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.

Dunes
I agree on the SA part. Surely they would have asked her first? Guess we will never know.

I think the benefit of it being televised is not only to bring awareness to dynamics of relationships where men are abused by women, but this trial has also highlighted how biased mainstream media is. We know youtube and social media are baised but if you were to read most newspapers, you would only get a fraction of the story and from a skewed perspective. I don't think there is any media any more that just reports news, they can all be bought and PR companies are hard at work. Look at the shift in perspective when Amber changed her PR team - the media about her changed as well. Shifts also seem to happen in response to other news. It seemed as reporting on how negative and critical social media was of Amber grew, mainstream media tried to counter that by being more positive about her.

My perspective shifted greatly from actually listening and watching the trial. Had I just read media sources that confirmed that I had thought, I would probably still think what I thought at the beginning. The ability to be a defacto juror and hear that they hear and think about it all more critically, rather than just accepting information that is fed to you, already having been interpretated and altered to fit a bias, was refreshing. I listened to the entire thing without commentary. Spent a lot of time in the exhibits and listening to the recordings. I still haven't really listened to any commentary. I haver read on four discussion posts on four different forums. Even discussion boards have biases - what comments mods delete and what they keep when a post is reported etc. I absolutely appreciate having been able to read and listen to the actual evidence and form my perspective from that.

In the UK case that was heard privately and the testimony not made public I believe which casts doubt on Kate James saying she'd recognised her story in Ambers testimony. There was definitely more consideration to privacy.
I think it's abhorrent that somehow because Depp is suing for defamation its almost incidental the nature of what she alleges.

In such a high profile case, I think there could have been more sensitivity regarding Amber's testimoney about the sexual abuse, maybe she wanted it to be included, to be broadcast, for her experience to be told but I personally think this section could have been more private, if she wanted that.

She didn't want it to be publicised at all. It was confidential in the UK court case. I can't understand why it couldn't have been in the US (as in the jury alone seeing that testimony). This is why I don't understand why people accuse her of using MeToo; apart from the fact that it wasn't a 'thing' when she got her TRO, MeToo is primarily about sexual abuse or harassment and she always kept that a secret.

It was the title of her OpEd. That is why it was brought into the case. She publicly accused him of sexual assault.

It was her team who decided how much to say about it. She didn't need to go through all the details but both the psychologist and Amber decided to go into detail during the direct examination from their own lawyer.

If you are going to publicly accuse someone of raping you via media - you are going to have to expect the person won't just accept they are a rapist because you call them one. If someone goes to court, the accused has a right to an investigation and trial. In media, you can just throw out anything you want - you can't expect no repercussions or response to that. And she timed it to promote her movie so I don't have a lot of sympathy on that. When you use an allegation of a sexual assault as a way to get attention to promote your movie, it isn't something that you are trying to keep quiet.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html

I feel the oped is ambiguous on sexual violence specifically - it refers to events before meeting JD.

#MenToo proponents claim that crime has no gender – which is true in the abstract, but illogical when it comes to sexual violence. It’s like responding #AllLivesMatter in response to the #BlackLivesMatter movement in America. Yes, all lives matter… there’s no dispute there. But this simplification utterly glosses over the unique racial violence that black people in the US face. The systemic oppression. Violence because they are black. The #MeTooIndia movement is similar. What it attempted to do was expose deep-rooted misogyny and violence against women that have endured for as long as we can remember. The extensive, systemic oppression and disenfranchisement, the violence that we have endured because we are women.

Extract from FeminisminIndia

The sexual assault part of the claim comes from AH retweeting the online version of the op-ed which refers to sexual violence in the headline.

@Greyhop I'm sorry but I completely disagree with that comparison. People often used #AllLivesMatter to undermine the #BlackLivesMatter movement. That is not what is happening here, #Mentoo is not specifically referring to SA and is about recognising that whilst women do disproportionately experience DA, men can also be victims, and their experiences should not be ignored, mocked or disregarded.

I'm a bit late to the party but have been watching most of the trial.
Did they bring in the woman that JD grabbed the wrist of and said he could break it, to testify ?
I feel JD and AH are troubled and worry about both of their reactions if they lose.

No, they had the owner of the trailer park I think? But not the guest.

Can you source where #Mentoo recognises that women disproportionally experience DV? Statements etc?

