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?

www.victimfocus.org.uk/the-diagnosis-of-amber-heard

Seems she didn't finish the article 🤔maybe after trial ends

@Miscfeminista "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"

I listened to the audio and do not remember Ellen Barkin talking about JD throwing the bottle near people's heads. She says he threw it in her direction but did not specify it was at her head. She also said that there were other people around and that he was having an argument with some of them.

I think it's dangerous to add in your own slant on what was said, when it wasn't actually said. Throwing a bottle at people is unacceptable behaviour and a violent act. However, you've added in a detail that was not said, from the evidence I listened to. If you have a recording where she stated he aimed for someone's head, can you point me in the right direction to find it? From Ellen Barkin's testimony, she was unclear as to who he was throwing the bottle at. If the people he was arguing with were near her, it is possible he was throwing it at them and it was a coincidence she was standing near them. From what she said, she wasn't involved in the argument so why would he suddenly throw a bottle at her? I would have thought he'd have thrown the bottle at those making him angry. On the other hand, he might have thrown it at her. We don't know from her testimony as she didn't have a clear answer to that question. If the jury decide he was aiming at the people he was arguing with, that proves he's violent but does not prove he's got previous history of domestic violence (based solely on this one act and this piece of testimony).

If you watch the video again she makes a motion with her hand when she talks about the bottle being thrown(once when describing the way it was thrown and another time when the lawyer asks whether in her direction which she I believe confirms and motions a bit diferrently as if it flew right past her).

If you perceive it differently that's fine but as I said there is the video of her testimony, no need to accuse me for intentionally skewing her testimony when I only describe what I heard and saw(and that again as we saw depends on your perception and point of view). In no way have I added words as her own and I think it's pointless to argue about it-there is a video, people can watch it.

Sorry I didn't realise the DailyMail one doesn't even show her on the screen when she is describing, I put it as it was bit longer so you could see nothing was cut off but here's exact time where she motions next to her head when she says the bottle didn't hit her

That's all from me tired to keep talking about those seconds of testimony

@Miscfeminista just to support what you were saying, Ellen Barkin, is clearly showing that the bottle flew close to her head, but is also clever enough to know that she doesn't have a proof that he threw it at her to say it openly, the implication from her body language, however, is that it is what she is clearly thinking. Also, the disdain she has for the guy is almost palpable. Whether people choose to believe what they are seeing or not, is another story.

In any case, no one in their right mind (and I used to hang out with some crazy, druggy, arty dudes in my youth to know), would be throwing a bottle at people across a room.

I think on that same channel you have people in the comments saying"oh big deal he threw it at the group of people"but what they don't realise is while there were other people there, it was still a hotel room. I know hotel rooms can be big but still, it sounds close enough to me that you don't have that much room to say you were just randomly throwing it. It is more likely to look you were to throw bottle at someone than not. What I also noticed is that Johnny Depp smirks or smiles around time she says she doesn't know what they were arguing about. I personally felt that as yeah you don't know anything right/you know very well why sort of vibe. I could be totally wrong but I could be 50/50 chances

Then there's almost delusional folk reading that she"feels bad"talking about him like that. I agree she probably doesn't like him at all or doesn't have good feelings toward him but then again didn't read a lot about them generally. I would not say they are cordiall either by Johnnys seeming mockery of her with his lawyers

Thank you for sharing that. I think some might take the interpretation you have given that hand movement. Others might not. What this thread shows is how difficult the job is going to be for the jury as there are so many different views on each piece of testimony.

By the way, I wasn't accusing you of intentionally skewing her testimony. I was stating that she never said he threw the bottle at anyone's head, which is factually correct as she didn't. You have put that interpretation on her hand action but did not explain at the time where you got the idea that he aimed for someone's head from. However, this is still your slant on her testimony and nobody, apart from Ellen Barkin and those she privately might have shared it with, knows for a fact what she meant by that hand movement as she did not vocalise it. You might be correct in your interpretation but until Ellen Barkin clarifies what she meant, nobody will know for sure and everything about it is pure speculation. Throwing the bottle is still a violent act but the interpretation of the hand movement vs. the actual words spoken can change the narrative, which is massively important for this particular case: 1. he threw it in the general direction of people, one of whom was Ellen Barkin - violence but not necessarily domestic violence as there's no proof of who he was aiming for, or 2. he aimed it at Ellen Barkin's head - domestic violence thereby evidencing he had previous form for for dv, strengthening AH's case of domestic abuse.

