Aspiringmatriarch · Today 16:51
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I really don't care that much about either of them or see this case as greatly significant of a wider cause or problem. I don't think it is a great blow to feminism or the me too movement or a great victory for men's rights and/or misogyny. I am concerned about the politicisation of it.
I am merely trying to analyse things as dispassionately as I can and to work out why Johnny won and Amber lost and why most people who watched it believed him and not her.
I neither love Johnny nor hate Amber. I don't know if Johnny ever hit Amber. I am fairly convinced she hit him. Whether that was in retaliation for his general behaviour I can't be certain. All I am sure of is she lied in court several times and was a very poor witness. That is why she lost the case.
"The judge did acccept the rape claim. From the judgment:"
"I have also accepted the further allegation in the confidential annexe regarding this incident".
Too vaguely worded. Again, not my understanding of what happened.
"WRT covering injuries/appearance of injuries this is not the realm of fantasy. I actually find that quite insulting. Maybe you could look at this twitter thread:
mobile.twitter.com/DerekMYoung/status/1528266801930334208
And the photo attached to this post."
I've had a broken nose and a black eye. I didn't manage to cover them in makeup. I have never been punched in the face by a man wearing lots of heavy rings but I doubt I could have appeared on a talkshow the day after and been perfectly presentable even if they spread makeup on my face with a trowel.
"I'm also including a picture of the print edition of Depp's Rolling Stone interview in which he admits to his most recent assault (the online version has been changed)."
I can't read that unfortunately, it's too small.
"There's a statement from the plaintiff in that case saying he finds the story about Depp intervening on behalf of a black homeless woman particularly hurtful as he had a period of homelessness in the past and was partly raised by an African American foster carer."
Well he would say that, wouldn't he? Another witness has said he didn't hit him. It's also another case and doesn't mean Johnny ever hit Amber or any other woman. It is a separate case and unproven so far. Even if he does hit men it doesn't automatically mean he hits women. It could argue he has violent tendencies but that isn't enough on its own to convince many people he was violent to Amber.
"To address some other points, I don't accept that the statement about the donation is a lie. It's quite accepted make donations like that over a period of time."
I'm sure you don't but it obviously is. She went round saying she had already donated the money, not pledged to do so. She said that in court in London. It is frankly ridiculous to claim she didn't lie at this point.
"I do actually think the Hicksville guy is dodgy, if you look at some of his past reviews he actually sounds quite scary. And he follows a Depp fan account on Twitter."
He might be but then so might Rocky. And I'm not sure it has been proved he followed a Johnny fan account. Even if he did it doesn't make him a liar. Neither Johnny's nor Amber's witnesses are necessarily lying because they are biased in their favour. On his own Mr Hicksville could be easily discounted but we are dealing with a lot of witnesses who undermine her case. There were enough to convince the jury she was lying about more or less everything, regardless of whether she was.
"Third parties relating what they recall Whitney saying isn't conclusive either way for me, things get too distorted."
And yet you have little difficulty believing third parties talking about Johnny.
"I know one lot of police lied about how long they were in the apartment, as shown by CCTV and the island manager got caught out saying she'd never seen Depp passed out (in fact she and Depp's son had found him on the beach passed out)."
Not necessarily lies. They could easily have been mistaken or forgotten. We also have bodycam footage which showed no damage to the apartment.
"Lastly, we could talk about reactive abuse but I think that's probably a bit nuanced given your stance overall."
Yes, much too nuanced. That sounds like making excuses for someone who is also violent by simply saying, they started it first. You don't get to be an innocent victim any more but just someone in a mutually destructive relationship. We also have little direct evidence he hit her. He shouted at her, called her ugly names, banged doors and said horrible things about her in texts. None of that is the same as actual violence. On the other hand she did say she couldn't promise not to hit him and agreed she started physical fights.