Amber Heard&Johnny Depp trial

[Miscfeminista]

I wanted to hear more thoughts from women who actually don't accuse Amber for being"a faker". I don't want to tip toe around it or argue with people over same thing over and over while they pretend they are unbiased when in fact they just support Depp.

A lot has already been said and I know you need to have diverse opinions for better conversation etc but on the other thread I am, I'm so tired of people victim blaming and chewing over stuff with little substance so I wanted to make a separate one where we can follow the rest of the trial and outcome with our comments and observations(without constantly arguing about feminist basics).

My last thought was that AH witnesses have been consistent so far and have been wondering if they pulled away from her because they didn't want the drama surrounding it(instead of actually finding her guilty, like Depp fans are suggesting).

I'm following it over Sky over ones with commentary(every day around 1-2 afternoon UK time, 9 in the morning US time I believe..trial ends next week, think someone said 27th)

All observations welcome. What stood out to you so far?

Sorry daisy I missed that the comment was yours

"I still think that just because she may have lied about some things, doesn’t mean she lied about everything"

I agree, but in the context of a court case, a witness who lies lacks credibility. It doesn't mean AH isn't the true victim but, as can be seen from this thread alone, it makes it harder to believe her. A jury should only consider the facts of the case before them and AH has clearly lied in the witness stand. It is possible that the lies will influence the jury as it might make them question if she lies about 1 thing, what else has she lied about.

As a pp said that the onus was on JD to prove he wasn't an abuser, perhaps AH shouldn't have testified. Of course, by not testifying JD's narrative of her would be the one everyone would remember so it's understandable why she testified. But semantics over words like donate and pledge, only to finally admit she didn't transfer the divorce money as she stated she had done in court in London, under oath, thereby perjuring herself; and over make up used to cover bruises, with her lawyer showing the exact one she used only for AH to have to weave a correction into her testimony once the company stated it hadn't been made at the time the lawyer said she was using it. Why lie? Why ruin your credibility like that when the truth wouldn't have damaged you (although the perjury possibly would have)? I think AH has either been badly advised by her lawyers or is trying to run the case herself and is ignoring her lawyers.

I agree, but in the context of a court case, a witness who lies lacks credibility. It doesn't mean AH isn't the true victim but, as can be seen from this thread alone, it makes it harder to believe her. A jury should only consider the facts of the case before them and AH has clearly lied in the witness stand. It is possible that the lies will influence the jury as it might make them question if she lies about 1 thing, what else has she lied about

absolutely

not referring to this case as ive not really been looking at the information but i do think that people lie out of fear that they wont be believed or that they will be blamed

There are plenty of cases on this site of children lashing out repeatedly at parents. Some with additional needs that coincide with them being bigger and stronger than expected.

Mostly teenage boys attacking mothers.

Your framing of it as "children lashing out repeatedly at parents" disguises the power relationship.

over make up used to cover bruises, with her lawyer showing the exact one she used only for AH to have to weave a correction into her testimony once the company stated it hadn't been made at the time the lawyer said she was using it. Why lie?
See I find this make up thing so weird. They never said a brand. The lawyer said “Let me show you this. This is what Amber carried in her purse during the entire relationship with Johnny Depp,” and held up a colour corrector

I dont think the fact the brand held up didn't make a colour corrector at the time means she was lying. I think it means she used a different colour corrector 🙄

If the lawyer had said "°Amber used milani colour corrector as the only thing that hid the bruise" then sure, lies

But it's huge nitpicking to claim what was actually said was a lie

And actually really scraping the barrel

Yes. I think she would have had much more credibility if she'd stuck to the facts. I think he was abusive, as was she, but not to the extent she is saying.

If she'd stuck to the truth she would have been much better off. I wonder if she felt the abuse wasn't bad enough to win in the court case and one white lie spiralled into another as she had to account for other evidence and suddenly she is in a tangle of lies. She felt she needed to make it seem worse to be believed or to stand by her article rather than admitting it was more minimal.

She was scared of the times JD could say she was abusive- the cut off finger and the stairs incident so decided to blurr the lines to turn things around that he was only the abusive one. Knowing it would be hard to prove either way.

Distorting a truth but in doing so this led to having to tell me and more lies about attacks. She needed to correlate trashing things with attacks from JD so this lead to more exaggeration. But in doing this she made it worse as some of the lies are being revealed.

I don't think we will ever know what really happened unless someone talks in the future. I bet he will never sack or annoy his security guards ever.

