Part 4 AIBU to keep this discussion on Amber and Jonny going?

[ENoeuf]

Just in case we run out on part 3

*have to listen

Fair enough. Although my pony would be that the tapes go a long way to show that she wasn’t injured on the way she said she was. So this is another complicated set of lies. Is it all a lie? Seems probable now.

I’ve also just re listened to the audio where she calls him a baby for running away from her. In it they discuss the argument from the previous night. She admits hitting him and suggests that the fight was because he had been out a friend’s house for too long. That strikes me as incredibly controlling behaviour. In the end he admits that it was his fault and he is sorry. She grinds him down until he apologises for setting her off. It is classic gaslighting. Very DARVO

Jerry is very clear.

Jerry's language is very clear

"I'll make a deal with the devil" referring to AH
"You need strong men with her if she kicks off"

Dr Kipper
"She will get combative"

I take more from the conversation about how they are planning to deal with this, how their tone changes in her presence. It's also clear "she knows what she is doing, she's no fool"

This to me sounds like, people trying to remove the aggressor but also placate her as to avoid combative behaviour.

Jerry is all "it's ok love" at the end, his tone and candour is changing in her presence.

I do believe that AH assaulted JD in Australia, I do believe the injury to his finger was caused by her, I do believe on this occasion she was the primary aggressor.

We also again get another example of JD's behaviour, he's thrown another bottle at a window a cup at the TV. This is in fitting with JD's behaviour for years, damage of property and objects. Bottles against walls. So this trend in behaviour seems concurrent, JD smashes places and things up.

I agree, hearsay

We don't know that they both didn't cause the damage, though. Doesn't at one point JJ say "does it fucking matter" or "doesn't fucking matter" in relation to who threw or broke what?

I'd think anyone as tanked up and with that many Es inside him would be likely to trash a place.

This doctor, you will not get much past her! She is great.

I totally agree with this analysis.

Elaine needs to get over they all had a takeaway.

Boris would agree!

I agree, I think he trashed the place. He has history for trashing places and throwing bottles around. This I don't deny.

But his pattern of behaviour is consistent, it's bad behaviour, that you can't deny but his aggression his volatility appears to always be at objects, like the kitchen cupboards and so on.

We've yet to establish a pattern of offending behaviour that is risk to intimate partners, and this could be because there is no pattern of this offending behaviour.

Seems like you'd be worse off to be a glass bottle in the presence of JD during aggressive outbursts than a human being stood in the room.

Again as we know smashing things up does fall under domestic abuse guidelines, so people can still argue this is abusive behaviour. And that I don't deny either.

Wow Elaine Is losing it!
She doesn't have much time left

What is it with Elaine and that bloody microphone?

😂

She has lost it! No time left.

He's an angry little boy who's surrounded by yes men and enablers by dint of the fact that he makes millions, or at least he did. As ever, money takes precedence over anything else.

Do I think he's a wife beater? I'm still on the fence; yet to be 100% persuaded either way.

Again as we know smashing things up does fall under domestic abuse guidelines, so people can still argue this is abusive behaviour.

Amber Heard in her WP op ed article said she had suffered domestic violence. Would smashing things come under domestic violence or the more general term domestic abuse?

Plenty of experts out there who would not agree with dr Curry on characterisation of PTSD or how it presents in people having it. Again she is taking war veterans as baseline for PTSD behaviour and that is her opinion(while she denied dr Hughes has right to one and has to rely solely on tests in a specific manner that she uses them). I absolutley despise people having diploma or other positions of authority to bring women down, I don't need to be an expert to see it for what it is. She is not unbiased at all and is just camouflaging it in"I'm highly proffesional and do not use everyday language to make it look more so"

Right. But you are fine with all the lying that she is doing.

She is currently completely dismantling any little trust of women that was built up by the Me Too movement. I don’t care that she’s a woman. I care that she has lied and lied yet people still support her. At this point she has zero credibility.

Please can someone explain how they are running out of time? Does each side only get so many hours during the whole trial where they are allowed to question people?

I wrote the above but I just checked the WP article again and I was wrong. AH wrote, ‘I became a public figure representing domestic abuse.’

So this is where the nut gets cracked.

So today in the UK we term it all under Domestic Abuse, because not all abusive relationships have the factor of violence.

Domestic violence is generally categorised as violence against the person either physically or sexually.

Domestc abuse is generally categorised as

Financial abuse
Psychological abuse
Controlling or cohesive behaviour.

Smashing things up is not a offence against the person, but can fall under the category of psychological abuse, as it can still have a psychological impact on the victim.

Yes - I looked into this when I realised it was happening, it's called a timed trial. I'll try to find the article.

civiljuryproject.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Exh.-2-Juror-Fact-Sheet-Time-Limits.pdf

Yes or it would go on forever
I think they had 60 hours each
AH has about 3 left and has more (can’t recall amount, maybe 10?) so they can’t keep calling witnesses forever and can’t keep cross examining them

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html

The actual article, I believe.

Indeed it does fall under domestic abuse.

A man who smashes places up regularly is violent.

It’s only a matter of time before the stuff being hurled hits another person accidentally or on purpose.

If there were a child in the mix, that type of violence alone would be grounds for SS investigation in the U.K. as a safeguarding issue.