celeb news Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Trial

[brraap]

Not me doing more than Amber’s lawyers 

[Headlock]

5 minutes ago, Ari29 said:

They’re just looking to argue, this was also in the first article you posted and they disregarded the whole premise of the article for one small section. 
 

 

The ~one small section~ being one of the people cited saying "this shouldn't be used as a generalization" 

 

Y'all need to read the articles you post and not just the headlines 

[Darkgalord]

 

[brraap]

30 minutes ago, Headlock said:

The ~one small section~ being one of the people cited saying "this shouldn't be used as a generalization" 

 

Y'all need to read the articles you post and not just the headlines 

That study was to test if ALS it’s better at detecting bruising on coloured skin. Which Amber as a white woman with pale skin was the easiest to detect. My point exactly 
 

Quote

the odds of detection were higher with increasing skin lightness (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02–1.03) and subject age (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.04–1.06). Similarly, odds were almost 3 times greater for detecting the dropped weight bruises on women than on men (OR = 2.96, 95% CI: 2.37–3.70). 

Also did you gloss over subtle injury with a paint pellet gun and controlled dropped weights. Very different to the heavy blunt force trauma she alleges. Really it all depends on the time she took to report those bruises.

 

The holes in her argument come from not understanding how bruising works. Yes, sometimes they don’t just appear overnight (even though the ones she describes would appear on impact). But they also take weeks to heal, and go through colour changes. 
 

This doesn’t just go away after a day 

[Headlock]

12 minutes ago, brraap said:

That study was to test if ALS it’s better at detecting bruising on coloured skin. Which Amber as a white woman with pale skin was the easiest to detect. My point exactly 
 

 

Quote

Participants included 157 healthy adults with balanced sampling across six skin color categories.

 

12 minutes ago, brraap said:

Also did you gloss over subtle injury with a paint pellet gun and controlled dropped weights. Very different to the heavy blunt force trauma she alleges. Really it all depends on the time she took to report those bruises.

 

Quote

Participants rated pain of paintball impact on average 6.6 out of 10 (range 1–10).

Almost a 7 on the pain scale is not "subtle."  Subtle is used here as a descriptive word to describe what an injury looks like, not how it felt.

 

I won't even comment on the cherry-picked pictures because that is just speculative nonsense.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Headlock

[brraap]

50 minutes ago, Headlock said:

 

Almost a 7 on the pain scale is not "subtle."  Subtle is used here as a descriptive word to describe what an injury looks like, not how it felt.

 

I won't even comment on the cherry-picked pictures because that is just speculative nonsense.

so you agree that level of pain does not = level of bruising 

 

but instead level of impact = level of bruising

 

I could say that getting a paper cut was 10/10 pain but that doesn’t compare to a broken rib which I might also label 10/10

 

or are we just gonna go in circles 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by brraap

[brraap]

52 minutes ago, Headlock said:

 

Almost a 7 on the pain scale is not "subtle."  Subtle is used here as a descriptive word to describe what an injury looks like, not how it felt.

 

I won't even comment on the cherry-picked pictures because that is just speculative nonsense.

Cherry picked pictures 

 

They were literally taken a day apart, from her filing for the restraining order to the next day 

 

Thats like having a cast put on the one day, and then taking it off the next. I will speculate that your arm isn’t broken 

[Headlock]

1 hour ago, brraap said:

so you agree that level of pain does not = level of bruising 

 

but instead level of impact = level of bruising

 

I could say that getting a paper cut was 10/10 pain but that doesn’t compare to a broken rib which I might also label 10/10

 

or are we just gonna go in circles 

 

That is not what the study said omfg 

Quote

Bruising is one of the most common types of soft tissue injury noted on victims of violence, including intimate partner violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and vulnerable adult abuse 1-4. Such injuries are usually caused by blunt, compressive or squeezing force trauma resulting in damaged blood vessels 5, 6. Evidence of bruising is usually identified by forensic clinicians through observed skin discoloration stemming from exsanguinated blood and its associated inflammation 7. Injuries, such as those from strangulation, can significantly impact clinical outcomes if they are not detected 8. Additionally, research indicates injury documentation is associated with greater victim engagement in the criminal justice process 9, 10 and may provide corroborative evidence in court 11.

These were not correlating "light impact" with "light bruising" and "severe impact" with "severe bruising". They were talking about subtle injuries, again meaning a descriptive assessment of the APPEARANCE of injury when trying to detect them. Nowhere do they say this correlates to the "severity" of the cause of the injury. They literally used examples of domestic violence to underline this point 

 

I once again BEG of you, read what you are citing 

You used a trial that is being done to help domestic violence victims and documentation of their abuse, using a study that shows people with injuries may possibly have subtle enough bruising to not be detectable under white light, and are trying to use it AGAINST Amber, when it does the opposite 

 

1 hour ago, brraap said:

Cherry picked pictures 

 

They were literally taken a day apart, from her filing for the restraining order to the next day 

 

Thats like having a cast put on the one day, and then taking it off the next. I will speculate that your arm isn’t broken 

Yes, literally cherry picked, no standardization of time, location, lighting, wearing of makeup, nothing. You are LOOKING for evidence after having already drawn formed an opinion, that is the opposite of the scientific method. No medical records, no test results, nothing, just paparazzi pictures 

Not only is this nonsense from a scientific/medical viewpoint, it also is laughable from a legal standpoint.

