Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, just because she did not write it does not mean she did not get on that bandwagon. Why else would she write an oped? It was perfect timing and opportunity.

Because she was finally divorced with a domestic violence restraining order against Depp. She also announced her ACLA ambassadorship or whatever it's called. She had an attorney proof the Op Ed for any/all legal issues. Lastly, she had every right to speak or write about her experience.

I don't have an issue with her writing an oped about her experience if she was really abused, the issue with her is that she is an instigator in a lot of their fights as evidenced by her own recordings. To say that she is abused without mentioning that she is an instigator in their fights is untruthful, and worse when she speaks as an ambassador for the abused women.

This reflects a really poor understanding of the cycle of violence. Setting aside this specific case, domestic violence tends not to be a linear sequence of constant abuse. After an abusive incident, the abuser tends to be remorseful at first, but then anger and other negative emotions build and build until it explodes in another episode of physical abuse. That period when the anger is building again can be torture for an abuse victim because they know another abusive outburst is coming but they don’t know when. The result is that abuse victims will sometimes do things during that period to provoke their abuser just to get the next episode of abuse over with. It’s a protective response, but the consequence is that it looks like the victim is an instigator themselves.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, just because she did not write it does not mean she did not get on that bandwagon. Why else would she write an oped? It was perfect timing and opportunity.

Because she was finally divorced with a domestic violence restraining order against Depp. She also announced her ACLA ambassadorship or whatever it's called. She had an attorney proof the Op Ed for any/all legal issues. Lastly, she had every right to speak or write about her experience.

I don't have an issue with her writing an oped about her experience if she was really abused, the issue with her is that she is an instigator in a lot of their fights as evidenced by her own recordings. To say that she is abused without mentioning that she is an instigator in their fights is untruthful, and worse when she speaks as an ambassador for the abused women.

This reflects a really poor understanding of the cycle of violence. Setting aside this specific case, domestic violence tends not to be a linear sequence of constant abuse. After an abusive incident, the abuser tends to be remorseful at first, but then anger and other negative emotions build and build until it explodes in another episode of physical abuse. That period when the anger is building again can be torture for an abuse victim because they know another abusive outburst is coming but they don’t know when. The result is that abuse victims will sometimes do things during that period to provoke their abuser just to get the next episode of abuse over with. It’s a protective response, but the consequence is that it looks like the victim is an instigator themselves.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, just because she did not write it does not mean she did not get on that bandwagon. Why else would she write an oped? It was perfect timing and opportunity.

Because she was finally divorced with a domestic violence restraining order against Depp. She also announced her ACLA ambassadorship or whatever it's called. She had an attorney proof the Op Ed for any/all legal issues. Lastly, she had every right to speak or write about her experience.

I don't have an issue with her writing an oped about her experience if she was really abused, the issue with her is that she is an instigator in a lot of their fights as evidenced by her own recordings. To say that she is abused without mentioning that she is an instigator in their fights is untruthful, and worse when she speaks as an ambassador for the abused women.

This reflects a really poor understanding of the cycle of violence. Setting aside this specific case, domestic violence tends not to be a linear sequence of constant abuse. After an abusive incident, the abuser tends to be remorseful at first, but then anger and other negative emotions build and build until it explodes in another episode of physical abuse. That period when the anger is building again can be torture for an abuse victim because they know another abusive outburst is coming but they don’t know when. The result is that abuse victims will sometimes do things during that period to provoke their abuser just to get the next episode of abuse over with. It’s a protective response, but the consequence is that it looks like the victim is an instigator themselves.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

I was not trying to discount others abuse, but it is interesting that so many people on DCUM think they are qualified to opine on the matter when they have no experience beyond television. BTW, fighting back is not the same as provoking and instigating a provocation. That is not fighting back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, just because she did not write it does not mean she did not get on that bandwagon. Why else would she write an oped? It was perfect timing and opportunity.

Because she was finally divorced with a domestic violence restraining order against Depp. She also announced her ACLA ambassadorship or whatever it's called. She had an attorney proof the Op Ed for any/all legal issues. Lastly, she had every right to speak or write about her experience.

I don't have an issue with her writing an oped about her experience if she was really abused, the issue with her is that she is an instigator in a lot of their fights as evidenced by her own recordings. To say that she is abused without mentioning that she is an instigator in their fights is untruthful, and worse when she speaks as an ambassador for the abused women.

