celeb news Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial

[NausAllien]

44 minutes ago, More Than A Melody said:

That was his goal lol. He probably won't win the case, but he'll get his career back and that's all he cares about. In fact, losing the case would probably be more beneficial for him than winning it.

 

The whole "they were both toxic, neither is the victim" thing is ridiculous. She was 25, he was in his mid 40s. She was a no-name actress, he was JOHNNY DEPP. She had no money, he's one of the richest entertainers on the planet and owned a freaking island.

 

She moved into his house, was surrounded by his people and his family... like... am I seriously supposed to believe somehow she abused a powerful, rich, successful, famous man twice her age who was surrounded by a huge entourage of people that enabled him and adored him? What kind of fan fiction is this?

 

Do I think she fought back? I'm sure. And I'm also sure she had her own violent outbursts (as most victims of domestic violence do). It's even possible that she exaggerated or lied at points to get a more favorable view of her case or more money, idk. It doesn't mean she lied about everything and that she was abusing him, which was this case is supposed to settle. It doesn't mean it was wrong for Hollywood to shun Johnny Depp in the context of the Me Too movement. That was the right decision, and the fact that he'll go back to getting roles after this is already all shades of effed up.

 

This case is also terrible for less powerful women going against more powerful men. Even though Johnny will probably lose, it sets a precedent that a sympathetic man can win the public opinion back based on half assed arguments, out of context videos, and just... by sheer force of being a man. Marilyn Manson already took note and is suing Evan Rachel Wood. Not surprising considering Marilyn Manson and Johnny Depp are besties.

 

 

That was my initial take on this. But after researching more about the case, reading thoroughly the verdict from the UK trial, and watching Depp make his case, as well as Amber and her forensic psychologist's testimonies, I'm convinced he was the abuser and she was the victim. She's not a perfect victim. She fought back. But when it comes to who was truly abused here, the answer is pretty simple: Amber was.

 

Like you said, Depp was the older one, the richer one, the more famous one, the one surrounded by his people, the one who would give her gifts and also help her family, the one who would apologize with very flowery language and claim to change and keep the "monster" under control, the one who would have blackouts and don't even remember that he attacked her (like the message from his friend proves). It's all text book abuse once you learn how these relationships work and how good uses their position of power to abuse the other person.

 

People are honestly showing how ignorante they are and how they don't even care to learn. For example,  @C-Amber is talking about the details that she does and does not remember could have at least try to educate themself about how traumatic memories are processed. How some things are remembered vividly while others are remembered in a fragmented way. I gave them a link as a starting point. But some people are choosing to be purposely ignorant.

 

On top of that, there are some people who are truly crossing a line. If you want to still believe that Depp is a saint and Heard a demon, fine. But don't mock her or laugh at her. What if you're wrong? That's why you won't see me attacking Depp directly because, although I believe Amber was abused, I don't know it for sure. The mere idea that I could be mocking a true victim makes me think twice before doing what some really immature users here are doing.

 

EDIT:

As a final reflection, it is sad that this case is giving so many people an excuse to be misogynistic. Repeating over and over "men can be victims too" is the equivalent of saying over and over "blue lives matter." Sure, men can be victims, and the lives of officials do matter. But I see how these, at first glance harmless statements, are being weaponized to discount victims and empower their abusers. It is important to be cognizant of ideas that are being pushed right now and how it can be used to push an agenda that goes beyond the facts of this case.

Edited May 6, 2022 by NausAllien

[FOCK]

I found her testimony grossly exaggerated, not typical of a DV victim in terms of the details she was focusing on, the pictures her team presented weren’t aligning to the imagery she was provoking with her recounts & there was a visible discrepancy with the lack of any medical records or clarity as to when the photos were taken.

 

She said she had a broken nose & her feet were all cut up with glass. We didn’t see any of that & her own nurse said she didn’t see anything more than a slight cut on her lip, which conveniently seems to come and go in her images. What she described was quite a severe, graphic and consistent beating & they presented nothing to support this. 

 

She spent quite a lot of time painting the scene with several pauses for reflection, whereas abuse victims typically move through recounts fairly quickly, her vocal affliction remained consistent & she would recover from her apparent heightened emotional state to composure suspiciously quickly.

 

I’ve no doubt they both abused one another to some extent, but she’d do her case more favours by sticking to the facts, not needing to rely on consistent leading by her lawyer to make her case, and cool it with the exaggerated descriptions. All she needs to do to prove her case is substantially prove ONE incident of DV, no need for the show. 

