Johnny Depp & Amber Heard #26

[Prefrontalmedialcortex]

Morgan Tremaine’s thoughts.

 

[Muchosgracias]

I am finding the media & social media gaslighting very hard to cope with. I watched the trial, I listened to the recordings. I can think for myself without being told I'm a rape apologist or an abuse sympathiser. I can also spot a violent narcissist a mile off. If you one, you know them all.

I heard her scream and shout at him, I heard her try to rationalise hitting and punching him. I heard her saying she throws pots and pans and cans at him. I heard her calling him names for always walking away from a fight. I heard her say she couldn't promise she wouldn't get physical again. I heard her say she started physical fights. I heard her berate and belittle him for daring to put his "movie parties" above her or for staying with his friend for too long. I heard her mock him and call him not brave and not strong because he won't stay and fight for (with) her. I saw the photographs of him with swollen black eyes. I heard him ask her not to punch him in his ear again because it reverberated though his cranium. I heard her offer him wine, valium and xanax on tape even though she would later claim this is what turned him into a monster. But I'm being told by every outlet that he was the abuser, there's no such thing as mutual abuse, and because he had more power then she is the victim. SO WHAT THE FUCK ARE THE TAPES?

I think he has a smart, trashy mouth when he's angry. Lots of us do. But all this talk of "Amber had all the evidence anyone could have" is... not true. She didn't. There are hours of recordings that anyone who has ever encountered a narcissistic abuser probably won't even be able to listen to in full because she is so nasty and manipulative and my own flight response kicked in during listening. I don't understand how anyone can defend this woman without listening to the recordings. This one especially but Toronto too. I wish everyone would listen.

 

[Amilola]

What conclusion are you asking about? That she was probably hit? A judge reviewed the evidence and ruled in her favour?

edited to add: and another judge reviewed that judges judgement and agreed.

It has not been proven that Depp hit Heard.

- AH was a witness, not a party and was not subject to full discovery rules like she was in the US case
- AH has since changed her story drastically from what she testified to in the UK
- it has now been discovered she committed perjury in the UK
- judge’s son worked for the actual defendant, NGN, and his friends had a dinner party with Amber during the trial (a pretty big conflict of interest there)
- the judgment was absurd enough to suggest she couldn’t have assaulted him because she was wearing pajamas. On another part of the judgment, the judge literally admits there is no evidence for the incident but rules it to be true regardless
- one man’s opinion is not the same as something being proven
- the standard of evidence for civil cases is significantly lower than for criminal cases, hence you cannot say something is definitively “proven”

It’s also wildly untrue that another judge reviewed the judgment and agreed with it. He was just not granted permission to appeal - that’s not even close to the same thing. The judges who rule on that do not comment whether they agree with the original judge or not.

 

[EllaBella89]

Can we please remember that a large chunk of DV survivors believe him? What about their experiences, are they to be invalidated because they don’t fall in line with the blinkered, militant 4th wave feminist POV we’re currently seeing on display?

 

[Suecee]

If people are pro Amber that's fine but before proclaiming she is the victim watch the trial in full, including her deposition. Then apply some critical thinking. If you still believe her that's fine, but do your homework first.

Many people who now believe Johnny started out from either a neutral position or believing Amber, it was only through watching the trial that we realised Amber is a lying abuser.

All of the trial can be found on youtube.

 

[annanuttall]

 

[Tryger88]

Are we pro Jonny Depp here?

I would say 95.5% as 95.5% posters actually watched the trial.

 

[Swerve]

I watched every day of this trial, had time off because of an illness and got sucked into it all, maybe too much honestly. I started out very pro-Depp but after seeing all the evidence, every witness there is no doubt in my mind that Amber Heard suffered horrific abuse with him.

• Depp has another trial in 2 months for punching a crew member in the ribs.
• He had a trial in 2012 where he instructed his body guards to beat a handicap woman because he wanted the VIP room at a concert to himself. She ended up needing lifetime medical care and testified that she was pleading with Depp to help her and get them to stop but he wouldn't.
• In 1999 he was arrested in London for threatening someone with a plank of wood
• Around 1994 his ex Ellen said he threw a bottle at her and was verbally abusive.
• Arrested for trashing a hotel room in 1994 that he was staying in with Kate Moss.
• In 1989 he was arrested for assaulting a security guard in Canada.

He defended Roman Polanski, spends his days with his 'best friend' Marilyn Manson and has paintings by John Wayne Gacy hanging up. He is a raging alcoholic and drug abuser and had the upper hand in that relationship, he was 20 years older than her and had so much more money and power, they were constantly surrounded by his people who were paid to cover up and protect him.

I truly think Depp is enabled by everyone around him, his 'yes men', because it suits them better if he is not sober. He has been seeing psychiatrist and doctors for years and spent millions on them and he is still not in any better position. They need him this way so they can benefit from him, I'm not condoning his actions at all, he is responsible for them, but he doesn't half have some equally awful people around him and I find that a really sad situation.

