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/

I can see that in Amber, she gets so frustrated, she's a chucker, a thrower, a volotile heat of the moment lasher outer.

And a charger, pouncing on him lashing out, raging.

I can just see the anger in her.

I thought the kitchen incident was laughable in regards to showing his temper, she wasn't intimidated, nor would I be, he actually looked an idiot trying to summon up some sort of aggression "I'll show you what anger is" really ?

He looked like a drunken fool who could have lost his balance at any point or have been toppled over with one finger.

If the posters on here think that is how abusers look and sound when they are being intimidatiing then I just don't know. The face of someone who is trying to intimidate is fucking scary, twisted contorted face, they become mocking in their demeanor, their eyes go black and souless. They barge into you, like in a school playground ,wanting you to react so they can attack.

The problem is when someone crosses that line into physical abuse they begin to enjoy it, it's sadistic in nature and you know it only gets worse, your pain becomes their pleasure and you need to get out. So when posters say one hits and the other reacts as though it's a fair fight that is not what it feels like.

There is no fairness with a physical abuser all the rules have gone.
You may as well be in a room with Jack Nicolson out of the Shining.

It's evil, horrible and unfair.

“and for those saying they side with her, you too are spitting in the faces of true victims”

I feel like some here are reacting out of fear to be called not convincing enough themselves lest they denounce women like AH. I believe you and Tiddy and other women who aren’t siding with AH. You lose nothing by not attacking her. You gain nothing by attacking her. Someone mentioned one thread earlier, let men fight their battle because it isn’t the same being a woman or a man that’s victim of DV and we all see there aren’t men rising up to protect and protest for women who are in majority of number of abused. If people believe JD is victim let them prove it, let them do the advocacy for abused men. So far I’m not convinced and just see them using other women who don’t believe AH as a weapon for next time some woman comes out with similar accusations

Oh gosh, DUI is , literally, one of the worst crimes. Amber has done this? Friend of mine just served 4 months in prison, quite rightly, for this even though I empathise deeply with the personal pain she was gojf through. I remember a case where it was late at night and a family with 3 small children were driven off a bridge when they swerved to avoid another driver. All 3 children died. The mum jumping in the sea then climbing back up the bridge over and over again trying to find them. The other driver was drunk. It's not publicised much what drink driving can do.

Onthedunes · Today 00:06

Is this possible to take to a criminal court.

Could Amber take him to criminal court for sexually abusing her all these years after.

Not a hope. You have to prove something to be beyond reasonable doubt and everything Amber says and does is extremely doubtful. No-one is going to want the expense of a criminal trial for someone who has already lost a civil trial where the burden of proof was extremely high and where the star witness has been found to have been malicious in her lies.

Ultimately there is no evidence of sexual abuse other than her word and her word isn't worth anything as she is a compulsive liar.

If there was actual physical or sexual abuse she should have gone to the police in the first place but that she stubbornly refused to do and was uncooperative with the police after she called them.

This is where the argument that no woman can accuse her abuser after this trial falls down. The proper channels to deal with abuse is through the police. You cannot just make accusations in a national newspaper and not expect someone to defend themselves if the accusation is false or if you have no credible evidence. Otherwise anyone could have their life destroyed by a groundless accusation made maliciously.

If you go to the police you stand in no danger of a civil defamation case and no danger of any form of prosecution unless it's obvious you are deliberately lying and staged your own crime like Jussie Smollet. It was for the hoax part, deliberately staging a crime scene, that she won her $2 million.

I'm not convinced she didn't stage a crime scene but the jury decided there wasn't enough evidence to prove that she did so awarded her compensation. The public accusation thing goes both ways although Waldman did at least try to go for a perjury prosecution through official channels. His mistake was to accuse her in public with insufficient evidence.

Miscfeminista · Today 02:30

"I feel like some here are reacting out of fear to be called not convincing enough themselves lest they denounce women like AH. I believe you and Tiddy and other women who aren’t siding with AH. You lose nothing by not attacking her."

Everyone loses by not exposing a liar who tried to use a movement which was set up to address actual wrongdoing as a means to get revenge for rejection after she herself was abusive.

"You gain nothing by attacking her."

On the contrary, we make sure that good movements are not perverted by bad actors.

"Someone mentioned one thread earlier, let men fight their battle because it isn’t the same being a woman or a man that’s victim of DV and we all see there aren’t men rising up to protect and protest for women who are in majority of number of abused."

I'm not sure segregating the sexes is the way to go when dealing with abuse.

"If people believe JD is victim let them prove it, let them do the advocacy for abused men."

You don't seem like the sort of person who would react favourably to any such advocacy group.

