I'm sorry but everyone in here chiming in with "I didn't follow the trial but I have xyz opinions" should really go do the research and come back. This whole trial was a giant gaslight. Several of her claims were proven to be lies. Please stop with these comments unless you actually know what you are talking about.
I’m sad for what this has done to victims of domestic violence, the emboldening of perpetrators and the teenagers who have been watching this via tik tok and are getting such a skewed view of things.
I only watched testimony (the actual videos not the tik tok spliced ones) and his expert witness was leaps and bounds above hers. Hers was just bad (the male). And flat out wrong on several things.
You didn't watch the whole thing yet you think/knokw others are getting a skewed view?
Yes. Teenagers getting 30 second bite sized tik tok videos mocking Amber Heard is getting a skewed view.
He’s weaponized the court system and now his buddies like Marilyn Manson are going to do the same thing to their victims. Really scary time for DV victims. Fuck that guy, the judge and the jury and every single person who thinks that ‘Amber turd’ is the height of comedy and is using this moment as a way to gain followers.
I'm not necessarily rooting for one person here or another..but I think this is a little emotional.
Both parties take a big risk by accepting jury of their peers and both have a risk of losing. Johnny Depp already lost one case so, as others pointed out, defamation and even interpersonal relationship violence is hard to prove..and you are right, it is sad.
You think the judge and jury (people we never saw?) Used this case as comedy and to gain followers? You really believe the judge wasn't taking her job seriously or doesn't have professional integrity?
Honestly, of all the stuff that was silly, those weren't take aways I got.
He’s weaponized the court system and now his buddies like Marilyn Manson are going to do the same thing to their victims. Really scary time for DV victims. Fuck that guy, the judge and the jury and every single person who thinks that ‘Amber turd’ is the height of comedy and is using this moment as a way to gain followers.
I'm not necessarily rooting for one person here or another..but I think this is a little emotional.
Both parties take a big risk by accepting jury of their peers and both have a risk of losing. Johnny Depp already lost one case so, as others pointed out, defamation and even interpersonal relationship violence is hard to prove..and you are right, it is sad.
You think the judge and jury (people we never saw?) Used this case as comedy and to gain followers? You really believe the judge wasn't taking her job seriously or doesn't have professional integrity?
Honestly, of all the stuff that was silly, those weren't take aways I got.
I would think she meant people on social media not the judge and jury. It’s pretty clear that pro Depp/anti Heard content was popular and made a lot of content creators a lot of money.
I posted a link above to a Rolling Stone article about women dropping out of domestic abuse cases because of how the Depp trial was going.
It is scary to have a court rule that even if you won’t name your abuser, if you write about your abuse they can sue you and win.
Manson is doing the same sort of thing with Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore in the defamation suit he filed.
The whole, I know he's an actor but was obviously being genuine on the stand is an odd take.
I followed this not at all and generally think that both of them did terrible things and the toxicity of their relationship was both dangerous and sad.
I’m sad for what this has done to victims of domestic violence, the emboldening of perpetrators and the teenagers who have been watching this via tik tok and are getting such a skewed view of things.
I only watched testimony (the actual videos not the tik tok spliced ones) and his expert witness was leaps and bounds above hers. Hers was just bad (the male). And flat out wrong on several things.
You didn't watch the whole thing yet you think/knokw others are getting a skewed view?
To be fair, I don’t think virtually anyone watched the entire thing who wasn’t in the courtroom, just the testimonies from witnesses alone took over 100 hrs. Watching the trial everyday would be the equivalent of a full time job for weeks. The best thing most people can reasonably do is watch actual recorded videos of testimony themselves.
That’s been a part of the criticism of the coverage and the trial, most people simply can’t watch every moment of the trial and are instead being given snippets by reporters, but also random people on social media in great numbers to form their opinions around vs seeing and understanding what is happening first hand and in context.
I didn't watch any of the trial and I feel pretty safe in saying that anybody who made a tiktok or treated it like a sporting event is a garbage human being.