I don't think it is. You said yourself, her lawyer held it up and said this is what Amber carried in her purse. If it was as an example of the product, her lawyer should have said, Amber carried a correction palette, similar to this. Taking the lawyers words as literally spoken, the implication is that the one held up was the one used, ergo it was that brand. You don't agree, which is fine, but you are reading into the lawyers words something that wasn't actually articulated. It might be nitpicking but a court is not the place to be ambiguous and lawyers know that. If the lawyer genuinely meant that the make up was similar it should have been clearly said.

I wonder if she felt the abuse wasn't bad enough to win in the court case and one white lie spiralled into another as she had to account for other evidence and suddenly she is in a tangle of lies. She felt she needed to make it seem worse to be believed or to stand by her article rather than admitting it was more minimal.

This is my suspicion, that he was abusive and violent, but perhaps he shoved her and threw things rather than punching her, for example. Perhaps she thought this wasn't enough (it is) so she exaggerated. This would be consistent with a borderline personality too, to make things black and white in this way, him all bad and her the good one. It's sad all round, if they both have BPD and aren't able to seek help, they'll keep going round in circles like this forever more, never taking responsibility for their own actions and blaming the other.

This is really interesting actually. Before her witnesses, a lot of posters thought she was making it all up. Now the narrative appears to be he was abusive but not that abusive and she's still a liar.

Think it shows how badly the trial has gone for him

I have always thought this. I think we're both abusive and she had injuries from fights that got physical between them both.

If she was physical to him where is the evidence of injuries to him, apart from the picture with the mark under his eye? He's not saying there were any marks to him that he didn't photograph or report to medical staff. Except the finger obviously. Was he always able to remain injury free because he was that much stronger than her? In the recordings he says she kicked a door at his face. But he's not claiming and injuries. If she attacked him at the top of the stairs and not the other way round- no injuries at all? Even when trying to restrain her.

Also- yes, I think she is lying about some things. That is clear. But I don't think that means none of the things happened. But it makes it hard to determine the truth and keep her credibility when there are the truthful parts.

What her acting coach said sticks with me. She always found it hard to cry when performing. She seemed to find it hard to cry when giving her testimony and definitely her emotions didn't seem as real as Rocky who seemed genuinely upset when recounting her experiences at that time and her concern for her friend. But maybe she can turn it on. Who knows.

But- at the same time I also think JD is clearly lying too. They both are.

Ok, there are tons of other threads looking into every minute detail of the court case, but since this one is on the feminism board, can I just ask how can anyone possibly defend JD as some sort of a poor misunderstood guy after reading his text messages?

It is clear from the vulgar language that he uses (and consistently) that he hates women, possibly without realising it himself - hence his Southern gent persona, but still, he is a misogynist to the core. Even when talking about his ex-partner, the mother of his children, whom he professed to adore and admire, he is horrible. He is so desperate to be classy and he is just not.

RufustheFloralmissingreindeer · Today 08:13

"in this country which is the one the CPS poster is probably referring to nearly a third of women are in prison for not paying for their tv licence"

Are you actually claiming that a third of all women in prison are there for not paying their licence fee?

I don't know about anyone else, but I've always suspected them both of having BPD and had the same opinion throughout that Johnny was violent but not necessarily in all the ways Amber has described - for what my 2p is worth! Unfortunately, Deppheads will probably hold steadfast to their opinion that JD is a saint who did no wrong because wasn't he funny and cool playing a pirate, no matter what evidence they're presented with. I think her witnesses have been pretty consistent though, whilst Johnny's seem to be his hangers-on and staff who gain financially from him and not as credible for many reasons. The way that Amber has drifted apart from a lot of these old friends is also consistent with BPD. I genuinely wonder how this will all end, not just the verdict but what will happen to them both afterwards, I hope not in a downward spiral for either of them. I think it's a really sad case of what happens when two people with mental health issues get involved and can't break free from a vicious cycle of co-dependency.

AdamRyan · Today 11:56

"This is really interesting actually. Before her witnesses, a lot of posters thought she was making it all up. Now the narrative appears to be he was abusive but not that abusive and she's still a liar.

Think it shows how badly the trial has gone for him"

Is that what you think?

Posters on a feminist site are a small minority of the general population. In terms of the general population this trial has gone very well for him and very badly for her. The mass of public opinion is that she is a liar and the true abuser and her witnesses did little to help her, especially as Whitney is also lying according to Jennifer Howell. Only feminists believe her by this point and not all feminists by any means.

