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.

If its so obvious she's a liar and he is innocent and never abused her, why has his legal team settled the appeal for far less than the court awarded and without constraining what she can say?
That sounds like he's not convinced he'd win an appeal to me

What do you mean about settling the appeal. Amber dropped her appeal, and on that basis he’s dropped his (it being a more minor point of appeal). I suspect he’s happy to drop it so he can finally move on and it was never about the money for him, he’s proved his point.

Also, why would he reach for a gagging order? He’s not out to silence her, but if she says anything untrue she will face legal action for libel. I suspect any publisher will be very cautious about accepting ‘her truth’ now.

I don't think anyone has said Depp wasn't abusive, or that he was innocent. I have said that there was no evidence that he was physically abusive e.g. hit her. Taking lots of drugs, being drunk a lot, verbal abuse are all considered forms of abuse, but they are not the same as physical abuse.
As to why would Depp drop his claims Heard is broke. Her insurers have paid out some, but there is more than one insurer and they are fighting each other legally as well as suing Heard. With Heard being broke there's no point Depp trying to go after more money than she has. Also it will look like bullying if Depp insists on taking everything e.g. her home. Depp has won quite comprehensivly against her. I think Depp feels he has cleared his name ( of the violence charge ). There comes a point where it's time for both parties to just walk away and get on with their lives.
Heard should be carefull of what she says in the future. If she were to publicly says things that Depp considered libellous it might be pointless to sue her when she has no money, but he could get a court injuction forcing her to stop. If she broke that injunction she could go to prison.
The best thing for both of them is to get on with rest of their lives and put the past behind them. Time to start building a new future not dwell on the past.

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

She's settled the defamation case so won't pursue the appeal. She's paying Depp $1m instead of the court awarded $10m.

She said "Now I finally have an opportunity to emancipate myself from something I attempted to leave over six years ago and on terms I can agree to. I have made no admission. This is not an act of concession. There are no restrictions or gags with respect to my voice moving forward.”

Less interested in her but his motivation to agree these terms are interesting.

Anyway the truth will out eventually I'm sure.

That's her statement on the settlement.
I assume you are concentrating on this bit? "There are no restrictions or gags with respect to my voice moving forward"
It's true, there are no restrictions on her voice going forwards APART from the laws that must all live by every day. If she commits libel again he is free to sue her again, or apply for a court injunction. She may not libel Depp anymore than you or I without Depp deciding how he wants to deal with it.

If I'm right in assuming what point you are trying to make, you believe that she can say anything she wants about Depp without any consequences as part of the settlement? ( You've not stated your point in posting her statment so I have no choice but to assume. )

For what it’s worth (not much I’m sure), I tend to default to believing women when they speak out about violence and abuse. I was really shocked at what I was seeing in the trial. I have been the victim of abuse at the hands of a stepparent (stepmother) and a lot of Amber’s behaviour resonated with my experience of an abuser. I think Depp’s behaviour and addiction probably created an abusive atmosphere but my point was I don’t understand how people can watch that trial and think Amber is some innocent bastion of truth and build their campaign around her.

He settled because he just wanted his truth out. The only reason he had an appeal was because Heard's team filed an appeal. The jury ordered Heard to pay 10 million in a libel case of which it was fully expected that Depp would lose because defamation is hard to prove. He was guaranteed to lose but he just wanted to get on a stand that was publicly filmed and say what happened.

The jury decided there was "actual malice" from Heard. They saw enough proof that Heard lied.

I'm not sure you understand how much bullshit and lying had to surface before a jury would even come to this conclusion. Before this trial started, there was no way any lawyer thought he would win.

Depp does not need her 10 million, Heard does not have 10 million, his team have announced that the million dollars she paid will be pledged and donated to charity.

If I'm right in assuming what point you are trying to make, you believe that she can say anything she wants about Depp without any consequences as part of the settlement?
My point is that if Depp was innocent, he had all the power and could have insisted on paying the full settlement and insisted Heard didn't repeat her "truth"
Instead he's agreed 10% of the court settlement and no restrictions on her
That suggests to me that he knows he could lose any further actions. Others may disagree.

There verdict still stands, because it’s not been successfully appealed. Therefore she cannot repeat her libellous claims. She has her voice ‘going forward’, which I think is deliberately ambiguous- it’s not saying she is going to repeat claims she was physically and sexually abused, notice she doesn’t mention he’s an abuser in her statement.

The truth was well and truly outed in the US trial.

It could be he was worried about losing further action but you are naive to think that people only settle when they aren’t innocent. I mean you could also say why did Amber Heard settle if she was telling the truth.

Really they both settled because their legal bills were already in the millions. Amber Heard has liquidated all her assets and run off to Spain and is being sued left right and centre by insurance companies and has little chance of ever paying £10mil, and it was obviously never about the money for him.

Let’s see if Depp will donate the £1mil to charity, not just pledge to donate like Heard. Interestingly the UK judge put a large emphasis on Heard having donated her divorce settlement when she hadn’t at all. She pledged to donate it then never did. That’s one lie that was really easily proved.

you are naive to think that people only settle when they aren’t innocent

I don't think that. I think lawyers advise their clients for the best outcome they can hope to get. And what Depp settled seems low compared to the court award. Which makes me think his lawyers advised him that going through an appeal was a bad idea.

In any case, my opinion of him hasn't changed. He's a nasty abusive drunk with severe problems. I don't understand why so many people on the Internet defend his behaviour.

You are mistaking being critical of Amber Heard with defending Johnny Depp. They are not mutually exclusive. Amber Heard has also been shown to be a nasty abusive liar but you seem pretty blind to that for some reason.

@AdamRyan
You keep saying the word innocent in regards to Depp. No one else here is using that word. Everyone else does think that Depp has issues.
It seems to me you are determined to cling to your world view of things irrespective of the evidence. Maybe your brain couldn't handle the idea that both of them were abusive towards each other. Both of them were on drugs. Evidence was presented during the trial that both of them took coke. One piece of evidence was a message from Heard demanding that Depp got her some coke.
I think in your mind bacause Heard is a woman that she is incapable of being abusive, and that because Depp is a man he must always be in the wrong.
Evidence was presented that Heard has physically abused former girlfriends. She is an abusive person, it's not because she's a woman, it's because she is an abuser. Depp is also an abuser in his own way, but no evidence of Depp being a physicaly abusive was presented during the trial.
I don't think you can handle the idea of the world not being quite as black and white as you think it is. No one is saying Depp is innocent, but your brain assumes we must be because you can't handle the idea of them both being abusive so this is your way of coping.