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?

Could you point out what I've misunderstood or misrepresented?

"“, I don’t remember exactly what happened first, or the sequence,” she said.
Heard previously testified she feared the bottle inside her was broken. A photo taken after the alleged assault — which was displayed in court Tuesday — showed the bottle was intact"

You can play word games if you want, but the point is , she went for the broken angle and when the photo proved her wrong, she changed her story.

You would know the difference between a broken and not broken bottle, given that the bottle in question flew across the room thrown by Amber.

thegeekbuzz.com/news/83-times-johnny-depp-lied-under-cross-examination-so-far/

given that the bottle in question flew across the room thrown by Amber.
If you believe his version of events.

she feared the bottle inside her was broken. A photo taken after the alleged assault — which was displayed in court Tuesday — showed the bottle was intact

"She feared it was broken" is very different to "it was broken". A picture showing the bottle wasn't broken doesn't demonstrate anything.

Sorry. I still think you are talking shit that she changed her story.

She said she didnt remember the sequence of events.

but the other sequence of events makes no difference - he raped her with a broken bottle after it was broken when it cut his finger?

I do believe his version of events, yes. I don't believe he cut his own finger.

I know it's controversial and it's all horrible but as I've said above, if she went to a criminal trial with it tomorrow I would absolutely believe her. I just don't believe something like that would come out in a civic story.

Again - feared it was broken. Amber is good at implying. She was worried Johnny would throw her sister down the stairs like she did Kate Moss - even thogh that didn't happen.

Any thoughts on her specifically referencing a concealer that the brand has said hadn't come out? Another mistake?

What is there to be confused about?

It's really simple. Heard said several times she had donated all the money. She clearly said on a television show that she given it all away. She hasn't done that. She lied about giving the money away.

The charities are not "enforcing" any "pledge" because there is nothing to enforce.

@adam I don't want you to think i discredit rape victims. I think my belief that I think this is fabricated is resulting in my fury for victims.

It's a horrible case all round.

This is a civil suit. Neither of them will be found guilty of anything.

He is suing her for defamation and she is counterclaiming that he has defamed her.

Defamation suits (certainly under English and Scots Law) reverse the normal rules that the pursuer has to prove their case and make the defender prove that what was said was true so not defamatory.

If the same rule applies then Heard as defender has to prove what she said was true and Depp as defender in his counterclaim has to prove what he said was true.

but the other sequence of events makes no difference - he raped her with a broken bottle after it was broken when it cut his finger?
He says in court the bottle cut his finger when she threw it at him
She says she never threw it and he cut his finger on the phone
He says in texts and verbally he cut his finger off himself

She says he was smashing stuff up and she was scared the bottle he used on her was broken, not that it was broken.

I mean, how do you think what you've written shows she lies? You've started from the basis of his version of events, which can be disputed

I don't know what point you are trying to make. Heard clearly stated on a television show that she had donated all the money. I think the exact words might have included every penny. No one who saw that clip could possibly take it at anything other than face value.

All this talk of "pledge" and payments over 10 years is a very recent invention to try to cobble together an explanation why the money wasn't paid.

The burden of proof is different in the USA. In England and Scotland, the Defendant has to prove the truth of the defamatory statement. The Claimant doesn't have to prove it is false. So the Sun had to prove it was true that Depp was a wife beater. Depp didn't have to prove anything.

In the USA, the Claimant has to prove the defamatory statement is false, and that the Defendant published it knowing it was false.So Depp has to prove that Heard's statements are false, and that she knowingly published false statements. Likewise, Heard has to prove Depp's statements are false and he knowingly published false statements.

Thanks. The counter claim muddies the water as they are both pursuer and defender.

but the finger point is mute - if Amber did it, he covered for her.

because I find it hard to believe you wouldn't know if something in that manner was broken or not - there is a big difference between a bottle nad a broken one.

So he could be covering for her abuse by saying he did cut his finger off. But she didn't report the rape because she's a liar, not because she's covering up abuse. Right. No double standard there at all.

I find it hard to believe you wouldn't know if something in that manner was broken or not - there is a big difference between a bottle nad a broken one.
Watch her testimony. She was saying she was terrified and couldn't feel anything. And hoped it wasn't the broken bottle.

Feeling numb and freezing during rape is a common defence mechanism.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-assault-may-trigger-involuntary-paralysis/

Stop assuming what happens when women are raped. It indicates nothing that she reported fearing the bottle was broken.

This is why people on the feminism board get so angry. There are so many myths out there, people take them on face value and say "well I don't believe she was raped because x, y, z".

Maybe try an experiment of assuming she is telling the truth and see how you feel about the trial then?

To be fair Adam, I would never, ever make that comment on a criminal trial, nor about anyone IRL.

Unfortunately, because of the way in which she has given it in the trial, I don't think its as credible as I would have done.

Well, the thing is , either way the finger was cut off, regardless by who.

