What I find fascinating is how completely people are forgetting that this is the second trial over essentially the same stuff, and
Depp decisively lost the first trial in England, both in the actual trial and in the appeal.
It's becoming difficult to even google for that trial anymore, which I think is extremely telling. This was a trial in the court of public opinion, a media circus, and it's all about narrative, not facts. That first trial is a pretty strong fact that goes heavily against the current narrative.
Here's the thing: even liars can be abused.
Quote:
In both the UK and the US trial, Mr Depp's lawyers argued that Ms Heard was lying - to make their case, they attacked her character and claimed that she was in fact the abusive partner.
This is a common defence tactic in sexual assault and domestic violence trials called "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender" or "Darvo", said Mr Stephens. The strategy turns the tables on the alleged victim, shifting the conversation away from "did the accused commit abuse" to "is the alleged victim believable".
"They deny that they did anything, they deny they're the real perpetrator, and they attack the credibility of the individual calling out the abuse, and then reverse the roles of the victim and the offender," Mr Stephens said.
In the UK trial, Mr Stephens said the judge recognised that strategy, and dismissed a lot of the evidence that did not directly address whether Mr Depp committed assault or not.
"Lawyers and judges tend not to fall for it, but it's very, very effective against juries," he said. Men are more likely to believe Darvo arguments, but female jurors are also susceptible.
"People have a paradigm in their mind of how a victim of abuse might be like and how they might behave, and of course we all know that's often false."
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61673676
Now, I don't pretend to know the truth. But I do know that if people think they know the truth after the circus that was this second trial, they are fools.
All this process does is highlight how problematic the court of public opinion tends to be.