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.

I can't understand the notion that if JD hit AH even once, she is then reasonably able to write an op-ed and stand up in court and allege severe systematic physical and sexual abuse. Surely the extent of the claims has to match the extent of the abuse?

In 2021 Guardian was second most trusted, Financial Times was top.

Trusted by who grey?

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.

Exactly, there is a doubling down going on in MSM which is very obvious to anyone actually watching the trial. Most people realise that there are two sides to every story, the media have taken it upon themselves to control what side we should hear and who to believe. That doesn't work for me.

Statistica.

Guardian is consistently rated as one of the most trusted news sources.

With Sun/Daily Mail/Social media as least reliable.

So there is a direct correlation.

The least trustworthy/least moral news sources in favour of JD.

The most trustworthy news sources with opinion pieces NOT in support of JD.

Hahaha! That may well be the case, but it doesn't mean they're trustworthy. We cancelled our subscription to the Guardian after they showed us that they really do not demonstrate the independent journalism they seem to be so proud of. Anyone who believes the Guardian are independent needs to review that belief.

Interesting, I saw a thread on Reddit talking about how terribly biased the mainstream media have been when reporting on this case. Younger people are seeing right through it.

The sun called him a wife-beater and they are the most untrusted by your statistics, so it's fair then for us not to believe the sun that he is a wife-beater . 🤷🏻‍♀️

I've abandoned the Guardian; more accurately, the Guardian has abandoned me. Their current narrative on women is appalling: misogynistic and sometimes bordering on hateful, not only in their editorials but also in the way they treat their staff. It's hardly surprising when they employ hate-filled staff of Owen Jones's ilk. This was compounded when Suzanne Moore was all-but forced out of her journalist's post because it had become untenable.

Clearly the UK newspapers will close ranks behind the Sun. Wootton is now working for the Mail I believe.

But to come back to 'The Narrative'. #MeToo is not the subject of this trial. It's about two individuals and the evidence. I'm not sure why not blowing vuvuzelas and chanting #TeamJohnny (ugh) from the rooftops is being deemed a refusal to believe women can be guilty of abuse. Who is actually claiming this? I've seen no one. It seems to be one of those convenient straw-men used to shut dissenters down, and it derives from a lazy form of thinking that refuses to engage with the slightest nuance and turns situations such as these into a completely polarized debate. Not that you can call it debate. Critical thinking is pretty much absent, and as far as this case at least is concerned there have been so many diversion tactics and so much obfuscation that anyone could find confirmation bias amid at least some of the evidence presented. Maybe this is what comes of squashing down the finer detail into 280-character tweets and shouting them into an echo chamber.

It's hard to divorce this situation - not necessarily the court case but all the hot air, SM and MSM discussion surrounding it, from the current incendiary climate surrounding sex and gender. A top hashtag on this very issue has, until very recently, been #NoDebate.

Go figure.

I thought they were divorced already? If not then who is the baby's father? I really must catch up. Quite honestly nobody wins here - the court cases and muck raking are so awful that neither of them look good.
I personally wouldn't go out with an alcoholic druggie. This surely must be the most toxic coupling in years. I think Amber is getting the worst of it though because all of the women get silly over actors, a bit like the stupid idiot who is marrying Levi Bellfield.

And Amanda de cadenet who steadfastly supported her, through the uk trial and was going to testify in this one, heard the voice tapes and backed away very quickly saying AH had misled her. She's a prominent MeToo activist.

I'll take her word I think. Also, what WASNT shown in the uk trial then???

The idea that they just have to find one incident of abuse and he loses is actually not what the claim is about. You can read the jury instructions. It is about 3 specific statements.

People keep reierating that but it doesn't come from fact!

We all oppose violence against women, until the perpetrator is someone we know and like.

She comes across as a liar and an abuser, not just hitting him but hitting and spitting on other people too, I dont think she should be a dv representative. She has lost all credibility and her lawyers were dreadful they had no evidence to back up her allegations. I dont understand why either of them are suing the other for such large sums because she doesnt have 50m if he wins but her divorce settlement should be paid to the 2 hospitals, has that money just been sitting in her bank for a year.

BlanketsBanned she explained about the payment plan.

I think he didn't mean to cause such injury and I didn't realise it wasn't a straight across the top amputation. In the australia tapes they say he had paint in it. I think he cut it to draw blood and miscalculated. That's my best guess based on what I've seen and read and what I've seen people do when high/extremely drunk (admittedly not middle aged people but I'm assuming that doesn't make a difference).

The idea that they just have to find one incident of abuse and he loses is actually not what the claim is about.

Neither is the idea that you believe everything Amber claimed or you believe nothing.

She has an arrest for domestic violence

She has been violent herself repeatedly in this relationship

She has treated other people poorly.

She has lied, been spiteful, and vindictive

She should never have been nor should she ever be a representative of domstic violence.

The bone was crushed - it wasn't just a cut injury. The medical documentation from the hospital reported it as a crush injury due to the state of the bone.

The second jury instruction was to examine the credibility of the witness and testimonies
.
If someone lies about 5 things, how do you know the other 3 are true? Once credibility is gone, the truth becomes impossible to find.

Exactly. The Sun sensationalises - which is why I’d put more trust in Guardian/Independent/BBC. The Sun would have run with the wife beater headline for gossip, for readers - and similarly sensationalism now in favour of JD. You’d get neither such articles in our more trustworthy press.

But if you are trying to argue that your social media Tik Tok/YouTube/DM/Sun etc type sources are the most reliable sources, and these are fuelling your opinion now of JD - then, well…ok….

And then from a feminist news source:

www.refinery29.com/amp/en-gb/2022/05/10976231/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial

Again - not in support of JD.

Grey. Why don't you do your own research instead of relying on the guardian? Many on here have pointed out other things, including experience and you ignore it.

You say TT/YT etc as if there's not one channel or user on there with any experience, intelligence or critical thinking, like we are all thick and must believe what you say just because.

I don't believe you. My opinion is you can't see the wood for the trees and you never will. That's your prerogative and why I am very happy it was televised. I like to form my own opinions.

That article was dated 16 May grey. Much has come out since then