Johnny Depp Defamation Lawsuit

[heartlikealion]

@Abortion Rights Shoes
My take away is you didn’t watch the footage but want to shame us for our reactions. AH’s testimony was so OTT, disjointed, and confusing. She continued to look at the jury rather than the lawyers, too. 

[fraidycat]

" I care about how this made survivors of domestic violence feel. "

But only the ones who agree with you, right? Because there are thousands who feel that justice has been served today. I've seen many of the comments with my own eyes. In fact, there are a few right here on this very thread.

And yet, their opinion and feelings don't matter because they don't match your bias and belief that we have all internalized misogyny.

Just to be clear, the misandry vibes are pretty strong in a few of the posts in this thread as a nice counterbalance to the supposed misogyny (a.k.a. truth seeking).

Edited June 2, 2022 by fraidycat

[KungFuPanda]

It feels wrong to say it, but I kinda like this guilty-until-proven-innocent thing that just went down. A lot more DV victims might get justice this way and I’ll bet it’s the right call 98% of the time. 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

I care about the thousands of Youtube videos of so-called "experts" analyzing her every word and movement as if it meant anything. As if there is a "right" way to be a victim. 

Amber Heard's whole case was predicated on the idea that she would be believed because Johnny Depp was the "wrong" kind of victim. She explicitly told him that no one would believe him because he's a man, and she knew that his drug and alcohol abuse (which she carefully documented) would count against him as well. Fortunately, the jury, and the vast majority of the public who watched the trial, were able to see through that.

 

1 hour ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

I care about how this made survivors of domestic violence feel. 

I AM A SURVIVOR. So are many of the other people on this thread that you are accusing of making victims feel bad by picking on poor Amber. I can tell you exactly how the trial, and reactions to the trial, made me feel as a survivor of sexual assault and domestic violence: Thankful that the victim was believed and the abuser faced consequences for what she did.

I am really tired of articles and comments that cite a few DV survivors who happen to side with AH as if they speak for all, or even most, DV victims. Every survivor that I know personally, many that I "know" online, and the vast majority of DV survivors that I have seen commenting on trial videos, believe that justice was served. In fact, the people who seem to have been the most outspoken about AH's demeanor and the theatricality and fakeness of her testimony are precisely the ones who have personal experience of DV and sexual assault and are really triggered by the obvious gaslighting.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Corraleno

[heartlikealion]

2 hours ago, Ceilingfan said:

I don't know whether she lied about the rape allegation, or whether her former assistant is lying; that seems like it could go either way.

I absolutely believe some of the abuse happened. He's admitted via text to hitting her, headbutting her, kicking her, he's had former lovers say he was jealous and controlling, clearly he was verbally abusive and the severe drug addiction is correlated with abuse. 

I think the most trustworthy witness was probably their couples therapist, who testified they were mutually abusive. 

Given that the violence and verbal abuse was at least to some degree mutual, and she couldn't prove the sexual abuse, I think she shouldn't have written the article. She's not a good victim, and she was also right (as was he), that this would end in massive social and professional humiliation, and she'd be destroyed. 

If there were less fangirling about Depp, I'd probably have a more nuanced take. I distrust fangirling, and the sort of over-meme-iness of it all. Maybe part of that is just a strong countercultural tendency on my part, and if the internet/social media coverage had been more balanced, I'd be more inclined to believe him entirely - but I don't. He lied straight up about the texts; he admitted some abuse. And I think the couples therapist, who saw them both during the relationship but was not in either of their retinues, is probably the least biased person who has prolonged contemporary knowledge of the situation.

I haven’t personally seen these parts of the trial. Do you happen to have any links? I thought the only text he denied was one he said he didn’t write and that came up later in the case rather than sooner? I don’t know if it was a fake text or written by someone else. But he admitted to several texts so I didn’t doubt him so much about it. 

As far as admitting to head butting etc… I also missed any of this. Was this the US trial? 

