Amber Heard&Johnny Depp post verdict

[Miscfeminista]

Continuation of previous thread:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/4560089-amber-heardjohnny-depp-verdict?page=1

and the one before(during trial):

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

Also, refresher on DV:

www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/recognising-domestic-abuse/

Except you’re not looking at the evidence for yourself, and you don’t seem to be aware that research exists. Unless @Aspiringmatriarch is correct and you’re simply feigning ignorance.

There are plenty of studies on false rape accusations from the U.K, Europe and the US, and the results are roughly the same ballpark: 4%, between 2-6%, 8% etc.

A key U.K. study in 2005 called ‘A Gap or a Chasm’ tracked over 3500 reported cases through the CJS. 8% of these were designated false by police. In a number of cases the designation was uncertain according to HO criteria and if excluded the the total was 3%.

Cases were most commonly designated false on the grounds of: the complainant admitting it; retractions; evidential issues; and non co-operation by the complainant. In a number of cases police cited mental health problems, prior allegations, drugs/alcohol, lack of CCTV evidence.

Cases involving 16-25 year olds were most likely to be designated false, those unemployed, and those involving a disability including learning disabilities or mental illness.

Accusations should always be taken seriously but we cannot have a situation in which men or women are convicted without compelling evidence. It's simply too dangerous. Unfortunately that will result in a lot of people getting away with things and doing them many times.

Are you under the impression there is any risk of the burden of proof being dismantled? If not, what is the point of this comment?

those unemployed

This should say: those unemployed were more likely to be designated false than those in employment.

@Discovereads

She's a professor at Stanford Law!

@IrisVersicolor
Ive read the studies you mentioned and others besides and I have issues with relying on police designations of false or not false, especially when there is a clear bias against young lower class or disabled women being more likely to have their report designated as “false”. Other biases have been studied as well such as white women alleging rape by black/minority men being almost always believed and therefore rarely being designated “false” by the police. The police are full of societal bias and prejudice that work both to wrongly designate reports as true or designate them as false.

You’d think the complainant admitting it was false would be a definitive criterium, but not so. There’s also the well researched psychology around false confessions so a complainant may admit they “made up the rape” just to stop the whole process and get their life back…when actually they were raped. So that and other criteria like lack of CCTV- how many rapes happen behind closed doors?

They’re all rather subjective criteria imho that cannot be depended on to weed out true rape reports from false rape reports by a biased police force with any degree of certainty.

WTF?! No one in a position of authority over law students should be able to post such toxic things denigrating female lawyers for simply doing their jobs.

IrisVersicolor · Today 12:48

Except you’re not looking at the evidence for yourself, and you don’t seem to be aware that research exists. Unless @Aspiringmatriarch is correct and you’re simply feigning ignorance.

I don’t need to add much more to what Discovereads has said which is a perfect summation of the problems with the methodology being used to determine false allegations.

However, another issue does occur to me in relation to the argument we are having about this particular case.

Amber Heard alleged rape but that this was dismissed unanimously by a jury as malicious lies. As a statistic she should go on the false allegation list. It wasn’t just that there wasn’t enough evidence to say Johnny raped her, it was that the jury thought she was deliberately lying.

And yet you still think she was raped.

Amber also alleged she was the victim of domestic violence and the jury also rejected that as malicious lies. Also the police, the body of men and women who you are using to determine who is and isn’t making false allegations said in the trial there was no evidence of domestic abuse and they did not believe she had suffered violence at the time she said she did.

And yet you still think she was beaten.

Do you not see a lack of logical consistency here?

TiddyTidTwo ·

"She's a professor at Stanford Law!"

I've often noticed that some of the very richest and creamiest misogyny comes from feminists disagreeing with other women.

On a positive note it was good to see that that be-skirted handmaiden of Satan Camille Vasquez was promoted to partner for the excellent job she did ferreting out Amber's lies. She really was incredibly impressive I thought and it was a well deserved win for her and the rest of the team.

"On a positive note it was good to see that that be-skirted handmaiden of Satan Camille Vasquez was promoted to partner for the excellent job she did ferreting out Amber's lies. She really was incredibly impressive I thought and it was a well deserved win for her and the rest of the team"

She's her no.1 target.

She has many young women inspired, can show you are an equal to men, if not even more powerful. Well I think she is 😁

"WTF?! No one in a position of authority over law students should be able to post such toxic things denigrating female lawyers for simply doing their jobs"

AGree. And what effect does this have on the male lawyers coming up too?

Failure all around because I am very suspicious of her. Is she really an advocate for women or just anti-men. Which of course she can be, but don't pretend you're not! Especially in a position of influence over young minds and a verified account on SM.

Second this, How quickly the mask slips and derogatory names are thrown around by so called "progressives". Instead of celebrating this wonderful Hispanic woman who advocated passionately for her client, she's called names.

Camille's cross examination will be used to teach future lawyers as a textbook example of an almost perfect use of a defendants words to expose their lies and she has inspired so many young women to pursue a legal career. It doubly passes off the gatekeepers as she didn't attend a "prestigious" law school and made AHs lawyers look amateur.

• doubly pisses off.

