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?

That is interesting.
I've been reading some of the Bot Sentinel stuff too - it's amazing how much the Internet can be manipulated. Scary actually.

Here's the full ruling by the judge in the case of Johnny Depp v The Sun:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf

Worth a read if you can bear it.

Really good article - section from it below

Data analyst Christopher Bouzy, known for exposing a coordinated hate campaign against Meghan Markle, revealed in Discovery+’s documentary “Johnny vs Amber” the existence of the same pattern with Amber Heard. He states that “In early 2020, we were contacted to check Twitter activity and were able to determine about 6,000 fake or inauthentic accounts targeting Ms. Heard” and adds, “It’s definitely a smear campaign, it’s definitely a coordinated influence campaign.”

Interesting that JD spent a lot of time with a Saudi Prince on his yacht in 2016.

Another quote from the Washington Post regarding the crown Prince (a different prince) being a murder suspect yet receiving immense support on social media.

The prevailing narrative about Saudi Twitter is that much of the discourse is manufactured by “bots” — inauthentic, centrally controlled accounts. The Saudi regime has invested substantial resources over the past decade to turn Twitter into a tool of control.

It's wrong to say JD brought the case and started this off. AH had their marriage (with mutually abusive behaviours) printed in the newspaper. I'm sure she got a good financial settlement from her divorce, so parading their mutually bad behaviour was vindictive and left JD no option but to start legal proceedings. She set out to destroy his career. She has retained her career. He has lost out.

Both behaved badly. Neither is a victim. They should have walked away sooner. Ridiculous to get into constant verbally abusive confrontations. It's sickening to see this farce acted out in public.

@cottagegardenflower did you read the ruling in the previous case? Did you read the article above? After being abused do you think women should shrink and shut up? Are you a woman? Do you have daughters? Have you ever experienced abuse?

"It's wrong to say JD brought the case and started this off."

Except he did just that. He sued the Sun for libel and lost his case and is now suing Heard. He could have just let the whole thing drop.

She doesn't say that. Watch the clip. She calrifies it was a toss not a throw. They then ask her if she thought he was aiming at her and her answer is "I don't know why he threws the bottle". Then they ask if it was in her general direction, she says yes. They ask if there were other people around her in the general direction and she says yes so they ask if he threw the bottle in the general direction of a group of people and she says yes. She doesn't know if the bottle had wine in it or not. They ask if the bottle hit anyone and she says no.

You do realize these things are all recorded? Making things up like she said he was throwing it at her but just missed her....just shows there really isn't evidence when you have to lie to make a point. Here is her testimony related to the bottle.

This is actually a good point, I think he's got to the stage where he can't be cleaned up sufficiently for a family blockbuster.

Yes, yes, yes and I divorced him. I still hold the views I do. Both parties were mutually abusive and a disaster together.

Exactly that.

He did a lot more damage to himself by having all those horrible text messages released during the trial than Amber did by co-writing the article, where she doesn't name him. Seems like he has no sane advisors left in his life, just enablers.

He was responding to an entirely unnecessary newspaper expose by AH. Just why did she need to do this?

She's allowed to talk about her life experiences.
I linked what she said upthread and am really interested as to which bits you think exposed him?

To stand up for herself and other victims of sexual abuse at the hands of men in a world where victim blaming still prevails. To shine some light on a problem and maybe to use her voice for good?

There is a really good speech by Sasha Baron Cohen aka the actor that plays Borat about social media and the internet.

Sasha is actually a very intelligent man, who plays the fool. I'm not a fan of his films but you can't deny his intelligence.

His statement regarding social media was

"Think about it. Facebook, YouTube and Google, Twitter and others – they reach billions of people. The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear. It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist Alex Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that lies spread faster than truth. And it’s no surprise that the greatest propaganda machine in history has spread the oldest conspiracy theory in history – the lie that Jews are somehow dangerous. As one headline put it, “Just Think What Goebbels Could Have Done with Facebook.”"

