There is also the possibility that people would think he is trying to intimidated the witness if he start to stare at them
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Johnny Depp v Amber Heard's defamation trial is underway [UPDATE: Verdict reached. Johnny Depp won.]
- Thread starter WinFonda
- Start date
- Status
I am certainly not an expert, but as someone whose parents had a similar dynamic as described, this fits the evidence and behavior seen very well to me.
I agree. I just thought the meme was of poor use in this active abuse situation, unless you can point to where I said misinformation was ok?
I misunderstood the poster's intentions and I said as much.
I was seeing a lot of support for Depp in Mexico, but then I remembered that it's because of that thing I quoted
hahaha, come on, don't fuck with me, she didn't quote Prince Charming from Shrek 2. Get outta here!
That group of misogynists would have a harder time making their case if many prominent supporters of MeToo weren't publicly on Heard's side. Like I don't understand why people don't realize that for all intents and purposes, Depp is actually the underdog in this case, since he's the one who has publicly lost roles.
People love an underdog story, and Depp already having suffered career setbacks as a result of this affair alongside the evidence he has provided makes him sympathetic to the general public. Plus the whole "falsely accused of being an abuser" scenario, while overall rare, is a real fear for men, so Depp can be seen to symbolize that fear.
I'm surprised she's not using that stuff actors/actresses use to produce teary eyes for crying scenes... but then again, I don't think they'd tear up with help either seeing how soulless she is.
Honestly she doesn't need to when the media is using photoshopped images of her crying and people are believing it.
That's all well and good but you don't combat that by throwing in your lot with MRAs who are perfectly happy to call Depp a survivor while having constantly mocked that label for any woman, and only care about this case in so far as its use as a cudgel to minimize abuse claims by women. That's repairing your house by burning it down.
Yeah, we've got extremists on both sides for sure. I'm just as frustrated with the people who refuse to give Depp the benefit of the doubt, because they don't want to admit that sometimes women can be the the ones being abusive too.
It's part of a larger problem with society being so polarised nowadays. Lots of people pick their sides and they refuse to navigate the middle ground.
You know you can be on Depp's side without agreeing with MRA's right? There are plenty of lefties like Hasan who are supporting Depp, and he's the farthest thing from an MRA.
There really needs to be a law to stop that happening.
I get that the judge says "Don't look online about the case blah blah blah" to the jury but let's be honest... not a single jury member will listen to that no matter what case they're on that is publicly available. So this will obviously be good for AH.
Obviously. There are many people on this website supporting Depp's case who aren't MRAs, myself included. I'm saying people are feeding into a lot of that stuff by constantly posting and listening to nonsense from reddit, twitter, and youtube. A lot of those posters and commentators are absolutely misogynists and some people apparently can't tell the difference or don't care to because their entire motivation is to dunk on Amber Heard.
User Banned (1 Week): Attempted Thread Derail in Sensitive Topic
Amber Heard Poses for a PHOTO OP on Witness Stand
www.youtube.com
Amber Heard Poses for a PHOTO OP on Witness Stand
Amber Heard Poses for a Photo while testifying on the witness stand. Watch her grab her handkerchief, look for the camera, close her eyes, wait for the flas...
www.youtube.com
Amber Heard Poses for a PHOTO OP on Witness Stand
Amber Heard Poses for a PHOTO OP on Witness Stand
Amber Heard Poses for a Photo while testifying on the witness stand. Watch her grab her handkerchief, look for the camera, close her eyes, wait for the flas...
I can't confirm or deny but people on Reddit were saying that the "flash" is actually her screen turning on, and that cameras, aside from the ones recording video, aren't even allowed in the court.
Heard comes across as fake to me, Depp seemed far more genuine on the stand. But some of the stuff people are accusing her of is just stupid, and it's disappointing to see people spreading it here. Has anyone posted the clip where's she's supposedly snorting cocaine on the stand? How do people believe this stuff?
Edit: Just caught up on the last few pages, and sure enough there are people who seemingly believe she snorted something on the stand.
Pull your heads out of your asses people. There's PLENTY to criticize Heard for without this clearly fantastical bullshit.
Last edited:
it's pretty clear if you look at the video that it's from her screen and she pauses to read/look at what is on the screen
again, fuck Amber Heard, but I ain't on that bullshit train
Amber Heard Poses for a PHOTO OP on Witness Stand
Amber Heard Poses for a PHOTO OP on Witness Stand
Amber Heard Poses for a Photo while testifying on the witness stand. Watch her grab her handkerchief, look for the camera, close her eyes, wait for the flas...