This reflects a really poor understanding of the cycle of violence. Setting aside this specific case, domestic violence tends not to be a linear sequence of constant abuse. After an abusive incident, the abuser tends to be remorseful at first, but then anger and other negative emotions build and build until it explodes in another episode of physical abuse. That period when the anger is building again can be torture for an abuse victim because they know another abusive outburst is coming but they don’t know when. The result is that abuse victims will sometimes do things during that period to provoke their abuser just to get the next episode of abuse over with. It’s a protective response, but the consequence is that it looks like the victim is an instigator themselves.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

I was not trying to discount others abuse, but it is interesting that so many people on DCUM think they are qualified to opine on the matter when they have no experience beyond television. BTW, fighting back is not the same as provoking and instigating a provocation. That is not fighting back.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, just because she did not write it does not mean she did not get on that bandwagon. Why else would she write an oped? It was perfect timing and opportunity.

Because she was finally divorced with a domestic violence restraining order against Depp. She also announced her ACLA ambassadorship or whatever it's called. She had an attorney proof the Op Ed for any/all legal issues. Lastly, she had every right to speak or write about her experience.

I don't have an issue with her writing an oped about her experience if she was really abused, the issue with her is that she is an instigator in a lot of their fights as evidenced by her own recordings. To say that she is abused without mentioning that she is an instigator in their fights is untruthful, and worse when she speaks as an ambassador for the abused women.

This reflects a really poor understanding of the cycle of violence. Setting aside this specific case, domestic violence tends not to be a linear sequence of constant abuse. After an abusive incident, the abuser tends to be remorseful at first, but then anger and other negative emotions build and build until it explodes in another episode of physical abuse. That period when the anger is building again can be torture for an abuse victim because they know another abusive outburst is coming but they don’t know when. The result is that abuse victims will sometimes do things during that period to provoke their abuser just to get the next episode of abuse over with. It’s a protective response, but the consequence is that it looks like the victim is an instigator themselves.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

No one said it was a universal feature, only that it was something victims “sometimes” do. I find it very disappointing that a purported abuse victim would try to invalidate the experiences of other victims simply because their abuse didn’t look exactly like yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, just because she did not write it does not mean she did not get on that bandwagon. Why else would she write an oped? It was perfect timing and opportunity.

Because she was finally divorced with a domestic violence restraining order against Depp. She also announced her ACLA ambassadorship or whatever it's called. She had an attorney proof the Op Ed for any/all legal issues. Lastly, she had every right to speak or write about her experience.

I don't have an issue with her writing an oped about her experience if she was really abused, the issue with her is that she is an instigator in a lot of their fights as evidenced by her own recordings. To say that she is abused without mentioning that she is an instigator in their fights is untruthful, and worse when she speaks as an ambassador for the abused women.

This reflects a really poor understanding of the cycle of violence. Setting aside this specific case, domestic violence tends not to be a linear sequence of constant abuse. After an abusive incident, the abuser tends to be remorseful at first, but then anger and other negative emotions build and build until it explodes in another episode of physical abuse. That period when the anger is building again can be torture for an abuse victim because they know another abusive outburst is coming but they don’t know when. The result is that abuse victims will sometimes do things during that period to provoke their abuser just to get the next episode of abuse over with. It’s a protective response, but the consequence is that it looks like the victim is an instigator themselves.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

I was not trying to discount others abuse, but it is interesting that so many people on DCUM think they are qualified to opine on the matter when they have no experience beyond television. BTW, fighting back is not the same as provoking and instigating a provocation. That is not fighting back.

DP. I am the one who posted the original explanation of provocation by abuse victims. I spent over a decade working as a pro bono attorney for victims of domestic violence. In addition to learning the legal landscape, I had to develop a very strong foundational knowledge of domestic abuse itself, particularly the psychological aspect, to properly understand my clients’ situations and how to effectively explain them to a court. And in doing that work, I spent over a decade being threatened, stalked and harassed by abusers. Do not dare to tell me I don’t know anything about domestic violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, just because she did not write it does not mean she did not get on that bandwagon. Why else would she write an oped? It was perfect timing and opportunity.