[heartlikealion]

I struggle with the term mutually abusive. I think it tends to be abuser pushes victim to point of reactive abuse. Not to say it’s right or ok but I don’t think “mutually abusive” is generally a helpful description. 
I urge everyone to read this in regards to it: 

https://www.thehotline.org/resources/the-myth-of-mutual-abuse/

[heartlikealion]

Just now, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

Yes, I didn't watch the footage. Don't care about the trial. But your reactions are bad. I know you feel self righteous about it but it's still bad. 

Victims don't behave like you think they should. They are no "good" victims and "bad" victims. 

Get off this thread if you don’t want to talk about this specific case. Make a new thread about misogyny. 

I don’t believe I ever called anyone a good or bad person or victim. I said I felt JD was the victim in their relationship. Abuse is a power dynamic. From the sounds of the audio, she was the one exerting it. 

[heartlikealion]

Just now, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

Almost every post in this thread is discussing AH's reactions. Her testimony. The way she looked. You don't believe her because she's not believable. 

Which is why women are often victimized by the court system and women are often afraid to come forward. 

 

Fair enough. But we aren’t basing it solely on that! We are basing it on actual audio recordings of her goading him, lack of medical records of a supposed broken nose, her side claiming she used a product that wasn’t even on the market the date she supposedly used it, witnesses saying things that contradict her comments (no one saw JD pee — one story was outside, one was in the foyer) etc etc. So if you can’t read these comments, listen to the audio, etc then please stop replying. 

[katilac]

5 hours ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

How do you know she has personality disorders? 

Expert testimony in the case. 

2 hours ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

‘Men Always Win’: Survivors ‘Sickened’ by the Amber Heard Verdict

Was it worth it? 

 

1 hour ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

How many times do I need to repeat myself that I don't care about the trial? 

 

 

Stuff like posting headlines about the verdict is what makes people think you care about the verdict and the trial. 

6 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

I struggle with the term mutually abusive. I think it tends to be abuser pushes victim to point of reactive abuse. Not to say it’s right or ok but I don’t think “mutually abusive” is generally a helpful description. 
I urge everyone to read this in regards to it: 

https://www.thehotline.org/resources/the-myth-of-mutual-abuse/

I disagree that mutually abusive doesn't exist (that's from the article, not your post). Do I think that reactive abuse exists and is very common? Yes, I do, but I also think mutual abuse exists. 

[heartlikealion]

Just now, katilac said:

Expert testimony in the case. 

 

Stuff like posting headlines about the verdict is what makes people think you care about the verdict and the trial. 

I disagree that mutually abusive doesn't exist (that's from the article, not your post). Do I think that reactive abuse exists and is very common? Yes, I do, but I also think mutual abuse exists. 

thank you for sharing your thoughts 

[Scarlett]

25 minutes ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

Yes, I didn't watch the footage. Don't care about the trial. But your reactions are bad. I know you feel self righteous about it but it's still bad. 

Victims don't behave like you think they should. They are no "good" victims and "bad" victims. 

No one is judging her credibility based on her behavior.  She was proven by evidence, over and over in this trial to be a liar. 

[Catwoman]

19 minutes ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

Almost every post in this thread is discussing AH's reactions. Her testimony. The way she looked. You don't believe her because she's not believable. 

Which is why women are often victimized by the court system and women are often afraid to come forward. 

 

We didn't believe AH because, as we have said over and over again, she was proven to be a liar.

If you want to sympathize with victims, why not find an actual victim to champion? I'm sure most of us would be right there with you.

AH was NOT victimized by the court system. She was the liar and the schemer, and thankfully, it blew up in her face. 

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Catwoman
stupid spelling typo!

[TravelingChris]

20 minutes ago, katilac said:

Expert testimony in the case. 

 

Stuff like posting headlines about the verdict is what makes people think you care about the verdict and the trial. 

