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 thought Whitney had been pulled from the witness list because all she had was hearsay testimony.

Me. I don't think she's a liar and don't know what she gains from lying. She was a successful actress in her own right, commanding multi million parts. So the "gold digger" stuff makes no sense to me and is inherently misogynistic. When you marry, you enter a legal contract to share assets. Johnny Depp is extremely rich so why should he divorce and not have to pay a settlement?

I also looked at the photos and read all the texts at the back of the UK judgement. If you think she's lying, you also think all her friends/family/neighbours were involved in constructing some sort of really elaborate set up the day before she got the restraining order. That is also not credible to me.

He dragged her to court, he's making this happen. His behaviour in court reminds me of Ted Bundy.

100% agreed. This is just a modern day witch hunt. Just vile.

Mindblown. Nothing to gain? She was not a successful actress in the slightest, it's already come to light in the court case that it was JD securing roles for her. She's also mentioned several times that she couldn't donate any divorce settlement because she had no money for court fees - not all that successful is she?

How people can see the facts in front of them and still come to a different conclusion is beyond me. She had a habit of capturing photos of JD sleeping, bottles of alcohol on the floor etc and recording conversations but never bothered to document any facial injuries. We've now seen several photos and videos of her less than 24 hours after being given a broken nose, two black eyes, a cut lip, swelling around the temples and jaw, significant amount of hair loss and abrasions to the head from this. She also claimed to have cuts all up her arms from being dragged through glass and guess what? There was not a mark on her in either the photos or the video clips. Make up doesn't cover cuts and I'm not sure if you've ever had that much damage to your face, but you'd be swollen like the elephant Man after 24 hours. Jesus even several police officers have testified to say she did not have any injuries at all when they attended the scenes a few minutes after her nose was broken etc.

As for the money, one of the main reasons she won the UK trial was her evidence was that she had no reason to lie. She pointed out several times that it was clearly not about the money because she had no money left from the divorce settlement. ALL of it had been donated in full. So yeah, on that basis, if not financially motivated, I could see why she might win the case. We now know that was a lie. She had the money for over a year and didn't fulfil her 'pledge'. She committed perjury. Please tell me why someone would lie about such a thing?

She was losing her cool on the stand yesterday and it looked awful. Refusing to answer questions properly and then playing dumb. Answering different questions whilst looking at the jury to that she was being asked.

The woman is a manipulative liar and I truly hope her career is finished after this. It's upsetting to see so many so called feminists ignoring the mounds of evidence against her and still refusing to accept she is a liar. FYI that is not feminism and you're not protecting 'women' you're setting women and other DV victims 100 years back in time by letting this person cast them in a bad light.

What a load of arse.
They met on the set of a film. Where she had a leading part. So yes, she was a successful actress.

Even so, when people get married they are entering a financial contract. If Depp was a non-abusive person, he'd suck up financial settlement like most of us do when we get divorced - it's a total pain, everyone feels hard done by, then it's done and you move on.

Attitudes about women being "gold diggers" are inherently misogynistic. He chose to marry her. The consequence of that is a financial impact on divorce. What she then does with the money is up to her.

The only person setting DV victims back is Depp, by vindictively pursuing this through the courts and running huge online smear campaigns that are causing people to lose their critical thinking ability. Because Jack Sparrow isn't violent, amirite?

one of the main reasons she won the UK trial was her evidence was that she had no reason to lie.
One of the main reasons she won the UK trial was the huge amount of corroborating evidence that he beat her up. Its all in the back of the judgement (photos/text messages) and is very compelling.
As I said, if she's lying she managed to persuade an awful lot of friends and family to be involved. Seems unlikely.

Many of those photos have been disallowed in this case because the meta data didn’t stand up. This was not checked in the U.K. trial. It is becoming more clear that some of those pictures were faked after the fact.

The person who has evidence to support them from the time of the abuse is Heard.

