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.

madasawethen · Today 06:32

The entire trial was a circus. Depp's attorneys would want the entire thing publicized as Depp is a popular charismatic actor.

No, they wanted it televised as they knew that if people saw Amber in action they'd see what a liar she is and she would destroy herself in public. They were right. That's exactly what she did and the vast majority of people saw how vile she is and what a very bad liar.

The difference between the Uk trial and the US is mostly that a judge ruled the case in the Uk and a jury of 7 regular people made the ruling in the US case.

No, there are major differences between the two trials. For a start Amber wasn't a defendant in the UK and wasn't subject to the same level of disclosure. She wasn't challenged on her lies as she should have been.

The jury wasn't sequestered so they were free to surf the web and read all the trial gossip. Juries are biased, incompetent, and unpredictable.

Way to go to try to undermine the jury system and defame the jurors just because the didn't agree with your ludicrously biased position. There's no evidence the jury looked at social media or were influenced by it even if they did.

Judges can also be biased, incompetent and unpredictable as the UK judge appears to have been. He might very well have been corrupt too given his son worked alongside Dan Wootton and for a company owned by the man who also owns the Sun. It's also good to remember that in the UK the most serious cases are tried by a jury and not a judge.

There was no way Depp would ever lose a jury trial in the US.

Nonsense. He had a much harder job to win. He did so because Amber was a disaster on the stand and her lies sunk her.

Ok I feel more so now that the interview is a set up, by the TV network.

AH gave them her therapists notes and they've dripped some out to media before tonight's show and this is the result: not so much the initial tweet but the comments:

https://twitter.com/anelff_pirate/status/1537565808150384647?s=21&t=yrKSPqLaEDVsEQARaO5jcg

I'm not a therapist but this isn't how it's done, is it?

Aspiringmatriarch · Today 08:11

So you're using her denials as evidence she doesn't take responsibility?

Yes. She hasn't taken responsibility for what she's done. She's just doubled down on her lies

She has stated in multiple ways that she's done and said things she isn't proud of. You seem to want her to take responsibility for everything else as well.

I want her to take responsibility for her lies and her violence.

And no, she hasn't tried to act the poor innocent victim. She's always been quite outspoken and spiky. This was the joint statement they released during the divorce:

"Our relationship was intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love. Neither party has made false accusations for financial gain. There was never any intent of physical or emotional harm."

'Outspoken and spiky' translates as a compulsive liar and violent, manipulative sociopath. She should have stuck with the divorce statement and not made herself out to be a victim to get revenge for being slighted.

Your view of her motives and behaviour is very extreme and obviously I don't share it, nor do I think anyone deserves the treatment she has received.

I would say extremely accurate and the jury and the vast majority of the public agree with me. I also think someone who lies in horrible ways to destroy someone else's life certainly deserves the treatment she's received. In fact she's got off lightly. She should be in prison for perjury given that she's perjured herself in 3 different countries now.

Buttersbottom

As before, we disagree and that's all there is to say really.

I am not on twitter so cannot see your links. They would have needed AH consent to show the therapists notes. How did they get them in the first place. The cynic in me wonders if its a set up to try and start another defamation sue claim against the tv channel and the media who print it in an attempt to have another trial with a different outcome. If so I dont think anyone will fall for it.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/johnny-depp-trial-damaged-popularity-among-men-more-women-poll-1714627%3famp=1

Seems a lot of people in the real world aren't that impressed by JD

They only asked 2200 people in the survey

I don't think that tweet is at all reliable. The photo of the therapy note is so blurry there is no way to compare the handwriting and again, a twitter person is hardly an expert. If it is fake, I'm sure her therapist would say that as her professional reputation is on the line.

And of course Amber can access her therapy notes, in the same way anyone can access their NHS records if they ask. Once she has the notes, it's up to her how she uses them. It's her confidential information, not the therapists.

My question is if Depp fans honestly believe she was planning this through their whole marriage. I'm sure some people do think that, but I think that's straying into an extreme conspiracy theory.

@BlanketsBanned
They did get her consent, she handed them over to them. Now, Guthrie is a lawyer and knows full well this isn't evidence and in the Twitter link the notes are being viewed as not real and highly suspect but it's going to be in the interview.

It's a covert way of getting her to expose herself imo!

As much as I don't like what AH has done, I don't like this.

The polling agencies are very good at using a small sample to establish a statistically representative overall picture. That's how the ONS is able to track covid infections and how Yougov can produce accurate exit polls for elections

MarieIVanArkleStinks · Yesterday 12:22

Yet when suits their prejudices to bang the free speech drum, they're quick to cry 'censorship!' when they want carte blanche to persecute someone (which might, in some circumstances, also be a criminal offence). Perhaps free speech also doesn't extend to escaping the consequences of what you do, such as relentless pursuing and bullying of women online to an extent that would possibly drive even the strongest of us to the brink of insanity.

Because women are fair game, right?

