Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

What a train wreck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if she took a picture of the table after the coke was snorted people would be saying that's not coke it could be baking powder or whatever.

I always tell myself that the next time my partner gets really angry, I'm going to tape it. And I never do because it's too crazy when it happens.

People are mad she taped this but didn't tape that. She talked to people after the stuff happened and has witnesses to some of the behavior. It's too bad that people demand such a high standard of female victims of abuse to believe it really happened. It really makes her editorial, about powerful men being big solid ships with whole crews to keep them afloat and running, resonate with me. So many women out there don't have anywhere near the level of proof she has -- recordings of him shouting at her, texts of him saying terrible things about her, video of him smashing cabinets and breaking glasses and shouting at her and twisting a phone out of her hand, and witnesses that back up some of the incidents she is describing. This is why women don't want to come forward. This is exactly what the ACLU was writing about in the editorial.

I guess we're all just liars.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if she took a picture of the table after the coke was snorted people would be saying that's not coke it could be baking powder or whatever.

I always tell myself that the next time my partner gets really angry, I'm going to tape it. And I never do because it's too crazy when it happens.

People are mad she taped this but didn't tape that. She talked to people after the stuff happened and has witnesses to some of the behavior. It's too bad that people demand such a high standard of female victims of abuse to believe it really happened. It really makes her editorial, about powerful men being big solid ships with whole crews to keep them afloat and running, resonate with me. So many women out there don't have anywhere near the level of proof she has -- recordings of him shouting at her, texts of him saying terrible things about her, video of him smashing cabinets and breaking glasses and shouting at her and twisting a phone out of her hand, and witnesses that back up some of the incidents she is describing. This is why women don't want to come forward. This is exactly what the ACLU was writing about in the editorial.

I guess we're all just liars.

I haven’t tuned in for it all but one recording (from Depp’s case even) where he was smashing cabinets was enough to count as abuse (him to her) to me. So if I was on the jury I couldn’t in good conscience rule she’d defamed him for saying he was abusive. That being said, I ALSO think there’s plenty of credible testimony that she abused him too and has been lying about enough of the case that I think I’d go with him not having defamed her either. They’re both absolutely a mess and were clearly super toxic together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if she took a picture of the table after the coke was snorted people would be saying that's not coke it could be baking powder or whatever.

I always tell myself that the next time my partner gets really angry, I'm going to tape it. And I never do because it's too crazy when it happens.

People are mad she taped this but didn't tape that. She talked to people after the stuff happened and has witnesses to some of the behavior. It's too bad that people demand such a high standard of female victims of abuse to believe it really happened. It really makes her editorial, about powerful men being big solid ships with whole crews to keep them afloat and running, resonate with me. So many women out there don't have anywhere near the level of proof she has -- recordings of him shouting at her, texts of him saying terrible things about her, video of him smashing cabinets and breaking glasses and shouting at her and twisting a phone out of her hand, and witnesses that back up some of the incidents she is describing. This is why women don't want to come forward. This is exactly what the ACLU was writing about in the editorial.

I guess we're all just liars.

I haven’t tuned in for it all but one recording (from Depp’s case even) where he was smashing cabinets was enough to count as abuse (him to her) to me. So if I was on the jury I couldn’t in good conscience rule she’d defamed him for saying he was abusive. That being said, I ALSO think there’s plenty of credible testimony that she abused him too and has been lying about enough of the case that I think I’d go with him not having defamed her either. They’re both absolutely a mess and were clearly super toxic together.

That’s cabinet abuse not domestic violence.

It’s amazing anyone in her could defend her. I’ve listened to every second of testimony and it’s an absolute joke the court has to suffer through any more of this woman’s lies. Only thing great about this carrying on is her perjuring herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if she took a picture of the table after the coke was snorted people would be saying that's not coke it could be baking powder or whatever.

I always tell myself that the next time my partner gets really angry, I'm going to tape it. And I never do because it's too crazy when it happens.

