Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard

[opendoor]

I don't know, based on a quick look at the UK trial judgement, my takeaway is that they were both probably abusive to each other. Even if you accept that Heard is completely full of **** and that the UK trial judge was biased for some reason, to me at least there still seem to be enough contemporaneous accounts from 3rd parties, as well as Depp more or less admitting that he had become physical on multiple occasions, to think that there was abuse going on. And of course, Heard was caught on tape admitting that she was physically abusive as well. Holding either of these people up as paragons of anything is asinine.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I stopped reading the article as it appears the author is using Heard’s testimony as the only source they’re basing their position on. She demonstrated very clearly during the trial that she is not credible.

I don’t know what everyone else’s views are on the outcome but mine is that I’m just happy to see someone who was clearly trying to sabotage someone’s life for their own gain not get away with it. I don’t care that Johnny “won”, I care that Amber didn’t get away with it.

I feel bad for Amber, not because she was a victim of Johnny’s, but because her condition is going to ruin her life and career if it hasn’t already. Do some research on BPD, she can’t help what she’s doing and I won’t be surprised to see her continue to double down on her claims because of it.

I'm not here to defend her, because it's clear she made some abusive decisions as well. But what you've said is describing the issue, her testimony deserves to be listened to as well.

Also, I am very familiar with BPD as I was in a LTR with someone who struggled with it. That diagnoses does not make you a bad person and that's a very harmful stigmatization. From what I've read she was diagnosed with BPD by a therapist from Depp's own legal team, which makes me question some form of bias.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't know, based on a quick look at the UK trial judgement, my takeaway is that they were both probably abusive to each other. Even if you accept that Heard is completely full of **** and that the UK trial judge was biased for some reason, to me at least there still seem to be enough contemporaneous accounts from 3rd parties, as well as Depp more or less admitting that he had become physical on multiple occasions, to think that there was abuse going on. And of course, Heard was caught on tape admitting that she was physically abusive as well. Holding either of these people up as paragons of anything is asinine.

As I understand it (and I very well could be wrong), it’s very unlikely for a relationship to be “mutually abusive”. Certainly, in an abusive relationship there can be times of violence going both ways, but that doesn’t mean abuse went both ways. It’s taken decades for the psychology of this to be accepted in cases where an abused wife has severely injured or even killed her husband. In many of those cases, there are times when she might fight back against her abuser, but we would never claim that they were mutually abusive.

To my reading, many people who are looking at this as “mutual abuse” are overlooking the significant work that has gone into understanding the psychology of abuse victims. There are very good reasons we mo longer hold those wives criminally responsible when they finally snap and attack their abusive husbands, even to the point of lethal force.

In this case, again just based on what I’ve read, it seems likely that Amber Heard was the abuser and there were perhaps times when Depp fought back. But this doesn’t mean he “abused” her.

[blankall]

I don't think most people are looking at this as a classic case of abuse, where one person is so beat down they can't fight back or leave.

Just two rich spoiled people acting like rich spoiled people. I would say in many nasty relationship breakdowns I've seen, there's plenty of blame to be passed around between both parties.

[FlameOn]

In the case of this defamation suit tho, Depp's provided evidence and expert testimony overwhelmingly showed Amber's claims of abuse to be false or misleading, and she had done so with actual malice. Whereas Amber's defamation claims were very thoroughly debunked aside from a single claim by Johnny's ex-lawyer (no Johnny himself) stating that Amber staged a crime scene for cops (which the jury did not think was proven).

If there were mutual physical abuse going on, there wasn't anything substantive to back it up and it did not help Amber's case that she was a habitual liar and falsified her provided evidence, and testimony in multiple cases destroying any credibility of her claims.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cole436

I'm not here to defend her, because it's clear she made some abusive decisions as well. But what you've said is describing the issue, her testimony deserves to be listened to as well.

Her testimony has been listened to, she effectively made herself as credible as Jussie Smollett. I’m guessing you’re probably not advocating for people to listen to his side or accusing people who won’t of racism. You can hear someone out while recognizing that sometimes people make up really awful things for personal gain.

