like that she would have some injuries and so would have been examined, at least offered medical help or there would be at least some evidence of them somewhere at the bare minimum. But there is none. So this leads me to the very logical conclusion and common sense that she had no injuries. I personally don't believe it's possible to go through an attack like that without any injuries.

Weighting all this up her story sends extremely unbelievable and doesn't make sense. But the story there were no injuries and she cut off his finger does.

Some people seem determined to defy logical thinking and the actual reality of life and events.

Well that also doesn't make sense then. If only her mum wouldn't judge her for staying then why did she send messages about the abuse to Rocky and IO who told her she wasn't safe? And told Whitney.

She seemed pretty good at taking pictures of JD out of it, drugs and photographed at least some injuries. Trashed houses too. As well as making huge amounts of recordings with or without JDs permission. That explanation also doesn't make sense that along with this she wouldn't take pictures of herself even if she was actively trying to hide it back then.

Again- much of what she says is not believable and defies logic.

I think she's done herself a disservice. If she's stuck to the facts of when he was abusive and what happened which actually explained her injuries she would be believed much more. For whatever reason she has chosen to exaggerate about these attacks which don't line up with the evidence. She's made it much more complex than it needed to be.

Fwiw I also think it was a mutually abusive relationship. She didn't like him being a functioning alcoholic or addicted to drugs. AH took photos of the things she found difficult to live with; his drinking, mood swings, anger. That's why we have pictures of writing on mirrors, destroyed property and him passed out. I can't imagine that was easy to live with at all.

But she has said publicly said she lived with domestic violence and to quantify that she has described that as physical and sexual violence. And then gone on to detail horrendous and depraved assaults.