Johnny Depp Vs Amber Heard verdict discussion

Post Reply New Topic

I know in relationships, it's been where both people abused each other. But it's harder to be taken seriously if you were also the aggressor.

If you are male, you will be shunned and cancelled if your ex says they were abused by you and her name would be fine when you say she abused you too. If you are rich and had fame, you can sue her to get your rep back and use all the proof you have.

But in this case, JD was never the aggressor and he had always been passive and he tossed things and cursed and slammed things without actually hitting her nor threatening her. This is why he won. Because she lied, people are going to wonder what else in her op-ed did she lie about. Was she a really a victim of abuse ever in her life time before Depp?

Ah gotcha, thanks for explaining.

Likely.
It's quite typical - continued abuse results in personality disorders that spawn more abuse.
Viscious cycle.

I know for a fact some abuse victims become abusers as well. It's a vicious cycle.

Firstly, there is no "the" abuser. However, it is a simple matter of fact that Depp was an abuser. Whether Depp was also a victim isn't relevant, and the US judge made a mistake in allowing evidence to that effect to be given to the jury (not the only mistake made by the judge, unfortunately). The question isn't where fault lies, the question is whether Heard was abused, and she clearly was. Depp's lawyers focused on making the trial about Heard, rather than about the facts, whereas the British trial was more concerned with the facts of the matter.

Evidence that Heard was being abused includes:

- the testimony of Heard's therapist
- the testimony of Heard and Depp's couples therapist
- the testimony of Heard herself, who relayed several occasions on which Depp abused her
- Depp admitting to having headbutted Heard
- the testimony of Depp's ex-girlfriend Ellen Barkin where she recounted that Depp had thrown wine bottles at her
- Depp's text messages talking extremely graphically about the things he was going to do to Heard
- photographs Heard took of herself
- marks on Heard's face photographed by paparazzi

There is also the medical evidence which the Virginia judge bizarrely ruled was inadmissable.

Ask yourself why everyone who has tried to explain the difference between the Virginia and English trials has come down on the side of agreeing with the English verdict and criticising the jury in the Virginia case. The jury's decision is not only inaccurate and damaging, it isn't even coherent - how can Depp's representative have defamed Heard when he described her allegations as "a hoax" and Heard also have defamed Depp when she talked about being a victim?

Seems like Amber changed her story again:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61354294

So which is it?

How can anyone believe her if she keeps changing her story and contradicting herself? It's too late now to be making this claim.

If it weren't for the trial being aired live, I may have sided with Heard and believe what I read by the reliable media.

And I hate the "if a woman hits it's not abuse because it doesn't have the same violence as a man when he hits." This just trivializes it and tells women it's okay to hit your male partner because it's not abuse, it doesn't harm them. What if I pick up a batt and hit my partner with it?

Reminds me how when a kid is volant, no one takes it seriously because a kid doesn't have the same strength of an adult which is also BS.

That was my point.
I have seen this in my family and have been on the receiving end of it for much of my life.

I literally simply walk away.
"You can't reason with unreasonable people."

Some people think there is only the option of the two extremes for all people.
I.E. Left = good. Right = bad.
I find that "cute".

I already said both extremes sides are bad. Misogyny bad, misandry bad. How is this hard to understand? Are you just trolling here?

This is my last response to you here about this topic.

First of all, most DV experts I've heard say that there's always or at least usually what's called a primary aggressor (in most cases men) in an abusive relationship. If the other party also appears to be abusive, it could reactive in the sense that it could be self-defence or it could be an instance of breaking under psychological stress due to being exposed to prolonged abuse. From your previous posts, I think that you believe that the primary aggressor in this case is JD, what I'm trying to say is that if you look at all the evidence in the trial, you could flip that around say that AH is the primary aggressor. I mean, most of the claims of physical by JD are contradicted by other witnesses, most of whom were asked to testify by JD's legal team and also just about all of the audio recordings that were played in court. One of the problems with AH's photos that were submitted is that if you listen to her testimony, it paints a picture in your mind about what kinds of injuries would be shown in photos after the incident but they just don't match her description. Also, did you watch the videos I posted? There was an expert witness that actually showed that some of the photos were edited.

With regards to whether JD being a victim of abuse is actually relevant to the defamation claim, I agree that strictly speaking it isn't. However in this case, it's relevant to extent of understanding some of the context of what was going and to rebut some of her claims of abuse. The UK trial had different standards of evidence and the problem is that it was against a newspaper, not AH directly. It was a different case and the rules of evidence were different. They didn't allow expert witnesses and they could get AH to disclose evidence pre-trial to JD's team for discovery because she was only a witness, not a party to the case, unlike in the US trial. Different jurisdictions, different rules of evidence, different cases, different results.



