Part 5 AIBU to want 15 minutes fame? (depp v heard)

[ENoeuf]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4554620-part-4-aibu-to-keep-this-discussion-on-amber-and-jonny-going

continuing our unhealthy obsession 😂

He won't donate it to ACLU! They worked with Amber to write the OpEd for their own political gain at his expense. He would probably give some to Children's Hospital and donate any other winnings to other charities.

Yes. What is her motive in fabricating this? I really believe there is at least some truth in what she’s saying.

I agree. I think there was some abuse. At least a kick and a headbutt. Possibly a grab and other mutual physical abuse. This didn't seem enough and as a fantasist she began to exaggerate the events. One lie lead to another etc. it seems she tried to call JDs bluff with the divorce settlement and when he didn't do what she wanted she was stuck having to follow through with her threat. It seems her legal aids gave her terrible advice. I don't get how she thought she could get away with it all without it coming out.

I think there is some truth but I also think she absolutely believes the exaggerations and all those other things happened.I guess I just can't believe someone would lie like this under oath and to the world.

We will never find out though unless more concrete evidence comes out.

midlife he[ll give ir to a DV charity is what I meant.

But he will not make a song and dance about it.
He already gives to the childrens hospital.

Oh gotcha! I agree.

I wonder how much he has donated in his life. Given how incrediby generous he is, I bet it is a ton of money.

I am still not making a decision until I've heard the jury instructions and closing statements. I'm very much 50/50

I've been watching the court proceedings on the jury instructions and closing statements.
For me it will hinge on these issues:
▪︎ what is the legal definition, in this court, of Domestic Violence?
▪︎ what is the legal definition, in this court, of defamation and malice?
▪︎ how will AH team present the 1st (*?) Amendment right to free speech?
▪︎ how will JD team present the evidence to influence that if AH has lied on a number of issues, that she has lied about everything?

• is the free speech thingy under the 1st Amendment? Sorry if I've got that wrong

Did you hear the judge read the list of jury instructions into the record this afternoon?

I had thought that clarify a lot of questions but it sounds like it is really, really long and not straightforward at all.

Oh bugger @Midlifemusings , did I miss it?
How did I do that??? I'll have to go back and re-watch it.

@TiddyTidTwo yes, I agree, I think he would probably donate anything he wins. I really don't think this has been about the money for him.

She didn't actually read the jury instructions - just the list of documents that will form the jury instructions! She will read them tomorrow. It was just a really really long list!

“The Depp/Heard trial is perfect fascist agitprop, which is why right-wing media cannot get enough. As anyone who has glanced at social media can attest, the trial has become an occasion for a staggering number of men to wallow in their false sense of victimization. Heard has become the scapegoat for all this male anger about women's independence and women's freedom. That it's laughably false to view Depp as the victim here clearly doesn't matter. Heard is an imperfect person, so misogynists can derail any discussion about the case with demands that Depp's detractors defend every single life choice that Heard has ever made.
But mostly, Depp's victim status — and therefore the victim status of men generally — can be established through the sheer power of relentless repetition, drowning out all available facts. And once those young men have bought onto one self-pitying right-wing conspiracy theory, they have been softened up to accept all the rest of them.”

“And yet, under a deluge of both right-wing media and online vitriol, the preposterous notion that Depp is in the right has taken root. It's not due to any evidence, as was already shown in a British court. No, it's just because Depp's toxic supporters, through sheer belligerence, have willed their false narrative into the public understanding of the case. The social media toxicity has largely been dismissed by the press not as a backlash to #MeToo, but as celebrity worship run amok”

@minou123

I found a video of it. Starts at about 54 minutes or a few seconds before that.

I've watched the case from start to present and have also read the U.K. judgment. The evidence does not point to AH being physically abused to the extent that she claims. There are no medical records to indicate that she got treatment which she would have needed with the assaults she described. To describe everyone who leans to JDs side as "toxic" is bizarre.

You all know that you don’t have to watch this grotesque American circus act right? There already was a trial. Appeals are exhausted. A High Court judge sat through all the evidence - an experience that randomers on the internet cannot actually recreate on a fuzzy live stream - and published a sober, dispassionate judgement that established beyond a doubt that Depp committed multiple acts of domestic violence.

That trial also managed to establish the facts without requiring a woman alleging sexual assault to described being raped with a bottle not just in front of her accused assailant but live-streamed to the entire world. I still cannot believe that a supposedly civilised country permits this to happen.

So I wouldn’t be worrying about what poor wee Johnny will do when the judgement doesn’t go his way. He won’t give a damn, just like he didn’t before. He’s so addled by decades of substance abuse he supplied drugs to his own 13 year old child. (A now-adult child, who witnessed all of this, and has purged him from all her social media).