Also, I am very familiar with BPD as I was in a LTR with someone who struggled with it. That diagnoses does not make you a bad person and that's a very harmful stigmatization. From what I've read she was diagnosed with BPD by a therapist from Depp's own legal team, which makes me question some form of bias.

I agree the diagnosis doesn’t make them a bad person, but that doesn’t mean the condition can’t make them do things that hurt others and I think it’s pretty unfair to their victims to ignore that. I’m no expert but speaking from experience if you went through a break up with someone who had BPD and didn’t experience or perhaps more importantly aren’t still experiencing at least some similar behaviours from your ex I would question whether or not they had been misdiagnosed.

[djsFlames]

I didn't realize women couldn't also be bad, devious, conniving or abusive, and that we should immediately believe them if they say they aren't those things.

Except the part where people who exhibit such behaviors often don't realize what they're doing or that they are in the wrong. That's in part why they are the way they are.

It doesn't apply to just one gender, folks.

I'd say in particular women who have a circle that empowers them and their decisions are often more prone to being terrible and not realizing it than any one else.

The support all women without further scrutiny movement that you see on social media is frankly dangerous and creates an environment where morally compromised people can go on doing terrible things while receiving praise/reinforcement in spite of it so that they never reflect on their decisions or behaviour.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Her testimony has been listened to, she effectively made herself as credible as Jussie Smollett. I’m guessing you’re probably not advocating for people to listen to his side or accusing people who won’t of racism. You can hear someone out while recognizing that sometimes people make up really awful things for personal gain.



I agree the diagnosis doesn’t make them a bad person, but that doesn’t mean the condition can’t make them do things that hurt others and I think it’s pretty unfair to their victims to ignore that. I’m no expert but speaking from experience if you went through a break up with someone who had BPD and didn’t experience or perhaps more importantly aren’t still experiencing at least some similar behaviours from your ex I would question whether or not they had been misdiagnosed.

Paragraph #2 is completely over the line and I'm not even going to respond to that.

The first paragraph however I can respond to: You're projecting. At no point did I advocate for anyone not to listen to his testimony.

Abuse is a very difficult thing to prove and unfortunately the concept of a cross examination usually causes more harm than good, as peoples memory and recollection can falter due to trauma. Here's an example of how manipulative some of those techniques were.

And the “why didn’t you leave!?” questions weren’t even their most offensive argument. On cross-examination, they accused her of painting on bruises, staging cocaine lines on her breakfast table, and lying about being sexually assaulted. They belittled her when she didn’t have evidence (Depp’s lawyer asked Heard why, if Depp was a cocaine addict, she didn’t have photos of him snorting it), then belittled her again when she did have evidence (“Were you having a photoshoot in the courtroom that day?” his lawyer said about the photos of Heard’s bruises when she filed the restraining order.)

All of these arguments are utterly illiterate about the nature of abuse and actively harmful to victims. By definition, most domestic violence takes place behind closed doors. Victims have numerous reasons to hide their injuries, from internalized shame to fear of their abuser to, in Heard’s case, legitimate worries about ending up on TMZ. Even if you think male survivors face real challenges in coming forward — and they absolutely do — casting doubt on victims that didn’t get hurt enough or once said something nice about their abuser is a bizarre way to address them.

As well as discrediting Heard’s claims of abuse, Depp’s legal team argued that she was the real abuser in the relationship. They trotted out a parade of witnesses who saw Heard nagging, berating, and belittling her husband. Heard’s former assistant testified that she was a moody, mercurial boss. A psychologist who saw Heard and Depp for couples’ counseling in 2015 said they engaged in “mutual abuse.” His lawyers played privately recorded tapes of Heard admitting that she hit him and taunting him to tell the media.

Heard is not a perfect victim and has never claimed to be. In her own testimony, she admitted to engaging in screaming matches, fighting back, and insulting Depp in the final year of the relationship. The judge in the UK trial said there was probably some truth in Depp’s accusation that Heard was condescending about his drug use, something that triggered his sense of internalized shame and, ultimately, his rage. The psychologist who saw them in 2015 said both partners had poor communication skills and weren’t able to de-escalate fights or have productive conflicts.