I disagree that mutually abusive doesn't exist (that's from the article, not your post). Do I think that reactive abuse exists and is very common? Yes, I do, but I also think mutual abuse exists. 

Especially when 2 people are abusing substances.

[LucyStoner]

I’m not a JD fangirl (nor have I read any fangirling comments here but I can’t claim to have read every single comment in detail so maybe I missed it.) I’ve never seen any of the Pirates movies.  Honestly, I think the last things I saw him in were that Willy Wonka remake with my kids and before that?  What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.  I was in middle school when that came out.  I have a distinct memory of watching that movie when my friend’s mom dropped us off at the dollar theater with $20, getting tickets to three movies back to back and making ourselves sick on bottomless popcorn refills.  It’s possible I’ve seen him in other things but I’m not sure, such is the low level of interest I have in him as an actor.  

I think it’s clear that there was abuse and substance abuse by both.  I’m ambivalent overall - JD wrote and did things he had no business writing or doing.  I also find the power dynamics sketchy when there’s that kind of age and fame gap.  AH has clearly lied and painted a very one sided picture.  There’s also an obvious media circus here and publicists on both sides are earning massive sums to spin the narrative and shape public opinion.  

I’ve testified against my own brother in DV cases- I’m just not someone who makes excuses for or minimizes DV.    

I’ve have also come to think it infantilizes women to claim that they are always the target and never the primary aggressor in any DV situations.  DARVO- deny abuse, reverse victim and offender is something I have observed up close in my family and community when the primary aggressor was male and when aggressor was female. 

The thing about AH plucking stories from other people’s lives, for instance the rape details of her assistant, is a sign that someone has a very fast and loose relationship with the truth.  I have had someone do this to me- just borrow details and things that I experienced that they didn’t and weave them into their own narrative.  It’s very challenging to communicate with such people that no, you know that they confabulated that story because they got it from you.  The person who did it to me got angry and manipulative when I refuted them. It seems quite likely that AH has def confabulated and borrowed experiences of others to weave a narrative for herself.  I don’t think that’s something you have to do when you are speaking the truth and telling your own story.   

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

I keep trying to think of other movies I’ve seen with JD and usually when I come up with one, I realize that no, that was River Phoenix.  Running on Empty, Sneakers, Thing Called Love…all of those aren’t actually JD movies.  

Should I be concerned that I remember movies from before 1995 better than movies I’ve seen in the last decade?  Kinda a joke but then again with my dad declining from dementia, maybe not a joke.  

I think the most probable reason is that from 15-25, I was too busy with work and school to watch very many movies and from 25-now, most of the movies I watch are in conjunction with my kids.  I can tell you way more than I ever wanted to know about Star Wars, Harry Potter etc.  that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.  

[fraidycat]

1 hour ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

Almost every post in this thread is discussing AH's reactions.
 

This seems just a tad hyperbolic.

 

Her testimony.

 

Yes, that it is kind of the whole point of court and laws and stuff.

 

The way she looked.

A few have mentioned this. The vast majority have not.

You don't believe her because she's not believable. 

We don't believe her because it has been proven IN COURT That.She.Lied. A lot. 
 

 

Why is it that all of you who "don't care about the case" and haven't actually watched any of it are so sure you are right and this is going to be sooooo bad for victims going forward?

I have yet to see one person on this board, a board that is predicated on teaching critical thinking skills, who has actually availed themselves of the freely and widely available contemporaneous videos, audios, testimony, transcripts, etc. of the court case come to that same conclusion. In fact, the general consensus seems to be that the victim in this individual case has received justice, which is a good thing for victims.

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by fraidycat

[heartlikealion]

19 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

I keep trying to think of other movies I’ve seen with JD and usually when I come up with one, I realize that no, that was River Phoenix.  Running on Empty, Sneakers, Thing Called Love…all of those aren’t actually JD movies.  

Should I be concerned that I remember movies from before 1995 better than movies I’ve seen in the last decade?  Kinda a joke but then again with my dad declining from dementia, maybe not a joke.  

