Like Watson, I’ve been doing my best to not pay attention to this particular bit of ugliness. I feel a bit callous saying this, but it’s none of my business, and there’s not a damned thing I can do about it. My instinct has been to believe Heard, and it was surprising to see an increasing number of people saying that actually she is the abuser. It never seemed compelling to me, but I’ve had my doubts, and when something is making this much news, it is going to affect a lot of people’s lives, and while this one relationship is far outside of my sphere of influence, I think that addressing the issue is important, because there are a lot of abuse victims who I believe could be hurt by the coverage and rhetoric around this case. That’s why I’m grateful to Rebecca Watson for digging into the issue. EDIT: Here’s the transcript for those who’re interested.
Teh video does not show up for me, is that a problem on my end? The link s in the code when I view it, but not on the page.
I have done my best to avoid this issue too, although not very deliberately. It is just because I am completely indifferent to both of these actors. I have not watched many movies where they play and I enjoyed none of those that I did. So I have no stake in the outcome of the trial except the very genric issue of day-to-day sexism.
Rebecca’s video is very good at explaining that.
Uh, so the issue was on my end, the video is showing now.
I should have added a link to Watson’s transcript, which would have provided an alternative way to see the content – my bad!
I’ll get on that now, but I’m glad the video loaded for you.
Can’t weigh in on this particular case because I don’t have the facts, but I agree 100% in cases where there is abuse of women, it’s quickly spun into “she’s a liar, she’s crazy, she’s making stuff up for attention.” I’ve seen it in the everyday work world. A good friend of mine was sexually assaulted at work when she stayed late to meet a deadline and was held down and assaulted by a male coworker that the whisper network had warned was skeevy. The company tried to keep her from filing charges; when she did, her she was let go by the company for “incompetence” and the assaulter was moved to another division for 6 months but came back to our division suddenly after rumors of another assault came out.
Despite this guy having a known history, the word from the company leaders was that the woman they fired was a liar and hysterical and a fantasist.
From what I’ve seen of this (and the Youtube algorithm has been assiduous in trying to get me to watch it, despite repeatedly clicking “Don’t recommend this channel” when things pop up on the feed), two things strike me:
1. Leaving aside questions of “authenticity” or the merits of the case as a whole: as a survivor of IPV the recording of Heard telling Depp to try telling a judge or jury that she’d abused him, and see if they’d believe him, was severely triggering. As someone who was subject to pretty much the same conversation, in almost exactly the same words, minutes after having been knocked to the ground without warning with a wine bottle to the back of the head, that recording was absolutely chilling. I didn’t tell anyone about the incident at the time, or for years afterwards, because when female abusers do what they do, they know that what Heard said is absolutely true – nobody will believe you and nobody will do a fucking thing to help you.
2. Whatever anyone thinks of Heard, and for whatever reason, I don’t think it’s controversial to say her lawyers, her expensive, Hollywood lawyers, have been absolutely woeful. Disorganised, inarticulate, practically incompetent. Whatever she’s paying them, she’s been badly ripped off EVEN IF SHE WINS. Just one example: Heard, on the stand, mentioned Kate Moss. Heard’s team did not want any mention of ex’s in the case, because they knew that (a) Heard has ex’s who’ll testify she was violent towards them and (b) Depp has ex’s who’ll testify that he was never violent towards them, even despite rumours of such incidents. Depp’s team never mentioned ex’s… but crikey Charlie were they visibly elated when Heard brought up the Kate Moss rumour UNASKED. This allowed them to call Moss to testify, which she did, that the rumour Heard had mentioned was bullshit and never happened. The fact that Heard’s team hadn’t adequately prepared her to NEVER MENTION that shit proves they’re really bad at their job. Note I’m not blaming Heard for that.
The best lawyers won.
Or, to put it a little more accurately, the worst lawyers lost. I hope Heard’s legal “team” end up slinking out of the legal profession in utter disgrace.
Your hope is not to be, I’m afraid. Despite their absolutely dreadful performance, they’re already coming out swinging.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/02/depp-heard-trial-verdict-me-too-sexual-violence-women
Look at that URL. Not “depp-heard-trial-verdict-domestic-violence-men” – not “depp-heard-trial-verdict-proven-farrago-of-lies”. “sexual-violence-women”. DESPITE the verdict. That’s what male IPV victims are up against.
And Heard’s lawyer? She’s already blaming social media, the jury, the cameras, basically everything except her inability to, for instance, switch on a microphone before speaking. Repeatedly. She has flat out said that the jury were unduly influenced by outside information, something she offers zero evidence to support (but then that’s her established MO). And of course, despite their appalling performance, they plan to appeal. Of course they do. Heard still has some money they haven’t been pledged, I mean, paid.
I actually agree with Tarana Burke, founder of #MeToo, quoted as saying the result is a “toxic catastrophe and one of the biggest defamations of the movement we have ever seen”. Indeed. The exposure of Heard’s repeated lies about abuse has indeed made it more difficult for the women whose stories are true. I don’t think that’s what she meant though.
