- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Re the slamming of doors etc that keeps being mentioned. If it was AH doing the slamming it would be understandable because reactive abuse/imperfect victim. Again I am banging this bleeping drum, but if anyone has listened to the 'famous' audio and still thinks they can paint amber as the victim here, there is really no point in debating with them because, imo her behaviour on them is indefensible. I'm not talking about cherrypicking one or two snippets where we hear JD shouting back or calling her a bleep during a fight. I mean as a whole, all of the tapes with her goading, demeaning, gaslighting him. How can that be defended?
It cant be defended ...however that is not what the case was about,
As I have said earlier I did watch the trial and thanks to youtube I have rewatched both AH and JD testimony and cross and rebuttal,
And I still draw the same conclusions JD is an abuser, AH is an abuser...but this was a defamation case not a criminal trial...it's ok to go against the grain on this thread and voice my opinion, believe me in my own circle in real life I am the cheese that stands alone on this verdict, but I enjoy this thread and will continue to watch and engage, as I have stated previously its not just the verdict, its the defamation suit as a whole, why sue her, and not the WP, why file in Virginia where neither party live? Why argue motions to have some evidence deemed hearsay but others not?
IMO this was much more than who hit who ....
Okay, I see where you're coming from, but this trial wasn't about who abused who more. It was about was what AH said about JD was true. Did he physically and sexually abuse her as she stated in her op-ed. She never accused him of verbal abuse, therefore that wasn't possible for her to win, nor would she because her verbal abuse was just as bad if not worse.
What people have seen when they watched the trial and listened to those audio's is a woman who is highly manipulative, who lies and who admits to hitting JD. We also see she shows many signs of being a Narcissist (for want of a better word) and those of us who have been victims of people like this recognise the signs.
It's not about excusing JDs bad behaviour, it's about understanding what living with a Narc does to a person. Until you've been through it it's hard to understand.
People act badly sometimes when they are being abused.
No 1 red flag in this case, JD is isolated from his friends and family and AH has all her mates living with them in the penthouses. If you know anything about abuse you will know abusers isolate their victims.
No. 2 red flag in the audios, she's always complaining that he runs away from an argument. Abusers don't run away, victims do.
We're not idiots, we have taken in all the evidence and decided based on that.
He sued Heard because she wrote the op-ed. He could not sue the WP because of the “actual malice” hurdle - they couldn’t KNOW her accusation was untrue. If showing actual malice was a requirement in the UK too (it’s not), Depp would have won the Sun claim.
It was held in Virginia because that’s where the WP is published. The rules of evidence determine what’s hearsay and what isn’t not individual judges.
There was no evidence that JD was an abuser…none. In the many, many hours of their conversations he never once admits hitting her and SHE NEVER ACCUSES HIM OF IT. She complains that he keeps “splitting” (leaving) when they argue and he repeatedly says that it’s because she keeps getting violent.
Banging kitchen cabinets is not abuse, in and of itself. It could be if part of an attempt to intimidate someone but that was clearly not the case here. Heard was not frightened of his behaviour in that video, instead she chooses to record it, and then sniggers when he puts her ipad in the bin. A woman who has been through the kind of violence with a man that she claims to have been would have been - at the very, very least - wary of him being drunk, shouting and slamming around the room. But she wasn’t. That’s significant - as is the fact that he walks away from her even though he’s furious she’d been taping him.
If you believe he’s an abuser it’s because he’s a man, and you need to have a word with yourself about that.
EDIT: Ignore what I said about The Sun case, actual malice & whether this would have meant Depp prevailingin the UK (it wouldn’t). It’s Sunday morning & I’m not thinking straight yet, Everything else stands though.
Last edited:
How did any lawyer advise her that the op ed was a good idea? The people around her at the time were clearly not looking after her best interests. When she first spoke out people believed her, I believed her, as time as gone on she’s just made herself appear disingenuous & money oriented, it makes me angry that if he’s such a dangerous man she & her team felt fit for the best way to deal with it was blast him indirectly in some pretty much unknown newspaper.
Regarding the slamming cupboards video. AH could have just walked away, he barely even looks at her even when he's shouting his face is not pointed towards her.
Regarding the texts, the Paul Bettany one doesn't bother me at all, I used to be really into Monty Python and I got the references straight away. It doesn't look good no, but even JD admitted he was ashamed of having sent them, but he was angry at the time. The fact that his description of what he would do is so obviously exaggerated, most people get that one stupid text conversation doesn't mean you're an abuser.
Now if he'd sent AH texts like that, I would have serious doubts about his being the victim, but he didn't.