With all this evidence, the witnesses, the UK judgement, Depp's history, I just really don't see how it's so hard to believe he abused Amber, she is not perfect, no one is and you certainly don't need to be perfect to be a victim, but she was clearly and obviously abused by him.

I'm not trying to attack anyone and I won't be arguing. I believe everyone here are good people because you are fighting for someone you believe is abused, just fighting for the wrong one in my opinion. So I'm putting out what I think, not expecting it to change minds, but some food for thought for those with open minds.

“I am going to post a series of either untrue, exaggerated or illogical statements and I won’t be back to defend them because I feel more comfortable believing my narrative than having actual facts pointed out to me”.

Alrighty then.

 

[Swerve]

Has anyone watched Evan Rachel Woods' documentary on Marilyn Manson called Rising Phoenix? Oh my god it's shocking. The fact Johnny was so friendly with him makes me very uncomfortable

Surely this is the kind of rush to judgement we should all be avoiding? Has JD’s case not at least taught us that much?

And guilt by association has always been an iffy moral stance to take.

 

[LydiaDeetzHat]

Eve Barlow watch....

I think you kinda cease to become a representative for victims of domestic abuse when you are actually the perpetrator... but I am prepared to be wrong on this

 

[Milktray]

My granny and grandad had the same kind of relationship. This is why this trial meant so much to me.
Both my granny and grandad were alcoholics. My grandad only one because my gran would pour him a drink. My gran was a narc and abused my gentle, loving grandad. She always had.
My grandad would fall asleep after having that drink, he was soft, wouldn't harm a fly. Granny never liked that she would beat him with his walking stick to get him up - called him lazy. He was covered in bruises.

It was a very toxic relationship, that messed my dad up from a young age, he was never good enough and that in turn had an effect on my mum and us.
Even as an elderly women and in her 80s, it was about her, she continued beating my grandad and craving attention.

Gender doesnt come into it. If someone is abusive, they need to be accountable. If someone attacks your reputation by lying, they need to be held accountable.

 

[Whatsallthis]

Are we pro Jonny Depp here? Tbh I thought it was pretty much proven that he definitely hit her while he was in the worst of his drug/alcohol binges and the texts seem to prove that. Shocked at the backlash on her given that the half sentence he was suing her for was so mild. Can't believe he won the case honestly.

Did you watch the trial? The evidence from that would differ massively. The only person who was actually proven to have been hit was Johnny Depp - Something that Amber Heard admitted to.

The U.K. Trial found that The Scum were ok to write what they did based on what they were told at that time.
The judge made his decision based on AH being a credible witness as she had not been after money as she donated her full divorce settlement. She didn’t.
She also perjured herself at one or possibly both cases with her ever changing story.
A huge amount of evidence was not allowed in that trial and many of Depps witnesses were not allowed to give evidence either.

And before anyone jumps on me for being a Depp fan, I’m not. I’ve seen 3 films.

I suppose as someone who didn't pay a lot of attention to it at the time, the idea that you can be sued for saying you were a victim of domestic violence seems pretty grim given it seems at least basically proven that she was hit.

She was sued for lying about being a victim of domestic violence.

 

[K18]

Why is it that everyone is screaming about believing all victims first but yet Johnny has come out as a victim but since he is a famous man he can't possibly be a victim?

I didn't realise in order to be considered a victim you had to tick certain check box criterias based upon age, gender and net worth in order to be listened to.

 

[Swerve]

Of course evidence matters especially in a case like this...but clearly not to the Jury,
It's so obvious from your reply either A you didn't watch the trial or B didn't understand it, so let me break it down...
AH was sued for a headline she didn't write but did retweet...she wasn't pursued in a criminal trial it was a defamation case...
So the burden of proof was on JD to prove he never not once abused her...without the bruises that most ppl on this thread believe were not evidence enough, he threatened her life by txt...thats abuse..he destroyed her property ...that's abuse...he promised her global humiliation...that's abuse...
The reality that most here don't understand is that abuse takes many forms not just a broken nose and banged up face.. therefore in this defamation the jury only had to find one incident of abuse.and plenty were shown but he still won..we can argue all day ..who hit who 1st ...who has BP disorder..who lost the most roles...it's pretty fucked up both ways...but please understand this...the jury had to just find 1 instance and they couldn’t.the person who brought this fucked up circus trial couldn’t be bothered to show up for the verdict... why because he had won in the grand court of public opinion...his promise of humiliation had long come true...so Yes I do believe the jury watched SM talked to family...fell for the role he played in court...it's the only possible reason they found for him on all counts...

I watched and understood all of the trial so kindly don’t try to patronise me.

JD claimed that three statements were defamatory, not just the retweeted (republished) headline. As it was a civil rather than criminal case his burden of proof was preponderance (more likely than not) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence he relied upon needed to be “clear and convincing” - higher than preponderance but lower than reasonable doubt.

