Interesting new info. about Depp re: Heard-Depp trial

[Wishes]

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/10/new-documents-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-unsealed-things-have-got-uglier
 

It’s interesting how information is parsed in a trial; Frustrating too, in many cases.

[Katy]

Wow.

[bolt.]

There didn't seem to be much info in that article that pertained to the trial, so I can see why it wasn't included. In spite of what the media made it into, the trial was only about one question: Did that one article by Heard contain defamation, or was her allegation (domestic violence by Depp) provable?"

I think Depp came out of the media circus smelling like kind of a good guy -- which he clearly is not -- so if anybody was under that impression, I suppose this article sheds light of those assumptions.

[Jean in Newcastle]

That opinion piece (I wouldn’t call it an article) was a yawn. There was no smoking gun there. We already knew that it was a dysfunctional relationship and marriage. It didn’t contradict any of the actual testimony though it gave vague accusations of fraud with no proof. And accusations that lawyers in a contentious trial did what BOTH sides tried to do. 
 

Again - I am not team anyone. I am actually glad that it had faded out of the news. 

[Farrar]

Even if one takes the position that he deserved to win the suit because she was also abusive or because they think her statements in the op-ed were untrue, I don't know how anyone could follow that and think he was a good guy. Like, that's the part that was most disgusting about the whole affair to me. If you actually think they're both horrible, then you should not support this guy's massive media and career rehabilitation. And yet that's exactly what happened.

There's no way this will make any difference. I'm sure there's at least one weird or horrible seeming she did in those documents as well. His overenthusiastic fans will seize on that and not be bothered by what was likely some sort of attempt at revenge porn. They probably think she deserved it for some reason. And I can't take seriously people who think anyone deserves that. So.

[Jean in Newcastle]

As has been said ad nauseum, the trial wasn’t about their general moral character (which is equally gross in my opinion). It was about whether she lied or not about very specific things. This opinion piece has no new “evidence “ that she didn’t in fact lie. 
 

I have zero interest in either of their careers or media representation. 

[Wishes]

E

11 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

As has been said ad nauseum, the trial wasn’t about their general moral character (which is equally gross in my opinion). It was about whether she lied or not about very specific things. This opinion piece has no new “evidence “ that she didn’t in fact lie. 
 

I have zero interest in either of their careers or media representation. 

Except that a nurse did admit that Heard was physically assaulted and that Depp said he wasn’t. A psychiatrist stated that Heard was a victim of domestic abuse. I didn’t follow the case closely so I’m not sure what was covered. However, the fact that the documents are making a few people cease their victory laps was interesting.

Personally, I think by saying that they are both awful people diminishes the dangers of males, especially white males who physically assault their partners. The misogynistic Incels love to point out cases like these and talk about women being the problem. Tucker Carlson basically said that women were to blame for some of the men attacking the capitol.  
White men are full of excuses why they can and have the right to be violent.

Anyway, going to bow out. I’m more interested in what is happening politically right now although I do think this case mirrors some larger problems. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Wishes
Personal info deleted

[Jean in Newcastle]

Heard had an opportunity to give supporting medical records.  She had none to show.  A nurse would not see her officially without a medical record to go along with it.  That's real evidence.  Not something alleged in an opinion piece that has as it's main point how many likes someone got on their social media.

Psychiatrists did testify in the trial.  Both for and against Heard. 

I don't follow conspiracy theorists so I have no idea what one said about the capitol riot.

Men do not have the right to be violent.  Neither do women.  But both do need to prove their cases in a court of law. 

Signed - a DV survivor who is giving no one a "pass". 

[lulubelle]

I watched a bit of the trial on YouTube, where a bunch of lawyers watched and analyzed the testimonies and evidence. They began watching it very willing to give Amber the benefit of any doubt. In the end, all those lawyers were all absolutely convinced Depp told the most truth. The media is trying to re-sway the general public opinion that tended to side with Depp. Maybe siding with women gets more views. The same lawyers have been going through every inch of the unsealed documents and continue not to find strong evidence that changes their minds. A few of those lawyers have been reviewing those articles, similar to the guardian, and pointing out the extreme bias and lack of knowledge from the trial itself or the full breath of the unsealed documents. Much of what we are given as news is not real reporting. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, lulubelle said:

 Much of what we are given as news is not real reporting. 

Yes, I am really disappointed with the low quality of what was put out here by The Guardian.