I think the most probable reason is that from 15-25, I was too busy with work and school to watch very many movies and from 25-now, most of the movies I watch are in conjunction with my kids.  I can tell you way more than I ever wanted to know about Star Wars, Harry Potter etc.  that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.  

He’s in a few Tim Burton films (mostly the ones I know him from). He was in the Alice in Wonderland remake, Dark Shadows, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands, Sweeney Todd and a couple others. He might even be in the second Beetlejuice movie. 

[Melissa Louise]

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/

[crazyforlatin]

Will AH be able to have any roles in Hollywood? Or is this the end of her career? 

[LucyStoner]

4 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

He’s in a few Tim Burton films (mostly the ones I know him from). He was in the Alice in Wonderland remake, Dark Shadows, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands, Sweeney Todd and a couple others. He might even be in the second Beetlejuice movie. 

My husband reminded me we saw him in Dark Shadows at the same dollar theater I saw What’s Eating Gilbert Grape at.  Yes, I’ve been going to the same dollar theater since 1990 only now it’s $6-9 and I’m not sure it’s worth it because it hasn’t been all that noticeably rehabbed and we can go to a nice theater with reclining seats for $7 on Tuesdays.  

[fraidycat]

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/

It is common knowledge that women are victims of domestic violence. No one is refuting that.

It does seem that you are having trouble accepting that sometimes a man is a victim of domestic violence, too. This thread is actually titled with the name of victim in this individual case, who happens to be a man. The evidence in the court case corroborates that fact.

 

[heartlikealion]

28 minutes ago, crazyforlatin said:

Will AH be able to have any roles in Hollywood? Or is this the end of her career? 

From what little I’ve seen, she wasn’t a particularly good actress on screen and there are mentions of her not doing great on set with others (I have no idea if the Bruce Willis quote is real— saying she acted inappropriately showing up naked at his trailer or something while filming). Disney claims she had lack of chemistry on set with costar Jason Momoa and she supposedly negatively affected his marriage (hitting on him or what I don’t know). 

She wasn’t in many roles that I’m aware of so I’m not sure she even had much of a career. And the implications are JD got her noticed for the Aquaman role (either that or he was just stating he didn’t prevent her from taking jobs by saying, “how do you think she got Aquaman?”). 

My guess is she’ll be seen as difficult and no one will want any negative PR for hiring her, either. 

Edited June 2, 2022 by heartlikealion

[LucyStoner]

37 minutes ago, crazyforlatin said:

Will AH be able to have any roles in Hollywood? Or is this the end of her career? 

I think that this is probably it for her acting wise as far as Hollywood goes.  

33 minutes ago, fraidycat said:

It is common knowledge that women are victims of domestic violence. No one is refuting that.

It does seem that you are having trouble accepting that sometimes a man is a victim of domestic violence, too. This thread is actually titled with the name of victim in this individual case, who happens to be a man. The evidence in the court case corroborates that fact.

 

I used to have the view, largely informed by feminist analysis of DV, that men were virtually always the responsible party and women were the victims.  Certainly it is the case that women are more likely to be seriously physically injured or killed- and I don’t dispute that.  But that more men are more violent in the aggregate doesn’t mitigate the impact that abusive women have on their partners and children.  

In the last couple of years I’ve reevaluated and re-examined my beliefs around this for a number of reasons.  Part of that reexamination was that I have a female relative who was undeniably the primary abuser- and my mother lived a shortened life with physical and mental impairments due to her mother’s abuse. Part of it is that I realized the degree to which my perceptions were absolutely shaped by my own experiences with abusive males. Part of that is that I’ve observed a lot of instances recently where boys are held to a much different  standard than girls for behavior that isn’t even remotely violent.  