Is flash photography allowed in the courtroom? I don't think so
JD had this in this under oath testimony that he would never look at this women again back in 2016.
Oh jeez, he's not acting how you think you would in this situation you've never experienced? I don't know who to believe now.
If you understand all people handle confrontation differently what is the point of this post? Just sharing how it goes when you play make believe?
Thanks I had yet to think more about it but it now clearly looks like something turning on, on her screen. As is shown a requested evidence at that time. Was weird to imagine photographers in a courtroom.
The only hope I have is for the cross of her testimony with solid debunk from Depp team. Every mainstream media around here (France) is exposing the horror she went through with a violent abusive Johnny Depp. No other narrative.
As a recovered alcoholic that is active in helping other alcoholics through recovery, it is insulting. Yes there are violent drunks, but the majority are not. Your personality sober is the foundation to how you'll behave as a drunk is a much more accurate prediction than just assuming all addicts are violent which is some D.A.R.E. bullshit or something.
People here really aren't going to like this, but reading this thread has been incredibly difficult for me. As someone who went through emotional/verbal abuse (not partner related, but familial) as a child, the people trying to claim Depp has shown no abuse or there's evidence its only retaliatory are just plain wrong. His own actions/videos/evidence show abuse. That video of him destroying their kitchen for example? That's emotional abuse. Believe me, as someone who has stood in a room while a family member tore it apart, terrified that at any moment they might turn that rage against me, even though they had never actually hit me, that's abuse. It creates a trauma that can stay with you for the rest of your life. Perhaps her behavior drove him to a place where he reacted that way, but we don't know that. That so many want to go to that place speaks a lot to the tribalism that people are clutching at here, for some reason desperate to take sides in a situation that has nothing to do with them. I see people demanding proof from her, the sort of proof that most abuse victims simply will never have, while talking about things he has no proof of other than his own testimony as "proven". Its just weird, especially on a forum that likes to think of itself as progressive. A lot of it is full on misogynistic and would be getting called out much more strongly if the vast majority hadn't decided she's lying and so apparently misogyny against her is fine.
Beyond that, I think there's a few things people here have quickly forgotten from the Me Too movement that they should perhaps remember. Things like:
That one of the main reasons we believe people when they say they're victims of abuse is that there often isn't strong physical evidence. That people in abusive situations often intentionally don't document everything, and what they do choose to document often isn't what we would logically think they should, in large part due to the shame that goes along with being in an abusive situation for many.
That memories are fallible in the best of times, and that those dealing with trauma often are worse, which means picking apart little details that ultimately don't matter isn't the win some like to think it is. The whole deal over the makeup compact that somehow turned into a huge story is a great example of this. Worth pointing out that something she said wasn't true pretty definitively? Sure, but it isn't exactly a smoking gun. Perhaps she mixed it up with another similar product she used, the brand of the item was in no way central to her testimony.
That there are no perfect victims and no right way to be a victim. TONS of people in here saying how they wouldn't react the way she is on the stand, how she goes from upset to okay too quick, that they wouldn't do what she did. This is the EXACT sort of gross nonsense that has been used against abuse victims since the beginning of time, the EXACT sort of thing that Me Too has been trying to get us away from. People react in all sorts of ways, for all sorts of reasons. Whether its just because they're a different person, because they have their own issues and conditions which can impact how their emotions work, because they've set mental defense mechanisms that they use to cope, and many, many more. Certainly most of the people here aren't clinical psychologists and certainly none have examined these people. Thinking we have a perfect window into who they are based on a few reactions over a few days is gross. Full stop.
That even if someone is "performing" as so many want to claim, a claim which you have no way of knowing since none of you know Heard well enough in her day to day life to know if this is just how she is, that doesn't mean the person isn't telling the truth. Every lawyer putting their client on the stand walks their client through what they're going to say ahead of time, goes over potential questions, the best ways to answer them, the sort of demeanor they want to portray on stand, how to get the best reaction from a jury. That's normal for any trial, let alone one that's being watched by the entire world. I'm sure she is trying to come across a certain way, for that matter so is he, he's just a bit better at it. Not a surprise, anyone who has watched both of them act over the years knows which is the better actor. That doesn't in any significant way speak to guilt or innocence.
