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?

Put some links to the bit of the trial that proves she's lying. I've watched it and seen no proof she lied.

Inconsistent accounts between witnesses are 1) to be expected in a trial because everyone sees different perspectives and interprets them differently and 2) not the same as a willful lie.
I think its really interesting that in the case of inconsistency, Amber's witnesses are always lying and Johnny's are always telling the truth. The truth is more complicated than that.

The make up she was so keen that she used hadnt been invented

The day she claimed to have been beaten black and blue yet her personal assistant admitted otherwise

Her own psychologist agreed that Johnny had been tbe victim of abuse

The story about the broken bottle (sorry to be graphic, but she claims she didnt know whether it was broken or intact
..?)

The implication that she only hit Depp because of the Kate moss story (which is utter fiction)

Claiming she never physically hit Johnny

Claiming she wasnt responsible for the finger

Claiming she bought him a knife as a present and was heard on camera urging him to use a sharper one to self harm

She has lied, and lied, and lied.

She was violent too. Why is his violence worse than hers? In my view, both are equally bad. However, JD didn't write about her violence, potentially defaming her, which is what she did to him.

On this thread AH supporters seem to think her violence and lies are ok whereas JD's violence isn't. Neither should be acceptable. Yes, he's a drug user but so is she. Yes, he's an alcoholic. It appears they were mutually abusive. It seems here that her violence is ok because she's a woman. It's not. There is no proof in this case that JD was the original abuser and that her abuse was reactionary.

I am not a troll and object to the accusation just because I don't blindly believe AH because she's a woman and therefore the sole victim. This topic is emotive and many relate to one party or the other because of experiences. It's an injustice if AH's lies and abuse are ignored or excused just because she's a woman, which seems to be happening on this thread. Likewise, JD's behaviour shouldn't be ignored or excused.

The judge threw out the rape allegation.

He told tbe original people she didnt cut it to protect her. If a woman did that in court that would be accepted

Because I believe him, and I dont believe her. I believe this whole thing is the same motivation as the OP ed - an attempt to paint herself as some sort of hero and finish Johnny. He wont look at her and she is upset by this -she still wants the reaction. I know abused woman who would rather be in a different time zone than have their abuser look at them.

Unfortunately, while you and I wont agree, shes done tbe opposite.

Agreed.

I can assure you that I don't think either of you are trolls

you are expressing entirely mainstream opinions and they are clearly sincerely held

It's an injustice if AH's lies and abuse are ignored or excused just because she's a woman, which seems to be happening on this thread. Likewise, JD's behaviour shouldn't be ignored or excused.

I think you can rest easy that Amber Heard's career is finished.

Do you think Johnny Depp's is?

You say

In my view, both are equally bad. So presumably in your view they should suffer equal consequences. Do you believe that will happen?

His UK testimony differs to his US testimony. He told some people he cut his own finger off and some people he didn't.

If this is your sole example of him lying, I think its very weak. My grandmother dropped a bowl on my foot and I had to go to hospital for stitches. When they asked me what the problem was, I just said I'd cut my foot. I didnt go into a long accusatory waffle. And I don't think he'd go into a load of explanation of how they were throwing bottles,etc.

BTW, I believe he told lies but much bigger ones than that. I just don't know if I could prove it, though.

I know the troll comment wasn't yours. Sorry if that wasn't clear. The 1st part of my response was to your comment. The rest was general.

I'm expressing my opinions. The fact that they are mainstream surely is a clue that the majority of people think like me. It also doesn't mean we're wrong in not believing AH to be the victim that she's tried to portray. I honestly think I'd consider her to be the victim if she hadn't been caught out lying though. Once she lied about the small stuff, it made me question what else is she lying about. Singlehandedly she damaged her own defence.

No, but Amber didnt know that when she set out.

The difference I truly believe Amber set out to destroy Johnny's life

I dont think Johnny did. Yes hes responded to the allegations which he has every right to but publicly, in the case or otherwise, he hasnt been negative about Amber, not once, even when describing awful events.