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by LucyStoner

[heartlikealion]

45 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

My husband reminded me we saw him in Dark Shadows at the same dollar theater I saw What’s Eating Gilbert Grape at.  Yes, I’ve been going to the same dollar theater since 1990 only now it’s $6-9 and I’m not sure it’s worth it because it hasn’t been all that noticeably rehabbed and we can go to a nice theater with reclining seats for $7 on Tuesdays.  

Just saw some other references — Benny & Joon, Cry Baby, Lone Ranger, Rango (voice), Fantastic Beasts and more 

[Melissa Louise]

4 hours ago, fraidycat said:

It is common knowledge that women are victims of domestic violence. No one is refuting that.

It does seem that you are having trouble accepting that sometimes a man is a victim of domestic violence, too. This thread is actually titled with the name of victim in this individual case, who happens to be a man. The evidence in the court case corroborates that fact.

 

I told you when I'd reconsider my pov, and it's when the UK case is overturned. 

I just found out the jury in this case was not sequestered. Unbelievable. 

There is no epidemic of men being seriously and dangerously abused by women, despite many people seeming to wish for a  #mentoo  movement. 

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Melissa Louise

[Slache]

7 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I keep trying to think of other movies I’ve seen with JD and usually when I come up with one, I realize that no, that was River Phoenix.  Running on Empty, Sneakers, Thing Called Love…all of those aren’t actually JD movies.  

Should I be concerned that I remember movies from before 1995 better than movies I’ve seen in the last decade?  Kinda a joke but then again with my dad declining from dementia, maybe not a joke.  

I think the most probable reason is that from 15-25, I was too busy with work and school to watch very many movies and from 25-now, most of the movies I watch are in conjunction with my kids.  I can tell you way more than I ever wanted to know about Star Wars, Harry Potter etc.  that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.  

It's because no decent movies have been made since 1995.

If you want to watch a JD movie I liked Benny and June and Sweeny Todd. Sweeny Todd has Bellatrix Lestrange in it.

7 hours ago, crazyforlatin said:

Will AH be able to have any roles in Hollywood? Or is this the end of her career? 

She's toast, in my opinion.

[Corraleno]

5 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

There is no epidemic of men being seriously and dangerously abused by women, despite many people seeming to wish for a  #mentoo  movement. 

Stats from the National Council Against Domestic Violence:

"1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner. This includes a range of behaviors (e.g. slapping, shoving, pushing) and in some cases might not be considered "domestic violence."

1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence (e.g. beating, burning, strangling) by an intimate partner in their lifetime."

Source: https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS

 

From the CDC, 33% of women and 28% of men are victims of intimate partner violence in their lifetime.

Source: (page 38) https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Corraleno

[Catwoman]

6 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I just found out the jury in this case was not sequestered. Unbelievable. 

Unbelievable???

Juries are not sequestered in civil cases. This was a civil case.

[fraidycat]

6 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I told you when I'd reconsider my pov, and it's when the UK case is overturned. 

I just found out the jury in this case was not sequestered. Unbelievable. 

There is no epidemic of men being seriously and dangerously abused by women, despite many people seeming to wish for a  #mentoo  movement. 

 

The links you are providing do not contribute anything meaningful to this particular conversation about a male abuse victim. This thread is not about statistics and averages or epidemics, it is about one real person.

The UK judge did not recuse himself. Unbelievable. We could go back and forth forever on this, but you are totally entitled to your close-minded opinion, so keep it as long as you want.

[Catwoman]

6 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I told you when I'd reconsider my pov, and it's when the UK case is overturned. 

So apparently the mountain of additional, credible evidence presented in this case means nothing to you because it does not support your pro-AH position?

 

[Catwoman]

1 minute ago, fraidycat said:

The links you are providing do not contribute anything meaningful to this particular conversation about a male abuse victim. This thread is not about statistics and averages or epidemics, it is about one real person.

The UK judge did not recuse himself. Unbelievable. We could go back and forth forever on this, but you are totally entitled to your close-minded opinion, so keep it as long as you want.

I agree.

But hey, let’s take the word of one UK judge with serious conflict of interest issues over a tremendous amount of evidence and witnesses, and the decision of an entire US jury, right? 

This seemingly has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of this case and everything to do with being pro-woman and anti-man, even if the woman has lied and was the one who physically abused the man. Because she’s the woman and apparently we should always support the woman no matter what she does.

It is this kind of narrowminded viewpoint that is so dangerous and harmful to the credibility of both feminism and women in general. 

[fraidycat]

12 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

So apparently the mountain of additional, credible evidence presented in this case means nothing to you because it does not support your pro-AH position?

 

I don't think it's so much pro AH, as it is anti-any man, especially one with money. 
 

ETA: We were typing at the same time, and came to the same conclusion.

Edited June 2, 2022 by fraidycat

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don’t mind people having different opinions about who was guilty or innocent in this case. I came to my conclusions for certain reasons that have nothing to do with hating women or hating survivors or elevating one actor over another. And obviously people can come to a different conclusion. 
 

What I mind deeply is people (whether they are writers of op-ed pieces or individuals ) telling me that I don’t know what I think. That I hate women but am too dumb to know it.  That I want abusers to “get away with it”.   No I don’t. And putting that sort of narrative out there with no regard for people’s actual thought processes is reductionistic and demeaning.
 

I approached this trial as objectively as I could and came to my  opinion as objectively as I could. I know that I was not a juror. I know that my opinion had no bearing on the outcome of this case. I also know that my opinion won’t change DV case rates or their resolution in the courts. (Psst. It never did). 
 

What has mattered?  The donations I had made to local shelters. The week’s vacation I gave to the managers of a women’s dv shelter, living there without my husband for a week so that the ladies continued to have a safe secure place to live in secret while they tried to rebuild their lives. The financial safety net that dh and I gave a friend and her five children do that she could leave her abusive husband who controlled her by taking all the money. The private no interest loan that dh and I paid for so that same friend could take a refresher in her professional field to get a job so that she could support her family. This other stuff?  It’s offensive noise. 

[Minerva]

I think it's pretty obvious that AH is a liar, and perhaps the verdict was correct.  However,  I cannot get past the disgusting texts that JD sent his friend regarding AH. He didn't just say, "I wish that effing bitch was dead." He said he wanted to F#*k her corpse after he drowned and burned her to make sure she was dead. This goes beyond blowing off steam.

I know that JD can be both the victim of domestic violence and an asshole at the same time, but I hope the asshole part doesn't get swept under the rug. The man needs help. 

[Goldcrest]

13 hours ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

How many times do I need to repeat myself that I don't care about the trial? 

I care about the reaction. I care about the thousands of Youtube videos of so-called "experts" analyzing her every word and movement as if it meant anything. As if there is a "right" way to be a victim. 

I care about how this made survivors of domestic violence feel. 

I'll ask again - how did the loud accusations that AH was lying and the memes and all the rest help JD? But on the other hand, how did it make survivors of domestic abuse feel? Did it make survivors more or less likely to come forward? 

ETA - you guys all made the choice to have opinions about this and debate for 11 pages how AH has a personality disorder and lies and to make fun of her. You didn't need to do any of that. I don't care about people making fun of famous people. That's part of the being famous but victims of domestic violence and rape are paying attention to your reaction. 

I don't have an opinion on the verdict but this sums up how I feel tonight. 

 

 

Is it internalized misogyny to broadly tell a board full of women how they should or should not react to things in thread after thread?

Or is there another appropriate term for a woman who repeatedly chastises other women about their reactions to a whole kettle of issues and also attempts to shame those who do not line up with her command? Is that internalized misogyny or? 

[Goldcrest]

14 hours ago, Corraleno said:

That Rolling Stone article is so ridiculously biased. So they found a few DV survivors who sided with AH, and ignored all the ones who felt totally triggered by watching her lying and gaslighting and actually feel vindicated that JD was believed? Another author could easily write the complete reverse, with legitimate quotes from people who feel the opposite way.

