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.

Imagine if they'd televised the Gillaine Maxwell trial about child trafficking instead and we were all talking about that.

I think the most telling thing is that:

Our decent UK press are not siding with JD.

The JD supporters in the thread are regurgitating tik tok, youtube, Twitter and gutter press fodder.

The decent UK papers contain many, many opinion pieces on how shocking this trial is - the blatant misogyny, the sickening memes etc on social media.

Because our decent UK newspaper are not in support of JD, I’m sure he will lose.

When he does lose, my goodness - there are some posters here who need to really question their morals and values.

Thank you for keeping this conversation going, Enoeuf. It's really appreciated. 👍

@Greyhop Apart from MN I’m not really on SM and I have read several MSM articles that have quoted or stated as fact something that quite clearly wasn’t what was said in court so I would never take that as gospel. MSM have been shocking over the last few years with their bias.

I have been watching the trial, looking at the evidence presented, listening to the witness statements and making my mind up for myself and draw my conclusion from that. Of course this may be a different view to that of the Jury but it’s my view nonetheless and is based on the trial itself not second hand reporting.

Grey

You lost me at decent UK press

I haven't read any major press outlets or watched news channels about this.

I have watched the trial, every minute. Watched behavioural expert views, read pro Amber articles, listened carefully to all voice recordings where possible. I scroll past anything with "i stepped on a bee" (anything like that drives me nuts and involves no critical analysis)

JD and AH are far from perfect. Toxic relationship and it's not about defamation, it's about telling his side. After AH controlling the narrative for 6 years and not being truthful, sailing high as an ambassador of DV victims, now the evidence (or lack of imo) can be viewed and analysed, she's pissed a lot of people off.

She needs mental health intervention for the sake of her child who is the most important in this, as are his children.

On Twitter there are many women attacking other survivors who don't not believe AH. They absolutely won't concede on anything as they will not believe men can be victims too. They abuse women survivors claiming they are gaslighting them and are liars. That's not MeToo nor feminism. I then see men come on and stand up for these survivors so I believe AH has pushed the MeToo movement into now looking like a toxic cult where simple common sense and an ability to see both sides has been lost.

I’m glad this is nearly over

it’s become such a circus it’s awful what is being discussed is domestic violence

regardless of who you feel is being truthful or who you feel is the victim or more of the victim no one can really support how this has played out on sm and in media in general. I do believe we shall look back at this and realise how wrong it is

we did with the OJ Simpson case

Quote from the last thread:

when she says the jury need to 'Believe all of it it or believe none of it' I'd have to go with the latter.

A very, very clever ruse. Of course it's not as black-and-white as that. Clearly the claims on both sides have some basis in truth. A lot of them have likely been embellished and exaggerated. But an all-or-nothing, 100% or 0% approach is not what the jury has to work with. They have a series of shades of grey, of nuances, of complexities, of situations where two people can be abusers at the same time, can be victims at the same time, and also to varying degrees have something of a problematic relationship with the truth.

Vasquez is a highly intelligent lawyer. She knows all of this fine well. But if she can convince the jury otherwise, if they take to heart her suggestion that it's believe all or believe nothing, she'll have played an absolute blinder.

@Greyhop I think for many people who have actually watched this trial, it is clear that our 'decent' UK media has been incredibly bias in its reporting of this case. I follow the Independent on Facebook and have been shocked by their blatant slanted reporting of this case. The problem for them is that people can watch this trial for themselves and make their own minds up, and judging by the comments on their posts, most people disagree with the narrative they are attempting (and failing) to push.

I am sick of people labelling anyone who doubts AHs credibility and version of events as mysogynistic. I think there is actually an element of mysogyny in unconditionally painting the woman as the poor, weak, defenseless victim and the man as the powerful aggressor.

I certainly won't be questioning my morals or values after this case, regardless of the outcome. My interest started impartially and as a fan of neither, but the evidence, credibility of testimony and my own eyes, ears and critical thought, have led me to conclude that whilst JD is far from perfect, AH has lied, manipulated and shown herself to be an aggressor and an abuser.

Thank you for saving me a bucket load of typing! Totally agree with you. I started off indifferent and have, against what I expected, come to see this as one of the worst cases of collective gaslighting ever by the so called 'respectable' media in this country. I am a DV survivor myself.

The UK press are not decent, the UK press are pushing a narrative. They are sticking with their buddies at The Sun, in an attempt to have a united front, as to not loose face.

I've watched the majority of this trial live, or caught up due to being in work.

AH has either blatantly lied, or massively exaggerated incidents. Both to me mean she isn't a credible witness.

You know had she stood on that stand and said, he threw a phone at me once. He grabbed my hair, and sometimes was the first to hit or punch me during an argument, I was left with red marks, and bruises I'd have 100% believed her.

But what she is reporting and the evidence don't match, and then this internal doubt for me, well is she just making it all up, and then you end up in some sort of torn internal mental gymnastics.

For me I go by beyond reasonable doubt, and right now I can't say I believe past reasonable doubt that he was sexually violent, which was the headline if her op-ed.