I agree. I think that despite the cries of misogyny on the whole, tbe vast majority of women do believe and support other women.

If people truly to believe poor ole Amber is a victim because we are all Johnny fans that fine, but it's not the reality.

The trial isnt weighted in Johnnhs favour. Only one juror has to believe it wasnt defamation.

Unfortunately, the stuff amber originally said was small fry. She would have won, because anyone could reasonably agree he was difficult to live with.

It's the extra things shes come out with. The uk judge dismissed the bottle allegation, so ...

A good example, this one.

If a woman went to hospital and said shed fell down the stairs and later said her boyfriend pushed her, do you think people would call her a liar?

No. Except on Mn, where men cant be abuse victims, and if they are it's ok because they must either have provoked it, or it's ok cause they're not as likely to be killed.

Let me clarify the troll bit, here's what popped up first:

"An Example of Trolling:
Entering an online discussion on astronomy and insisting that the earth is flat in order to provoke an emotional and verbal response from community members."

Now when I went on general chat, all kinds of opposing views were expected(and I got shut down with a lot worse than me saying what I think is trolling)and eventually I left because since feminist perspective was so"threatening"to others I didn't find point being there, especially as people took it as if I was one"deluded man hating individual".

Some posters come on a feminist sub and literally post antifeminist statements that are not only false but"inflammatory"(better said I have no idea how anyone who remotely reads on subject of feminism could say the things that were said thinking they wouldn't be heavily contested and even offensive).

Like: "we shouldn't believe all women just because they are women"...That. Almost. Never. Happens. It is certainly not happening in this trial either that's for sure. That shit is offensive. That is why feminism exists-because women are still not believed-because they are women. I did write in the beginning"All opinions welcome"but it was posted on a feminist sub. If we cannot agree on one basic thing that feminism figths against like DV(or what constitutes that)then how are we going to hold this discussion at all? If you don't agree with domestic violence as it was explained along lines of what Women's Aid posted(or AdamRyan)then it is not feminist perspective you are coming from, sorry. That's why I called it trolling-some border with not being informed others I have hard time believing they are unaware. But that seems to be usual phenomena with feminist discussions-as some well known feminist said it's the only movement where people want to define it as they please and make it center everything but their primary objective(as in it being women's movement, for women).

And for crying out loud, if already want to be anti women on feminist thread on feminist sub at least come up with something new. It's the repetition that's killing me mostly

Put some links to the bit of the trial that proves she's lying. I've watched it and seen no proof she lied.

1. Hicksville trailer not trashed
2. Dropped from Aquaman and had to beg to get her job back. Role then cut
3. Did not donate. Pledge isn't the same. Mortgages aren't pledged!
4. But just in case you think rich people pledge Iver so many years, she did not arrange a 10yr payment plan with Children's Hospital. (Nor dd she respond to their letters about the donation.)
5. Said she didn't know any news outlet knew of her filing divorce. Then said in deposition that she knew TMZ had been alerted.
6. Said she always wore makeup when outside. Did not wear makeup when TMZ showed up to photograph her.
7. She said the op ed was not about Depp. Then said it was.

I think there's another one, but it eludes me. I'm not listing the things you can conclude she's lying about, like sending the video to TMZ, alerting TMZ to her movements. Nor do I include contradicting testimony like her sisters etc. Because they might remember it differently. Although you'd think they'd agree by now.

@minutesturntohours I decided to educate myself, some results below. What is interesting is that almost all of the points you have said prove she's lying, don't in fact do that. You have strong cognitive bias

The make up she was so keen that she used hadnt been invented

I don't believe the make up was ever referred to by name? It's fairly clear to me that the compact was simply used as a prop in court. Hardly pivotal to whether or not violence took place

The day she claimed to have been beaten black and blue yet her personal assistant admitted otherwise

This is the only persuasive point you have made

Her own psychologist agreed that Johnny had been tbe victim of abuse

and this stops him being an abuser because......?

The story about the broken bottle (sorry to be graphic, but she claims she didnt know whether it was broken or intact..?)

