I actually thought this this morning. We are being gaslighted by the media. Too late witches! We saw the whole trial. Makes you wonder how much misreported is going on when we can’t see…
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I went through a toxic marriage. I have never done drugs and like a drink but fortunately don’t have an addictive personality so didn’t self medicate with either. Probably didn’t help me deal with the situation though because I became suicidal. I didn’t lash out physically at her apart from once when I was goaded past my point of resistance but I did get worn down by the constant emotional and mental abuse and did argue back. My therapist explained that some people turn their frustrations upon themselves which was exactly what happened to me. Apart from suicidal feelings I headed butted a door once out of sheer frustration. I also smashed an expensive watch she gave me against a wall (she said that was given to me as proof that she loved me - I’d rather have not been treated like tit than been given something we couldn’t afford and I didn’t need). Whilst his texts and actions are not great (as mine weren’t) I can totally understand how that happens. It is better to take your anger and frustration out on inanimate objects than a person. I can see how that could be viewed as threatening behaviour by the other side but there is a big difference between venting on a person and venting on an inanimate object. We look at things through our own personal filters. Depp’s actions ran true for me based on my own personal experiences. I can understand that some people will see the situation differently. I agree with the post earlier that says that Heard’s big mistake was fabricating evidence. Once you are caught out lying your arguments lose credibility where are are looking for a jury to believe your narrative that isn’t supported by hard, authenticated evidence. If she does appeal, and I expect that she will, it will be interesting to hear on what grounds.
I think you must be right. She’s doing a total Amber Heard, externalising blame on to the jury, the judge, “celebrity”, social media, “suppressed evidence” and absolutely everything except her own crappy ABUSIVE client.
I guess because she offered an explanation for that recording and people have chosen to believe it.
the daily Mail have a more detailed recording transcript than what was played in court.
Amber Heard taunts Johnny Depp for being a 'domestic violence victim'
Amber Heard ridicules Johnny Depp for claiming he is a victim of domestic violence in an explosive tape recording from 2016, exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com.
www.dailymail.co.uk
To paraphrase, Amber is basically saying she thought she’d lose her life, Depp is like, cmon Amber I lost A finger. She’s retaliates by saying she doesn’t think it’s a fair fight and no one would believe claims of domestic violence because of her being 115lbs against JD’s size etc - which kinda supports what she asserted in the trial.
I personally am inclined to think the evidence is in Depp’s favour but Amber’s side offered an alternative narrative and if you’re inclined to believe her side then that’s the one you’d chose to believe in this recording. It’s not an open and shut case. Nothing really, about this trail, has been open and shut.
A thousand times thisI think there is an international case of people misunderstanding what ‘defamation’ means.
The jury found that the statements did defame JD, that they were false, and that they intended malice. I don’t get what’s so hard? This wasn’t a matter of ‘legal wording’ and ‘popularity’. The jury found the statements were falsely made, not true and written to cause harm to JD. The internet is going crazy. She didn’t win because they believed she lied. Not because her bruises weren’t big enough
yeh the bottle thing was so fantastical with so little evidence it felt bizarre that she went into that story in such detail. Worse for Amber, it fed into Dr. Curry’s assessment exactly - about her being prone to exaggeration. It was a completely home goal.
Anyone in Ireland and listen to the Louise McSharry podcast? She and Cassie Delaney are completely of the view that this is all based in misogyny, men have the power, feminism has never been more important, etc. They say it has been proven that Depp physically abused Heard on multiple occasions- which, eh, the whole point of the outcome of the trial was that that was not proven at all?! Isn't this podcast further defaming him?
It just doesn't sit right with me that certain sections of the media seem incapable of viewing this case as an outlier. Even legal experts have said it's highly unusual in a number of respects. It's not indicative of the progress or lack thereof of any movement, it's not setting women back, it doesn't mean women won't be believed. Why must we view it in the context of all women everywhere?!
All it means is that in this particular case, Heard was not deemed to have told the truth, and therefore she had defamed Depp by saying he abused her. If you accept that that is the case, then surely the only logical conclusion is that it is Amber Heard setting women back (even though she isn't, because again, she's not representative of all women everywhere), not Johnny Depp for trying to clear his name.