Eye witnesses to such behavior are often rare. Its far from uncommon for abusers to be able to be charming, funny, personable, and the last person anyone would suspect of such behavior. People in their lives will often talk about how great they are. In this particular case it probably doesn't help Heard's case that most of the people around them throughout their marriage were his friends and employees, she had much less of a support system around and thus less potential witnesses to call upon likely to stand in her corner.
None of that means she's not lying. She could be. No one has actually proven she's doing so though, outside of minor inconsistencies that can easily be explained by the passage of time and a mind dealing with trauma. None of them prove the large points of what she says didn't happen. He has certainly presented some evidence that she was abusive at times, though the many people here eager to point out that his worst moments could just be in retaliation to her behavior haven't seemed to consider that the opposite could be true as well for some of her behavior. Between this and the Mackenzie Fierceton thread though I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to stay out of any threads going forward that have to do with abuse because the behavior here in regards to this stuff has put me in a very dark place and brought back some of the exact feelings I had going through this sort of stuff growing up. Whole lot of people thought my dad was this nice, funny, charming guy who would never hurt anybody, couldn't possibly be an abusive piece of garbage, and took a lack of physical evidence to mean that my mom, me and my brother were making it up, or at the very least exaggerating. I thought society was getting better but if this is how even this place is reacting, man, that scares me.
Beyond that, I think there's a few things people here have quickly forgotten from the Me Too movement that they should perhaps remember. Things like:
That one of the main reasons we believe people when they say they're victims of abuse is that there often isn't strong physical evidence. That people in abusive situations often intentionally don't document everything, and what they do choose to document often isn't what we would logically think they should, in large part due to the shame that goes along with being in an abusive situation for many.
That memories are fallible in the best of times, and that those dealing with trauma often are worse, which means picking apart little details that ultimately don't matter isn't the win some like to think it is. The whole deal over the makeup compact that somehow turned into a huge story is a great example of this. Worth pointing out that something she said wasn't true pretty definitively? Sure, but it isn't exactly a smoking gun. Perhaps she mixed it up with another similar product she used, the brand of the item was in no way central to her testimony.
That there are no perfect victims and no right way to be a victim. TONS of people in here saying how they wouldn't react the way she is on the stand, how she goes from upset to okay too quick, that they wouldn't do what she did. This is the EXACT sort of gross nonsense that has been used against abuse victims since the beginning of time, the EXACT sort of thing that Me Too has been trying to get us away from. People react in all sorts of ways, for all sorts of reasons. Whether its just because they're a different person, because they have their own issues and conditions which can impact how their emotions work, because they've set mental defense mechanisms that they use to cope, and many, many more. Certainly most of the people here aren't clinical psychologists and certainly none have examined these people. Thinking we have a perfect window into who they are based on a few reactions over a few days is gross. Full stop.
That even if someone is "performing" as so many want to claim, a claim which you have no way of knowing since none of you know Heard well enough in her day to day life to know if this is just how she is, that doesn't mean the person isn't telling the truth. Every lawyer putting their client on the stand walks their client through what they're going to say ahead of time, goes over potential questions, the best ways to answer them, the sort of demeanor they want to portray on stand, how to get the best reaction from a jury. That's normal for any trial, let alone one that's being watched by the entire world. I'm sure she is trying to come across a certain way, for that matter so is he, he's just a bit better at it. Not a surprise, anyone who has watched both of them act over the years knows which is the better actor. That doesn't in any significant way speak to guilt or innocence.
Eye witnesses to such behavior are often rare. Its far from uncommon for abusers to be able to be charming, funny, personable, and the last person anyone would suspect of such behavior. People in their lives will often talk about how great they are. In this particular case it probably doesn't help Heard's case that most of the people around them throughout their marriage were his friends and employees, she had much less of a support system around and thus less potential witnesses to call upon likely to stand in her corner.
None of that means she's not lying. She could be. No one has actually proven she's doing so though, outside of minor inconsistencies that can easily be explained by the passage of time and a mind dealing with trauma. None of them prove the large points of what she says didn't happen. He has certainly presented some evidence that she was abusive at times, though the many people here eager to point out that his worst moments could just be in retaliation to her behavior haven't seemed to consider that the opposite could be true as well for some of her behavior. Between this and the Mackenzie Fierceton thread though I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to stay out of any threads going forward that have to do with abuse because the behavior here in regards to this stuff has put me in a very dark place and brought back some of the exact feelings I had going through this sort of stuff growing up. Whole lot of people thought my dad was this nice, funny, charming guy who would never hurt anybody, couldn't possibly be an abusive piece of garbage, and took a lack of physical evidence to mean that my mom, me and my brother were making it up, or at the very least exaggerating. I thought society was getting better but if this is how even this place is reacting, man, that scares me.