People are mad she taped this but didn't tape that. She talked to people after the stuff happened and has witnesses to some of the behavior. It's too bad that people demand such a high standard of female victims of abuse to believe it really happened. It really makes her editorial, about powerful men being big solid ships with whole crews to keep them afloat and running, resonate with me. So many women out there don't have anywhere near the level of proof she has -- recordings of him shouting at her, texts of him saying terrible things about her, video of him smashing cabinets and breaking glasses and shouting at her and twisting a phone out of her hand, and witnesses that back up some of the incidents she is describing. This is why women don't want to come forward. This is exactly what the ACLU was writing about in the editorial.

I guess we're all just liars.

I haven’t tuned in for it all but one recording (from Depp’s case even) where he was smashing cabinets was enough to count as abuse (him to her) to me. So if I was on the jury I couldn’t in good conscience rule she’d defamed him for saying he was abusive. That being said, I ALSO think there’s plenty of credible testimony that she abused him too and has been lying about enough of the case that I think I’d go with him not having defamed her either. They’re both absolutely a mess and were clearly super toxic together.

That’s cabinet abuse not domestic violence.

It’s amazing anyone in her could defend her. I’ve listened to every second of testimony and it’s an absolute joke the court has to suffer through any more of this woman’s lies. Only thing great about this carrying on is her perjuring herself.

You don't thibk violently destroying things is abusive behavior?

I feel awful for Heard. There's significant evidence she was seriously abused and now he's continuing to harass her through this trial and the internet is going after her. For being an abusive victim.

And now there's stories that Manson is planning the same against Evan Rachel Wood.

Boy this country hates women.

[Anonymous]

When I picture a victim of domestic abuse, I do not picture her. I think of “sleeping with the enemy.” I picture people scared for their lives and scared for their loved ones’ lives. I picture people whose personalities changed from what they used to be - now a shell of a person. She is not who I would picture at all. And her article conveys that she was a victim, and that is not supported by anything that I’ve seen of this trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I picture a victim of domestic abuse, I do not picture her. I think of “sleeping with the enemy.” I picture people scared for their lives and scared for their loved ones’ lives. I picture people whose personalities changed from what they used to be - now a shell of a person. She is not who I would picture at all. And her article conveys that she was a victim, and that is not supported by anything that I’ve seen of this trial.

You have a very narrow and inaccurate picture of who is an abuse victim.

[Anonymous]

Ok, what is the definition of an abuse victim? I also think it’s important what she said in her article: that she was a public figure “representing” domestic abuse. She is not that. To me, the trial shows this couple represents a volatile relationship, full of drugs. She does not represent domestic abuse to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I picture a victim of domestic abuse, I do not picture her. I think of “sleeping with the enemy.” I picture people scared for their lives and scared for their loved ones’ lives. I picture people whose personalities changed from what they used to be - now a shell of a person. She is not who I would picture at all. And her article conveys that she was a victim, and that is not supported by anything that I’ve seen of this trial.

You have a very narrow and inaccurate picture of who is an abuse victim.

+1. Pp has absolutely no idea what domestic violence looks like. Abuse is extremely complicated. When I was first out of school, I worked as a witness coordinator for a prosecutor (called witnesses for trials, set up transportation. It was extremely common for DV victims to be less than cooperative or waffle on testifying even in cases of horrific injury. Domestic violence isn't straightforward at all, the psychology of abuse is extremely complicated.

[Anonymous]

Just FYI expert ls are saying all the nemesis and anti Heard trolling absolutely is hurting domestic violence victims.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-memes-videos-b2080102.html

[Anonymous]

Still not answering the question: what is the definition of domestic abuse. Then I’d like to know how she “represents” it.

