I know only peripherally that Amber Heard and Johnny Depp are fighting it out in the courtroom. I know very few of the details, but it seems as thought the public’s perception is that Heard is 100% evil and that Depp is being done wrong.
Is it that clear cut?
I know I could fire up the Google Machine but I prefer to get my info from a reliable source, so here we are. 
mmm
From what I understand, she had falsely accused him of abusing her, which cost him lots of roles. Then, it turned out she was physically abusing him. Then, it turned out that, when he was going to go public, she basically tried to call his bluff, “what kind of man would publicly admit to being abused. Go for it. I dare you” type of thing.
ETA: While this was going on, he lost his role in PiratesotC, but she kept her role in Aquaman 2.
I definitely think there is compelling audio evidence that she abused Depp, but I have no real idea if she is the only one who is abusive. Depp claims he never hit any woman in his life. Is there any real evidence he has? I heard her admitting she had hit him on audio(I didn’t punch you, I hit you, etc.).
I know Doug Stanhope immediately stood up for Depp and said Heard was a huge monster and that Johnny Depp would not abuse someone. I remember that right away, but I don’t know how Stanhope would know this other than being his friend and wanting to support him.
I guess the question is: Is there a single piece of evidence that Johnny Depp is abusive?
His other exes came out in support of him, for what it’s worth, saying he was never abusive.
As RitterSport notes.
I am getting my limited information from a site called LegalBytes. It seems a bit biased in spirit for Depp, but does a good job explaining things.
I think part of it is just the pendulum of justice – Depp’s reputation was trashed, so when evidence came out that Heard was making some things up, the pendulum swung and now Heard’s reputation is trashed.
There’s also a healthy dose of misogyny, as MRAs, Gamergaters, and Red-Pillers all love a good example of false abuse claims and will hound on them incessantly.
Frankly, they both seem like awful people. Depp married someone 23 years his junior with a fraction of the money and Hollywood clout and then seemed to revel in her frustrations at dealing with his antics. He’s about as far from a battered spouse as you can reasonably get, and if he was ever in fear for his safety he didn’t act like it.
Well, my son and two daughters, who aren’t misogynist, MRA, Gamergaters, or Red-Pillers, can’t stand her and think it’s ridiculous that he got kicked off of Pirates while she says on at Aquaman.
And, given her voicemail basically daring him to go public, I’m inclined to believe him that he was abused.
There was a funny moment in the trial yesterday when Heard’s lawyer asks a question, the witness starts to answer, and the lawyer objects (to his own question). I’d post a link but I can’t do that from where I am.
Does this mean we’re going to get swarmed by Deep’s’ fans now from outside?
Make up your own mind.
Could someone here summarize in one or two sentences what the trial is actually deciding? It seems that it is an opportunity for both sides to air all of their miniscule grievances in a public courtroom, but what is the legal decision at stake?
I believe it’s a libel suit against Heard by Mr. Depp for calling him a wife-beater.
Sure, not everyone who’s on Johnny Depp’s side is a misogynist, but misogynists sure are having a field day with this one. And frankly I think the amount of attention being paid to this trial and the amount of effort that’s going into hating on Amber Heard is unjustifiable unless you have an agenda. But then, I don’t watch any Kardashian shows so what do I know about celebrity drama as entertainment.
I think there’s a case to be made that a false accusation of abuse (if this one was indeed false) is pretty bad, because it gives support to all those MRAs, etc. So, women who have actually been abused (and, often, not believed) may also be giving her lots of shit for this.
Frankly, I get the idea that neither of them are ‘nice people’. It is just at this point it is hard to say who is worse.
A lot of troubling testimony has come out at trial. Depp apparently has problems with alcohol abuse. I heard testimony that he passed out on the beach in front of his kids.
Testimony about Amber is equally appalling.
It’s sad that success and money doesn’t result in a happy life. These two toxic people should have never started a relationship.
