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?

For me, it's very clear she lied over the donation and TMZ. Leaving aside her terrible acting on the stand, I believe she lied over other things but these two are very clear. But I don't understand why she wouldn't confess up to them. Neither are big issues. Why double down on them? Because if the jury believe she's lying over one thing, they have a legal right to believe she is/might be lying over everything. Why risk your credibility?
I believe Depp lied too, by the way. But there isn't the same evidence of lying as there is against her. I just don't understand what her thinking is.
Though, it's immaterial what this guy says as it won't go before the jury.

No because she knew him for a lot longer than that guy knew Amber and after that was in intimate relationship with him for about half year or so. She wanted to support another woman probably or just doesn't give a f either way and wanted to say it as it is, whether for her personal satisfaction(because he might have wronged her in their personal relationship or something)or whatever. She didn't go into details, she could have said A LOT more if she wanted to. She also didn't go on youtube to get her views up and called him crazy

@Miscfeminista They both knew each other for several months and formed opinions of each other. And this guy knew Heard a lot nearer to the present than Barkin knew Depp. It's immaterial why they gave evidence, it could be that Barkin felt bitter at being dumped (lucky escape), we don't know. As long as they tell the truth, does it matter about their motivation?

But really, she did cocaine? I mean, I don't think there'd be many, if any, in the courtroom who believe she didn't do cocaine. She said it was her sister who taught techniques to Depp. So it was everywhere. But in the scheme of things, the drugs she did are inconsequential.

The whole case is a mess. I know she's lied and I'm pretty sure he's lied. It's just a toxic relationship where neither come out well. It's just that he has a better legal team than her and that could be the difference.

@mummyrocks1
twitter.com/sierragillespie/status/1528728511564992519?s=20&t=n_KKz7x9_3GNx5hRq8mvDw

(It's quite graphic)
He said he didn't know what caused the injury but it is not consistent with Depps testimony

@Earlydancing likewise, Barkin knew him long before he met Amber, for all those who want to blame him acting the way he did as reaction to Amber's behaviour. He also knew 20-21 year old Amber who still has baby face and looks and acts like a teenager, seeing the roles she had(which make me a bit sick, as Hollywood does)that resemble teen porn, I don't have doubts she was passed around and"going through the grind". Her 20s still sound a lot less awful than Depps 20s regards their behaviour. Just the fact he met her in that stage doesn't really make him any better-what is a 40-50 year old with kids doing chasing a 23 year old almost as old as his daughter or at least looking like it, who was also in a relationship? The way it all started was completely inappropriate from his side. He eyed her from the very beginning and no doubt helped her get the role in the movie because he wanted to persuade her(just the fact he stuck his tongue on the movie set without warning is disgusting enough, I guess he wanted to immitate his friend MArilyn).

@Miscfeminista There are all sorts of permutations of everything. This may have happened or that may have happened. Or not. We might think this or that but its really about what we know.

Majority of what I wrote did happen tho

@Miscfeminista Sorry I posted too early.

I'm just looking at evidence as it's presented in court. I know that Amber Heard has lied about things. I know her story and her sisters story about the stairs incident are different with Whitney contradicting her sisters story. I've just listened to a doctor saying that Depps finger injury did not happen with a bottle which throws into question Heards involvement. So that's evidence I can believe too.

I don't care why Depp and Heard got together. They were both adults. I can't speculate what was going on in their minds. I'm just interested in what is being said in the trial so I can cone to my own conclusion about the truth of what happened.

Sorry, to be clear the doctors evidence is in Heards favour. And I believe him.

If we say young women are adults and have a right to make autonomous decisions about their body and their life, then they also have to take responsibility for their actions. Rights bring responsibilities. Yes, you can be more sympathetic to younger people, but they are still grown ups. But she started dating him when she was 26 and married at 29. She wasn't a child.