"So far I’m not convinced and just see them using other women who don’t believe AH as a weapon for next time some woman comes out with similar accusations"

No-one should make accusations in national newspapers unless they have good evidence that their accusations are true. Otherwise anyone, male or female, could have their lives destroyed by unsubstantiated accusations.

Why do you think people have gone after this particular woman and not the women who accused Weinstein, Savile, Cosby or R Kelly? Is it really because Depp is such a magnetic star that no-one can resist his charm? Or is it because we can plainly see that Amber is a liar even though she is a woman and we don't think women should be free to tell lies and make false accusations even though they are women?

On the witness list.
Depps team objected to every single one of Amber's witnesses then claimed in court she had no support.
A bit like how they got her medical records disallowed, totally prevented her lawyer from asking her about long term effects ("objection! Not a qualified expert" about amber talking about her own nose) and then claimed there was no medical evidence.
I am very surprised they were allowed to say that because personally I think that is lies, but the US system is very different.

Why do you think people have gone after this particular woman and not the women who accused Weinstein, Savile, Cosby or R Kelly?
Why do you think those men got away with their abuse for so long?
They absolutely did go after the initial victims. Ashley Judd said hercareer was damaged by saying no to Weinstein

www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/26/ashley-judd-bargained-escape-harvey-weinstein-room

There is a Bill Cosby is Innocent movement on Twitter and he claims he had consensual sex with the woman who reported him

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/bill-cosby-statement-conviction-overturned-b1875926.html

Jimmy Savile abused with impunity when alive and still got work, despite the rumours.

I also don't think its coincidental that these crimes came to light when the men involved were old/dead and past the peak of their power.

Money and NDAs are powerful things.

I always say this but I would love an example where a man's life has been ruined by false allegations. What I observe is when found not guilty, men carry on as usual. Sometimes even when found guilty.

I think its a patriarchal myth that women ruin mens life

AdamRyan · Today 08:11

"Why do you think those men got away with their abuse for so long?"

For a number of reasons. Intimidation, pay offs, fear of not being believed.

"They absolutely did go after the initial victims. Ashley Judd said hercareer was damaged by saying no to Weinstein"

Yes, he had power to harm women's careers but that isn't the point I'm making. There is no mass of people who don't believe Ashley Judd. The vast majority of people believe all the woman who accused Weinstein of rape and sexual abuse.

"There is a Bill Cosby is Innocent movement on Twitter and he claims he had consensual sex with the woman who reported him"

Yes, you can find lunatics everywhere and about every subject. Theirs is not a movement with wide support among the general public.

"Jimmy Savile abused with impunity when alive and still got work, despite the rumours."

Because there was a cover up as there was with the girls raped by the grooming gangs. However, the vast majority of people still believe all those adults who were molested as children by Savile or the grooming gangs and they don't believe Amber.

"I also don't think its coincidental that these crimes came to light when the men involved were old/dead and past the peak of their power."

No, probably not. People with power tend to wield it and a threat of defamation certainly can be used to silence victims, no doubt about it. However, I don't think Weinstein was past his peak of power. I think he was toppled from a position of great power.

"Money and NDAs are powerful things."

They are but if you want to stop abusers from abusing don't sign an NDA and don't take their money. You're just adding to the problem if you do. I can see why it would be tempting but it is the wrong thing to do.

Why do you think people have gone after this particular woman and not the women who accused Weinstein, Savile, Cosby or R Kelly?

People absolutely have gone after women involved in high profile cases. Hounded them, doxxed them,released their names,incited violence,called them every name under the sun. Every single woman accusing someone with any kind of name has been called a liar . Same applies for "no names" . Let's not pretend otherwise.

AdamRyan · Today 08:13

"I always say this but I would love an example where a man's life has been ruined by false allegations. What I observe is when found not guilty, men carry on as usual. Sometimes even when found guilty.

I think its a patriarchal myth that women ruin mens life"

Emmett Till might disagree with you, if he could.

www.vulture.com/2021/11/man-exonerated-in-alice-sebold-rape-case.html?regwall-newsletter-signup=true

www.forbes.com/sites/karlynborysenko/2020/02/12/the-dark-side-of-metoo-what-happens-when-men-are-falsely-accused/?sh=71479910864d

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/man-falsely-accused-of-sexually-assault-on-actress-wants-apology-from-cps-over-bemusing-case-a6877036.html

www.bsblaw.co.uk/blog/y1ki1cx5jzxoaiwp48kegwc04ukcct

They are but if you want to stop abusers from abusing don't sign an NDA and don't take their money. You're just adding to the problem if you do. I can see why it would be tempting but it is the wrong thing to do.