Has she labelled a man a rapist, who is not one. That is cruel and unforgivable in my mind.

I am obviously happy for others to disagree with me, I mean not every jury reaches a unanimous decision and that's just the way it goes.

A take to consider regarding JD in text the next day following the finger injury in Australia. I have lied about my injuries in the past to to protect him, especially prison.

I cannot believe he would cut his own finger off, sorry but that's ludicrous.

My take is that JD was on some level abusive. I think AH has then tried to embellish it to even worse. Reality is she never needed to make it sound worse, what actually happened would have been bad enough. However, by clearly embellishing I think she's been caught up and now everything she has said is unreliable. I do not believe he sexually assaulted her with a bottle. I also don't believe the incidents were quite as violent as she said, ie she's said he did x and y but he actually did z. Z was bad enough but by saying he did x and y rather than focusing on what he did do, she's been caught out and lost credibility.

I also think AH was a perpetrator of DV too. There's no doubt about that in my mind either. There's a difference between retaliating/self protection and antagonising and goading and hitting unprovoked too.

It was utterly toxic and a match made in hell.

As a DV victim myself I wouldn't want her representing my voice.

I hope AH has a good support network around her as she will be hugely vulnerable.

And AUS take it very seriously:

nswcourts.com.au/articles/how-does-the-criminal-law-deal-with-glassing-case-study-at-woy-woy-courthouse/

I've also send texts to my friends saying I was to blame because I couldn't face leaving at that time and they knew what was going on. He actually made be believe it too and I apologised. I also recognise backing down to stop the escalation. Didn't always work.

Greyhop
The decent UK papers contain many, many opinion pieces on how shocking this trial is - the blatant misogyny, the sickening memes etc on social media.

The key words are "opinion piece" and very few of them talk about the evidence because there is so little of it.

And as I posted on the other thread its interesting that this is happening now that she has a different PR team.

This just like tiktok etc. it is just about trying to control the narrative.

‘I cannot believe he would cut his own finger off, sorry but that's ludicrous’

In the context of serious drug and alcohol addiction it’s not ludicrous at all.

The Guardian is often cited as UK’s most trusted newspaper. Please find me one opinion piece that broadly advocates what you are saying or in support of Depp.

You won’t find one and there is a reason for that.

Brazooka a musician with his guitar playing hand though? He's been abusing drugs and alcohol for years, plus the telephone recordings of his dr and AH in the background whilst trying to find his finger.

He was protecting her. Glassing in Australia has very serious consequences and she was his wife.

These threads have been going for 6 weeks and I'm seeing a lot of new posters now appearing who haven't watched the trial, and accuse people who don't believe AH of fancying JD.

I always think that accusations reflect people's own standards. Anyone who comes on wildly accusing PP's opinions of being invalid, when in fact they don't know the first thing about why or how they formed them, are just betraying their own inability to form their own well-thought-out opinions. And then hilariously believe theirs is the right one!

The judge told them to go into the jury room with an open mind and not to declare their own verdict straight away. I guess this helps to avoid a hung jury where people start off with an opinion and refuse to review it.

There are 3 counts and they only have to find for JD on one of them for him to win the case and be awarded damages.

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/22/metoo-is-over-if-we-dont-listen-to-imperfect-victims-like-amber-heard

amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/16/amber-heard-haters-domestic-violence-victims-tiktokers-tweeters-johnny-depp

The guardian is not trusted anymore. Remember that time they had to apologise for deliberately failing to report the mass sexual assaults on women in Cologne? They didn’t report it because it didn’t fit their narrative. That really opened my eyes up. Since then, I have realised that that is what the so called respected British media do all the time.

Now they are failing to report all the evidence that has been produced about Amber. Again because it doesn’t fit the narrative they are trying to portray.

Grey

I've read that too link. MeToo is over because of that headline they tried to push. No one's perfect and playing to peoples imperfections didn't work as the trial was out there for everyone to form their own opinions. There are far too many survivors who can see right through this.

Interestingly after closing statements, their last article was far more balanced. After all they need their subscribers

I believe the count they will award him on relates to the title.

Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.

They (AH and Team) have not been able to prove sexual violence, the Hicksville testimony of the trashed trailor that she was pulled through glass, has completely shut down that claim and made her testimony of the events not credible.

@mummyrocks1 I think the images of AHs injuries after this headbutt incident, along with AHs make-up artists testimony are more consistent with JDs version of events I.e. an accidental headbutt. I think if he had violently and forcefully attacked her, as she described, her injuries would have been more prominent and her make-up artist, who saw her with no make-up the next day, would not have described light bruising.

However, let's just say he did deliberately lash out on this occasion. This was in Dec 2015 I believe, toward the end of their relationship. We have heard several recordings where it has become clear that AH would refuse to let him escape from her abuse, would insist he stay in an argument and would chase after him if he tried to remove himself from the situation. So, controversially, I would argue that lashing out at her does not automatically make him an abuser, because if the roles were reversed and JD was forcing AH to remain in an abusive situation and she lashed out at him, we'd be screaming self defence, or, at the very least, reactive abuse.