The nicest thing I can say about people who view it this way is that their natural instinct is to believe women, because why would someone make up something so horrible? But you should really never sit on a jury if your default stance is to believe everything a woman says, purely because she is a woman. It doesn't mean you start out suspicious of her or default to *not* believing her, it just means you assess the facts dispassionately to determine whether something has been proven. I do believe that's what this jury did.
It just doesn't sit right with me that certain sections of the media seem incapable of viewing this case as an outlier. Even legal experts have said it's highly unusual in a number of respects. It's not indicative of the progress or lack thereof of any movement, it's not setting women back, it doesn't mean women won't be believed. Why must we view it in the context of all women everywhere?!
All it means is that in this particular case, Heard was not deemed to have told the truth, and therefore she had defamed Depp by saying he abused her. If you accept that that is the case, then surely the only logical conclusion is that it is Amber Heard setting women back (even though she isn't, because again, she's not representative of all women everywhere), not Johnny Depp for trying to clear his name.
The nicest thing I can say about people who view it this way is that their natural instinct is to believe women, because why would someone make up something so horrible? But you should really never sit on a jury if your default stance is to believe everything a woman says, purely because she is a woman. It doesn't mean you start out suspicious of her or default to *not* believing her, it just means you assess the facts dispassionately to determine whether something has been proven. I do believe that's what this jury did.
I agree with this, if she had kept her claims more simple and not gone with the fantastical tales that not many people bought and admitted she had not donated the 7 million to charity then the jury might have been more inclined to believe her.
Watched a you tube reacts video of Elaine doing her TV interviews this morning and a former NFL player news presenter challenges Elaine on a couple of occasions and Elaine just looks stupid with her responses.
The whole of Amber's team has been lacking on this I think, shame because I think Rottenborn is actually a pretty good lawyer but Elaine comes across as incompetent and out of touch.
And I just think- she wrote the Washington Post article in bad faith, portraying herself as without fault, an innocent victim. Maybe if she had written an article about the dangers of mutually toxic behaviours in relationships, it wouldn't have been as current or as trendy, but she wouldn't have been sued for defamation. The trial would never have happened if she hadn't written the op-ed. You cannot just write whatever you want, without consequence.
I've just re-read the op-ed, and it's almost like it was written in such a way as to avoid being defamatory, but it's impossible not to conclude that she's saying Johnny Depp physically and sexually abused her.
However one thing I do agree with is that she has become a massive target for vitriolic hate and abuse, and I don't think that's ever justified or a nice thing to witness. You can argue that she's brought it all on herself, but the level of hate levelled at her is like nothing else in recent memory. I don't agree with abusing someone online and calling them a bleep and sending them death threats, sorry Tattlers.
I've just re-read the op-ed, and it's almost like it was written in such a way as to avoid being defamatory, but it's impossible not to conclude that she's saying Johnny Depp physically and sexually abused her.
However one thing I do agree with is that she has become a massive target for vitriolic hate and abuse, and I don't think that's ever justified or a nice thing to witness. You can argue that she's brought it all on herself, but the level of hate levelled at her is like nothing else in recent memory. I don't agree with abusing someone online and calling them a bleep and sending them death threats, sorry Tattlers.
johnnys case from the outset was always harder because the onus was on him to prove he didn’t do something - proving a negative was always going to be difficult. There are lots of elements to the case which is what makes it so fascinating. I think there is misogyny (a little bit), I think it’s an interesting insight into pop culture and how we view celebrity and maybe how that’s changing. I think it’s definitely raised a lot of questions on how we think about victim hood of DV and biases towards what victim hood looks like or how it should present… but ultimately… I really think Amber lost herself this case. The jury seemed engaged and asked questions and spent time deliberating, it doesn’t seem like it was an emotional reaction based of how believable or unbelievable Heard was in the stand, I think it came down to her testimony in black and white as evidence.
agree totally. The latter is definitely rooted in misogyy imo. The vitriol against Amber Heard is as much based in Misogyny as it is about justice for JD. JD has justice now, there’s no need to name call.
Can we not equate using the word “bleep” with sending death threats, please. It has to be pointed out that men get called this word - on this very site - routinely when they’re disliked.