Post by whereswaldo2010 on Jun 2, 2022 13:46:06 GMT -5
Actually I did have pretty much the entire trial on in the background and much of the youtube law content creators live streamed the whole thing with hundreds of thousands of viewers each…so it comes across as uninformed when ppl start with “I didn’t watch the trial but…” Just saying that it is hard to take seriously that ppl who haven’t looked at the evidence or the testimonies have such strong opinions one way or the other, especially given the very biased reporting and PR pushes in both directions
Having watched the trial and limiting it only to the evidence in the courtroom,, I would confidently say that amber heard lied on the stand, misrepresented evidence, gave testimony that was refuted by the evidence and relied on tropes of women as victims in order to argue her case. Also I am confident that she abused Johnny depp. That’s just what the evidence shows and I’m sorry but it sets back the me too movement and actual abuse victims to say that you have to believe amber heard and her sensationalist lies or you’re against women
You didn't watch the whole thing yet you think/knokw others are getting a skewed view?
To be fair, I don’t think virtually anyone watched the entire thing who wasn’t in the courtroom, just the testimonies from witnesses alone took over 100 hrs. Watching the trial everyday would be the equivalent of a full time job for weeks. The best thing most people can reasonably do is watch actual recorded videos of testimony themselves.
That’s been a part of the criticism of the coverage and the trial, most people simply can’t watch every moment of the trial and are instead being given snippets by reporters, but also random people on social media in great numbers to form their opinions around vs seeing and understanding what is happening first hand and in context.
I'm not necessarily rooting for one person here or another..but I think this is a little emotional.
Both parties take a big risk by accepting jury of their peers and both have a risk of losing. Johnny Depp already lost one case so, as others pointed out, defamation and even interpersonal relationship violence is hard to prove..and you are right, it is sad.
You think the judge and jury (people we never saw?) Used this case as comedy and to gain followers? You really believe the judge wasn't taking her job seriously or doesn't have professional integrity?
Honestly, of all the stuff that was silly, those weren't take aways I got.
I would think she meant people on social media not the judge and jury. It’s pretty clear that pro Depp/anti Heard content was popular and made a lot of content creators a lot of money.
I posted a link above to a Rolling Stone article about women dropping out of domestic abuse cases because of how the Depp trial was going.
It is scary to have a court rule that even if you won’t name your abuser, if you write about your abuse they can sue you and win.
Manson is doing the same sort of thing with Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore in the defamation suit he filed.
1) I'm a little skeptical personally that this trial is having some **massive*** impact on DV cases overall and also any sort of movement on the me too movement. I'm not sure it's a landmark case, and I say that without accepting nor denying either persons claims.
2) again, I said I thought it was a little over the top to be all, "fuck the judge, and fuck the jury," honestly I think its a tiny bit over the top to be saying jd weaponized the justice system.
Awhile ago, when Brian Laundrie utilized the justice system to his advantage to hide out and subvert the police and his entire family was able to basically obstruct justice, after he beat his girlfriend and then murdered her people on this very forum DEFENDED his right to lawyer up and block the investigation and I was told I was a child who didn't understand the legal system bc I said I thought it was bullshit that..oh, he and his family had weaponized the system.
This isn't some new thing and JD and Amber Heard both were able to utilize their right to jury trial here. I know and understand people are invested and they can see the power dynamics.
It can't be that in some cases we are saying "everyone has a right to these things," and then in others we tell the judge and jury to fuck right off.
You didn't watch the whole thing yet you think/knokw others are getting a skewed view?
To be fair, I don’t think virtually anyone watched the entire thing who wasn’t in the courtroom, just the testimonies from witnesses alone took over 100 hrs. Watching the trial everyday would be the equivalent of a full time job for weeks. The best thing most people can reasonably do is watch actual recorded videos of testimony themselves.
That’s been a part of the criticism of the coverage and the trial, most people simply can’t watch every moment of the trial and are instead being given snippets by reporters, but also random people on social media in great numbers to form their opinions around vs seeing and understanding what is happening first hand and in context.
