Depp v. Heard

[Keith Houchen]

35 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

But if you thought you had a broken nose, if you had been assaulted with a bottle as she had said, you would be going to hospital, you would be seeing a doctor.

You’re doing the “Perfect victim” thing again. 

 

35 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

But based on everything I saw (and due to working hours I saw a lot!) of the trial, there wasn’t enough for me to refer to him in the way Keith does. 

The main thing that I refer to is the 129 page ruling that details what he did and why it was documented sufficiently enough in 12 of the 14 allegations in the UK trial to call him a wifebeater. I can’t understand why you’re dismissing this huge factor. I suppose I’m also confirmation biasing his past criminal behaviour of violence and substance abuse to suspect he is capable of being violent when using substances. Plus of course all the evidence of his violent outbursts. 

 

36 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

What will be interesting now is what she does next

Reports are saying Depp will drop the damages owed if she drops the appeal. His team say this shows it wasn’t about money (If that was truly the case why not sue for $1 and not 50 million) but to me, that shows he is scared of it going to appeal because it won’t be a jury, it’ll be a panel of judges who will most likely not be swayed by emotion, much like the judge and appeal panel weren’t in London. 
 

To put Mr Dangers question another way, if you don’t think the evidence holds up against Depp, what evidence are you convinced of that Heard abused Depp?

[Lorne Malvo]

1 hour ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

But if you thought you had a broken nose, if you had been assaulted with a bottle as she had said, you would be going to hospital, you would be seeing a doctor.

Oh fuck off with this, how many times do you need to be told?

[Hannibal Scorch]

25 minutes ago, Lorne Malvo said:

Oh fuck off with this, how many times do you need to be told?

six.

 

1 hour ago, Keith Houchen said:

You’re doing the “Perfect victim” thing again. 

Multiple times and yet not once did she do anything. Yet she managed to record him drunk or shouting, but couldn’t call the police or report anything after, or go and see a doctor. Not once. 

1 hour ago, Keith Houchen said:

The main thing that I refer to is the 129 page ruling that details what he did and why it was documented sufficiently enough in 12 of the 14 allegations in the UK trial to call him a wifebeater. I can’t understand why you’re dismissing this huge factor. I suppose I’m also confirmation biasing his past criminal behaviour of violence and substance abuse to suspect he is capable of being violent when using substances. Plus of course all the evidence of his violent outbursts. 

I’ll ask again Have you read it all? I watched some law tubers (not those Team Johnny people discussing the case, actual lawyers) discussing the differences between the two trials and they all tended to come to the same conclusion that the evidence rejected here that was allowed in this trial is what one it. Also one of the factors in his decision was also that because Heard was donating her divorce settlement to charity which as we know she didn’t end up doing. As to DARVO I think you can argue that was a strategy used by both teams. 

1 hour ago, Keith Houchen said:

Reports are saying Depp will drop the damages owed if she drops the appeal. His team say this shows it wasn’t about money (If that was truly the case why not sue for $1 and not 50 million) but to me, that shows he is scared of it going to appeal because it won’t be a jury, it’ll be a panel of judges who will most likely not be swayed by emotion, much like the judge and appeal panel weren’t in London. 
 

To put Mr Dangers question another way, if you don’t think the evidence holds up against Depp, what evidence are you convinced of that Heard abused Depp?

Again, most of the commentary on an appeal was she wouldn’t get one, similar to how Depp failed in London. I’m guessing the amount of money is chosen by the legal team for a reason (probably credibility as if you were suing for a $1 would it be seen as a joke? The right thing would be for him to pay the 7 million to those charities who were promised the money from Amber Heard. 
 

And the evidence? the audio we heard and the audio that wasn’t played in court for one. Especially around his finger. But also one where she talks about hitting him and not promising she wouldn’t do it again. 

[Keith Houchen]

2 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Multiple times and yet not once did she do anything. Yet she managed to record him drunk or shouting, but couldn’t call the police or report anything after, or go and see a doctor. Not once. 

She did do something, she recorded it because like a lot of victims she felt it was the only way to be believed. Do they issue restraining orders on a whim or do they need, I dunno, evidence? Please give us the rundown of what a domestic abuse victim, a proper one, should do. 
 

If she abused him, why didn’t he go to the police? I mean, that’s what proper victims do, right? 

2 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I’ll ask again Have you read it all?

I’ll answer it again, yes I have. Why are you so quick to dismiss such a damning and detailed judgment? You even alluded to some half baked conspiracy theory to dismiss the contents  

 

2 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

discussing the differences between the two trials and they all tended to come to the same conclusion that the evidence rejected here that was allowed in this trial is what one it

What evidence was rejected? 
 

 

2 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Also one of the factors in his decision was also that because Heard was donating her divorce settlement to charity which as we know she didn’t end up doing. As

No it wasn’t. His ruling was based on evidence. Her divorce settlement played no part in the evidence because it’s irrelevant. It shows she wasn’t a gold digger, as Depp fans have claimed. 
By the way, her pledge to donate her settlement, or ‘winnings’ as you unbiasedly called them earlier, was over ten years. She hasn’t paid it all because Depp keeps suing her. 
 

 

3 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

And the evidence? the audio we heard and the audio that wasn’t played in court for one. Especially around his finger. But also one where she talks about hitting him and not promising she wouldn’t do it again. 

But the multiple texts and emails he sent apologising didn’t sway you? Her saying she hit him is evidence that he didn’t hit her? That don’t add up. She had tons of evidence against him, so much so that a court ruled he assaulted her on twelve occasions. 

[Nick James]

5 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I'm guessing the amount of money is chosen by the legal team for a reason (probably credibility as if you were suing for a $1 would it be seen as a joke?  

Taylor Swift says hi.

