Myriad WOMEN Are Seeing Amber Heard As The Dangerous Troublemaker

Comments

Why Depp lost in the UK but won in the USA.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676

I really struggle with the outcome of this case, but at the same time I am not surprised. At the end of the day it was all about social media, celebrity status, money and egos. My reaction here is much the same as those I had with O.J Simpson and Michael Jackson.

The parallel that Pete does not draw is with Knox whose undoubted social media win in the US has a lot in common with Depp’s. Indeed, here is an interesting thought - does anyone think there would have been any need for the bent judges if the Meredith Kercher case had, after the trial in Italy, been transferred to and been dealt with in the USA? Same result as the 5th Chambers came up with I fancy, just without the crap Motivation, or any Motivation for that matter.

I don’t suppose there will be an appeal by Heard. I do think that she and her legal representatives rather messed up their case which, had I been representing her, would have focused on what her motive was for the article. I would have had her talking about how abuse can happen in any relationship, about the power disparity in the relationship between men and women etc and that abused women need to be supported when women call men out, and… yes.. she had experience of abuse… as had been found as a matter of fact by a judge in the UK. In other words her motivation was to help such women. They should have stuck to that - and had they done so then the “malice” bar would have looked very different. Instead they got dragged into a ding dong battle over specific allegations of abuse and who looked the more credible concerning those.

As it is, as a lawyer, I would be tempted to appeal. I see nothing in the article, even if she authored it, that indicates, on the face of it, that it was motivated by personal malice (even if it was), and it would have been so simple for her to have denied that and told the jury otherwise. In the article she did not name Depp, mention any specific allegation of abuse and I very much doubt that she came up with the title to it. That’s usually the publisher’s privilege.

However she undoubtedly has an ego, just like Depp and foolishly she did make it look personal. She fell right into the trap set for her. Abusers know their victims.

Beyond the above I have no further interest in the matter and will not make any further comment.

Thanks to James for pointing to it, that sure is a shallow analysis by the BBC. About on a par with the scant NY Times reporting of the Knox court events.

Nowhere is the fishy connection of the UK judge with Sun-owner Rupert Murdoch mentioned. Nor the facts that he accepted all that Heard said as gospel and arbitarily refused some evidence from Depp.

Nowhere is the tidal wave of hard facts that flowed from the mid-point of the trial pro-Depp and anti-Heard summarized, especially the complete absence of proof that Depp ever hit her and the telling analysis by the one psychologist that was court-ordered to meet with both of them.

Nowhere is it mentioned that unique in the world, US media have become addicted to toxic PR. It was ACLU PR that created this narrative, and Amber Heard PR that sustained it. (See the great book on US courts & PR by super-lawyer Wendy Murphy.)

Nowhere is it mentioned that, prior to this new trial, maybe 70-80 percent of Americans simply presumed bad of Depp, and swallowed what was dished out by that lazy media beholden to ACLU and Heard PR.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the combined TV and online audience hovered around 30 million, and that that audience was far more swayed by original court developments they saw with their own eyes than by all-over-the-map social media which was certainly not driven by either Depp or Heard. 

Nowhere is the pretty awkward fact mentioned that an obvious majority of WOMEN commenting online (as above) now see Heard as bad news for #MeToo and real victims.  The judge was a woman, lead lawyers on both sides were women, a majority of the witnesses were women, and two women sat on the jury.

Nowhere is it mentioned that Amber Heard signed a non-disclosure agreement and then in the blink of an eye broke it with pretty obvious malicious intent.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the Washington Post headline claimed SEXUAL abuse “two years ago” (ie by Depp) which neither Heard nor anyone had ever claimed before - a dumb-as-a-rock inclusion she signed off on, which tellingly was the subject of the jury’s only question to the judge.

Nowhere is it mentioned that, to elevate herself at Depp’s expense, she has repeatedly claimed in interviews that she “donated” her full divorce settlement of $7 million to two charities, but had personally paid them almost nothing. Or that above and beyond that $7 million paid, Depp met other later requests for free use of three LA penthouses etc.

Well… that only is one BBC columnist, and women in the UK too have been posting that they have had their eyes opened by this trial.