All good I'm not trying to come off abrasive or go after anyone(I'm ranting basically). Yes she was an adult but I have symphaty for young women getting duped by older men. It's the dishonesty that's there from very beginning generally speaking. They know they are dragging this a bit less experienced person in so they can gain something from them-a young body to use, trophy gf. These older men never treat their younger partners on equal footing, they just think they are generous for taking in consideration they can't know some things until they been through it but actually they are taking advantage of that. They know they will not argue with them about similar things as their older, more equal partners to them would because they simply didn't put their priorities together yet or have experience in what they should accept or not. I really hate seeing that.

twitter.com/sierragillespie/status/1528763233531830275?s=20&t=BgmGZ1bkFZivQgoCSRVGMg

Psychiatrist has just said of Depp "Dr. Spiegel: I can probably say with a reasonable certainty that through some degree this whole trial ... in terms of narcissistic insult is what going on."

So again, let's see whether an expert witness saying Depp is a narcissist gets the same respect in the media as an expert witness diagnosing heard with BPD

Difference is, this one as well as Dr Hughes was board certified with about 30 years of experience, while dr Curry"looked cool". I guess the latter makes public more convinced of professional qualifications and credibility lol

"I can probably say with a reasonable certainty that through some degree this whole trial ... in terms of narcissistic insult is what going on."

Absolutley.

You're right. AH hasn't actually admitted to perjury but she has, apparently, committed it as she told the London Court, under oath, that she had donated the money but admitted, under oath, in this case that she hadn't. Lying under oath is perjury and it's being widely reported, not just by JD supporters. However, the whole debacle was made worse by AH arguing over the definitions of 'donate' and 'pledge' as it extended the questioning on that point and really emphasised the point that she hadn't paid the money.

I honestly don't understand her approach in this casw. He was found guilty of abuse in an England. She should have gone into this case with a massive advantage but has, by not being completely honest, arguing semantics, and overdoing some trestimony, put herself on the back foot. Now she has to go through Kate Moss's testimony because she brought her into the case. Who knows what she will say and it may backfire on JD but it's only possible because AH either overtalked or was careless in her testimony.

However, the whole debacle was made worse by AH arguing over the definitions of 'donate' and 'pledge' as it extended the questioning on that point and really emphasised the point that she hadn't paid the money.

Charity lawyer said that payments stopped coming and that she clarified she is having financial difficulties. He didn't emphsasise enough that they expected that money in the span of up to 10 years so technically she didn't"not donate the money", she just didn't pay it out in full(we can assume yet or that she never will, that's speculation, all we know is payments were stopped or paused at one point)

Exactly. I'm sick of hearing "she lied" about complicated things
As for Kate Moss, I assume all she is going to say is Johnny never pushed her down the stairs. I can't see it's going to be a game changer

It's for the show. Now his fans can repeat"Even Kate Moss testified he didn't push her"happily ever after

Difference is, this one as well as Dr Hughes was board certified with about 30 years of experience, while dr Curry"looked cool".

In the US very few people who could get board certification actually do. The figure is about 5%. So 95% of people who could apply to receive board certification, don't bother. Apparently in the US it doesn't make any difference to your status.

I definitely think that Curry looked better. With her hair artfully designed to look like she was too busy to style it. And she was very calm. So she presented well. And that might influence the jury. Sadly, it shouldn't be about that. It shoukd be about content.

I can't think that anyone who just listened to Dr Spiegels testimony under cross could think he was worth listening to! To get a baseline on Johnny Depps behaviour, he used his performances in adverts and Pirates of the Caribbean. He was asked that didn't he know they rehearsed for those parts and gave delivery of lines as rehearsed. He said he didn't know they rehearsed because he didn't know anything about acting. 😂 He'd said that Depp had cognitive impairment because he was fed lines on an earpiece. But he was told Depp was listening to music. He again had to retract evidence because he knew nothing about acting. He implicated Heard with her behaviour disorder as being possibly abusive to Depp. He lost his temper, asked the judge if had to answer. The court laughed at him. It was not good. He was OK when he was giving a lecture, but under cross he was combatative and dire.