 

I don't even have a horse in this race, I was more drawn in by the ludicrousness of your initial post. But I guess here we are now 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Headlock

[NausAllien]

This discussion about bruising is pointless because it's not as if Amber didn't have any pictures that depicted bruising:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A better question would be: how much bruising does she need to be believed? Because it seems like it's never enough for those who choose not to believe her. This is not only a terrible take for this case in particular, but it will also be extremely damaging for ALL victims of DV who will have their own bruises questioned and deemed as insufficient proof.

[TasteOfYourLips]

1 hour ago, NausAllien said:

This discussion about bruising is pointless because it's not as if Amber didn't have any pictures that depicted bruising:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A better question would be: how much bruising does she need to be believed? Because it seems like it's never enough for those who choose not to believe her. This is not only a terrible take for this case in particular, but it will also be extremely damaging for ALL victims of DV who will have their own bruises questioned and deemed as insufficient proof.

This thread and especially the last few pages are absolutely terrible and reek in misogyny. You can basically sum up the last few pages with 'how much beaten to a plum you need to be to be believed or at least - have a benefit of a doubt'. Because right now it seems like you need to be beaten very much, actually be not only beaten but having your head smashed into car's dashboard.

 

Nobody has to believe Amber but how far people are willing to go to defend their favourite actor?

Edited May 12, 2022 by TasteOfYourLips

[rzal]

How do Depp stans defend these texts?

 

 

[Raiden]

2 hours ago, rzal said:

How do Depp stans defend these texts?

 

 

What's that supposed to mean?

 

I think you are losing touch. Don't forget that this is a defamation trial. Depp is not on trial here for his actions. It's a defamation suit, which means if she loses then she complies with whatever administrative action she has to follow but that's it. She's not going to jail, nor is he going to jail if he loses. It would just mean that they could further proceed accusing each other of all sort of things but in the media. Depp took her to court just to demonstrate to his Hollywood bosses that he really disagrees with her point of view. Likewise Amber if she wins it means she could further moan about him in media. It is very clear that she has zero intentions to take him to court on the substance of the matter (to seek damages for abusing her, which is what victims do) because the evidence is too thin. She just wants the freedom to badmouth him in public.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Raiden

[rzal]

1 minute ago, Raiden said:

What's that supposed to mean?

 

I think you are losing touch. Don't forget that this is a defamation trial. Depp is not on trial here for his actions. It's a defamation suit, which means if she loses then she complies with whatever administrative action she has to follow but that's it. She's not going to jail, nor is he going to jail if he loses. It would just mean that they could further proceed accusing each other of all sort of things but in the media. Depp took her to court just to demonstrate to his Hollywood bosses that he really disagrees with her point of view. Likewise I Amber if she wins it means she just could further moan about him in media. It does not mean she can take him to court as it is very clear that she has zero intentions to take him to court on the substance of the matter (to seek damages for abusing her). She just wants the freedom to badmouth him in public.

Depp's defence is that he never hit her. He denies everything and so do his stans.  Not sure what you're talking about. 

[Communion]

7 hours ago, Raiden said:

What's that supposed to mean?

 

I think you are losing touch. Don't forget that this is a defamation trial. 

He's claiming he was defamed by her calling herself a victim of domestic violence, saying he never hit her. Those texts show documentation that he did. Why are you being dense? 

[Darkgalord]

Omg

 

[MasterExpose]

 

 

[Spark]

The amount of Depp stans STILL. Do people enjoy being purposefully stupid?

[ahauntingnearu]

1 hour ago, Spark said:

The amount of Depp stans STILL. Do people enjoy being purposefully stupid?

Stanning either side is stupid, LBR. It's just that she's making herself look even more mornic due to her incompetent legal team + melodrama on the stand. 

[Raiden]

On 5/12/2022 at 3:17 PM, rzal said:

Depp's defence is that he never hit her. He denies everything and so do his stans.  Not sure what you're talking about. 

Not me. I don't deny sh*t. My personal belief is that they had a couple fight of some sort.

 

Didn't she admit (in the British case) that she retaliated in self defense or whatever?

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by Raiden

[NausAllien]

19 minutes ago, Raiden said:

Didn't she admit (in the British case) that she retaliated in self defense or whatever?

Did you read what @rzal said? Depp and his apologist deny that he EVER hit her. He said, under oath, that he had NEVER hit a woman. There's enough evidence to confidently said that he was lying about that. He indeed hit Amber. According to the UK High Court, he hit her at least 12 different times.

[rzal]

3 minutes ago, NausAllien said:

Did you read what @rzal said? Depp and his apologist deny that he EVER hit her. He said, under oath, that he had NEVER hit a woman. There's enough evidence to confidently said that he was lying about that. He indeed hit Amber. According to the UK High Court, he hit her at least 12 different times.

This is why I believe her more. He's a certified liar. 

 

[Maybe]

 

[omni]

So, who won?

[Raiden]

7 hours ago, omni said:

So, who won?

The lawyers

.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Raiden

[kawk]