Besides, the BBC did as well on Meredith’s case as many main media, airing the Russell/Vogt documentary, and quite often checking facts with us.

And today, the liking for UK-invented American juries is for once riding high. 😊

Thanks again James.

Main media in mass denial… NY Times columnist Michele Goldberg has posted a second distorted “gloom & doom” column, slamming the jury, which so far not even one Times reader has agreed with. Readers have voted these the 3 most liked comments (you’ll see the top one is from London).

Added: the next 30 are quoted below.

1. By Mari, London

I am really starting to get sick of these partial articles, of the cherry picked facts, of the caveats and concessions for Amber’s side when presenting this trial in the media.

I am a progressive, a feminist, work in human rights. I am not a conservative or a wild Johnny Depp ‘tik tok’ fan. I watched the whole trial. I was on Heard’s side, for years. But it was clear as the trial went on, that it is very likely that Heard has fabricated the allegations - something absolutely heinous to do, to destroy someone else’s life.

Please Michelle, don’t be dishonest here. Everyone watching the trial could see the facts as they were presented; most people are smart enough to infer their own conclusions that Heard acted with malice.

***

2. By Moderate, Planet Earth

It’s distressing to read this sort of opinion piece.  A jury put in six hard weeks of listening to evidence before coming to a conclusion, and because Ms. Goldberg clearly doesn’t agree with it, she calls it a “travesty.”  It is the same logic that led to the Capital building being stormed on Jan 6 - don’t like the outcome, well, just assert then that it was flawed.  In fact, take it a step further, use the flawed outcome to “validate” the bias in the system.  These attacks on our institutions, from the right and the left, will one day destroy the country.

***

3. By HKGuy, Hell’s Kitchen

Ms. Goldberg has written previously on the trial, so it’s no surprise at her outrage at the verdict. But just because she doesn’t like it, to slam the jury as a group of Trump-supporting domestic-abuse deniers, as she insinuates here, is unfair. They heard all the evidence, weighed it according to their understanding of the law, and voted accordingly. No one should make unsubstantiated accusations against the personalities or political tilt of juries just because they don’t like the outcome.

Added: the next 30 are quoted below.

Of The NY Times’s nearly 8.4 million total subscriptions, 7.6 million are now digital - online.

Here are the next 30 NY Times comments online (behind the paywall) that those 7.6 million can read.

Every one of them disagrees with columnist Michelle Goldberg.

I’ve never seen such a negative reaction against a columnist - they don’t have much to do except get facts right; why didn’t she?

Some points made are highly relevant to our main case. Interesting that the very publicly demonstrated health of the justice/jury system on this occasion is often liked.

4. BC Cannon, California

The author wants this verdict to stand for something else—to be a message or a part of a narrative—but the jury listened to weeks of testimony and was given instructions to follow by the judge. I don’t see how this can be called a “travesty.”

***

5. Garg, Carrborro, NC

Miss Goldberg conducts her own trial in this column, rules Mr. Depp is guilty and vents outrage that the jury does not agree as if it is common sense he is guilty. An opinion piece that advances no new arguments and simply assumes the woman is always innocent.

***

6. Paul, Seattle

I’ve been a trial lawyer for 38 years. In my experience, juries almost always get it right. Likewise, in my experience press reporting on trials is usually is off the mark, often by a lot. [Put in bold as relevant to Meredith’s case.] And finally, the idea that one should draw larger conclusions from a single verdict is a stretch. Real story here? Jury heard the evidence and reached a verdict. Time to move on.

***

7. Patricia Gallery, Los Ángeles

I’ve been on this planet for 67 years and worked as a professional woman in executive positions for 30 of those years. I can say from personal experience that women are no more or less likely to lie or scheme to promote themselves professionally or personally. The Al Franken political lynching is a perfect example of the now common trend to “believe the woman”. I resent this deeply. I and many women in my generation spent our lives demonstrating through our words and actions that women deserve equal treatment and respect by law and in personal interactions. Now it seems all it takes is to simply be female and you’re off the hook.

