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?

@WeeBisom Exactly. This all comes down to people denying that DV is what it is. "Oh slamming and kicking few cupboards while shouting motherfucker is not abuse you are being sensitive". "Oh those are not even proper bruises, it's botox"(I actually saw one plastic surgeon saying that bruise under her eye looks like botox bruise. I couldn't fucking believe that someone in medical proffession could stoop so low then again some of these people happily earn by putting in breast implants and "labiaplasty"so there's that)"Oh him telling rapist jokes and humiliating her in front of others is just dark humour"and on and on and on.

It is clear she has not lied about at the very least some of the abuse she claims therefore it is not defamatory(especially because it doesn't name him, any specifics about him nor article gives any malicious implications-because again he DID abuse her-where he could be identified(she wrote about sexual violence way back from college up to now and generalised, it isn't even saying"that I experienced during my marriage", nothing).

All people have is saying we don't believe you and you should have had tapes of rape(and as we saw in more than one case, even when there were recordings of women getting raped it was still judged as if it was"consensual"so it probably would not help much here either). Just by his comments alone you can tell this is a sexually deviant person. If that is not enough then see this where he"stars"with his friend Marilyn Manson

When she was heard by the uk judge, he took a lot of what she said as truth, despite having no evidence, and based on that he found in the Sun's favour. But in the US trial, a portion of what she's said, has been proven to be untrue. So I think its fair to say she was widely (not by everyone) believed and Depp was renounced for it. But when inconsistencies and, well, lies arose, it cast doubt over her testimony. I think uk juries too would be suspicious if during a trial a number of things that the plaintiff swore to be true, turned out to be false. In fact in he said/she said trials often the only thing a jury has to go on is a feeling for who is telling the truth and a proven liar might cast doubt over that.

I struggle with this because I do believe a lot of what she says, and for her not to be believed when things happened, must be scary for her. But isn't Depp deservant of some consideration too? If she tried to deceive by lying, shouldn't he get some credit from that? I also feel that we all exaggerate and can lie a bit, but she couldn't acknowledge when she was caught. I wonder if she's exaggerated stuff to make her claim sound better. Or maybe she's misremembered. Whatever, though, it adds up to a bad look.

Personally, though, I don't feel Amber Heard represents me, for either good or bad. So it wouldn't make any difference to me reporting any incidents to the police.

So really, the only statement in contention is whether Heard was sexually assaulted or not. Phew, it’s a pretty difficult task to prove she was lying about that.

Also, come off it. Depp does not have the same volume of critical videos. I can’t log onto Facebook without seeing some reel about amber being owned in cross examination. The only videos I see about Johnny are ones praising him for his adorable behaviour in court. I don’t believe I’ve seen a single viral video that is even remotely critical of Depp.

People are also coming to this with their own understandings of what constitutes abuse, so this colours their perception of the case. For me, seeing Johnny call her a cunt, a bitch, smashing up the kitchen made my stomach churn. I’ve experienced that kind of behaviour in the past and I can honestly say I would never tolerate it again. No, my partner never calls me horrible names, he never screams at me, he never smashes things. He never destroys my property and daubs abusive messages on the walls in his own blood. If he did that then yeah I would regard it as abusive.
I guess some people are just far more tolerant of volatile, angry partners.

The standard she has to prove is “would a reasonable person think she was a victim of abuse” so it will come down to the juries perception. She doesn’t have to hit a legal standard. I imagine the jury will be having similar discussions as us on here.

So really, the only statement in contention is whether Heard was sexually assaulted or not. Phew, it’s a pretty difficult task to prove she was lying about that.

It does come down to that. Interestingly in the uk trial, which people put so much faith in, she claimed she'd suffered a sexual assault in Hicksville. But the judge dismissed that claim, although he did find that Depp trashed the trailer, which we now know he didn't.

As you say he has to prove she was lying about the sexual assault. But she does have a pattern of lying so as Vasquez said to the jury, Do you believe her? And I guess it might come down to not him proving he didn't but that her lies have made the jury uncertain of believing her when she said he did.