If ONE court case in which a female accuser was exposed as a liar means "the end of the MeToo movement," then I guess the end was inevitable sooner rather than later, because some women do lie, and some men are abused, and men who are abused deserve to tell their stories too.

Rolling Stone lecturing about anything surrounding defamation and credibility is also quite ironic. As is someone using their publication as a citation. 

[heartlikealion]

14 minutes ago, Minerva said:

I think it's pretty obvious that AH is a liar, and perhaps the verdict was correct.  However,  I cannot get past the disgusting texts that JD sent his friend regarding AH. He didn't just say, "I wish that effing bitch was dead." He said he wanted to F#*k her corpse after he drowned and burned her to make sure she was dead. This goes beyond blowing off steam.

I know that JD can be both the victim of domestic violence and an asshole at the same time, but I hope the asshole part doesn't get swept under the rug. The man needs help. 

I never heard that particular text. Is that one he said he sent? Or the one that he said was not written by him? 

Edited June 2, 2022 by heartlikealion

[madteaparty]

2 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

I never heard that particular text. Is that one he said he sent? Or the one that he said was not written by him? 

That you have not heard about this text but there are multiple posts, right here, about the braids on Amber Head’s hair should tell you much about whose story is being told, over and over, by an algorithmic mob. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

5 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

I never heard that particular text. Is that one he said he sent? Or the one that he said was not written by him? 

That text was discussed and denounced on this very thread by everyone- including those of us who felt like the outcome of the trial was correct.   

[heartlikealion]

4 minutes ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

There are thousands of Youtube videos and Tiktoks about this case. I'm sure many of you have watched them. You watched the trial and then watched the videos. 

Most of those videos were from one side because that was the side people wanted to hear. If you watched one video, the Youtube algorithm showed you another video with the same POV. Jurors would not have been allowed to watch those videos. 

This was a ridiculous circus that was used to make money by many people. It was also used as an opportunity for people to engage in misogyny and abuse. 

You guys fed right into it. 

As for predicting how this will affect victims in the future - listen to them. There are several on this thread who have written about how the response has affected them. There are plenty on social media right now talking about this. 

 

Why must you continue to preach to the choir? Several women here relate as survivors and have talked to other survivors or read their comments online and the overwhelming response is AH’s verdict didn’t affect honest victims. Perhaps something she said was true but she cried wolf so many times no one will know. 

Please stop saying we all fell for something as if evidence wasn’t considered in our POV. 

[Goldcrest]

6 minutes ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

Ah, it's the "agist" poster. That's still cracking me, BTW. 

I'm an agist bigot. LOL. 

 

I am more than happy to bring some levity to your online life as it seems tremendously serious otherwise. 

[LaughingCat]

3 minutes ago, Abortion Rights Shoes said:

Ah, it's the "agist" poster. That's still cracking me, BTW. 

I'm an agist bigot. LOL. 

 

You hurt your case with this kind of response rather than convincing anyone that might be on the fence, 

( I'm personally back to neutral on AH/JD after fast skimming UK case -- although I think my primary reason is more that it appears JD's lawyers 'learned' from that case and changed their tactics)

[Minerva]

6 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

I never heard that particular text. Is that one he said he never sent? Or the one that he said was not written by him? 

No, he sent them and admitted to it. These were not the texts he denied were his. https://news.yahoo.com/johnny-depp-asked-texts-saying-195033485.html

Quote

Mr Rottenborn then moved on to reading text messages between Mr Depp and Mr Bettany.

According to court documents, Mr Depp texted Mr Bettany “Let’s burn Amber!!!” on 11 June 2013.

“Having thought it through, I don’t think we should burn Amber – she’s delightful company and easy on the eye, plus I’m not sure she’s a witch,” Mr Bettany responded. “We could of course try the English course of action in these predicaments – we do a drowning test. Thoughts? N.B I have a pool.”