[Anonymous]

Well, its just too bad she has to obviously lie about what’s occurring on recordings where you can clearly hear that she is lying about what is happening. She is CLEARLY the aggressor some of these recordings to the point where on one of the them she sounds so completely crazy its chilling. Maybe if she could admit that isn’t some blameless angel her credibility wouldn’t be in the toilet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if she took a picture of the table after the coke was snorted people would be saying that's not coke it could be baking powder or whatever.

I always tell myself that the next time my partner gets really angry, I'm going to tape it. And I never do because it's too crazy when it happens.

People are mad she taped this but didn't tape that. She talked to people after the stuff happened and has witnesses to some of the behavior. It's too bad that people demand such a high standard of female victims of abuse to believe it really happened. It really makes her editorial, about powerful men being big solid ships with whole crews to keep them afloat and running, resonate with me. So many women out there don't have anywhere near the level of proof she has -- recordings of him shouting at her, texts of him saying terrible things about her, video of him smashing cabinets and breaking glasses and shouting at her and twisting a phone out of her hand, and witnesses that back up some of the incidents she is describing. This is why women don't want to come forward. This is exactly what the ACLU was writing about in the editorial.

I guess we're all just liars.

The only people responsible of this hight standard of female victim abuse here are AH and her team.
Instead of establishing that JD was a raging addict who acted in a threatening way, making her fear for her life, she decided to go with a whole collection of strategic and elaborate recordings, pictures and ridiculous makeup explanations. All of that, in combination with her own well illustrated problematic behavior, just set a canvas for JD's team to demonstrate that she keeps failing the credibility test.

It's absurd - on a basic level she's not lying, and yet she is a liar. And everyone is just learning about it.

What are you talking about? She had the recordings and the pictures and the testimony to show exactly that he was a raging addict — that he was a monster when he was using. You think if she just testified without any of that, anyone would believe her? People like you would ask, where is your proof.

Being a credible witness is a proof itself. And she's clearly not.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a link that describes domestic abuse includes two things: violence to gain control over another.

https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/what-is-domestic-abuse

The recordings that I’ve seen show that she is the abuser and he was lashing out over her attempts to control him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if she took a picture of the table after the coke was snorted people would be saying that's not coke it could be baking powder or whatever.

I always tell myself that the next time my partner gets really angry, I'm going to tape it. And I never do because it's too crazy when it happens.

People are mad she taped this but didn't tape that. She talked to people after the stuff happened and has witnesses to some of the behavior. It's too bad that people demand such a high standard of female victims of abuse to believe it really happened. It really makes her editorial, about powerful men being big solid ships with whole crews to keep them afloat and running, resonate with me. So many women out there don't have anywhere near the level of proof she has -- recordings of him shouting at her, texts of him saying terrible things about her, video of him smashing cabinets and breaking glasses and shouting at her and twisting a phone out of her hand, and witnesses that back up some of the incidents she is describing. This is why women don't want to come forward. This is exactly what the ACLU was writing about in the editorial.

I guess we're all just liars.

The only people responsible of this hight standard of female victim abuse here are AH and her team.
Instead of establishing that JD was a raging addict who acted in a threatening way, making her fear for her life, she decided to go with a whole collection of strategic and elaborate recordings, pictures and ridiculous makeup explanations. All of that, in combination with her own well illustrated problematic behavior, just set a canvas for JD's team to demonstrate that she keeps failing the credibility test.

It's absurd - on a basic level she's not lying, and yet she is a liar. And everyone is just learning about it.

What are you talking about? She had the recordings and the pictures and the testimony to show exactly that he was a raging addict — that he was a monster when he was using. You think if she just testified without any of that, anyone would believe her? People like you would ask, where is your proof.

Being a credible witness is a proof itself. And she's clearly not.

That's the thing about jury trials. The jury alone weighs the credibility. If they don't believe her, they don't believe her. Depp's legal team has done a decent job of impeaching her and attacking her credibility. I personally feel that Depp across as more honest on the stand. Up to the jury, though.