This is just tiring. No evidence of lying? There's several examples in this thread. She's on audio actively abusing Depp and complaining how he keeps deescalating in fights and that no one would believe him being abused.
Like it is totally fine to be skeptical with details, but the facts are there. Heard is a liar.
Like it is totally fine to be skeptical with details, but the facts are there. Heard is a liar.
Did you just disregard all the evidence and context to make this post? This woman hasn't been caught in a memory fallacy, this woman has been caught actively lying, deceiving, trying to entrap him and physically abusing him. The context of the cupboard slamming thing is great when you see she has a massive smile on her face after she closes the camera because she is trying to catch shit on him and despite that she has really no major leading evidence.
It's one of the things she does too, several times has smirked briefly when the crazy shit she's done is brought to the stand. Like the knife that says until death engraving.
I agree with large portions of this. I've personally been uncomfortable with a great deal of the discourse around this case, the relish with which misogynists are not only gleeful about it but spread that glee around even in the guise of lawyers offering "objective analysis," which is also why I posted earlier about how I hated Dr. Curry's testimony despite her bizarre popularity. She did an incredible disservice to the stigma around mental health disorders. And everyone with massive confirmation bias is happy to link that testimony to what they perceive to be Amber Heard's behavior on the stand. I've said that trying to gauge her body language on the stand with minor, specific, stupid things like the way she sometimes laughs or doesn't have tears steaming down her face is absolute nonsense. Everyone fashions themselves a body language expert and they're emboldened to do so by the memes.
But the evidence damages her case, and I'm not talking about the lack of it. I'm talking about what exists. The audio recordings are the defining factor in this case to me far more than the witnesses or the lawyers or Depp and Heard's respective testimonies.
She's caught on tape going after him when he's trying to get away, admitting to being physically abusive as he is straightforwardly saying he runs away to get away from physical abuse, and she mocks him for that. She badgers him for being a child because he doesn't want to be around her to have heated arguments, and accuses her on tape of often getting physical, and she admits to it! He is very obviously trying to de-escalate, he says he doesn't want her to hit him, and she accuses him of being a child who doesn't want to deal with confrontation. I don't know how else to interpret that tape.
The tapes do it all for me. I agree that a great deal of the discourse is garbage and that a bunch of people who hate women are creaming themselves with glee right now. But that doesn't mean she isn't guilty of the accusations.
Lots of people thought the same of my Mom. I assure with, as someone with a similar history, you're letting your experience cloud your perception here.
Everyone agrees Depp has been abusive. But it's an issue of degrees, attitudes, contrition, and more.
There has been considerable evidence to show Heard is far beyond the level of Depp in abusive behavior. There has also been a marked difference in their attitudes and in court behaviors.
Nuance matters a great deal here, and for myself my own experiences lead me to the idea of a horrific feedback loop of escape/abandonment, as was talked about briefly earlier in the thread.
That degree of specificity wasn't brought up by the psychiatric professionals, but a good deal of the extremes in behavior were addressed, and then, in my opinion demonstrated by Depp and Heard.
I remember being young enough to think both people in the conflict were full of shit, but one clearly more so than the other, purely out of genuine pain and contrition shown by one vs the performative aspect of the other.
Just my 2 cents.
I'm sorry you had to endure that. I've been lucky to not have had to endure physical abuse, but growing up with an abusive, gaslighting narcissist (who themselves had a parent that was like that, but worse) definitely leaves emotional scars forever. They usually present themselves one way to other people and another way behind closed doors. And it makes you even question just what the truth actually is as you internalize it.
There is definitely no right way to act or respond to trauma and abuse. And I agree that he's not in the clear about not being verbally or emotionally abusive and controlling. I also have no idea if he ever got directly physical to some degree.
Here's where I would disagree: the evidence. I agree that people often aren't in a state of mind to think to document things. However, she took plenty of photographs of her own alleged wounds. The level of physical violence she described does not align with the evidence. The people who saw her shortly after (including police and her personal nurse) did not note the presence of wounds that would correspond to the testimony she gave. Does that mean he wasn't violent? No. But the testimony does not fit the evidence that she herself was happy to provide. I would have been more likely to believe the intensity of those claims in the absence of evidence. And it disgusts me that she makes that level of scrutiny a necessity.
