Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard

[Lost Magic]

It doesn't do that tbf, this trial is not a battle of the genders as much as it's a mutually abusive relationship played out in the worst way possible, through libel courts. A very uncomfortable aspect of this is how it's been jumped on by MRA types as some kind of benchmark ruling, as if this case sets some kind of legal precedent to justify any "women are evil snakes and it's actually men who are the real victims" rhetoric thereafter. Amber Heard is undoubtedly a thoroughly unpleasant personality but this defamation suit between two mega rich celebrities is not a socio-political watershed. Nor does this discount "me too", it's very off imo that this lawsuit would be celebrated as an end to an assumed persecution of the male as if Harvey Weinstein et al never existed. There are legit criticisms of "me too" imo, but this one ain't it.

Sorry, I should have clarified in my post that it wasn't just to protect men, but all people regardless of gender. It's just that metoo, has went after a lot of people who turned out to be innocent. Sure, some Harvey Weinstein and Billy Cosby predators got exposed but justice didn't always prevail in the court of public opinion. I do think that the trial was a media fiasco, but sometimes you need high profilers to grab people's attentions. I just wish that justice like this was afforded to all walks of life. I feel no pity for the poisonous Amber Heard. She just got what she dished out and justice was served.

 

[LONE WOLF.]

I think both are liars. Maybe it just a stereotype. But I could well imagine Johnny Depp as a violent alcoholic and Amber Heard as manipulative heartless partner. I don't know all details. And I am glad about that it is not really worth my time. But it might the most public court event since the O.J. Simpson trial. And I am quite interested which part the media plays in this drama.

On social media so many people make fun of Amber Heard this is why I sympathize with her. I think a part of it stems from sexism.
Oh I just got the notification. Amber is guilty according to the judges. I could well imagine the jury was influenced by the media coverage. I am glad there are no such juries in my country. Average citizens making the final decision. I rather dislike this idea.

I think many people will think of this is a quite unnecesarry thread. Maybe it is a waste of time thinking about it. But I want to be informed about such events. I don't watch the comedy around it which I consider an inappropriate. I rather want to know why our society is so obsessed about events like that. The metalevel is interesting. And it is a good topic for starting small-talk.

Who do you think is guilty in this case?

imho,l think Heard is crying crocodile tears and playing the victim to gain attention and a financial settlement! But l could be wrong!

 

[Lost Magic]

imho,l think Heard is crying crocodile tears and playing the victim to gain attention and a financial settlement! But l could be wrong!

lol well if she did, she failed. Big time. She is not a very convincing actress.

 

[ineverlived]

I did not follow closely. I don't care who is right either. but the populism against amber heard disgusts me. I don't care about that woman, but I hate that society is so cruel to those who fall. I wouldn't be surprised if she commits suicide soon.

 

[Iamchickenhat]

btw I am not saying that Johnny Depp is innocent in all this. He did hook up with the crazy bitch after all. Plus, he definitely had lots of drink and drug related problems. However, he didn't write an OP-ED to ruin his exe's life, career and reputation. Well, rightfully, Johnny was having none of that, took her to court and won the case. That's a result as far as I am concerned.

He's hardly been negatively impacted even ppl slept on the sidewalk to get into the courtroom to see him and cheered him every time he came out and booed every time she stepped out. Sure acted just like and abused woman and it's sad to me that we believed every other me too survivor except one when it came to Johnny Depp

 

[Julgran]

What a day it is when two celebrities can steal the attention of the whole world, while said world is burning....

Having said that, Amber will always remember this as the day that she almost defeated Captain... Johnny Depp.... in court.

 

[Foresight]

I did not follow closely. I don't care who is right either. but the populism against amber heard disgusts me. I don't care about that woman, but I hate that society is so cruel to those who fall. I wouldn't be surprised if she commits suicide soon.

Seriously. It's unbearable to be that hated, and I think the domestic violence issue wasn't black and white. I guess she attempted to make the whole world hate Johnny and it came back to her. I don't know if she was abused the way she said she was or not. I feel for her with the amount of vitriol she's going to face for at least a decade. I don't know if she'll ever climb out of it.

I don't think Johnny Depp is an innocent saint.

