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?

I am not sure what you mean. The three sentences are the basis for suit.

Amber's counter suit is about two sepcific phrases used by JD's previous lawyer.

This suit isn't the same as the UK suit.

Seriously?

That's all she wrote?

Reminds me of the jkr essay!

It's ridiculous isn't it Rufus?
Loads of people say "she started it by exposing him " then you read what she actually wrote and it's hard to see what the problem is.

I am not sure what you mean. The three sentences are the basis for suit.
The three sentences are the basis for the suit because he says they are defamatory and lost him money by damaging his reputation so he wasn't cast in films.

A defence to defamation is that what was written is true.

If its true that Depp was abusive to her, she didn't defame him.

Whether or not she was abusive to him is totally irrelevant as to whether he abused her. He's bringing it up as his defence is he was never abusive and she lied because she is. But people now are twisting that into she deserved anything he did, they are both as bad as each other etc.

That's not how the law works is what I'm saying. This case is not about her abusiveness. It's about whether she defamed him by implying he was abusive.

The 3 sentences aren't just about implying he was abusive. That was the UK case where they were just looking to prove any abuse of any kind that would mean the word 'wife beater' wasn't defamatory. This claim is entirely different.

Both their claims are defamation claims.

“It was a toss…throw”(does motion of throwing over the shoulder). Then further the lawyer asks if the bottle had hit her if it would cause injury but I think there’s an objection tho even then she nods and says yes. She answers that there were other people there but that he threw it in HERs direction. I’m quite sure she was trying to say that she suspects it was aimed at her but wanted to be fair and said she doesn’t know because he probably never told her(or apologised for that matter).

I did not quote her and I think it’s accurate to say that by throwing it in her direction, he threw it at her(whether intentionally or not)given the close proximity she shown with her hand and that he missed her(because it did not hit her). I’m quite sure if she wasn’t concerned about that event generally she would never mention it but again you seem to be pointing that it’s irrelevant he throws bottles near peoples heads? I guess you’re playing some superiority games via strawman method a bit by annoying people who side with Heard pointlessly

Not if she is telling blatant lies she is not . because she is doing a huge disservice to genuine rape victims .

*Pointlessly as in that reply to me was off the mark and frankly a waste of time for both

The 3 sentences aren't just about implying he was abusive. That was the UK case where they were just looking to prove any abuse of any kind that would mean the word 'wife beater' wasn't defamatory. This claim is entirely different.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand.
If the court finds he was abusive, how could she still have defamed him in the article?

Can you explain your position please and how her abusiveness would be relevant?

I think I won’t reply to comments who haven’t watched trial and those intentionally seeking to derail already proven arguments(as said there’s pro Depp thread already where they basically bully anyone who disagrees out that I gave up on). Looking forward to next week

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

Two reasons. One is that reading is quicker than listening. Two, more importantly, a lot of people reading Mumsnet might have other people in a room and not be able to play a piece of audio out loud.

Of course, if you'd given it a moment's thought, you could probably have worked that out for yourself.

My response was to your false claims about her testimony - not to my view on the situation. And you have still misquoted her.

Again, make up whatever you want. You can say she said he smashed her in the head with the bottle but she was just too scared to tell anyone and no one else standing beside her happened to see it. If you think that helps your position - why not exaggerate it more and make up more details that didn't happen.

Well stop trying to bully people who see the shades of grey and won't accept the world is black and white. No one person was the victim. No one person was the abuser. They were both a disaster to one another.

You are starting to gaslight now. What I quoted in last post was accurate as I listened while writing down. For the rest I have no comments, you posted the video and people can look it up so I rest my case.

AH has done a huge disservice to women who have been abused and were victims. Many people will now look at her evidence and excuse abusive men their behaviour. The same applies to men and JD. The case itself may be about the legal issues surrounding defamation, but the whole media episode has highlighted some very unsavoury behaviour from both protagonists. They have derailed genuine victimhood with their circus.

Both should have learned to keep quiet and learn from this lesson. Not tout it to sleaze hungry newspapers. They were both abused and abuser. That's obvious

@Miscfeminista I didn't post any video. I don't indulge in the circus performance of either party

The three sentences or parts of sentences that are the basis for the foundation for the suit are:

The title: "I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath."

And two sentences in the body of the OpEd:

"I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out"

"I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.

Re sexual violence in the title - AH's lawyers tried to get this part of the claim dismissed as Amber did not write the title herself (it was written by the Post) but since she is named as the sole author - she is responsible for the title. Amber testified she didn't read the title when approving the article however evidence showed she was shown the title. This is why the psychologist who testified spent so much time on that. If the jury accepts that JD did not sexually abuse her then this would be defamatory.

The "I became a public figure representing domestic abuse" - this is where her own behaviour comes into play as an abuser is not someone that society or the public chooses to represent them as the face of domestic violence - so the argument here is that this misrepresentation of herself (if he jury accepts she was the abuser) is defamatory.

The "Institutions protect men accused of abuse" along with "the previous statement that "I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out" are where the impact of the accusations and the OpEd on both their careers comes into play. If the jury accepts that these statements as true and that Johnny was protected from negative effects of being accused of abuse and that Amber was not protected and suffered for speaking up then it would not be defamation. This one is also a direct accusation that he abused her (accused of abuse) and this is where showing he did abuse her is important to the case. If Johnny didn't abuse her or his career didn't suffer but hers did, then this is defamatory.

That is my understanding of the three claims based on what I have read.

That wasn’t a reply to you but the previous poster

@cottagegardenflower ^

No where does she saw there were other people there but he threw it in HER direction. That is not a quote from the video.

And you are the one that made up her testimony to suit your position and when I call you out on the lie - I am gaslighting you? That is how you respond?

Qoute to me means" ". That's all I'm going to say, everything else has been said.

That's all really interpretative though.

The "I became a public figure representing domestic abuse" - this is where her own behaviour comes into play as an abuser is not someone that society or the public chooses to represent them as the face of domestic violence - so the argument here is that this misrepresentation of herself (if he jury accepts she was the abuser) is defamatory

I read that as she became known as someone who'd been abused when she took out the restraining order. As a result she faced wrath in the form of death threats and intimidation.

I think her choice of words is passive to indicate she didn't choose this, it was something society imposed on her.

It seems an odd interpretation that she actively encouraged society to choose her as a figurehead and they would not have done so if they'd known what she was like.

I agree it is interpretative and is based on what I have read. I have tried to find a more legal / exact definition of exactly what has to be proven for these three sentences but can't find it as of yet. I can only find sites where legal people talk about it.

I just seen some pics of Johnny and Amber(separate of course). In HD he really looks as desperate as any old neighbour I'd see with bad yellow hair dye and a pin as an earring(Idk, even I find myself too old for that and am hardly close to so called mid life crisis). His stardom has washed off long ago and yeah I'm one of those people who just don't see him as all that good looking even as his younger self sorry, his character even before I heard of any of this was underwhelming to say the least, too.

As for Amber, she exercises every day(she said)and still has had wealthy life all these years but she definitely looks like stress took a toll that you can't erase with money. I noticed similar thing happening to me after spending years with my abusive partner. He just sucked life out of me and all people I knew before noticed this quickly. It angers me how much men ruin our lives, like this body is all we got basically and they wreck it all(I don't mean"beauty", just how horrible and useless you feel no matter what you do with your body that they physically use and violate anyway). Usually I don't take a moment to reflect on my former self and what I lost but it definitely disgust and angers me at the same time. As someone said even after all this ends be it Amber or another woman(if she's lucky to get out), damage has been done. And by who, for what?