Other than that, I agree with you. It was Heard’s vanity and ego making her want Twitter adulation for being a “feminist icon” that lead to all this. If she”d beem honest and said the relationship was mutally abusive, at least emotionally, she’d have been adding something of value to the public conversation, but she didn’t.
I agree with this, it isn't necessary.
Ok fine, not death threats, but I don't agree that calling people cunts is fine. It's also fine if we disagree on this point.
I think Elaine has no choice but to go and do all these interviews, she has to make money somehow. I reckon Amber has probably shown them her true colours by now.
Do we know if Johnny can ask Amber to pay his attorney fees? Perhaps Amber was banking she would win and could get Johnny to pay her bill.
Do we know if Johnny can ask Amber to pay his attorney fees? Perhaps Amber was banking she would win and could get Johnny to pay her bill.
Thankye thankye, greasy I won't be!
send some milk too, woke up and I'm right out, bahhhhhhhhhhhhh humbug
just going through my random finds from last night, what else is occurring troops?
who is steven and did he come before or after the teacher she didnt bang??? I dont feckin know
Theres nought so strange as folk they need some meaning of life up 'em! Watch the UK press run scared. I'm hoping the old adage they ignore ya, hate ya, then they repeat every word you say, will ensue soon......
Ahhhh the sweet allure of a freedom fighting man, he really has taken rather a lot on what with Judge Nicols et al! It was blue paint JD used at one point right? Warriorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs warriors everywhere! Freeeeeeeeeedom! The new coven intake are covered in woad dye.
I'm still hot flushing over the old pix of JD and RDJ and the newbie malfoi boy with the eyebrow and the black nails, though Waldman looks cute in a kilt, corrrrrrrrr, he can walk my plank too!
like fartymcfarlowpants barlow ya weeee kranky
4.5 million on the get Turdle off Aquaaaaaaaaman petition
yes, it's all very extraordinary, sometimes one thinks the pirates around the world have been, activated, tis brilliant cunning! anyone know how Blair is today?
anyone remember this cracker of a tune?
or loved! You are a good bleep you are, spread the....love
like fartymcfarlowpants barlow ya weeee kranky
4.5 million on the get Turdle off Aquaaaaaaaaman petition
yes, it's all very extraordinary, sometimes one thinks the pirates around the world have been, activated, tis brilliant cunning! anyone know how Blair is today?
anyone remember this cracker of a tune?
or loved! You are a good bleep you are, spread the....love
soz, i didnt mean it to be that long and then it went and repeated me....... echo echo echo..... play that tune loud anyways!!! ooopssss
one more tune and i'll get out ya hair for a bit, need to milk a cow
Attachments
Last edited:
quick someone post that tumbleweed gif to depict Ambers reception
I just cant take the wee satsuma seriously, that name, every time I see it I misread it for clement freud, g/son of sigmund and a freaky pedalo pushing rotter, clemmie should be more carefulHas anyone seen Clementine Ford's feed. Talk about obsessed
Now she's trying to say that the stenographer was "partying" with JD's team during his "victory lap".
I can't this tit just writes itself
too technical for me.. I dont know what a vlc player is as I don't use media players but thanksI have seen it back in the 1990s and I quite liked it.
I dislike when they put up films on youtube that are mirror images (I understand why they do it but still I find it very hard to watch). In case you have the same problem: the workaround is to download it (e.g.using WinX youtube downloader) and then flip it in the VLC player or whichever player you use
but like we all know about it now so if any juror is in trial in VA going forward they will so..
oh god shes one of the people my bf's friend keeps putting on her IG stories.. I love this friend of his but I have zero time for her right now. I can see why she is doing it as she is always calling out over the years against the patriarchy and giving examples of times when she has been abused in a woman in the arts industry but as she has watched zero hours of the trial she does not get the right to voice an opinion imo.. she's almost making me hit the ignore buttonHas anyone seen Clementine Ford's feed. Talk about obsessed
Now she's trying to say that the stenographer was "partying" with JD's team during his "victory lap".
I can't this tit just writes itself
APPLAUDS SELF for the 50 bucks line taking off..
PLEASE tell me this is both real and you? if so did she not reply then?
Last edited:
- Status