There seemed to be a lot of "gotcha" elements to this trial which are described here

The narrative of Heard as a scheming manipulator was so un-controversial that brands got involved. In the early days of the trial, Heard’s lawyer held up a concealer kit to demonstrate her point that Heard’s bruises often weren’t visible in photographs because she covered them with makeup. Almost immediately, Depp’s supporters zoomed in on the image, identified the makeup brand, and started tagging it on Instagram.

The brand itself then “debunked” Heard’s lawyer, saying the palette only came out in 2017. This meant [Perry Mason voice] that it couldn’t have been used to cover Heard’s bruises in her relationship with Depp from 2012 to 2016!!!

This was, of course, irrelevant. Neither Heard nor her lawyer had ever claimed that this specific makeup palette was the one she used to cover her bruises. It was a prop, something her lawyer’s assistant probably grabbed at CVS the night before to serve as a visual aid.

But it didn’t matter. It was a gotcha, a technical discrepancy that didn’t require listening to her claims or assessing her big-picture narrative against her ex-husband’s.

Nearly all of the “evidence” against Heard propagated on social media had the same laser focus on small discrepancies and minor misstatements. At one point Heard referred to her makeup as her “bruise kit,” a term professionals use for makeup that creates bruises. She quickly corrected herself, but Depp’s supporters used to slip to claim that she had inadvertently admitted to faking her bruises on the stand.


The greatest and most effective gotcha was her charity donations. After she negotiated her $7 million divorce settlement, Heard announced that she was donating half to the ACLU and the other half to Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. Over the course of the trial, Depp’s lawyers revealed that the charities hadn’t received the full amounts and that Heard had lied about giving the money away.

As with all of these gotchas, it looks bad until you show the tiniest shred of human interest in discovering the facts. While it’s true that Heard hasn’t donated the full amount, all evidence indicates that she intends to. In 2016, after her divorce was finalized, she entered into an agreement with the ACLU to give them the full $3.5 million over 10 years. She made the first payment but delayed the rest because Depp started trying to sue her into oblivion (she says she’s spent $6 million on her legal defense so far; who knows how much more it will cost to appeal to Virginia's verdict).

And I'm willing to believe that there's credibility to her claims because of this section:

From the inception of his legal attack on his ex-wife, Depp has claimed that she engaged in a calculated, pre-meditated, years-long project to destroy his life. A text to a friend after she filed for divorce reads, "That #### ruined such a ####ing cool life we had for a while." Slightly more politely but no more convincingly, his legal filing for the Virginia case says her allegations are “an elaborate hoax to generate positive publicity for Ms. Heard and advance her career.”

Depp’s account of events doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny. Heard’s first text messages to friends and family alleging abuse were from 2013 — two years before she even married Depp, much less divorced him. For his narrative to align with the available evidence, Heard would have had to convince numerous friends, ex-friends, professional contacts and neighbors to lie numerous times, under oath, for years — all while leaving no trace of her diabolical plan in the form of texts or e-mails.

At the most basic level, the accusation that Heard did all this to advance her own career doesn’t make sense. In general, women do not benefit from accusing powerful men of abuse. More specifically, consider Heard’s actions during and following her split from Depp. She filed for divorce in May 2016, then made the abuse allegations and filed for a restraining order shortly afterwards.

Depp and Heard had no pre-nuptial agreement, meaning she would have been entitled to millions in their divorce regardless of whether she was abused. She dropped her claim for ongoing support and ended up taking significantly less than she was entitled to. As part of the settlement, she withdrew the abuse allegations, signed an NDA, and co-signed a vague, anodyne statement that the relationship had been “volatile” but “there was never an intent of physical or emotional harm.”

And then, for years, nothing. She made a few oblique references to her relationship as part of her advocacy around #MeToo, but she never provided any details. Regardless of whether you think making abuse allegations is a viable way for women to advance their careers, they do in fact have to make them.

