Johnny Depp and Amber Heard #11

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
Lady_H said:
To my mind it’s not just that AH has done this (although that is a bleeping disgrace), it’s that certain elements of the MSM have made it so much worse by supporting her in doing it.

If you were a woman currently being abused who knew little about the case but read the Guardian, NYT, Vogue etc, you would see AH as woman whose brutal assault by a “powerful man” had been disbelieved and then mocked because society and the legal system hate women. And yes, you would be terrified to disclose.

People like Gaby Hinsliff in the Guardian see nothing but misogyny in people who don’t support AH. Gaby’s entire worldview is based on seeing women as victims, always believing women, and from her perspective the only reason someone wouldn’t is that they hate all women. It is a really twisted philosophy. I’m sure she would happily use quotes from these threads as evidence of that apparent deep-seated misogyny!

These “journalists” could have reported on this very differently, and broadened the discussion around IPV and bringing these cases to court in all sorts of interesting ways. They have failed women by choosing to pursue an agenda rather than just reporting the case. If in fact there are hundreds of women who will now not disclose because they fear being believed, that’s very much on them.
Click to expand...

honestly, that’s not what I picked up on at all from the Gaby Hinsleff article. She’s pointing out the media circus surrounding the trial and the notes of misogyny. She never advocated that we should believe Amber Heard simply because she’s a woman.

I thought it was actually a fairly well researched and well written article.

as for misogyny in these comments… I mean, a few comments ago someone’s mistrust of their fellow females was so deep that they were wishing their son was gay. So there’s that 🤪
 
Just William said:
BIB - I agree, this is what could make him lose the case.

OK, I know I am biased. I believe in the evidence so I am convinced SHE was the instigator, aggressor & abuser of HIM but appreciate not everyone will agree.

But I don't know how any juror could even think for one second that she wasn't referring to JD? It's absurd.
He loses a case in London where he's publicly accused of being a wife beater.
She then writes an article speaking out about DV yet we're all supposed to somehow believe it was just an innocent coincidence & she wasn't referring to JD? Utter bollocks.
She would have been advised not to name him for fear of defamation but she didn't even have to name him, as her connection to JD, (her ex husband who was publicly labelled a wife beater) couldn't be more clear had she taken out an ad on TV with neon lights.
Click to expand...
Surely someone should have cross examined her on who else was she referring to in the article if it was not JD.
 
Weathergirl said:
Surely someone should have cross examined her on who else was she referring to in the article if it was not JD.
Click to expand...

im guessing they didn’t because it could just as easily backfire on them as it could work in their favour.

presumably if asked about who it was written about, Amber would be within her rights to say she wanted to keep in anonymous and state it could’ve been about anyone she’d been in a relationship with (which could only hurt Depp’s case).

she’s not likely at this point to admit it was written about Johnny so no point asking.

I’ve just read the Op Ed and it doesn’t refer to anyone specifically. Its Amber talking about her experiences and how she was harassed by paps.

It’s worded in such a way that it’s not just specific to her experiences. For example it hypothetically talks about “imagine a powerful man is like a ship” as opposed to “I spoke out against a powerful man and it was like working against a ship”

I get why Depp was inferenced from it but I’m struggling to see how Amber herself made the inference in the article which is why 1. I don’t think Depp will be successful in this trial and 2. Why she hasn’t been asked about it
 
Last edited:
Duh duh duhhhhhhhhhhh, morning, morning!

I guess there are campers at the court today, it's going to get all roman amphitheatre this week isn't it, tar, oil, lions, lies. Make room at the back there!

dLbz5qCjzsuc.gif
 
cee-bee said:
im guessing they didn’t because it could just as easily backfire on them as it could work in their favour.

presumably if asked about who it was written about, Amber would be within her rights to say she wanted to keep in anonymous and state it could’ve been about anyone she’d been in a relationship with (which could only hurt Depp’s case).

she’s not likely at this point to admit it was written about Johnny so no point asking.