Depp has a load of speculation and a psychologist that he paid who made a diagnosis of a discredited personality disorder based on nothing.

Depps case is basically "she deserved it, gold digger"

Have you actually read the judgement from the trial? It says clear as day that donating her divorce settlement proves she isn't financially motivated.

As a PP has said, the UK court allowed a lot of photos which are not allowed in this trial because of issues with the time stamp. Yes that's right, the photos were not taken when she said they were taken. That is why they can't be used here.

I'm not sure if you're a troll or just really really unable to process coherent thoughts but it's not just JD and one psychologist who have testified against AH. There's also the doorman for their penthouse, her private nurse (not connected to JD), their marriage counsellor, their accountants and above all else, several police officers. Are you saying they are all lying and AH without a shred of proof is the only one not lying?

@Autumndays123 of course they are, because women couldn't possibly be the abuser could they?! AH has been proven on the stand to be a liar and a fantasist, and to blame everyone but her. There's no PR team in the world that can make yesterdays cross examination come off in a good light.

It’s interesting that many people had their views before the trial and that the evidence (or lack of) still continues to support those. It just goes to show how hard it is to change someone’s mind and how evidence and facts can still be interpreted differently according to your viewpoint. It’s an interesting study.

I have noticed that AH appears to subscribe to the post-truth approach of deny deny deny and plant the seed of doubt and it will grow (ie stating that she has more photos the defence chose not to show). Two other famous narcissists use that approach too; Trump and Johnson. Again, interesting.

My view has changed through the trial actually. I started off thinking it was a toxic relationship, but now I think he was definitely abusive and the fact he's hellbent on dragging her down with him now just adds to that.

My main reasons for thinking that are not to do with whether she's lying. They are all to do with his proven behaviour. Essentially,

1. he bought the trial over an op ed that doesn't name him and is talking about public perception not even Amber's experience. He could have ignored the op ed or written a counter rather than suing him.
2. the videos/audios show him being aggressive, smashing things up, taunting and demeaning her and admitting to hurting her (remember I am just talking about what I've observed of his behaviour, not hers). This is all abusive behaviour and not justified.
3. he has form for being violent and aggressive and has lost roles/been sued for that before. Shows he is an aggressive person - as she said.
4. he has form for smashing up rooms in a drink/drug stupor and has been arrested for that before. Shows he has substance abuse problems and it makes him violent - as she said

So is it inaccurate/defamatory to call him a domestic abuser? In my opinion, no it isn't.

She may or may not have exaggerated the abuse. I can't be arsed arguing about metadata/make up palettes/dog poo any more. That doesn't really matter though. He's not suing her for abuse. He's suing her for lying when she says he's abusive.

Her team have shown he has been abusive. That's all they needed to do. I can't see how he can win.

This is where I'm interested because it's such a different interpretation to mine. Presumably we both are open to being wrong, listening to the same stuff etc but just taking different views away. The donation stuff to me makes sense, I just don't see it as a big 'aha!' moment but clearly others do. It's genuinely interesting and makes me wonder if I would really want a jury trial as opposed to a single judge.

There was a forensic digital expert witness in the UK trial, ambers expert witness is a different person but the same company. If Depps expert witness provides credible evidence alongside the reluctance of amber team to provide the evidence in discovery (and if sanctions have been or will be issued) there has to be questions on the validity of the uk trial. Amber has said she has a mountain of evidence and still has time but she is facing an uphill battle.

I thought the donation/pledge was huge. It set the seed that what you are hearing from Amber is from someone whose words mislead. She uses her words to fit the narrative.

I genuinely can't see how anyone could take AH's side. I am a victim of DV and still can't even find a connection with her at all.

The evidence is outstanding. The most she has of a facial injury looks so alike botox bruising it's unreal. Then all the witnesses deny they ever saw him be violent. She admits she abused him. It's on tape.

The cross examination is actually hilarious. Constantly caught out. Her lawyers are atrocious.

