Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Amber Heard&Johnny Depp verdict

1000 replies

Miscfeminista · 31/05/2022 14:28

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 >>>>>>>>>>

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Innocenta · 02/06/2022 12:52

@puffalo Actually hyperfocusing on details in a moment of trauma is totally normal. The way you think there's one way that a victim should describe how they felt is, in fact, the thing that has 'script' vibes. Confused

CooooCoooo · 02/06/2022 12:55

Sandra1984 · 02/06/2022 10:47

"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?

  1. The manager of the park confirmed there was only $60 worth of damage because 1 lights had come away from the wall. He had to bill for a pair though.
  1. She was pictured at an event less than 24 hours after apparently getting her nose broken by Depp. Not a single bit of swelling or bruising seen on face. Make up can't cover swelling.
  1. During the whole 5 year relationship, she was not once pictured with cuts (or even bruises) on her face. No pictures from events, paparazzi or even her own pictures support her story. Neither does her own doctor.

4 & 5. TMZ guy confirmed it. If she didn't sell or give TMz the the copyright then she could sue them but she hasn't because she did. I've took a major news organisation to court for copyright theft and it's very easy.

  1. Amber's own sister told her boss and 15+ coworkers what actually happened on the stairs. Jennifer Howell, the boss, testified.
  1. Kate Moss obviously denied being pushed down the stairs by Depp.
  1. Amber's co-star in Never Back Down have confirmed Amber was an avid cocaine user. She apparently loved to 'party's, said she would rather be addicted to coke than nicotine and was sad when producers mentioned drug tests on set.
  1. Amber did indeed edit photos of her face as one of the witnesses testified. One which we can see with our own eyes when they are side by side.
  1. Amber testified that she hit Depp once, "the first time I ever landed a shot", was when Depp was allegedly trying to push her sister down the stairs. When an audio played of Amber confessing to hitting Depp while trying to get into a bathroom Depp had locked himself in, she changed her story to "I was trying to keep him out so I hit him" and then changed it again to "I would hit him and fight back every time".

  2. The leaked audio confirms she was not raped with a bottle. Even if there was no audio, common sense would tell you her story doesn't match the evidence. Amber testified that Johnny smashed a phone on a wall next to her head, cut his finger off with the phone and then bent her backwards over the bar and penetrated her with a bottle. Her feel were cut to ribbons and her back and arms were cut. The entire house was photographed by Ben King before it was cleaned up and not a single bloody foot print was seen from her 'cut to ribbons' feet. The bottle was pictured with no blood on it from the injured finger. The bed she slept in pictured with no blood in it. Amber said herself she didn't call the police because there was no evidence despite describing a gruesome crime scene and serious injuries. The doctor, nurse and security who took Depp to hospital testified to seeing no injuries on Amber. When Amber got back to LA, another person (a nurse I think) testified to not seeing any injuries.

  3. Owner of trailer park confirmed he would never wear a mesh top.

puffalo · 02/06/2022 12:58

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

puffalo · 02/06/2022 13:01

CooooCoooo · 02/06/2022 12:55

  1. The manager of the park confirmed there was only $60 worth of damage because 1 lights had come away from the wall. He had to bill for a pair though.
  1. She was pictured at an event less than 24 hours after apparently getting her nose broken by Depp. Not a single bit of swelling or bruising seen on face. Make up can't cover swelling.
  1. During the whole 5 year relationship, she was not once pictured with cuts (or even bruises) on her face. No pictures from events, paparazzi or even her own pictures support her story. Neither does her own doctor.

4 & 5. TMZ guy confirmed it. If she didn't sell or give TMz the the copyright then she could sue them but she hasn't because she did. I've took a major news organisation to court for copyright theft and it's very easy.

  1. Amber's own sister told her boss and 15+ coworkers what actually happened on the stairs. Jennifer Howell, the boss, testified.
  1. Kate Moss obviously denied being pushed down the stairs by Depp.
  1. Amber's co-star in Never Back Down have confirmed Amber was an avid cocaine user. She apparently loved to 'party's, said she would rather be addicted to coke than nicotine and was sad when producers mentioned drug tests on set.
  1. Amber did indeed edit photos of her face as one of the witnesses testified. One which we can see with our own eyes when they are side by side.
  1. Amber testified that she hit Depp once, "the first time I ever landed a shot", was when Depp was allegedly trying to push her sister down the stairs. When an audio played of Amber confessing to hitting Depp while trying to get into a bathroom Depp had locked himself in, she changed her story to "I was trying to keep him out so I hit him" and then changed it again to "I would hit him and fight back every time".

