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.

The same can be said of Amber. The evidence points to the fact she was physically assaulted at least twice. Plus there is evidence of emotional and verbal abuse as well as control.

"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"

I'm not up to speed on that case at all other than headlines. I'll take a look.

I was referring to ordinary people, ones I'm coming across on SM who are now telling their story. Just saying it out loud and finding support because of this case both men and women.

Except she tweeted and republished the article, specifically the title taking full pride in her article.

This was the argument placed by JD's team. And there's been much speculation on who wrote what, the story has changed so many times.

I'm wondering if like many Aspiring you have concentrated more on the DA aspect than the actual legalities of the cases? Many people have, and they have skipped past or taken no interest in the "boring legal stuff" and have preferred to watch the "bomb shell moments"

Oh I did read a comment piece from a barrister saying the threat of defamation trials is already a thing for DA victims speaking out. I'll try and find it, it was interesting.

That doesn’t say much for the critical thinking ability of your typical Guardian reader.

As there is of JD from AH. That works both ways. But no, boo boo for poor Amber. Poor Amber, my arse. 🙄

I'm wondering if like many Aspiring you have concentrated more on the DA aspect than the actual legalities of the cases? Many people have, and they have skipped past or taken no interest in the "boring legal stuff" and have preferred to watch the "bomb shell moments"

LOL yes I've managed to grasp the legalities of the case and yes I've heard the arguments made by Depp's team. Defamation has always been a long shot for Depp based on that article. We'll see what the jury decides.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/amber-heard-johnny-depp-fans-memes-reddit-b2088740.html?amp

This one, apologies if already discussed.

On balance, I think it's become extremely muddy with aggressive PR from both sides, and an accepted narrative that's really hard to challenge, plus some sound bites from Depp's team (Amber turd). I don't think anyone who didn't watch most of the trial could claim any understanding on which to base an opinion to be honest. There's so much out on Twitter and TikTok etc claiming theories and beliefs as facts.

I think he should lose. I know that's really unpopular on here but I just don't think him winning will be a victory for justice, no matter my views on Amber's honesty. I think it was toxic, I think she could have behaved differently, I think her writing the op ed was a mistake.

Ah right ok, my apologies.

I'm finding some people aren't understanding what the case is actually about.

But I stand corrected now that I know your stance.

I do believe the jury could possibly award one count as a yes, regarding the title. But like you say we will just have to say what the jury decide.

En they both should lose and be award a dollar each. The defamation isn't what this is really about.

I know that you believe it's about him sharing his version with the world, and I can see that view point (via the defamation trial). I just feel there's something more sinister and akin to the global humiliation texts.

If she didn’t want it publicized then writing a prominent article in a major newspaper about it was an unusual approach.

Is that what you do with things when you want to keep them private?

I do believe the jury could possibly award one count as a yes, regarding the title. But like you say we will just have to say what the jury decide.

It's possible. But I think Ben Rottenborn's closing statement about free speech was very strong. Americans like free speech, and I can't see the jury opening this up to future abusers to continue menacing their victims through the courts. I say that regardless of the facts of this case; I think it would be a disaster for victims. Few would have anything like the evidence Amber has. Such is the nature of domestic abuse.

If she didn’t want it publicized then writing a prominent article in a major newspaper about it was an unusual approach.

She wrote about being raped with a bottle, did she?

I am in agreement with you. I think coming in JD's team knew this was a long shot for a win, that all their client wanted was a platform to expose the truth. The toxicity of this relationship, and it was not as one sided as was being portrayed.

And yes I agree writing the op-ed was a massive mistake, but now win or loose she will have to live with that mistake. And I do believe that her public lynching on SM is unfair, and nobody deserves death threats and a barrage of continual abuse. Like she said, she is human after all, and even if she has said the odd lie, and wrote a shaky op-ed, I don't believe it warrants the abuse it's getting, and this where mysoginistic attitudes are at play. The reaction to her by society.

Let's look at Dan Wootton, personally can't stand the man. His attacks on Meghan Markle, his wife beater story about JD. But there's no public lynching for him...for him. No social Media storm, he's as bad if not worse in my opinion but his male privilege protects him from the witch hunt.