***

8. MN, Los Angeles, California

Baloney. The verdict was justice. I am no fan of Johnny Depp, he is a deeply flawed individual, but the jury and most people observing the trial could plainly see that Amber Heard was performing and lying on the stand. Unfortunately, she isn’t a very good or believable actress and the jury saw through it, rightly finding siding overall with Mr. Depp. I pity the next man who becomes entangled in a relationship with Ms. Heard.

***

9. JR, New York City

Ms. Goldberg: one question: did you actually watch the trial? This is not the death knell of justice for battered women, it is the birth of justice for those who have been fraudulently accused (men AND women) and refuse to be “canceled.”  I am a woman, and I find the jury verdict liberating and just. The truth transcends all movements or political aims.  At least I have that hope.

***

10. John, Orlando

Yeah, of course that a woman cannot ever be wrong… It’s always the man who is at fault, no matter the evidence. And yet, this jury that also had women on it decided otherwise. But because it does not conform with the current dogma, they must have made a mistake. Some women don’t understand that when they call every man an abuser, they trivialize the experiences of women who were truly abused.

***

11. J.C. Michigan

“Even if Heard lied about everything during the trial — even if she’d never suffered domestic abuse — she still would have represented it.”

What? Even a woman who lies about being abused, and lies about it in the most public forum available, is still somehow a representative of abuse?

I’ve seen some madness in the effort to shield women from accountability for their words and actions, but this is a monument to how far off the rails it has gone.

This flank of feminism insists on shooting itself in the foot. I’d like to believe a day will come when someone will drag out a piece like this and wonder, “What were they thinking?”

***

12. Roger, Paris

The partiality of some feminist commentators here [low-rated comments, and thus far from the top] shows a depressing lack of intellectual honesty. I was also initially, and for a long time, on Heard’s side, believing that - as has so often been the case - a wealthy and powerful man was trying to buy, or legally bully, his way out of reputational damage. But it became clear to me during the trial that Heard had been repeatedly lying, that she in fact had most likely abused Depp, and that her testimony could not be believed.

***

13. Jim G, Washington DC

The jury heard testimony for 6 weeks.  I suspect Goldberg didn’t watch the testimony for 6 solid weeks and obviously did not participate in the 13 hours of deliberations.  It’s really a shame that a high profile journalist can draw conclusions with no evidence, and in fact with contrary evidence.  She should retract her illogical conclusions.

***

14. Full disclosure, Canada

There is no contradiction.  The jury found Heard was defamed in relation to a lawyer’s statement that she and her friend had trashed the apartment before calling the police. There was no credible evidence to support the allegation she was responsible for trashing the apartment. This verdict shows the jury was carefully considering the evidence and wasn’t just doing what Depp and his lawyers asked of them. Where the evidence demanded they find in Ms Heard’s favor they did so.  But on balance they found her claims of abuse were not credible and many thoughtful people agree with them. 

They deserve our respect for giving a lot of personal time to sit through 6 weeks of evidence. They deliberated for several days and reached a unanimous verdict which, as Ms Goldberg points out, contained some nuance.  This is a viable and healthy justice system at work in a democratic country.

Ms Goldberg’s column brings to mind people who recently called an election a travesty.

***

15. R, NYC

I normally agree with Michelle, but not today.  An accusation does not mean guilt.  Here, a jury listened to the evidence and rendered a verdict.  There is no reason to doubt the jurors’ sincerity or conscientiousness.

***

16. Sue Pak, Oakland

If you had watched the trial, you would be aware that Heard was not able to prove Depp had physically abused her, while Depp, in fact, was able to provide proof that she did in fact hit him. 

This trial had finally provided sanity that one should at least procure shreds of evidence to back up their claims.  No one’s life should end, professionally and personally, based on a declaration.  Just ask Al Franken.

***

17. EJS, CA

This article is a perfect example of how progressive journalists can be just as bad as their counterparts on the right. Both are happy to ignore the facts and the verdict of our courts when they contradict their preferred narrative.

***

18. goldlock27, Los Angeles, CA

The myth that women can only be victims, never antagonists, never vindictive, never predators, never sociopaths, is something feminists are loathe to let go of. Toxic masculinity and toxic femininity are not mutually exclusive and can both exist in the same relationship in varying degrees. True feminism means embracing reality not tropes that cast women as perpetual victims.