This is without even addressing the audio recordings.
I think it is totally valid to have concerns with interpretation of small details like how I'm interpreting the smirks, that is subject to bias, but without getting into the weeds the tape evidence and her showing up without any injuries she claims the day after is a fundamental big picture flag of evidence.
I would agree with you if it wasn't for the audio recordings of Heard shitting on Depp for running away all the time and using him disengaging as an excuse to get physical with him to keep him in her presence. That indicates to me someone who is the designated or primary abuser
The question here is the extent to which Johnny Depp may or may not have committed DV against Amber Heard, for the purposes of this defamation suit.
What is not in question, is that Johnny Depp himself is a victim of DV at the hands of Amber Heard. There is photo evidence of this, there are witness accounts of Heard's violent outbursts, and audio admission that Amber Heard was physically violent throughout their relationship, even in instances where Depp was trying to get away from her, and berating him for this.
This can understandably be a triggering trial and conversation to watch unfold; and people should absolutely be sensitive to all sides of this conversation (within reason). But it's also important to understand that this is a discussion of a trial setting. And that is important to keep in mind, because if you are ever seated on a jury, it will be your civic responsibility to check your biases, and objectively view the evidence and testimony as presented to you. And people following the trial and watching it live are likely to do the same. That can be uncomfortable, because it can seem like you're rallying against the victim. But one of the questions at the heart of this is "who is the victim?"
Just some of my distilled thoughts, because as I was saying to my roommate just yesterday...this is incredibly uncomfortable, from many angles.
What is not in question, is that Johnny Depp himself is a victim of DV at the hands of Amber Heard. There is photo evidence of this, there are witness accounts of Heard's violent outbursts, and audio admission that Amber Heard was physically violent throughout their relationship, even in instances where Depp was trying to get away from her, and berating him for this.
This can understandably be a triggering trial and conversation to watch unfold; and people should absolutely be sensitive to all sides of this conversation (within reason). But it's also important to understand that this is a discussion of a trial setting. And that is important to keep in mind, because if you are ever seated on a jury, it will be your civic responsibility to check your biases, and objectively view the evidence and testimony as presented to you. And people following the trial and watching it live are likely to do the same. That can be uncomfortable, because it can seem like you're rallying against the victim. But one of the questions at the heart of this is "who is the victim?"
Just some of my distilled thoughts, because as I was saying to my roommate just yesterday...this is incredibly uncomfortable, from many angles.
Why are you concerned with MRA's that have zero cultural foothold (MRA's are not synonymous with conservatives in terms of advocacy/overall messaging and are largely a shadow enemy in a lot of discourse) and not the fact that progressive forums and figures across the web have continuously fumbled an easy layup to show unequivocal support of a male victim and prove that their understanding of abuse and intersectionality/power dynamics wasn't truly just a unilateral direction of abuse from male to female or only inclusive to those of certain marginalized identities.
You're already stumbling when you're hyper-focusing on low-hanging fruit to avoid addressing in-house behavior or retain your imagined foothold in the "culture war," and there's been and remains a lot to address in-house in regards to the handling and understanding of male victims of female abusers of any age.
There are photographers in the court room - 100% no doubt about it - there's pictures of them and then the pictures that they've taken
No one here has absolved Depp of the emotional abuse he levied against Heard. It's documented in audio recordings, witness testimony, etc. This lawsuit specifically targets Heard's claim of extreme physical abuse and sexual assault. Depp can be guilty as sin of being emotionally abusive but he has every right to clear his name from being seen as someone who gets loaded and beats up on women.
If we're to take evidence at face value, then labeling an expert witness's testimony of Heard's psychological presentation as "gross nonsense" does a disrespect to the profession and Depp's claims. Heard's behavior on the stand has been alarming, contradictory, and labile. Sure she's been coached by her attorneys but her testimony yesterday was riddled with so much hearsay that her attorney had to direct her on the stand with what to say. Because Heard seemingly goes on these huge tangents (part of which was to artificially extend direct examination leading into the trial break), she was obfuscating her answers to the jury in a very difficult to follow cloud of story. Her behavior can certainly be evaluated and critiqued throughout this trial because it plays into her believability with the jury.