Source: amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/22/sacha-baron-cohen-facebook-propaganda?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16530397169204&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Ftechnology%2F2019%2Fnov%2F22%2Fsacha-baron-cohen-facebook-propaganda

Have you also actually read the op-ed @cottagegardenflower ? Maybe have a read again….this wasn’t about him.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html

The public exposure started when she put on black, tried to look as somber and sad and bruised and vulnerable as she could in her courthouse photoshoot and called TMZ to have lots of paparazzi present to watch her walk in and out of the front doors of the court house to file a TRO.
And that was right after she he needed to give her at least three of his penthouses, a range rover, and $50K a month for life and that he didn't give her what she wanted she would file a TRO.

The next day the bruise, the somberness, the sadness, the black, the vulnerability were all gone. But over the next few years picutres and stories and recordings were leaked to keep it in the press and keep exposing him - giving a great trail in lead up to the OpEd where she knew she couldn't put his name in it but she had released enough over the years, had enough leaked pictures on enough tabloid covers, had TMZ play recordings etc
that everyone would know exactly who she was talking about.

I think you must have missed the ACLU testimony in the trial - it has already been testified to and admitted into evidence that it was about Johnny.

But she's not just a victim. She as much an abuser as he was. She has a personality disorder which makes her more inclined to over dramatise and exaggerate her life. He's not much better, so the best thing would have been to shut up and move on.

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house fits both of them perfectly.

I was in an abusive relationship, but I've also seen a male close relative in an abusive relationship, so I don't subscribe to the blanket 'a woman is always a victim' attitude.

A PP mentioned the Ellen Barkin testimony. This is from the Mail report:

"'Yes. Mr Depp threw a wine bottle across the hotel room in one instance, in Las Vegas while shooting Fear and Loathing. A fight was going on, between Johnny Depp and his friends in the room, the assistant.'

"Barkin could not remember if the bottle was full and it did not hit her or anyone else.

"She said that it was a 'toss' that came from the other side of the hotel room."

Midlife's interpretation of this seems to be that Depp was just harmlessly "tossing" a glass bottle across a room, as if this was a completely normal thing to do and not designed to hurt anyone. Can I just point out for the hard of understanding that normal people don't just go throwing bottles around in a room full of people (or at all, for that matter)?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10834837/Johnny-Depps-former-flame-actress-Ellen-Barkin-testifies.html

No - what has been said in court was it was about her and some of it referred in part to her experiences with Johnny (and he wasn't named). Which she's perfectly entitled to do in a piece about her life as she was married to him.
Women are allowed to have their own voices you know.

Nothing in my post is interpretation. I linked the clip of Ms Barkin's actual testimony and described what was in the clip. If something I said was not what was in her testimony, feel free to point that out.

I will link it again. No idea why you are linking and quoting Daily Mail when we have the actual recording of the testimony.

Women are 100% allowed to have their own voices. However when you sign a NDA, it legally limits what you can say publicly. Being a woman doesn't exclude you from contractual / legal responsibilities.

It has already been established that it was about Johnny Depp. If not, the case would not have been able to move forward and would never have gone to trial. The ACLU's testimony and the emails that were introduced between the parties are proof it was about Johnny Depp.

I don't know why I'm bothering, but

The case is not about whether she's abusive. It is about 2 things: 1) whether it's accurate to imply he is an abuser 2) whether that implication lost him money

Everything else is just a distraction.

So many people have now testified to his drug and drink problem, his unpredictability, his jealous and controlling behaviour and his temper, as well as having observed bruises on Heard and smashed up possessions, that 1) seems accurate.

And yesterday it was clear his behaviour as observed by film crews etc has lost him money, and not the implication that he's abusive.

I can't see how he can explain that away, even if there is some sort of expert witness casting doubt on the metadata. To be honest, if those photos were in doubt, Depps team wouldn't have allowed them to be admitted.

That isn't really what the case is about either. Have you read the suit? It is about 3 specific sentences in the OpEd.

And why are those 3 specific sentences relevant?