Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Had you heard of Amber Heard prior to this trial?

159 replies

JetTail · 17/05/2022 17:29

He's suing for $50 million. She is countersuing for $100 million. 😂

Now I don't know a terrible lot about her diagnoses or lack of them (or whether she agrees with the BPD or histrionic diagnoses), but that is one heck of a fucking superiority complex going on!

What the actual fuck is this woman on?

OP posts:
Midlifemusings · 17/05/2022 19:44

EinsteinaGogo · 17/05/2022 19:31

The whole thing is a mess.

I find it very difficult that JD is being revered and feted when he is also a mess and no doubt manipulative with a real imbalance of power.

AH is very very hard to take seriously though, not least because her legal team is shocking.

She also doesn't help herself. Yesterday she swore till blue into the face that she had donated her $7million divorce settlement to children's charities even though they, as evidenced, confirmed they had not received a penny from her.

Yesterday's

She swore she pledged to donate the money but didn't swear ahe had donated any money.

sickofthisnonsense · 17/05/2022 19:49

I'd only heard of her from the Dogs in Australia thing. It was her that smuggled them in because she brought them to visit Him during filming.

I've seen a few films she's been in but not really registered her as being in them. I tend to look actors IBDM up if they interest me in a film. I actually spent most of the Danish Girl feeling it was all a bit odd.

I don't know what to think. They were obviously toxic together. I've seen Relationships involving people with a Personality Disorder fist hand and it's nasty, really nasty.The tapes sound like her deliberately trying to provoke him over and over. I've seen what happens to the most reasonable people under that sustained pressure.

My husband found CourtTV working shifts from home during lockdown and we've found it fascinating in a macabre way. The American system is very different to here.

sickofthisnonsense · 17/05/2022 19:52

Mumsnet HQ PLEASE BRING BACK PARAGRAPHS!!!!!

Midlifemusings · 17/05/2022 19:59

RoseslnTheHospital · 17/05/2022 19:44

You know, that really isn't an accurate representation of the UK case. The judge heard evidence from a variety of witnesses, there was a variety of evidence submitted in the form of photos and videos. Each instance was discussed in court in detail by the defence and the prosecution teams. There is a written summary (lengthy) of the judge's reasoning and conclusions. Depp had every opportunity to counter the evidence provided by The Sun's team. Furthermore, Depp's request for an appeal was later denied by a team of 3 judges on the grounds that there would not be a different outcome.

Perhaps you could indicate what incestuous connections those judges had to the people you view as controlling the outcome of that trial?

As you know in an appeal, they don't reexamine the evidence. And they say in their appeal that they will not overturn or allow an appeal unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice in the sense of the judicial process pt from teh evidence but the process. I did read the judge's statement and it was so one sided. As I said, so much we know know of the 'truth' the judge based on his decisions on - is actually lies. He concluded for example that Depp's assertion that she was looking for financial gain from the relationship was proposterous because she donated the entire $7 million and didn't get a penny of the money from him. He said noone who donates every penny could ever be seen as wanting financial gain. Many examples like this...

The incestuous comment refers to Rupert Murdochs' ties and connections and the judge's son being a coworker of the defendent.

Veol · 17/05/2022 20:04

She was a upstart actress who seduced an alcoholic, drug addict who was 22 years her senior (who was already a in relationship with 2 kids of his own). She then had the effrontery to object to some of his behaviour, despite him being famous, richer and better looking. She wasn’t always very nice to him either. How dare she be so presumptuous and ruin our teenage fantasies!

PortiaFimbriata · 17/05/2022 20:05

HolyHiVisOfStEvenEdge · 17/05/2022 19:24

Yes, I saw her on Top Gear years ago in the Star in a Reasonably Priced Car slot. I’d never seen anything she’d been in but I knew from that she was an actress (Jeremy Clarkson mentioned a couple of her films).

Yes that's what I know her from. She can't drive a manual gearbox.