I’ve just read the Op Ed and it doesn’t refer to anyone specifically. Its Amber talking about her experiences and how she was harassed by paps.

It’s worded in such a way that it’s not just specific to her experiences. For example it hypothetically talks about “imagine a powerful man is like a ship” as opposed to “I spoke out against a powerful man and it was like working against a ship”

I get why Depp was inferenced from it but I’m struggling to see how Amber herself made the inference in the article which is why 1. I don’t think Depp will be successful in this trial and 2. Why she hasn’t been asked about it
Click to expand...
Apparently that's not the original article, it's been changed since it was initially written
 
Notworthy said:
Apparently that's not the original article, it's been changed since it was initially written
Click to expand...

where have you gotten that info from?

id have thought they’d have had to have included in the piece itself if it had been amended but can’t see that (unless is different in the US)
 
cee-bee said:
honestly, that’s not what I picked up on at all from the Gaby Hinsleff article. She’s pointing out the media circus surrounding the trial and the notes of misogyny. She never advocated that we should believe Amber Heard simply because she’s a woman.

I thought it was actually a fairly well researched and well written article.

as for misogyny in these comments… I mean, a few comments ago someone’s mistrust of their fellow females was so deep that they were wishing their son was gay. So there’s that 🤪
Click to expand...
The entire article was written from the perspective that Heard is a victim. There’s not even the faintest hint that the evidence points towards her being the perpetrator, or that men can be victims, and Hinsleff doesn’t even attempt to understand what she describes as “the minimisation and mockery of Heard’s allegations” as anything other than pure misogyny.

She is similarly amazed that many Depp-supporters are women of around Amber’s age and can only explain it by quoting Davison: “we live in a misogynistic world, and therefore what we accept is normal, what we think is normal, is misogynistic, whether we’re male or female.” So the conclusion is that everyone hates women whether they know it or not, and that’s the only explanation needed. That’s a way of completely undermining and devaluing others’ experience - why bother to think or investigate more deeply when you can just dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as “misogynistic”?

I guess it’s a reasonable article for anyone who also sees the world that way, but I find it shockingly biased given the actual evidence in this trial.

This is the article referred to just in case anyone is wondering!

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.the...olence-victims-tiktokers-tweeters-johnny-depp
 
Last edited:
Dotty Merton said:
"What a difference a day makes,
24 little hours,
Brought the sun and the flowers,
Where there used to be rain makeup...... "


View attachment 1285907 q
Click to expand...
How do we know its a day later?

wibble said:
#TeamDepp are too confident.

Everybody is wittering about Adam Waldman, and how Depp being recalled to the stand is about Heard's counter-claim. Oh they might ask a few questions about Mr Waldman.... but Heard's team know they are never going to swing a jury on that. But they also know that Depp will have spent the weekend prepping for Elaine's clumsy attempts, or Rottenborn's aggressve style, at finding a way around attorney client privilege.

Mr Depp needs to go into court, with a pocket knife (something small and inoffensive, for cutting cigars), it needs to have a black handle, and look as unlike the knife on the bed as it is possible to get. Preferably that knife needs to set off a metal detector in the courthouse, he needs to express surprise, "that it has never done that before." Apologise, and he needs to give the knife to a court security guard.

Because if they do bring in the knife on the bed into court, and pin him to it.... he is done. Even the slightest whiff that could be his will damage his credibility. Not only in this trial, but leave him open to a lifetime of litigation: and possible criminal charges for rape.

That knife places him at the scene, at the time: and at the very least Heard's lawyers are going to say that it was Mr Depp who prised the bed-frame with the knife and caused the damage - as demonstrated in Law and Lumber's video.

The Waldman thing is pure theatre and distraction. The only reason the judge hasn't completely dismissed the counterclaim is because it offers Amber grounds for appeal.

Whitney did not say he always carried a pocket knife for no reason.