Heard’s lawyer said that Heard had said to her “This is a setback for all women in and outside the courtroom.’ She feels the burden of that.” She feels the burden, but not enough to stop, it seems.
I’m fascinated by the words of the “former sex crimes prosecutor” the Guardian dug up for a comment. After describing the jury as “irrational” and the verdict as “absurd”, she goes on to say: ““Why were they unable to see what was right in front of them and instead be subjected to the distortion tactics of Depp’s defense that allowed the evidence to whoosh past them?”, without stopping to consider that perhaps they did see what was right in front of them rather better than she could, given that it was right in front of them and she was watching a limited bit of the proceedings on a screen.
Heard’s lawyers have already done very well out of this case, and it seems that, shamelessly, they plan on continuing to make hay from it.
And Heard’s lawyer? She’s already blaming social media, the jury, the cameras, basically everything except her inability to, for instance, switch on a microphone before speaking.
Well, they’re certainly right about blaming social media (and the fact that the jury weren’t sequestered) — which was absolutely inundated with MRAs and Depp fans saying far worse shit about Heard than she’d ever said about Depp. The jury can’t possibly have been unaffected by that.
She has flat out said that the jury were unduly influenced by outside information, something she offers zero evidence to support (but then that’s her established MO). And of course, despite their appalling performance, they plan to appeal.
Well, yeah, sometimes the incompetence of one’s own lawyers is valid grounds for an appeal — that’s how lots of death-penalty cases got overturned.
The exposure of Heard’s repeated lies about abuse has indeed made it more difficult for the women whose stories are true.
First, what lies are you referring to? Depp lost a similar suit he’d filed in the UK, because it was established, at least to that court’s satisfaction, that Depp had indeed physically abused Heard on twelve specific occasions. So the claims that Depp had sued her over in Virginia (the infamous-but-vague op-ed piece) were, in fact, not false, and not made with reckless disregard for the truth, and were therefore not defamatory. This is something Heard’s lawyers should have kept at the center of the court’s attention — why the AF couldn’t they have cited the information from the UK libel case? And why couldn’t they keep attention focused on Depp’s own behavior, which is the most likely cause of Depp’s recent career failures? I suspect that countersuing was a really bad idea here, as it meant taking on more burdens than they could handle, at the expense of making a simple clear argument.
And second, I hear that sort of thing a lot — from people who don’t want to believe certain allegations of rape or abuse: they call one particular victim a liar, then blame her when other victims aren’t believed.
I want accusations of domestic, sexual and emotional abuse to be taken seriously and propperly investigated, rather than being dissmissed out of hand.
On that front, I consider this case a positive development.
She made a claim, and it was considered, the accused was put on the spot and removed from polite company while things cleared out.
Then, he made a claim. And it also wasn’t instantly dissmissed either, despite social prejudice and him not being a perfect victim.
I’ve seen people act as though this is some kind of refutation of #MeToo or that it contradicts the general idea of taking allegations seriously.
I’ve seen both people who believe this refutation and applaud it, as well as people who fear it. Both are fundamentally wrong.
What’s bothering me most is the people fearmongering about this being proof that women won’t be believed because of this case.
For a variety of reasons, this case is NOT representative of all DV cases. Amber Heard is NOT representative of ANY other woman accuser I ever heard of. Even if any part of this had any commonality with normal cases of domestic violence, it would still be irrelevant for all other cases. Just because some guy three towns over was found innocent of murder doesn’t mean the guy on the stand here is innocent too. Each case stands and falls on it’s own merits. I can’t believe anyone actually needed to hear that but oh well.
One thing the “this is terrible cuz women will be afraid to come forward” crowd need to get a little more self aware about is the fact that right now the loudest voices discouraging women from coming forward are theirs.
@Raging Bee
Were you opposed to the social media involvement back when she made the accusation and he was made a pariah?
Personally I agree that this webspaces are absolute shit at gathering the truth and mostly to bring about hordes of reactionaries harassing people and arguing passionately without knowing shit, pretending to be internet batman bringing vigilante justice, the bunch of clowns.
However, I also see that the fine people at both Skepchick and FreeThoughtBlogs saw fit to comment on this case long before all the evidence had been presented. I saw an article on Skepchick where they place Johnny Depp alongside the likes of Jeffrey Epstein. Do we have a problem with that? Where do we draw the line between commentary and reactionary vigilantism?
As far as I know, every bit of evidence that was presented on that trial was presented on this one. What was not allowed in the UK (for reasons I truly don’t understand) are several witness and expert testimonies, the notes from a nurse that checked on Amber Heard the day after one of the alleged assaults and didn’t see any of the injuries Amber describes, and the recordings of her admitting to hitting him, throwing pots and pans when she’s angry, chasing him to the bathroom when he tries to run away from her and taunting him about how no one will believe him if he claims to be the victim.