 

[TheLastFemaphrodyke]

It's very common to hide abuse, it's much more common to hide abuse than to tell everyone you know about it. I do think that Amber was more abusive to Johnny than he was to her, but I do think that Johnny probably did some abuse back- it's just a guess based on what I've seen and heard, nobody knows for sure except for Amber and Johnny.

Yes, it IS very common to hide abuse, however, if is NOT common for a confidant to such abuse to hide that abuse is going on to some one they care about, and, Amber claims she told her sister and her sister had knowledge of the abuses, yet her sister, that confidant, told no one.......hmmmmmm, very interesting

 

[Lost Magic]

Seriously. It's unbearable to be that hated, and I think the domestic violence issue wasn't black and white. I guess she attempted to make the whole world hate Johnny and it came back to her. I don't know if she was abused the way she said she was or not. I feel for her with the amount of vitriol she's going to face for at least a decade. I don't know if she'll ever climb out of it.

I don't think Johnny Depp is an innocent saint.

He's not a saint, more like a tormented monk who tried to seek solitude every time his wife recorded, manipulated and assaulted him for the world to hear.

 

[Dot]

He's hardly been negatively impacted even ppl slept on the sidewalk to get into the courtroom to see him and cheered him every time he came out and booed every time she stepped out. Sure acted just like and abused woman and it's sad to me that we believed every other me too survivor except one when it came to Johnny Depp

T.b.f majr stdios stppd wrkng wth hm whn th/ accsatns cme out - opinns chngd whn th/ rcordngs of Ambr mockng Dpp wre mde publc & spport grdlly increasd frm thre

Slf nt agree w/ 'booing' ppl thgh - sh/ = nt in pantmme

 

[TheLastFemaphrodyke]

Yes, it IS very common to hide abuse, however, if is NOT common for a confidant to such abuse to hide that abuse is going on to some one they care about, and, Amber claims she told her sister and her sister had knowledge of the abuses, yet her sister, that confidant, told no one.......hmmmmmm, very interesting

Yeah, I am sorry, but if my ex sister in law had been abusing my bro and he told me about it, you better believe I would be going around talking smack about her, and if she was someone famous, I would be running my mouth to every trash rag, so really... what did the sister really know?

 

[Suicidebydeath]

This doesn't seem to prove anything, just that this person didn't know anything, unless I missed something.

You can find the email online.


Not shown in video:
"Whitney told me she tried to stop her sister Amber from hitting and attacking Johnny on the stairs. Whitney said when she tried to intervene to stop Amber from going after Johnny, Amber nearly pushed Whitney down the stairs. She told me she was worried Amber 'was going to kill Johnny.'"
"The declaration continues by saying that Whitney had told her that she had endured domestic abuse all her life, first by her father and later on by Amber, "who she said was extremely violent." She also added that Whitney would be "terrified of her sister."

This is testimony of Jennifer Howell who I find to be an extremely honest and convincing witness. Jennifer also still testified even after the door to her home was removed and broken into by a mysterious intruder, taking nothing but leaving her home vulnerable, before May 20th.

^Before I read this I already concluded from hearing AH's account of the stairs incident that AH struck JD (AH admitted) and I did not believe AH's account that it was in defense of her sister. So this is just confirmation for me.


---

Alright so all opinions of the JD vs AH are still controversial, despite its conclusion, but I still have a formed opinion. There are quite a few things I find disgusting about the whole affair.

1. It became a gender war, instead of being about the truth. In AH's own words to JD, she didn't think anyone would believe he was a victim of DV because he was a man.
2. I don't think we've learned anything from the trial, newspapers here still slander JD after the court win which I find disgusting, but hey whatever they think will get subscribers. They would not do that to AH if AH had won.
3. People treating the civil previous case JD lost here(UK) as if it was a criminal case, when the civil case was judged on probability and not evidence. People saying JD was "found guilty of abuse" but that is not the case, it is a misunderstanding, you cannot be found guilty in a civil case, you are either found liable or not liable. Words and meanings are important.
People also made the case that the judge wasn't neutral as they had many connections to AH, they might be stretching but here's some links to that.

Did Johnny Depp lose his case due to the judge being corrupted?

