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

[ENoeuf]

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.

From my observations most people on SM who are relying on very biased SM videos and buy into the smear campaign believe him. Waldron has done an absolutely fantastic job of creating a smear campaign against her.

Then the more mainstream media and more balanced news outlets are actually giving more balanced views in their articles.

Unfortunately I do think the SM outlets win the popular vote.

Min let's hope it's soon. These people need their lives back, they must be exhausted!

Just watching law and crime stream the TMZ guy testimony with AHs cross straight after.

Please don't state things like that as fact. It's dangerous and exactly how these nasty and damaging smear campaigns begin and are able to multiple. One person makes a totally false statement like that and it's taken as fact.

If you think that fine but don't state it as fact. It is not. There is no evidence of it, except in JDs hoax campaign and I saw absolutely no reference to it in the trial itself. So don't come on here making wild claims like that that people will then believe and share.

Fucking hell! Women who hold an opposing opinion are thinking with their cunts.

Is that feminism? I've lost track of what's what anymore!

Mummy**

I agree in the main. I think MSM is feeding a narrative imo.

The best resources imo is the live trial, reading the depositions (the lady who looks after the Barbados property was really interesting in full) and evidence submitted and the voice recordings in full. That's what the jury is getting and displays both sides of the case.

We most definitely can tell at the SARC if someone has been viciously and aggressively assaulted. Especially so with a bottle. The person conducting the forensic analysis documents it all.

There would be pattern of injury recorded. Swelling, abrasions, bruising, bleeding.

This is why women don't like going to the SARC it's not a nice experience, a room full of people akin to a dentist surgery talking about you, your injuries and what can be documented/noted.

I am interested what the court will do after the trial regarding the photographs. I know there is a sanction motion but what will the court do for themselves? The accusations that evidence has been submitted knowingly photoshopped should be followed up. Humans make mistakes in testimonies, it’s difficult to show intent but photographic evidence from source there is no excuse that could possibly be made for that.

They must be exhausted TiddyTidTwo

Ive done jury service and I find people take it really seriously.

Having to concentrate for up to 7 hours a day, for 6 weeks must be really challenging.

At least we could stop watching and go back to it went we wanted, or rewind if we missed anything

Yes totally. I admit I have watched some of the rubbish videos before the trial began and they were so biased against AH. But I now refuse to watch any more rubbish. I have just watched the trial ti form my opinion.

Please don't state things like that as fact. It's dangerous and exactly how these nasty and damaging smear campaigns begin and are able to multiple. One person makes a totally false statement like that and it's taken as fact.

Eh? That was literally the evidence! Happy to be shown I'm wrong, but there's a list of people who testified they saw AH in the days after she last saw JD who said she didn't have a bruise. And there were photos shown of her the day after getting to the TRO without a bruise. Yet she had one in the footage as she came out the courthouse.

And JD was overseas with his band when AH got the TRO and due to be away for a month. It's all in the trial.

There has been a lot of good debate. Some people have expressed sympathy and support for JD, some people have expressed sympathy and support for AH and some people have been somewhere in the middle. There have been a lot of reasons put forward as to why people think the way they do and on the whole people have been respectful whilst giving their opinions. This has opened up other interesting and important topics like male victims of domestic abuse, the impact this case will have on metoo, how the legal system works in defamation cases, how we perceive victims of DA, what DA actually is etc.

Although I haven't changed my view, I have gained a good insight into opposing views and seen a couple of points that have made me question my perspective, which I think is a sign of good debate.

I'm not really sure why you would have stayed around so long if you think there hasn't been much good debate and its simply a thread full of people fawning over Johnny Depp.

Same mummy

I do look at other stuff but mainly to gauge feelings. Those links I posted, I stumbled across that therapist on YouTube so didn't know her opinion until I started watching. I thought she was really good, fair and was able to explain the dynamics behind the vocal behaviour in the recordings. She wasn't this over the top, hyped..well you know the type of analysis....

I've subscribed to her channel now as it's a really good support group on there. She also covers Britney Spears and her family for example. I'll be watching those ones next.

That isn't the same as saying they have been painted on. You can't just make stuff up and say it as fact. No one at the trial said they were painted on. If you think that then you really need to watch the whole trial again.

The bruises on photos are debated as they can't be verified. Debate is whether they have been edited or not.

There is more debate that some people saw bruises, some didn't. AH says she covered with make up as does her make up artist. Others say she doesn't wear make up. Etc etc.

BUT no one has said they are painted on in this trial. So it is dangerous to make that jump from photos can't be edited, some bruises were/were not seen to she painted them on. Like I said this is exactly how nasty smear campaigns begin.

Yes, I think JD's legal team were making the point that the TRO bruise was faked. They had witness testimony of people confirming AH didn't have a bruise during the 6 days between JD leaving for Europe and AH going to get the TRO with her publicist. They then had the TMZ witness who confirmed that they were tipped off about AH being at the court to get a TRO that day and having a bruise and that she would stop in a certain place so that they could get a good photo of it. They then showed the images of the next day where it looked like there was no bruise when she was out in daylight and with what appeared to be minimal make-up. There was also the letter from AHs lawyer to JD's legal team prior to this threatening a TRO if he didn't let her live in the 3 penthouses and give her a car and something like 47000 dollars a month, which I believe he refused. So, I think JD's legal teams angle during this trial was that she staged the whole TRO thing due to not having her demands met.