You find this story fantastic so no-one should believe it? I can't find any evidence of it being specifically disproved during the court case

The implication that she only hit Depp because of the Kate moss story (which is utter fiction)

..which is utter fiction in your opinion. you have not backed this up.

Claiming she never physically hit Johnny

'I hit Johnny Depp square in the face say's Amber Heard'

Claiming she wasn't responsible for the finger

you disbelieve her. Can you provide the bit from the trial that convinced you?

Claiming she bought him a knife as a present and was heard on camera urging him to use a sharper one to self harm

This is dreadful behaviour, but not proof of lying I think?

Oh my god. Change the record.

I am not anti women. I just dont support Amber!

This form of 'feminism' is honestly mental.

Actually, I think JD's career will reignite, but I think that's because he's gained a lot of sympathy due to her lies and because the evidence points to her abusing him. Apart from what she's said, there is no clear corroboration of his physical abuse of her as her witnesses didn't always agree. Also, his witnesses didn't see the bruising expected for the injuries she said she had from his violence. Obviously, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, it will probably get him sympathy as his career tanked because people believed everything AH said and now it looks like it might have been exaggerated or made up.

What seems to have come out of this case is that, to many, JD is likeable whereas AH is not. That will make it easier for JD to start working again as it won't turn viewers off. The petition to get AH out of Aquaman 2 indicates that she's going to find it harder as she won't sell tickets and may put people off. Is that fair? No but she is ultimately responsible for this by (a) the TMZ tip off to picture the bruises which may or may not be real but got the narrative out that JD hit her and (b) the article which she admitted during this case was about JD. Without that TMZ photo, the article might not have been as quickly linked to JD's name. With it, it was. I think she tried to play a clever game of getting JD cancelled but underestimated him as she probably didn't expect him to sue. Abuse isn't a game and should never be used to score points.

Maybe she thinks she's being a responsible mother and a future role model for her daughter by calling out a man for his behaviour no matter how rich and powerful he is. If the claims are true then that's a powerful message for a responsible mother to send to her daughter. Setting up a better future for her.

She certainly does think shes some kind of inspirational woman, that's for sure. I'm sure her child will love reading a d seeing all this.

@Chulainn , no it's not. It's because hes a man!!! On these boards, he gets away Scot free due to his anatomy. Keep up.

"She was violent too. Why is his violence worse than hers? In my view, both are equally bad. However, JD didn't write about her violence, potentially defaming her, which is what she did to him"

If JD was violent to AH, as you admit, then AH is perfectly entitled to write about his violence as it's the truth. It's not defamation to write true accounts of violence. And if she abused him, JD is perfectly entitled to write his own op-ed recounting his experiences.

Depp almost certainly will lose the defamation suit because it's pretty much impossible to win.

As some commentators have pointed out, Heard is an imperfect and messy victim of abuse, as she was clearly also abusive. She is disliked by many because despite of that, she has posed as a poster girl for spousal abuse - as pure victim, essentially.

There was another way this story could have gone- one in which Heard wrote/agreed to an article which explored the horror of mutually abusive relationships, acknowledging her own flaws, rather than claiming pure victimhood. It would have been more productive, and perhaps helpful to others. And wouldn't have led to Depp feeling he had to challenge in this way.

Fair point, @WeeBisom , but the one who gets in first is always more likely to be believed. But, in all honesty, if he'd written the truth of what was happening in that marriage, would anyone have truly believed it!! They'd think it was a fantastic beast of a story.

@houseonthehill I hadn't thought of that, but yes that's a great suggestion. But would it have had the same impact for her, to claim partial responsibility? I guess it would depend on her motivation for writing the op in the first place.

@WeeBisom The poster I replied to spoke about JD's violence while ignoring AH's, which is what prompted that particular reply. I honestly don't know if his violence was physical towards her or just exploding in anger and taking it out on inanimate objects. Also, her article infers sexual violence in the heading, something which the jury have to consider. Therefore, did she defame him? I don't know. I am glad I'm not on the jury.