Answer (1 of 13): Johnny Depp lost his case due to the fact that instead of staying away from the crazy B$@#% once she started hitting him and throwing wine bottles at his head he stuck around until he was upset enough to hit back at some point. The moment he did that, since it can’t be called s...

www.quora.com

4. AH's lawyer team being generally unlikeable, and attacking JD/neutral witnesses. Fair enough, it's a court room tactic for sure, but that's still low. I'm glad the witnesses held up and made the lawyer team look bad.


I haven't read the rest of the thread yet but I'm curious what evidence against JD you found to be compelling? I promise to go over it with a neutral frame of mind. A lot of what I saw looked to me like it was setup. I will take one of the biggest and most crushing early examples used against JD and turn it around.

JD had been ripped off millions of dollars by a friend, on the date of his mom's passing (you can still care about fam no matter what). Instead of giving him support, his partner films him on this date, and later sells the video to a tabloid for financial gain and to use against JD. What kind of partner would do that? What JD says before realising he is being filmed is also telling and makes me think she was egging him on just before she started filming him.

 

[Someone123]

You can find the email online.


Not shown in video:
"Whitney told me she tried to stop her sister Amber from hitting and attacking Johnny on the stairs. Whitney said when she tried to intervene to stop Amber from going after Johnny, Amber nearly pushed Whitney down the stairs. She told me she was worried Amber 'was going to kill Johnny.'"
"The declaration continues by saying that Whitney had told her that she had endured domestic abuse all her life, first by her father and later on by Amber, "who she said was extremely violent." She also added that Whitney would be "terrified of her sister."

This is testimony of Jennifer Howell who I find to be an extremely honest and convincing witness. Jennifer also still testified even after the door to her home was removed and broken into by a mysterious intruder, taking nothing but leaving her home vulnerable, before May 20th.

^Before I read this I already concluded from hearing AH's account of the stairs incident that AH struck JD (AH admitted) and I did not believe AH's account that it was in defense of her sister. So this is just confirmation for me.


---

Alright so all opinions of the JD vs AH are still controversial, despite its conclusion, but I still have a formed opinion. There are quite a few things I find disgusting about the whole affair.

1. It became a gender war, instead of being about the truth. In AH's own words to JD, she didn't think anyone would believe he was a victim of DV because he was a man.
2. I don't think we've learned anything from the trial, newspapers here still slander JD after the court win which I find disgusting, but hey whatever they think will get subscribers. They would not do that to AH if AH had won.
3. People treating the civil previous case JD lost here(UK) as if it was a criminal case, when the civil case was judged on probability and not evidence.
People also made the case that the judge wasn't neutral as they had many connections to AH, they might be stretching but here's some links to that.

Did Johnny Depp lose his case due to the judge being corrupted?

Answer (1 of 13): Johnny Depp lost his case due to the fact that instead of staying away from the crazy B$@#% once she started hitting him and throwing wine bottles at his head he stuck around until he was upset enough to hit back at some point. The moment he did that, since it can’t be called s...

www.quora.com

4. AH's lawyer team being generally unlikeable, and attacking JD/neutral witnesses. Fair enough, it's a court room tactic for sure, but that's still low. I'm glad the witnesses held up and made the lawyer team look bad.


I haven't read the rest of the thread yet but I'm curious what evidence against JD you found to be compelling? I promise to go over it with a neutral frame of mind. A lot of what I saw looked to me like it was setup. I will take one of the biggest and most crushing early examples used against JD and turn it around.

JD had been ripped off millions of dollars by a friend, on the date of his mom's passing (you can still care about fam no matter what). Instead of giving him support, his partner films him on this date, and later sells the video to a tabloid for financial gain and to use against JD. What kind of partner would do that? What JD says before realising he is being filmed is also telling and makes me think she was egging him on just before she started filming him.

One of the most interesting facts of the case is that she received a divorce settlement in 2016 of $7 million for the divorce and for her claims of domestic violence against him. Part of this was her allegation that Depp, 53, "began obsessing over something that wasn't true" and "became extremely angry", throwing a phone at Heard, striking her cheek and eye "with extreme force"

A separate statement from a friend of Heard's who witnessed the scene, Raquel Pennington, supported Heard's version, including a description of Depp swinging a magnum-sized bottle of wine "like a baseball bat".

