Amber Heard&Johnny Depp verdict

[Miscfeminista]

Continuation of previous thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4552076-amber-heardjohnny-depp-trial?page=36&reply=117586863

Speculations on verdict, news related to it, insights into specifics of legal matters, opinions and impressions…let’s keep it going and see how verdict finds us >>>>>>>>>>

It is very sad to see so many poorly informed posters refusing to take the time or use their intelligence to understand what went on, preferring simply to indulge a knee-jerk misogyny.

Anyone who watched the trial, or even some of it, should see that some of the abuse claims held up - hard, external evidence supported them. Heard over-egged the pudding, but the fundaments were true as per the evidence.

There was also clear evidence that Depp lied. If you read some of the earlier links on this thread, you can run through them. There’s even evidence from him that he was aware that he damaged his own finger.

I’ve worked with da for a long time and I’ve met a lot of Ambers: unreliable, volatile, not massively likeable, but in an abusive situation nonetheless. They don’t always tell the truth, they can sometimes be their own worst enemy. There are far more Ambers than perfect victims - the kind of victims that apparently women and the world need to see in order to be able to believe them.

One of the mistakes that I’ve seen women make on these boards is the idea that women don’t fight back in abusive relationships. Some do, it really depends on the personalities involved. Indeed, the ignorance on the general dynamics of abusive relationships is mind blowing.

Depp has proven himself to be a truly odious personality - angry, jealous, paranoid, aggressive, violent, chaotic, out of control, serious substance abuser, and a really nasty piece of work, but women are still flocking to his side - apparently still bedazzled by his sozzled glamour, his money, his status, or simply because he’s male and up against a female they’ve taken a dislike to.

In short, the dynamics of abusive relationships are too complex for some to understand apparently, and certainly too complex to be analysed justly in a defamation trial by media.

The whole reaction to this case is exactly what will make it harder for da survivors to get justice.

Whether Amber Heard lied is a matter of opinion. The UK case still stands.
Yes it does. And the U.K. and US cases are not incompatible.
Amber Heard was not the defendant in the U.K. case, The Sun was. The subject of the U.K. case was a completely different article and wording to the US. In the U.K. case it was found that it was ‘substantially true’ to refer to Depp as a ‘wife beater’. The wording of The Sun article was blunt and general.
In the US case, Depp’s argument related to very different - and more specific - wording. There was evidence that could not be presented in a U.K. court that was allowed in Virginia.
Different defendants, different claims, different publications. Not to mention different jurisdictions, method of trial, burden of proof, etc.
Apples and oranges.

she lied several times in court i dont know why thats not brought up-whther or not he retaliated with violence she is on tape saying she hit him

she also admitted she wrote the op-ed about him as far as im concerned thats what the jury agreed aswell

Can I ask you a straight question ?
Do you think it is ever possible that a woman can be :

1. abusive
2. a liar
3. violent
4. aggressive

WITHOUT being provoked or in response to anything a man has done ?

It is always a surprise when a public figure wins a defamation case in the US given the different approach they take to such cases compared to the UK. The jury in the US had a lot more evidence to consider than the judge in the UK (I'll say more about that below) and it was clear that Depp's lawyers had moved the needle significantly in his favour, but the outcome was by no means guaranteed.

My view is that it is clear that Heard abused Depp. Given the evidence, I think this is beyond doubt. Whether Depp abused Heard is a more difficult question. The evidence is a lot less clear. My view is that there is enough evidence to show that many of the incidents claimed by Heard did not happen, but I can't say for sure that he never abused her.

We will probably hear from the jurors in the coming days, but I suspect the main thing that swung them towards Depp was the fact that so much of Heard's testimony was exposed as lies. They may also have considered the fact that, apart from her sister, Heard was supported entirely by paid witnesses (experts and people on her payroll), whereas Depp was supported by a number of witnesses who were not on his payroll and the attempts by Heard's lawyers to discredit them as Depp fans and/or liars failed. However, that is just me guessing. I will be interested to hear what the jurors say if they talk to the press.

It appears that Heard intends to appeal, so this may not be over yet.

Of course, in the UK it is still safe to call Depp a wifebeater based on the decision in the UK case. We will never know if the judge would have arrived at the same decision if he had seen all the evidence that was presented in the US. In the UK case, because Depp was suing NGN rather than Heard, she was not required to disclose evidence that was damaging to her case - evidence that was included in the US case. Also, in the UK each side presents its evidence and that is it, so Depp did not have any opportunity to rebut claims that Heard made in court that were not included in her witness statements. In the US, Depp was able to put forward rebuttal witnesses after Heard's case (and she was then able to attempt to rebut his rebuttal). This allowed, for example, Kate Moss to deny Heard's claim that she had been pushed down stairs by Depp, the trailer park manager to deny the claim that Depp had caused thousands of dollars worth of damage to the trailer, and the ex-TMZ employee to undermine her claims that neither she nor anyone on her team had leaked the kitchen video to TMZ or given TMZ any tip offs.

She set out to ruin him. No grey there.

As long as women have such ridiculous notions of how other women behave they will always been second place as a gender.

She set out to prove the abuse, some of which she did. She over-egged the pudding a bit, but she didn’t lie any more than Depp. It’s interesting how many women completely failed to identify Depp’s lies.

