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?

Hicksville. Trailer ownner should knowHickville trailer. He owns the site. He came forward when he read what happened. She had one friend for a witness. Kristin Sexton.
Owner vs friend. Hmm tricky who to believe. 🙄 And honestly, if a statement came from Depp's friend and was contradicted by an independent witness for Heard, there's no way you'd say the independent witness was lying and we should believe the Depps friend.
By the why his ex business manager, Joel Mandel, said there were occasions over the years that they paid for damages to rentals and hotels but he couldn't remember details of which or where. So no, he never said he paid a huge amount to clear up.

Aquaman. Walter Hamada didn't lie. If ever a man looked pushed to be somewhere, other than the guy vaping kn the car, it was Hamada. But he wasn't lying. Not about her lack of chemistry, the size of the part or considering recasting.

Donate v pledge. Even if that were so, she never arranged a payment plan with the children's hospital like she said; she didn't pay her pledges in 2019; she didn't contact anyone to tell them she couldn't pay; she carried on with her claims as if she had paid or according to you was still servicing her pledges.
And by the way, it wasn't an appeal, it was an application to appeal. No witnesses gave evidence, it was just the lawyers. The Sun's lawyers might have said that charities use the words synonomously but then they also said she'd set up a 10 Yr payment plan with the LA children's hospital. And that was a lie too.

TMZ - filing divorce. No, she rang Jerry Judge before she went to the courthouse to file so he could forewarn Depp in case there was anyone there. But then admitted that TMZ had been alerted. But honestly, her hand covering her mouth spoke more elegantly than her words.

Makeup. You can't credibly make an argument that no one ever saw her bruises because she always wore makeup to hide them, except on the day TMZ had been tipped off!

Op-ed. She said it was specifically not about Depp. On her last cross she then said that it was.
That's the lie.

Honestly, you can believe bad things happened to her and still admit she lied. Just calling everyone else a liar other than her, seems a bit desperate. I believe some of those bruises were real but I don't believe all her claims about being hit. I don't believe it's possible to be punched multiple times in the face with a hand with wearing big chunky rings and not walk away with cuts to the face and bruises. But do I believe Depp hit her? Er yes. I also think he was abused in the relationship but I don't believe him at all when he says he's never struck a woman.

I can't fathom people who blindly support either of them.

I also agree with what @Leopolds said.

I've always understood feminism to be about equality, not about excusing women from doing dreadful things just because they are women or accusing women of being trolls just because they disagree with your viewpoint. It also isn't misogyny when people believe that women can be violent. At this stage, I think some people on this thread would find excuses for AH if a video emerged of her being violent towards JD. It would probably be all his fault for making her do it or just because he's male.

As this thread was originally made to discuss the case, the fact is AH has been found to lie under oath, and therefore, lied in this case also. Playing games over what pledge / donate mean doesn't excuse the fact that she said under oath in London that she had paid the money but hadn't. Then in this case she said she'd donated it. As she had already said she'd paid it, one could assume that donate equated paid. When pulled up on it she started a discussion over the definition of pledge and donate. It's hard to believe she didn't knowingly lie considering she lied under oath in London. She knew what the question was and why it was being asked and rather than being truthful she tried to fudge an answer and hope she would get away with it. Allegedly she committed perjury in Australia also but I don't know enough about that case to comment and have only seen a few news reports on it.

AH has also been found to be an abuser during the course of this case. That doesn't excuse any abuse that JD has inflicted on her, if he did, or what types of abuse he inflicted, if he did. However, before this case, AH was solely seen as the victim but that changed as the direct evidence of her verbal abuse emerged and the testimony of her physical abuse was given (it is up to the jury to decide if they believe that testimony re. physical abuse).

We don't have to agree with each other but calling people trolls, misogynists and other names because they don't agree that AH is the only victim in this mess isn't on. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and we should be able to debate these opinions without resorting to name calling.

@LetitiaLeghorn
But do I believe Depp hit her? Er yes.
If you believe he hit her, how can you think he would win his defamation case? A defense is the truth, if he hit her (e.g. domestic violence) that article is not defamatory

This whole thing infuriates me, because AH has lied to such an extent.

If he loses, that means the allegation such as the rape with tbe broken bottle will be tied to him

Which is very different from an alcohol, drug induced slap which while I still sont believe, is two very different things.

Shes played a blinder and I hope it backfires.

It's such a strawman @Chulainn
I'm probably the most sympathetic to Heard and my stance is definitely not AH is the only victim in this mess
My stance is he is abusive so he deserves to lose the case. And the way she is being treated is outrageous when he bought the case.

So far all the evidence looks at whether he is abusive, because the burden of proof is that he has to prove he isn't. He already lost one case. And even supporters are saying he hit her in this case.