 

I do think the nature of her testimony supports Dr Currie’s assessment of her mental ailments & Johnny seems possessive, jealous and insecure. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by FOCK

[More Than A Melody]

13 minutes ago, NausAllien said:

That was my initial take on this. But after researching more about the case, reading thoroughly the verdict from the UK trial, and watching Depp make his case, as well as Amber and her forensic psychologist's testimonies, I'm convinced he was the abuser and she was the victim. She's not a perfect victim. She fought back. But when it comes to who was truly abused here, the answer is pretty simple: Amber was.

 

Like you said, Depp was the older one, the richer one, the more famous one, the one surrounded by his people, the one who would give her gifts and also help her family, the one who would apologize with very flowery language and claim to change and keep the "monster" under control, the one who would have blackouts and don't even remember that he attacked her (like the message from his friend proves). It's all text book abuse once you learn how these relationships work and how good uses their position of power to abuse the other person.

 

People are honestly showing how ignorante they are and how they don't even care to learn. For example,  @C-Amber is talking about the details that she does and does not remember could have at least try to educate themself about how traumatic memories are processed. How some things are remembered vividly while others are remembered in a fragmented way. I gave them a link as a starting point. But some people are choosing to be purposely ignorant.

 

On top of that, there are some people who are truly crossing a line. If you want to still believe that Depp is a saint and Heard a demon, fine. But don't mock her or laugh at her. What if you're wrong? That's why you won't see me attacking Depp directly because, although I believe Amber was abused, I don't know it for sure. The mere idea that I could be mocking a true victim makes me think twice before doing what some really immature users here are doing.

 

EDIT:

As a final reflection, it is sad that this case is giving so many people an excuse to be misogynistic. Repeating over and over "men can be victims too" is the equivalent of saying over and over "blue lives matter." Sure, men can be victims, and the lives of officials do matter. But I see how these, at first glance harmless statements, are being weaponized to discount victims and empower their abusers. It is important to be cognizant of ideas that are being pushed right now and how it can be used to push an agenda that goes beyond the facts of this case.

I agree with every word you said. The perfect victim doesn't exist.

[suburbannature]

4 minutes ago, FOCK said:

I found her testimony grossly exaggerated, not typical of a DV victim in terms of the details she was focusing on, the pictures her team presented weren’t aligning to the imagery she was provoking with her recounts & there was a visible discrepancy with the lack of any medical records or clarity as to when the photos were taken.

 

She said she had a broken nose & her feet were all cut up with glass. We didn’t see any of that & her own nurse said she didn’t see anything more than a slight cut on her lip, which conveniently seems to come and go in her images. What she described was quite a severe, graphic and consistent beating & they presented nothing to support this. 

 

She spent quite a lot of time painting the scene with several pauses for reflection, whereas abuse victims typically move through recounts fairly quickly, her vocal affliction remained consistent & she would recover from her apparent heightened emotional state to composure suspiciously quickly.

 

I’ve no doubt they both abused one another to some extent, but she’d do her case more favours by sticking to the facts, not needing to rely on consistent leading by her lawyer to make her case, and cool it with the exaggerated descriptions. All she needs to do to prove her case is substantially prove ONE incident of DV, no need for the show. 

 

I do think the nature of her testimony supports Dr Currie’s assessment of her mental ailments & Johnny seems possessive, jealous and insecure. 

It’s been so frustrating as a mental health expert to read countless posts like this full of untruths about how experiences of abuse and trauma materialize in victims. These armchair psychologists 

[FOCK]

1 minute ago, suburbannature said:

It’s been so frustrating as a mental health expert to read countless posts like this full of untruths about how experiences of abuse and trauma materialize in victims. These armchair psychologists 

Say your peace as a “mental health expert” then, Miss nature. 

 

Amber isn’t the only person on Earth who’s a victim of trauma and abuse & can speak from experience, nor are you the only one with experience in a mental health field. 

 

A handful of lawyers & psychologists covering this case online & have experience with DV victim testimony, share the stance that her recount was atypical - most pointing out she barley used any emotional descriptors to describe sustained injuries or physical pain, rather, relying on superficial descriptions of physical appearance, like “ugly” or “busted”. 

[Cheers]

It looks like they were both horrible. Idk why people are taking sides  

[suburbannature]

1 minute ago, FOCK said:

Say your peace as a “mental health expert” then, Miss nature. 

 

Amber isn’t the only person on Earth who’s a victim of trauma and abuse & can speak from experience, nor are you the only one with experience in a mental health field. 