So because of this she can't be a victim of domestic abuse herself? Do you not think relationships can be mutually abusive? Are you either abusive and the other one innocent? I don't think it's a clear as that.

I think you need to look into his background on violence and assaults. You ll find it's much longer and more frequent than hers.

I have to say that I haven't seen any compelling evidence that JD abused AH in the way she insinuates in her article or during the trial. However, I think the evidence of her abuse is rather damning. I can't help thinking that if this evidence were reversed, this thread wouldn't even exist. I don't think anyone would be debating JD's culpability if he was recorded admitting to hitting AH, refusing to let her escape abusive situations and taunting her that no one would believe her if she spoke up about being a victim of DA. I doubt there would be any question about his guilt if the owner of the trailer park came forward and testified under oath that he saw AH cowering from JDs abuse or if witnesses testified to say they had seen him throwing heavy objects at her. I think there would be very few people defending him if a reliable witness testified she had seen him being physically abusive to a previous partner, if someone spoke out about his sister committing perjury for him, if someone testified that he admitted to defecating on her side of the bed, or if one of his previous staff testified that he'd been verbally abusive and spat at her. It would be case closed for all but a few die hard JD fans.

"So because of this she can't be a victim of domestic abuse herself? Do you not think relationships can be mutually abusive? Are you either abusive and the other one innocent? I don't think it's a clear as that"

I think that was JDs point in bringing this case. I've said multiple times the relationship was toxic but she's said it was all him, she's taken no accountability for her actions and he lost his career over it.

I'm sure those texts he sent are correct but using AHs lawyers closing defence, americas free speech amendment. Can't have it both ways

Reactive abuse is still abuse. I don't think it's probable that all the times she was abusive to him we are meant to believe he did not react and did not fight back. Knowing the man he is.

I generally agree with you about the injuries. I read a very interesting article which stated that with a headbutt you often see the injuries around the eyes rather than on the forehead or nose which is consistent with her injuries. He doesn't have to had done it hard for it to be none accidental. In the audiotape she says I can't believe you did that. It's reasonable to think that if he was having to defend himself she would expect some sort of fight back from him. It wouldn't be a surprise.

She was the one who decided on the global humiliation route with the TRO performance....followed by all the leaked photos and recordings and all the articles and stories and speeches.

He did basically nothing in response for over 2 years while she trashed him on the global stage.

I just don't understand the view that he is the who who initiated this out of a need to humiliate her. Maybe you think he should have never spoken up. That he has no right to any voice or say in any of this. I disagree.

"Reactive abuse is still abuse"

Yes it is. It is different though. Better to leave or walk away but it's never that easy.

Yes agreed. He's telling his side. But at the same time he is taking her to court for false claims of sexual and domestic abuse. Therefore, he is claiming as he said right at the beginning of the trial he has never hit and women. These claims are all completely false. But that's not true is it? She may have been abusive to him but he was also abusive to her too. Full stop. He can't claim her claims are false.

You seem to think because she lies and was abusive to him he can't have been to her. I disagree with this. It can and does work both ways.

Very true. But therefore he can't claim like he's trying to that her claims in the article are false.

No one is saying she wasn't abusive too. No one is saying she is perfect. And if he chose to take her to court for abuse he would likely win.

But this case isn't about that. She probably has done all those things. But that doesn't make what he has done to her any less. He is the one saying he has done nothing, he's never hit her, her claims are false. This simply isn't true.

She is not saying she didn't do these things. But at first that is exactly what she seemed to say, it was all him not me. She has been crucified for that.

Now he has said it wasn't me at all, it's all her. That also isn't true so rightly he should be crucified for it too but he isn't. Not like she was anyway.

Btw- I think he has ruined his career too.

Mummy I do believe he reacted. I would and have to being taunted like that. Not every time, mind.

I don't think he will win based on what the legal case is about and I don't think he think he will either. He's put his side across, it's ugly but it's out there for the public to make their own mind up