***

19. Kevin, New York

Ms. Goldberg’s unfortunate column is a good example of the kind of progressive narrative that folks on the hard right can use to argue that the Me Too movement is at odds with due process and impartial justice.

***

20. Scott C, Minneapolis

The author seems to have blinders on regarding this case. I believe it was decided as it should have been. Ms. Goldberg seems to promote the idea that abuse can only go one way - men abusing women and that any negative comments about a woman only come from misogyny. Sometimes it is simply critical because a specific woman earns it.

Most people generally assume domestic violence is around 90-10 men against women, but based on research, it’s closer to 50-50 or 60-40, depending on definitions of what constitutes abuse. Although unfortunately the worst physical injuries and deaths are done to women, there is plenty of physical injury against men as well. But women tend to use psychological and emotional attacks more than men, which is less visible but still harmful.

It’s also true that due to mens’ psychological makeup and cultural assumptions about manly behavior that men suffering receive very little support or help from family, friends, professionals, or the public. There are virtually no resources for abused men - shelters, formal and informal support groups, hotlines, etc. Most of the time men are laughed at or shunned if they admit to taking any abuse from a woman.

JD is the rare man who had the acceptance of both men and women to present his side and not be immediately ridiculed. If we are going to have equality it’s going to have to be equal for both men and women and sometimes the cases aren’t going to fit the predetermined narrative of believe all women.

***

21. Tabitha Simmons, Albany NY

The idea that Heard would still “represent” domestic abuse even though she hadn’t suffered it suggests that one can validly portray oneself as a victim and public accuse a spouse as an abuser if one merely plays the part as . . . well, an actress.

The jury apparently concluded, in the main, that Heard was only acting that part (and badly at that.) Were they consistent? Maybe not. Juries often aren’t, but they do tend to arrive at rough justice.

***

22. J, Not America

Sorry Ms. Goldberg, but your spin doesn’t work with what those who actually watched the trial saw.

The jury’s verdict is not inconsistent. Their ruling on the one instance with Heard was in regards to Waldsman’s statements about the incident being a hoax were defamatory. Basically they had to take what what the police had seen. The officers who responded said nothing was trashed or looked out of place. So, for that reason, they said that Heard and her friends didn’t set up a scene like Waldman claimed because the police didn’t witness that.

However, that doesn’t mean that Heard wasn’t lying on any of her claims. I’m just waiting for the day when these op-ed writers who are Heard supporters come with an opinion piece with something like “We need to end jury trials.” since the only thing they love to talk about is the UK case. A case that is in a completely different system with only one judge deciding everything and, also, isn’t free from their own bias. I wonder what they would have thought of that same judge ruled in favor of Depp instead of The Sun (remember, he sued The Sun, NOT Heard).

***

23. Al,  Suburban Philly

Hmmm.  So, guys always lie, gals always tell the truth, and it’s always the guys fault.  Check.

***

24. Deirdre, New Jersey

Through her own words in tape Ms Heard was incredibly cruel.  That’s why the jury found for him.  They didn’t think she was a victim, she always had the means to leave, she had good work, she was manipulative and wanted control. 

There is really something wrong with her- a clinical diagnosis that caused her to keep going back and escalating.

***

25. Me, Seattle

You should open your mind to the possibility that Amber was the abuser in this relationship.

***

26. Bruèissa, Petit Hills

I’m happy for Mr. Depp and his family, his friends and his career.  My son was a senior in high school and was dating a young woman.  When graduation approached and both kids had separate plans, my son decided to end the relationship.  The young woman was so upset at the break up; he accused my son of things and actions he never did.  The young woman’s family called my cell phone threatening our family. It was a horrible experience.  Never in a million years, did this sweet girl I had met and liked; had shown this dark side of her.  It cost our family thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and healthcare professionals and at least 3 years for my sons mental health to recover, it took a toll on him because everyone believed “her” (her good looks, her innocence).  Abuse happens to MEN, all the time…  and I am a woman who has worked in a male dominated industry; (engineering); championing women’s causes.  However, after experiencing what was done to my son,  I do not believe every woman out there anymore.  I can’t and can no longer champion women’s causes , nor the ACLU.  Real victims come in all genders.