I'm going to assume that you're talking about Dr. Hughs because her treating therapist didn't actually testify. She wasn't Heard's original treating therapist but was actually the forensic psychology expert for Heard's legal team that was brought in to counter Dr. Curry, who was the expert for JD's legal team and assessed AH. The problem is that Dr. Hugh's assessment of AH was not done correctly and the tests that she administered were not done in the standard way, invalidating her results. Dr. Hugh's tests could also not be used to detect feigning for PTSD, which Dr. Curry actually found in her assessment, and found signs that AH was likely to have borderline personality disorder (BPD). In my opinion, I found Dr. Curry to be a lot more credible.



Right, the one who claimed that there was "mutual abuse". The thing is that if you listen to her whole testimony, she actually said that she believed there was a lot more abuse coming from AH.



Most of which was contradicted by other witnesses. To give a few examples, in the Hicksville trailer park incident, she claimed that he had jealousy issues and threatened to break her friends wrist for sitting next to her and trashed the entire trailer that they were staying in and the manager of the park was furious at the damage. However, that manager actually testified as a rebuttal witness and said that Heard was the jealous one, that JD got quieter as she shouted at and that the the only thing damaged in the trailer was a lightbulb that he charged $62 for, he wasn't angry at all. The most graphic story Heard told was about what happened in Australia and I won't go into too many details because it could be triggering, however all the security guards others who were there testified that JD was not at all violent towards her like she claimed and that in fact she was violent towards him. That was when JD had his finger severed from AH throwing a vodka bottle at him but she denies that.



Depp testified that what happened is that they accidentally touched heads when he was trying to constrain her while she was hitting and kicking him. I'd call that self-defence.



That's not what Ellen Barkin actually said. When she testified by video deposition, she said that he threw a wine bottle while having an argument with another person, though it happened when she was in the room with them. She actually never accused him of being physically abusive to her. Anyway, that's something that happened more than 30 years ago.



Right, the text message to Paul Bettany. To explain that, remember that sometimes people say things out of character under extreme circumstances. I wouldn't necessarily blame woman for saying something similar to a friend about a man who was abusing her. In this case, I think that he said that he was ashamed of it but also that part of it was a Monty Python reference. While it might part of what his legal team called his "dark sense of humour", I can also interpret that as an outburst from someone suffering abuse if you believe his story to be true. I'm not excusing it though, it's definitely not something I would write.



See what I wrote previously about those, also take a look at the videos I posted in my last post.



Well, there are photographs of her with her friends taken only the next day and the marks magically disappeared, so make of that as you will. At the time she went to the court house, she had not been in contact with JD either for 6 days, yet that is the only time she was seen with them. The guy from TMZ who dispatched the paparazzi to the court also house testified as a rebuttal witness and said they received a tip-off from someone and they even knew which side of her face to look. Nevermind that he also suggested that it AH was one who leaked the video of JD bashing cabinets to them the day before.



There were no doctors records at all from when her injuries were supposed of been treated. In fact, she even testified on the stand that did not treatment after what would be her most serious injuries. The medical records referred to that was ruled inadmissible were just notes from her therapist. Those were ruled inadmissible on hearsay grounds.



Actually, it's not correct that the jury's decision is incoherent. Heard's counterclaim was broken down into 3 statements that made by JD's lawyer Adam Waldman to the Daily Mail. The one that Depp was found liable for was about a specific incident that happened in the Penthouse where the cops called. The the other two were just general statements about her claims being a hoax and they didn't find any liability on those. The fact that they found liability on that one claim just means that they didn't believe the incident didn't happen the way that Waldman claimed but otherwise that the "hoax" claim is generally true. So, that's actually consistent with their findings on JD's defamation claim.

Suggesting I may be trolling is a personal attack.
Please stop.

Your original post suggested to me that you believed there was no in-between.
If this was incorrect it was simply a misunderstanding.

Agreed.
You can't compare the two.

League_Girl, I feel like I have to go back to this.

I hope you understand that throwing and slamming things are not considered healthy and appropriate ways to show anger. In small and limited doses it may not do any harm, but there still are better ways to express anger. As a family, you should work to learn them.

There are no perfect families. There are always patterns and behaviors that can and should be improved. I can't say for any other family exactly when behaviors cross the line, but if you don't want to risk crossing the line, its best to find healthier ways to be angry.

I come from a family with a history of inappropriately expressing anger. Not in big and obvious ways, it was more subtle. But it left me far too quick to downplay and excuse unacceptable behavior, and unable to see where the lines were until they had been crossed. I found myself in a bad place for a period of time, and set about learning more how the patterns form, what they mean, and when the lines get crossed.

If you don't teach your son better now, he may not know where the lines are. That isn't what you want for his future.

It's important to seperate the actor from the person or character they portray. It's no big secret that most (if not all) top actors and actresses have some level of narcissism and arrogance.

I think what was on trial was her evidence. Just because her evidence wasn't water tight does not mean Depp wasn't capable or being abusive himself. For all we know he may have triggered Amber Heard?

The problem here is she lied which basically calls into question all her evidence. But that doesn't make Depp a saint and we will never know whether he contributed toward what seems to be a rather toxic relationship. It won't be the first or the last time a celebrity couple engage in this type of "War of the roses".