It's nobody's fault but the perpetrators. And how does that even make sense since you acknowledged in the same post that girls who came forward about the grooming gangs and Saville were not believed! But that was different because there was a cover up? You do realise Depp has NDAs all over the place - Vanessa Paradis, his first wife, and many others? Sounds like a cover up to me.

ldontWanna · Today 08:42

"People absolutely have gone after women involved in high profile cases. Hounded them, doxxed them,released their names,incited violence,called them every name under the sun. Every single woman accusing someone with any kind of name has been called a liar . Same applies for "no names" . Let's not pretend otherwise."

I haven't pretended anything of the sort. We only have to look at what happened with the Catholic church to see that and that involved men as well as women.

However, this case has gone on for years and people initially believed Amber and she had (and to a large extent still has) the support of the mainstream media. He lost his jobs, she didn't lose hers.

What happened is that the more she told her 'truth' the less people believed it. The opposite happened with Savile, Weinstein, Cosby, the grooming gang girls or the people raped and molested by priests. The more we heard about those cases the more the victims were believed by the general public.

Horrible. Shows the kind of thugs they all are.

Aspiringmatriarch · Today 08:58

"It's nobody's fault but the perpetrators."

Yes, they are responsible for what they did but accepting money in exchange for an NDA means you have stopped any attempt to bring them to account. I understand why people do it when you think there is no hope of them being prosecuted for their crimes but it is still adding to the problem.

"And how does that even make sense since you acknowledged in the same post that girls who came forward about the grooming gangs and Saville were not believed!"

What part don't you understand? Even if you are not believed that doesn't make it a good move to take their money in exchange for silence if you want them stopped. You have effectively given them a licence to go on abusing. Again, I understand the temptation but it is till counterproductive.

"You do realise Depp has NDAs all over the place - Vanessa Paradis, his first wife, and many others? Sounds like a cover up to me."

Not all NDAs are there to cover up sexual abuse or violence. It's highly unlikely Paradis or any of his ex-wives/girlfriends would have spoken in such glowing terms of him if her really was an habitual abuser. Possible, but improbable.

If there is a cover up for his behaviour then individuals can pursue that if they haven't chosen to be bought off. Heard signed an NDA, broke it and still lost because she was clearly lying and a very unconvincing witness.

Once again, you seem to imagine I am part of the Johnny Depp fan club. It is nothing of the sort. I am pointing out why Amber lost and why I and many others don't believe her.

With the exception of the video none of those men have had their life ruined. They might have been "falsely accused" but their jobs etc still appear to be carrying on as normal?
Also, in at least one of those charges were dropped which isn't the same as a vindictive lying woman making false allegations.

In the video, he was killed by a man. So male violence is the problem there.

People like Depp claim that the slight to their reputation is a heinous crime, but the evidence is it has little to no impact. His fans still adore him and people write off every aspect of his behaviour with "Amber lied".

I suppose men who are falsely accused and then convicted would be able to say their lives were ruined. Of course no one would listen as they are convicted but courts do get it wrong. Goes round in circles.

People like Depp claim that the slight to their reputation is a heinous crime, but the evidence is it has little to no impact. His fans still adore him and people write off every aspect of his behaviour with "Amber lied".

Well that’s not entirely true that accusations alone have little to no impact. JD was dropped from the Fantastic Beasts franchise and passed over for other work directly due to the “wifebeater” case in the U.K. before the ruling from the court upholding it. Similarly, AH was dropped from the Aquaman franchise and has said she’s been passed over for other work due to JDs counter accusations of domestic violence (she was dropped before the verdict in the US siding with JD).

If you read the news almost every week someone is being forced to resign their job and sometimes even their career due to accusations of some sort or another. I think the one a couple weeks ago was the strangest though as a Bristol councillor was forced to resign after accusations emerged that he is Banksy.

AdamRyan · Today 09:22

"With the exception of the video none of those men have had their life ruined."

I think the man who went to prison for 16 years might disagree. Or maybe it was just like going to a relaxing spa resort for a decade and half.

"They might have been "falsely accused" but their jobs etc still appear to be carrying on as normal?"

Largely because it was proved that they were falsely accused. Do you have so much faith in the justice system that you imagine no false accusation has ever led to a loss of reputation, career and liberty? I can find other instances of false imprisonment if you want.

"Also, in at least one of those charges were dropped which isn't the same as a vindictive lying woman making false allegations."

And why were the charges dropped?

"In the video, he was killed by a man. So male violence is the problem there."