I think there has been some, but not a huge amount as I said.

The posts I’ve seen on male victims of da for example, and these may not be representative, have mainly focused on the idea that people don’t believe men can be victims. Which I don’t find to be true.

The case itself is interesting, nonetheless, despite the fawning over Depp which goes with the territory.

I agree , but sarcasm has never travelled well on the internet.

Basically I mean that AH supporters can be nasty and throw offensive terms around and see nothing wrong with it. Just like the person they support.

I think her describing her make up routine for covering bruises testimony and she said "bruise kit" then quickly corrected herself was a massive own goal. Bruise kits have one use only and it's not to cover bruises. Also the cosmetic she did use, and put into evidence as Elaine was showing it to the jury, the company then testified that product wasn't even out in the market at that time.

These inconsistencies, well the cosmetic company proved a lie in fact, point to someone who is potentially using a bruise kit to make bruises and can easily be removed and not covering bruises with a product that didn't even exist at that time.

Because AH was the one to accidentally say "bruise kit" she blew that side of her evidence to me.

I have noticed no particular "fawning over Depp" on this thread.

I came to this case as near neutral as one is likely to be when one neither knows nor cares a damn about either of the parties involved, and while I have no great liking for Depp after listening to his evidence, I wouldn't trust Heard as far as I could fling her, on a bad day, with the wind against me, uphill.

Oh, sorry fripp!

I misunderstood.

Same here, I didn't particularly like or dislike either of them. He wasn't my choice of actor and I had never heard of her.

I'm late to the conversation but from what I've seen, here are my views... (I haven't caught a lot of it mind)...

It seems both are as bad as each other - neither are squeaky clean.

Against Depp

Depp's past indiscretions seem to have been minimised by much of his supporters/the media. He smashed up a hotel room, brawled with paparazzi, allegedly smacked someone on a film set and his drug and alcohol abuse has been widely dismissed or minimised. Does that mean he was guilty of any offenses against Heard? No. But lets not make out this guy is a saint (not saying anyone is BTW). And "that message" saying he wanted to defile her burnt, dead body is hardly "bantz" either. It really shows the kind of individual he is.

He was said to have assaulted Heard on several occasions and his behaviours seem consistent with someone who may be an abuser.

Against Heard

She comes across as aloof, cold and arrogant and despite her best attempts at winning over the jury (and public) she hasn't been able to pull it off. Her approach has often seemed overly rehearsed.

There are some inconsistencies in her stories and this has been a bit issue for her. The make-up issue, accusations of violence against her ex partner, former assistant accused Heard of angry outbursts and spat at her. She also confessed in an audio recording that she had hit him.

But...

We need to remember that just because Heard (seemingly) didn't shed a tear in the stand doesn't mean she is acting or lying. Trauma is an extremely delicate and nuanced concept that is a full body response. Many trauma victims don't "show" emotions accurately; either through having blocked much of the trauma out or by learning that emotional expression = punishment. Unfortunately I suspect her legal team told her she had to "get the tears" and when she wasn't able to produce (probably due to a high pressure situation) it made her look disingenuous.

Also if her BPD diagnosis is to be believed it may well be that she simply isn't able to bring the appropriate emotions to her body language/facial expressions in the moment. This isn't uncommon for people with BPD - often what they feel and what they look like aren't congruent, making people feel ill-at-ease and distrustful.

Depp clearly has gone through the wringer in the relationship and probably has a huge number of issues himself. I do believe he genuinely wanted to escape the fights they engaged in, hence the frequent "running away" when faced with a confrontation. The fact his former wife and Kate Moss have both said he was never aggressive during their lengthy associations further lends credibility to his case. That said, he certainly has continued to control her in terms of bringing the case; he is giving the world the message "f_ with me and you will suffer". It shows the huge level of influence and power he has that people have turned against a woman (which is isn't all that common in these instances).

So...

I haven't watched enough of the trial to comment on the detail though I suspect this was a two way abusive relationship probably fuelled by Depp's drug and alcohol abuse and her emotional intensity. The whole thing sounds incredibly disordered and unhealthy. I won't go into body language stuff as I don't want to bore people though Heard in particular seemed very unusual at times.

Note: all allegations are based on news info! Don't sue me!

Same, I've never been a Depp fan and when all these allegations came out, I just assumed AH was telling the truth. It's only since watching this trial that I have completely changed my mind.

I don't think they intended to say that particular make up was the exact one she was using. It was meant to be an example of what she used. They certainly should have made this clear. I personally didn't think this was a big deal. It was easily and quickly clarified. I didn't see any slip up. For me she was describing how she covers bruises. But its interesting how others do.

Has anyone else read that JD’s legal team has unsuccessfully applied to remove a part of AH’s team’s closing arguments? The bit about asking the jury to consider the message that ruling against her would send to victims of domestic violence? The judge denied it because the jury are already deliberating.

Would the jury be party to this application? Or are they sealed away from everything now?

I so want to believe AH but., similar to a pp , I have also been given a backhanded slap by a man who was wearing a flat signet ring , both my eyes were swollen shut and the bruising was awful. I just can't see how she didn't have much worse bruising if she was punched in the face by JD , especially given the size of rings he wore. Then again, everyone is different, maybe her skin is tougher than mine.