News I'm watching the Johnny Depp defamation case

[SSgt Dickweed]

LOL she did a slug?

 

[Brampton_Boy]

Why do people blindly support Johnny Depp? I’ll tell you why

As a barrister, I see many victims of domestic abuse being sued for ‘defamation’, for daring to speak about what their perpetrator did to them. Meanwhile, the world questions whether they’re a ‘real victim’

“If she was scared to death, why didn’t she leave?” asked everyone’s favourite Hollywood heartthrob-turned-bad-boy Johnny Depp in court.

He was talking, of course, about his ex-wife Amber Heard, who he is suing for libel in the US over an article she wrote for the Washington Post in 2018. During her testimony, the actress has accused Depp of physical and sexual abuse.

If Depp’s phrase feels familiar, that’s because it is: survivors, families of victims and domestic abuse campaigners have worked tirelessly to stop society using such victim-blaming tropes. Instead of asking a woman why she didn’t escape abuse, ask the man why he abused her in the first place. That would be a good place to start.

Escaping an abusive relationship is one of the most dangerous times for victims. Just because the relationship ends, it doesn’t mean the abuse ends. Post-separation coercive and controlling behaviour is one of the most insidious and corrosive forms of abuse that I’ve ever seen.

Depp lost his defamation claim in the High Court in London in 2020. He was greeted with adoring fans throwing roses at him, blowing kisses and holding supportive banners. I stood next to him after we passed through security, he smiled and I gave him my best dead eyes.

The judge later found that Depp physically assaulted Heard (including headbutting her, tearing out clumps of her hair, and holding her by her neck) and she said she had feared for her life. Depp is alleged to have sent texts to his friend, Paul Bettany, threatening to burn Heard and “f*** her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she is dead”.

It is telling that Depp is dragging Heard through a second high-profile trial in the US, hoping for a better outcome. He is suing her for a whopping $50m – this looks to me like serious financial control.

Both cases in England and the US centre on silencing Heard from speaking about the abuse she says he inflicted on her. I see many victims of domestic abuse being sued for “defamation”, for daring to speak about what their perpetrator did to them.

The world sits in judgment, questioning whether Heard is a “real victim”. Does she look like a victim? Does she speak like a victim? Does she cry like a victim?

Where are the headlines asking if Depp is a perpetrator, judging him on every move that he makes? There are no special measures in court – Depp sits there smiling, while Heard relives abuse and trauma.

Depp’s lawyer is used as a pawn, a weapon to revictimise her for the world’s entertainment. The court has become a tool for a perpetrator to continue his abuse and control. What message does that send out to victims? Victims who don’t have money, fame, photos of injuries and texts threatening to harm them? How do they think they will be treated by the justice system?

The court is asked to pathologise Heard as being “abnormal”, “mentally ill” and “mad”. All too often, victims of domestic abuse are labelled with sexist diagnoses such as “histrionic and borderline personality disorders” by psychologists, rather than understanding that they are suffering with trauma caused by domestic abuse. Heard is no exception.

Dr Curry, a psychologist, suggested that Heard could have two personality disorders, while Dr Hughes diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder. But why isn’t Depp pathologised? Where is his mental health diagnosis?

After all, this is a man who explained his abusive behaviour by calling himself “the monster”. Every headline that has commented on Heard’s mental health has stigmatised people with mental health challenges, while simultaneously undermining the credibility of victims who come forward.

Heard is due to be cross-examined by Depp’s team. I can tell you now how that will play out because I see it every day in courtrooms: “Why didn’t you say no? How drunk were you? You provoked him. You were abusive. It’s your fault.”

These questions blame the victim and render the perpetrator invisible. It’s a tactic that continues to be very effective and persuasive, because it plays on all of the myths we are taught about how abuse works. She lies; he’s a hero.

So, when I see hashtags trending on twitter like, “AmberHeardIsALiar”, I realise how deeply entrenched misogyny is in our society. It doesn’t matter that there is a High Court decision proving that Depp assaulted Heard, it wouldn’t matter if the world watched Depp physically assault Heard in public, people would still support Depp. Why is he above the law?

Is it because Depp is the definition of masculinity? Every man wanted to be him at one point. If even he can be a perpetrator of domestic abuse, with all the fame, glory, money and power that he has, it sends out a strong message to men that anyone can be a perpetrator of violence. Anyone can fall from grace – even you.

But it also says something more sinister: that our society doesn’t care about domestic abuse. “So what, he slapped her? She deserved it.” Depp has said it was “mutual abuse”. We are subtly being told that even if he abused her, we should feel himpathy for him (which is inappropriate sympathy towards powerful men who abuse women).

These men, we are taught, shouldn’t be ruined because of transgressions towards women, because women aren’t worth it. Our patriarchal society is sustaining this and using Depp to continue the empathy towards perpetrators and the admonishment of victims.

Did you write this, or is it a copy of an article?

While I don't agree with your position that was exceptionally well written. You've done a better job at defending Heard and planting a seed of doubt than her own lawyers have. Kudos.