 

Just to add, my Mother was domestically abused for around a year by an ex Boyfriend, not once did she go to the police or a doctor. Just because someone doesn't report something, doesn't mean it didn't happen. My Mother had suspected broken ribs once, didn't attend a hospital through fear. It was only once it was all over and done with, that she began speaking out about what had been happening. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Nick James

[Devon Malcolm]

On 4/22/2022 at 12:02 AM, Devon Malcolm said:

I think this entire saga has been almost as tedious as Will Smith and Chris Rock.

I meant this thread, obviously.

[Chris B]

It's also worth bearing in mind that, based on some of Heard's statements, part of the reason she was recording him was to show him, because he would sometimes deny he had a problem. 

Some people don't go to the police or hospital because they want to protect their abuser. And, especially when substance abuse is an issue, sometimes because they believe things can change. And part of her story was that she was trying to get him to clean up, something that often made him angry. 

[Factotum]

1 hour ago, Chris B said:

It's also worth bearing in mind that, based on some of Heard's statements, part of the reason she was recording him was to show him, because he would sometimes deny he had a problem.

They were both filming each other and recording each other which shows how healthy that relationship was

[Steve Justice]

Just waiting for scorch to go full gatso before disappearing into obscurity. 

[deathrey]

@Hannibal Scorchyou are massively underestimating how reluctant women are to come forward and speak about our experiences. We are regularly not believed by doctors about complaints about our own bodies - people paid to help us and nothing else. Going to the police or speaking out to people in authority is a whole other kettle of fish. 

We spend so much of our lives being gas lit about our own experiences, speaking out or getting help is really not easy and rarely feels worth it.

Edited June 14, 2022 by deathrey

[Hannibal Scorch]

37 minutes ago, deathrey said:

@Hannibal Scorchyou are massively underestimating how reluctant women are to come forward and speak about our experiences. We are regularly not believed by doctors about complaints about our own bodies - people paid to help us and nothing else. Going to the police or speaking out to people in authority is a whole other kettle of fish. 

We spend so much of our lives being gas lit about our own experiences, speaking out or getting help is really not easy and rarely feels worth it.

And that is a situation I should feel fortunate I won't experience. I mean I definitely find Doctors are quick to dismiss things, but that obviously various on the person you see, but I understand that point.

I don't know what the answer is. And whilst I don't think one court case, regardless of how high profile it was, should deter people, I guess it is a discussion about a much bigger and wider issue in general if victims feel post metoo that nothing has changed in the percepetions of those we are supposed to put our trust and faith in to get help and support.  

[Loki]

8 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

As to DARVO I think you can argue that was a strategy used by both teams. 

No, that's not how it works.  Heard was the one to originally detail her ordeal, and Depp is the one who decided to counter this with the classic abuser's litany.  Depp is the one starting court cases.  Depp is the one releasing recordings into the public domain.

And again (and it's depressing how many times this has to be said) in neither of the trials was Heard meant to be on trial for spousal abuse.  In BOTH cases it was Depp's behaviour that was meant to be scrutinised.  But the judge in the US trial allowed it to become a de facto public hearing of Depp's accusations against Heard, something the UK judge was on top of.

This whole conversation shows just how far this trial has regressed the progress of the last decade.  MRA activists are in full chorus all over the net doubling down on their victory.  Victims of abuse worldwide will be rethinking speaking out.  And despite the claims you read all over Reddit, the victims of domestic abuse are overwhelmingly female, and the aggressors overwhelmingly male.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabusevictimcharacteristicsenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2021

76% of victims of domestic homicide are female.  73% of victims of non-fatal domestic abuse are female.

I don't know if Heard or Depp, or both in fact are guilty of domestic abuse - none of us KNOW outside of the two of them.  But I know that statistically it is more likely it was Depp that was the abuser, and I know that an unsentimental judge in the UK court case judged that 12 of 14 accusations of domestic abuse by Depp were credible (and yes, I read the whole thing), and I quote
 

"“I have found that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard.”

Depp talks a lot in text messages about The Monster, how he and Amber are doing better when he keeps the Monster locked up, and how taking drugs lets The Monster out.  I don't somehow think he was talking about impromptu performances of Edward Scissorhands.

[Chris B]

6 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I guess it is a discussion about a much bigger and wider issue in general if victims feel post metoo that nothing has changed in the percepetions of those we are supposed to put our trust and faith in to get help and support.  

It's exactly this, and that's what #MeToo was all about in the first place - it was about trying to get men to appreciate just how massively widespread this is as part of the culture. That it isn't a rare thing that happens to other people, but that every woman you know will have been the subject of harrassment or assault at some point. That this needed to be a massive, wide conversation looking at how this happens so much as to be acceptable. It wasn't just about finding a handful of monsters. It was about much wider changes than that.

[BomberPat]

13 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

What is also interesting is the angle of he won with a jury because he is popular. That didn't work for Bill Cosby and he was regarded as a national treasure. Can that be a part of it? 

Different public images. Cosby's appeal was as "America's dad", whereas Johnny Depp is a "bad boy" so people have been shrugging off, making excuses for, or outright celebrating toxic behaviour from him for years, so to get to a point where his fans feel his image has been betrayed would be at a different level. On top of that, the victims in Cosby's case were, by and large, anonymous as far as the public were concerned, whereas Heard is a high profile celebrity in her own right, so was under a completely different level of public scrutiny.

And, crucially, Cosby's case wasn't - as far as I know - subject to tens and thousands of dollars of shady right-wing money publicising it on social media with a vested interest in demonising women who speak out about abuse. 

[Chris B]

Also, let's not forget that, national treasure or not, some people are very likely to be swayed by a narrative around a black man drugging and preying on white women.