As a statistic she should go on the false allegation list

no

you could argue that she (depending on the evidence) should be taken to court and tried by a jury of her peers

but in the uk at least being found not guilty of a crime does not mean that your accuser lied

neither Heard nor Depp had been charged with anything criminal, the defamation was civil

(ive no idea what happens in the US mind you)

Does not necessarily mean I should say

@RufustheFloralmissingreindeer
”As a statistic she should go on the false allegation list”

no you could argue that she (depending on the evidence) should be taken to court and tried by a jury of her peers

But she was taken to court and tried by a jury of her peers? She alleged JD abused her. JD sued her for defamation…which is making false allegations. She was taken to court and the jury of her peers decided she had made false allegations thus defaming JD.

In a civil court the standard of proof is lower than criminal court….and she could not even meet that standard of “on the balance of probability”. So there’s no way she could prove abuse to the degree of a criminal court, which is “beyond a reasonable doubt”

So she would go as a statistic on the false allegation list.

Even though, I personally do have my doubts as the U.K. court came to the exact opposite verdict in regard to the question of whether JD abused AH or not. So I am suspending judgement for the time being on whether JD or AH was the primary abuser in the relationship.

This case only further underlines the lack of certainty in cases about abuse (or rape) as to what reports are false or true. That even after a full trial, it is possible for the verdict to be wrong. A trial is no guarantee that the truth will be found or justice done.

discover

I don’t disagree per se (in fact i agree with the majority of your post)

but civil court is not criminal (i know you know that…can’t think of a better way of saying it 😀)

in a criminal case if the defendant was found not guilty of rape it doesn’t mean that the ‘victim’ would be guilty of making a false accusation

Glad we are on the same page!

True. But if in a criminal case the defendant were found “not guilty” of rape, the CPS could decide to prosecute the accuser for false police reports. They usually choose not. The defendant now found not guilty could also choose to launch a civil case against the accuser for defamation. So subsequent trials could happen after a criminal case results in “not guilty” which might then find the accuser guilty of false reports/defamation.

Similarly, if the JD and AH civil case had found that AH did not defame JD, as in there is some evidence he abused her, then as most of the events occurred in California, the District Attorney in California could then decide to open a criminal investigation and prosecute JD for domestic abuse of AH.

The interplay between civil and criminal is very interesting.

"Even though, I personally do have my doubts as the U.K. court came to the exact opposite verdict in regard to the question of whether JD abused AH or not. So I am suspending judgement for the time being on whether JD or AH was the primary abuser in the relationship"

I have no doubt the UK trial was the equivalent of a kangaroo court.

Not being obtuse to you btw, I posted I think yesterday with a link, complete with attached docs, that Judge Nichol might have been a little bit biased. Some of his findings beggar belief plus AH was only a witness anyway so wasn't obliged to full disposal of evidence, so could cherry pick what she presented. Since been proven in the US trial she lied, UK trial allegedly now being looked into (I hope they do) and AUS certainly are. That's too many previous jurisdictions looking into perjury for my liking.

RufustheFloralmissingreindeer · Today 18:39

As a statistic she should go on the false allegation list

no

you could argue that she (depending on the evidence) should be taken to court and tried by a jury of her peers

but in the uk at least being found not guilty of a crime does not mean that your accuser lied

neither Heard nor Depp had been charged with anything criminal, the defamation was civil

That isn't what I was saying. I am aware it wasn't a criminal court and that a failed prosecution doesn't mean the accuser lied.

However, if we are in the business of evaluating false accusations being found guilty of defamation and of maliciously lying and being fined a huge amount of money for punitive damages is one of the strongest indications that she was making false allegations and yet many here think the opposite and they are also the ones who think they know how many false accusations there are with some degree of certainty.

I was trying to point out the logical inconsistency in that.

The interplay between civil and criminal is very interesting

absolutely

as long as I’m not personally involved obviously

That isn't what I was saying

oh well thats a relief!

thanks for clarifying

"being fined a huge amount of money for punitive damages is one of the strongest indications that she was making false allegations"

I was shocked at the verdict as it's almost impossible in the US to get a unanimous verdict, but the fact they added punitive damages, to me, was very telling indeed.

The jury sat through 6 weeks of the trial in the same room, had their hands on ALL evidence, not just that televised.

"Punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages, may be awarded by the trier of fact (a jury or a judge, if a jury trial was waived) in addition to actual damages, which compensate a plaintiff for the losses suffered due to the harm caused by the defendant. Punitive damages are a way of punishing the defendant in a civil lawsuit and are based on the theory that the interests of society and the individual harmed can be met by imposing additional damages on the defendant. "

I also want to add.

Kate James, AH former PA, who testified under oath AH spat in her face.

She was a survivor and in her deposition said AH stole her SA story.

Judge Nichol dismissed her as a SA survivor, sided with Heard, and said KJ was bitter.

So...out of those two women there's no man involved in their testimony.

Anyway, my point is one of those two women are lying.

I think statistics is like trying to find quantum data in a black hole. Until science is developed enough, you won't.

Like the human brain, until science is developed enough to quantify a lie, we can't reach it.