It is clear she has not lied about at the very least some of the abuse she claims therefore it is not defamatory(especially because it doesn't name him, any specifics about him nor article gives any malicious implications-because* again he DID abuse her-where he could be identified

Except that she tweeted an article with the heading saying "I survived sexual violence." (Or similar) and then said in cross examination that the article was about him. I think the jury first has to make the judgement that tweet counted as publishing but if they do, I don't think it's hard for them to connect the dots, especially with what she's said in the trial about sexual assaults. So then it's back to, do they believe there was a sexual assault or not? I can't think there can be many who watched that who don't think there was abuse of some sort on both sides.

Again, she talked about her experiences throughout her life. There was no way for readers to assume what and how much of it is attributed to Depp-people could speculate but she did not write only about the period of their marriage therefore it's up to reader to conclude what to think as there's nothing directly implicating Depp.

The thing she tried to prove while testifying is that a) he abused her in many ways and b) that it was just SOME of her experiences with Depp she generally refers to in article, without directly implicating JD in any way

I think the problem with this case is the fact that AH has lied during her testimony and this case proved that she lied when giving testimony in the UK case. It doesn't matter that the lies are small in the scheme of things. It's the fact that she felt she had to embellish the truth that makes it hard to know what else she is lying about. A pp mentioned the sexual assault with a bottle - did that happen or is it another lie that she's given under oath? I'm not speculating one way or another as I don't know and, if it did happen, it's horrific. I also don't want to speculate as it's horrific to those who have experienced similar and aren't believed. What I'm trying to do is highlight how small lies can have an impact as she has now opened that door on whether anything she said was true. She is the one responsible for the fact that she lost credibility during the case. Nobody else is responsible for that. She didn't even need to lie about the donations. She could have said that she hadn't paid fully but was planning to when asked in the UK case and repeated that in this case. Why lie about it? Was it because she wanted to be seen in a favourable light? She has damaged her reputation, not JD or his lawyers.

What's also sad about all of this is that other abused women now feel that they won't be believed if they come forward without video evidence. JD hasn't helped their cause but neither has AH. Again, I stress, she didn't have to lie about small stuff but chose to and in doing so, shot her credibility to pieces. Because of her, other abused women might not feel they can come forward.

It's easy to blame JD for all of this - he brought the case, his lawyers have been aggressive in their questions, his witnesses have done everything they could to cast doubt on what AH said, he possibly lied during testimony, he may or may not be guilty of dv. However, if AH hadn't lied, she probably would have won this case easily. The fact that she lied is at the heart of this. It was unnecessary but incredibly damaging.

That's because, at tbe risk of repeating myself, Johnny isn't lying.

@Miscfeminista 'at least some' so is one lie Ok? Two? I find it utterly bizarre that those who claim this trial is misogynistic would be Ok about this statement was it a man 'only telling some lies'

Absolutely this.

And what she has done, as you say, is make it even harder for women.

The general public are definitely on his side. On the other hand Amber had most of the mainstream media pandering to her and lots of feminists are coming to her defence simply because she is a woman. That isn't nothing.

This was an interesting tactic on both their parts. Walkman decided to do their publicity and leaks through the Internet. But Heard decided to go with the mainstream media for her releases. I think in the old days that would have been a very influential decision but it's clear that these days, getting on board with new tech by going with the Internet was a smart move and has helped Depp massively.

I agree with a poster that most people mocking Heard are not mocking DA or DV. They're mocking Heard for lying. Jussie Smollett is a great comparison. But even so, I do think what she's being put through is horrific. It's OK having a laugh and mocking her donate/pledge malarkey. But no one should receive death threats. At the end of the day they're both just human beings and the amount of stress and pressure that is being heaped on them must feel on occasion beyond endurance.

So should Depp just accept unsubstantiated articles which may or may not do minor things like, you know, end his career?

If the roles were reversed would it be OK for that to happen to amber?

Agreed.

However, as abhorrent as they are, Amber brought this potential consequence on her child by doing this in the first place.

Years ago Peter Andre said he wouldnt speak publicly on the reason for his divorce from Katie for this reason. Why is Amber not showing a child the same respect? This child has no chance in tbe future, never mins Johnny's.