I don’t “hate” Amber Heard, but I’m having a hard time 1) unpicking the claims and counterclaims, and 2) deciding whether either of them are sufficiently reprehensible that I should boycott their works.
Almost. The libel/wife-beater lawsuit was a different one. Decided in 2020, in the UK where Depp sued a newspaper that called him a wife beater. He lost (there was enough/some evidence that he abused Heard; doesn’t mean he did, just that the newspaper wasn’t totally making it up out of the blue).
This US case is Depp suing Heard for writing an opinion article in the Washington Post wherein she alleges Depp physically abused her. Depp is suing for defamation (no i did not and your false allegation cost me movie roles).
<Sorry, duplicate>
Yeah, something to point out here is that while the trial is being televised, no one’s really watching the whole thing. Instead clips are being pumped out across social media, carefully framed to make Depp look good and Heard look bad. So even if someone forming an opinion isn’t a misogynist, they better take a good long look at their sources.
The sticking point for me is in today’s coverage. Sure, almost all accusations of abuse are founded, and the deliberately false accusation is going to be incredibly rare, and almost certainly the product of someone with a personality disorder like BPD.
But yesterday a psychologist testified to that effect:
I don’t know how reliable this testimony is, how rock-solid the diagnosis is. But if it’s accurate, suddenly the “false allegation” theory goes from “extremely unlikely” to “actually pretty plausible.”
The standard for successful tort for libel against a media outlet (as opposed to a private party) is very high by dint that it can just use the defense that they were publishing claims or other evidence as news and are not absolutely responsible for demonstrating the factual basis; in essence, as long as it cannot be demonstrated that the media entity acted with malice they are legally shielded from libel claims. The few cases of successful suit against media outlets for libel involve gross and obvious distortions or outright fabrication of the facts, often along with other criminal offenses.
Aside with whatever occurred between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, Heard is clearly using the public sentiment behind the #MeToo movement to bolster her case by making such a public appeal. If her claims are valid that may be a legitimate tact but the fact that so many character witnesses—including ex-partners and ex-spouse—have spoken up to indicate that Depp has not previously demonstrated violent abusive behavior tends to undermine the credibility those claims. In every case that I can recall that an abused partner or target of assault has come out against a celebrity abuser using his power to suppress claims (i.e. Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey), it has been followed by multiple other people making independent claims of similar behavior establishing a pattern of predator behavior.
That there is no apparent pattern in the case of allegations about Depp does not mean that he did not engage in abusive behavior but casts doubt on the veracity of Heard, who has otherwise demonstrated mercurial behavior and unreliable witnessing. The publication of the opinion piece in a nationally prominent newspaper does come off as an attempted ‘hit piece’ aimed at Depp and that it was promptly followed by his removal from a popular film franchise and loss of other projects gives him grounds to sue for financial harms. The testimony coming out of the trial (that I’ve only read briefly in summary because I’m less interested in the salacious details than the impact this has upon the larger issue of spousal and partner abuse) does seem to indicate that they are both seriously flawed and damaged people, and there was probably some degree of abusive behavior on both sides, but whether Depp’s behavior really rises to the level of physical threats or harm does seem to be in question, whereas there is testimony of physical evidence of Heard’s attacks on Depp.
I find this testimony a little suspect and wonder how Heard’s lawyers even permitted this examination. Making a credible diagnosis of Cluster B personality disorders requires a lot of examination of patient history, while while from a cursory view Heard does appear to be histrionic (unknown about the attachment issues associated with BPD) whether it rises to the level of a pathological disorder really should require more assessment. Whether the diagnostician can make a credible assessment of whether Heard does or does not have PTSD is even more complicated since the diagnostic criteria are very complicated and hotly debated in light of a broader acceptance of Complex PTSD (C-PTSD). Of course, as an expert witness for the plaintiff, she is only going to be called if she can testify in favor of her client, so while she may not be violating ethics she is motivated to evaluate the potential for these disorders as more likely than not.
Stranger