Amber Heard’s avengers: her team in Britain fight back against online hatred

[IwantToRetire]

Heard has her own British support network — and while they may be unable to compete in numbers, they certainly can on skill, with expertise in criminal law, psychology and advocacy for abuse victims. They have been rallying around the actress in London and also working together to combat the abuse women face online.

Jaimi Shrive, 24, is an academic who researches political perspectives on violence against women; her wife Dr Jessica Taylor, 32, is a chartered psychologist and author of the Sunday Times bestseller Sexy but Psycho; Charlotte Proudman is a barrister who specialises in cases involving violence against women, and Kim Manning-Cooper is a domestic violence activist.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amber-heards-avengers-her-team-in-britain-fight-back-against-online-hatred-5p3mbpbzr

Just to say I am posting this as I thought it was interesting, not just for the support Amber Heard is being and by who, but that parts of the media that publish articles about women's sex based rights are now using more tradional reporting methods of highlighting individuals and their back story. (Not grumbling) A bit like when there was the media getting all excited about JKR's lunch.

Just thought it was interesting on those 2 levels.

It was Depp vs. The Sun, and the claim upheld was that their description of him as a 'wife beater' was substantially true. I heard nothing in Depp vs. Heard that painted one party as an injured innocent in any of this. I saw an addled substance abuser who was abusive to his spouse (him) and a gross embellisher/liar and manipulator (her, therefore an emotional abuser) who likely exaggerated the extent of his abuse in order to paint herself in a better light.

Depp's argument that she was the sole abuser is one he refuted out of his own mouth.

Oddly enough the media censure of Heard tends to prove Taylor's point about women always bearing the entirety of the blame.

Heard did herself no favours in the Virginia court, but Depp is no 'victim' and his conduct was also appalling.

I didn’t say he was a victim

I watched it too and was horrified at the total vilification of AH when you heard the stuff that her friends testified to seeing and that JD admitted to.

I'm glad I don't live in the USA tbh, no idea what the jury were thinking

It's worth remembering that the Depp v Heard case in the US was a libel trial, it was not a criminal trial. Depp accused Heard of libel because she stated in a newspaper article that she was a victim of domestic violence. She didn't even name Depp.

The hurdle for libel in the US is supposed to be very high (see eg Elon Musk winning a libel case after he addressed a perfectly blameless cave rescuer as "pedo boy"). Even if you don't think Amber Heard is particularly sympathetic, it was obvious from the evidence that Depp behaved in an abusive way. His tweets to his friends about Heard were vicious and sadistic. One of his exes referred to him throwing a bottle across the room. There were other examples that showed he had a violent temper during which he was capable of breaking things around him. It is really difficult to understand why the jury found Heard to have committed libel, given the mountain of evidence. I can only assume they were swayed by Depp's team of lawyers clever use of video clips on social media to portray Heard as a liar.

I completely agree. It was also surprising the amount of essential evidence which was excluded from the trial.

The flight on which he kicked her in the back so that she fell - the evidence from HIS friend's text telling Heard how contrite and mortified he was and confirming what he'd witnessed him do - is a very compelling case in point.

This against his own testimony: 'I have never struck any woman in my life'.

If Heard was embellishing, she wasn't the only one. This was a demonstrable lie.

Of course, the one facing the full wrath and censure of the public was the woman.

I missed that there was now a settlement so no appeal
www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-12-19/amber-heard-johnny-depp-settle-defamation-case-appeal-trial%3f_amp=true

I really feel for her

For what it's worth, I agree with you.

Amber Heard claimed she was injured but the only injury ever verified was one to Depp.

@Flapjackquack I also watched the whole trial and agree with you. I recognised the same patterns of words and behaviour of my violent and abusive ex in one of them only and it wasn't JD.

@Flapjackquack
This will probably go down like a lead balloon but here goes. I watched the whole of the Depp v Heard trial (I was at home on gardening leave). I am no Depp fan, I went into it thinking meh two toxic people fighting each other. I came out of it thinking Depp is an addict and all the crap that comes with living with that, but Heard, I wouldn’t be surprised if she was a sociopath. I was shocked at how traditional media was portraying it because that was not what I was watching.