Regardless, what has been substantiated numerous times is that Heard physically abused Depp multiple times and mocked him for using drugs and distance as defensive mechanisms. Through pictures and audio recordings, it is apparent that Heard bullied Depp over the duration of their relationship. What has not been substantiated are Heard's own claims of DV or sexual assault. No current witness has testified to these accusations and no actual documentation currently exists that proves Heard's claims. Is Depp still a problematic figure who is at fault for the things he's said towards Heard? Absolutely. He has a long way to go towards rehabilitating his image. But that doesn't make him guilty of physical violence by default.
This forum would be the exact type of place for people to view as being steadfastly for Amber Heard and it isn't. Certainly this thread isn't.
I'm focused on the misogynists because they're the ones popularizing the shittiest views about this trial and openly monetizing it on youtube. That LegalBytes channel everyone here was linking a while back, and that's become a very popular resource for this whole trial, especially because they're lawyers? They think overturning Roe v Wade is a totally cool thing bro. They practically jerk off on camera about Rittenhouse (I also saw one earlier say that Amber Heard is obviously acting on stage while crying because she didn't bawl like Rittenhouse, who was "obviously" being genuine).
And I said in a previous post to the one you quoted that you don't fix your house by burning it down. Yeah there's something to be said for some progressives who will never believe the man in this scenario, but you work that problem by rebutting those individuals, not by minimizing the harm bad faith actors are creating here.
Otherwise this reads to me a lot like one of Sam Harris' many shitty quotes: "The only people who talk sensibly about Islam are fascists." No, if you have criticisms to make about your own side, you don't suddenly take your cues from the worst people around.
Yes- now this forum isn't unequivocally in support of her after an absurdly slow climb, bans withheld that were justified and inconsistent ones dolled out, multiple threads across the years including the early pages of this where abuse apologizing and equivocating was commonplace and tactically supported by moderation; no- this site and similar communities have a lot to address and not just in regards to this event.
I'm glad that the current has changed, but it's still novel to see people having to wrack their brains to wrap their heads around what's been blatant- due to such a deep seeded bias.
You don't need to elevate or think about or deflect to the worst people to do so.
When people say there is no abuse, I don't think others literally mean he didn't do anything ever. She is claiming things as raping her, hitting her and way more worse things. I think people are focused on that. I do believe that he can hit objects, though the evidence we have been shown is not clear who did it. It could have well been him, but some can also be fabricated. As for his words against hers, that's not true. He has MANY witnesses and experts have come forward who have talked about seeing things with THEIR EYES in favour of Depp. On Amber's side we only have her words and the psychologist based on Amber's words so far. It would be a real stretch to claim they are all lying because they are covering for their boss and that Depp has a better supporting system.
And your whole talk about believing victims sounds bizarre to me. Isn't he clearly the victim in all of this? Don't we have tapes where she's gaslighting him, telling him she can't promise she won't hit him again and more?
In a general sense, I agree with what you're saying. That just because there is no proof, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Also hitting objects is abuse too. But you're ignoring a lot of context just to paint her as a victim somehow? Frankly I feel disgusted and triggered by your reply. You might mean well but I really hope that you're not fully informed on everything that we know so far.
Now this I completely agree with.
Part of me is worried that there will be bad men who are going to abuse this situation to discredit me too and women in general. But I can't let that fear stop me from saying things how they truly appear. We don't have to step so low just to protect something. I see it as showing some of the uncertain men that women are fair. When there is abuse, then it is abuse regardless. That way we can win each other's hearts and support each other in tough times. We don't have to be against each other. I hope more people see this.
Also I do agree about the small details like smirking and such. That doesn't have to say anything about someone's intention since it's just a coping mechanism. So it's silly to keep mentioning it. I only personally have issues when she came on the stand on told her story. While we all have our way of telling stories, this was very hard to believe. She mentioned so many horrible things, that I find it hard to believe anyone can talk so easily about it. If you truly feel pain of that calibre, then it is not easy to tell. Especially when you experience abuse yourself. You can tell who has been abused and who hasn't. And sometimes they don't have to mention it at all. You can tell when someone has seen shit.
Last edited:
Notably I never said she wasn't abusive. In fact, I actually specifically said " He has certainly presented some evidence that she was abusive at times". I by and large believe his allegations against her. That doesn't mean I don't believe her allegations against him though. They can both by and large be true.