I find it difficult to believe that Heard spent years fabricating texts and photographs (long before #MeToo, by the way), only to get a modest divorce settlement to which she was already entitled, then stay silent for more than a year.

Depp’s narrative doesn’t hold together under its own logic. Heard is smart enough to fake abuse almost as soon as the relationship starts, but so dumb she accidentally reveals her plan in a verbal slip-up on the stand? She paints bruises on her face but wipes them off before she gets spotted by doormen and paparazzi? She fabricates photos and manipulates metadata but doesn’t bother making her injuries severe enough to be unassailable?

Again, I am not saying that Amber Heard did not engage in abusive behaviour or that she did not act vindictively. I'm saying this is a lot more complicated than is being presented to the general public and being talked about in this thread. Johnny's behaviour that he admitted to is frankly kind of shocking, and that's enough for me to pause and question.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Paragraph #2 is completely over the line and I'm not even going to respond to that.

Suit yourself but I don’t think anything I said was over the line.

The first paragraph however I can respond to: You're projecting. At no point did I advocate for anyone not to listen to his testimony.

I think you should re-read the first paragraph in my post because unless you’re suggesting we should listen to Jussie Smollett’s testimony I think you’ve misread what I wrote.

Abuse is a very difficult thing to prove

So is defamation, especially for a public figure.

and unfortunately the concept of a cross examination usually causes more harm than good, as peoples memory and recollection can falter due to trauma. Here's an example of how manipulative some of those techniques were.

Recollection can falter but the truth doesn’t change. There’s a difference between forgetting something and having a constantly changing version of the events.

There seemed to be a lot of "gotcha" elements to this trial which are described here

And I'm willing to believe that there's credibility to her claims because of this section:

Your entire argument here seems predicated on believing everything she says, despite the fact that she was caught on multiple occasions at worst lying or at best being intentionally misleading while under oath. Not sure how one could expect to have a good faith discussion with you when that is your position in spite of all the evidence.

Again, I am not saying that Amber Heard did not engage in abusive behaviour or that she did not act vindictively. I'm saying this is a lot more complicated than is being presented to the general public and being talked about in this thread. Johnny's behaviour that he admitted to is frankly kind of shocking, and that's enough for me to pause and question.

Question away, whether or not he was bad doesn’t change the fact that she intentionally tried to sabotage him and paint him as an abuser while all the evidence could only prove that she had actually abused him during the relationship.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Recollection can falter but the truth doesn’t change. There’s a difference between forgetting something and having a constantly changing version of the events.

Your entire argument here seems predicated on believing everything she says, despite the fact that she was caught on multiple occasions at worst lying or at best being intentionally misleading while under oath. Not sure how one could expect to have a good faith discussion with you when that is your position in spite of all the evidence.

I think the evidence shows that people can be confused and have different recollections of events, especially when dealing with violent or traumatic circumstances.

I don't think that Amber Heard is innocent of abuse, and I do think there were likely instances where she embellished or lied. But I do believe that there is too much evidence, as mentioned in the final paragraph I posted above, to outright dismiss her claims that Depp was abusive.

Depp's team did a great job controlling the narrative as well having a jury trial that was not immune to a media circus. I think they made a very complicated and messy situation look a lot more one sided than it actually was.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cole436

I think the evidence shows that people can be confused and have different recollections of events, especially when dealing with violent or traumatic circumstances.

The evidence could also show that lying liars lie depending on your point of view. What is making you believe that she is more likely forgetting what really happened rather than misremembering her lies? Remember this is someone who still claims she never abused Johnny despite being recorded taunting him and admitting to physically assaulting him.

I don't think that Amber Heard is innocent of abuse, and I do think there were likely instances where she embellished or lied. But I do believe that there is too much evidence, as mentioned in the final paragraph I posted above, to outright dismiss her claims that Depp was abusive.

I think you’re severely underestimating the lengths a person with BPD is capable of going to. Also, I think using an article written with a clear bias makes for pretty weak evidence to justify your argument. I’ve avoided most of the media during this case and instead opted to listen and watch the actual testimony which is what I’m basing my opinions on, I don’t follow very much celebrity news and hadn’t followed this case very closely before the trial began.

