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?

Yeah I was looking back at when she was younger and also it stuck with me because JD would often comment how when she'll get older no one will want her or care. It was telling of his views and why he got with her so young IMO

Maybe. But she was calling him a fat, old man who was washed up. I guess he says horrid things too. Or he said it first and she said it back. Who knows? It was that kind of screwed up, toxic dynamic.
But again, if you are at the point that it's Amber Heard that is the victim, then I doubt you're going to be open to other views on that. No criticism meant. That's how our minds work. And I think that's the point most people are at now.

Except he was on covers"as sexiest man alive"twice and as male actor is still cast even at older age as silver fox or whatever so I doubt you could crush him with that comment. Probably she said it in response to him commenting her looks but we don't know, either way it's never tit for tat because women are already constantly criticised for looks every minute and he mainly got with her for the youthfullness part so that was a really low blow. It isn't to argue otherwise, it's just my observation(from my POV obviously)

I found myself shouting at the TV thanks to Dr Spiegel.

Man's an arse. He's attempted to make a clinical diagnosis without ever speaking to the person he's diagnosing. He's attempted to assess someone on a test that he has no idea what the overall score was or in what condition the patient was in when they performed that test.

He then went on to say multiple times to say I know nothing about acting. Then stop judging people's behaviour on something you clearly know nothing about.

He also then went on to completely skirt around correlation and causation and risk factors.

This latter part I found dangerous. For all.

People who do have diagnosed psychiatric conditions may be at "higher risk" but it is not definitive that they will behave negatively just because of the diagnosis. I don't want people thinking just because someone has BPD or another personality disorder that it is some sort of fete acompli that they will offend. This is categorically untrue. And he should have just said that rather thank skirt around it and possibly further stigmatise people with mental health disorders.

She also called him a "ballless piece of shit" and many other things to his face that included crude words and cursing and all kinds of things. She mocks him, taunts, him, laughs at him, demeans him etc.

mummyrocks1 · Today 13:12

"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 lawyers are duty bound to put his case forward. I don't need to listen to them to judge the general view of most people who have taken an interest in the case. You are delusional if you think the bulk of those believe her.

"Her lawyers certainly is not the best"

That's an understatement

"but I thought her witnesses were damning to JD. And imo she has already proven he was abusive on at least one occasion"

But your opinion isn't proof, is it?.

"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."

Not really. The judge's son worked for the man who owns the paper Depp was suing and didn't allow all the evidence to be presented. He clearly got it wrong believing that Heard donated her divorce settlement when it has been proved (beyond mere opinion that she didn't).

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

Me too

I really listened carefully word for word what that dr was saying and he was saying he was not diagnosing him(more than few times)but that he found his behaviour on basis of what the court provided him(and nothing else outside of it, since Depp refused twice to be interviewed by him)consistent with narc behaviour and traits(which was described in another dr notes too).

He also said that by stats, cluster Bs are more likely to be in the camp of possible offenders but also some of what goes under cluster B significantly lower(and even might be more susceptible to DV but I don't know if he mentioned that). I don't find these extremely relevant as most people don't even know half of these diagnosis and are dismissing him since he was paid by Heard's side.

I think if someone did a disservice in characterising people with mental health issues it's Depp's team because their main thing was to dismiss her and even make her a more probable abuser on basis of unprofessionally done diagnosis of"histrionic"and BPD.

Why do you continue to talk such rubbish?

JD tried to appeal the Uk decision and an independent judge ruled there were no grounds for appeal. I am sure if there had been bias this would have been spotted. This judge overviewed all the decisions made and obviously deemed them reasonable. I find it crazy that people still argue JDs innocence when he's lost a court case and an appeal. It's crazy. I think you could show a video of JD besting AH up and there would be some argument that he's not abusive.

I really don't think the evidence about the money and whether she had pledged it or gave it really would have changed the verdict that drastically.

Legal expects have found he is a wife beater yet ransoms on the internet know better. In the word of Elaine okaay.

AdamRyan · Today 17:45

"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"

Unlikely given he hasn't even spoken to Depp so is basically talking out of his arse and passing it off as a professional opinion which no professional shrink should do (or generally would do). Also, unlke Curry, he comes across as a blithering idiot.

The first point wasn't talking about the lawyers in the court house right now. I was talking about the evidence that his lawyers have been seen to try and influence and bully people involved in the Uk trial. This is in the judges notes and as a result I think was detrimental in determine his dismissal of many of JDs witnesses.

There is also evidence of people he employed administrating a very successful smear campaign against AH and the number of internet bots creating 000's of fake accounts to discredit her. This has been very successful. I was talking about that.

*but I thought her witnesses were damning to JD. And imo she has already proven he was abusive on at least one occasion"

But your opinion isn't proof, is it?.*

Yes- there is proof. My opinion, unlike yours, is based on fact. I think the Uk judge also agreed. He admits to head butting her in the audiotape. She had injuries consistent with this.