Another part of this was:
Io Tillett Wright, another friend of Heard's, wrote in an essay for Refinery 29: "The reports of violence started with a kick on a private plane, then it was shoves and the occasional punch, until finally, in December, she described an all-out assault and she woke up with her pillow covered in blood. I know this because I went to their house. I saw the pillow with my own eyes. I saw the busted lip and the clumps of hair on the floor."

But this was all buried as part of this settlement. Heard very stupidly violated this agreement in 2018 with an article which open the things back up again.

Heard's supporters lamented that the public, and industry players, tended to side with celebrities over victims.

 

[Iamchickenhat]

T.b.f majr stdios stppd wrkng wth hm whn th/ accsatns cme out - opinns chngd whn th/ rcordngs of Ambr mockng Dpp wre mde publc & spport grdlly increasd frm thre

Slf nt agree w/ 'booing' ppl thgh - sh/ = nt in pantmme

I'm not in any way trying to dispatch your opinion, but the article I read by a female MMA fighter having to go do commentary on tv after she'd been in a match and how beat up her face was and how absolutely perfect and unmarked her face looked after she went into makeup.

And during the trial that agent who said she was told Disney thought they'd maxed out their Jack Sparrow character and we're going to take the franchise in another direction.

He acted like a pompous ass during the trial, barely bothered to pay attention at all. And hanging out the suvs window waving to all the game and baking in the glory of the fans. That one woman interviewed who said they'd list contact with their one family member who was team heard.

He's away playing with Jeff Beck in London. He can't be bothered to be there.

It's just poor form all over the place.

Again. I'm not saying that with any attitude or aggression

 

[Cathy Ames]

Y'all wanna know the ACTUAL role the media plays in this drama? Distracting you from things that have a real, tangible effect on your lives. The endless cycle of bread and circuses to keep us complicit, to keep us from taking the fight to people who own everything and are actively profiting from killing the planet and keeping most of humanity in perpetual precarity. None of this shit matters at all.

Here's the thing, I actively NEED a freaking distraction from that. Any time I watched the court videos, I was consciously grateful to have something to focus on other than all of the actively horrible things happening in my own life and politically.

 

[Chinaski]

Y'all wanna know the ACTUAL role the media plays in this drama? Distracting you from things that have a real, tangible effect on your lives. The endless cycle of bread and circuses to keep us complicit, to keep us from taking the fight to people who own everything and are actively profiting from killing the planet and keeping most of humanity in perpetual precarity. None of this shit matters at all.

It'll be interesting to see what kind of coverage the Assange proceedings get in comparison imo.

 

[Lost Magic]

I'm not in any way trying to dispatch your opinion, but the article I read by a female MMA fighter having to go do commentary on tv after she'd been in a match and how beat up her face was and how absolutely perfect and unmarked her face looked after she went into makeup.

And during the trial that agent who said she was told Disney thought they'd maxed out their Jack Sparrow character and we're going to take the franchise in another direction.

He acted like a pompous ass during the trial, barely bothered to pay attention at all. And hanging out the suvs window waving to all the game and baking in the glory of the fans. That one woman interviewed who said they'd list contact with their one family member who was team heard.

He's away playing with Jeff Beck in London. He can't be bothered to be there.

It's just poor form all over the place.

Again. I'm not saying that with any attitude or aggression

 

[Someone123]

It'll be interesting to see what kind of coverage the Assange proceedings get in comparison imo.

Maybe not as much but it will still be a lot.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

One of the most interesting facts of the case is that she received a divorce settlement in 2016 of $7 million for the divorce and for her claims of domestic violence against him. Part of this was her allegation that Depp, 53, "began obsessing over something that wasn't true" and "became extremely angry", throwing a phone at Heard, striking her cheek and eye "with extreme force"

I don't believe AH to be a truthful person. This doesn't hold any weight with me because JD may just have to wanted to be rid of her. In my personal experience of DV, women are more likely to throw objects at their partners. A quick google search seems to corrobate that but I'm sure very odd men might resort to this. I think in DV incidents men are more likely to use their fists than resort to throwing. I believe AH is more likely to accuse JD of something that she has done herself, based on AH own testimonies in trial.