Because she was finally divorced with a domestic violence restraining order against Depp. She also announced her ACLA ambassadorship or whatever it's called. She had an attorney proof the Op Ed for any/all legal issues. Lastly, she had every right to speak or write about her experience.

I don't have an issue with her writing an oped about her experience if she was really abused, the issue with her is that she is an instigator in a lot of their fights as evidenced by her own recordings. To say that she is abused without mentioning that she is an instigator in their fights is untruthful, and worse when she speaks as an ambassador for the abused women.

This reflects a really poor understanding of the cycle of violence. Setting aside this specific case, domestic violence tends not to be a linear sequence of constant abuse. After an abusive incident, the abuser tends to be remorseful at first, but then anger and other negative emotions build and build until it explodes in another episode of physical abuse. That period when the anger is building again can be torture for an abuse victim because they know another abusive outburst is coming but they don’t know when. The result is that abuse victims will sometimes do things during that period to provoke their abuser just to get the next episode of abuse over with. It’s a protective response, but the consequence is that it looks like the victim is an instigator themselves.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

I was not trying to discount others abuse, but it is interesting that so many people on DCUM think they are qualified to opine on the matter when they have no experience beyond television. BTW, fighting back is not the same as provoking and instigating a provocation. That is not fighting back.

DP. I am the one who posted the original explanation of provocation by abuse victims. I spent over a decade working as a pro bono attorney for victims of domestic violence. In addition to learning the legal landscape, I had to develop a very strong foundational knowledge of domestic abuse itself, particularly the psychological aspect, to properly understand my clients’ situations and how to effectively explain them to a court. And in doing that work, I spent over a decade being threatened, stalked and harassed by abusers. Do not dare to tell me I don’t know anything about domestic violence.

Different poster here- curious what your opinion is here compared to the two main psychologists they used at trial- what percentage of the abusers were men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, just because she did not write it does not mean she did not get on that bandwagon. Why else would she write an oped? It was perfect timing and opportunity.

Because she was finally divorced with a domestic violence restraining order against Depp. She also announced her ACLA ambassadorship or whatever it's called. She had an attorney proof the Op Ed for any/all legal issues. Lastly, she had every right to speak or write about her experience.

I don't have an issue with her writing an oped about her experience if she was really abused, the issue with her is that she is an instigator in a lot of their fights as evidenced by her own recordings. To say that she is abused without mentioning that she is an instigator in their fights is untruthful, and worse when she speaks as an ambassador for the abused women.

This reflects a really poor understanding of the cycle of violence. Setting aside this specific case, domestic violence tends not to be a linear sequence of constant abuse. After an abusive incident, the abuser tends to be remorseful at first, but then anger and other negative emotions build and build until it explodes in another episode of physical abuse. That period when the anger is building again can be torture for an abuse victim because they know another abusive outburst is coming but they don’t know when. The result is that abuse victims will sometimes do things during that period to provoke their abuser just to get the next episode of abuse over with. It’s a protective response, but the consequence is that it looks like the victim is an instigator themselves.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

I was not trying to discount others abuse, but it is interesting that so many people on DCUM think they are qualified to opine on the matter when they have no experience beyond television. BTW, fighting back is not the same as provoking and instigating a provocation. That is not fighting back.

DP. I am the one who posted the original explanation of provocation by abuse victims. I spent over a decade working as a pro bono attorney for victims of domestic violence. In addition to learning the legal landscape, I had to develop a very strong foundational knowledge of domestic abuse itself, particularly the psychological aspect, to properly understand my clients’ situations and how to effectively explain them to a court. And in doing that work, I spent over a decade being threatened, stalked and harassed by abusers. Do not dare to tell me I don’t know anything about domestic violence.

Different poster here- curious what your opinion is here compared to the two main psychologists they used at trial- what percentage of the abusers were men?

I didn’t watch the trial testimony from the experts in this case (not did I comment on the specific of this case, in case you are trying to play some kind of gotcha - I was speaking generally about patterns of domestic abuse), so I am not sure what exactly you are asking.

[Anonymous]

Simple question - Why on earth did Elaine forget to press her mic button all the time?? The judge had to tell her about 100 times, Amber started pressing it for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Simple question - Why on earth did Elaine forget to press her mic button all the time?? The judge had to tell her about 100 times, Amber started pressing it for her.