I still think the previous doctor was good on Heards behalf, though. Calm and clear.

It doesn't negate that board certification brings extra credibility to the practitioner and then there is also the disproportionate experience of dr Hughes and doc today, both of them also working with victims and perpetrators of DV, unlike dr Curry(she mentioned working with veterans and I would believe this influenced her view of PTSD, since there are a lot of people who believe that women who suffer from it in huge numbers because of vast sexual violence we are exposed to as a group of people, is not"the real PTSD". It was first determined as diagnosis by observing veterans in the first place).

I think he didn't want to speculate on acting methods and just barred himself from that discussion but probably read that he was slurring and being sloppy on film sets, along with seeing other videos.

To my understanding he asked the judge if he should answer because lawyer was being an ass and was making a statement/joke, not really requiring a legit answer from him(I would possibly react similarly confused like"Ok what's your point like is that a question?")

@Miscfeminista It might sound better to be board certified but it doesn't materially make any difference to their qualifications. That's what I was trying to say. Dr Spiegel is board certified but, as knowledgeable,as he might be, no one is going to look at his performance,as being more competent than Dr Curry's.

I don't know what he probably did, I know what he said he did. He said that he calculated Depps mental decline by using a baseline from watching him in films and adverts. And when it was pointed out that these were roles that were a character and were rehearsed, he said he didn't know they rehearsed because he didn't know about acting. (Seriously, who doesn't know actors rehearse and play characters not like their own! It so undermines his credibility to say that. IMO, of course. ) He also made a comment about his decline because he wore an earpiece whilst acting. And then had to apologise about that too. I agree that he wanted to back out. Because he got himself into a real pickle.

Of course the lawyer made a joke about Willy Wonka. But that was because Dr Spiegel was so ridiculous (and outrageous) to use an actors performance as a baseline. The spectators laughed. He refused to answer. The judge told him to. He could have handled it so much better by being gracious but I don't think that's part of his personality, unfortunately for Amber Heard. But he might be able to regain credibility with the jury during rebuttal.

I think being reviewed and approved by other professional IS indicative of someone's qualifications. Perhaps the reason why neither of them diagnosed Amber with BPD and had very good knowledge on DV.

He reviewed all of the material presented to him by the court, he did not go and picked movies to watch himself and then judge from that so he is limited there, he didn't want to split hair about something that isn't his field. That he was listening to music while acting/rehearsing is VERY unconvincing.

Also as I mentioned on another thread, this dr may be neurodivergent: he didn't even get the joke(and as said it probably would fly over my head too because it's just lame). They were laughing at him throughout and it made them look like high school bullies

OK. If your honest opinion, not influenced by your opinion of Heards innocence, is that that Dr Spiegel did a good job, them nothing I say will alter that.

I think, actually, that is what's happened to this case. I can't see any Amber Heard supporters moving their position, and the same with Depp's. I don't think any testimony is going to change people minds and I wonder if the jury has already decided what they think.

I've watched some interesting reporting on the reactions of the jury members to different witnesses and testimony. I won't repeat it because I think its generally reported by people with bias, but it seems that the jury look bored most of the time but sometimes seem to wake up at certain points. Interestingly, sometimes it's to Depps benefit and sometimes to Heards. US juries can report later what they thought of the trial and I think that will make interesting reading.

I actually started following this trial uninterested in defending anyone, I randomly decided to follow it and got hooked since. I am not a fan of either and made most of my assumptions during JD testimony and witnesses(since he was first)so I'll leave it at that. Yes the dr was talking for a long time but I found first part informative and second less interesting but still informative on what DV can look like. It was mostly cross that was tiring to listen

Dr Spiegel didn't really have much choice because Depp wouldn't talk to him.
At least Heard spoke to Depps expert witness.
Again, who comes across as having something to hide?

Sorry, I didn't see this. I' didn't thin you were abrasive. Perfectly OK to rant.
I just believe at some point in a woman's life, you have to be responsible for your own actions. I think 29 is old enough.