There are texts between aH and JDs assistant where the assistant, not AH, says JD kicked her and he was mortified by this.

This is concrete evidence, not something found on the internet or opinion. This I assume is what the Uk judge used to form his decision.

mummyrocks1 · Today 21:21

"Why do you continue to talk such rubbish?"

I have read what you have written; in the words of Henry James, I have been taught by masters.

"JD tried to appeal the Uk decision and an independent judge ruled there were no grounds for appeal. I am sure if there had been bias this would have been spotted. This judge overviewed all the decisions made and obviously deemed them reasonable."

The fact one judge backed up the decision of another is not a proof of guilt or a lack of bias in the first judge who certainly had a conflict of interest with his son.

"I find it crazy that people still argue JDs innocence when he's lost a court case and an appeal. It's crazy. I think you could show a video of JD besting AH up and there would be some argument that he's not abusive."

No, if I saw a video of of Depp beating up Heard I would believe she was abused as well as being an abuser. However, there is no such video, all there is is tapes where she admits hitting him and throwing things at him and pursuing him all round the house and the obvious lies she told on the stand and the absence of any hard evidence proving he ever hit her and the absence of hard evidence of any damage to her face other than photos which were obviously photoshopped.

"I really don't think the evidence about the money and whether she had pledged it or gave it really would have changed the verdict that drastically."

Maybe, maybe not, but it does prove she is a liar and persists in her lies doggedly when she is called out on them.

"Legal expects have found he is a wife beater yet ransoms on the internet know better. In the word of Elaine okaay."

I think you meant randoms.

There is also evidence of people he employed administrating a very successful smear campaign against AH and the number of internet bots creating 000's of fake accounts to discredit her. This has been very successful.

I agree about the bot accounts. To be fair, his PR team have earned their money. Apparently they decided to go with online influencers to get their publicity out, while Heards side decided to stick to main stream media. I think we can see which has had more success.

I wonder if the lawyers keep repeating #AmberTurd was part of Heard's lawyers strategies. I know it had the spectators at court laughing and it made Bredehoft cross (always good fun to watch) but I think if I were a jury member, it might make me sympathetic towards Heard. Right now she could do with some of that because this trial has not been kind to her.

*JD tried to appeal the Uk decision and an independent judge ruled there were no grounds for appeal. I am sure if there had been bias this would have been spotted. This judge overviewed all the decisions made and obviously deemed them reasonable."

The fact one judge backed up the decision of another is not a proof of guilt or a lack of bias in the first judge who certainly had a conflict of interest with his son.

"I find it crazy that people still argue JDs innocence when he's lost a court case and an appeal. It's crazy. I think you could show a video of JD besting AH up and there would be some argument that he's not abusive."

No, if I saw a video of of Depp beating up Heard I would believe she was abused as well as being an abuser. However, there is no such video, all there is is tapes where she admits hitting him and throwing things at him and pursuing him all round the house and the obvious lies she told on the stand and the absence of any hard evidence proving he ever hit her and the absence of hard evidence of any damage to her face other than photos which were obviously photoshopped.*

No- there is the evidence I said below. Maybe you missed that part of the trial.

I think the judges know more than the average person on the case so will say it is proof of guilt. Personally when someone is found guilty in a court of law I tend to think they are guilty. When they aren't given an opportunity to appeal as it is said there is not grounds by a legal expert. I tend to believe they are guilty.

It's fine if you disagree though. You do you and I will do me.

The problem with comparing Dr Curry and Dr Spiegel is. Dr Curry actually sat with AH, Dr Spiegel spouted assumptions and expert opinion on a person he has never met.

Now I'm not saying I agree with Dr Curry, but I definitely disagree with Dr Spiegel's methods of deduction and behaviour analysis.

You can't asses a person you have never met, based on their appearance on the Graham Norton Show and them dressed up as a pirate 😳

Having worked with offenders, people with substance misuse, the homeless, people with complex mental health diagnosis for a long time now. Honestly I'd hazard a guess that AH has both BPD and PTSD.

But it makes no difference, it doesn't mean she's definitely going to do offend. It's a mere diagnosis that can be managed.

It's not a refutable evidence of absolute certainty of offending behaviour, and I disagree with anyone who wants to shoe horn in BPD/BPD/Personality Disorder or any other psychiatric condition = offender.

It's just not correct.

Because AH agreed to be spoken to.
JD didn't. What was he scared of?

No, if I saw a video of of Depp beating up Heard I would believe she was abused as well as being an abuser. However, there is no such video, all there is is tapes where she admits hitting him and throwing things at him

Why don't you believe Depp is also an abuser, given there are also tapes of him smashing things up and shouting and admitting on tape he hurt her?