I think tossing a glass bottle in a room full of people is a violent act.
It reminds me of the scene in Trainspotting where Begbie casually tosses a pint glass of a mezzanine to give him a pretext for a fight.

I agree @AdamRyan, it is a violent act, something I have already stated (if your comment was off the back of mine. If not, apologies).

Of course it's a violent act! How can anyone claim otherwise?

Red flags - from a domestic abuse charity.

It was a general comment about what difference a throw vs a toss makes 😀

This is interesting - I hadn't realised the burden of proof is on Depp to show he is not an abuser
www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/culture/23043519/johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-trial-fairfax-county-domestic-abuse-violence-me-too

Having reread your post, I suppose I think its splitting hairs if he threw it at her or not.
It shows he is a violent man.

I have not even read the Rolling Stone article until now(linked in vox one). It's pure gold comedy wise: "We move to the dining room for a three-course meal of pad thai, duck and gingerbread with berries." 😂by itself sounds funny but after pretty sober description of Depp it delivers perfectly

And Amber threw pots and pans (amongst other things) - directly at Johnny intending to hit him. In the recording sh mockes him for being scared of things being thrown at him. Where are all the comments about what a violent and abusive woman she is?

Yes. I totally agree about the reasons AHs witnesses probably pulled away. I bet it was extremely hard and stressful to stay friends with her. I bet the stress was immense and perhaps pressure from lawyers and some reported death threats.

I said this on the other thread and got my head bitten off.

O.M.G. Disgusting. Epitomizes the pathos of 2 predators in one video. Mansons non existent quality music and lyrics with Depps washed out acting, with them looking the way they do, doing disgusting crap that they are doing in the video. Just wow.

“Marilyn’s the best. He’s such a good friend. He’s played Barbies with my daughter.” (Rolling stone article above) 😣

I disagree as he is trying to prove he wasn't violent to AH and she is trying to prove he was. If AH can prove he was violent to a previous partner it strengthens her case that he is guilty of dv as if the jury believe that he was abusive to a previous partner by chucking a bottle at her it makes it more believable that he would abuse AH. He is definitely a violent man but context is everything in this case due to the nature of her article and his lawsuit eg if AH proves he hit everyone around him but can't prove he hit her then he wins the defamation case. The fact that he is violent isn't necessarily relevant, although the jury might take that into account and find for her as a result.

if AH proves he hit everyone around him but can't prove he hit her then he wins the defamation case.
The article I linked upthread says he has to prove he didn't hit her (she is lying), not that she has to prove he did.
A peculiarity of defamation I guess

To have a strong case, you will need to prove that there has been a statement that can be described as: False, Injurious, Published, Unprivileged

A statement does not qualify as defamation just because it is hurtful, mean, or offensive. For this reason, most statements of opinion are not defamatory. Opinions, unlike verifiable facts, rely on perspective.

To pursue damages for libel or slander, you will need to prove that the statement in question is objectively false.

To be classified as defamatory, a statement must be injurious. The entire purpose of a defamation of character lawsuit is to prove that the statement in question caused damage to the victim.

The claimant in a defamation case must prove that the false statement damaged their reputation.

www.forthepeople.com/defamation-of-character-lawsuit-process/

I certainly think the evidence from this week has damaged JD's argument that her article ruined his career.

It appears she was violent too yes. But the case isn't about that. The case is about if JD was violent to her. He's saying he isn't.

"The fact that he is violent isn't necessarily relevant, although the jury might take that into account and find for her as a result."

It is definitely relevant if he is violent or not. That gives the context to possible abuse. Abusive men are either already violent prior or misogynistic-and he is both. I don't kow if the jury will consider that, it's possible they are not all that informed on domestic violence and abusers. I will honestly be shocked if they come to conclusion there was no evidence for him being an abuser but then again given a lot of public opinion and those of Depp fans...it's a possibility.