If her version of events tally, she was injured in that manner and didnt tell a soul (yet writes articles on the internet and has spilled every detail in this trial).

I hope I'm wrong. I still think she will win.

www.thedailybeast.com/breaking-down-the-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trials-most-explosive-allegations

The versions told in court are covered in there.

It's normal for abuse victims not to tell people what's happened. You know it is. You can't read anything into the fact she didn't report it to the police. This whole trial shows exactly why she wouldn't tbh.

She had to report it in this trial as he brought it up by saying she's not a victim of sexual violence and bringing up the confidential testimony from the UK trial. She's under oath. She can't lie, she's had to testify to it. In public so everyone can tear shreds off her.

It's absolutely horrific. The only way to make it even a smidgen less horrific is to say it never happened, but unfortunately I am not convinced. I think a man who chooses to write abuse about his wife using blood from his severed finger, and then dip the finger in paint when the blood runs out is very disturbed and can well believe he'd be capable of what she said.

If you listen to the audio of the doctor and nurse discussing it, the doctors primary concern is johnny will get sepsis from the wound being dipped in paint and rubbed on the mirror.

That is not the action of a rational, sensitive human being.

I'd missed the bit about the messages on the mirror so I apologise for that.

What a mess.

It is a mess, I agree.

@AdamRyan its not about the fact shes not reported it.

I just dont know where this civil thing ends.

So if she wins, hes a rapist and an abuser forever on out?

On all charges or just some?

this is why I don't understand the civil charge thing.

I sincerely hope whatever the outcome that both are OK. I worry about Amber following the trial less than I worry about Depp. But I think she'll win.

I'm sorry if I upset you re the bottle allegation. Never my intention. I think in these types of things we forget they are real people.

I'm very very pleased it's not me on the jury.

Same. It's easier in our own houses.

But again, its not criminal. So it's more technical than that isnt it? I read somewhere that only one juror has to have found that one allegation was true and she wins.

I'm not upset for myself. But I am very upset by how sexual abuse victims are treated. I've been on the receiving end of being told how women lied about my own abuser (the person didn't know I was also one of his victims) and it makes me so upset how easy it is to discount what women say.
I'm following the trial to try to understand why so many people are adamant she's an abusive liar who's out to ruin his life and I really for the life of me can't see any evidence. Ìts all social media, inaudible audio clips, smears, he said she said that throws shade on the actual facts.

I’ll happily call out trolling if I see it. If there’s no intention to troll(which I honestly can’t tell by some posts)then so be it you’re not trolls 🙄 but again it’s not about disagreeing, it’s about being misogynistic with the comments on feminist sub. I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand my frustration with not even feminist sub being spared; not even one thread spared of victim blaming(even when you specifically write you hope to start with that perspective). Feminism is not about equality, that will never liberate all women neither are men and women the same or ever will be. There’s difference between equal opportunity and giving everyone same conditions no matter their circumstances(which is by large what people think is equality, everyone being treated exactly the same ending in certain people always having advantage, since the world has been and still is tailored predominantly for white men…working twice as hard to catch up with them and enjoy some privileges is not equality). Yes I’m simplifying because I honestly have no energy or brain left to articulate it better(thankfully other posters clarified a lot of stuff better than I can)but no one said women don’t hit or whatever. I remember reading that actually women might be slightly more aggressive than men, which doesn’t surprise given we’re constantly under some stress and threat. That doesn’t equal to women being as strong or powerful as men that would enable them to abuse men en large the way men do women. It is possible but those are specific scenarios. I also never said I excuse all women-I never said they are not capable of devious and really horrific crime. But again mentioning those disproportionately smaller number of cases whenever it comes to trying to see if woman was wrongfully accused terribly reminds of gaslighting. “Not all men”and”women can do nasty shit too”is something that doesn’t even need to be said-WE ALL KNOW THAT.

My point was a)there can never be two abusers in relationship of two people and b)the level of power women today have worldwide would have to dramatically shift for me to believe that a smaller, weaker, younger, less wealthy and less influental woman can be the abuser next to an already agressive, possesive and jealous man with serious drug addiction.

So once you determine who’s the abuser, there’s no need to like everything the victim has done or reprimand her for abhorrent behaviour in those circumstances(unless they lashed out on someone else who’s weaker or harmed someone else…but as for the abuser; I honestly don’t give a f. If he raped her then I wish she cut his finger off, along with something else).

So yeah just switching roles and applying same criteria to men and women as if we are equally powerful in frankly any aspect makes absolutley no sense and help no woman ever.

Of course there can be two abusers.

Sorry to hear that.

I have also been an abuse victim, and I think that's what gets me too, as it probably gets many people.

They asked me in terms of my victim statement what I would like - a fine, a sentence, etc.

I vividly remember asking what his dirty money would do.

I wanted justice (didn't get it). and I think thats what gets me about civil trials.