Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard

Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard - defamation trial. The jury will rule in favour of...

  • Johnny Depp

    Votes: 11 68.8%
  • Amber Heard

    Votes: 5 31.3%

  • Total voters
    16
Dumpster Fire GIF by MOODMAN
 
It doesn’t seem like you can get this result on his case and also have Heard win hers.
 
He won all of his claims. She won just one - mainly against his agent’s words. The damages awarded to Depp far outweigh the damages awarded to Heard.
 
Heard’s statement:

“The disappointment I feel today is beyond words. I'm heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband.

“I’m even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It is a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously.

“I believe Johnny’s attorneys succeeded in getting the jury to overlook the key issue of Freedom of Speech and ignore evidence that was so conclusive that we won in the UK.

“I’m sad I lost this case. But I am sadder still that I seem to have lost a right I thought I had as an American – to speak freely and openly”.
 
That is far more than I was expecting. Hope he donates it all to the charities she said she’d donate to but didn’t.

I hope he uses it to cure some lepers.
 
The BBC are interviewing someone from Newcastle who briefly met him recently.
 
I'm pleased for all survivors of narcissists, they are fucking parasitic scum and those that have suffered them don't deserve the confusion and absolute hell of having all their defenses dismantled and abused for reasons that will never make sense (and that's why they get away with it for so long).
 
Whatever the truth is, Amber Heard was probably always set to lose here where a jury was involved - the court of public opinion was set against her, as was most of the media, and it’s difficult to see how that isn’t in and of itself influential.
 
There was far too much evidence against her as an abuser and not the abused. She admitted to far too much on the stand too that was pretty definitive.
Not being able to produce evidence doesn’t negate somebody being a victim of domestic abuse. I really feel that is very important to keep hold of, regardless of the outcome of a defamation case.
 
Not being able to produce evidence doesn’t negate somebody being a victim of domestic abuse. I really feel that is very important to keep hold of, regardless of the outcome of a defamation case.
The EVIDENCE AGAINST HER that SHE abused HIM.
 
I honestly feel like I’m being gaslit here with a whole bunch of “what ifs” from people who did not follow the actual evidence and testimony outside of reading the mainstream media who were distorting what went on in court. Her claims were ludicrous and provably false. He had clear evidence that she’s a narcissist crazy person who isolated him from family and planned to destroy him.
 
The EVIDENCE AGAINST HER that SHE abused HIM.
Why are you getting so mad? :D

He won - he has his victory - but there is no doubt many people will interpret that as meaning she didn’t suffer abuse. That isn’t necessarily the case. Abuse doesn’t come with a receipt.

And nobody is gaslighting you.
 
Because the media and others who either have an agenda or are blissfully ill-informed, are spinning it as predicted. My interest in this case was about 80% about media manipulation.
 
now that the trial is over this is the *popcorn* sequel we deserve
 
I'm far more interested in that post than this case specifically.
In a similar vein, and as you say, if you’re interested in looking beyond or behind this legal case, this is a good read

 
In a similar vein, and as you say, if you’re interested in looking beyond or behind this legal case, this is a good read

The Guardian and The Independent have actually been the BIGGEST perpetrators of spreading untruths about this case. I’ve read so many opinion pieces just flagrantly ignoring all of the evidence against her.
 
Then that post shouldn’t be calling AH a survivor. She should just speak generally without bringing this case in to it.
It's questioning why other survivors support Johnny Depp. It's perfectly valid.
 
The Guardian and The Independent have actually been the BIGGEST perpetrators of spreading untruths about this case. I’ve read so many opinion pieces just flagrantly ignoring all of the evidence against her.
An opinion piece is exactly what it is though. An opinion.
 
The Guardian and The Independent have actually been the BIGGEST perpetrators of spreading untruths about this case. I’ve read so many opinion pieces just flagrantly ignoring all of the evidence against her.
That piece isn’t about ‘untruths’ but the binary choice posited (in the author’s opinion) in this case and how that often isn’t reality (which I don’t myself think is an unreasonable position to take at all - it was clearly a very complicated situation)
 
It's questioning why other survivors support Johnny Depp. It's perfectly valid.
“Other” survivors? That’s assuming Heard is one. My flatmate is a survivor of DV and she was seriously triggered watching the testimonies. If Heard was a man none of these conversations would be happening. Survivors are mostly relating to Depp. I’ve had it explained to me so many times how her actions towards him were exactly what was done towards them.
 
“Other” survivors? That’s assuming Heard is one. My flatmate is a survivor of DV and she was seriously triggered watching the testimonies. If Heard was a man none of these conversations would be happening. Survivors are mostly relating to Depp. I’ve had it explained to me so many times how her actions towards him were exactly what was done towards them.
All right then, forget 'other' - that's MY word. The article refers to why survivors are supporting him.
 
That article is better balanced than some I must admit.

I just loathe the whole #BelieveVictims #BelieveWomen stuff. First establish they are a victim. #MeToo in the first week was mostly about women telling stories from their past of things that had happened to them when they had not spoken up for fear of it not being bad enough or not being believed. I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t experienced something like that, myself and my mother included both at age 11.

It was not however about pointing fingers at specific people, expecting not to be questioned.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom