Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Part 6 keeping it civil - the Depp Heard jury is out

1000 replies

ENoeuf · 28/05/2022 19:01

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4556643-part-5-aibu-to-want-15-minutes-fame-depp-v-heard

hoping we can continue to discuss without unpleasantness - so far so good.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
Newrunner29 · 31/05/2022 12:02

Aspiringmatriarch · 31/05/2022 11:50

Ok, but he's the one on record about globally humiliating her.

If I was with a partner who told the world I was a abuser and rapist I'm frankly not surprised he said this. He has every right to be angry, if he is innocent!

Newrunner29 · 31/05/2022 12:04

Sozzler · 31/05/2022 12:01

@mummyrocks1 There was literally evidence presented in court of her tampering with her photos. She tried to pass two versions of the same photo (taken at the same second, with identical lighting, positioning etc.) as two different images.

She also used 1 photo of red wine spilled as 2 different photos and 2 different incidences!

BlanketsBanned · 31/05/2022 12:04

Sozzler · 31/05/2022 12:01

@mummyrocks1 There was literally evidence presented in court of her tampering with her photos. She tried to pass two versions of the same photo (taken at the same second, with identical lighting, positioning etc.) as two different images.

That whole face photo was ridiculous, obviously it was the same photo, anyone with half a brain cell could see that. It was a lie to say it was taken the next day.

Boulshired · 31/05/2022 12:12

global humiliation, what are Depps options - he remains silent when accused of beatings and rapes. Silence equals guilt and speaking out equal global humiliation for his “victim”. Amber started the leaking of the dirty laundry. Civil courts are being used for incidents of criminal actions. Evidence is being allowed in on both cases that wouldn’t pass the bar in a criminal court. How are we in a position when photoshopped photographs are even in evidence. Expert witnesses who should face investigation. Below is an example of the tweets that Depp faces. Removed the name of the poster. Its at the point of who is the worst liar and not who is telling the truth. Mistakes in testimonies who can recall in depth what happened years before, this is more if the event didn’t happen.

“He's still a confirmed rapist. It was one of the 23 things proven to be true in the High Court of the UK. Now give me your tin foil hat conspiracy theories about Amber controlling the judge.”

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 31/05/2022 12:18

Rottenborn is a corker. As Andrew Windsor was dodging service of legal papers it transpired that a member of his team was named 'Bloxsome', and there's a firm in the West Midlands called Wright Hassell & Co. I'm sure they make these up.

@Aspiringmatriarch enumerates the solid evidence that Depp has lied about significant issues, and evidence of the escalating pattern of abuse of Heard at his hands is also compelling. Clearly witnesses for him have backtracked and claims previously made have been retracted.

They are both liars. This problematizes the testimony from both. It is very possible for someone to base their claims on truth and embellish/exaggerate them to elicit sympathy. Evidence suggests both did this. Depp's team did a better job of illustrating that than Heard's team, although in fairness to them, it's harder to join the dots given some of the most convincing testimony, such as that from Deuters, was later struck. I think this leaves the jury with a problem. There is, however, sufficient witness testimony to provide evidence of injuries to Heard. As for the power dynamics, I'm not sure anyone could claim in all seriousness that she had the upper hand with this.

He's a liar, and on balance of probabilities, he is more likely than not to have been an abuser. She's a liar and a manipulator - a form of psychological abuse - and has physically struck him. But toxic SM is happy completely discounting the former demonstrable facts about Depp's mendacity while excoriating Heard for hers. What's also shocking is the twisting and disingenuous claims about that evidence made by both sides at the summing-up stage. It's a thoroughly rotten system and I'm amazed this was allowed.

Remainiac · 31/05/2022 12:19

I’ve watched some of the trial and the closing statements and can’t see how JD can win. Like others, I think he just wanted it all out there to disrupt her narrative. I think he’s an abuser, as is she and I think she will never stop hounding him, no matter what the outcome of this trial. And I think it’s mainly about money.

Sozzler · 31/05/2022 12:21

Judging by some of the reactions on here, I can see why JD may not have wanted to initially admit to accidently headbutting her, placating her etc. If you are dealing with an abuser who has turned the tables on you and is accusing you of being the abuser, in a society where the woman is often unquestionably viewed as the victim, then I think you are going to be careful about admitting to anything. It would be interesting to know what his legal advice at that time was and whether he was advised against disclosing these things in the first trial.

Sozzler · 31/05/2022 12:49

My understanding was that the judge wanted it televised due to the impact that such a high profile case might have on the court house. She asked both parties, AHs team didn't want it to be televised but JDs team welcomed the transparency. I can't remember where I read this though, so could be mistaken.

TiddyTidTwo · 31/05/2022 13:14

This is a good analysis in my opinion. I've listened to hours of audio now and think she's spot on.

Sozzler yes it was the judges decision re televisation

TiddyTidTwo · 31/05/2022 13:29

Oh there's a part 2!

On this now. Being housebound means I have the time 😞

mummyrocks1 · 31/05/2022 13:43

Sozzler · 31/05/2022 12:21

Judging by some of the reactions on here, I can see why JD may not have wanted to initially admit to accidently headbutting her, placating her etc. If you are dealing with an abuser who has turned the tables on you and is accusing you of being the abuser, in a society where the woman is often unquestionably viewed as the victim, then I think you are going to be careful about admitting to anything. It would be interesting to know what his legal advice at that time was and whether he was advised against disclosing these things in the first trial.

So in your opinion, all the photos are doctored, bruises painted on over the years. All witnesses are lying and all texts are hearsay including the one where JDs PA openly says AH was kicked himself without AH saying anything first. Plus in the audiotapes he's placating her whenever she says anything about the violence. Plus none of the things he said or the texts sent to her show no verbal abuse or controlling behaviour at all. Wow- she really is a real live gone girl.