Midlifemusings · 17/05/2022 20:05

ZealAndArdour · 17/05/2022 19:32

I was only saying earlier how fucking crazy it is to see so many women visibly excited and gleeful at the abuse and ridicule of another woman. There’s a palpable excitement to it which is really odd and confusing. Do all of Depp’s little foot soldiers think he’s gonna personally thank them with a go on his magical Hollywood cock?

I couldn't care less about Depp and wouldn't touch him with a barge pole. WHile I don't think he was abusive, he is no bastien of integrity and character. I still think Amber's theatrics and lies and false allegations are well worth criticism and disdain - but not hate.

Both chose to publicly put all this out there - Amber through years of recordings, pictures and leaked recordings, pictures and stories and Depp through this trial and Amber through the countersuit, so I don't really feel any guilt watching the trial as entertainment. After 6 yars of back and forth PR campaigns and attack campaigns, I find it interesting to get to hear the information for myself.

And from what I have heard so far from the trial and all the recordings and pictures..I believe Johnny's version of events (generally) far more than Ambers. Since I am not on the jury, I get to be speculative.

Palease · 17/05/2022 20:05

ZealAndArdour · 17/05/2022 19:32

I was only saying earlier how fucking crazy it is to see so many women visibly excited and gleeful at the abuse and ridicule of another woman. There’s a palpable excitement to it which is really odd and confusing. Do all of Depp’s little foot soldiers think he’s gonna personally thank them with a go on his magical Hollywood cock?

It’s so horrible to witness. I know a few women that seem to be delighting in talking about how awful she is, they do seem gleeful. It’s horrible to watch. Why don’t women have other womens back? It’s so sad, it’s sickening.

Midlifemusings · 17/05/2022 20:08

JonSnowedUnder · 17/05/2022 17:55

@JetTail All my social media is flooded with pro-JD and very anti-AH info. 3m signatures to get her removed from AquaMan 2, directors and actors unfollowing her on SM.

If you read the op-ed she did predict this, it's wasn't so much about domestic abuse as how powerful men are protected and women are disposable. I'm not saying I believe all her allegations but she wasn't wrong on that front. Depp didn't lose Fantastic Beasts until her lost his lawsuit against The Sun, not after AH said she was a victim. If he hadn't sued them he would have kept that role.

Listen to the ACLU testimony and evidence exhibits about the op-ed. It is very interesting. It was very political and very planned and coordinated and released to coincide with her movie release. It was 90% ACLU and 10% Amber who thought it would benefit her. She testified today that she never looked at the title when they sent her the draft and had no idea it mentioned sexual violence. She is so full of nonsense!

Midlifemusings · 17/05/2022 20:10

Palease · 17/05/2022 20:05

It’s so horrible to witness. I know a few women that seem to be delighting in talking about how awful she is, they do seem gleeful. It’s horrible to watch. Why don’t women have other womens back? It’s so sad, it’s sickening.

Should men have the backs of other men who are abusive to their wives?

Should men always support men and women always support women no matter what they do or how they treat others?

Amber has chosen to put on a show...she could have chosen a different approach. When you put on a show, people will critique it.

SirChenjins · 17/05/2022 20:14

I’d heard of her from the dog smuggling thing but didn’t know anything more about her other than that and the fact that she’s an actor who’s JD’s girlfriend.

I’m still not sure why this trial is being televised and going on for so long - does anyone know? It seems bonkers.

Justhereforthis · 17/05/2022 20:15

Until they were together, I’d never heard of her. We watch a lot of film/tv but a quick glance at IMDb tells me I’ve never seen her as an actress.

EinsteinaGogo · 17/05/2022 20:15

@Midlifemusings

That's right. She said that she uses pledge and donate synonymously.

And therefore she HAD donated it because she'd pledged it.

It was questioned several times:
Did you donate? Yes.
You didn't donate. 'I did, i pledged'
But pledge is not the same as donate. 'It is'

That was proper bonkers.

VeryTrying22 · 17/05/2022 20:17

Most under the age of 30 will have heard of her. Seems to be an age thing

EinsteinaGogo · 17/05/2022 20:17

'Op Ed' is now a well used term, too..

Whatever happened to 'article'?!!!