I agree. I watched maybe 50% of it live from the courtroom incluidng 100% of Depp and Heard's testimony. I thought Amber came across as a complete liar. She may well have experienced domestic violence, but she lied so frequently and brazenly that she destroyed any credibility she had for me. She is a very manipulative and deceitful person in my opinion. I had no opinion before the trial, and if Amber had not lied so much I think she could have won.
The media did then what they still do now, report not the facts but what they think the facts should be. Put a slant on everything to make sure it aligns with their world views.
How people can see how deceitful the media are when reporting on a subject where they have differing views to the person, e.g. gender critical, but then expect the media to be honest unbiased and fair on other topics is a mystery to me. There are some good ones out there, but on any topic of contention expect the media as a whole to follow the party line in lockstep.

Of course, the one facing the full wrath and censure of the public was the woman.

TBF she was the one who started it, and what's more she did it in a way that aligned herself with women who are actual victims and JD with men who are actually abusive.

It seems pretty clear their relationship was toxic, with violence and abuse happening from both sides. Perhaps more from AH - from the available evidence she seems to be much more deliberately goading as opposed to snapping and lashing out in the moment.

What people generally despise is being manipulated and made mugs out of. When AH wrote that original article angling for public sympathy, she did just that.

Oh I see the bat signal has gone up

Agreed with both of you. It was clear Heard is a sociopath when you watched the entire trial. I already had a strong suspiscion of this because in certain videos that were leaked she behaved exactly my mother who had cluster B personality disorders. The signs were there for me to notice.

The UK ruling was also really weird. Basically it came down to the judge saying Heard never lied (because who would do that not a sociopath!) and thus all the testimonies of other people in favour of Depp were all lies so the Sun had no reason to think Heard was lying.

The covering of these trials was as biased as any gender critical issue. The media chose a side instead of reporting the truth.

I watched the trial. Heard is a lying sociopath abuser. In this instance, the woman abused the man.

Jessica is that you?

(Every time people criticise her on sm she then turns round and says everyone is mean to her because they are jealous of her success.)

@Flapjackquack I watched the trail too. I live over here now, and was fascinated watching a televised trial. Went into it thinking AH would win, totally believed JD was an abuser. Came out believing she was a liar who jumped on the Me Too band wagon. I think she has done a lot of damage to victims of domestic violence.

@OneMorePlant
The UK ruling was also really weird. Basically it came down to the judge saying Heard never lied (because who would do that not a sociopath!) and thus all the testimonies of other people in favour of Depp were all lies so the Sun had no reason to think Heard was lying.

Apparently ( I've not been able to verify this ), during the UK trial at one point Heard was accused for throwing something at Depp in anger. Heard's defense to this claim was that she could not possibly have thrown something at him because she was wearing pyjamas. The judge accepted this reasoning.
The judge also called Heard "fragrant" which sounds a tad creepy.

The past few posts are ridiculous. A reminder: this was a libel trial. The question at the heart of the libel was whether Depp was a domestic abuser. It doesn't really matter whether you think Heard also behaved badly or even if she's a sociopath (great to have so many amateur psychologists sharing their diagnoses). The point is: did Depp abuse her? And obviously he did. There was plenty of evidence that Depp not only abused Heard but that he behaved violently and unpredictably in other contexts. Do we really think that a man who writes “Let’s drown her before we burn her!!! I will fuck her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she’s dead" is in practice treating his wife with respect and consideration?

The point of the "team" as I understand it is that even if both individuals are not very nice people, what was clear from the trial in the US and the online media barrage is that AH as the female got the most appalling abuse.

Over and over again not only on FWR but even in mainstream media women with a high profile talk about the virtual, and in one horrible case in real life, violence and embedded mysogony they experience.

Sometimes women have to confront it because they have no choice, but all too often it puts of many women from taking part in many areas of life.