I will point out though that while those tapes are bad for her, recordings like that don't necessarily tell the whole picture or provide the context of a four year relationship. That someone doesn't necessarily dispute something someone says on a random recording, or even agrees with it, isn't necessarily evidence of truth. People will often say what they think people want them to, or choose not to dispute something, particularly within an abusive relationship. I know growing up that when my dad was drunk, high, and violent, none of us were disputing anything he said. Lots of nodding and agreeing, because you didn't want to further antagonize him. Doesn't mean that's what happened here of course, but worth considering. We talk a lot about the context of things like confessions in criminal cases and things like that, and how the context of how and when someone says something matters, but that seems to be forgotten quickly when its convenient. That at other times they don't do so isn't evidence they never do either. Someone may at times go along to get along, until they're pushed far enough or aggravated enough when they ignore what they usually feel is the smart way to handle someone due to their own emotional reaction.
Probably hard to argue that about the comments of him removing himself and running away, because why would that be his preferred response, but we also don't know that was the context of the entire relationship. Off the top of my head I'm not sure when that clip was recorded, but its possible that earlier in the relationship he reacted differently, or that later in the relationship he did, or that this was how he usually reacted but that there were exceptions. I don't want to paint all addicts as abusive because I've known many who are at worst only a threat to themselves, but I've known others who can be kind, good people most of the time but under the influence react badly. I've gone back to my father because its the situation I can directly speak to, but he could be a loving, kind person much of the time. Its why even now, despite really kind of hating him, I still love him too (he's dead, so no closure there, yay me). At times he was a great father, a loving person, who could be supportive and helpful. Generally his abusive side only came out when he was hammered. Even mildly drunk he was usually still an affable, kind person, albeit one prone to poor decision making. There was a point he'd cross though where it was like a switch would flip, and suddenly me, my mom, and my brother would be locked in the bedroom with a chair against the door as he tried to break it down screaming that if he got in he'd murder all of us. Suddenly there were times when he'd be throwing recliners across the room and punching holes in walls. Never actually hit any of us, though a couple times he threw things at my mom which would have hit her if she hadn't managed to dodge them. People aren't the same all the time, and just because that was his reaction at times doesn't mean there weren't times it was different. It isn't that those tapes aren't fair evidence, or shouldn't be considered, but they don't inherently tell the entire story of the relationship.
But ya, Amber Heard was pretty clearly an unhealthy, abusive person within their relationship. I think its gross that she has faced so few repercussions for that. Which doesn't mean I inherently don't believe her claims of abuse.
Almost all of the clips were recorded in the final days of their relationship between February and June 2015
Depp already testified as to the context of those recordings but we're still doubting the veracity of his claims. He's had former partners come out stating that he was never violent towards them. Because it's likely that he never had to resort to any level of violence because he wasn't in a relationship with someone like Heard.
I think people want to doubt Depp because he: 1. used drugs and 2. he's a man
Neither should be used to call into question his claims of abuse and the multitude of evidence supporting said claims. Anecdotal experience doesn't negate the weight of evidence in this case but we're treating it as such.
I think people want to doubt Depp because he: 1. used drugs and 2. he's a man
Neither should be used to call into question his claims of abuse and the multitude of evidence supporting said claims. Anecdotal experience doesn't negate the weight of evidence in this case but we're treating it as such.
people inherently believed her claims. I think most people did. the problem is all the evidence points in the other direction, or doesn't support what she's said. And in the case of both people you have one person who wrecks their trailer or breaks up their furniture, which has to be analyzed and interpreted as intended emotional abuse or a person acting out against inanimate objects. And then you have someone else who has been directly violent and abusive to the point of having a record of physical evidence of their actions upon their accuser, some with very visible wounds and lasting scars. There is not a lot of room for interpretation and to just conclude that Amber was "abusive at times" while holding the door open for more information to hopefully even the balance just seems like holding out hope that the male victim isn't as much of a victim as he thinks, or in some way his prospective guilt in some small way makes all of this a logical conclusion.
This is very well said.
I was anti Depp months ago myself, in that I inherently assumed Heards version of events to be true.
But as more and more evidence has come out and more of each person's demeanor demonstrated in real time, I've changed my opinion to deeply questioning many of her wilder claims.
I've spent a lot of time sighing and holding my head in my hands quietly saying "goddammit" over and over again to myself
Yep, well said. I struggle to engage with some comments still being made in the face of everything that's happened and all the evidence proving certain things, but yeah it feels like effort continues to be made to fight against the male being a victim.
- Status