Amber Heard - but wait hear me out!! Watch this

[MrsMingech]

So I was on the fence with these two, and I read the threads but didn't follow them and when I searched them I only found and old one.

My search efforts suck, clearly.

Theres many recordings, albeit put together by a clear DP Pom Pom shaker. But it can't be denied (unless it's suggested it's another woman).

Its so bullying, awful
and nasty, I couldn't list to it all.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=e5SaPZpFhcg

if there's a more relevant thread that I suspect I've have missed please link and I will ask for this to be deleted. I swear I did search first.

No, he wanted this. Remember all the texts about ruining her?

her statement that she gve yesterday.

even if the tweet is fake - if Johnny's fans were cutting themselves, PPs would be up in arms at him not addressing it.

The appeal judgment isn't about reexamining the evidence. The appeal itself says they won't ever grant an appeal other than in extreme cases of complete legal ineptitude. And I read the judge's ruling and there was bias clearly throughout.

And I am not saying the judge is corrupt - just biased like humans are. On a jury you have a range of people who varying views and biases. A judge - just one person's bias. The whole point of a jury is to see justice through the lens of your peers.

Defending himself, more like.

She ruined herself.

The irony is if she'd have stuck to the facts and not lied, talked shite and intimidated the jury, she'd have won.

@minutesturntohours she had absolutely no chance of winning that, she knew that herself. He was aiming to ruin her, under the guise of keeping his Nice Jack Sparrow reputation and people like you fell for it. He’s an abuser and nothing more.

Quite patronising really Pumper, but thats fine. Thankfully, the judge "fell for it" too.

I actually didn't think he'd win. I think if she stuck to the facts she would have. (I notice you swerved my point about her proven lies and intimidating the jury - if Johnny would have done that I'm sure you'd have had something to say.

I didn’t answer it because it’s irrelevant to my point - she also behaved really badly. She’s also abusive.

She didn’t have a hope of winning. And more women will learn from her and say absolutely nothing against famous abusive men. That’s not something to celebrate.

But she caused that, Pumper. She chose to ride on the coat tails of abused women and saw herself as a beacon of DA. She's set us back hundreds of years, not Johnny.

No, she spoke against her abuser and he took offence. It’s his raging misogyny that’s setting women back, and that’s it.

Well, him and his merry band of supporters.

He took offence to her lies, which was proved in a court.

She has disgraced real victims. And thankfully, only about 1 percent of people think like you. And nobody is a "merry" band. The whole thing's sad. But I'm pleased he won.

No, he took offence to her talking about him. She is a real victim.

This trial will set back those who intended to make false allegations or lie about abuse. Those folks will now know that even if you are a woman, you can be expected to be accountable for your actions.

This trial also showed that if you have been abused and your abuser tries to hide that by flipping the script, that is you stick to the truth, you will eventually be heard. That speaking out when you are a victim will get you heard and seen.

This verdict was a victory for truth. Not really for men or women - although it did legitimze that men can be victims and women abusers - in a world where that hasn't been much accepted - but mostly this verdict was about honestly and truth and taking responsiblity for your own actions.

Truth benefits everyone and anyone being truthful will benefit from this trial and verdict. Those not being truthful are going to be upset by it - they don't want to be found out. To stand against this verdict is to stand against truth.

You can say "no no no" all you like, but in the eyes of the court, she isn't.

FWIW, if this had happened in a criminal trial I would have supported her.

I simply don't believe her. And neither do most people.

Excellent post

@Pumperthepumper , youve said that Amber is abusive.

So therefore how is Johnny not a victim?

Or is this another onf I didn't do it but if I did it's your fault?

What do you mean by ‘even if you are a woman’?

Because to me, that message reads ‘women deserve this’ and that’s exactly why abuse victims stay silent. And that’s exactly what this trial will result in.

I didn’t say he wasn’t a victim. He’s a victim AND an abuser, as is Amber Heard.

the point PP was making is that there's a theory, certainly in here but elsewhere in society, that if you're a woman you have to be believed. And that's not the case.

PP is right - if you lie, and manipulate, regardless of your sex, then natural consequences will occur. Thankfully. I don't think 'women' deserve anything - I think that Amber deserves what she gets.

The abuse victims you are vehemently defended are the same women who Amber has used in order to harass her ex. SHe used their story, their voices, to try and manipulate the system. She exploited them.

My theory is that they had a toxic, awful relationship - he broke things and was a threat to himself and she was emotionally dreadful to him. Back and forward, back and forward.

It is common knowledge Johnny didn't want Amber to make it public. But she did. And what then happened was rather than admit that they had a toxic relationship, she was forced to make up lies.

It was the lies and intimidation of the jury that sunk her.

By your own admission Pumper, she is abusive. She is no victim.

I don't agree.

I don't believe he abused her.

I believe he was toxic, an addict, a difficult, self harming man, but I don't believe that he physically abused her, or any woman.

He did though.

He is abusive.

Nothing in that posts says anything even remotely related to "women deserve this". So if that is your interpretation - if you are going to create and find meaning that isn't even there to better suit your cause, then there is no point in responding to my posts with your nonsense.

What do you gain by fabricating meaning to suit you? It is completely irrelevant to the post and does nothing but try to deflect and detract from the discussion.

So what did you mean by ‘even if you are a woman’? if it’s not a dig at women?

It's a dig at people who think all women should be believed.

You can keep saying he's abusive if you want, but a court, and 99 percent of society found otherwise.