So.. like the jury and judge that somehow are being told to F off? Also, numerous lawyers have watched and summarized daily the major moments, neutrally. But I think the point that people are judging without seeing the whole trial while also judging but not seeing the whole trial seems... contradictory.
I work from home. I listened to the majority of the trial. I am sure Johnny is not a nice person or a good husband. He was majorly on drugs. I don't think Amber is good either and also used drugs, drank excessively. In a court case, the jury had to look at the evidence. The evidence showed she abused him (she admitted it verbally on audio recordings). Perhaps he abused her too, but there was no audio or video showing that. In fact the audio and text messages indicate he always LEAVES when the fighting begins.
In addition, she lied several times and Johnny's team could prove she lied. It didn't bode well for her credibility. I truly hope she wasn't abused. On the flip side, I truly hope she didn't make up all of the accusations either. It is a lose-lose situation.
I think if Amber had audio of Johnny saying that he hit her, that she always tries to flee from fights - there wouldn't even be a question of who the abuser was!
I would think she meant people on social media not the judge and jury. It’s pretty clear that pro Depp/anti Heard content was popular and made a lot of content creators a lot of money.
I posted a link above to a Rolling Stone article about women dropping out of domestic abuse cases because of how the Depp trial was going.
It is scary to have a court rule that even if you won’t name your abuser, if you write about your abuse they can sue you and win.
Manson is doing the same sort of thing with Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore in the defamation suit he filed.
1) I'm a little skeptical personally that this trial is having some **massive*** impact on DV cases overall and also any sort of movement on the me too movement. I'm not sure it's a landmark case, and I say that without accepting nor denying either persons claims.
2) again, I said I thought it was a little over the top to be all, "fuck the judge, and fuck the jury," honestly I think its a tiny bit over the top to be saying jd weaponized the justice system.
Awhile ago, when Brian Laundrie utilized the justice system to his advantage to hide out and subvert the police and his entire family was able to basically obstruct justice, after he beat his girlfriend and then murdered her people on this very forum DEFENDED his right to lawyer up and block the investigation and I was told I was a child who didn't understand the legal system bc I said I thought it was bullshit that..oh, he and his family had weaponized the system.
This isn't some new thing and JD and Amber Heard both were able to utilize their right to jury trial here. I know and understand people are invested and they can see the power dynamics.
It can't be that in some cases we are saying "everyone has a right to these things," and then in others we tell the judge and jury to fuck right off.
I think we will need some time to see what the impact is ultimately. But being successfully sued because you wrote about your abuse but didn’t name your abuser is a chilling precedent when women’s rights are already in jeopardy all over the US.
Looking at the larger picture regardless of what one thinks about Heard, this trial has shown very publicly that if you aren’t a “perfect” or sympathetic victim, if you fight back or if your abuser doesn’t abuse you publicly with multiple witnesses willing to testify there is a good chance whatever you say won’t be good enough. So why speak out at all.
A lot of the anti-Heard commentary is very similar to what has been used against rape and assault victims for years—she isn’t sad enough, she didn’t leave when she was should have, she kept going back to him, she isn’t acting the way we would expect her to act, she acted in a way a victim shouldn’t, she was aggressive as well.
Someone doesn’t have to be perfect to be a victim. Your abuse doesn’t have to be public or leave dramatic, documented marks in order for for it to have happened. But I do think this trial gives the impression that you do need all of that to be believed. If people don’t believe this wealthy, famous white woman, who will they believe? I wasn’t there. I don’t know what happened but the tactics and talk around this case are troubling and IMO can have a ripple effect. I’m not alone in this thought www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-depp-heard-verdict-is-chilling/amp
This is from a program aimed at illustrating what happens after students try to get help or go public after an assault or abuse. It’s is a good peek at what is going on in general —23% of student abuse survivors are threatened with a defamation suit by their abuser as part of an attempt to discredit and silence accusers. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to speculate that this number may increase because Depp was successful.