A separate statement from a friend of Heard's who witnessed the scene, Raquel Pennington, supported Heard's version, including a description of Depp swinging a magnum-sized bottle of wine "like a baseball bat".

Not a neutral witness, and that sounds like an exaggerated account. Is not necessarily truthful. There's no excuse for what sounds like drunken behaviour if JD did do this.

Io Tillett Wright, another friend of Heard's, wrote in an essay for Refinery 29: "The reports of violence started with a kick on a private plane, then it was shoves and the occasional punch, until finally, in December, she described an all-out assault and she woke up with her pillow covered in blood. I know this because I went to their house. I saw the pillow with my own eyes. I saw the busted lip and the clumps of hair on the floor."

Not a witness. Account taken from AH who I believe is not a truthful person. It's just as possible AH attacked JD and suffered or self-inflicted a busted lip. An all-out assault would definitely involve more injuries than a busted lip. She would suffer bruising to her body and/or if it was concentrated on her face then her face would be really messed up and possibly life-threatening. Also JD as testified by AH herself never takes his rings off, which would inflict more damage.

Heard's supporters lamented that the public, and industry players, tended to side with celebrities over victims.

AH's supporters also support a victory for her because they want to strike a blow for women speaking out against DV. That is very hollow when it is ignoring edge cases where the woman is the abuser. An innocent person should not be condemned, no matter the agenda at stake. Men speaking out against DV is a valid agenda too, anyway, which I see completely ignored in some of the media I've seen surrounding the case in support of AH. Both agendas are important.

I will say I have no idea if JD ever struck out, but people do act out against their abusers out of desperation sometimes. You would think that with all the times AH secretly recorded JD she would have some recorded evidence of this. Also we know for a fact that AH struck JD.

When a woman kills her DV abuser in self-defense she's generally treated as a hero. JD is still being villified by the media and some of the public even after winning his trial against his suspected DV abuser. There seems to be a lot of unfairness in this, to me, the truth and innocence of a party is more important than any other specific agenda, and I do not believe AH.

 

[Dot]

Nt 4gttng tht a.h hrslf hd hstry of b-ing violnt w/ famly & prevs rlatnshps

If sh/ ws gnuine d.v victm thn sh/ d-valud & invald8td hr whle tstmny b/ lyng - & am tlkng abt objctve lies tht cld b shwn eithr via audio or phtogrphclly

 

[Someone123]

I don't believe AH to be a truthful person. This doesn't hold any weight with me because JD may just have to wanted to be rid of her. In my personal experience of DV, women are more likely to throw objects at their partners. A quick google search seems to corrobate that but I'm sure very odd men might resort to this. I think in DV incidents men are more likely to use their fists than resort to throwing.



Not a neutral witness, and that sounds like an exaggerated account. Is not necessarily truthful.

Not a witness. Account taken from AH who I believe is not a truthful person. It's just as possible AH attacked JD and suffered or self-inflicted a busted lip. An all-out assault would definitely involve more injuries than a busted lip. She would suffer bruising to her body and/or if it was concentrated on her face then her face would be really messed up and possibly life-threatening.


AH's supporters also support a victory for her because they want to strike a blow for women speaking out against DV. That is very hollow when it is ignoring edge cases where the woman is the abuser. An innocent person should not be condemned, no matter the agenda at stake. Men speaking out against DV is a valid agenda too, anyway, which I see completely ignored in some of the media I've seen surrounding the case in support of AH. Both agendas are important.

I will say I have no idea if JD ever struck out, but people do act out against their abusers out of desperation sometimes. You would think that with all the times AH secretly recorded JD she would have some recorded evidence of this. Also we know for a fact that AH struck JD.

When a woman kills her DV abuser in self-defense she's generally treated as a hero. JD is still being villified by the media and some of the public even after winning his trial against his suspected DV abuser. There seems to be a lot of unfairness in this, to me, the truth and innocence of a party is more important than any other specific agenda, and I do not believe AH.

