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.

You know this is actually quite upsetting. The level of misunderstanding!
Ugh. Watch the trial is my advice.

I don’t think that is the starting point, ever. I don’t think anyone has ever said that women never ever abuse

I don’t think ive ever seen it

I'm leaving you all to your disillusion.
It's annoying.

I did watch the trial, I was being sarcastic as having been on a few of these threads there is a definite script that pro- Depp posters follow. It reminds me of the pro-Brexit threads of days gone by.

It's a complex trial, people see things through the prism of their own experience. Yet the threads are reductive "Amber is the abuser - the jury said so"

Actually no they didn't. They said they believed it was defamatory to call Depp an abuser, having been told by his defence to believe it all or none of it.

He did not cover himself in glory or prove she was an abuser. In fact the fact that she proved saying the abuse allegations were hoax was defamatory, shows the jury were not 100% behind his version either.

I really hope you aren't aligning yourself with the MRA movement without researching it. You seem like a decent human.

I am a decent human you're correct.😊

I don't even know what the MRA is(til this thread) so no I am not "aligning" myself to them or to anyone else. Apart from victims of abuse.
I watched the trial and I think the verdict was correct. If you didn't get the measure of AH from the multiple witnesses, recordings plus her testimony and the lies uncovered then I really don't know what to say to you.
But I wish you well. Genuinely

@Discovereads "'Any victim, man or woman, who publishes the sentence “I was a victim of DV” (without naming anyone as an abuser) can now be successfully sued by any family member or current/former partner who reads this and thinks it was written about them."

That isn't accurate at all.

You have NEVER been at liberty to write things that defame another person, i.e. write in such a way that the person can easily or clearly be identified by others, and in a way that damages their reputation...

...without the onus being on you, the writer, to prove that your statements are factual.

If you can prove its fact, crack on, the truth is not defamatory.

That was the case, and it still is, we have freedom of speech, but that does not equate to a freedom from the consequences of our speech.

I don't think innocenta was referring to you. I think she was referring to other posters with an agenda. Don't take it personally

@wildthingsinthenight if I am attributing the quote correctly it is hard to figure out..

"the fact that she proved saying the abuse allegations were hoax was defamatory, shows the jury were not 100% behind his version either."

That is a misunderstanding of the judgement.

That ruling was not that ALL the allegations of abuse were a hoax, not at all. Only that on that specific night, the allegation that AH did specific things (I think it was get her friends round to trash the flat and corroborate a story), was incorrect.

What I find interesting about this is that women can be threatened with rape and murder for daring to have a public profile (lots of MPs), be mocked and shamed for daring to have an opinion (e.g. Caroline Criado Perez), be subject to reams of damaging inferences about their personality and motivations (Meghan Markle), and that's all fine because they are in the public eye/freedom of speech.

The ex wife of a rich powerful man writes an article saying she was a victim of sexual abuse at college and was treated badly for filing a restraining order against him, and that's horrendous, defamatory and freedom of speech shouldn't be used to allow her to saysuch things.

Something isn't quite right here.

Why? The victim of domestic violence won the case.

@AdamRyan Thank you for expressing things so cogently. The online and media abuse directed at women is so immense, and yet people are oh so focused on this trial because of the spin JD's entourage, lawyers, bots etc have put on it. I'm astonished that so many are so closed off to the truth tbh.

None of this is about being a 'fan' of AH. I've never even seen her in a movie. It's just about identifying the role of the patriarchy and how power works within relationships.

That wasn't me

Says everyone dying to set women's rights back thirty or so years.

It'll give more power to the abusers given they have seen how they can threaten and get away with that and that has started to happen. Male victims will also be impacted upon by this.

The truth is that the court did not believe that she was abused, and found her guilty of defamation for claiming that she was.

Trying to claim that there is an antisemitic conspiracy at work is imbecilic.

This is like being in the Twilight Zone.
How bloody disappointing.

"Too many 'pick me' people desperate for male validation are willing to light the torches of the angry men who wish to burn a woman alive not realising they are the ones that will be burnt!"

That ruling was not that ALL the allegations of abuse were a hoax, not at all. Only that on that specific night, the allegation that AH did specific things (I think it was get her friends round to trash the flat and corroborate a story), was incorrect.
I know. However that event triggered the restraining order and a lot of her testimony/photos were related to it.

If Johnnys version that he nevet abused her was true, then there must have been a hoax to explain all the corroborating evidence (photos, testimony from Josh Drew/Racquel Pennington).

I think it shows the jury's opinion was the same as most posters, that they both abused each other.

Thats difficult as it means they've ruled that there are some circumstances where it's ok to be abusive, and people in those circumstances can't be described as abusers.

I would prefer it, if they were both abusive, that they both bore equal blame for that. It seems very wrong they can both be abusive, but one party be punished more harshly for it. Especially when it's the party that can least afford it.

However I actually think jury trials aren't the best way to deal with rape/sexual abuse, as its very complex and beyond many peoples experience. An inquisitorial judge led process would be better.

Yes to your first paragraph.
The PP had antisemitic abuse aimed at her. Not to do with the trial.

Trying to claim that there is an antisemitic conspiracy at work is imbecilic

I don’t think anyone has said this either

It’s very concerning

Women have always had a battle in regard to being a worthy victim

I've heard countless times over the past few months there is something that just isn’t nice about Amber Heard yet many seem to be in agreement that JD was probably abusive. What does it matter if she isn’t a particularly warm person

Can you imagine if there was a video of AH smashing bottles and acting like JD was that this would be excused as she had money troubles

he will show his true colours again

She says that, but gets very angry if someone asks for a link to it. It comes across a bit “Emily Bridges” really. “I was abused online. No, I don’t think I’ll show you the evidence.”

It doesn’t matter if you believe her or not canary

she still didn’t say that is was an anti Semitic conspiracy

Why should they link to it? Advanced search it if you’re so bothered, I’m sure that poster doesn’t need your approval before they consider it abuse or not.

I’m not bothered, I just find it a bit pathetic that they play the victim rather than engage with the conversation.