I don’t know if it’s inappropriate to you if I call her contradictory statements “lies”, or even “potential lies”, but I’ll give a couple examples:
On one of the recordings she says to Johnny Depp, quite clearly “I didn’t punch you, I hit you, I’m sorry I didn’t smack you across the face with a proper slap”.
Later on, during her testimony, she claimed that she punched him in the face because she thought he’d throw her sister down the stairs like he did Kate Moss. Kate Moss later had to testify that Johnny Depp hadn’t ever actually thrown her down the stairs, the reversal that came from there was actually kind of hilariously ironic. I’m gonna be charitable and consider this a case of Amber Heard being “misinformed” rather than lying. Unless, of course you want to argue that Kate Moss is a filthy liar, which would be… interesting for you to do.
At the end of her cross examination she said, in plain terms, under oath, that she had never hit any person before, let alone Johnny Depp.
Now, some people may consider that for this contradiction to happen she had to have lied either during the cross examination, when she said she had never hit anyone ever, or in the recording and during her testimony, when she said she did. I don’t know that there is a characterization for this other than “she lied” but if you have one I’m all ears.
There’s also the situation about her confusing “pledging” 7 million dollars and “donating” 7 million dollars. She insisted on this point for a while. Let’s call it “unorthodox definitions”. Most people think that there is a considerable difference between promising money to someone and actually giving it. A lot of people believe that her insisting on using both terms interchangeably was dishonest. Perhaps you are privy to an alternative theory where someone can claim they donated 7 million dollars to charity, without having done it, and not be a liar. If you are, again, I’m all ears.
She also claimed that she didn’t expect to be spotted by the press when she filed for a restriction order against him, while on her initial deposition she let it slip that TMZ “had been alerted”. I’m gonna leave aside the fact that their photographers were even instructed as to what angle to shoot from to get a clear picture of her bruise and that TMZ is somehow the copyright holder of a video that was filmed on her phone and just note the contradiction of both statements.
Now. This is just a handful of situations were I saw her contradicting herself. Something that I consider evidence of lying, as a personal standard that you may or may not share.
I’m not noting anything about Johnny Depp contradicting her, because I have a feeling that that’s just a non-starter with you.
I’m also not pointing out the details where I considered that her story simply didn’t check out, since I’m pretty sure the very concept of it is problematic to you.
I also got a feeling that any mention of witnesses and experts contradicting her version of events will be met with a “powerful man and his yes-men” response or whatever, so I avoided those as well.
This is just 3 examples of Amber calling Amber a liar. I saw more. And truly, in my case, what got me to sit solidly on the “she’s an abuser” camp was listening to her more than anything else. Mainly the recordings, Jesus Christ, to hear her gaslight him in real time was a snippet of a nightmare.
@Raging Bee, 9:
It wasn’t “that court”, it was more “that guy” – Depp didn’t get a jury in the UK, he got one (count ’em) judge. A single opinion, compared to the unanimous opposite opinion from a panel.
You are admitting ignorance of proceedings, in asking why they were not conducted in the manner you approve of, but are questioning the outcome. One example: you might reasonably ask why Depp’s team didn’t call any of the ex’s of Heard’s who would testify she’d hit them. The answer is BOTH sides agreed in advance not to call ex’s to the stand, something that favoured Heard because Depp’s ex’s would testify he NEVER hit them, which would look bad for Heard – no pattern of behaviour here, not history of abusing women. So Heard team insisted on the “no ex’s” rule… then shit the bed when SHE brought up Kate Moss on the stand which allowed Depp’s team to call Moss to contradict Heard’s bullshit.
I don’t know. Why couldn’t the lead attorney for Depp remember to switch on her microphone before speaking? Why didn’t they brief and prepare Heard never to mention Moss? Why did one of Heard’s team object to HIS OWN QUESTION? Incompetence, I suggest.
One thing the “this is terrible cuz women will be afraid to come forward” crowd need to get a little more self aware about is the fact that right now the loudest voices discouraging women from coming forward are theirs.
Yeah, right, women aren’t “self-aware” and therefore need a man to tell them how to react.
Why couldn’t the lead attorney for Depp remember to switch on her microphone before speaking?
I thought you said it was Heard’s attorney who did that.
It wasn’t “that court”, it was more “that guy”…
Yeah, “that guy” being the presiding judge in the case.
However, I also see that the fine people at both Skepchick and FreeThoughtBlogs saw fit to comment on this case long before all the evidence had been presented.
Do you really think that’s in any way comparable to the online abuse Heard has been getting the whole time? Both-sides-ism FAIL. Also, the jury weren’t sequestered, which means it’s highly probable — in fact, almost certain — that they were influenced by exposure to all that rubbish.
@Raging Bee
A person claimed abuse, their accusation was not dismissed and was ultimately proven to be true. I’m very curious as to what insane pretzel logic you are using to infer that that somehow affects, let alone diminishes, the credibility of other people making similar claims to the one that was just made (and proven to be true).