You just automatically don't believe the witnesses supporting her and you do dismiss that he paid to have allegations of domestic violence against him setteled because you have decided that you don't believe her. These are very convincing pieces of evidence to me that he also did some significant domestic violence, so that they both did. But if you just dismiss this stuff because you don't believe her then that is what you would do for any evidence against Johnny. I just don't think it is as simple as he's the good guy and she's the bad one, they have both done some violence against each other.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

You just automatically don't believe the witnesses supporting her and you do dismiss that he paid to have allegations of domestic violence against him setteled because you have decided that you don't believe her. These are very convincing pieces of evidence to me that he also did some significant domestic violence, so that they both did. But if you just dismiss this stuff because you don't believe her then that is what you would do for any evidence against Johnny. I just don't think it is as simple as he's the good guy and she's the bad one, they have both done some violence against each other.

There's only one witness you brought up and she describes drunken behaviour. It's not automatic, that is a very unfair suggestion. My thoughts are entirely based on the testimony of AH and other witnesses in the trial.

Paying off allegations does not mean someone is guilty.

I am not dismissing the accounts, I gave my reasoning. I think AH is manipulative and deceitful based on various testimonies and I think there is enough evidence to show that she is lying about important events. There is motive, there is plausibility, so I think its perfectly valid and logical to take that into account when evaluating the evidence presented. It points to premeditation, setup. AH also has past history.

I don't see any proof that JD has commited DV. Proof requires evidence, but not all evidence constitutes proof.

I don't think it's that simple either, but I also think its unfair to assume that someone would never act out against their abuser. You would not be saying the same thing if a woman struck her abuser after being repeatedly hit by them,. I still don't see any proof JD hit her. People generally agree men shouldn't hit women and I extend that to adults and kids as well.

I think JD may have some substance abuse issues but that is not on trial, and just because I might be personally resistant to substance abuse doesn't mean I believe I can judge others, since substance abuse is very well documented among people suffering with other problems. I love candy, that is sometimes my own go to when things get really rough.

It's also unfair you jump to my conclusions being automatic when I have a thought process that takes various things into account.

 

[Someone123]

I don't see any proof that JD has commited DV.

The fact that he paid to have evidence of domestic violence suppressed is very strong evidence to me, but you dismiss this. He would never have done this unless it was true because the harm to his reputation would be very costly- to dismiss this evidence so easily shows a very strong bias. I think that they have both lied and have both done domestic violence, and that there is convincing evidence to support this on both sides.

 

[Kestrel]

I invite anyone who thinks of Depp as a hero to read the outcome of the UK case, where 12 seperate acts of abuse were proved (to a civil standard) to the judge.

Depp II v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2911 (QB) (02 November 2020)

www.bailii.org

I don't think Heard is a good person nor do I think she is wholly innocent of abuse. I just think it is awfully sad that this complex relationship has been aired to a world that wants to play a game of winners and losers. I don't think anyone won here. I'm also incredibly surprised the jury was not sequestered, but I am not familiar with US procedures.

Putting the 'rights and wrongs' of the case aside, I think I am just dissapointed more than anything. Did Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Chris Brown, Marylin Manson, Jim Carrey and Roman Polanski recieve the pure vitriol Amber Heard has? It's incredibly worrying to me how many people see this as not a win against Amber but a win against women.

 

[OceanBlue]

If sexism exists in our society these days, it's 99% against men, especially the past few years. Amber Heard, as a vindictive violent abuser who for years got away with claiming to herself be the victim simply because she has a vagina, is the most transparent example of this. That's why people are so invested in this. It's finally a tiny bit of recognition that, yes, women too are imperfect beings and no, men are not always the evil ones who cause all the world's problems.

@Symbiote
Could you explain why you are hearting this comment? Plenty of misogynists on this site, but the standards are higher for mods and admins.

Do you understand the discrimination theory, power dynamics, why reverse sexism does not exist? Do you know anything about gender based violence and how it plays out in a patriarchal society?

 

[Kestrel]

If sexism exists in our society these days, it's 99% against men, especially the past few years. Amber Heard, as a vindictive violent abuser who for years got away with claiming to herself be the victim simply because she has a vagina, is the most transparent example of this. That's why people are so invested in this. It's finally a tiny bit of recognition that, yes, women too are imperfect beings and no, men are not always the evil ones who cause all the world's problems.

How is there more sexism today towards men than women?