ZealAndArdour · 17/05/2022 20:18

Midlifemusings · 17/05/2022 20:10

Should men have the backs of other men who are abusive to their wives?

Should men always support men and women always support women no matter what they do or how they treat others?

Amber has chosen to put on a show...she could have chosen a different approach. When you put on a show, people will critique it.

Well most men (and women) do have the backs of men when it comes to domestic violence against their wives. It’s far more common an outcome than any other iteration.

YouHaveYourFathersBreasts · 17/05/2022 20:24

I hadn’t heard of AH until I think she and JD tried to smuggle their dogs into Australia. I don’t think I know anyone who knew who she is before she married JD.

Which is why I’ve been so wtf about some people/commentators insisting that AH’s fans are as wild and defensive about her as JD’s fans are about him. She doesn’t have a fan base as such, and certainly nowhere near what he has. She has people who believe her (I believe her FWIW, at least in the loosest sense- I believe her that he is abusive) but that is not the same as a fan base. Don’t think I’ve ever seen her acting in anything so definitely not a fan.

Midlifemusings · 17/05/2022 20:33

ZealAndArdour · 17/05/2022 20:18

Well most men (and women) do have the backs of men when it comes to domestic violence against their wives. It’s far more common an outcome than any other iteration.

And you are advocating that as the right way to be. That men SHOULD always have the back of men and women SHOULD have the backs of women - even if they abuse their spouses. And it is sickening when they don't support their own biological sex in abusing their spouses.

wotwududo · 17/05/2022 20:40

She was in magic Mike 2. She was pretty good in it.

MorganKitten · 17/05/2022 20:41

Yep, unfortunately I’ve had to work with her.

RoseslnTheHospital · 17/05/2022 21:03

@Midlifemusings you will no doubt know then, from the appeal hearing, that the fact that Heard did not donate the promised money was raised as an issue with the original verdict by Depp's lawyers. In refusing his appeal the court stated that they:

"did not accept that there is any ground for believing that the judge may have been influenced by any such general perception as [Depp's lawyer] relies on. In the first place, he does not refer to [Heard's] charitable donation at all in the context of his central findings. On the contrary, he only mentions it in a very particular context … and after he had already reached his conclusions in relation to the 14 incidents ... we conclude that the appeal has no real prospect of success."

So, none of the conclusions to any of the 14 specific incidences relied on the idea that Heard had or would donate the money to charity.

The appeal judges also concluded that the original trial judge made no errors of approach or errors in law. The Court of Appeal rejected the claim that this was a "he said-she said" case, instead finding that the judgment had been based mainly on evidence such as contemporaneous text and email messages, medical records and photographs, instead of statements by Depp or Heard. They also rejected Depp's claim that Mr. Justice Nicol had been uncritical of Heard's statements, pointing out that he had on several instances been critical of her, and that he had not made any of the judgments based on her witness statement alone.

This is all really easily available information. Yet people deliberately or ignorantly repeat utter nonsense about this trial, the judgement and the appeal.

Palease · 17/05/2022 21:05

Midlifemusings · 17/05/2022 20:10

Should men have the backs of other men who are abusive to their wives?

Should men always support men and women always support women no matter what they do or how they treat others?

Amber has chosen to put on a show...she could have chosen a different approach. When you put on a show, people will critique it.

No but the women I have spoken to have formed opinions on her simply from reading bullshit in the media. There’s no facts to go from, just bullshit like “well she cut his finger off with a glass” or “well she shit in his bed”. When I quiz them on how they know these things are true they look sheepish. They’re desperate to hate her. Why?

I even pointed out to them the text message that the court has seen (so proof, not hearsay) that JD said about her - “wanting to burn her and then fuck her corpse to make sure she’s dead”, to that I got “well we all say things when we’re angry”. What the actual fuck? Why are they not horrified at him speaking about her like that?