For let's not forget, if her sister faces perjury charges, she does too - something Amber will no doubt have emphasised: and may explain the scratches on Amber's face and Whitney setting in the court with a face of thunder; at having once more been forced to do her sister's dirty-work.

We shall see....
Click to expand...
Still catching up.

What motive would JD have for damaging the bed with the knife?
 
Lady_H said:
The entire article was written from the perspective that Heard is a victim. There’s not even the faintest hint that the evidence points towards her being the perpetrator, or that men can be victims, and Hinsleff doesn’t even attempt to understand what she describes as “the minimisation and mockery of Heard’s allegations” as anything other than pure misogyny.

She is similarly amazed that many Depp-supporters are women of around Amber’s age and can only explain it by quoting Davison: “we live in a misogynistic world, and therefore what we accept is normal, what we think is normal, is misogynistic, whether we’re male or female.” So the conclusion is that everyone hates women whether they know it or not, and that’s the only explanation needed.

I guess it’s a reasonable article for anyone who also sees the world that way, but I find it shockingly biased given the actual evidence in this trial.
Click to expand...

Thats not how I read it at all. Maybe that is Gaby’s personal perspective but she hasn’t put that in the article and that wasn’t what I read.

She wasn’t delving into whether or not Amber was a victim or wasn’t. She isn’t looking at the evidence of the case because that isn’t the remit of the article. Indeed, Gaby makes a point that the article isn’t “passing judgement” on what may or may not have happened in the Depp marriage. So I’m struggling to see where the shocking bias you see is coming from. An article that doesn’t support your personally held belief isn’t a bias article.

The purpose of the article was to examine the public backlash against Heard and looking at wider context of domestic violence against women, and misogyny (because the two are of course linked). The key point of the article is examining the role of social media/public opinion in domestic abuse cases.

it’s one thing to be sceptical of Amber’s accounts - but the widespread mockery of it? I think it’s fair to point out there are elements of misogyny there.

the quote you included isn’t about hating women. It’s about accepting standards of behaviour and sets of rules for women (subconsciously or not) because wider society favours the male perspective. It’s not a perspective unique to Davison or Hinsleff at all. It’s not even a radical feminist perspective. Most feminists would tend to agree that yes, internalised misogyny is a thing. Hinsleff is pointing out how it’s a play in the public discussion surrounding the Heard V Depp case.
 
cee-bee said:
where have you gotten that info from?

id have thought they’d have had to have included in the piece itself if it had been amended but can’t see that (unless is different in the US)
Click to expand...

Honestly can't remember where I saw that, somewhere on one of these threads in the last week. Not sure how true it is but even a very minor change would make a difference to how it read.
 
Notworthy said:
Apparently that's not the original article, it's been changed since it was initially written
Click to expand...
cee-bee said:
where have you gotten that info from?

id have thought they’d have had to have included in the piece itself if it had been amended but can’t see that (unless is different in the US)
Click to expand...
The ACLU (I think it was them anyway) said in their testimony that JD was named in the original draft but it was then removed. They made it very clear who it was about.

Also, JD said in his testimony that the copy that he was shown in court wasn’t the copyhe was familiar with. I think the online version was slightly different. It definitely had a different headline.
 
Notworthy said:
Honestly can't remember where I saw that, somewhere on one of these threads in the last week. Not sure how true it is but even a very minor change would make a difference to how it read.
Click to expand...

i don’t think it has been changed as I’ve not found any information to suggest it has (and god knows it’s been the focus of a lot of news stories recently!) plus I think the Washington Post would have to include on the current piece, any alterations or amendments made.

Whatsallthis said:
The ACLU (I think it was them anyway) said in their testimony that JD was named in the original draft but it was then removed. They made it very clear who it was about.
Click to expand...

that makes more sense, thanks for clarifying!
 
Last edited:
It was the title that changed. The original title was "I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our cultures wrath, that needs to change". She pretty much admitted when being crossed examined that it was about Depp. That's not going to be the issue. The issue will be if they believe what she said in the article was true.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top