So, you would rather Johnny was found guilty despite the overwhelming and inadmissible evidence that he wasn't? He was innocent and didn't abuse AH, she abused HIM. It's not that we can't believe women, we can't believe a word AH speaks, that's not all women. It's time people understand that men can be abused by women.

100% agree. Toxic feminism to a T.

I’ve worked with da for a long time and I’ve met a lot of Ambers: unreliable, volatile, not massively likeable, but in an abusive situation nonetheless.

You've not met 'Ambers' Amber H is her own unique person. She is a person first, not a proto-type for all non-typical victims and it was she who was found guilty, not all the women you are assuming have the same traits as her.

@toblerhone Did it never occur to you that BOTH are abusers and Depp is not innocent? Why is saying Heard was abused - which she clearly was, bad for feminism, even if she abused too?

@Bbq1 No one is saying it's impossible for men to ever be abused by women. That's literally just a MRA talking point. It's so reductive as to be basically absurd. JD did abuse this woman.

I’ll do that and pm you if that’s ok, it’s a tangent to this thread and I won’t de-rail any more

Johnny's speech was very moving.

He's not an abuser.
He was found not guilty.
Ah was found to be a compulsive liar and guilty of abuse.

Don't be taken in by abusers - like Amber Heard.

@Bbq1 Depp abused AH.

Nothing you say changes that.

Nothing any aggressive MRA on Twitter or Reddit says changes the truth.

So some wackjob created a 'youtube clip' (that any man and his dog can do, upload and pretend to be an expert) with their own biased agenda and you take it as evidence?

Did you ever consider you were brainwashed and went seeking things that suited your preconceived agenda? When I think of narcissism, I think of Depp. But then again I am not brainwashed by stardom. He's done a number on you hasn't he.

There's the problem right there. Amber to you represents an ideological totem.

For you to say, as long as you have such ridiculous notions of how women behave, as if somehow a woman is incapable of being vindictive, shallow and nasty as any person can, just proves your complete inability to see Amber first and foremost as a person. An individual.

It strange to me that when a woman does something wrong she suddenly becomes some soft, virtuous weak creature from a victorian novel, the fairer sex, who needs saving and protecting and can't be bad.

Interesting you talk about her as less than perfect but still a victim, but him as a nasty piece of work therefore not a victim.

so can only good people be victims?
or is she less bad, so counts as a victim?

Oh I see , so if a woman abuses a man it's just a talking point

@DysonSphere I'm not talking about the trial. I'm talking about how this is playing out in the media(mainstream and social) ,the comments and arguments between posters etc.

The jury's verdict supports my statement. She also won on one count. If it was black and white that wouldn't have been possible.

"She lied about the damage at the trailer park.
She lied about getting a broken nose after the met gala.
She lied that he beat her multiple times with his rings on when just one punch would have left serious damage to her face such as cuts.

She lied about alerting TMZ.
She lied about leaking a video to TMZ.
She lied about Depp trying to push her sister down the stairs.
She lied about Kate Moss.
She lied about not taking cocaine.
She lied about editing pictures.
She lied about only ever hitting Depp once.
She lied about Depp raping her with a bottle. (The leaked audio the jury didn't hear confirms she lied about this. The audio confirms she threw the bottle that cut off his finger).
Even small, irrelevant lies like lying about the manager of the trailer park wearing a mesh top."

I'm so glad you're sure of all this stuff, sounds like you've been following this couple as a "fly in the wall". I on the other hand have been listening to a "he said she said" story on a televised trial, with witnesses corroborating her injuries, other witnesses negating them, experts denying photo manipulation, experts confirming photographic manipulation, witnesses confirming a trashed trailer park and other denying it.

Maybe they should have called you as a witness on the stand as you seem to know exactly what happened?

My view is that it is clear that Heard abused Depp. Given the evidence, I think this is beyond doubt. Whether Depp abused Heard is a more difficult question. The evidence is a lot less clear. My view is that there is enough evidence to show that many of the incidents claimed by Heard did not happen, but I can't say for sure that he never abused her.

On the basis of the evidence there is no question Depp abused Heard. How far her behaviour was reactive abuse and how much was her own personality is hard to say. Probably a mixture of both.

Heard overegged the pudding, and some of what she said didn’t appear to be true. However Depp also told barefaced lies but he got away with it.

Depp’s team was far better than Heard’s, not actually of the general calibre of U.K. barristers ime, but they did a good job of undermining Heard’s credibility. Not hard as she undermined her own. They were very lucky that Heard’s team wasn’t better, as Depp could have been skewered on his many lies.

The trailer park is by the by, Depp caused 75k worth of damage in Australia. He admitted trashing an apartment when he was with Moss causing 10k worth of damage. All his exes, even the ones who liked him said he smashed stuff up.

@zabaglione1 Don't misquote me and put words in my mouth. I won't engage with people who do that.

• Johnny's speech was very moving.

He's not an abuser.
He was found not guilty.
Ah was found to be a compulsive liar and guilty of abuse.*

That is not what the trial was about. It wasn't even a criminal case, so JD wasn't found "not guilty" of anything.

You either misunderstood the whole thing or are wilfully ignorant to suit your narrative.
You're also forgetting that AH also won one one count of defamation on his side.

On the contrary Heard represents to me an individual in a particular relationship as do all my clients I am only interested in the evidence in this case.

Which is why I don’t make sweeping and frankly ludicrous statements like “she set out to ruin him” based on no evidence at all. This idea is founded purely in notions of how women behave rather than the evidence at hand.