Depp's team did a great job controlling the narrative as well having a jury trial that was not immune to a media circus. I think they made a very complicated and messy situation look a lot more one sided than it actually was.

I think the facts spoke for themselves and Heard’s lawyers quickly realized they were dealing with a client who hadn’t been honest with them and so they did their best to mitigate the damage.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The evidence could also show that lying liars lie depending on your point of view. What is making you believe that she is more likely forgetting what really happened rather than misremembering her lies? Remember this is someone who still claims she never abused Johnny despite being recorded taunting him and admitting to physically assaulting him.

Because as a survivor of abuse I understand how these episodes can warp your mind and make you unsure of not just your thoughts, but the reality around you. Again, I am not discounting that she could be dishonest with some of her statements.

I think you’re severely underestimating the lengths a person with BPD is capable of going to. Also, I think using an article written with a clear bias makes for pretty weak evidence to justify your argument. I’ve avoided most of the media during this case and instead opted to listen and watch the actual testimony which is what I’m basing my opinions on, I don’t follow very much celebrity news and hadn’t followed this case very closely before the trial began.

I think you're villanizing people who have BPD. It's a very difficult mental disorder to live with but that does not mean people who have it are compulsive liars, manipulators, or monsters. Again, she was diagnosed by a therapist in his legal team so you should question the bias.

I think that section of the article is very clear in presenting facts. These allegations first came from her two yeas prior to even being married, and they were not brought to public light until years after their divorce. I think that fact there were numerous documented allegations during their relationship is enough smoke for me to believe there's some truth.

I think the facts spoke for themselves and Heard’s lawyers quickly realized they were dealing with a client who hadn’t been honest with them and so they did their best to mitigate the damage.

I think you should also look at the fact that Depp hired an entire legal team with the best money he could buy with his $150 million dollar fortune and Heard had a single lawyer whose legal fees racked up to her net worth even before the trial began.

[Cliche]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1532471247447154690

https://twitter.com/user/status/1533200045201313792

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Cole436

The conversation around this trial has made me really uncomfortable, as even though it's clear Heard did lie about pieces of her testimony, the fallout feels deeply rooted in misogyny.

I think this is an article that some of you should read and maybe question your staning of Johnny Depp

Wow, I actually first thought you mis typed, then googled Staning and found out its an actual term, haha.

The act of obsessing over a particular person or product at shamefully high levels.

Deprived from the oh so popular song Stan by Eminem. In which a fan, named Stan, is obsessed with Eminem at a dangerously high level.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Because as a survivor of abuse I understand how these episodes can warp your mind and make you unsure of not just your thoughts, but the reality around you.

Are you implying that another victim of abuse who has dealt with similar trauma couldn’t possibly disagree with your assessment? Because that’s kind of what it sounds like.

Again, I am not discounting that she could be dishonest with some of her statements.

Strongly disagree. You continually try to minimize it by arguing the inconsistencies in her story are a result of the abuse she’s suffered when there is no hard evidence to support her allegations.

I think you're villanizing people who have BPD.

Your opinion is noted, but I’m in no way trying to villanize people with BPD. Not every person with BPD does horrible things, but some are capable of doing things that are downright incomprehensible and malicious. You can’t ignore that just because they’re not all bad.

It's a very difficult mental disorder to live with but that does not mean people who have it are compulsive liars, manipulators, or monsters. Again, she was diagnosed by a therapist in his legal team so you should question lol the bias.

No one is saying they are all liars, manipulators or monsters. I’m not using the therapist’s diagnosis to justify what I’m saying anymore than you’re using her team’s therapists alternate diagnosis to support what you’re saying. Maybe she has ptsd, I don’t know, but she certainly has signs of BPD.

I think that section of the article is very clear in presenting facts. These allegations first came from her two yeas prior to even being married, and they were not brought to public light until years after their divorce. I think that fact there were numerous documented allegations during their relationship is enough smoke for me to believe there's some truth.