 

A handful of lawyers & psychologists covering this case online & have experience with DV victim testimony, share the stance that her recount was atypical - most pointing out she barley used any emotional descriptors to describe sustained injuries or physical pain, rather, relying on superficial descriptions of physical appearance, like “ugly” or “busted”. 

Read your second paragraph to yourself again. That’s exactly why your original post is inaccurate. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all of coping with trauma particularly when you’re dealing with highly-publicized court cases in which the victim has had to retell the story a dozen times.

[Mezik]

3 minutes ago, Cheers said:

It looks like they were both horrible. Idk why people are taking sides  

I was told I was sexist for saying they were both clearly pieces of **** and both deserve to not have their careers back.

[Cheers]

4 minutes ago, Mezik said:

I was told I was sexist for saying they were both clearly pieces of **** and both deserve to not have their careers back.

 

 

Yea idk why there always has to be a good guy and a bad guy. Not everything is black and white. They’re both clearly ****** in the head. 

[FOCK]

8 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

Read your second paragraph to yourself again. That’s exactly why your original post is inaccurate. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all of coping with trauma particularly when you’re dealing with highly-publicized court cases in which the victim has had to retell the story a dozen times.

I agree, and wouldn’t dismiss her testimony as false, though 2 things can be true and it was an atypical recount in a general sense. I do believe she genuinely experiences and views the world through an exaggerated and hyper-emotional lens, due to her possible BPD, and that in the moment of a traumatic experience things can seem a lot worse than reality, thus, her testimony lacks consistency to someone observing from the outside in. 

 

Again, it would strengthen her case imo, if her descriptions and recounts substantially aligned with the evidence she presented. Then, it’s a fairly easy win. What will hurt her is the exaggeration, as she’ll be conveyed as unreliable or untrustworthy, doing her no favours. 

[suburbannature]

5 minutes ago, FOCK said:

I agree, and wouldn’t dismiss her testimony as false, though 2 things can be true and it was an atypical recount in a general sense. I do believe she genuinely experiences and views the world through an exaggerated and hyper-emotional lens, due to her possible BPD, and that in the moment of a traumatic experience things can seem a lot worse than reality, thus, her testimony lacks consistency to someone observing from the outside in. 

 

Again, it would strengthen her case imo, if her descriptions and recounts substantially aligned with the evidence she presented. Then, it’s a fairly easy win. What will hurt her is the exaggeration, as she’ll be conveyed as unreliable or untrustworthy, doing her no favours. 

You’re still managing an expectation while gauging how instances of abuse impact another person. People - with BPD or those who are completely neurotypical - all have different emotional pain thresholds and experience dysfunction or inhibited daily functioning based on their own protective and risk factors. The same applies to how inhibition manifests following instances of abuse. One instance of physical abuse alone may be devastating for an individual. Also, having BPD doesn’t preclude one from being able to accurately portray instances of abuse despite possibly having experienced heightened emotional arousal. 

 

I saw no evidence in the last two hours of testimony (that were incredibly emotionally-heightened) that deviated from what one would expect. In fact, that’s much more evidence than most victims of IPV ever have and she benefited already (UK trail) from having the wherewithal to begin collecting it to protect herself.

[NausAllien]

1 minute ago, FOCK said:

Again, it would strengthen her case imo, if her descriptions and recounts substantially aligned with the evidence she presented. Then, it’s a fairly easy win. What will hurt her is the exaggeration, as she’ll be conveyed as unreliable or untrustworthy, doing her no favours. 

I think you're forgetting this is a libel case and Depp's team has to PROVE that her statements were (1) actionable (i.e. false) AND (2) that she acted with actual malice (since both of them are considered all-purpose public figures, the standard is higher than if they were private figures). To prove malice they need to convice the jury that she knew the statements were false or recklessly disregarding their falsity."

 

More about the standard of Actual Malice:

 

So even if the jury isn't convinced that what she claims to have happened exactly like how she describes them, as long as they're convinced that she believed those things to be true, then the standard for actual malice isn't established and the defendant is deemed non liable.

 

That's one of the many reason why I think there's no way Depp won't lose this case.

[wehavetostan]

4 hours ago, Communion said:

The way something can be livestreamed in ita entirety and yet people will still believe something fake with no video evidence cause they have an inherent inclination to hate women who survive domestic abuse. 

Literally  

[Liafen]

The overwhelming support of Depp on Twitter even after Amber testified  Tweets dragging her with anywhere between 10k-100k likes. A mess. 