I don’t think you can really compare the Laundrie situation to this one. This case was to determine if by writing about her experience with domestic abuse (despite not naming Depp or writing the headline) Heard was committing libel. In the Laundrie case he invoked his Fifth Amendment right during an active investigation.
Depp decided to take Heard to court. She countersued about his lawyer calling her claims a “hoax” after he filed but she didn’t have a choice but to go to through a trial which had to include sharing details of what she said happened during their relationship. She did not take him to court for abusing her. The fact that they both won is very odd and frankly contradictory—he won because they agreed she had conducted a multi year abuse hoax and wrote about it but they also ruled that Depp’s lawyer defamed her by calling her accusations a hoax.
The evidence showed she abused him (she admitted it verbally on audio recordings). Perhaps he abused her too, but there was no audio or video showing that. In fact the audio and text messages indicate he always LEAVES when the fighting begins.
I think if Amber had audio of Johnny saying that he hit her, that she always tries to flee from fights - there wouldn't even be a question of who the abuser was!
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect or require victims to tape their abuse to be believed.
The evidence showed she abused him (she admitted it verbally on audio recordings). Perhaps he abused her too, but there was no audio or video showing that. In fact the audio and text messages indicate he always LEAVES when the fighting begins.
I think if Amber had audio of Johnny saying that he hit her, that she always tries to flee from fights - there wouldn't even be a question of who the abuser was!
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect or require victims to tape their abuse to be believed.
What are you talking about? When or who said victims need to tape their abuser? Johnny has audio of Amber stating she hit him. Period. And that he "always" tries to flee from fights. PERIOD. IF IT WERE REVERSED - there wouldn't be a question of who the abuser was.
Are you saying if it were reversed - you would ignore the audio proof?
br] Depp decided to take Heard to court. She countersued about his lawyer calling her claims a “hoax” after he filed but she didn’t have a choice but to go to through a trial which had to include sharing details of what she said happened during their relationship. She did not take him to court for abusing her. The fact that they both won is very odd and frankly contradictory—he won because they agreed she had conducted a multi year abuse hoax and wrote about it but they also ruled that Depp’s lawyer defamed her by calling her accusations a hoax.
So the claim she won on was about a specific event where Depp’s lawyer claimed she and her friends kind of set a scene and called police a second time over an incident (when after the 1st visit they saw no evidence of abuse or damage to the home - this visit was on body camera and the police testified about it). There was no proof brought into the trail of a second phone call to police that night or purposeful destruction to try and fool the police. So it seems the jury specifically did not believe that story. The other two statements she lost on were more broadly referring to her making up the abuse. That, and the fact that the jury awarded him $5 million in punitive damages and $0 in punitive damages for her clearly show the jury just didn’t believe her.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect or require victims to tape their abuse to be believed.
What are you talking about? When or who said victims need to tape their abuser? Johnny has audio of Amber stating she hit him. Period. And that he "always" tries to flee from fights. PERIOD. IF IT WERE REVERSED - there wouldn't be a question of who the abuser was.
Are you saying if it were reversed - you would ignore the audio proof?
I didn’t say that at all. I’m not sure where you got that from.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect someone who is being abused to be actively documenting the abuse as it occurs in order to be believed when they say abuse happened. In fact, documenting abuse or going for help can put someone in more danger from their abuser. Victims shouldn’t have to produce real time audiovisual aids in order to be believed.
In this very messy case, Heard produced witnesses and photographs of what she says was the aftermath of physical abuse from Depp. Depp had audio recordings of conversations had about their fights after the fact. Why is one better “proof” than the other?
br] Depp decided to take Heard to court. She countersued about his lawyer calling her claims a “hoax” after he filed but she didn’t have a choice but to go to through a trial which had to include sharing details of what she said happened during their relationship. She did not take him to court for abusing her. The fact that they both won is very odd and frankly contradictory—he won because they agreed she had conducted a multi year abuse hoax and wrote about it but they also ruled that Depp’s lawyer defamed her by calling her accusations a hoax.