Of course, perhaps the carnival freakshow will go his way - it’s gotten everything else so catestrophically wrong, why not this? But at least there was a civilised trial - in a country much more favourable to genuine defamation - that established what actually happened. This circus isn’t a do-over. He lost.

Evidence has come to light since then and this case has allowed/ disallowed different evidence and witnesses. It has come to light that key witnesses on AHs side were not telling the truth.

“People would rather believe that all women are liars, then challenge the patriarchal society we live in or admit that if Johnny wins, then Amber Heard is the exception, not the rule: this trial is already being held up as proof that most men are ‘good guys’ and that women aren't really being abused or sexually assaulted at the rate we say we are, that the real victims are nice guys who are tarnished by a few ‘bad apples’. But bad apples don't exist when it comes to violence against women - the whole basket is rotting, diseased from the patriarchy and sexism - but they do exist when we reverse the situation. Because reverse sexism cannot and does not exist; oppression flows in one direction only, from the oppressor to the oppressed. As long as men are the dominant group, with the most power, they cannot be victims of sexism. If Johnny wins, Amber Heard is a bad apple; she is not the rule”

I wish I'd read this before I went back and watched it 😂

I thought you meant she read the entire jury instruction. I was wondering how I missed it.

It was a really long list, so it's going to take a while to read it in full.

@HoldMeCloserTonyDanza it wasn't "beyond a doubt", it was on the "balance of probabilities". So if the Judge thought it was 51% likely that JD did it and 49% unlikely, then he will rule that he did it. That judgment was flawed in many ways and his legal reasoning was extremely questionable (and I have had 10 years reading case law and judges reasonings). Problem with the U.K. system is that you can only appeal on errors in law, not on the actual decision. So if you want all the evidence considering again or you don't think it was considered appropriately by the Judge then it's basically tough luck. There is no recourse to question the ruling and Judges are not held accountable for their decisions. One of the many flaws of the U.K. justice system.

“So, I will continue to believe women. Which, contrary to misunderstandings on the internet, does not mean blindly supporting and believing all women, but believing the collective that is women. Because women have historically, and still are presently, not heard, supported or believed. I can deplore women who abuse men, while still standing strong on the fact that women - on a systemic, institutional and global level - need to be believed.

If these men commenting about the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial truly cared about domestic abuse, and the ways in which our society silences male victims, they would be in the camp of believing all survivors and supporting feminism as a way to undo the toxic masculinity that tells men they cannot be abused by a woman. But they do not, they only care about discrediting women.”

I agree with this only it’s clearly not just men. I’m shocked by the amount of women who are also only too happy to discredit other women.

Horrible times and this is a horrible trial.

I have sons. I am not going to believe somebody despite the overwhelming evidence against them just because they are a woman. I believe in truth.

I was just reading this judge's bio and I saw that she was in the Marines back when she was young for a few years. I also saw that early in her career she saw many vets coming into ther courtroom with no criminal history and realized that mental health and substance use were really the issue so she created a treatment diversion program.

She is a great judge. I wonder if she will get a promotion after this.

So what as women do we do when women lie, if we believe all women then you’d believe my mother who would deny ever being violent to my father. If you believe her does that remove my voice and the violence I received and witnessed. If ambers sister or an ex female partner reported violence from Amber who gets the priority of which female to believe. Women lie and unfortunately they can be the aggressor.

I feel sickened by how far amber and Depp have brought this fight but it has unearthed some unfortunate truths. It’s not that amber is an imperfect victim it’s than amber is an unreliable witness. That some truths and lies will never come out and they have destroyed each other.
Some people saw this as a toxic relationship with two volatile people. Amber has changed their minds. But the collateral damage is huge. Strangely no one questions the abuse Depp received at the hands of his mother but the idea that a wife can do that is alien somehow.

Well why not entertain us with a break down of the 125 page ruling and where you think the legal reasoning was wrong.

You will note the appeal judges ruled that an appeal had “no real prospect of success", not simply on mistake of law but in error of approach.

“The hearing before (Mr Justice) Nicol was full and fair, and he gave thorough reasons for his conclusions which have not been shown even arguably to be vitiated by any error of approach or mistake of law.”

I don't think I'm going to comment on here again (although I may pop back after the verdict), as there seems to be quite a lot of trying to shame people for wanting to watch this trial or daring to question AHs credibility and allegations of abuse. However, what I will say before I disappear, is how concerning it is that there are people who refuse to acknowledge that men can be the victims of DA and women the perpetrators. Yes, in the majority of cases women are abused at the hands of men, but this is not always the case, and men can be victims, imperfect victims and reactive abusers too. These things are not exclusive to women.

I want my son to grow up in a society where if he is being abused by a woman, he feels he can speak up without judgement and be believed. Sadly, from the look of some of the comments on here, we are nowhere near that yet.