***

27. Stumpy Dowd, NYC

It is a very human reaction to dismiss an unwelcomed jury verdict as ‘a travesty’.  What Ms. Goldberg misses in all this is that millions of Americans watched this trial live (and many thousands watched every televised moment).  Those of us who did invest the time have our own sense of this case and have a better understanding of the facts that led the jury to its conclusion.  Ms. Goldberg doesn’t claim to have watched much of the trial, but it is obvious that she watched very little of it.  Her attempt to graft a narrative about the outcome falls flat when millions of Americans know more about this case than she does.  Ms. Goldberg doesn’t need to respect the jury in this case, but she should have the self-awareness to understand millions of informed American households do respect the jury and their verdict.

***

28. Deirdre, New Jersey

I was not surprised.  Ms Heard often instigated, escalated and manipulated.  She could have always left. She always had means - there was no debt, no children.  She chose to exploit Me Too even though she had a generous settlement and an NDA. 

Ms Heard was not believable and she was often cruel.

***

29. Russell, Georgia USA

She wasn’t “destroyed for identifying as a survivor”- she simply wasn’t credible as a witness.  The appearance of lying under oath doesn’t sit well, regardless of gender or celebrity.

***

30. ZHR new york

Heard lost the case. Outside of possibly her sister there was no real evidence of abuse; other women who he had been involved with indicated zero physical abuse. The fact that the outcome doesn’t coincide with your preconceived notions isn’t relevant.

***

31. Blackcat66, NJ

Was this author watching the same trial the rest of us were???

***

32. Peter Wolf, New York City

Domestic violence is real.  Men often harm women. and physically, probably more often then women harm men.  That has to do with physical strength and testosterone.

But to assume that, in every conflict between a man and a woman, the woman is telling the truth and the man is lying, is both absurd and wrong. 

Having worked as a psychologist doing custody evaluations, it is clear to me that neither gender has a monopoly on the truth.  Lying is a gender neutral capacity. To assume otherwise is not feminism, it is tribalism, which can involve race, ethnicity, religion, nationality- and gender.  And it only harms the fight for real equality.

This should not be a team sport.

***

33. M Child, Italy

It is disappointing how op eds like this call into question the integrity of institutions because the writer doesn’t like the outcome.  With any set of highly complex facts, it’s easy to find the ones that fit the narrative you like, and discount the ones that don’t.  The reality is:

- Heard did not lose because of a backlash against #MeToo or because a jury was confused. She lost because a jury, which her lawyers helped select, didn’t believe her. They found she made false statements with malice. Heard still has a right of appeal.

- Trump didn’t lose because of a rigged electoral system. He lost because more people voted for Biden in the swing states. 

The legal and electoral systems did what they were supposed to do in both cases, even if many people don’t like the result. A better use of op ed space would be to correct misinterpretations built on desired outcomes than to feed them.

Wow. Exactly the same thing has happened at the Washington Post.

A British lawyer called Charlotte Proudman has posted an inflammatory article also not based on a close watch.

There are over 3,000 reader comments, I’d say that once again a majority are women,  and most take the Washington Post to task.

I’ve a subscription and cannot tell if it is all behind the paywall, so these are the 20 top-rated comments. (Cut & paste doesn’t pick up commenter names on that site.)

1. Ms Heard described being raped with a bottle, dragged through glass, strangled, repeatedly punched in the face by a man wearing heavy rings on each finger, yet could not produce one report from an emergency room or a police officer. She lied constantly, changing her stories multiple times during the trial; called every witness a liar, and produced photos with a tiny red spot on her cheek when her entire face would have been deep, swollen purple for weeks & she wouldn’t have been able to wear stillettos after having glass shards removed from her feet. Her appearance contradicted her testimony & her testimony continued to change. She had no credibility. Yes, I am a survivor& I would have been too afraid of my abuser to taunt him or face him in court.