So the claim she won on was about a specific event
And his case was about a specific article she wrote in 2018.
I had hit post too soon / if you look back I filled in the rest she was explaining why the jury found for her on that one count and not the others
They didn’t have find for her at all. That’s what makes it, as I said, odd and contradictory.
? I’m confused. She won one of her defamation claims - the one where his lawyer claimed she “spilled a little wine and messed up the place” before calling police a second time. The other two quotes she lost on were about a general “she is lying about being abused”. I don’t think it’s contradictory. I think the jury was being really detail oriented. They didn’t believe Amber that she was the victim of sexual and physical abuse (we can debate about why), but they also saw there was zero evidence of this specific claim the lawyer made - which there wasn’t . So they found him liable on that one statement.
I think there can be a lot of debate over over arching principals, but I do think the jury followed instructions and followed the law with what they saw in court. As to why Amber clearly lied about several things (which I think is what sunk her with the jury), I don’t know. But being caught in those lies made it hard for the jury to believe anything she was saying. That plus the lawyers and expert witnesses being miles apart in how they dealt with things. I feel like you can’t blame the jury on this. Blame larger societal issues, money in justice, all sorts of things. But the jury from what I can tell and saw followed the law they were given (there was even a specific jury instruction given that the jury could not take into account larger societal issues when coming to a verdict - it had to just be about these two parties and the evidence presented in this specific trial)
I didn't watch any of the trial and I feel pretty safe in saying that anybody who made a tiktok or treated it like a sporting event is a garbage human being.
This is what I was alluding to earlier. I’m not invested in either person, I think the whole situation is a mess. But there was very clearly a successful PR machine from Depp’s people and probably other parties all over social media. To the point where people were posting “funny” videos of Amber imitations. No one has to believe her story, but some of the online content was disgusting. Not to mention the gross fangirling of Depp.
They didn’t have find for her at all. That’s what makes it, as I said, odd and contradictory.
? I’m confused. She won one of her defamation claims - the one where his lawyer claimed she “spilled a little wine and messed up the place” before calling police a second time. The other two quotes she lost on were about a general “she is lying about being abused”. I don’t think it’s contradictory. I think the jury was being really detail oriented. They didn’t believe Amber that she was the victim of sexual and physical abuse (we can debate about why), but they also saw there was zero evidence of this specific claim the lawyer made - which there wasn’t . So they found him liable on that one statement.
I think there can be a lot of debate over over arching principals, but I do think the jury followed instructions and followed the law with what they saw in court. As to why Amber clearly lied about several things (which I think is what sunk her with the jury), I don’t know. But being caught in those lies made it hard for the jury to believe anything she was saying. That plus the lawyers and expert witnesses being miles apart in how they dealt with things. I feel like you can’t blame the jury on this. Blame larger societal issues, money in justice, all sorts of things. But the jury from what I can tell and saw followed the law they were given (there was even a specific jury instruction given that the jury could not take into account larger societal issues when coming to a verdict - it had to just be about these two parties and the evidence presented in this specific trial)
What are you talking about? When or who said victims need to tape their abuser? Johnny has audio of Amber stating she hit him. Period. And that he "always" tries to flee from fights. PERIOD. IF IT WERE REVERSED - there wouldn't be a question of who the abuser was.
Are you saying if it were reversed - you would ignore the audio proof?
I didn’t say that at all. I’m not sure where you got that from.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect someone who is being abused to be actively documenting the abuse as it occurs in order to be believed when they say abuse happened. In fact, documenting abuse or going for help can put someone in more danger from their abuser. Victims shouldn’t have to produce real time audiovisual aids in order to be believed.
In this very messy case, Heard produced witnesses and photographs of what she says was the aftermath of physical abuse from Depp. Depp had audio recordings of conversations had about their fights after the fact. Why is one better “proof” than the other?
