Amber heard Johnny depp

[Chéri44]

I’ve just started watching this on Netflix. Is anyone else watching it ? Thoughts ?

And yet she was still found to have been abusive

And many of us don't understand the worship of her

scary thing is that the same logic used to defend AH is used to blame women who are trying to get out of relationships with their abusers if they happen to be anything but perfect, innocent souls

women in active addiction get far less sympathy for the abuse they may have experienced so it figures that JD is somehow seen as the devil in comparison to a more clean image of his ex

yes, he is arguably an awful person with history of addiction and wrecking hotel rooms - doesn't mean he wasn't abused

She was arrested for hitting her ex girlfriend. He wasn't.
She admitted to hitting him! He didn't.
She admitted to chasing him when he was trying to leave and hide in the bathroom.
She lied about donating money.

No wonder victims aren't believe. Despite the overwhelming evidence people still don't believe victims.

If Amber was a man NO ONE would be defending her.

The misogyny on this thread is disgusting.

@Princessconsuelabananahammock9

Well said.

The reason I've spent time on this thread is that male abuse victims are probably reading and they need to know they'll be believed.

The funniest bit in the trial was "Aquaman" was the most famous film produced of all time. (Or something like that) Even her lawyers looked embarrassed by that.

Grandiose much?

I don’t think I’ve seen worship of her.

Not in both cases, however. But you’re correct, and this one destroyed her. Financially and in the court of public opinion.

@AliciaLime the UK case didn't establish she wasn't abusive. just that her calling Depp abusive was not a lie - at some point abuse can go both ways

the UK case was a bit weird in a sense that the paper (who was the sued party) didn't lie based on Heard's testimony, how true that testimony was a secondary issue. I've read court files and it's literally "she said, he said, she did, he did" with no real evidence for either side. Depp messed up because his defence was that he doesn't recall ever doing any of the things she said he did and he wasn't believed

so i don't know if he did what he was accused of, including apparently kicking her on the back

I agree, I recall during the trial when she was grilled by Camille & Depp’s team for the amount of evidence she had for certain events.

If she took photos and documented what happened (which is what many laypeople and experts tell DV victims to do in these situations as best they can), Depp’s team and his defenders routinely argued that the documentation was a hoax, or inappropriate to do (??) in some way (even though he often recorded their fights when it benefited him).
However, if she didn’t have photos or some sort of other evidence (text messages etc) then that means she’s lying. So regardless of what she did, if she did or didn’t try to document, she couldn’t ever do anything right to them.

Then their routine denial and/or coddling of Depp’s drug and alcohol use when it’s convenient, and slamming Amber for her recreational and minimal drug use. They’ll routinely argue he doesn’t have a problem (which I think even Depp himself would laugh at as he kinda takes pride in how much money he drops on alcohol by itself), then they argue that he only used that much because Amber drove him to it (never mind that he opened a club that was essentially a giant celebrity substance abuse party when Amber was a literal child, the Viper room where poor River Phoenix died), to saying it’s impossible for someone who is an addict to be that violent towards their partner (Camille Vasquez tried to argue this as well).

Then they accused Amber of being a drug addict because she’s done coke recreationally at some point even though I’m fairly sure she’s sober/not using at all now, all the way up to accusing her of snorting coke on the stand at trial on social media.

However, hypocrisy and constant moving of the goalposts is pretty much the Depp Defender playbook. I swear even if a powerful witness from Hollywood showed up tomorrow to say he saw the bruises on her or heard him shout at her, people would still side with him simply because they need to believe one famous man was abused by a woman and all women are liars, and "women can be just as evil as men".

I am sorry but we are a first world country and a top economy, not Soviet Russia. our legal system is not that corrupt that both the judge and the appeal judge (an entirely different person this time) were paid off to rule against his lawsuit. US is not a gold standard or justice, remember OJ Simpson ?

he is documented to have hit someone on the set of city of lies (Gregg “Rocky” Brooks). if we are to believe all men now, then surely that bloke was also telling the truth ? or does it work only when the victim is rich and famous ?

It’s like he’s cast a spell. A social media one perhaps, but a spell where he can do no wrong. It’s somewhat fascinating.

I'd like to remind you she settled the lawsuit and is living in Madrid which is gorgeous fwiw and she never had to pay him a dime. I also have Spanish friends and no one cares about him enough over there to harass a single mother with a young daughter
:)

I believed Alex Skeel :)
Depp is not Alex Skeel. the end.

@paperflowers55 but the ruling wasn't about whether heard has lied, just whether the paper was right to report

and im no sure why people try to imply that anyone says depp can do no wrong - he is an addict with a vile temper, but he was abused - doesn't mean he never hit anyone or hit heard back

he hit his former crew member on set and had to settle, and he also was known to destroy hotel rooms back in the 90s. the audio recordings made him sound very angry. it's very possible he is violent when drunk/using and does not remember.

@paperflowers55

Probably because he was a very sympathic victim and the abuse was largely physical (you can't argue with a boiled kettle).

Depps abuse was much more in keeping with the typical pattern of female on male abuse or cluster B abuse:

1. Love bombing
2. Gaining trust
3. Devaluing and criticising "you're a washed up joke Johnny" she sneered while laughing
4. Demand they do everything you want an alternate between contrite apologies and insane outbursts
5. Once they're completely mad from it all, tell them you're going to tell everyone THEY are the abuser and no one will believe them.

Anyone who's been abused by a cluster B Personslity can tell you the effect of the psychological abuse is nuch worse than physical bruises.

I've read their transcripts and heard their audio tapes.

He's the one who was trying to get away
He's the one who was trying to appease her
He's the one who was scared

She is the one who was admitting violence and abuse
She is the one saying "I only get so crazy because you make me"
She is the one deliberately trying to provoke

She is the abuser

He's an awful person, but he's still been abused. Notably by someone also arrested for abusing previous partners.

Sounds idyllic. I hope for her and her children’s sake that there is a reasonable life after this.

yes but everyone is obsessing over her alleged "lies" over and over again. it's literally a real life play of "White Bear" episode in Black Mirror where people want to punish her, except it's online and not in a forest or a field somewhere.

the problem is social media has taken a lot of clips out of context (I have literally seen someone edit her voice making her sounds like she was saying she painted her own bruises on...) and forced a narrative. if people wanted to read about the case objectively they's see some red flags in his statements quite easily. not the video, just written statements. including texts to Paul Bettany.

also not sure I believe she took years to plan out this entire plan to destroy his career. I'm not buying it ... he hit her first and doesn't remember.

Sorry I wasted your precious time pointing out the bleeding obvious.

i think she is just a vile person who got into a relationship with someone who was already questionable and therefore easy to abuse - and i dont think she abused him because that was some grand plan. abusers simply have horrible nature like this and do the things they do when they try to force their partners to do as they're told...trying to force a volatile addict to follow her lead probably caused a lot of frustrations and so she abused him and then painted bruises on her face

basically this was a mess of a relationship. but she held more power in that case

@paperflowers55 You actually don't agree with me, you just don't know it!

You have either not been on her very long or you haven't read the threads that were on here during the trial
For many she could do no wrong

strangely enough neither of them were found to be abusive in both trials
Not that you will get many Heard supporters to understand what the happening in the first trial

even though I’m fairly sure she’s sober/not using at all now

Based on what evidence? @paperflowers55