It cant be defended ...however that is not what the case was 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 fucking 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 cunt during a fight. I mean as a whole, all of the tapes with her goading, demeaning, gaslighting him. How can that be defended?
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.Nor do I wish to change your minds...its extraordinary to me how someone on here can make a statement that they don't support abusers yet JD is an abuser...i know some ppl still don't understand that being enraged slamming kitchen cabinets is a form of abuse..( whether your being filmed or not ).threatening a persons life via txt is abuse...thrashing a hotel room while you're present is abuse....
Look I get it I'm banging my head against a brick wall here , and will achieve nothing but its good to participate...
Also re the famous audio where AH tells him tell the world Johnny .....doesn’t he admit at the end of that particular full audio that they get physical with each other???,
Admittedly crap with links but I'm gonna see can I find it ..
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 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 ....
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.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.
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.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.
Thank you for schooling me on that, I didn’t know much about the paper itself.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.
Agree, also raised by a bpd narc & I found much of the trial triggering.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 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.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.
I’ve never heard of “actual malice” before and was interested in noting how different the hurdles are between UK & US are.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.
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.Oh have the ‘cupboard bangers’ as I like to call them been out in force again?
View attachment 1337237
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?