Again I think you’re underestimating what some people are capable of. Someone who’s willing to #### on a bed playing the long game on something like this isn’t out of what I would consider to be plausible. I’ve seen people do similar.

I think you should also look at the fact that Depp hired an entire legal team with the best money he could buy with his $150 million dollar fortune and Heard had a single lawyer whose legal fees racked up to her net worth even before the trial began.

What are you basing this statement on? Firstly, Amber heard had more than one lawyer. Secondly, I highly doubt you’ve got any realistic idea of how much her legal bill was compared to her net worth. If you’re going to make stuff up at least make it somewhat believable.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

All of these losers and trashy click bait article authors know that this is a hot topic right now. Writing an article about how Depp was abused and how Heard is an abuser doesn’t generate clicks. The world spent weeks learning about that. It’s old news and it isn’t controversial.

If you want eyeballs, you need to create controversy. And the easy controversy right now is to defend Heard and maintain that Depp is a scumbag who is single-handedly destroying the me too movement. It doesn’t hurt that the MRAs have, to no one’s surprise, taken Depp’s side. The fact that side happens to be the right one allows all of these rags and gossip sites (and some legitimate media) to tag anyone who thought Depp was a victim as being part of the misogynists.

[djsFlames]

Lol really CBC?

She's an actress for a reason.

She was faking taking notes through the entire trial. Lol how much else was just for show, I wonder?

[FanIn80]

Wtf is happening with people?

She literally lied about the abuse. There was no sexual abuse, and the only physical abuse that was proven in court was the abuse he suffered from her. He locked himself in his bathroom to get away from her and when he finally gave in and opened the door, she kicked it open right into his face and then punched him in the face.

She took pictures of him passed out in different positions and texted them to people. She literally wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post talking about him that cost him his roles in the Pirates and Harry Potter franchises.

For six years, he's had this unproven accusation of being a sexual and physical abuser hanging over his head, preventing him from being able to live his life. He finally has his day in a US court, and and a jury of Amber Heard's peers unanimously found that she purposefully, willingly and knowingly made untrue accusations in public about him, and did so with MALICE (meeting all five requirements for a celebrity to prove defamation) on all three counts....

...but she's still the victim? this is somehow going to make it harder for women to come forward?

SHE. LIED. ABOUT. ALL. OF. IT.

Are you guys seriously trying to argue that Depp should have just taken the hit on his reputation, career and livelihood just so that it doesn't tarnish the #metoo movement? Jesus Christ. Amber Heard lying under oath and falsely representing herself as a sexual and physical abuse victim did more to damage #metoo than anything else.

Like, come the f*** on.


Also, the UK trial that people like to go on about wasn't even against Amber Heard. It was against a newspaper. Johnny's team tried to get the court to force Heard to testify and/or turn over documentation for evidence, but the judge wouldn't allow it. That's why the case was lost - because it was against the wrong people. Amber Heard herself is the evidence that the whole thing is a lie, but they couldn't get the UK court to do it's job. This time, they went after her directly and this time they won. Why? BECAUSE SHE LITERALLY MADE IT ALL UP.

What a crazy friggin world this is. Nobody cares about the truth anymore. It's all about finding something that says what you want to read and then regurgitating it over and over and then fighting against everyone else.



"Hey, you should turn around, the bridge is out up ahead."
"What? That's not what my GPS says."
"Yeah GPSs aren't that fast, it just collapsed like 5 minutes ago."
"Yeah ok buddy, whatever."
"No seriously. I'm telling you there is no bridge - if you go that way, you'll go right off the mountain and die."
"Sure, Mr. Bridge Scientist. Whatever you say, lol!"

.....annnnnnd crash.

[Stampede2TheCup]

Originally Posted by Cole436

The conversation around this trial has made me really uncomfortable, as even though it's clear Heard did lie about pieces of her testimony, the fallout feels deeply rooted in misogyny.

I think this is an article that some of you should read and maybe question your staning of Johnny Depp

Firstly, as was already mentioned, nothing in that article is revealing to anyone following the case as it simply is her mostly unfounded, unproven, or at least very unconvincing side of the story that she told in court. What I’m inclined to think this reveals is that you haven’t followed the case as closely as the people you are trying to serve “truth-bombs” to.