'at least some' so is one lie Ok? Two? I find it utterly bizarre that those who claim this trial is misogynistic would be Ok about this statement was it a man 'only telling some lies'

Oh come on you know very well what I meant. All of you who don't believe a single word she says even when there are witnesses and pictures will clearly take something she said without any of those as outright lie so I said at least we can say that the incidents that were documented were abuse and on basis of that she can describe her experiences as going through abuse

So should Depp just accept unsubstantiated articles which may or may not do minor things like, you know, end his career?

First of all-they were substantiated, second of all his career was already ending.

Without him going for it, not many people would actually pay that much attention or identify him in that article. It was him who brought attention by suing Sun first. He could have reestablish his reputation by you know, getting clean and showing up in time on sets(and maybe not hang out with Marilyn Manson or do threesome-foursome whatever music video with him).

There are countless men who have their careers still going even after we found out about them abusing prostituted women and having bad break ups/being abusers. There are other PR techniques to dig yourself out, he chose this one because he wanted revenge and is delusional about his responsibility in all of this.

If the roles were reversed would it be OK for that to happen to amber?

JD is literally trying to reverse the roles. And it's not ok.

So should Depp just accept unsubstantiated articles which may or may not do minor things like, you know, end his career?

If the roles were reversed would it be OK for that to happen to amber?

That has happened to Amber, to much greater degree than Depp.

He is still a huge star, has a fan base and people believe he's a victim, as shown on here.

She's lost most of her work and is publicly pilloried, also as shown on here.

If they were both abusive, is that a fair outcome?

Depp has one article which he says indirectly defames him

Amber has a load of statements made directly by his lawyer in public claiming she made the whole thing up

Are those things equally damaging?

Come off it. Fundamentally what people are saying is its worse for a man to lose his career because he's abusive than a woman.

Rules of misogyny:
Rule 10. The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.
Rule 11. Whatever women suffer from, it is worse when it happens to men.

A lot of the discussion is framed around what this will do for women without considering men. If Johnny was the real victim in this relationship and was defamed by Amber (who pretended to be the abused when she was actually an abuser) what does the support Amber received from the mainstream media say to men? Basically that you won't ever be believed. That only women should be believed.

What other men are being abused in similar circumstances (regardless of the truth of this particular case) and have no chance of being believed? If he what he says is true he has endured absolute hell. He dealt with her abuse and then her telling the world he was the abuser, gaslighting on an industrial scale.

Rubbish like this is still being written in the mainstream media where the whole argument boils down to believe all women simply because they are women.

I concluded that people writing these comments are:

either "a creature that looks like a very large or very small ugly person"

or "a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content"

But theres your problem. This is why there are so many problems, where you reply to a perfectly reasonable response like that as a troll (btw that's banned on mumsnet) when actually shes completely right and I completely agree with her

Yes it's fair.

She brought it by writing the article, and continuing to lie.

If it had gone her way Johnny would be persona non gratis (and uoud all be fine with that because shes a woman).

Thankfully, the vast majority of people have half a brain and dont believe Amber should win out just because shes a woman, and Johnny will be fine.

leopolds go and find some actual proof that 1) men are killed and injured by their female partners at a similar scale to women being killed and injured by male partners and 2) that men are less likely to report domestic abuse than women because of the shame.

You won't find it because it doesn't exist.

Johnny Depps trial says nothing bad about how male victims will be treated, because if they are following it, what they will actually see is a load of social media "justice for Johnny", fans applauding him and people like you saying how unfairly he's been treated by a lying vindictive woman.

Compare to a woman who's been in abusive relationship with the cycle of abuse. (www.healthline.com/health/relationships/cycle-of-abuse)
She sees a narrative that someone can provoke an abuser or they are both responsible for the abusive dynamic. She watches a woman being called a liar and narcissist on the basis of how she talks, laughs and cries. Portrayed like the worst kind of criminal for telling a story that might be similar to hers.

The male and female parties in this case are being portrayed substantially differently, despite the common view being "they were both abusive". People like you can't acknowledge that because you fundamentally have no empathy for women who have been abused incase it might affect men.

The feminism board is a strange place to hang out if your default is women lie and men are victims.

And I am not writing this for you, I'm writing it for the lurkers who are as enraged as me by the victim blaming MRA influenced nonsense you are writing here.