Even if he loses she will never have a career now. Even if he never gets another acting gig she certainly won't get many roles as an ageing glamour girl with little talent and a horribly tarnished reputation. Almost no-one wants to watch her and if the rumours are true she has already been blacklisted by Disney. Even before the trial her part in Aquaman 2 was cut down to 10 minutes which for most people is 10 minutes too long.

What a load of rubbish. Only feminists believe her! Haha! You keep at it with that attitude and keep watching the biased propaganda his lawyers are putting out there. Some people are lapping it up.

His team is far superior in quality but why he quits needs so many lawyers I don't know. I wonder what the point of some of them are.

I don't think it's gone badly for her. Her lawyers certainly is not the best but I thought her witnesses were damning to JD. And imo she has already proven he was abusive on at least one occasion. Not necessarily exactly what she says happened but he did head butt her and he did kick her at the bare minimum. Full stop.

He's already lost the UK case so there must be some substantial evidence there against him otherwise he would have walked the floor with her.

I very interested to see what this week has in store and the final verdict.

Are you actually claiming that a third of all women in prison are there for not paying their licence fee?

Apologies I should have said convictions

Apparently 1% of women are in prison for violent crimes with most women imprisoned for crimes such as shoplifting

@mummyrocks1 "Not necessarily exactly what she says happened but he did head butt her and he did kick her at the bare minimum"

And there lies the problem. By telling a story that isn't necessarily what happened but a version of what happened makes her unreliable. It opens up the question of where else is her version of events unreliable. If he abused her (and I'm not saying he didn't), surely the truth is bad enough without embellishments? One reason for embellishments is to make it sound worse than it was. Another is to change the narrative to give a completely different impression of what happened, one that paints her in a better light. Only AH knows why her evidence isn't consistent but it was ill advised as it's partly what has attracted criticism of her during this case and has damaged her reputation. JD's reputation is damaged too, and rightly so.

I honestly thought AH would win this, particularly after the London case. Once you admit to perjury though, it makes that verdict less reliable as what else did she lie about under oath?

Feminist awareness is raising because shit hit the fan(not with Amber Heard but with plethora of other things like losing abortion rights in several countries across world or still not having them in others, porn mania, gendering and watering of our rights, list goes on)so by no means are we as small as it sounds. Feminists are the organisers, other women join too once they see it’s needed so it isn’t as small number as some here try to portray.

I believe her most of it and the stuff that may come out as not true are probably not as relevant to fact he is abuser-it matters in court but court is not end all be all, it has it’s limitations and that’s exactly why Depp chose it.

I believe her tears were real, even if she felt pressure at some point to present it the way others think women should be upset in(and also the fact it’s easier to control your act in some manner than being actually vulnerable and totally break down in front of others, whether you are an actress or not). I’m amazed how people kept dissecting her crying and founding it unpleasant-I don’t find anyones crying pleasant, it all annoys or upsets me! But it’s other people’s tears, you don’t get to tell them how they should do it. It’s that simple.

And then last, dissecting her charachter while his never came in question. Marilyn Manson and his video KILL4ME? No one seen that pathetic shit where he’s”starring”and having threesome, foursome whatever with women who may as well be teenagers by the looks of their body(Manson and him seem to share their pedo taste)? He is an absolute disgusting woman hater yet people focus on her as the lowest of low. I try not to focus on her charachter because we are mainly talking about whether he is abusive or not, not because I refuse to see she is not”likeable”(some would love her, I personally wouldn’t but again to even talk about likeability plain distasteful and irrelevant)

I felt second hand embarassment listening to a 30+ year old guy talking like a 10 year old about someone he used to know for a certain period of time.

Were you equally embarrassed for Ellen Barkin?

Once you admit to perjury though, it makes that verdict less reliable as what else did she lie about under oath?
She hasn't admitted to perjury. That's pro-Depp media being over the top about what she reportedly said in the sun case.
Perjury is a crime, and as is so often bought up on here, innocent until proven guilty (except unfortunately Depp has put himself in the "guilty until proven innocent"' camp here by bringing a libel trial )

I see the expert witness has said Johnny's finger injury is not consistent with a thrown vodka bottle. Will the pro-Depp posters now admit he's lied under oath?

Ohhhh. Well I haven't been watching today but that's interesting. Could it be the original story that he did it himself with a glass bottle or not consistent with glass?