@lechiffre55

Yes that trial was all sorts of weird. At some point I was actually wondering if Heard had something on the judge because the judge was anything but objective.

I didn't pay any attention to the first trial in the UK at the time. It sounds to me like the judge was just one of those out of date fossils that had all sorts of internal prejudices running amok. To describe one party as "fragrant" seems creepy. I wonder if the judge would have been so amenable if she was a suffragette trying to get the vote, or wanted an abortion, I suspect the judge's feelings towards her may have swung the other way.

What is ridiculous is that you don't even understand that the UK trial did not prove any of Heards accusations. Al that was decided is that the Sun is not liabel because they believed Heard.

A tweet in bad taste when someone is angry does not make someone an abuser. I would be curious to know what Heard tweeted about Depp but we will never know because she refused to give up her phone data unlike Depp.

What makes someone an abuser is dozens of witnesses proving she lied, bruises on Depp, his cut off finger, her arrest for punching her girlfriend in an airport, her own admittance of hitting him, that weird tirade of hers where she laughs like the joker, Heard admitting Depp always ran away from her, Heard's own testimony that was just utterly ridiculous and a bunch of staged and edited photos of which none of them were originals judging by the metadata.

What is ridiculous is that you don't even understand that the UK trial did not prove any of Heards accusations.

I didn't mention the UK trial.

@RoyalCorgi
I think where I would dispute what you say is I believe they were both abusive in their relationship. Depp has admitted the consumption of many drugs including alcohol but denied ever comitting any violence towards Heard. Heard's attempts to show she had been the victim of violence were laughable. At one point she said Depp hit her in the face and split her lip. Depp's defense showed a pitcure of her appearing on a talk show the very next day where you could see her talking, her mouth was open, and there was no split lip. Another time she accused him of punching her in the face hard too many times for her to count. Depp wears lots of large heavy rings all the time. Heard's pictures showed no injuries at all to her face. I googled Rhianna Chris Brown beating and saw the real horror of what a woman beat in the face by a man looks like. It's clear Heard lied over and over and over.
While I believe both of them behaved abusivly, I did not see any evidence that Depp ever laid hands on her. But I did see evidence that Heard has laid hands on previous girlfriends and severed Depp's finger in a fit of rage. I'm pretty sure that Heard cited domestic violence in her article, and that is why she lost the libel. Along with all the blatant lies in court that turned the jury and public off her.
If Heard had said in her article that they were abusive towards each other I think Depp could never have sued or won. If Heard hadn't lied so much during the libel trial I think she might have won. Heard wanted to play the victim rather than acknowledge they were both abusive towards each other, that was her downfall. Not taking responsibility for her own actions. Depp admitted his drug use and unpleasant language, that's the difference, and the reason he won in my opinion. He owned what he did.
I think Heard's actions have really harmed women in domestic abuse situations. It's not the jury's verdict that has hurt women, it's Heard's blatant lies and attempt to manipulate the jury that has caused damage.
It's long been acknowledged that while by far the greater majority of domestic violence is comitted by men, that in a small number of cases women too are capable of domestic violence. Holding up a domestic violence perpetrator like Heard as a victim to represent the many real women victims of domestic violence is sick and twisted. It does nothing to help, It only causes damage to the goal of reducing domestic violence against women.

The UK trial wasn’t Heard vs Depp, is was Depp vs the sun. This had huge impacts on the witnesses Depp could call, if Heard said something blatantly untrue, he could call a witness if the Sun hadn’t already called them.

The judge also took ambers word, under oath, that she had donated the money, was never after the money etc, all proved by witnesses in the Depp vs heard case not to be true.

She blatantly lied about physical and sexual abuse - she wasn’t taken to court because she said he was verbally abuse. Her ‘team’ in my view give feminist a bad name, blindly following the woman’s side despite evidence. They are trying to generalise and make her some universal symbol of abuse to avoid the detail which proves otherwise.

That said, I think the online abuse has been OTT and I have worried about her mental health, child killers have had less backlash.