Did you watch the trial at all? There’s some confusion on the photos as there are inconsistencies. One photo shows redness. The same photo was submitted as different evidence but had the colors edited (contrast etc) to show a much different version. The days after broken noses, bruises she had events or pap photos that hundreds of photos were taken, no swelling or bruising noticed. Some of these had makeup artists so the makeup could explain the lack of visible bruising but not a broken nose.
There were paparazzi photos were she was makeup free and no bruises noted the day after the TRO when she had very obvious bruises. I’m not speculating that they are falsified rather sharing the evidence presented.
I know I’m not the only abuse survivor who finds this whole case and the reaction extremely triggering and chilling. This absolutely affects victims and whether or not people will come forward. Public perception definitely affects how juries and judges rule, so this will have an impact. I do not need to have an opinion about the case itself to point out that everything happening around it just sucks.
I didn’t say that at all. I’m not sure where you got that from.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect someone who is being abused to be actively documenting the abuse as it occurs in order to be believed when they say abuse happened. In fact, documenting abuse or going for help can put someone in more danger from their abuser. Victims shouldn’t have to produce real time audiovisual aids in order to be believed.
In this very messy case, Heard produced witnesses and photographs of what she says was the aftermath of physical abuse from Depp. Depp had audio recordings of conversations had about their fights after the fact. Why is one better “proof” than the other?
Did you watch the trial at all? There’s some confusion on the photos as there are inconsistencies. One photo shows redness. The same photo was submitted as different evidence but had the colors edited (contrast etc) to show a much different version. The days after broken noses, bruises she had events or pap photos that hundreds of photos were taken, no swelling or bruising noticed. Some of these had makeup artists so the makeup could explain the lack of visible bruising but not a broken nose.
There were paparazzi photos were she was makeup free and no bruises noted the day after the TRO when she had very obvious bruises. I’m not speculating that they are falsified rather sharing the evidence presented.
Yes, I have! I’d think that was very clear by this point.
I’m not sure you are deliberately missing my points or are just super invested and hyper focused on minutia but there’s some disconnect here between what I am saying and what you seem to be reacting to. It doesn’t seem very productive.
Did you watch the trial at all? There’s some confusion on the photos as there are inconsistencies. One photo shows redness. The same photo was submitted as different evidence but had the colors edited (contrast etc) to show a much different version. The days after broken noses, bruises she had events or pap photos that hundreds of photos were taken, no swelling or bruising noticed. Some of these had makeup artists so the makeup could explain the lack of visible bruising but not a broken nose.
There were paparazzi photos were she was makeup free and no bruises noted the day after the TRO when she had very obvious bruises. I’m not speculating that they are falsified rather sharing the evidence presented.
Yes, I have! I’d think that was very clear by this point.
I’m not sure you are deliberately missing my points or are just super invested and hyper focused on minutia but there’s some disconnect here between what I am saying and what you seem to be reacting to. It doesn’t seem very productive.
They're posting with the same intensity I see on social media (just this one, not the other posters here discussing the testimonies rationally). I really don’t know what inspires this kind of adulation of a celebrity. That’s been the biggest wtf for me this whole trial.
Post by claudiajean on Jun 2, 2022 17:33:08 GMT -5
This was a Twitter thread I found helpful. I think Amber was an imperfect victim and Johnny is a good actor. But this breaks down a lot of the points that lead me to think, even if they were both abusive, this verdict is not good.
Yes, I have! I’d think that was very clear by this point.
I’m not sure you are deliberately missing my points or are just super invested and hyper focused on minutia but there’s some disconnect here between what I am saying and what you seem to be reacting to. It doesn’t seem very productive.
They're posting with the same intensity I see on social media (just this one, not the other posters here discussing the testimonies rationally). I really don’t know what inspires this kind of adulation of a celebrity. That’s been the biggest wtf for me this whole trial.
I certainly don’t idolize Johnny Depp. I said that I thought he was not a nice person nor a good husband plus constantly high on drugs.