It’s pretty uncommon to have to deal with that kind of mic’ing in a courtroom, because there usually aren’t televisions cameras.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Simple question - Why on earth did Elaine forget to press her mic button all the time?? The judge had to tell her about 100 times, Amber started pressing it for her.

Maybe she was too flustered? In over her head? In all seriousness, I thought Rottenborn was much more effective than she was. It seemed like when she ran out of arguments, she resorted to name calling, like with that TMZ guy and his 15 min of fame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple question - Why on earth did Elaine forget to press her mic button all the time?? The judge had to tell her about 100 times, Amber started pressing it for her.

It’s pretty uncommon to have to deal with that kind of mic’ing in a courtroom, because there usually aren’t televisions cameras.

This. I’ve been in Fx circuit court probably 1000s of times for court appearances. We’ve never used microphones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, just because she did not write it does not mean she did not get on that bandwagon. Why else would she write an oped? It was perfect timing and opportunity.

Because she was finally divorced with a domestic violence restraining order against Depp. She also announced her ACLA ambassadorship or whatever it's called. She had an attorney proof the Op Ed for any/all legal issues. Lastly, she had every right to speak or write about her experience.

I don't have an issue with her writing an oped about her experience if she was really abused, the issue with her is that she is an instigator in a lot of their fights as evidenced by her own recordings. To say that she is abused without mentioning that she is an instigator in their fights is untruthful, and worse when she speaks as an ambassador for the abused women.

This reflects a really poor understanding of the cycle of violence. Setting aside this specific case, domestic violence tends not to be a linear sequence of constant abuse. After an abusive incident, the abuser tends to be remorseful at first, but then anger and other negative emotions build and build until it explodes in another episode of physical abuse. That period when the anger is building again can be torture for an abuse victim because they know another abusive outburst is coming but they don’t know when. The result is that abuse victims will sometimes do things during that period to provoke their abuser just to get the next episode of abuse over with. It’s a protective response, but the consequence is that it looks like the victim is an instigator themselves.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

I was not trying to discount others abuse, but it is interesting that so many people on DCUM think they are qualified to opine on the matter when they have no experience beyond television. BTW, fighting back is not the same as provoking and instigating a provocation. That is not fighting back.

DP. I am the one who posted the original explanation of provocation by abuse victims. I spent over a decade working as a pro bono attorney for victims of domestic violence. In addition to learning the legal landscape, I had to develop a very strong foundational knowledge of domestic abuse itself, particularly the psychological aspect, to properly understand my clients’ situations and how to effectively explain them to a court. And in doing that work, I spent over a decade being threatened, stalked and harassed by abusers. Do not dare to tell me I don’t know anything about domestic violence.

Different poster here- curious what your opinion is here compared to the two main psychologists they used at trial- what percentage of the abusers were men?

I didn’t watch the trial testimony from the experts in this case (not did I comment on the specific of this case, in case you are trying to play some kind of gotcha - I was speaking generally about patterns of domestic abuse), so I am not sure what exactly you are asking.

Not playing a game of gotcha. AH's psychologist woman expert (Not the guy) was in a big back and forth with JD's lawyers about how many woman on man interpersonal violence cases she had been involved with. Like how often is the man the victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple question - Why on earth did Elaine forget to press her mic button all the time?? The judge had to tell her about 100 times, Amber started pressing it for her.

Maybe she was too flustered? In over her head? In all seriousness, I thought Rottenborn was much more effective than she was. It seemed like when she ran out of arguments, she resorted to name calling, like with that TMZ guy and his 15 min of fame.

Elaine: Blah blah
JD lawyers: Objection!
Elaine: "What if any"
Judge: What if any can't get you out of everything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple question - Why on earth did Elaine forget to press her mic button all the time?? The judge had to tell her about 100 times, Amber started pressing it for her.

Maybe she was too flustered? In over her head? In all seriousness, I thought Rottenborn was much more effective than she was. It seemed like when she ran out of arguments, she resorted to name calling, like with that TMZ guy and his 15 min of fame.

Elaine: Blah blah
JD lawyers: Objection!
Elaine: "What if any"
Judge: What if any can't get you out of everything

Every time they objected to Elaine, she began with, “he’s just…” or “she’s just…”