When there is a trial where the burden of proof is on her to prove she wasn't abusive, I'll engage in conversations about whether or not she is. I believe she could have been but equally she could be the victim of a smear and I also think innocent until proven guilty.

I'm certainly not "women can't be abusers, men can't be victims" and I don't see anyone else on this thread acting like that either

I think they are brought back as separate verdicts? Correct me if I am wrong. M
So he may he found not guilty on sexual assault but guilty on physical or verbal assault.

How on earth do you know she lied about rape? You don't, you just think she did.

She doesn't have to prove she was raped you know. It's not even really relevant to the case and noone knew about it until he sued her over the title of the op ed.

He's made her talk about this and now people like you are victim blaming for no reason other than you don't trust her.

No, it doesn't work like that. Its ot a criminal trial.

The credibility of the witnesses will be assessed.

Then it will be assessed if she is guilty of defamation.

Either way, hes guilty of nada.

Well, at the risk of sounding crude, she didnt know whether it was a broken bottle or not inside her.

Which is just...yeah, sorry , unbelievable.

Shes not missed him and hit the wall in this trial and I find it unbelievable if she had that on him she would have wrote that frankly not thar deep article.

She had a case before the trial. She would have won. But she has fucked it with the lying.

Kate moss and the stairs is another prime example.

If your raped with a broken bottle you don't just carry on like nothing has happened you will need treatment

And it was someone else's story its ALWAYS someone else's story there is something seriously mentally wrong with her

As far as I'm aware, the concept of believing women (and children) when they report rape or abuse was originally designed as an initial stance, to overcome decades of police (and wider societal) misogyny under which women were routinely treated with an adversarial suspicion/interrogation on reporting such crimes. It was a crucial attitude change which only really put women in the same position as people reporting other types of crime. Not sure it was intended as a position to be held permanently as investigation and legal processes played out.

Ah, that's minute for clarifying.

1. She never said she was raped with a broken bottle, she said she was raped with the bottle and while it was happening she hoped it wasn't the broken one she saw in the room

1. Lots of women don't report their rapes and don't seek treatment for injuries from abuse. It's not unusual for a victim to respond like that.

Stop twisting the facts to suit what you've decided happened.

Thanks for clarifying that should say.

Also
Shes not missed him and hit the wall in this trial and I find it unbelievable if she had that on him she would have wrote that frankly not thar deep article.

Surely you can see the reason the article is "not that deep" because its not about how he abused her, rather than because shes making up allegations?

It wasn't someone else's story
Kate James was raped at machete point by strangers in Brazil. Her rape bears no resemblance to what Amber reported.

James claimed Amber stole "how to be a victim" because Amber asked her how she dealt with it.

Of course, the other possibility is they were both raped. Sadly that is not unlikely.

There's no suggestion Amber stole the account of the rape and used it to make something up, except by demented Depp fans who don't pay attention to the actual testimony.

I find it extraordinary that she didn't reference any of the (very extreme) allegations she is now referencing.

The Kate Moss trick was manipulative.

If Amber alleged it in a criminal trial, I'd be far more inclined to believe it.

Dropping it out in a civil trial days after they wanted to pull the case - nah.

There is no such thing as "the rape card", don't be disgusting.

But it is disgusting. That's the point.

We don't know it happened. You don't know if it happened. We have to be seen to believe her- as well she knows.

She has used the experience and struggles of real rape victims to try and get ahead in a civil trial.

Had she had stuck to the facts of the OP Ed (you know the one she said wasnt about him and is now proven to have lied) she would have won.

It should be the case that if this event happened, she should now be looking for criminal prosecution. Or is Johnny supposed to be branded a rapist for the rest of his life?

Amber originally said it was the broken one, and then when her sequence of events was questioned (ie that the bottle was broken when it cut Johnny's finger off, meaning that can't have happened) she changed it to the intact one.

This allegation came as a direct result to distract from the fact she cut Johnny's finger off.

And it is absolutely a discredit to every victim.

I find it extraordinary that she didn't reference any of the (very extreme) allegations she is now referencing.

I don't. She was under an NDA and sought legal advice to check that she wasn't at risk of breaching it in the article. To me that shows she wasn't trying to expose Depp, not that she lied.

I find it extraordinary that you can believe the article is defamatory as you think its about him, but not defamatory enough as she didn't tell the whole story so therefore she's a liar. Very weird contorted thinking.

I never said it was defamatory.

I said she would have won, because it's so vague and doesn't mention him.

She ruined herself on the stand.

Prove that's what happened. You at best misunderstand and at worst misrepresent every bit of evidence in this trial so I don't believe that's what the testimony actually was.