So the woman who falsely accused him bears no responsibility at all? Does the woman who falsely accused Emmett Till bear no responsibility for his lynching either? What about people who dox someone? Are they entirely innocent if something bad happens to their victim if a man does it?

"People like Depp claim that the slight to their reputation is a heinous crime, but the evidence is it has little to no impact."

You seem like a rather frightening person. I hope to God you don't have sons. Are you really totally unable to put yourself in someone else's shoes? Are you so entirely lacking in empathy and imagination for someone with different genitals to yourself?

He said it destroyed everything for him. He said he lost everything. Do you think men easily brush off accusation of rape, sexual abuse and violence that easily, just a temporary irritation that large numbers of people think they are violent perverts? Or that their friends, family and children read what is written about them? Do you think they are just insensitive blockheads?

And we have fairly good evidence that Johnny's career was significantly derailed as a result of Amber's accusations and his long fight to clear himself.

" His fans still adore him and people write off every aspect of his behaviour with "Amber lied"."

Yes, that must be some comfort but I suspect anyone falsely accused would much rather not have been accused in the first place and not have people like you forever doubting them based on the word of a compulsive lair who a jury of men and women found unanimously to have acted with actual malice.

I would imagine anyone who is accused of such things, even if found innocent, this would deeply affect them for the rest of their life, and their families.

That cloud would forever hang over them, whether their careers continued or not.

It's a terrible thing to inflict on someone else. Malicious.

I'm sorry for her, and I do absolutely believe she's been the victim of both psychological and physical abuse (as has he). There is evidence and witness testimony to the fact. However, that evidence is thin. She made terrible claims about him, the one about the bottle being the pinnacle, and if you're going to make such serious accusations there needs to be compelling evidence to support them. I simply didn't see this. Her descriptions of the appalling abuse she suffered simply weren't consistent with the level of injury documented, particularly relating to the glass strewn around the floor after the Australia incident. It wasn't enough to convince.

IMO, what's undone Heard is the word 'sexual' in the headline of the op ed. My suspicion is she then had to overegg the pudding in order to justify that word. Once she was shown to have been lying about other specific issues, her credibility was shot. Here's where Vasquez played a blinder. In her closing statement she said either you believe all Heard had to say, or you believe none of it. This isn't the case. There's a very complicated picture here. However, IF (and it's a big 'if') the juror on Tik Tok is who he says he is, then the jury apparently took her at her word. Heard had lied about some things, therefore her word wasn't trustworthy. Fair enough. It's a 50/50 balance of probabilities. But the same (alleged) juror did also say that they, too, absolutely believed Depp HAD been guilty of physical abuse. Which does beg the question of how they still managed to reach the verdict they did. (Assuming he's genuine, of course).

The stuff about past abuse. Tasya van Ree is on written record saying she was not abused by Heard. Other exes of Heard's haven't claimed she abused them. An ex of Depps, quite aside from Moss, did take the stand and revealed the same controlling, abusive pattern of behaviour toward her as the one detailed by Heard.

DUI - awful. Mel Gibson has a conviction for the same offence - also awful. But he's still working. The standard of behaviour for men here is, yet again, far lower than for women. They are given a pass for actions which in a female renders them persona non grata.

I don't think Heard has a hope of bringing, much less winning, an appeal. There are only two bases on which she could do so: one being the finding of new evidence (or admissible evidence being suppressed), and second, the Judge's misreading of the law. Had Deuter's testimony been admitted, this would have strengthened Heard's case considerably. I'm assuming it was struck off as hearsay. I also doubt there's a snowball's chance in hell of that efficient, formidably competent, admirable Judge being caught napping.

Final point: the verdict of the US trial doesn't in any way negate the verdict of the UK one. If anything's done that, it's the highly untrustworthy court of public opinion.

How about Ched Evans? Falsely convicted of rape, overturned on appeal. Tried to continue his life and had people like Jessica Ennis standing up and saying she didn't want to be associated with the club etc. and refusing to apologise or back down when the charge was overturned.

www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial

We'll obviously never truly know what went on, but if we take it at face value he's had his life significantly derailed by a false claim (I don't think he's a very nice bloke for the record, but that isn't a crime).

Ched Evans? Really? That's the case you picked?

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

She made terrible claims about him, the one about the bottle being the pinnacle, and if you're going to make such serious accusations there needs to be compelling evidence to support them.

You’ve basically just dismissed the majority of sexual assault, rape and sexual abuse cases. Are you aware of that?

Sex offences often come down to one person’s word against another.

What goes “compelling evidence” mean to you?

Does it really need explaining that being found not guilty is not the same as the a false accusation?

In this case he was found guilty at the original trial, and the second trial was won by allowing evidence on the complainant’s sexual history