***

2. Omitted: That she so clearly lied through her entire testimony? Contradicting herself constantly changing her story accidentally letting slip her charity fraud and leaking to TMZ about her divorce for money before telling her husband. Didn’t you wonder why she couldn’t find ONE SINGLE character witness? No a single human soul testified that Amber is not an abusive person or would never do what Depp accused her of. Even her own sister didn’t go there, she only spoke to one specific incident and was contradicted by several other witnesses. Amber is the abuser. In fact she’s a monster. Listen to the unedited audio from the night she cut off his finger. It wasn’t admissible because the security guard passed away before this trial, but that’s all you need to hear.

***

3. There was no astounding evidence, that’s just hype. In UK there was no jury no cross examination and they let Amber perjure herself all day without consequences. The judge was also closely tied to the publication Depp was suing

***

4. This is ridiculous, I am a woman of 67 who has experienced sexual harassment on the job as well as date rape and totally agree with this verdict. If you followed the trial at all and the issues it is clear she was no victim. MeToo does not mean believing every person in every case. She was a manipulative victimizer out for attention and does not and never has represented all feminists or all women. She could have moved on with a $7 million dollar payout for a short lousy marriage. Please do not participate in this type of grouping of all women as victims, she made self out to be a spokesperson for something she never experienced.

***

5. I think there was some inconsistencies with Amber Heard’s testimony. So, my focus was not on what happened to Amber Heard.

Some of the abuse suffered by Johnny Depp, on the other hand, was incontrovertible. Somehow his finger was definitively, and shockingly, damaged. I don’t think there was any question that she pooped in his bed. She admitted in court, and on recording, that she hit him because of Kate Moss and stairs, which was arguably a misperception by Heard.

But, the one thing that really closed the books on this case for me was Amber Heard admitting that she hit Johnny Depp without provocation—and then said that courts and the media would not believe that she was the aggressor and abuser.

My mind was pretty much made up from then on. And I find it both breathtaking and morally warped to argue that any human being would then argue that Amber Heard should receive the benefit of the doubt in claiming to be the victim of abuse.

Amber Heard is a horrible human being and irrefutably an abuser. It could be that Johnny Depp hit her. I was not convinced that he did so. But it’s possible. Whether he did or not, how does she have the gall to write about it as though she was not irrefutably a perpetrator of abuse?

***

6. Did you even WATCH this trial? She lied and falsified evidence…. over… and over… and over… about both whether an incident even happened and severity of the incidents. She lied about ABUSING her husband… repeatedly. This was all proved with evidence and testimony. So the outcome was just and fair. If you are mad about anything you should be FURIOUS with Ms. Heard. She has damaged the credibility of actual abuse victims and survivors. SHE has undermined the willingness to take a woman’s word she is being abused.

What would you have done as a juror? Ignored her lies? Ignored the fact that she, clearly, was emotionally and physically abusing Mr. Depp? Seriously? Because if so you have no credibility yourself bluntly.

***

7. Why does society assume that only women are the victims of intimate partner violence?
Why assume that an abusive woman falsely claiming to be the victim would be truthful?
Heard was recorded mocking Depp that no one would believe him.
Men are typically not only too embarrassed to admit that they are victims of IPV but also face strong judicial bias in divorce and child custody cases that the wife was the victim.

***

8. I have been a lawyer for nearly forty years and have represented abused women. The verdict in this case should have no real-world impact on women stepping forward to prevent and address domestic abuse.

A woman who files a civil or criminal complaint is protected from civil liability by an absolute privilege which attends to suing over being abused or reporting alleged abuse to the authorities.

Any woman, any woman who suffers from domestic abuse should report her abuser to the authorities and the authorities should thoroughly investigate every report, and aggressively prosecute when there is sufficient evidence to sustain the applicable burden of proof.

What a woman should not do is remove herself from the protection of absolute immunity by writing an op-ed for a newspaper, make social media posts, or otherwise publicizing her allegations of abuse outside the civil and criminal process.

Otherwise, the man can turn the tables—as this case demonstrates—by filing a suit for defamation. Then, particularly if the woman has a difficult time keeping her stories straight, this can be the outcome, which were I judge would never have happened as I would have granted both sides summary judgment, and there never would have been a jury trial.

