Depp v. Heard

[Jonny Vegas]

What strikes me as strange in this case is that realistically no matter how much anyone may want to believe Depp is entirely innocent there's surely no way whatsoever to prove that Heard is lieing.

The entire thing just seems baffling because no matter what she's done to him or how she's behaved towards him it doesn't neccessarily mean she was lieing about what she's accused him of.

Also if her perception is that she was a victim in an abusive relationship (which from all the evicence so far was clearly a very volatile and toxic relationship) then how can anyone prove that what she said is libellous? As opposed to it just being a statement of her experiences from her perspective.

I think the bottom line is that they're both most likely terrible people who brought out the worst in each other.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Jonny Vegas

[Hannibal Scorch]

14 minutes ago, Jonny Vegas said:

What strikes me as strange in this case is that realistically no matter how much anyone may want to believe Depp is entirely innocent there's surely no way whatsoever to prove that Heard is lieing.

The entire thing just seems baffling because no matter what she's done to him or how she's behaved towards him it doesn't neccessarily mean she was lieing about what she's accused him of.

Also if her perception is that she was a victim in an abusive relationship (which from all the evicence so far was clearly a very volatile and toxic relationship) then how can anyone prove that what she said is libellous? As opposed to it just being a statement of her experiences from her perspective.

I think the bottom line is that they're both most likely terrible people who brought out the worst in each other.

The thing which will hurt her is her video testimony from a few years ago is not matching what she’s saying in court. But you’re right in what you say. The complaint was her article was written about Depp without naming him. Their is evidence that she’s admitted it, so surely that should be her losing the case, if that’s what the trial is about. 

[patiirc]

1 hour ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Victims of abuse would not normally look at their abuser when going into details. (and I have seen this first hand when on jury duty, and this is listening to body language experts reporting on this). When Depp gave his testimony he wouldn't look in her direction, but she stared at him. When she is giving hers, she is talking to the jury or at Depp. Also, there have been no witnesses that have seen any of the bruising or cuts. So either we are to believe Depp paid off the police and doctors, or the photos were doctored. Frankly, I don't think either is innocent of physical assault. 

Oh, mate, I'd absolutely look my abusers when talking about them and what they did. I'd want them to know I no longer fear them. 

 

[Your Fight Site]

1 hour ago, patiirc said:

Oh, mate, I'd absolutely look my abusers when talking about them and what they did. I'd want them to know I no longer fear them. 

That’s cool. That doesn’t make it the universal behaviour of abuse victims, though.

[Keith Houchen]

6 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

And yet, no-one saw the bruises or split lip

Was she meant to parade them for all to see? Are women with bruises from domestic violence who conceal them or stay hidden until they heal showing behaviour you’d not expect from an abuse victim too? 
 

 

6 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I disagree with your other statement. She’s definitely looked at him more then once when discussing incidents.

Did I say she hadn’t looked at him?

The thing with trauma from abuse is it can have a profound effect on memory. It scrambles up memories and timelines, such as not getting which type of concealer you used to hide bruises correct. This thread here covers a lot of this. 

 

[ReturnOfTheMack]

4 hours ago, Your Fight Site said:

That’s cool. That doesn’t make it the universal behaviour of abuse victims, though.

Isn't that the point? We can't say 'this is how abuse victims behave' like there is a universal behaviour.

[Factotum]

8 hours ago, Jonny Vegas said:

Also if her perception is that she was a victim in an abusive relationship (which from all the evicence so far was clearly a very volatile and toxic relationship) then how can anyone prove that what she said is libellous? As opposed to it just being a statement of her experiences from her perspective.

I think (and this is not my opinion just stating why its gone to this trial) is that she painted herself the victim in what seems like a co-abusive relationship. My reading is this was not just one person abusing the other. It was two utter nightmares abusing each other in both physical and mental ways.

So with a libel trial like this,  with the stuff about her coming out, its aim is to cast doubt on her version of events, as 'how can we believe that she was this abused wife when she seems to have inflicted abuse herself'  So far Depp's team have presented recordings and evidence of abuse, where as her team has presented him being a wanker pisshead drug addict. Her testimony is powerful but the cross examination may paint more light on it. So I guess it will be up to people to weigh that up.

Basically I don't know. And we'll likely never know unless something damning comes out. Its her word against his, and everyone else seems to paint it as some fucked up narcissistic relationship.

Also, once again, James Franco and toxic really seem mix.

[Hannibal Scorch]

2 hours ago, Keith Houchen said:

Was she meant to parade them for all to see? Are women with bruises from domestic violence who conceal them or stay hidden until they heal showing behaviour you’d not expect from an abuse victim too? 
 

 

 

If you are documenting a crime. Yes. See what Rihanna did as an example. It’s extremely hard to cover up brushing with make up. Yet two different sets of police officers were called out, none of them saw anything.