Midlifemusings · 17/05/2022 21:12

RoseslnTheHospital · 17/05/2022 21:03

@Midlifemusings you will no doubt know then, from the appeal hearing, that the fact that Heard did not donate the promised money was raised as an issue with the original verdict by Depp's lawyers. In refusing his appeal the court stated that they:

"did not accept that there is any ground for believing that the judge may have been influenced by any such general perception as [Depp's lawyer] relies on. In the first place, he does not refer to [Heard's] charitable donation at all in the context of his central findings. On the contrary, he only mentions it in a very particular context … and after he had already reached his conclusions in relation to the 14 incidents ... we conclude that the appeal has no real prospect of success."

So, none of the conclusions to any of the 14 specific incidences relied on the idea that Heard had or would donate the money to charity.

The appeal judges also concluded that the original trial judge made no errors of approach or errors in law. The Court of Appeal rejected the claim that this was a "he said-she said" case, instead finding that the judgment had been based mainly on evidence such as contemporaneous text and email messages, medical records and photographs, instead of statements by Depp or Heard. They also rejected Depp's claim that Mr. Justice Nicol had been uncritical of Heard's statements, pointing out that he had on several instances been critical of her, and that he had not made any of the judgments based on her witness statement alone.

This is all really easily available information. Yet people deliberately or ignorantly repeat utter nonsense about this trial, the judgement and the appeal.

You will see in their appeal document that they clearly state:

"Secondly, on an appeal the Court does not hear the evidence again. That means that in a case like the present, where the decision is based on the judge’s findings about disputed questions of fact, it is not easy to overturn those findings on appeal. That is not only because the trial judge has had the advantage of seeing the witnesses giving their evidence.

As Lewison LJ put it at para. 114 of his judgment in FAGE UK Ltd v
Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5:

“Appellate courts have been repeatedly warned, by recent cases at the
highest level, not to interfere with findings of fact by trial judges, unless
compelled to do so. This applies not only to findings of primary fact,
but also to the evaluation of those facts and to inferences to be drawn
from them. …

The reasons for this approach are many. They include

(i) The expertise of a trial judge is in determining what facts are
relevant to the legal issues to be decided, and what those facts are
if they are disputed.

(ii) The trial is not a dress rehearsal. It is the first and last night of the
show.

(iii) Duplication of the trial judge’s role on appeal is a
disproportionate use of the limited resources of an appellate court,
and will seldom lead to a different outcome in an individual case.

(iv) In making his decisions the trial judge will have regard to the
whole of the sea of evidence presented to him, whereas an
appellate court will only be island hopping.

(v) The atmosphere of the courtroom cannot, in any event, be
recreated by reference to documents (including transcripts of
evidence).

(vi) Thus even if it were possible to duplicate the role of the trial
judge, it cannot in practice be done.”

I get that many people think Amber was young innocent girl who was too in love to leave and who had no choice due to her trauma to do anything but stay and spend 6 years being beaten to an inch of her life over and over and raped repeatedly by a violent, violent predator and sexual offender who wouldn't allow her to work or wear anything but modesty clothes and that is all there is to it. I realize we hae zero in common in our perspectives and these discussions are pointless at this point. I have listened to hours of recordings and looked at mountains of exhibits and documents and nothing it going to get me to ever see your point of view.

All the best.

Midlifemusings · 17/05/2022 21:15

Palease · 17/05/2022 21:05

No but the women I have spoken to have formed opinions on her simply from reading bullshit in the media. There’s no facts to go from, just bullshit like “well she cut his finger off with a glass” or “well she shit in his bed”. When I quiz them on how they know these things are true they look sheepish. They’re desperate to hate her. Why?

I even pointed out to them the text message that the court has seen (so proof, not hearsay) that JD said about her - “wanting to burn her and then fuck her corpse to make sure she’s dead”, to that I got “well we all say things when we’re angry”. What the actual fuck? Why are they not horrified at him speaking about her like that?

Who do you think shit in the bed?

How do you feel about the horrible names she called him to his face in the recordings like "balless fucking piece of shit" and various other things. How do you feel about her texts with her friend about killing him but that the friend's suggestion to do it with knives would be too easy?

ellebelli · 17/05/2022 21:17

Wow Didn't know she was in Mandy Lane-I loved that film.