Or is it only beating that will do?

Maybe he's got more sense to not sit in a room with a Dr paid for by a ex spouse when there was no need for him to do so for his case.

Would you?

I mean he has plenty of private Dr's and nurses following him about, maybe he didn't fancy another that he is never going to trust.

Or maybe he's got a shed load of skeletons in the closet. -probably accurate-

Who knows?!

mummyrocks1 · Today 22:29

"No- there is the evidence I said below. Maybe you missed that part of the trial."

No, I haven't missed the evidence Heard's team/witnesses have put for forward and it is extremely weak and often contradictory.

"I think the judges know more than the average person on the case so will say it is proof of guilt."

That's not how it works. Depp wasn't proved guilty. A judge decided on the balance of probabilities that he wasn't defamed by the Sun. That is a very different thing to proof of guilt and judges make bad decisions all the time.

"Personally when someone is found guilty in a court of law I tend to think they are guilty."

And you'd be right some of the time but not all of the time.

"When they aren't given an opportunity to appeal as it is said there is not grounds by a legal expert. I tend to believe they are guilty."

I wonder if you'd hold fast to that if the verdict had gone against Heard. People tend to respect experts most when they confirm their confirmation bias.

"It's fine if you disagree though. You do you and I will do me."

Thank you, I will. It would be nice to be able to disagree without being thought a fool or a monster or, even worse, a man.

I had an impression he simply gave his opinon on what his behaviour looks like to him from his experience working with people with similar behaviour(and he did review a lot of things)in respect to assessing AH. He didn't give diagnosis, just observation.

I also didn't get an impression that any particular diagnosis mentioned-except for narcissistic diagnosis given lack of emphaty needed for abusing another person, which he again did not make but mentioned from his observation that he has some traits-leads directly=offender. I might have misheard but I did not took it at face value since a lot of it depends on coincinding factors rather than just saying that personality disorder caused xyz. Maybe I'm reading things differently, not trying to prove opposite or something.

It's more interesting to me that none of mental health proffessionals thought that JD was being abused(there was only two therapists I think who mentioned"mutual abuse")but there are more than one who think AH is being the abused one in this relationship as well as 2 so far noting his narcissistic behaviour

I wonder if you'd hold fast to that if the verdict had gone against Heard. People tend to respect experts most when they confirm their confirmation bias.

I certainly would. I am not actually a supporter of AH and think if the roles were reversed in the trial she would loose. She was abusive.

But the evidence is very very very clear, it's right before our eyes that JD was abusive on at least two occasions. So he's abusive. Full stop. I am going on evidence, not bias or on SM or on my personal opinion of people.

I went into the trial with an open mind, no evidence has confirmed my bias.

AdamRyan · Today 22:57

"Why don't you believe Depp is also an abuser, given there are also tapes of him smashing things up and shouting and admitting on tape he hurt her?"

He banged a few cupboard doors. That isn't abuse, other than of the doors. Shouting could be considered verbal abuse in some cases, especially if it involves name calling, but it isn't physical abuse. And I don't recall him admitting to hitting her, certainly not deliberately.

Why do you persist in believing Heard given she has proved herself a liar and admitting to hitting him?

Why do you believe her when there is almost no evidence to support her ever more ludicrous claims of his violence. What she says she underwent would have hospitalised her and left her with appalling swelling and cuts and bruises which no amount of makeup could cover. Added to this we have all the witnesses, some of them Heard's people, who saw no damage to her face or to her home.

"Or is it only beating that will do?"

Pretty much. I want real evidence of physical abuse, not just banging doors and shouting.

mummyrocks1 · Today 23:07

"But the evidence is very very very clear, it's right before our eyes that JD was abusive on at least two occasions."

No, it isn't. There is no hard evidence that he hit her other than Whitney's word and she contradicted her sister's version of events, plus Jennifer Howell's statement casts doubt on all of that.

"I went into the trial with an open mind, no evidence has confirmed my bias."

People who deny they have a bias are usually the ones who have it most. However, at least you don't think Heard is a poor downtrodden angel like many here do. I can understand someone thinking it was mutual abuse but not that Heard is simply a 'bad victim' rather than an active participant in abuse.

*But the evidence is very very very clear, it's right before our eyes that JD was abusive on at least two occasions."

No, it isn't. There is no hard evidence that he hit her other than Whitney's word and she contradicted her sister's version of events, plus Jennifer Howell's statement casts doubt on all of that.*

I won't repeat the evidence as I said it below.

Anyway, I think I will move on from arguing these points anyway. Let's agree to disagree on this.

Pretty much. I want real evidence of physical abuse, not just banging doors and shouting.

You have it. It's been covered. Either you have missed it or you are refusing to acknowledge it. I think you need to go over all the evidence presented again.