Of course across the internet there’s no shortage of people exaggerating and sensationalizing the case, and people only willing to categorize opposite sides of the battle as pure good or evil so they can unabashedly cheer for their sides without reservation. However, I don’t see people staning Depp in this thread. Nobody in their right mind thinks he’s an angel or “innocent”.

Maybe the public fallout against Heard has been disproportional to similar cases, but I don’t see misogyny being the reason at all. I see that being a result of this high profile case that became a bit of a circus that ended up getting a lot of hype largely via being fully televised for everyone to follow along with closely. That and she’s shown herself to be not very likeable or credible.

Even if people were out for a juicy target, I’d bet almost everyone who had turned on Heard was just as ready turn on Depp before they’d heard both sides. She seems to have failed to prove her story in that link both in court and it would appear the court of public opinion. It’s a case where the public had access to all of the court testimonies and proceedings.

You know that she hired a P.R. firm in part to directly influence the media, right? Why are we supposed to put weight in one random opinion article that is clearly just parroting her story as true when there’s just been an in-depth court case looking intensely at the matter?

I fully acknowledge misogyny is an issue in the world and that a much higher proportion of men are abusers. However, this is simply an individual case that’s seems like an exception and I think most people here on Depp’s side are smart enough to categorize it as such. It’s great to always try to be aware of potential misogyny out there, but at the same anything can feel misogynistic if one is inclined to want to feel that.

Amber Heard Hires New PR Team To Help With Bad Headlines

Amber Heard’s New PR Team Just Contacted Us. Here’s What They Said.

Amber Heard’s new PR guru faced sex harass claims, has history of DUI arrests

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Stampede2TheCup

Firstly, as was already mentioned, nothing in that article is revealing to anyone following the case as it simply is her mostly unfounded, unproven, or at least very unconvincing side of the story that she told in court. What I’m inclined to think this reveals is that you haven’t followed the case as closely as the people you are trying to serve “truth-bombs” to.

Of course across the internet there’s no shortage of people exaggerating and sensationalizing the case, and people only willing to categorize opposite sides of the battle as pure good or evil so they can unabashedly cheer for their sides without reservation. However, I don’t see people staning Depp in this thread. Nobody in their right mind thinks he’s an angel or “innocent”.

Maybe the public fallout against Heard has been disproportional to similar cases, but I don’t see misogyny being the reason at all. I see that being a result of this high profile case that became a bit of a circus that ended up getting a lot of hype largely via being fully televised for everyone to follow along with closely. That and she’s shown herself to be not very likeable or credible.

Even if people were out for a juicy target, I’d bet almost everyone who had turned on Heard was just as ready turn on Depp before they’d heard both sides. She seems to have failed to prove her story in that link both in court and it would appear the court of public opinion. It’s a case where the public had access to all of the court testimonies and proceedings.

You know that she hired a P.R. firm in part to directly influence the media, right? Why are we supposed to put weight in one random opinion article that is clearly just parroting her story as true when there’s just been an in-depth court case looking intensely at the matter?

I fully acknowledge misogyny is an issue in the world and that a much higher proportion of men are abusers. However, this is simply an individual case that’s seems like an exception and I think most people here on Depp’s side are smart enough to categorize it as such. It’s great to always try to be aware of potential misogyny out there, but at the same anything can feel misogynistic if one is inclined to want to feel that.

Amber Heard Hires New PR Team To Help With Bad Headlines

Amber Heard’s New PR Team Just Contacted Us. Here’s What They Said.

Amber Heard’s new PR guru faced sex harass claims, has history of DUI arrests

This is going to be the last piece I say on this matter.

At no point have I defended Amber Heard as an abuser or said she hasn't lied. I've stated that this subject is quite a bit more complicated then it's been portrayed as, and while I do believe she has lied about aspects of this story I also recognize that there is a significant amount of evidence that Johnny Depp also abused her as well which I think is silly to ignore.

Go on and keep living your lives.