I think she is evil and vindictive. A true narcissist.

She has real credibility issues- not because she is a woman or an actress- but because she has been caught lying so many times.

She had to go back and correct her own testimony because she had contradicted her previous U.K. testimony. And not just by a little. She was out by a year as to when Depp first hit her- despite claiming that she would never forget it. The problem is that the correction screws with her whole timeline of events.

So she has no live witnesses, no medical records, contradictory photo records (her disputed phone photos vs paparazzi photos) and three witnesses who now can’t or won’t appear.

100%

I am offended and angry. Agree with all PP[s that have said she has set women back on DV.

She sets photos up, for sure.

@Legrandsophie you sum it up perfectly.

👏🏼

agree.

100% agreed. This is just a modern day witch hunt. Just vile.

She has stood up in front of the whole world and made allegations of physical abuse and an horrific allegation of SA. She has never once seen a doctor, absolutely nothing documented in medical notes and no witnesses (inc outside of JD payroll) have seen any injury’s whatsoever.

I think that rightly requires questions to be asked.

If she has lied then she is most certainly vile and clearly gives not two hoots about women who have been abused. It reflects someone who cares more about her own self promotion and image and who thinks nothing about throwing people under the bus (see my PP) who get in her way and this would include abused women and sick children.

So is it inaccurate/defamatory to call him a domestic abuser? In my opinion, no it isn't.

What about physical and sexual abuse? Have you seen any proof of that? Because that's what the op-ed was about.

I think we all know that she was referring to JD in the op-ed and anyone who says otherwise has the same attitude to truth as AH.

But that's what the case it about. Was it clearly about JD (he was named in the draft so does simply removing his name remove the implication)? And if so, was it justified (did JD physically and sexual abuse her)? And finally, by sharing the op-ed online saying "look what I wrote" mean she endorsed the headline referring to sexual abuse?

I'm still on the side of no.

Depp has real credibility issues too. They have both been seen to be liars. I think in the UK case many of his witnesses testimonies were not seen as credible because they either paid by him or being heavily manipulated and bullied by his lawyers. That's what it said in the transcript for the judges verdict. It also had conversations that Depp said he was going to humiliate her and take her down. Not a good look when you are trying to present credible witnesses.

Any sign of manipulation by the lawyer puts all witnesses in doubt. Of course his security guards are going to back him up. They admitted they would do what he told them to.

The police said they did not see bruises and thought it was consistent with crying. It is probable that they did not see the start of swelling and bruises. The neighbour and front desk guys are a bigger problem for AH.

I don't think JDs story that she is some gone girl who has been setting this up for the last how many years is credible either. Even the judge comments said that the JDs lawyer commented that unless she us some gone girl the evidence is plentiful against Depp.

I think there was abuse on both sides. I think he head butted her and kicked her on the flight at-least once so on that basis he is a wife beater. I think he probably did pass out a lot and can't remember some of what he did or didn't do. The whole relationship was seriously toxic.

I don't believe he was abusive to the extent AH says. I think for whatever reason she caught herself in a lie and then has had to build and built upon that original lie. The abusive was low level on both sides and not as she described. I just think there would be medical records and more signs of bruises. I don't think she could have hidden those attacks from everyone for as long as she did. No way did no-one hear or see anything during those arguments. She says they were screaming at each other.

As for the photos. It's tricky to know what to think. Some of those photos of the house do look staged. I wonder if towards the end she was trying to catch him out, to use it against him in arguments when he wasn't able to remember. That's why the random photos of him asleep and the unauthorised audio tapes stepped up.

Plus, that video of him in the kitchen, I don't buy she did it because she was scared. She doesn't act scared or look scared and she's hiding the camera when he gets near. I think there was a hidden motive behind that.

At the end of the day she has to prove he was abusive, not the other way around. Despite all the inconsistencies and lots of things not adding up. I think she's done that.