Many feminists are critical of women being stereotyped as 'perfect'. It's demeaning (and sometimes lethal i.e. honour killings) to women and, as you said, in some DV cases makes it harder for male victims to be believed. We also don't see men as evil, but we see patriarchal values as 'evil' (to use the same terminology). Those are two very different things.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

The fact that he paid to have evidence of domestic violence suppressed is very strong evidence to me, but you dismiss this. He would never have done this unless it was true because the harm to his reputation would be very costly- to dismiss this evidence so easily shows a very strong bias. I think that they have both lied and have both done domestic violence, and that there is convincing evidence to support this on both sides.

You told me that he paid for a divorce settlement. As part of that settlement, she was not to make claims about JD. This is not the same as paying to have evidence of DV suppressed. You told me she violated this anyway and I still have seen no proof of DV from JD. As JD's lawyers put to AH, to paraphase "This evidence, that you have not submitted to the court.". She made claims but when asked to present the evidence to the court that she claimed to have, she did not present the evidence, why is that?

Can you tell me why she did not present the evidence she claimed to have, to the court?

I haven't dismissed it. It's because it is not evidence to me. It is in fact inline with the behaviour of someone who has been abused, they will do anything to sever ties. JD's net worth is reported to be around $150, so he paid 5% to free himself and potentially avoid drama, he also seems the kind of person that would prefer to do this, imo. Yes, people speak out sometimes, but we also both know that a high percentage of people don't speak out about their abusers, and not everyone wants to air their laundry with ex-partners, sometimes people just want to move on, they can even still have feelings for an abuser and this is a pretty well-known fact. I believe statistics say it is about 60% of people don't even report abuse, meaning 40% do, and that 60% is pretty equally divided between men and women. However given the stigma, DV abuse could still be under-reported.

ETA(edited to add): I think its valid that you find it to be strong evidence but to me it isn't.

I invite anyone who thinks of Depp as a hero to read the outcome of the UK case, where 12 seperate acts of abuse were proved to the judge.

Depp II v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2911 (QB) (02 November 2020)

www.bailii.org

I don't think Heard is a good person nor do I think she is wholly innocent of abuse. I just think it is awfully sad that this complex relationship has been aired to a world that wants to play a game of winners and losers. I don't think anyone won here. I'm also incredibly surprised the jury was not sequestered.

Putting the 'rights and wrongs' of the case aside, I think I am just dissapointed more than anything. Did Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Chris Brown, Marylin Manson, Jim Carrey and Roman Polanski recieve the pure vitriol Amber Heard has? It's incredibly worrying to me how many people see this as not a win against Amber but a win against women.

This is a very common misunderstanding. That was a civil case. Proof is absolutely not required in a verdict. Also read in my previous post that the judge is implicated multiple times to be invested in the affairs of AH and her connections. I do consider that may be a stretch, but please don't consider a civil case to be tantamount to proof of anything. The media here in UK seems to have it out for JD.

On the “balance of probabilities”: what is the… | Burnetts Solicitors

Dispute Resolution solicitor Georgina Farrer explains the standard of proof in civil cases.

www.burnetts.co.uk

^Random factsheet about the burden of proof in civil trials I quickly pulled from google.


The whole affair is definitely sad. You do have a point about the vitriol. I thought out of those Harvest Weinstein was universally despised though, the others probably benefit from some "celebrity immunity", I would guess the actors and musician most of all. I believe there is a phenomenon where male celebrities enjoy a halo effect and more popularity than female celebrities.


This should definitely not be seen as a win against women. I think there are no winners here.

 

[Kestrel]

You told me that he paid for a divorce settlement. As part of that settlement, she was not to make claims about JD. This is not the same as paying to have evidence of DV suppressed. You told me she violated this anyway and I still have seen no proof of DV from JD. As JD's lawyers put to AH, to paraphase "This evidence, that you have not submitted to the court.". She made claims but when asked to present the evidence to the court that she claimed to have, she did not present the evidence, why is that?

Can you tell me why she did not present the evidence she claimed to have, to the court?

I haven't dismissed it. It's because it is not evidence to me. It is in fact inline with the behaviour of someone who has been abused, they will do anything to sever ties. Yes, people speak out sometimes, but we also both know that a high percentage of people don't speak out about their abusers. I believe statistics say it is about 60% of people don't even report abuse, meaning 40% do, and that 60% is pretty equally divided between men and women. However given the stigma, DV abuse could still be under-reported.