  2. The leaked audio confirms she was not raped with a bottle. Even if there was no audio, common sense would tell you her story doesn't match the evidence. Amber testified that Johnny smashed a phone on a wall next to her head, cut his finger off with the phone and then bent her backwards over the bar and penetrated her with a bottle. Her feel were cut to ribbons and her back and arms were cut. The entire house was photographed by Ben King before it was cleaned up and not a single bloody foot print was seen from her 'cut to ribbons' feet. The bottle was pictured with no blood on it from the injured finger. The bed she slept in pictured with no blood in it. Amber said herself she didn't call the police because there was no evidence despite describing a gruesome crime scene and serious injuries. The doctor, nurse and security who took Depp to hospital testified to seeing no injuries on Amber. When Amber got back to LA, another person (a nurse I think) testified to not seeing any injuries.

  3. Owner of trailer park confirmed he would never wear a mesh top.

Great summary of events.

IrisVersicolor · 02/06/2022 13:02

puffalo · 02/06/2022 12:50

I also find it odd how many AH defenders here have admitted she “over-egged the dessert” but she was a victim, etc.

If you’re a genuine victim, you don’t need to embellish the story to be believed. I’m not talking about going into details of what occurred; it’s necessary to be descriptive and include the events that led up to the situation to provide a context that others will believe and understand.

However, she went so far to the point where it completely voided out her claims as it sounded more like a parody than anything else.

One example, the “dirty carpet”. Why so much detail on the state of the carpet? If you’ve just been thrown to the floor, you’d probably describe how sudden it was, how sore it was, how you felt vulnerable being on the floor, the fear and shock you felt, perhaps how you were trying to think of how to get away, etc.

You wouldn’t land on the floor and take a look around and think about the carpet and how it needs a good clean.

It sounded like a script. That’s why she wasn’t believed and JD was.

Your grasp of da, or indeed human behaviour in general, is fairly simplistic. She’s either a victim or she’s not. She’s either telling the truth or she’s not.

I’ve dealt with literally 100s of da survivors and some are honest and reliable and some aren’t. It doesn’t have much bearing on what’s going on, but it’s much easier to prove a case with a reliable witness.

In this case, there was a mixture of truth and falsehood on both sides.

Innocenta · 02/06/2022 13:02

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

IrisVersicolor · 02/06/2022 13:10

@CooooCoooo

This trial helps all victims of DA - both men and women.

I cba to quote your whole post as it was so silly, but this statement was the most risible. This trial and the media circus around it harms survivors male and female, indeed justice itself. I’d have thought even the most bedazzled by Depp could see that.

LetitiaLeghorn · 02/06/2022 13:11

BringBackCoffeeCreams · 02/06/2022 10:57

The American defamation lawyer on Newsnight last night was interesting. She thought the decision was bizarre and needed to go to appeal. She said the jury ruled in favour of Depp over the accusation that he abused Heard, but they also ruled in favour of Heard over the accusation that she had made up the claim that she was abused. So she way lying and not lying at the same time Confused She also said that the jury ruled that she defamed him with the wording of headline of article in question, but she didn't write that headline.

I didn't see the interview so can't comment on what the lawyer said. But I don't see the connection in the two jury findings. The jury did not find in favour of Amber Heard over claims that her assertion she'd been abused was a hoax. Therefore they believed it was a hoax for her to say she'd been abused.
Instead they found in her favour over a claim that she fraudulently staged a scene to make it look like she'd been abused. They found she and her friends hadn't staged a scene, not that she'd been abused.

IrisVersicolor · 02/06/2022 13:12

This reply has been deleted

Quotes deleted post

Miscfeminista · 02/06/2022 13:14

“Completely agree with this. He's vile. And yet women everywhere love him based on his screen image and men everywhere feel vindicated for their own bad behaviour towards women by seeing this kind of support for him.

It's a huge step back for women who apparently have to be saints for abusive behaviour towards them to 'count'.“

This is honestly what’s it all about. Adoring abusive men and hating women by default.

OP posts:
Miscfeminista · 02/06/2022 13:17

IrisVersicolor · 02/06/2022 10:28

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.

Absolutely. Few posters who are too lazy to read just keep repeating factually wrong”evidence”and spam threads with miles long”She lied She lied She lied”like get a grip. I’m so annoyed with people like this and the”you all misandrist”folk, I hope they’re just teenagers testing waters

OP posts:
Sandra1984 · 02/06/2022 13:20

The manager of the park confirmed there was only $60 worth of damage because 1 lights had come away from the wall. He had to bill for a pair though.

The manager is an avid Johnny Depp fan following Waldan's fabricated anti-Amber tweets and posting hatred anti amber tweets. There are two witness (besides him who corroborated the state of the trashed trailer on the stand).

She was pictured at an event less than 24 hours after apparently getting her nose broken by Depp. Not a single bit of swelling or bruising seen on face. Make up can't cover swelling.

A professional make up artist who worked on her confirmed covering her bruises.

During the whole 5 year relationship, she was not once pictured with cuts (or even bruises) on her face. No pictures from events, paparazzi or even her own pictures support her story. Neither does her own doctor.

No celebrity attends events "covered in bruises". That's just silly, there's a whole team of stylists and make up artists glamming them up before.

4 & 5. TMZ guy confirmed it. If she didn't sell or give TMz the the copyright then she could sue them but she hasn't because she did. I've took a major news organisation to court for copyright theft and it's very easy.

No one knows who leaked that TMZ tape. Not even the TMZ editor.

Kate Moss obviously denied being pushed down the stairs by Depp.

It's been a rumour in the tabloid for ages.

Amber's co-star in Never Back Down have confirmed Amber was an avid cocaine user. She apparently loved to 'party's, said she would rather be addicted to coke than nicotine and was sad when producers mentioned drug tests on set.

I believe it's quite clear who the drug addict and alcoholic (with a 24hr 10,000 dollar a month rehab doctor on his pay roll) is.

Amber did indeed edit photos of her face as one of the witnesses testified. One which we can see with our own eyes when they are side by side.

The other photo editing expert tested to the contrary.

Amber testified that she hit Depp once, "the first time I ever landed a shot", was when Depp was allegedly trying to push her sister down the stairs. When an audio played of Amber confessing to hitting Depp while trying to get into a bathroom Depp had locked himself in, she changed her story to "I was trying to keep him out so I hit him" and then changed it again to "I would hit him and fight back every time".

I agree, victims who fight back are bad victims. They should just keep quiet and take the punches (insert sarcasm).

The leaked audio confirms she was not raped with a bottle. Even if there was no audio, common sense would tell you her story doesn't match the evidence. Amber testified that Johnny smashed a phone on a wall next to her head, cut his finger off with the phone and then bent her backwards over the bar and penetrated her with a bottle. Her feel were cut to ribbons and her back and arms were cut. The entire house was photographed by Ben King before it was cleaned up and not a single bloody foot print was seen from her 'cut to ribbons' feet. The bottle was pictured with no blood on it from the injured finger. The bed she slept in pictured with no blood in it. Amber said herself she didn't call the police because there was no evidence despite describing a gruesome crime scene and serious injuries. The doctor, nurse and security who took Depp to hospital testified to seeing no injuries on Amber. When Amber got back to LA, another person (a nurse I think) testified to not seeing any injuries.

I'm not sure how getting raped with a bottle can be recorded on audio? "Hun before you insert that bottle let me push the record button".

.............................

I'm glad you see the evidence so crystal clear but I simply don't, fact is a British judge has a different opinion that those Virginia jurors. I for a fact wasn't there so don't really know what happened. I just know this was a crazy, toxic and dysfunctional relationship.

DysonSphere · 02/06/2022 13:20

Innocenta · 02/06/2022 12:38

Nobody has said a woman can't be culpable.

Your exaggerations and distortions are just risible.

Oh of course not....

LetitiaLeghorn · 02/06/2022 13:33

@IrisVersicolor
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

I will admit to being a disadvantage to you having never been abused nor having had discussions with women that have. As,a,result I have no idea how,a used women behave and wouldn't like to speculate.

I do know a little about how courts operate, though, and people who are shown to lie and double down on lies are never viewed well. It might be part of an abusees syndrome, but to those who are trying to sift through facts, anyone whose word is suspect, is going to carry less weight than the word of someone who seems more reliable.

Her lawyers should have gone through this with her. They should have gone through how to present herself as well. She did herself no favours with being able to switch quickly between different emotions with no transition period. Or having a neutral face, glancing at the camera, and then start crying.

Even if I think she has not been fully served well by the result, she did herself no favours throughout the court process.

nosnorkle · 02/06/2022 13:36

JD didn't sue Amber in the UK it was the sun. Therefore a lot of evidence from his side was ignored. They both abused each other but Amber by far is way worse than depp as proven by evidence.

Miscfeminista · 02/06/2022 13:36

Autumndays123 · 02/06/2022 11:37

I've said this already at length but just for clarity as there are still posters jumping in either having not read or listened to the actual verdict, or who unfortunately willfully hear what they want to hear to suit their own narrative.

The jury were specifically asked whether they believe that the allegations of physical and sexual assault were true. AHs lawyer even said in the closing statements that if the jury can find just one time JD abused AH, she wins. The jury stated in their verdict that they believe all of AHs claims were false. They also stated that knowing the allegations were false, maliciously wrote the article to defame (ruin) JD. It's there in black and white. They think she made the whole thing up and set out to frame him. Stop bleating on that this was just a defamation trial and says nothing of the (or lack of) abuse because you are embarrassing yourselves. Do you even know what defamation means??

And again, AHs counter suit was dismissed for two general statements made by JDs then lawyer. Those statements were that AH was lying about the abuse - they agreed she was and that is why she didn't win those counts. You cannot defame someone if the statements are true!

The statement that she won was a whole different kettle off fish. It was specific. JDs lawyer told the press that on once occasion she'd taken active steps to set JD up, including roughing herself up, calling the police and then once then left, calling friends and her publicist to smash the penthouse up so they could get JD arrested. The jury said this was defamatory as not enough evidence was presented that on the one night, AH was trying to get JD arrested.

How anyone can think this is a win for AH is beyond me. The jury award punitive damages to JD and not AH, do you know what punitive damages are? They are intended to PUNISH a party for wrongdoing. The jury thought AH required punishment but not JD. How much more do you need to be spoonfed?

It can’t be read enough

OP posts:
Londondreams1 · 02/06/2022 13:39

I have been watching the trial with interest. Its true that JD has won people over with his charisma and good looks.

He claims he lost work because of her article, part of the reason for suing her. It's likely he lost work due to chaotic behavior. I didn't realise why she was talking about him sleeping late on set so that a day of filming got called off, but now I realise it was related to this point.

She didn't do herself any favours, yes misogyny is real, so why , as a woman, would you then do something like defecate on a bed knowing what kind of world we live in? She seems a bit deluded thinking you can navigate navigate world as a woman and get away with doing something like that -- the whole purpose of him going to court at all might have been to publicly humiliate her fpr the world to see over that one particular incident. Bided his time, so to speak.

She was 23 when they met. Very young, he a couple of decades older, which is a bit suspect. I also adored his ex- wife and have done since I was a teen, as she is an artist in her own right and as a great beauty. I think he was an idiot to dump her for AH, who isn't in my opinion a great beauty, so not sure what the attraction was apart from her youth. That 'look' is ten a penny in the UK, though to be fair she scrubs up very well due to the cash.

AH can't hold any feminist cards after having a baby by surrogacy, I'm sorry to say. I KNEW her baby wouldve been by a surrogate, I just knew. I googled, and yep sure enough it was. There was talk of infertility but that could be a lie to cover up the disgustingness of using a less affluent woman's body, and doesn't explain how I could just guess by instinct that she wouldn't have birthed a baby herself.

To conclude- I have no idea why she was so inarticulate , considering she's an actress. If there were things to say she could've said them, and I kept waiting for them, giving her the benefit of the doubt, but there was nothing tangible . She seemed to be describing a rape at one point but everything was so vague, it could've been anything. Maybe it's cause her lawyers were rubbish.

Innocenta · 02/06/2022 13:47

This reply has been deleted

Refers to deleted post

Innocenta · 02/06/2022 13:48

Once again showing their inability to moderate in a way that actually protects vulnerable women.

Sandra1984 · 02/06/2022 13:50

@Autumndays123 JDs lawyer told the press that on once occasion she'd taken active steps to set JD up, including roughing herself up, calling the police and then once then left, calling friends and her publicist to smash the penthouse up so they could get JD arrested. The jury said this was defamatory as not enough evidence was presented that on the one night, AH was trying to get JD arrested.

That statement doesn't line up with the police statements I heard on the trial, they said to have arrived to her home (after someone called 911) and found her to be quiet and un-cooperative with them. They asked her if she wanted to press charges or have the guy arrested and she said "no". She could have gotten JD arrested had she wanted to and she chose not to (for whatever reason).

FiveNineFive · 02/06/2022 13:58

AH can't hold any feminist cards after having a baby by surrogacy, I'm sorry to say. I KNEW her baby wouldve been by a surrogate, I just knew. I googled, and yep sure enough it was. There was talk of infertility but that could be a lie to cover up the disgustingness of using a less affluent woman's body, and doesn't explain how I could just guess by instinct that she wouldn't have birthed a baby herself.

What does this have to do with the trial though?

FiveNineFive · 02/06/2022 14:00

This reply has been deleted

Refers to deleted post

Londondreams1 · 02/06/2022 14:00

Because the piece she wrote that sparked all of this was a ‘strong feminist piece’ and the argument is that strong women are witch-hunted, which may well be true, but you can’t really identify as such if you’re effectively exploiting other women because they don’t earn as much money as you

TiddyTidTwo · 02/06/2022 14:02

I can't believe her lawyer, Elaine, has just given that interview on national tv. Shockingly unprofessional.

TiddyTidTwo · 02/06/2022 14:04

Sorry, forgot link:

www.today.com/today/amp/rcna31583

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.