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 >>>>>>>>>>

Jesus, this is straight out of the patriarchy playbook. Only the right sort of woman can be belived

You don't know her OBGYN (nor do I) history and why she hired a surrogate, she could have fertility issues or a health condition.

Well yes that's probably why the jury found in her favour for that one statement?

Forgot to quote - Well yes that's probably why the jury found in her favour for that one statement?

public opinion counts and this was a dealbreaker for me in terms of whether I should continue giving her the benefit of the doubt . To be so disconnected that it would be okay in your head to pay a woman to carry a baby for you tells me that she feels very entitled in lots of ways, and without anything tangible that he has done to her I’m not sure she can be considered an abuse victim. Her youth is a factor that’s true, a lot younger and less powerful than him... but still, he was in a long term marriage with children when they met so I’m just saying it’s hard for me to take her side

He was found guilty in the UK.
Thought this was a decent article.

www.vox.com/culture/23043519/johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-trial-fairfax-county-domestic-abuse-violence-me-too

@Sandra1984
no I don’t know her obgyn. I’m just saying I didn’t even have to google to know AH wouldn’t have carried the baby herself. I just knew. Then I googled and it was confirmed. And I don’t think infertility is an excuse to hire a less affluent woman’s body, personally, but that’s me . And then there’s the issue of whether the infertility is just a cover for the fact that hiring a surrogate is basically atrocious, especially by someone who writes articles as a feminist

Because as we know, only good women get abused...

No he was not. He lost a libel case in the UK. That is not the same as being found guilty. For a start, the standard of proof needed is lower - balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

I haven’t read much on any of this trial so all I can say is what a mess. All the trappings of fame are a poisoned chalice for some. Reading the comments on different sites It’s either Team Johnny or Team Amber but it seems like there were a lot of problems on both sides. Now both have to pick up the pieces of their lives and try to move on.

@FiveNineFive out the patriarchy playbook? Maybe you’re right. I find surrogacy an extremely exploitative anti feminist practice , evidenced by the fact you never get millionaire actresses becoming surrogates and carrying babies to hand over at birth to women on the minimum wage. So I’m disinclined to give AH the feminist benefit of the doubt

The manager is an avid Johnny Depp fan following Waldan's fabricated anti-Amber tweets and posting hatred anti amber tweets.

Just because Heard's lawyers alleged this doesn't mean it is true. They did not offer any evidence in support of these allegations. They simply asked him if these things were true and he flatly denied them. If he is, indeed, an avid Depp fan and follows the anti-Heard accounts they asked him about, they should have challenged him with evidence. The fact they did not strongly suggests they were on a fishing expedition to try and discredit him.

My point is, it doesn't matter what you think of surrogacy (I think its incredibly unethical) or whether she is a good feminist or not. None of these things make any difference to whether she was abused or not

Nope, I was watching the whole court statement with this guy on telly and his anti-amber tweets (pretty full of hatred by the way) were popped up on screen by her lawyers for everyone to see. He was part of the "amberpoop" "justiceforjohhny" you-name -it twitter brigade. His anti-amber tweets had the maturity of of a 5 year old. It was quite embarrassing.

I feel for Elaine. She's a human being and has a job to do, to advocate and support her client. She's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I do disagree that AH has strong grounds to appeal, and basically say "the jury must have seen social media so that's why they got it wrong" was rather unprofessional.

If you don't trust a jury and you are calling them out as "wrong" then you risk the very fabric of your own justice system.

A jury is a jury, they give a verdict, you have to respect it. You can disagree but you have to respect that they have carried out their instructions, deliberated with due-dilligence and been professional.

@ObjectionHearsay I do disagree that AH has strong grounds to appeal, and basically say "the jury must have seen social media so that's why they got it wrong" was rather unprofessional.

I wonder what the verdict would be if instead of JD the guy taking the stand was Joe the plumber from Kansas, some guy who has no fans, never made a movie and no one cares about.

I don't think it's unprofessional. But it does make me wonder about her. She said the main ground for appeal was that the case should have been dismissed because of the uk trial. But the uk trial was not Depp v Heard and so certain evidence was not allowed to be submitted. It's not comparing like with like. Basically, she's saying the judge did a bad job. I wonder if she ever thinks that actually some of this came down to the poor job she did?

We'd never have known about Joe's ex lying over Hicksville for one.

Hi all. We've received a fair number of reports about this thread so we're going to go through it and remove anything that breaks the Talk guidelines. We'll also be removing any personal attacks and anything that looks like it's derailing the thread into a spat between members. Please bear with us, and please do report any further concerns.

Is that true? I thought those tweets were made by Umbrella Guy not by Morgan Night? And Morgan Night didn't follow Umbrella Guy. A co worker contacted him about it and he then watched the clip of the trial and spoke to Umbella Guy and said it didn't happen.

@ObjectionHearsay

The social media claim influencing in her interview, their SM witness mentioning about the hashtags, so they effectively did this themselves. I can't get my head around this.

I do like Elaine but deer in headlights spring to mind. I think they will appeal but on what grounds I'm not sure.

@LetitiaLeghorn

Well, quite.

I'm thinking right at this moment, not saying anything and wait for appeal would be best.

Correct.

In Elaine Bredehof's case, not saying anything would probably always be for the best. 😉😄

So Amber is a lying con-artist and Elaine Bredehof (a well known attorney with an impeccable professional record) someone who "needs to keep her mouth shut"? It's actually her job to keep her mouth open. Sounds like find powerful women with opinions a tad annoying? Internalized misoginy?