I know that incels and misogynists think that this is somehow the end of MeToo or whatever bullshit, you may claim a double standard but at his point I expect them to be stupid fucks with garbage takes. If you want me to place you in the same category I’m happy to comply.
Johnny Depp is not a refutation of MeToo, he’s literally an example of it. A shit example, sure, since there’s people who suffered worse, who didn’t have the same means to get their justice, who won’t have the comforts he’ll have while healing from the experience, but we don’t demand that victims be perfect. We don’t expect every case to be representative cause that’s an insane standard to hold.
Amber Heard being found to be lying won’t stop MeToo any more than Jussie Smollet stopped BLM. Trying to place Heard as some kind of representative for all abuse victims is an excercise in insanity. Just from the get go: How many domestic violence victims have a prior arrest as the abuser? How many were recorded admiting to being the abuser? How many were recording taunting their abuser with a weird villain monologue? There are significant ways in that she as an accuser is unlike any other (at least that I’ve heard of). And even if a domestic abuse survivor found him or herself on a position which parallels any or all of the traits that set Amber apart, cases stand or fall on their own evidence. Just because the guy three towns over was found guilty of murder doesn’t mean the guy on the stand here commited larceny, anyone with two braincells to rub together understands that.
Dipshits may think that this case is somehow proof that believing claims of abuse is wrong. This is, of course, objectively wrong, absolutely fucking stupid, and a show of how little attention they were actually paying.
By the time Amber Heard wrote her op-ed, she had already thoroughly abused Johnny Depp, mutilated his finger and taken off with 7 million dollars of his money. If the Washington Post had not taken her claims seriously and refused to publish them, she might have been bummed out for like a day, but ultimately she would have gotten away with it, free to abuse some other man (or woman).
Two claims of abuse were NOT dismissed out of hand and justice was ultimately served. And justice was only served because two claims of abuse were taken seriously.
Leaving aside the fact that easily half of the idiots I see parroting the “chilling effect” bullshit mantra are men, and the fact that I didn’t know or, sincerely, give a fracion of a shit about your gender…
Tell me that having a thousand think pieces and blog posts and comments, all repeating the message “NO ONE WILL BELIEVE YOU”, “THE WORLD HATES VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE”, “YOU WON’T WIN” is NOT discouraging.
Anti-feminist mouthbreathers claim that this outcome is a cue for victims to shush. Explain to me why, of all fucking people, you’d choose to agree with THEM.
I see that you think I’m mansplaining or whatever, I don’t own you, I have no power over you, I don’t even know you, dude. Ultimately, if you want to express your frustration about the way things developed by advancing right wing narratives and discouraging victims from coming forward, there’s not a damn thing I can do to stop you. Off you go.
It was. Obvious typo is obvious.
Yeah, “that guy” being the presiding judge in the case.
Were you so desperate to “correct” me that you started typing before reading to the end of the sentence where I said exactly that? Because it just makes you look silly.
Impugning the jury’s judgement is the desperate flailing tactic Heard’s lawyers went for. If I were you, I’d consider copying anything those incompetents do as probably a bad thing. Then again, hopeless and bad at their jobs as they demonstrably are, they at least have the advantage over you that unlike you, they (and the jury) saw all the evidence. Your evidence that the jury were influenced amounts to the fact they didn’t come to a decision you agree with.
That said: my “social media” exposure is limited to Facebook and Youtube. On Facebook, I saw precisely nothing at all related to the case. Seriously: not a damn thing. Adverts for belts, a book about rebuilding civilisation, a lightweight tent and some kind of multitool were the only things that appeared in my feed the whole time.
Youtube, on the other hand, apropos of nothing at all, decided to start peppering my usual list of Marvel/Star Wars/Babylon 5 review videos, base jumping edits, paragliding tips, nursery rhyme compilations and lock picking lawyer videos with snippets of the case. I watched a couple out of curiosity, then rapidly started clicking “Do Not Recommend Channel” on every single one that came up. What was interesting was that the algorithm took absolutely fuck all notice of this, and persisted in recommending Depp/Heard case videos.
What was even more interesting was that not a single one of these videos – not even one – was siding with Heard. I have to assume that there was plenty of material there to make Depp look bad. Yet in all the world, there was not a single feminist motivated or talented enough to put together an edit of pro-Heard material and get it onto my feed. Not a single feminist wanting to get the “real” story out there, in a form matching the fucking tsunami of pro-Depp clips polluting my recommendations.
At this point, I’d be honestly interested to see one, to the point I’d actually watch it and amplify it, such as I can (i.e. put it on my Facebook feed – I’m no “influencer”). Does such a thing even exist?
And if it doesn’t – and I think it doesn’t – I wonder why?
(Side note: pro-Depp videos broke down into three types:
1. pure edits of courtroom action, with no comment beyond the occasional text onto the screen of words like “whut?”, purporting to be the thoughts of those on screen.
2. “reaction” videos featuring men commenting, purportedly live, on the coverage.
3. “reaction” videos featuring women commenting in exactly the same way.
What I was fed was 90% (1), about 6% (2), and about 4% (3). It was the (2)s that initially caused me to start clicking “do not recommend channel”. The points being
(a) almost as many women as men were putting out reaction videos, but ALL the ones I saw were pro-Depp
(b) the vast, overwhelming majority of videos were just clips of stuff that actually happened. They could only be said to be “pro-Depp” in the sense that they showed Heard’s lawyers failing.
One example, please, sincerely, of a pro-Heard video. I don’t understand why I never saw even one.
sonofrojblake,
Quite awesome, that dude. I’m thoroughly impressed by his expertise.
Um, “I watched a couple out of curiosity, then rapidly started clicking “Do Not Recommend Channel” on every single one that came up.”
(Rather small sample size, no?)
Could it be because you only watched a couple of them?
—
Anyway, a couple of rich and famous people suing each other is hardly a true window into ordinary people’s experience.
You mean other than the one you’re literally commenting under? Did you watch Watson’s video? Are you deliberately excluding what she said?
A person claimed abuse, their accusation was not dismissed and was ultimately proven to be true.
Yes, that person was Amber Heard. Which means her op-ed was NOT FALSE, therefore NOT DEFAMATORY; therefore Depp’s legal victory is a gross miscarriage of justice, whether or not Heard also engaged in abusive behaviors.
That said: my “social media” exposure is limited to Facebook and Youtube…
My social-media exposure is even more limited than that. And yet — despite never hinting that I gave a crap about either Depp or Heard — I’ve been unable to ignore or avoid hearing the stupid childish Twitter-mob of Depp’s mindless adoring fans. This is why we have policies in place to sequester jurors in high-profile court cases.
And now the Republican Party are jumping on Depp’s bandwagon, and riding a new wave of pure balls-out misogyny, in addition to the current wave of pure balls-out racism. Is that a bandwagon you want to be on?
BTW, here’s a thread that one might want to have a look at:
https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/1528020677651009536
This was cited by Amanda Marcotte here:
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/02/the-johnny-depp-and-amber-heard-verdict-a-victory-for-the-on-free-speech/
@sonofrojblake
Stop being stupid. Polling YouTube videos does fuck all other than represent your own viewing habits.
When I had my wisdom teeth removed I saw two videos about the procedure and my front page was inundated with dentristy videos for like two months.
To look at that and assume that there’s either a Sinister pipeline towards dental care or that everyone was getting their wisdom teeth removed at the time would only be a reflection of not knowing anything about how YouTube works.
@Raging Bee
For the life of me, I can’t understand what’s making you so absolutely determined to be a loser when you’re not.
Right now, all sorts of publications are screaming off the rooftops that no one will believe victims now, while concern-trolling about the “chilling effect” that they themselves are creating.
I find it quite telling that most of the “chilling effect” crowd are saying “I didn’t follow the case but I KNOW that this was a gross miscarriage of justice that hurts the credibility of women”. It’s not, on both accounts. If you are going to throw around warnings of the upcoming Apocalypse on the basis of this case, the least you could do is actually know what you’re talking about.
Especially if you are going to go around explicitly discouraging women from coming forward.
I find it quite telling that most of the “chilling effect” crowd are saying “I didn’t follow the case but I KNOW that this was a gross miscarriage of justice that hurts the credibility of women”.
Who are you talking about? The people I’ve heard from DID follow the case more closely than you seem to think they did, and they haven’t said it “hurts the credibility of women;” they’ve said it represents a backlash against women, which isn’t really the same thing.
Also, blaming people who allege a certain effect for themselves causing that effect, is an old anti-feminist blither-point, often in the form of “feminists are telling women they’re victims, which makes them victims!” It was bullshit then, and your recent variant is bullshit now.
And finally, calling me a “loser” doesn’t really mean much when you fail to specify where I’m actually wrong. It just makes you sound like you’re still in high-school.
@Raging Bee
Where have you been? The dipshits have been in backlash mode for decades now. They threw this exact level of energy over Doctor Who being a woman. This didn’t move the needle, the needle is stuck in 100.
I also blame incels for making themselves unfuckable, what of it?
Literally said the opposite.
I’m not really trying to “prove you wrong”. My point is that having a million op-eds, blogs and coments using this high profile case as proof that victims won’t be believed has a chilling effect on people coming forward.
Are you saying that it doesn’t? And if so, why?
@Raging Bee
Also, the reason I’m also not worried about this setting some kind of precedent on the believability of presente or future accusers.
One of the pieces of evidence that was presented (also the thing that convinced me that she was not the victim, but the abuser) was the recording of her calling Johnny Depp a baby for hiding in the bathroom every time she started a physical confrontation.
There is not a single other accuser (male or female) that:
Instigates physical fights AND whose abuser hides from them to avoid confrontation AND have a recording of themselves admitting to all of this hanging over their head.
Not a single one but Amber Heard. Tell you what, you find me 3 other cases that match that insane standard and I’ll eat my shoe.
There is not a single other accuser (male or female) that:
Instigates physical fights AND whose abuser hides from them to avoid confrontation AND have a recording of themselves admitting to all of this hanging over their head.
Actually, yes, other victims of domestic abuse have also behaved less-than-honorably themselves, without necessarily having any recordings of themselves admitting to same. Domestic violence and abusive relationships are complicated.
https://newsthump.com/2022/06/02/observers-of-johnny-depp-trial-only-willing-to-trust-result-of-us-or-uk-court-case-depending-on-what-they-already-believed/
That’s something I’m surprised hasn’t come up more often. Is it really that unreasonable for people who’ve suffered abuse to retaliate?
@25: Is that article even serious? A name like “News Thump” kinda implies it isn’t. The article cited two examples that reinforced its thesis. That’s not exactly a representative sample. And it totally ignored the documented facts that disprove Depp’s allegations of defamation.
@27: no. A brief read of even one other article on the site should make it obvious, if it wasn’t already, that it’s a comedy site, making fun in this case of comments like the ones here. Can you really not tell?
“it totally ignored the documented facts that disprove Depp’s allegations of defamation.”
LOL.
Just like the jury.
@Raging Bee
Yup, I put the ANDs in all caps for a reason. In the recordings, she’s not just saying she hits him (which is an admission of physical aggression), she also complains that he runs away and hides in the bathroom when she starts physical confrontations (which is an admission that he’s not the aggressor), and saying that he “always does this” (which is barely short of admitting that this is the main pattern of their relationship). There is “behaving less-than-honorably”and there is “abusing your girlfriend, getting arrested for it, getting a new relationship, abusing your spouse, throwing a years long campaign to present yourself as the victim and getting caught on tape admitting it”.
That’s not Johnny Depp, or his lawyers, or the witnesses, or the twitter mob saying Amber Heard abuses Johnny Depp and he hides from her. That’s Amber Heard saying that Amber Heard abuses Johnny Depp, and he hides from her. Why don’t you believe her? You think she’s a liar? In what universe do you see a situation of person A initiating physical aggression on person B, person B slinking off to hide away from person A and come out thinking that B is the abuser and A, the victim? To me that’s almost as logical as “I had to shoot the guy, he was running away from me in a threatening manner”.
The Chilling Effect bros keep clinging to her gender as if that’s the only thing that affected her credibility, as if there weren’t a million other major red flags with her. I’ve so far ONLY talked about her contradicting her own story, didn’t even touch the witnesses on both his and her side that contradicted her story, the many medical experts who contradicted her claims of injury. Just Amber Heard contradicting Amber Heard.
If you came forward about your partner abusing you, and he had a prior arrest for domestic abuse with a previous partner, and you also presented a taped confession of him admitting everything, and had witness corroboration of him being an aggressor, him being dishonest, and him using the situation to enrich himself. What kind of lunatic would a person have to be to side with him instead of you?
And, really, I wouldn’t mind all of you being a bit disingenuous in your arguments, as long as you were trying to achieve something good. But y’all are fighting for your right to discourage victims of violence from coming forward. You are determined to turn this into a win for the right, when the right was fucking useless, irrelevant, and, as I said before, she would’ve gotten away with it in the world the right wing wants to create. Also, cheering on a domestic abuser and con artist while shit-talking her victim is a bad look.
@Abe Drayton
Probably because the accusation is mutual. Either of them can claim that whatever injury the other got was caused as retaliation or self-defense. Since both are claiming the other is the abuser, the point is moot. It’s also the reason why her lawyers harping on Depp’s alcoholism and drug use was a massive waste of time and a dumb mistake, since she’s also an alcoholic and a drug user. Arguments of “Drug user=Abuser” get immediately flipped on her, and substance abuse being also common on victims doesn’t help clear anything either.
Which is the other, other, other reason why this case is absolutely not representative of the rest. A man accusing a woman of domestic abuse is uncommon, both partners accusing each other of abuse, even more so. I don’t think I’ve seen another high profile case like this, and I don’t think I will do again any time soon. It’s just so damn weird.
Just please tell me that y’all aren’t throwing this pity party just because she’s a woman and you took “Believe All Women” literally, the stupid-meter is already on red with sonofrojblake’s master class in presenting irrelevant shit to support a non-argument. I get that abuse victims can behave badly, they can be violent, they can be assholes, and still be victims, but there’s gotta be a line somewhere.
A line where you say “Ok, this got weird, I’m not so sure about this one, chief”.
If the line that you are using is “as long as it’s a woman accusing a man, I’m with her”, then yes, Believe All Women and MeToo will go down the shitter with the broader culture, and it won’t be because of Johnny Depp, or Twitter mobs, or the ACLU, or the Washington Post, or even Amber Heard, it will be because of people turning a social movement for accountability into literal insanity. I’m going to be charitable and assume that that’s not the line you are using.
But you tell me, Where is the line? How many lies does a person need to be caught in before they are deemed unreliable? What type of admission are you willing to accept? And how exactly is it that she didn’t cross the line it but he, apparently, did? Because so far every argument I’ve heard comes from the underlying assumption that her word is gospel and he’s a liar.
I’m not entirely sure about this one, but I’m also aware of the context in which this is happening. Depp has far, FAR more wealth and power than Heard, and there’s the UK verdict to consider. There’s also the fact that the Daily Wire apparently decided to invest 35k promoting stories about this for some reason.
And the fact that Depp has a documented history of violent behavior.
Heard doesn’t have to be 100% reliable for her to also be a victim of abuse. She also doesn’t have to be 100% innocent of abusive behavior to be a victim of abuse.
I’ve seen nobody saying her word is gospel. This feels like a strawman. You just seem to be using that to dismiss any points you don’t already agree with.
I haven’t followed the Depp vs Heard defamation trial much. I don’t really know but from what I have seen & heard both Depp & Heard have hurt each other, been toxic for each other & would have been wiser to split up amicably long ago. However, I don’t think Amber Heard would have gone through all this circus & faced all the hatred & mockery she’s copped without very good reason & will remind folks that she won in the UK with the trial there concluding her case was substantially true on 12 of 14 counts. I fear this new USA verdict will silence other victims, enable more abuse of partners, spouses & family members & empower rich, privileged, violent perpetrators to harm others at incalculable cost in pain & suffering, injuries & lives.
I think we must also note that whatever the specifics of this case the statistics are very clear that women are the most common victims of domestic violence & false claims are extremely rare whilst many more cases go unreported.
There’s a good article here :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/01/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-metoo-backlash
Plus another worrying one here :
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-29/johnny-depp-amber-heard-domestic-violence/101093294
As well as the recap of the previous case where Heard’s claims were found substantially true :
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/nov/02/johnny-depp-trial-how-the-judge-ruled-on-14-alleged-assaults
Apologies if these are repeats – & thought I’d already posted these here but clearly not,. sorry.
A victim of abuse getting recognized does not harm other victims ability to do the same.
A perpetrator of abuse getting tarred and feathered does not harm victims ability be heard.
Using a high profile case that does NOT impugn victims as proof that victims will not be heard may not on it’s own harm victims ability to come forward, but it damn well will deter them.
@Abe Drayton
The Daily Wire is a lot of right wing reactionaries. They will latch their ridiculous narrative on every single trending topic. This case happened to be the one for right now. How much money did they invest in Dr. Seuss nonsense back when that was a thing? How much did they spend on Star Wars articles, back when those where coming out? How is this indicative of anything other than the Daily Wire being a bunch of trend-chasing grifters?
@StevoR
I don’t think we can know for certain why anyone does anything, but to pretend that Amber Heard had no possible incentive in creating this circus would require ignoring 7 million dollars divorce settlement + payment by TMZ for the videos + payment from Washington Post for the articles+ an ambassadorship by the ACLU + the opportunity to keep harming her victim from outside the relationship.
Just a quick correction to StevoR. She didn’t win any case in the UK. She was called as a witness in a trial against The Sun. The Sun was found to not have defamed Johnny Depp. Since it is absolutely possible for newspaper The Sun to republish Amber Heard’s claims without intending to harm Johnny Depp, or knowing that the claims are false, I’m not sure what the UK trial proves here.
It was a bit strange, however, the fact that the recordings of Amber Heard’s admission and her villain monologue about how no one would believe Johnny Depp were not admitted as evidence in that trial. I consider those recordings the main two things that completely put me on his side, and can’t for the life of me, imagine why they wouldn’t be considered in the UK. Guess we’ll never know.
I’m also familiar with the little listicle of claims that the UK judge ruled TRUE. I noticed that one of them included the claim of Johnny Depp cutting the tip of his finger off as a way to intimidate her.
Now. Just on the face of it:
I consider the claim of Amber Heard throwing a bunch of stuff at Johnny and accidentally causing grievous injury to him more believable. Partially because she admits on the recordings that she throws shit at him when she’s angry, but since the judge didn’t admit said recording as evidence, perhaps he didn’t consider this little fact.
I consider the idea that a 50 year guitar player would randomly cut off his own finger to harm his wife a bit extraordinary, if he was that crazy, why not cut HER finger off instead? Doesn’t really make sense. But just like that, the UK judge said TRUE, NEXT. Would really like the reasoning behind that decision.
Now, Raging Bee said:
How misogynistic is it? To cut someone’s finger off and claim they did it to themselves?
I’ve seen claims that the judge’s family was personally acquainted with Amber Heard, and that he had a personal stock on The Sun’s parent company. I don’t know if this is true and, if it was, I don’t know if British law would consider either thing a conflict of interest. I just think details like him being blamed for mutilating his own finger, or the testimony of nurses and cops that were there for many of the claims being suppressed, and the recordings not being admitted as evidence make the UK trial seem a bit lopsided in comparison.