I do wonder what evidence someone would need to present for you to believe them. I hope you never find yourself or a female member of your family in this position. As it seems if they presented all this evidence you wouldn't believe them. Victims can't win.

mynamesnotMa · 31/05/2022 13:51

Think televising it has done irreparable damage. Its been an utter circus.

Sozzler · 31/05/2022 13:53

@Aspiringmatriarch My recollection of the marriage counsellors testimony (which seems like eons ago), is her saying AH was the one who hit first and instigated physical fights, not JD. She then testified that she believed this resulted in mutual abuse between the two. However, there has been a bit of debate over this, as it is contested whether mutual abuse exists, and in fact, what is happening is reactive abuse. I'll re-watch again when I get a chance though, in case I missed something the first time around.

Boulshired · 31/05/2022 13:55

The problem is there is no faith in the evidence whatsoever, to believe one person then you need to disbelieve another. The photographs should never have been allowed in without the ability of the other side for verification or a third party verification. The only witnesses to the bruises are her friends and photographs provided by heard that is clear some are photoshopped. The only witnesses that can be seen with no bias helped Depp. On an evidence basis it’s a pile of dog crap that would never be taken up by a prosecutor

Sozzler · 31/05/2022 14:08

mummyrocks1 · 31/05/2022 13:43

So in your opinion, all the photos are doctored, bruises painted on over the years. All witnesses are lying and all texts are hearsay including the one where JDs PA openly says AH was kicked himself without AH saying anything first. Plus in the audiotapes he's placating her whenever she says anything about the violence. Plus none of the things he said or the texts sent to her show no verbal abuse or controlling behaviour at all. Wow- she really is a real live gone girl.

I do wonder what evidence someone would need to present for you to believe them. I hope you never find yourself or a female member of your family in this position. As it seems if they presented all this evidence you wouldn't believe them. Victims can't win.

I grew up around domestic abuse and watched my mother beaten on multiple occasions, so your response to me is quite frankly rather insulting, patronising and offensive.

Some of her evidence has been found to be tampered with (see my previous comment), and much other stuff was inadmissible as she refused to submit the devices that would allow it to be verified, so yes, I am sceptical of her evidence. I have never denied that he was verbally abusive to her, I have always said that I haven't seen any credible evidence or witness testimony that he was abusive in the way she has alleged.

And your statements about 'victims can't win', could be applied to both AH and JD, and really depends on who you view the victim to be in this relationship.

mummyrocks1 · 31/05/2022 14:12

That whole face photo was ridiculous, obviously it was the same photo, anyone with half a brain cell could see that. It was a lie to say it was taken the next day.

Yes. That was dodgy. However, it was concrete that they were doctored. Neither of the experts could fundamentally say they had been changed only that they went through an editing programme but could have just been changed by size or orientation. They were saved to so many places they couldn't proved to be authentic but couldn't be proved not to be.

mummyrocks1 · 31/05/2022 14:15

Sozzler- I am very sorry to hear that. My intention was not to upset or insult you. I am sorry if I did. Not all experiences are the same though.

TiddyTidTwo · 31/05/2022 14:15

She was the aggressor. He could be reactive but not every time imo as most of the time he "split". As for the accusations she's put into the public sphere, in those full recordings not once does she mention them. Even when they're discussing Australia she admitted throwing "the jars" at him, hitting him but she never retaliated with anything that he was supposed to have done in hours of recording.

Because she couldn't.

Whatsinhisspottybag · 31/05/2022 14:16

Is this back on today being televised?

TiddyTidTwo · 31/05/2022 14:18

The voice recordings and that of the finger incident in Australia cannot be doctored or changed and cannot be added to or taken away so the best evidence.

To me, it's pretty clear.

mummyrocks1 · 31/05/2022 14:19

Boulshired · 31/05/2022 13:55

The problem is there is no faith in the evidence whatsoever, to believe one person then you need to disbelieve another. The photographs should never have been allowed in without the ability of the other side for verification or a third party verification. The only witnesses to the bruises are her friends and photographs provided by heard that is clear some are photoshopped. The only witnesses that can be seen with no bias helped Depp. On an evidence basis it’s a pile of dog crap that would never be taken up by a prosecutor

Yes. You are right about the photos. They are tricky. But Depp's photo was also dodgy. It was proven that he had the mark in a photo even before he went onto the train.

TiddyTidTwo · 31/05/2022 14:19

Whats

it's on law and crime (well talking about it anyway)

Sozzler · 31/05/2022 14:21

mummyrocks1 · 31/05/2022 14:15

Sozzler- I am very sorry to hear that. My intention was not to upset or insult you. I am sorry if I did. Not all experiences are the same though.

Thanks for your apology, I know you wouldn't have intended it, but I would always believe someone who alleged abuse, unless the evidence was against them, which I really think it is in this case. Also, I am well aware not all situations are the same and nowhere have I projected my childhood experiences onto this case.

mummyrocks1 · 31/05/2022 14:21

TiddyTidTwo · 31/05/2022 14:18

The voice recordings and that of the finger incident in Australia cannot be doctored or changed and cannot be added to or taken away so the best evidence.

To me, it's pretty clear.

The incident of how he cut his finger was very mixed.

TiddyTidTwo · 31/05/2022 14:24

Mummy

Unfortunately the full recording of the aftermath couldn't be admitted into evidence as Jerry has passed away. It's available online.

Jerry knew their relationship best, witnessed a lot. Unfortunately he cannot give his evidence now.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread