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.

And the live televised trial? Which couldn't be manipulated?

My opinion comes mainly from that.

Honestly, I think that was the key. Depps team made two brilliant strategic decisions. They eschewed the mainstream media to court internet and social media influencers. And they got a televised trial. I'd assumed the British judge made a solid decision. And then I saw the witnesses and heard the evidence myself. No filtering of evidence through newspapers that Amber Heard was using to self-promote. Every day the Independent and Guardian published summations and op eds that bore little relation to the evidence I'd just even with my own eyes.

It left me wondering what the heck the uk judge had been listening to and how many wrong judgements have made in the past when a main witness such as Heard is made exempt from making full disclosure.

That's not the point I was making. I'm talking about the fact that you keep posting these unsubstantiated things from dodgy internet sources. By doing that, you're showing you're not interested in being fair.

Why are they dodgy? Where's your evidence they are posting untruths?

What about the NBC interview which was heavily edited by the time the full interview was played and they removed parts of her sentences so the context was completely changed? Emily Baker and other "dodgy" YouTubers (she's a lawyer btw) immediately picked up on it. I'm glad they're out there.

MSM don't like these YouTubers because they can't control the narrative anymore. Now some are being doxxed, defamed and harassed.

I'm not interested in YouTubers. You posted something with no date stamp, it's therefore unsubstantiated.

Then rely on MSM. Your choice.

The original reporter of the unstamped footage did substantiate a date of when the photo was taken of the security footage screen.

I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.

No date and time stamp is nothing new when it comes to this trial and the aftermath. You tube & SM has embarrassed the MSM regarding this case. You tubers had more people watching them watch the interview by Amber Heard than the TV station got. Without these you tubers and other SM platforms it would have gone mostly unnoticed that the interview got edited to manipulate answers. The trial was an eye openers on how it was reported by the media and definitely not in a good way. To the point it’s actually made Depp more of a “hero” caught in a huge conspiracy theory, which definitely was not the position the MSM were aiming for and that is on them.

Well the UN don't want her either as a champion. She's been removed.

www.ohchr.org/en/stand-up/hr-champions-aheard

The original reporter of the unstamped footage did substantiate a date of when the photo was taken of the security footage screen.

Who was the original reporter and what was the date?

Cant see anywhere that she has been removed, just a petition on Change Org

@BlanketsBanned the link is to the UNCR website, that's where her profile used to be, now replaced with that statement

It's a non MSM journalist plus two lawyers @Aspiringmatriarch so you won't believe it anyway

If you type Amber and the UN you get the above linked page. So whether they have removed her or quietly trying to hide her I’m not sure.

If you have a verified date for the photo, then I will believe it.

I don't personally have the photograph. The source wants protection (even MSM does this) and there's an appeal in progress, hence the lawyers.

This journalist is now being doxxed and defamed.

And some MSM outlets are also running the story. Now they verify before print, don't they?

Does it matter if rhe alledged photo was dated or not , if its in the lift to his apartment then presumably they were still married and living together

@BlanketsBanned i think Amber and her friends stayed in the apartments for most of 2016, Josh talked about late 2016.

@BlanketsBanned no it doesn't. It's the splitting hairs/cherry picking thing again.

What it demonstrates to me is she testified under oath she did not have a relationship with CD. It exposes another lie. But to some, they just cannot or don't want to believe AH lied. A lot.

She's done an insurmountable amount of damage to DV survivors and as long as MSM keeps trying to twist the narrative and add to the damage, the more people are getting pissed off with it. Gaslighting 101

And some MSM outlets are also running the story. Now they verify before print, don't they?

All I've seen is articles saying an unverified photo has surfaced.

She lived in the apartment after the separation. So the date is relevant.

"i think Amber and her friends stayed in the apartments for most of 2016, Josh talked about late 2016"

I think it was September they had to be out and Jan 2017 for AH

I thought Josh was one of the most credible out of her friends. He also testified to her having many overnight guests whilst JD was away. Over 30 but couldn't say if it was more than 50. That was the 2019 deposition for the UK trial.

Part of her TRO was based on JDs " unfounded" jealousy and part of his ongoing abuse according to her. Right.

Separation is not divorce, you are still married untiĺ your divorce is finalised.

What it demonstrates to me is she testified under oath she did not have a relationship with CD.

When did she testify about Cara Delevigne? I haven't seen this.

"She lived in the apartment after the separation. So the date is relevant"

And under oath there was no relationship?

I don't care who she entangles herself with or when. She lied, under oath, and that is relevant. She should've said yes I did but this was afterwards and given a date but she didn't she just lied instead.

@Aspiringmatriarch she testified she did not cheat on Depp and that his jealousy was unfounded.

Legally would she be lying about adultery (not saying she was) if the partner is a woman. A quick Google suggest maybe not when their divorce was going through.