 

[fingercuffs]

Him doing a vaginal recce for cocaine rings true. She used to hide his drugs when he was trying to come off them, like downer sort of drugs so he wouldn't drink or do cocaine and taunt hm with it so he'd go off his head. So I can believe that at least. I'm pretty sure they were both physical.

Has anyone seen the movie they met? Didn't realise it was a Hunter Thompson flick. Rum Diaries.

 

[what-wut]

Did you write this, or is it a copy of an article?

While I don't agree with your position that was exceptionally well written. You've done a better job at defending Heard and planting a seed of doubt than her own lawyers have. Kudos.

It's from the independent lol.

 

[fingercuffs]

 

[eddymotto]

I caught up with an acquaintance of mine who is a US-based matrimonial lawyer. Obviously, the Depp-Heard case is defamation & not a divorce proceeding but I found his comments interesting because he deals with lots of extremely angry and bitter former spouses fighting in court. He is not in any way involved with the case and has just been following it in the media like everyone else. He had not caught up on Heard's testimony yet, so he was mostly just aware of Depp's case.

Comments:
- doubtful that it would even be at this stage if filed in California (anti-slapp laws). I am not sure if he meant that the case would be delayed or if it would never get to this stage at all.
- mixed view of Depp's testimony. Well prepared Witness but also had to admit to a lot of crazy shit on the stand. Thought that Depp and his team did about as well as they could have hoped given the facts (e.g. Depp is an erratic drug addict)
- Thinks Depp would have been much better off never going to court. The loss in the UK really hurt him. The US case is difficult to win.
- skeptical about Depp winning damages. Depp's career was in decline and he is admittedly a complete diva to work with. Thought that losing the UK case was much worse for his career vs. the Heard Op Ed. Depp's argument is that you can be a well-paid actor while still being an unreliable druggie at work but you can't be known as an abuser and still get work.
- found Depp's statement that he is fighting the case so that his children know he is not a wife-beater to be bizarre. One, UK court already found that it is reasonable to call him a wife-beater. Two, if you need a Court decision to convince your own kids that you did not beat up a woman you have probably already lost in terms of being a dad.
- Heard firing her PR team does not mean anything legally. Just reflects that she thinks that she is losing the PR war outside of the courtroom.
- skeptical that Heard has much chance of winning damages but thought that she had a better chance than Depp because her career was on the way up while Depp's was in decline. this was before Heard put on her case.

He did not get into any of the accusations themselves (which one is the evilest). I think he is used to crazy people acting crazy in bitter divorce cases. He was focused on them proving damages related to defamation and he is skeptical that either one of them will succeed based on what he has seen so far (while also saying multiple times that he is not in court and only 50% of the case has been presented)

some of you clearly have a heavy emotional investment in this case so don't get worked up. it is just a random lawyer's opinion (that I found interesting)

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

Just lol

Did anyone watch any ?

The fecel matter on the bed supposedly left by amber had me almost puking while at the same time laughing

So he's suing her for 50 mil
And she's countersuing for 100 mil

What a hot mess

Giant stage show, not even real. It's purpose is to entertain and distract from the actual stuff that matters in this world. Instead of worrying about the global economic reset, people are obsessing over the lives of famous people.

 

[Err]

I caught up with an acquaintance of mine who is a US-based matrimonial lawyer. Obviously, the Depp-Heard case is defamation & not a divorce proceeding but I found his comments interesting because he deals with lots of extremely angry and bitter former spouses fighting in court. He is not in any way involved with the case and has just been following it in the media like everyone else. He had not caught up on Heard's testimony yet, so he was mostly just aware of Depp's case.

Comments:
- doubtful that it would even be at this stage if filed in California (anti-slapp laws). I am not sure if he meant that the case would be delayed or if it would never get to this stage at all.
- mixed view of Depp's testimony. Well prepared Witness but also had to admit to a lot of crazy shit on the stand. Thought that Depp and his team did about as well as they could have hoped given the facts (e.g. Depp is an erratic drug addict)
- Thinks Depp would have been much better off never going to court. The loss in the UK really hurt him. The US case is difficult to win.
- skeptical about Depp winning damages. Depp's career was in decline and he is admittedly a complete diva to work with. Thought that losing the UK case was much worse for his career vs. the Heard Op Ed. Depp's argument is that you can be a well-paid actor while still being an unreliable druggie at work but you can't be known as an abuser and still get work.
- found Depp's statement that he is fighting the case so that his children know he is not a wife-beater to be bizarre. One, UK court already found that it is reasonable to call him a wife-beater. Two, if you need a Court decision to convince your own kids that you did not beat up a woman you have probably already lost in terms of being a dad.
- Heard firing her PR team does not mean anything legally. Just reflects that she thinks that she is losing the PR war outside of the courtroom.
- skeptical that Heard has much chance of winning damages but thought that she had a better chance than Depp because her career was on the way up while Depp's was in decline. this was before Heard put on her case.