For anyone who has been watching the trial and seen the evidence presented by the plaintiff cannot deny that he has been on the receiving end of many of these behaviours:

www.mankind.org.uk/help-for-victims/types-of-domestic-abuse/

Someone upthread mentioned The Behaviour Panel who analyse body language. I watch these guys too and they don't seem very good when it comes to abuse- they got Gabby Petito wrong.

"Can you source where #Mentoo recognises that women disproportionally experience DV? Statements etc?"

You wont. Well I couldn't yet.

Now I've just seen a hashtag #notallwomen. 🙄

#mentoo is too close to #metoo as they are different in that proportion matters (like #BLM and #ALM)

Personally I'd ban bloody hashtags and start again. It's all turned to blurry shit now.

Is #mentoo an actual official movement though? I'd keep that and change the MeToo specifically for women only to something else as it's now tainted, and collaborate with menToo.

Yes. This was the headline for the online version. AH shared this on her social media with a few words of her own introducing it.

If you are going to publicly accuse someone of raping you via media - you are going to have to expect the person won't just accept they are a rapist because you call them one. If someone goes to court, the accused has a right to an investigation and trial. In media, you can just throw out anything you want - you can't expect no repercussions or response to that. And she timed it to promote her movie so I don't have a lot of sympathy on that. When you use an allegation of a sexual assault as a way to get attention to promote your movie, it isn't something that you are trying to keep quiet.

Right, since I know you're a stickler about being fair, I assume you can point to the bit of the op-ed where she accuses Johnny of rape?

That will be the title of the Op-ed.

Now she could have taken to the stand and recounted another SA with a different perpetrator, and stated this is what she was referring to in the title.

But no, her SA allegation and testimony is against JD and the legal argument is then, that the title must be in reference to JD.

Then AH got on the stand on the last day and said something along the lines "this is why I wrote about him in my article, because people will come out to defend him....."

She wrote the op-ed about him, in the original drafts given to ACLU he was physically named apparently.

With regards to the privacy matter and her not testifying such private things. If her team had never asked her, JD's team wouldn't have been able to, and it would be "objection, beyond the scope" but AH and her Team would have discussed talking about it and she has agreed to.

@Brazooka Sorry, I've been feeding the kids. I read a blog article about it a few days back, but have searched and can't find that particular one. #MenToo is not yet an academically researched movement, like #MeToo is, so I doubt any academic sources exist if that is what you are looking for. Obviously, there are also different #mentoo movements or variations such as #mentoo that relates to mental health, #mentoo that originated in India and is more about false accusations #mentoo that relates to sexual harassment and the #mentoo that has taken off recently and relates to male victims of DA. I have found the following articles, which give a general understanding of the current #mentoo DA movement (I don't think the second one is quite so relevant as I'm not sure it relates to the current #mentoo trend but it covers some interesting research). However, if you are looking for academic sources, then I very much doubt they exist at the moment, as this is something than has only recently taken off.

fionadodwell.medium.com/mentoo-unravelling-the-myths-around-domestic-abuse-towards-men-93eb3fb04224

www.makindixon.co.uk/2019/mentoo-government-pledges-support-for-male-victims-of-domestic-abuse%EF%BB%BF/

Can't wait for the results of this trial!

@Brazooka and I would say that the current trending #mentoo relating is not yet an official movement but rather something that is trending on SM.

That makes sense objection.

I'm seeing a lot of mutual support from both sides on the #mentoo hashtags (so far!) with generally acknowledging this does happen but not all women are bad and having a tidal wave of misogyny to battle.

The worst are the AH supporters in my experience. They absolutely wont accept any argument. In fact a lot turn the commenting feature off after posting what they want to say.

I think by JD speaking out, ugly warts and all, which mostly likely means he won't win, has presented a mutual opportunity for two groups each with unique elements to use this positively.

But no, her SA allegation and testimony is against JD and the legal argument is then, that the title must be in reference to JD.

Except she didn't write the title, and the only reference to sexual violence in the article itself was when she said that like many women she had experienced sexual harassment and assault by the time she reached college age.

So your argument is that because she then testified to the rape, that must be retrospectively applied to the article, despite the fact that she had kept it entirely confidential up to that point?

I think by JD speaking out, ugly warts and all, which mostly likely means he won't win, has presented a mutual opportunity for two groups each with unique elements to use this positively.

What he's done is made it more difficult for anyone to speak out for fear of a defamation case. That is actually already happening by the way - Marilyn Manson is planning to sue Evan Rachel Wood.