Unlike AH, the court had access to over 70,000 of JDs text messages and that was the only one they could find that made him look bad.
Regarding the texts, the Paul Bettany one doesn't bother me at all, I used to be really into Monty Python and I got the references straight away. It doesn't look good no, but even JD admitted he was ashamed of having sent them, but he was angry at the time. The fact that his description of what he would do is so obviously exaggerated, most people get that one stupid text conversation doesn't mean you're an abuser.
Now if he'd sent AH texts like that, I would have serious doubts about his being the victim, but he didn't.
Unlike AH, the court had access to over 70,000 of JDs text messages and that was the only one they could find that made him look bad.
Last edited:
Oh if my various message apps were downloaded and shown in evidence against me I would be absolutely fucked 
I’m constantly insulting my friends etc in what would have the Pearl clutchers having me sent to an asylum.
I’m constantly insulting my friends etc in what would have the Pearl clutchers having me sent to an asylum.
I couldn't have put it better myself having been raised by a narc. As I watched the trial unfold I could see what she was. I found the whole thing quite triggering. I was shocked by the SA allegations she made but not surprised as this is what these types of people do. Everyone is entitled to their opinion especially if it is an informed opinion but I find it hard to accept AH is a victim of anyone other than of herself. She needs help & I do pity her but being a narc she'll never accept she has a problem & continue to blame others.
Living with a narcissist royally fucks you up & I am not sure Johnny ended up essentially having a breakdown (painting with his amputated finger).
I agree with your sentiment but the Washington Post is basically the newspaper of record in the US, not some unknown rag. It was the paper that broke Watergate, for example.
Thank you for schooling me on that, I didn’t know much about the paper itself.
Agree, also raised by a bpd narc & I found much of the trial triggering.
Just out of interest did most people watch with lawyer commentary? I found that to really help. I have found a lot of things that come up are so easily explained etc but most of this knowledge comes from watching with the lawyers. For example them not understanding the actual malice law. Or why it had to be held in Virginia.
Red Flag No.3. How, in the name of (insert deity of your choice) do you get punched in the face so many times you can't remember, you think your nose maybe broken and you have two black eyes, and then appear on TV the NEXT DAY looking flawless? No swelling, nothing. It doesn't make sense.
She presented photos of her supposed black eyes, etc. If you ignore the two that are identical, yet admitted as two separate occasions, the ones where she actually does have some marks on her face do not in anyway correspond to the amount of violence she claims she was subjected too.
None of her evidence made any sense.
She presented photos of her supposed black eyes, etc. If you ignore the two that are identical, yet admitted as two separate occasions, the ones where she actually does have some marks on her face do not in anyway correspond to the amount of violence she claims she was subjected too.
None of her evidence made any sense.
I watched mostly with Emily D Baker. I was a lawyer (until I quit in Jan - best decision ever), so understood a fair bit but still needed help with the US law, especially things like the SLAPP rule. I also found it really helpful to know if she was seeing what I was seeing when witnesses were giving evidence.
Red Flag No.4. She blatently and repeatedly lied about donating the divorce settlement to charity.
This is important because the UK judge said that she had no reason to lie, because she had given the money away it obviously wasn't for financial gain, so he couldn't see why else she would lie about abuse.
On the stand in the US trial she avoided giving a straight answer when asked, she tried to make out like pledge and donate are the same thing, just to avoid admitting she lied.
This is important because the UK judge said that she had no reason to lie, because she had given the money away it obviously wasn't for financial gain, so he couldn't see why else she would lie about abuse.
On the stand in the US trial she avoided giving a straight answer when asked, she tried to make out like pledge and donate are the same thing, just to avoid admitting she lied.
I’ve never heard of “actual malice” before and was interested in noting how different the hurdles are between UK & US are.
It reminds me a bit of the Oscar Pistorius trial and how we all became experts in Dolus Eventualis
Oh have the ‘cupboard bangers’ as I like to call them been out in force again?
Never Fear Truth,. Slay em with facts .....and cake, everyone loves cake, don't they? 
For those that don’t understand why we don’t believe Amber’s version of events this is a really great summary with lots of clips from the trial.. The narrative she was trying to weave just didn’t ring true at all especially when contrasted with her aggression in the deposition/ audios. Also features a very bizarre dress at the end -her stylist obviously hated her!
You could accept their argument more if she appeared scared but she didn't she just kept fiddling with the camera & then smirked into the camera at the end. This was not a woman who was scared.
It was interesting too how she just went on about herself in that they were fine in the morning. She didn't give a tit about why he was angry, it was all about her.
- Status