The author of this piece is a barrister and perhaps she may be forgiven for her ignorance of American law but running around with one’s hair on fire screaming, “The sky is falling. The sky is falling,” rarely contributes much to intelligent discourse on an important issue.

***

9. “A gag order for women” spews this British barrister—via her prominently-placed op-ed in The Washington Post. And now she must bellow her rage from every hill and dale:

How dare an American jury find for this man!

I’ve been a feminist since before this author was born. (Shaking my head now.) Authentic feminists—those of us who live and breathe human equality—are quite comfortable with a level playing field.

This defamation trial lasted six long weeks. The judge was a woman. (Extremely competent.) There were powerful female attorneys—on both sides. And there were women jurists.

Both sides presented their evidence. The final result? Depp won, and Heard lost.

“A gag order for women.” Hmm. The jury’s thoughtful verdict didn’t make me gag, but this op-ed sure did the trick.

***

10. You lost because your girl was not in any way believed. You lost and that is a good thing. Your girl plastered an insult to all the women who are actually abused. This was not a normal case and you know it. It was a sham authored by Amber designed to destroy her former husband. The jury knew it and you are insulting to the jury process.

***

11. I do hope it is a gag order for women who lie. So many people who are dishonest by nature have used the “me too” movement to empower lying. Insisting that there is certain proof to making certain allegations I hope will serve as a check against this.

***

12. Heard didn’t lose because of misogyny. She lost because she wasn’t credible. Her description of alleged assaults wasn’t supported by the evidence. She also apparently assaulted him on a number of occasions but tried to trivialize those assaults while insisting that she was victimized. The jury didn’t believe her. That’s why she lost.

***

13. I was going to abstain commenting on this trial in any form, but this is patently wrong.

Quote “Do you think it’s fair that a woman had to testify before a man she says abused her, while that man sat there, smirking? Do you think it’s fair that, throughout the trial, the most intimate and traumatic details were broadcast for the world to see?”

No, I do not think it was fair that Johnny Depp had to sit in court while the woman who abused him sat there, smirking, and that his most intimate details were broadcast for the world to see because his predatory ex-wife lied and tried to frame him as a monster.

This article is ridiculous. The person who made it harder for victims of DV to come forward is Amber Heard, not Johnny Depp. She lied to get money and ruin her ex-husband out of spite. She is finally reaping what she sowed.

For the record, I am not a fan of either, and am a middle-aged woman.

***

14. Stop gaslighting us with this tripe. The abuse in Amber Heard and Johnny Depp’s marriage went both ways. Either they’re both victims or neither of them are. She’s not a martyr and doubling down on making her out as one is doing as much harm to women as “A Rape on Campus” did. Retract her self-serving op-ed and stop enabling her misappropriation of #metoo.

***

15. I watched every minute of this trial. It was not a “circus”: it was the quite the opposite. The Depp trial was a stunning example of a highly efficient, functional branch of government. It inspired respect for rule of law, something that we don’t see often enough. I have the highest respect for the judge, jurors, lawyers and court staff. The criticism of the verdict is nothing more than sour grapes.

***

16. Women like YOU, writing articles like THIS, is the only gag-inducing thing for women. Amber Heard did a disservice to real survivors of DV, like myself. For you to write this article is the most uninformed pathetic piece of journalism next to Amber’s op-Ed.

***

17. This opinion is the kind of tortured thinking that insists that every woman claiming to be a victim of a man must be accepted as such regardless of whether or not it’s true.

First drop the comparison between the British trial and this one. They are two different things with different defendants and decided under different rules.

Second, Heard did NOT present a ton of evidence to back up her claims. She presented none. The woman was a shutterbug. She documented every misstep by Depp, but failed to photograph herself displaying the results of horrendous beatings and abuse. She was dragged barefoot across broken glass but took no pictures of her supposedly lacerated feet. She claims she was hit in the face multiple times by a man wearing the equivalent of brass knuckles and took no pictures showing the damage. She was constantly invoking the existence of witnesses to her abuse who for some reason were never called to testify about what they witnessed, or if they were called, failed to confirm her dramatic claims. She was caught in multiple lies.

And a forensic psychologist doesn’t have to treat someone in order to render a tentative diagnoses. Dispute the results of the tests if you want. Don’t attack the tester.