But the jury in the US trial wasn’t sequestered, so I guess we can call that even.
By the Way:
A rare occurrence happened. Acknowledging it doesn’t move the needle either way on any other case. Even if a million more cases like this came out of the woodwork and flipped the statistics around, we don’t do trials by statistics, each individual case needs to be investigated on its own merits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMeaBvJI5_w
A good summary of the verdict, with no apparent bias.
tldr;
1. Nobody is guilty – it’s a civil trial. Both were found liable for defamation.
2. There’s a higher standard for celebrities proving defamation than for you and me.
3. Depp met that standard on all his points, Heard on just one.
4. If Heard could prove Depp abused her EVEN ONCE, his case failed. His case did not fail.
5. It is not significant that the judge reduced the jury’s award to Depp of punitive damages from $2m down to just $350k. The jury didn’t know – and weren’t told and significantly didn’t find out despite not being sequestered – that the maximum PD they could award was $350k. They were kept in the dark specifically so they wouldn’t “top up” the compensatory damages instead. The judge awarded Depp the absolute maximum punitive damages legal in Virginia.
It’s a really good, evenhanded, factual video discussing the points of law involved. See if it affects how you think about the case at all.
A question, to those on the entirely pro-Heard side: is there any piece of information you could, in principle, be presented with which would change your mind? Any data point that would affect your conclusion?
Because I was pro-Heard. When Depp lost his case against the Sun, I figured “well, that’s that then, guess he IS a wife-beater”. It wasn’t much of a stretch to think it could be true, and who’s tired of seeing rich famous men get their comeuppance? Not me.
But then: then, more information came in. Lots more. And I changed my mind. If you’re still pro-Heard after that case, please describe what evidence – imaginary evidence that you’ve made up that was NOT presented at the trial – what could convince you to change your mind and believe that a man could be the victim in this case instead of the abuser?
Because I suspect the answer is “nothing”. Do prove me wrong.
————————
@SteveoR, 32:
LOL. You don’t know many drama magnets, do you? I have at least four people of my current acquaintance who will actively harm themselves and their loved ones if it makes them the centre of attention. To be honest, I’m surprised Heard hasn’t already “attempted suicide”, or given her apparent behaviour, said she was going to then welched on it like she did her commitments to charitably donate her divorce settlement.
Given that this thread is entirely about the specifics of this case, the statistics can go fuck themselves because they’re absolutely 100% irrelevant. The statistics are very clear that weirdos murder kids, but Stefan Kisko didn’t kill Lesley Moleseed despite spending 16 years in prison for it. You are clearly not fit to serve on a jury if you honestly think that statistics have ANY bearing on ANY court case. The entire point of the whole circus is to examine the EVIDENCE. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, the evidence here pointed the “wrong” way, and your flailing to try to make it not is depressing.
…I’m not sure what the UK trial proves here.
Rebecca Watson explained what it proves, in detail, in plain English, in the video cited in the OP to which we’re all responding. Did you listen to it at all?
…Depp met that standard on all his points…
Actually, no, he didn’t; he just got a sympathetic (non-sequestered and quite possibly biased) jury to find for him, even though Heard’s statements were clearly not false, and clearly not responsible for any decline in Depp’s career.
@Raging Bee
Yes I did, and I read the transcript, and I read the listicle of claims the UK judge found to be true. I also mentioned the reasons why I don’t find the UK trial compelling. It’s there, in detail, in plain english, right underneath the sentence fragment you’re responding to. I’m getting the nagging suspicion that you’re not really responding to my comments, but skimming through them until you find some sentence fragment that triggers you, thinking you’ll get some ridiculous Gotcha moment out of me, which is a rather easy way to make yourself look like a fool.
So, I’ll keep it short and sweet, just for you.
You argue that the UK trial proved the truth of the matter.
The UK trial found that Johnny Depp cut his own finger to get back at Amber Heard.
The US trial (which saw all the same evidence as the UK and some that wasn’t admitted) found that Amber Heard caused the injury during one of her violent outbursts.
If you think Johnny Depp cut his own finger off and that Amber Heard was the victim in that situation, you better give good reason because that story is fucking insane.
If you DON’T think Johnny Depp cut his own finger off to scare Amber Heard, then you don’t even know what the fuck the UK trial found, so why even bring it up?
Every goddamn mention of the UK trial includes that little snippet in passing or not at all and it’s disturbing how easily people fall for what may be one of the most over the top examples of victim blaming: Cutting off a guitar player’s finger and claim that he did it to himself. Is it that all of you are just skimming over the words like Raging Bee? Is the double standard so intense that you would buy the most twisted and unsupported lies from Amber Heard without an ounce of critical thinking? Are you just that goddamn robotic in your media consumption that you’d gloss over a major red flag just because the author glossed over it too? What the actual fuck?