To be concerned that the Depp/Heard trial has put off genuine DV victims from coming forward?

[PetraBP]

The Depp/Heard trial was troubling to me.

On the one hand, people do sometimes make false allegations, especially after relationship breakups.

On the other hand, dragging someone to court for alleging domestic violence might deter some women from reporting it.

Assuming the court got it right and Depp was not a perpetrator, how could he have handled the situation so that it would not put domestic violence victims off coming forward for fear of being sued?

Worrying all round.

Okay. Does the fact that Depp is on record saying that he hit the location manager on City of Lies (Gregg Brook) change your opinion that Brook is a "complete chancer who hopped on the back of Heard"?

Really

so even though Depp has said that he hit the man you will not believe Depp or Gregg til its been proved in court

not gonna lie mate…thats a weird stance

id agree if depp was denying it…but he isn’t

But if it's proven he verbally abused a homeless black woman which led to the altercation and the witness statements are all credible then....

I do believe he's jumped on what he thought was a money train, yes. If you're assaulted go to the police, take him to court. Not wait 2 years first. Highly suspect.

But if I'm wrong I will admit it.

So looks like this isn't going to end anytime soon. Can anyone tell me in crayons what the "under seal" means?

twitter.com/ellisgreg/status/1536433518519140354?s=21&t=R8somIt2Psrn3Voj3e5dLw

But if it's proven he verbally abused a homeless black woman which led to the altercation and the witness statements are all credible then....

who verbally abused? Gregg?

but that doesn’t matter

gregg says depp hit him

depp said he hit gregg

but you are saying you won’t believe gregg (and therefore depp…which is the bit I don’t get) til its proved in a court of law

Rufus

Yes Gregg, sorry I wasn't clear.

I've read one of the witness testimonies which details it in there so based my opinion on that.

"but that doesn’t matter"

I think it does. He verbally abused a vulnerable woman.

I think it does. He verbally abused a vulnerable woman

but depp still hit him

you said you wouldn’t believe gregg unless it was proved in a court of law even though depp has ‘confessed’

depp may well have felt he had a very good reason for doing it….but he still did it

This woman is one who has put a testimony in, under oath.

Can you appreciate at least that this is not what you said to start with

what you said is what i am commenting on

and im honestly not trying to have a pop at you 😀 its just i was confused by your initial comments

Oh I know you're not Rufus. I'm enjoying the debate!

By the way the snapshot from the GQ article, I think aspiring posted, have since posted a retraction

I've gone looking now haven't I 😂 also Gregg wanted JD to settle out of court but Depp said no, it's going all the way.

Oh I know you're not Rufus. I'm enjoying the debate

oh good 😀

im a wee bit dog with a bone sometimes…at least til ive understood what’s happening 😀

i wonder why its been retracted….sometimes i think celebs say something and their PR team are sat there going 😳

I don't know exactly. It says evidence for the appeal - would this be evidence that was excluded from the trial? Otherwise it would already be public knowledge.

Not sure why they want it kept under wraps - maybe to prevent another swathe of YouTube videos and hashtags. I don't blame them for wanting to avoid adding more fuel to the fire at this stage.

I really don't think any court proceedings should be filmed. The more I think about it the more it seems almost medieval. Obviously transparency is important but that can be achieved through transcripts, court reporters and the public gallery.

I've found the answer to the "sealed" question!

Not all of the evidence available was used in court, time restrictions etc. new evidence definitely can't enter, so effectively she's trying to stop the evidence used against her in the trial from being used publicly, including the ones we've all seen and heard.

So is she trying to censor it going forward. Like, if a YouTube channel uses it it will get pulled for legal reasons?

Dunno

sounds interesting though and would make sense whether she was ‘guilty’ or not

Just started watching this. May provide more detail:

Not all of the evidence available was used in court, time restrictions etc. new evidence definitely can't enter, so effectively she's trying to stop the evidence used against her in the trial from being used publicly, including the ones we've all seen and heard.

I'm not sure I understand.

Ugh, fake subtitle guy. He's so sketchy. He's the one Adam Waldman admitted being in contact with.

Oh I know 😂 but a good explanation to what it means.

So, I think most were surprised at the verdict. I was. I thought the jury wouldn't find for either of them as defamation is so hard to prove, especially with malice.

But, the jury had all of the evidence, depositions in full, audios, etc so is that why the verdict was so much in JDs favour? I want to know what else there was! (Dons tin foil hat)

What the fudge?

Ok, seriously, this was not a good PR move for Amber doing this interview. I think someone needs to intervene on her behalf.

The full interview is an hour. They'll be saving the most explosive stuff. I'm no fan of Amber but this smells like a set up.

twitter.com/todayshow/status/1536677940213297155?s=21&t=8CkGkcPQ9ZEwzMXfw8B5Fw

In a sense she's right, in that some of the criticisms have been quite paradoxical. She was acting, she can't act, she faked the bruises, the bruises aren't bad enough. But I don't think an interview at this stage is a great idea.

@Aspiringmatriarch

Agree. It's like watching a car crash in slow motion.

I understand what she was trying to get across. It's how she's doing it, it feels.....I don't know, can't put my finger on it.

I actually am feeling a bit sorry for her. (I know! I know!) not because I agree with her but she's obviously not well, is she?

When you say fake subtitle guy, are you saying his subtitles to audio recordings don’t match the conversation? If so, I have wondered this in one of his videos. The Australian video he put up where you can faintly hear Amber talking in the background he puts the subtitles as her saying ‘I didn’t mean to do it’. Yet it’s impossible to hear what she said so I felt he was claiming something she said when it’s impossible to say.

i think the verdict was the right one but I don’t like manipulation. Stick to the facts.

If so, I have wondered this in one of his videos. The Australian video he put up where you can faintly hear Amber talking in the background he puts the subtitles as her saying ‘I didn’t mean to do it’. Yet it’s impossible to hear what she said so I felt he was claiming something she said when it’s impossible to say.

That's exactly the one I was thinking of. I think it's Umbrella Guy but there's another YouTuber it could have been. I noticed it in one place and then went back and there were several places where speech was inaudible or very muffled/distorted and the subtitles were always Amber saying something 'incriminating', or others about her.

Very clever actually. Once you've read something you're primed to 'hear' it.

Yes it is umbrella guy. The one Elaine mentioned in the trial!

Emily Baker is good though.