For those arguing this is a blow to women, what’s the alternative? Should the jury (which you all need to claim consisted of shallow celebrity bedazzled people) have ignored all the above? Should a jury base a decision on the testimony and evidence presented or not? Should they have found for Heard because of the possible impact on abuse victims if they ruled against her?

Can we stop presenting women as lesser evolved members of the species, incapable of dishonesty, conniving, ruthless ambition and other traits of humans.

Heard wasn’t a victim. She had her own motivations for what she did. I don’t think this was even a DV case really. It was the story of two unhinged people locked in mortal combat throughout their relationship.

***

18. I promised myself I would say nothing about this terrible circus. But I’m breaking my promise, and I will—briefly, if that even matters, which is probably not so much.

As someone who has been aghast by both the coverage and the trial, I mostly wish this would all go away. But, as someone who has always supported women who have been abused, I have to say this: Amber Heard is no victim. She lost because she clearly lied about giving the money she had promised to charity. She also lost because the former partners of Depp testified that he never abused them. She lost because she tried too hard to look like a modest, humble person while she clearly is not. She lost because she so desperately wanted attention and to break into big-time show business. And she used victimized women to bring attention to herself. That makes me very angry.

Is he guilty of being a very messed up individual? Undoubtedly. So is she. And we deserve better than to have to see either of them again. But to declare that this is some kind of setback for women is wrong. If we are honest, it is the opportunity for us to say that it is simply wrong for a woman, any woman, to use the terrible hurt of other women to make herself famous.

***

19. What nonsense. As a criminal defense attorney I have handled a rape case or two in my 50 years of practice. This columnist presupposes that every woman making a complaint is ipso facto truthfull. That is not the way it works in the real world. For her, every man accused of sexual harrasment is guilty until he proves his innocence. That is not the standard in either civil or criminal cases. Women will continue to make sexual abuse complaints. They should be taken seriously. But there should be no legal presumption that they are telling the truth. The verdict in this case is not the end of the world for women with truthful complaints and they should not be misled into thinking so.

***

20. I didn’t think you could find anyone on the planet supporting Amber Heard after watching this trial. Apparently the Washington Post found that one person.

Monday. My guess is that this will not fully play out for a year or more (though it is already of great help to us as main media now taking a pummeling is our own nemesis also.)

For one thing, the viewer totals under the YouTube and Facebook live-streams of the trial continue growing beyond the 30 million mark. So original-source self-informing is winning over main-media-mediation by a mile.

As yet there is still no in-depth and accurate explanation of the verdict by the serious media that I can see. For the moment we are still seeing only sulking & smoke-blowing.

Having channeled toxic Heard PR for six years (originally by the ACLU PR, and then by the PR firm Heard fired during the trial, seemingly for not being toxic enough) the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, the BBC, and some others remain stubborn and entrenched - and losing sway and paying customers.

Attempts to prove that Depp has a great army of bots - in fact to even prove that he uses PR very much - remain empty-handed. 

One main thing we have realised in recent years is a need to (1) build and build a detailed and implacable picture; and then (2) throw all of it at main media - all main media simultaneously (we already have several sort-of up-to-speed).

Then that united front should shatter, and it will be dog-eat-dog in the main-media world (name of the game among UK media, not quite so common among US media.)

This Heard appeal talk seems to me dumb as a rock. I’m not seeing it anywhere fully explained why though.

(1) Johnny has the upper hand. He gets to say on 24 June how much he will settle for.

(2) It will presumably fall somewhere between $10-plus million and zero.

(3) There will have to be solid grounds for an appeal. Say there are (which I doubt.)

(4) The appeal talk is simply inviting a bottom line demand of the full $10-plus million.

(5) Amber will have to put up a bond for that full amount before any appeal goes
forward.

(6) Johnny gets to pocket all that $10-plus million immediately if she loses.

If no appeal? She may never pay. Looks like very poor odds for Heard here.

Where next:

Or to next entry Beyond Denial: As Many Millions So Much Better Informed, Main Media Bends To The Wind

Or to previous entry Amber Heard Claims Of Abuse In Op-Ed Were Malicious, Jury Finds