This is a very common misunderstanding. That was a civil case. Proof is absolutely not required in a verdict. Also read in my previous post that the judge is implicated multiple times to be invested in the affairs of AH and her connections. I do consider that may be a stretch, but please don't consider a civil case to be tantamount to proof of anything. The media here in UK seems to have it out for JD.

On the “balance of probabilities”: what is the… | Burnetts Solicitors

Dispute Resolution solicitor Georgina Farrer explains the standard of proof in civil cases.

www.burnetts.co.uk

^Random factsheet about the burden of proof in civil trials I quickly pulled from google.


The whole affair is definitely sad. You do have a point about the vitriol. I thought out of those Harvest Weinstein was universally despised though, the others probably benefit from some "celebrity immunity", I would guess the actors and musician most of all. I believe there is a phenomenon where male celebrities enjoy a halo effect and more popularity than female celebrities.


This should definitely not be seen as a win against women. I think there are no winners here.

I understand the burden of proof is lower in civil than criminal but having read the evidence myself, I feel satisfied with what I see. Hence I invited others to read it rather than take my word. It also works a bit differently here in the UK, the defendant has the burden of proof in libel cases, not the claimant, which is what I meant by 'proved', but I recognise that to be very poor wording in the context.

That's big if true about the judge I will have to look into that - surely that's grounds to appeal? Have you got any starting sources on this, I'm invested now?

You hit the nail on the head about the 'halo' male celebrities get. I think although Harvey was despised I never saw quite the same level of clickbait toxicity regarding him.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

I understand the burden of proof is lower in civil than criminal but having read the evidence myself, I feel satisfied with what I see. Hence I invited others to read it rather than take my word. It also works a bit differently here in the UK, the defendant has the burden of proof in libel cases, not the claimant, which is what I meant by 'proved', but I recognise that to be very poor wording in the context.

That's big if true about the judge I will have to look into that - surely that's grounds to appeal? Have you got any starting sources on this, I'm invested now?

You hit the nail on the head about the 'halo' male celebrities get. I think although Harvey was despised I never saw quite the same level of clickbait toxicity regarding him.

I linked two sources on my post. I can find many more with google. There is a reddit post. I think it might be a case of "decide for yourself if this had an impact", I didn't look into very deeply, since it looked convoluted and I already hold the opinion that a judge should be impartial and thus it was a very poor decision to preside over that case. Since the judge (Andrew Nicol) would have known that they had prior and ongoing connections to AH, they should have recused themselves.

google "judge andrew nicol conflict of interest", "judge andrew nicol connections" might return links.

JD was refused permission to appeal to that case. So the way I assume it works, he cannot apply for permission again, even if anything new comes to light, but I don't know that for a fact. There's also the possibility that he would just lose again anyway even with a new judge. I suspect being a man and his use of substances definitely works against him in a DV civil case, in the balance of probabilities. I'm not saying thats fair or that my suspicion is necessarily correct since I don't know how the decision making process works exactly, so it's my best educated guess.

Men are more likely to commit domestic violence than women. I think statistics show the actual difference is slight, but it makes sense to me. I believe it's easier for a man to end a relationship with a DV partner than vice versa. No idea about gay relationships.

Addiction and substance abuse is linked to domestic violence in a strong way. So that definitely works against him. AH has plenty of evidence of JD in compromising positions.

AH gets a disturbing amount of vitriol.

 

[Someone123]

One thing I don't get is how certain so many people are that Johnny Depp did not do any of the domestic violence- no one can know this for sure, there's a lot of he said, she said. My best guess is that they both did some domestic violence. That's all anyone can do is their best guess, no one knows for sure what happenewd behind closed doors. It seems to me that there is enough evidence on both sides that they both likely did some domestic violence against each other. I still go back to that there was no reason to making suppressing allegatios of domestic violence against Johnny part of the divorce settlement unless he was guilty of some of this, because having this as part of the settlement was bound to damage his career. The celebrity effect seem s to be effecting a lot of people- he is very likeable in many of his roles and he is a huge celebrity and she is barely a celebrity at all.