It is not necessarily true that Heard only needed to prove a single instance of physical or sexual abuse - that is a) a finding of fact for the jury to and b) the defence’s argument - but even if it were the jury did not find that had been proved. Heard’s evidence supporting her contention were doctored photographs, inconsistent witness testimony and her own credibility. They didn’t believe her. There’s nothing for you and I to discuss about that as we weren’t on the jury - those that were did not believe her. End of story.

Abuse does take many forms & Heard did not prove she suffered any of them. Instead she proved her own physical and emotional aggression and habit of lying.

I repeat - do you have any evidence of jury corruption? If not, maybe you’d better wait until you do.

It sadly doesn’t matter what lie you believe she told or what jurors didn't believe...the jurors had to find just 1 instance of abuse from him the claimant and didn't... can you answer why ???


She never wrote the headline...thats fact

She never wrote the headline. She didn’t need to. In order to defame someone you need to be involved in publishing the statement in question (in the case of libel). By retweeting it she republished it with a view to it reaching a new audience. She never disowned the headline, did she?

And to think you were trying to explain the legalities to me

 

[Knitwit]

The LA Times has effed up big time. Staff writer Richard Winton saw that viral spoof video of Jason Momoa testifying and thought it was real

 

[EllaBella89]

If people are pro Amber that's fine but before proclaiming she is the victim watch the trial in full, including her deposition. Then apply some critical thinking. If you still believe her that's fine, but do your homework first.

Many people who now believe Johnny started out from either a neutral position or believing Amber, it was only through watching the trial that we realised Amber is a lying abuser.


All of the trial can be found on youtube.

If you’re a Johnny fan, that’s fine. If you’re not, that’s fine too. I don’t like how people are jumping to the conclusion that if you are on his side, that you're some kind of rabid fan. It’s possible to view it all objectively and make your mind up that way. I also find the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy when people that are pro Amber claim she’s not a “perfect victim” and to cut her some slack. So it’s okay for Amber to be excused for her bad (abusive) behaviour, but Johnny is being held to some higher standard? Bollocks.
She lost, she got caught lying. She needs to accept it and move on with her life

 

[Muchosgracias]

I've had to unfollow 3 people i know from school on my insta, peddling how bad this is for women and gow awful rhe result is. I know 100% they haven't watched it or taken in any of the evidence in ro account.

Some people scoffed at me when I mentioned it and now they're all sharing article after article about how awful it is for everyone. I know full well they're projecting their own feelings on to the case without having watched a second of it, I've muted them all because it really has opened my eyes to people who will believe everything they're fed by the algorithms in their little echo chambers. It is frightening to see how easily people can be fooled and would make me worry for future political and social "causes". I also had a friend tell me there was no way I could have watched the whole trial.

The cobwebs in my house beg to differ...

 

[PootleMcFlutle]

Disliking Amber doesn't mean you have to like him though. I'm genuinely just wondering how people are managing to reconcile the evidence there is even outwith the Amber stuff of Johnny Depp being bad person to the point they genuinely idolise and laude the man. It's just very curious to me

Because we're horrible people, "virulent mysoginist" the lot of us. A disgrace to feminist everywhere too no doubt.

It's a mysoginist conspiracy.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Lady_H]

I’ve updated the time-saving “I support AH” checklist for new joiners:

- JD texts
- smashing cupboards
- JD hero worship/rabid fans /creaming pants
- I personally wouldn’t do drugs or use black humour so everyone who does is weird or abusive
- social media
- misogyny
- they were as bad as each other
- perfect victim myth
- “everyone is entitled to their own opinion”

I DID______ DID NOT______actually bother to watch the trial (tick as appropriate)

 

[Moley1]

Doe

@Dotty Merton I'm not interested in promoting the idea that men suffer equally to women in domestic violence. That is another problem caused by this trial.

It is not an equal occurrence and we shouldn't pretend it is, male pattern criminality is real. There is a physical power imbalance that favours the man, a woman being violent to a man is wrong but except in cases of disability, illness etc it is simply not the same as a man hitting a woman. Almost all men can kill their partners with their bare hands, women cannot.

There are rare cases of extreme abuse by women but there is not this epidemic of men secretly being victimised. If there were, more men would be killed by women WITHOUT there being prior DV against her.

Also when men are abused by women, they are not treated with the same contempt as female victims of men.

Dear God. What difference does it matter if you use a fist, a gun, a knife to kill someone? Killing is killing. My narc ex wife caused the suicide of her first husband through emotional and mental abuse and I nearly went the same way. Fortunately I got the help I needed and survived, although I will always carry the mental scars. People need to ge this into their heads. It is NOT a gender issue. It is a people issue. The fact that more men commit DV is neither here nor there. As a human being you have no right to abuse another human being, no matter what gender you are. My ex wife did more damage to me mentally than she did physically. I am sure I am not alone in that as a male survivor of a toxic relationship.