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?

Again the trolls…the few of us on here(except the ones who stated they didn’t)have watched trial in full. I watched every minute for exactly this reason; so people can’t bs that I didn’t watch and so I don’t get second hand info but hear it myself as it was delivered.

I posted this on feminism because DV cases need to be looked through feminist analysis-DV as concept was basically named by feminists for crying out loud-so if you don’t care about that and don’t bother to actually study a bit on it then of course you’ll keep writing”Amber is a liar”(depending on how you feel that day I guess). If you don’t care about power analysis or common sense really then go ahead have a blast and tell us all you think like you’re a high school kid all over again.

And what does the donation/pledge have to do with whether or not Johnny was abusive? Precisely nothing. Its meant to imply she's a gold digger and a liar. But is not relevant to whether it's defamatory to call him abusive.
Personally I think her explanation of what's happened is credible. Especially given donations to charity when in financial difficulties can look like hiding assets and be a crime. Like for example, if you find out your ex is taking you to court and you may have to cover his legal costs. But hey. Let's not let a reasonable explanation get in the way of a good story.

Also, like defamation, perjury involves willful intent to mislead. Her mis speaking about a pledge vs a donation isn't willful and I haven't seen any evidence she intentionally mislead them

I didn't propose a debate yet I'm also not telling anyone to shut up or go away but I have my limits regards being annoyed with people who do not read any previous posts(and sometimes not even watch any bit of trial)and go for insulting all women by using words like bitch, cunt and whatever was used so far. I do not tolerate that and I don't need to agree with everyone(or anyone for that matter). Also I didn't say you haven't watched trial or that I am the only one, I responded to those who are saying that us who think AH is not abuser must not have watched the trial which again is trolling because enough of us clearly state in previous posts we did.

Power analysis has nothing to do with woke culture in my book because I don't subscribe to it. You cannot claim a woman that is physically weaker, smaller, younger, nowhere near equally wealthy or influental as her partner is the one being the abuser in a world where women are killed, raped and seriously injured in the numbers they are by their partners(including ex partners). There are exceptions but anyone with common sense cannot claim women are the ones with equal power in a world where we are seen as disposable feminine sexualised creatures for purpose of reproduction, emotional and other kinds of free labour as well as the majority of those exploited in sex industry.

To claim that we have more power while close to all men in powerful positions are jerking off to our degradation and humiliation via porn(even while they are at work, check recent UK MP viewing it right in the parliament)is honestly beyond me.

Re"everyone being entitled to DV"thing-I am not telling you what to think or say but if you are talking about something it would be good to have some background info, even if you do not agree with it. Otherwise we are waffling in dark here

I can barely listen to the Depp team closing statements. Feel bad for the jury.

He was happy enough to stay on his apartment for free. He doesn't say he beat her. It was said she felt intimidated by him and she had to tell him to stop and put her hand on his chest as he was approaching AH.

This is how rumours starts. People twist testimonies into things that were never said. And so it goes on.

Quite. Because there is no such thing as a single truth, only perspectives.
I'm saying you could see Drew disliking depp as 1) a motive for him to lie or 2) a direct consequence of how depp treated his friend.
Who knows? I'm glad I'm not on the jury. But the closing statements from Depps side have turned my stomach.

So is there anyone on this thread who believes JD should win this court case? In the context of defamation?

A UK judge has already found that JD was abusive towards her at least 12 times. Two Supreme Court judges denied his appeal because they agreed with the first judge. He abused her, the evidence is there. She didn’t defame him when she wrote that op ed.

But she is a liar.

No one has said she's a gold- digger. I've said on several posts I don't have any problem with a spouse accepting the award which a court has said they are entitled to. It's none of my business- it's the spouse''s money to do whatever they want with. I wouldn't think any less of her for keeping it.

It's the blatant, bare-faced virtue signalling lie which is the problem. She's said in court and on camera on television (the clip has been posted on here) that she donated all $7 million. The paying in installments is a recent invention.

Rottenborn is very persuasive I think

@KimikosNightmare A recent invention? So you’re saying the charities are lying on her behalf?

JD also brought up the charity donation in his appeal in the UK. It was known that she had pledged it over 10 years then so the UK judges were aware of that.

“Depp appealed the judgment, but his appeal was denied on 25 November 2020, with Mr. Justice Nicol arguing that it had "no realistic prospect of success", although he allowed Depp to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal.[108][109] In a hearing at the Court of Appeal on 18 March 2021, Depp's lawyers stated that they had learned after the trial that Heard had not donated her divorce settlement to charity. They argued that the judge had been "subliminally influenced" by the donation to find in NGN's favour, citing a statement in the ruling in which the judge rejected Depp's characterisation of Heard as a gold-digger. They also argued that the judge had "unfairly rejected evidence unfavourable to Heard" in the trial, in reference to the tapes in which she admitted to having hit Depp.[110]

In response, NGN's lawyers stated that the donation had nothing to do with the subject of the trial, and did not change its outcome. They also argued that Heard had pledged to donate the sum within ten years, not in one lump sum”

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depp_v_News_Group_Newspapers_Ltd

Let me fix it for you:

DV statistics and it's probability is influeced by sex, sexuality, age, race and many other factors and as such is always going to be political.

Woke is on the left but is not left itself. When it comes to feminism and specifically DV, there is no place for right and left division as it most commonly happens to all women(period). Varying degrees all depend on mentioned above.

Now I'm going to listen to their closing statements thing

Also masturbation does not equal watching pornography. There is nothing healthy in having sexual release by indulging in voyeurism and training yourself to find women's degradation and pain exciting

Yes a recent invention. There have been other posts with comments from one of the charities asking when they would be paid as they had only received $100,000

She said on a chat show it had all been paid- nothing about paying it over 10 years. Not mentioned at all. Now the excuse is being peddled that the court action prevents her paying it.

@KimikosNightmare But she agreed to pay it over 10 years so why would she have donated it all already?

She said on the tv show that she donated it when she should have said pledged. She said she uses those two terms interchangeably. I don’t think that makes her a liar.

Do you know who is a liar though? Johnny Depp.

I think all the women, including his lawyers, felt deeply uncomfortable during Rottenborns final. None of them can deny seeings JDs behaviour that it was horrible and his lawyers especially must have felt super shitty trying to supress that whole time in the name of case or their"love"for JD

Have you seen the clip? It's a bare faced lie.

It's ridiculous to say "I've donated it all"
means "I've pledged to pay it over 10 years"

Oh and "pledge" in this sense is meaningless. It's not binding nor enforceable.

Here's another version of her "donations".

news.yahoo.com/amber-heard-testified-she-donated-233434526.html

And so is she. She emphatically said she had donated all of it.

Yeah, I thought that. Vasquez looked very uncomfortable.

If people listened to the closing arguments and still think JD should win this case then there is absolutely no point in me arguing with you about it. You’re obviously very far removed from reality and absolutely nothing will change your mind.

No, that's not true. The children's hospital said there was no 10 yr plan and they expected to receive the 3.5m straightaway. A woman from the hospital gave testimony on it on Tuesday. And AH never informed them that she'd fallen behind. They had to contact her to ask.

Elon Musk made payment arrangements with ACLU on her behalf but, again, she never contacted them to tell them her intention was to carry on paying. They had to contact her when the money stopped.

In response, NGN's lawyers stated that the donation had nothing to do with the subject of the trial, and did not change its outcome. They also argued that Heard had pledged to donate *the sum within ten years, not in one lump sum”

This is just the Sun lawyers pedalling another lie.
Candy Davidson Goldbrun of the Children's Hospital testified Heard did not pledge over 10yrs.

Look at 6.00 mins in.