[Prisoner]

I hate the internet and the media for forcing me to read up on this thing. Anyway, may the best monster win

 

 

[tiagol88]

Her saying he raped her with a broken bottle...i'm sure that's well documented medically. She needed medical care for sure.

 

If she can prove this and has evidence, he's over. 

[Elusive Chanteuse]

I don't believe her at all, there were no tears even coming out of her eye and she's an actress. 

[Liafen]

16 minutes ago, tiagol88 said:

Her saying he raped her with a broken bottle...i'm sure that's well documented medically. She needed medical care for sure.

 

If she can prove this and has evidence, he's over. 

inb4 its turns out to be just a scene from Gone Girl 

[Dark Miracles]

8 hours ago, NausAllien said:

That was my initial take on this. But after researching more about the case, reading thoroughly the verdict from the UK trial, and watching Depp make his case, as well as Amber and her forensic psychologist's testimonies, I'm convinced he was the abuser and she was the victim.

I try to keep an open mind, but there is absolutely no way I would trust a single word that came out of Dawn Hughes’s mouth. Her testimony was blatantly emotionally laden and partial, topped off with a defensive and agitated demeanour even before the cross. And that’s without the whole notes debacle in which she acted extremely unprofessional in several instances (she tried to directly address the JUDGE )for someone who’s supposedly testified as psychologist in hundreds of cases as she says. And this is someone who is board certified and said at the start of her testimony that she also teaches ETHICS from time to time  Seriously that whole testimony was rife with shocking, shocking misconduct from a supposed pro in her field.

 

Gargantuan difference to Dr. Curry sharing and elaborating on her findings re diagnosing Heard with histrionic and borderline personality disorder. Many symptoms of which she explained subsequently manifesting for all to see during Heard’s own testimony on the stand.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Dark Miracles

[TasteOfYourLips]

I honestly can't wait till I see people's stupid faces after Amber wins the trial because there is a high chance she will do so, regardless how many feces-on-the-bed Deep pull out of his sleeve. It's less hypocritical when you admit  you're fine with stanning an abuser.

Edited May 6, 2022 by TasteOfYourLips

[Redstreak]

8 hours ago, Cheers said:

It looks like they were both horrible. Idk why people are taking sides  

Because a woman fighting back against her abuse does not make her just as bad as her abuser

[Pop]

What this trial has taught me is that straights are inherently misogynist, no matter male or female. 

 

The amount of disgusting hateful comments painting her out to be a demon and praising him as some kind of saint.  Truly vile. This is why I will never support heterosexuality. 

[Pop]

3 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

Because a woman fighting back against her abuse does not make her just as bad as her abuser

This. 

 

He literally left her in bruises and punched her with his boot in the back. 

 

She is half his size. Disgusting. 

[Redstreak]

39 minutes ago, Elusive Chanteuse said:

I don't believe her at all, there were no tears even coming out of her eye and she's an actress.

how many victims of sexual assault have you told they didn’t cry hard enough to be believed?

[Pop]

9 hours ago, More Than A Melody said:

That was his goal lol. He probably won't win the case, but he'll get his career back and that's all he cares about. In fact, losing the case would probably be more beneficial for him than winning it.

 

The whole "they were both toxic, neither is the victim" thing is ridiculous. She was 25, he was in his mid 40s. She was a no-name actress, he was JOHNNY DEPP. She had no money, he's one of the richest entertainers on the planet and owned a freaking island.

 

She moved into his house, was surrounded by his people and his family... like... am I seriously supposed to believe somehow she abused a powerful, rich, successful, famous man twice her age who was surrounded by a huge entourage of people that enabled him and adored him? What kind of fan fiction is this?

 

Do I think she fought back? I'm sure. And I'm also sure she had her own violent outbursts (as most victims of domestic violence do). It's even possible that she exaggerated or lied at points to get a more favorable view of her case or more money, idk. It doesn't mean she lied about everything and that she was abusing him, which was this case is supposed to settle. It doesn't mean it was wrong for Hollywood to shun Johnny Depp in the context of the Me Too movement. That was the right decision, and the fact that he'll go back to getting roles after this is already all shades of effed up.

 

This case is also terrible for less powerful women going against more powerful men. Even though Johnny will probably lose, it sets a precedent that a sympathetic man can win the public opinion back based on half assed arguments, out of context videos, and just... by sheer force of being a man. Marilyn Manson already took note and is suing Evan Rachel Wood. Not surprising considering Marilyn Manson and Johnny Depp are besties.

 

 

 SPILL love u!