He did not get into any of the accusations themselves (which one is the evilest). I think he is used to crazy people acting crazy in bitter divorce cases. He was focused on them proving damages related to defamation and he is skeptical that either one of them will succeed based on what he has seen so far (while also saying multiple times that he is not in court and only 50% of the case has been presented)

some of you clearly have a heavy emotional investment in this case so don't get worked up. it is just a random lawyer's opinion (that I found interesting)

I don’t really disagree with a lot of those points, but the idea that this isn’t helping Depp clear his name in the court of public opinion sounds like cope just as much as the people on Depps side who think he was an innocent victim does. The skewing of support on all forms of social media and entertainment towards Depp, aside from the schlocky news agencies, is overwhelming.

As far as the UK ruling is concerned, reading the commentary and statements made by the judge within context of the evidence that has been presented thus far during the US trial, I can only conclude that, if privy to the same evidence, the judge in the UK is either retarded or the allegations his of connections to the Sun and Amber Heards council are true.

 

[Hog-train]

Did you write this, or is it a copy of an article?

While I don't agree with your position that was exceptionally well written. You've done a better job at defending Heard and planting a seed of doubt than her own lawyers have. Kudos.

No I didn't write this. It's a repost

And I don't agree with it at all. Super biased.

 

[Hog-train]

I don’t really disagree with a lot of those points, but the idea that this isn’t helping Depp clear his name in the court of public opinion sounds like cope just as much as the people on Depps side who think he was an innocent victim does. The skewing of support on all forms of social media and entertainment towards Depp, aside from the schlocky news agencies, is overwhelming.

As far as the UK ruling is concerned, reading the commentary and statements made by the judge within context of the evidence that has been presented thus far during the US trial, I can only conclude that, if privy to the same evidence, the judge in the UK is either retarded or the allegations his of connections to the Sun and Amber Heards council are true.

The judge in that trial had a son who works for Rupert Murdoch, who owns the Sun. Should have recused himself.

Plus, a major reason the judge believed Heard in the written decision was about her donating all the divorce money to charity. We now know that was a lie.

 

[SSgt Dickweed]

"Amber Heard is a plagiarist." - Kenny Florian

 

[GSP_37]

Amber must have Randy Johnson's throwing arm to be able to throw a glass bottle and sever Johnny's fingertip. Sounds like bullshit.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

Pathetic and embarrassing.

 

[HereticBD]

Amber must have Randy Johnson's throwing arm to be able to throw a glass bottle and sever Johnny's fingertip. Sounds like bullshit.

It wouldn't take much force if your finger was resting on the edge of a hard surface, which I believe is how it was explained. The bottle didn't just hit his finger and chop it off. It got mashed.

 

[TheNinja]

Anyone thinking they're both porcelain and neither of them physically assaulted each other are twats.

This. I'll reiterate my point again. I believe they were both physical with each other on multiple occasions. It was an extremely toxic relationship between 2 pretty messed up people (or at least 1 messed up person and one functional addict). But I believe Amber was probably the worse of the two and had a major temper/crazy side to her that didn't help matters at all. I'm guessing she poked and prodded and nagged and was constantly just on that guy's ass 24/7.

 

[eddymotto]

The judge in that trial had a son who works for Rupert Murdoch, who owns the Sun. Should have recused himself.

Plus, a major reason the judge believed Heard in the written decision was about her donating all the divorce money to charity. We now know that was a lie.

sounds like we should be really concerned about the corruption in the UK case. Plus the HIgh Court refused Depp's appeal. I think that the High Court appeals review is done by 3 justices/judges which means at least 3 judges (the first guy plus at least 2 of the appeals judges) were potentially corrupted. Normally I would think that a rich and well-known person like Depp would have the advantage but I guess he truly is the little guy vs. somebody like Murdoch. I wonder if Depp being a foreigner suing a UK company hurt him too?

on the US side, do you think that Bezos has any reason to get involved against him? Heard's Op-Ed appeared in the Washington Post but since the Post is not named as a defendant perhaps Bezos has no reason to get involved?

 

[eddymotto]

I don’t really disagree with a lot of those points, but the idea that this isn’t helping Depp clear his name in the court of public opinion sounds like cope just as much as the people on Depps side who think he was an innocent victim does. The skewing of support on all forms of social media and entertainment towards Depp, aside from the schlocky news agencies, is overwhelming.

As far as the UK ruling is concerned, reading the commentary and statements made by the judge within context of the evidence that has been presented thus far during the US trial, I can only conclude that, if privy to the same evidence, the judge in the UK is either retarded or the allegations his of connections to the Sun and Amber Heards council are true.

other people on this thread have raised concerns about the UK judge as well.

 

[MIKOM]

Pathetic and embarrassing.

Holy fuck I just had a stroke brought on by the deluge of cringe in the video.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

"Amber Heard is a plagiarist." - Kenny Florian

lol is this true?

 

[method115]

- Thinks Depp would have been much better off never going to court. The loss in the UK really hurt him. The US case is difficult to win.

This is really the only point I heavily disagree with. Depp has the pretty much the whole world (minus the media) backing him now and everyone hates Amber Heard. They literally changed her name to Amber Turd on IMDB. I've never seen some shit like that. Depp's already won this case honestly. This rest of this is just a formality and if his lawyer destroy Amber in cross it's only going to be that much better for him.