I guess it’s what you want to believe, and whose version. And you can talk about timelines and scrambled memories, but this wasn’t discussed 5 years later, this was reported at the time. She was on a talk show the next day, also with no visible bruising. She told the stylist there she had 2 black eyes, and she claims there was no bruising. 
 

Im watching the trial, I’m also reading body language experts and trial specialists discuss this who are dissecting the witnesses on the stand. Anyone can watch the trial and draw their own conclusions, but I will also pay more attention to what the experts have to say. Whatever though, the cross examination will be interesting in a couple of weeks, especially after mentioning his kids and bringing Kate Moss up in her testimony.

[Loki]

This idea that victims of trauma act in a certain way is so toxic.  It reminds me of the McCanns - because they didn't act weepy enough over the abduction of their daughter, people assumed (and still maintain) that they must have killed her.  You still see comments on social media saying "oh she washed a toy bunny, therefore she's guilty" and nonsense like that.

I'm not sure why we've gone through years of "me too" and believing victims, and THIS is the woman that we choose to doubt.  It can't surely be because we liked Captain Jack Sparrow.   She's not making up all the stuff about drug abuse, drinking, having to clean him up when he shits himself due to intoxication... 

It really is a mess.  They both seem like majorly messed up people.  This is why we don't allow cameras in our courts, this all being played out in front of everyone is pretty awful.

[Hannibal Scorch]

12 minutes ago, Loki said:

I'm not sure why we've gone through years of "me too" and believing victims, and THIS is the woman that we choose to doubt.  It can't surely be because we liked Captain Jack Sparrow.   She's not making up all the stuff about drug abuse, drinking, having to clean him up when he shits himself due to intoxication... 

Two things here. Firstly, most of the abusers named in MeToo either said nothing, or put out a flimsy excuse/apology. Second, because of what has come out since. Things like this https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7947733/Amber-Heard-admits-hitting-ex-husband-Johnny-Depp-pelting-pots-pans-tape.html and the loping off of his finger

As to your last sentence, he has admitted to drinking and taking drugs, not sure about cleaning him up. But drinking and taking drugs doesn't automatically make you an abuser does it, only to your own body. As with any case its mostly he said/she said, but there is damming evidence on both of them abusing the other. 

[Nick James]

I couldn't give a fuck about either of these people and to me, both seem toxic when together, but it is quite obvious who the media have chosen as their prized pony to trott round and make the hero in this case. For the last two weeks, the Depp portion of the trial has been everywhere, live streams popping up every time you click on Facebook, sites such as LADbible etc posting quotes and clips, yet since Heard took the stand, there isn't much coverage at all. 

It's quite evident from posts in here, posts on Facebook and Twitter etc, that just like with #SpeakingOut in wrestling, people are willing to overlook things based on whether they like the person in question or are fans of movies / wrestling companies said person works for. This isn't a football match, you do not have to pick a side and you can call both sides abusers, toxic or even blame both people, which to me, it seems like it is. 

This is probably the worst trial for people to be fixating on and is potentially causing damage to the hard work that has been done in recent years to highlight and give people confidence to speak out about domestic abuse. Especially from a womans POV after how Heard is being dismissed as lying and Depp is telling the truth. 

[Factotum]

25 minutes ago, Loki said:

I'm not sure why we've gone through years of "me too" and believing victims, and THIS is the woman that we choose to doubt.

I think a lot of people see her as someone who has used that movement for her own gain. There's a few stories of her taking someones own experience with abuse and using it as her own story (someone might need to correct me on that)

 

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Factotum

[Keith Houchen]

1 hour ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

She was on a talk show the next day, also with no visible bruising.

Was she naked? Does bruising on the body and arms not count? In the twelve instances of abuse the judge in the London case said met the civil standard differ from the Soapdish standard? Should she have photographed herself in all of these cases?

 

1 hour ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I guess it’s what you want to believe, and whose version

It’s not one or the other. 

 

1 hour ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Anyone can watch the trial and draw their own conclusions, but I will also pay more attention to what the experts have to say

Except the judge who said Depp was an abuser, obviously. 

[Chris B]

1 hour ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I’m also reading body language experts

If body language analysis was this accurate, you'd expect they'd be called as witnesses in trials, wouldn't you? If this doesn't regularly happen, I wonder why not.

[Hannibal Scorch]

14 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Was she naked? Does bruising on the body and arms not count? In the twelve instances of abuse the judge in the London case said met the civil standard differ from the Soapdish standard? Should she have photographed herself in all of these cases?

It was specifically in reference to the incident at the penthouse where she said she had been hit in the face. She also said she had two black eyes and both the police, 2 sets of them, and the stylist at the show saw nothing. Not sure why you're talking about various instances, and I am specifically talking about 1.

 

8 minutes ago, Chris B said:

If body language analysis was this accurate, you'd expect they'd be called as witnesses in trials, wouldn't you? If this doesn't regularly happen, I wonder why not.

Because they are analyzing an ongoing case... That is not how witnesses are called up are they?