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.

Oh cut post off. At the end of day I think she proves he was abusive on at least one, perhaps two occasions. That's all she needs to do to show she's not a liar.

I was under the impression that the date of the first abuse was changed not for the uk testimony but because the photo that was refused into the case was leaked to TMZ and was in fact 2012 and TMZ have since seen the mete data from Depps team confirming this

I would have said earlier in the trial that references to Gone Girl were far fetched but I’m not so sure on that now. Some of the photos are very questionable.

I will wait and see what transpires as the trial progresses.

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.
there was text evidence on that.

also, he knows he abused her, thats why he cant look at her.
Amber has no such problem. she can look at him directly.

and agree that she had to collect evidence. as seen she needs them doesnt she, she has to show them.

Oh please, she stares at him. If someone has abused you, you don't stare at them. I wouldn't look at my abuser because I wouldn't want to see his face. Amber has abused him. She's not innocent in all this.

i would look in the face to see how he feels after what he has done.

In the op ed she says she was sexually abused at college (before she met Depp) and became a figure representing domestic abuse in 2016

Domestic abuse includes rage, intimidation, smashing stuff as well as physical violence.

So no, she doesn't have to prove he sexually assaulted her or beat her to prove she didn't defame him.

She's counter claiming to stop him saying she's a liar for saying she was abused. That's where she needs to prove the physical and sexual abuse. If her claim is successful, he won't be able to say she's making it up.

I don't know the wider ramifications- it could also mean all the youtube/tiktoks etc are libellous and have to come down

I don't know the wider ramifications- it could also mean all the youtube/tiktoks etc are libellous and have to come down
and the petition for her new film.

i would look in the face to see how he feels after what he has done.

I'd be surprised. Most people stare to intimidate someone in situations where there has been violence. I'm glad JDs team pointed out that he hasn't looked at her, it doesn't look good that she keeps looking in his direction yet claims to be so scared of him.

she doesnt need to be scared of him in court. he cant attack her there can he?
but he is guilty thats why he cant look at her.

also, he trying to punish her saying 'you wont see my eyes again'.
what a weird man.

also, he can be intimidating. he tried to walk over to her in court.

I disagree. I'm a victim and wouldn't look at my abuser. We can both see different things. I don't believe she's an innocent victim in this but that's just my opinion on it.

sorry for what happened to you. :(

Thank you @bluebell34567

It was not on purpose. That's the way he exits the court. Every single say for the entire trial. She goes out on one side, he goes out of the other.
This is interesting.

I was too scared to mention my abuser by name for several years in case he found out and killed me. Irrational but there we are (ex husband). Now, I would look at him with contempt /no fear because I'm both safe and I feel safe.
I just don't know really. I don't have any doubts that he was out of it, aggressive, jealous, unaware of his actions a lot. I do have doubts about the manipulative potential for her and what's she's saying in terms of it being completely true or exaggerated.

Victims are not necessarily 'innocent'. That's a naive misconception that does victims no favours and has made villains in the past of women (it's usually women) who ARE innocent of serious wrongdoing. Some have served significant prison sentences for it (cf. Lindy Chamberlain). Amanda Knox is another contentious one. Yes she's strange and has questionable social skills: still doesn't mean there was enough evidence to prove she was a murderer.

But 'victims' are expected to behave and react in a way society deems acceptable; namely by behaving like wilting wallflowers who cower and cry, and will do anything to place themselves away from an abusive situation. The reality, as ever, is far less straightforward.

It's impossible to vet a person's culpability or otherwise by the fact that they held someone's gaze, or that they defiantly reject the word 'victim' (I've done the latter myself), or to think that, as a victim yourself, you know precisely how every other victim would think or react in such a situation. You don't. You can't. (And before anyone asks, yes, I too have been a victim).

A PP wrote:

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.

I think at times she's come across as plausible. There's a LOT that chimes from her testimony with patterns of abuse. Either she's made an extensive reading of these (and is more intelligent than I gave her credit for) or she has extensive experience.

I believe she's a victim of abuse. I believe she's also a manipulative liar. Her performance on the stand relating to her 'pledging' of the divorce funds looks very bad indeed, given her testimony at the London trial. The irony is, she didn't have to pledge anything at all and it was a completely unnecessary lie. If a person lies about unnecessary things, what about their far more serious claims? His legal team have done a number on exposing her for this, as it casts doubt on her entire credibility as a witness. It might now rest on how much evidence seems to prove she was abused. I believe some of it does - whether or not that is the material that's been struck is another question. If it has been, his team are doing their job well, there isn't a doubt of it.

I believe he's also a manipulative liar and a victim of abuse (or counter-abuse). Reactive abuse is still abuse.

Overall, a particularly unedifying couple. But if the question is 'did Amber Heard defame Johnny Depp', the answer to that question would still seem to be 'no'.

The vitriol being directed at Amber but not at Johnny Depp, a man with a well-established and long record of out of control violent behaviour, makes it quite clear that its blatant misogyny which is causing Amber to get all the public hate but not him.

God these YouTube videos. I saw her realise he wasn't stopping and react. All this oh she saw him and should have reacted a split second earlier blah blah. It's all for clicks and views. They need to get a proper job.
Sorry! I know people like it but I can't get past these adults making videos for money.

But 'victims' are expected to behave and react in a way society deems acceptable; namely by behaving like wilting wallflowers who cower and cry, and will do anything to place themselves away from an abusive situation. The reality, as ever, is far less straightforward

This. 1000% this. We really need to mature as a society in our understanding of victims.

Yes, I agree. I've stopped reading it, it's really distasteful.

And it tells us exactly why women have such a problem. As the quotation goes, 'if you are accustomed to privilege, equality looks like oppression'.

agree.

All this gold digger crap - dear God!

Depp chose to marry her and marriage is, in law, a financial contract, not a romantic one. Wives are legally entitled to the money they get in divorce settlements. Depp will have been well able to understand the contract he was entering into when he chose to marry. Accusing her of being a gold-digger is utter nonsense, and sexist nonsense too.

When she wrote that article, it was clearly not to be a 'gold digger.' Its Johnny Depp, the man with the history of violent behaviour, who as chosen to repeatedly pursue her in the courts. If anything, he is the one more obviously with motivations to do with finance, as he seems determined to destroy her financially with all these highly terrifyingly expensive court cases.

Legally in regards to their careers that have defamed themselves as much as they defamed each other. With amber being the catalyst with the TRO. Johnny has taken a calculated risk that he will be able to tell his side and reboot his career and reputation. Unless there is some smoking guns coming it looks like he has won that risk in regards to public opinion. So much emphasis goes on the trial result but unless she is awarded 100 millions for Depp it’s irrelevant.