Anyone is fair game for criticism. You think it felt good to be Harvey Weinstein after the accusations against him were made and an entire movement swept the world with him as the main foucus? I shouldn't think that did much for his mental health but I doubt you care that much. I certainly don't.

If you do crappy things and you are famous expect people to come after you, to talk about you and to say horrible things. What Amber did wasn't on the same scale as Weinstein but it was bad enough. It was a deliberate and dishonest attempt to ruin someone's life out of sheer malevolent spite. That deserves a good deal of crap coming your way.

AdamRyan · Today 12:00

The polling agencies are very good at using a small sample to establish a statistically representative overall picture. That's how the ONS is able to track covid infections and how Yougov can produce accurate exit polls for elections

Dear God, I wouldn't have used either of those examples as a way to praise the accuracy of polling agencies. Almost all the Covid predictions and statistics were total bunk and I can't remember an accurate exit poll in recent years. According to the agencies Trump was never supposed to have won against Hilary and Brexit was never supposed to have happened.

Maybe a bit more accurate than a random mumsnet poster saying "the vast majority of the public agrees with me", though.

I like this lawyer, especially his moustache!

Anyway, legal issues on the notes Amber has given the tv network. Like I said, Guthrie the interviewer is a lawyer too so knows this:

vm.tiktok.com/ZMNFpkDPY/?k=1

That's just rubbish.
The ONS covid sampling is a good reflection of other data
www.google.com/amp/s/blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/04/09/accuracy-and-confidence-why-we-trust-the-data-from-the-covid-19-infection-survey/amp/

And the exit polls here are also pretty reliable
www.google.com/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/20272/how-accurate-are-uk-exit-polls/

If you move away from using science, data and facts to inform your opinion, then you are open to manipulation and conspiracy theories.

Look under the social media frenzy at the facts. It's far from clear that JD is the victim in this scenario.

I am very disturbed that we seem to be increasingly living in a world where the view of a tiktok randomer is given the same or more weight as an expert witness in court.

It feels like the world is going backwards due to the Internet.

There are some genuine people on SM you know. I mean look at us 😬

Hehe
This isn't SM though. This is just mums 😁
I'm basically too old and don't trust TikTok ever since my 15yo DS told me about the Kill All Men movement and that feminists were murderingboys and making them kill themselves. Definitely true as it was allover tiktok

We googled for a reputable news source and surprise surprise, it appears to be absolute fiction

It's really damaging that stuff can get posted with no fact checking at all

Aspiringmatriarch · Today 12:17

Maybe a bit more accurate than a random mumsnet poster saying "the vast majority of the public agrees with me", though.

Not really. Unlike the stuff people say to pollsters online activity is more open and hard to ignore.

AdamRyan · Today 12:23

Look under the social media frenzy at the facts. It's far from clear that JD is the victim in this scenario.

We did look at the facts. In fact there was a long trial which went into the whole issue in enormous detail and the jury came to the conclusion that Johnny was the victim and Amber the liar and aggressor and punished her for her malicious lies.

"It's really damaging that stuff can get posted with no fact checking at all"

Agree with that. I'm old enough to scroll on or look then have a Google (like the one Aspiring posted. If you look at just that but not the whole video plus looking at that guy more deeply - far more to it) but I like it for journaling, animal vids, snippets of news and mostly chiropractic ones. I'm addicted to those and it's got me into a scrap booking.

Not really. Unlike the stuff people say to pollsters online activity is more open and hard to ignore.

That doesn't make it more accurate. Shouting louder isn't an indication of anything useful IMO.

Oh really. I thought the conclusion was they were both abusive and both got punished for their lies.
It wasn't a straightforward verdict at all.

JD is clearly violent and admits hurting AH. In no way does this verdict suggest he was "the victim".

I see he also wants his next trial televised. Almost as if he thinks he's found the winning formula.

The more I read about him the more I dislike him. Southern gentleman my arse.

Aspiringmatriarch · Today 14:14

That doesn't make it more accurate. Shouting louder isn't an indication of anything useful IMO.

We're not talking about whether they're right in that context but whether more people believe one side or the other.

AdamRyan · Today 14:51

Oh really. I thought the conclusion was they were both abusive and both got punished for their lies.

That's putting an incredibly positive spin on it for Amber. They found Waldman's claim that she staged a crime scene didn't have enough evidence to back it up. However, they found all of Johnny's claims about her lies to be true and awarded him punitive damages to send a really clear message.

It wasn't a straightforward verdict at all.

It was very straightfoward when it comes to her lying. She was and they called her on it.

JD is clearly violent and admits hurting AH. In no way does this verdict suggest he was "the victim".

Clearly to you but then you are prejudiced against him and he didn't admit to deliberately hurting her physically.

I see he also wants his next trial televised. Almost as if he thinks he's found the winning formula.

Yep, maybe. If you know your opponent is lying it's a very good idea to expose them as publicly as possible. It's a far more high risk strategy if you are lying of course.

The more I read about him the more I dislike him. Southern gentleman my arse.

I don't know how far south your arse is nor how gentlemanly. I'll take your word for it on both accounts.