“Let’s drown her before we burn her!!! I will f*** her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she is dead...” Mr Depp responded.

“My thoughts entirely!” Mr Bettany wrote. “Let’s be CERTAIN before we pronounce her a witch.”

 

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

That text was discussed and denounced on this very thread by everyone- including those of us who felt like the outcome of the trial was correct.   

Yes.  I was the one who posted the link to the full disgusting text.  And we discussed it at length.  So I am not sure why some are convinced we are not discussing all of the evidence or that we used evidence to come to our conclusions.  

[heartlikealion]

11 minutes ago, madteaparty said:

That you have not heard about this text but there are multiple posts, right here, about the braids on Amber Head’s hair should tell you much about whose story is being told, over and over, by an algorithmic mob. 

I honestly came to the discussion late and didn’t read every post. I see his response to the texts was it was a Monty Python reference. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61221859.amp

[TravelingChris]

7 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I told you when I'd reconsider my pov, and it's when the UK case is overturned. 

I just found out the jury in this case was not sequestered. Unbelievable. 

There is no epidemic of men being seriously and dangerously abused by women, despite many people seeming to wish for a  #mentoo  movement. 

 

But  the judge in the UK case wouldn't have been able to a judge on the case in the USA.  Clear conflict of interest-- his son worked (maybe still does) for the Sun newspaper that was being sued. 

[Vintage81]

24 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

I never heard that particular text. Is that one he said he sent? Or the one that he said was not written by him? 

I think this article is about the text he said was not written by him (fyi…lots of bad language)…

https://www.newsweek.com/johnny-depp-suggests-amber-heard-lawyer-typed-lewd-text-messages-heated-exchange-defamation-trial-1710350

If you watch the video where they post the printed out version of the text, it says…”direction: incoming” 

I don’t think anybody caught that during the questioning, but if it was an incoming text on JD’s phone, then I don’t think he could be the author of the text. Of course, that could’ve been an error on the paperwork, but it was strange. 

[TravelingChris]

57 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I don’t mind people having different opinions about who was guilty or innocent in this case. I came to my conclusions for certain reasons that have nothing to do with hating women or hating survivors or elevating one actor over another. And obviously people can come to a different conclusion. 
 

What I mind deeply is people (whether they are writers of op-ed pieces or individuals ) telling me that I don’t know what I think. That I hate women but am too dumb to know it.  That I want abusers to “get away with it”.   No I don’t. And putting that sort of narrative out there with no regard for people’s actual thought processes is reductionistic and demeaning.
 

I
 

 

This is what has bothered me about it too. 

[heartlikealion]

2 minutes ago, Vintage81 said:

I think this article is about the text he said was not written by him (fyi…lots of bad language)…

https://www.newsweek.com/johnny-depp-suggests-amber-heard-lawyer-typed-lewd-text-messages-heated-exchange-defamation-trial-1710350

If you watch the video where they post the printed out version of the text, it says…”direction: incoming” 

I don’t think anybody caught that during the questioning, but if it was an incoming text on JD’s phone, then I don’t think he could be the author of the text. Of course, that could’ve been an error on the paperwork, but it was strange. 

Ok I did see stuff online with people debating incoming/outgoing on a text. This must have been it. 

[Chelli]

The important thing to keep in mind is that the trial was not about if JD was a good person, a good husband, an alcoholic, a drug user, or had issues with anger management. The case was if AH's allegations that JD physically and sexually assaulted her were true since that is what she claimed in the article. The jury found that indeed there was not enough evidence to prove AH's claim due to JD's lawyers providing evidence and witnesses that directly contradicted her testimony and evidence. 

I consider this a win for DV survivors. An abuser was proven to have been untruthful and tried to turn the tables on their victim. How many times has that scenario gone the other way in the court of public opinion and in court? Too many to count.