Yes usually indicative of a ban, although the poster in question has a custom tagline which does not revert if I recall correctly. So I think that NTS is pulling your leg.
Last edited:
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
Yes usually indicative of a ban, although the poster in question has a custom tagline which does not revert if I recall correctly. So I think that NTS is pulling your leg.
I agree with this point to a certain extent, I don't think Amber Heard represents all victims of DV and as a result we should continue to take claims of DV from women extremely seriously. But as a society, a lot of folks want to go away from innocent until proven guilty. That's the problem I have.
What about the guy who implied that a woman can't possibly have been beaten up unless she looks like Rihanna after Chris Brown's assault, ie black and blue?
There was a three page debate on what a broken nose looks like...
Unfortunately none of it is direct misogyny, it's all far more insidious than that and if not outright misogyny it's a definite lack of respect for women.
My definition of misogynistic is the standard definition.
I find it weird you despise a woman you don't know. She certainly doesn't enamour herself to me at all, and I found her behaviour on the stand somewhat unconvincing. However, I have been cross examined myself and I can appreciate anything you say can and will be twisted to get the outcome the cross examining lawyer/barrister wants. I don't know what exactly happened between Depp and Heard because I wasn't there to witness it, but I'm inclined to believe both were as abusive as each other.
Seriously, report it if you find it to be misogynistic or disrespectful. I'm not being sneaky or anything.If the mods missed it because nobody reported it then it's unfair to say they don't take matters like misogyny seriously.
Fair enough, I will in future. I'm not going to trawl through the thread and look again because the moment has passed and I doubt anyone fancies having to deal with that.
I wish I had your certainty. I got slowly more untrusting off Heard for obvious reasons as the trial went on- but reading that just makes think about the What Ifs. What if she is telling the truth? It’s an abysmal situation.
Sheltered thinking? Get out of here you patronising pillock. I haven't said men can't be the victims of domestic abuse, and I know full well they can from personal experience myself. Unlike you, I am not acting like Johnny Depp, a domestic abuser, is whiter than white, or celebrating the fact he won. If you gave a damn about the victims of domestic abuse, you wouldn't be celebrating him.
In the first few paragraphs he is summarizing her testimony. Her testimony, if true, is shocking. The question is if its believable. In one important way, this trial is quite different from other cases of abuse. Usually there is one potential victim and one alleged perpetrator, who denies the allegation. In this case both sides level drastic accounts of abuse against each other and both accounts are incompatible with each other. In this situation the notion, that we should take accusations very seriously and shouldn't disregard them, applies to both sides equally.
I havn't read this blog post completely, but as far as I can tell, it omitted all the evidence, that put Amber's account into question, most notably the audio recordings. I am 99% sure, that without these tapes, Amber would have won this case, but they are make her look so bad. They just don't fit with her version of events at all.
"I didn't punch you. I didn't punch you. By the way. I'm sorry that I didn't hit you across the face in a proper slap. But I was hitting you. It was not punching you. Babe, you're not punched. You didn't get punched. You got hit. I'm sorry I didn't hit you like this. But I did not punch you. I did not fecking deck you. I fecking was hitting you. I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you're fine. I did not hurt you. I did not punch you. I was hitting you."
She even gets agitated when Depp is saying, that its not okay to punch him. In these few minutes she confirms pretty much every single cliché of an abuser, not the victim. If Depp would have said that, the trial would have been over after 5 minutes, rightfully. There is obviously other evidence and its fine to come to different conclusions, but we don't need to come up with "social media trial" explanations, to understand why the jury came their conclusion.
If you actually believed both were abusive then it's a bit odd to be so defensive over people disliking a domestic abuser.
You spent a good while making very strong damnation over Depp so seems an imbalance.
He's in the Shakira thread right now, he's found himself another lady who might want to bang him for his online efforts in providing balanced views to football forumsWeird as he claimed to be balanced in his views
Wow, this was said? Maybe we should find the post then because that's a crazy claim to make (the idea that someone would need to look like Rihanna after the Brown assault for it to be real that is).
Last edited:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/amb...-on-all-3-counts.470042/page-14#post-28825613
It's from midway down this page.
It was used as a retort to a picture of Heard that a poster called "Damning Evidence" that she was physically abused.
[
How much attempting retconning of past testimony is enough before the blame lies at Ambers feet?
I’d argue the media was in Ambers side in this. It’s perplexing others are saying the media were leading the fallout and not simply everybody was watching someone blatantly lie in court.
How much attempting retconning of past testimony is enough before the blame lies at Ambers feet?
It's actually worth reading those pages (if you find that kind of Debate interesting, I think it's kind of similar to the Ole vs Ralf discussion) around the "broken nose" discussion because although at the time the posters were being accused of misogyny etc the basis of it was because they didn't believe that the broken nose was real. (Testimony and evidence)
*Although I think the only reason it became such a hot topic was because they wouldn't admit that it was even possible which I think was extreme.
The jury just decided the same thing right?
I may have the wrong end of the stick.
*Although I think the only reason it became such a hot topic was because they wouldn't admit that it was even possible which I think was extreme.
The jury just decided the same thing right?
I may have the wrong end of the stick.
Last edited:
I mean it definitely looks like she was hit, although without the context it's hard to know who or how it happened.
As a medical professional though, the thing that concerned me the most was the lack of a medical report for the alleged assault with a wine bottle. That is a gruesome trauma, emotionally and physically, and I would hope that anyone would seek medical care for such an episode. If there was a medical report available, this should have been made available to the jury (and if possible, kept out of the public eye as the info is sensitive). Based on the court proceedings though, this wasn't made available. Gosh, such a terrible event if it happened and is reminiscent of the stuff coming out of Ukraine now, just hoped she was telling the truth as these terrible things really do happen and I wouldn't want a case like this to empower criminals to pursue such behavior.
I also don't understand some of the audio recordings either of Amber Heard, she sounded like a lot of bullies (mostly men) I have encountered throughout my life, and these recordings were purportedly taken after the some of the events of abuse she described. It all was just extremely unsettling to watch unfold. The article that @Wolverine quoted did not look at some of these aspects in good faith and that also makes me feel disturbed to be honest. I felt throughout the trial that it was the Depp fans who were not being objective and ignoring evidence that didn't support their conclusions but in many ways we are seeing the opposite now.
Last edited:
Yeah I've been lucky enough to never break my nose so I didn't get involved with any of that talk.
The more interesting part for me was the lack of metadata provided / medical record of the incident.
Plus even if you have those you have to believe Depp is the one who did it.
I just specifically remember this period of time because I was so worried about being called a misogynist ( which I would find insulting despite it being thrown around here like confetti) because I didn't believe that the picture alone was evidence that physical abuse (by Depp) occured.
He isn't a domestic abuser though is he? Has he been convicted?
If her best evidence is altered images with redacted meta data.. despite actively trying to goad him into things.
The problem was that the only "evidence" Heard had that her nose was broken was her word. After being caught in lie after lie her word wasn't worth much.
They will tell you Amber Heard won counterclaim therefore Depp is an abuser.
Even though she only won one claim and it has nothing to do with domestic abuse.
Last edited:
You can find it weird that I despise a woman I don't know, but do you think that makes me a misogynist? My opinion is based on the audio tapes combined with the evidence provided and the way she conducted herself in court. It was honestly embarrassing. Yes, I despise a person who pretends not to know the difference between donating or pledging to donate.
Last edited:
loss of income due to her now proven unfounded allegations ?
That quote from the judge again;
“I have found that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard”
I don’t know whether the judge was factually right or wrong, or how the evidence differed between the US and UK trials. And neither do you. Both of us have no idea. But stop acting like there is no supporting evidence of abuse. You clearly have the right to attach whatever levels of importance you want to the various bits of evidence, a lot of which is contradictory, but let’s not pretend this is a just a no-brainer and there’s no possibility that he’s an abuser who got away with it.
We've just had a very length court case of all the evidence made public. Odd to then harp back to a closed trial so you can claim it's an unknown mystery. We know what the evidence is, people can make their own mind up from that and judge as they will.
It's like shy Tory syndrome in here
Oh yes because traditional print media = social media.
We've just had a very length court case of all the evidence made public. Odd to then harp back to a closed trial so you can claim it's an unknown mystery. We know what the evidence is, people can make their own mind up from that and judge as they will.
It's like shy Tory syndrome in here
Harp back? It was November 2020 FFS.
And it literally is unknown. You have no idea what happened and neither do I. The difference seems to be that I can accept that I don’t know, yet you can’t.
I was responding to someone who I think said that the London trial was nothing to do with domestic violence and I was pointing out that the judge explicitly mentioned DV and said that he considered 12 of the 14 allegations to have been proved to a civil (not criminal) level.
No need to respond to such obvious baiting.
Must be like the 5th time this poster has come into the thread just to blanket namecall everyone as misogynist, then failed to provide any basis for their accusations when asked for it, resort name-calling and leave. Then have the cheek to question the moderation of the thread.
I didn't watch UK trial, it wasn't televised, not many have good understand about it. I don't pretend to have full knowledge about it, that's why I don't talk about it. I'd love to hear opinion from someone whom witnessed it day in day out but unlikely that person would show up here itt.
I only know AH wasn't the main party, she had little to do with UK trial other than being a witness(which has been proven as an unreliable one in US trial).
UK trial was a libel trial of JD and the Sun, in which news media is fully protected by Freedom of press. There were clear differences.
It's also worth mentioning that Domestic violence is a criminal offense in UK and this trial wasn't about that at all. And when we talk about civil standard, it's based on the balance of probabilities, meaning it just needs to be “more likely than not,” which could literally be 51% vs 49%.
Long story short is, Judge ruled that "The Sun is allowed to call JD a wifebeater by civil standard" he didn't say JD was a wifebeater, that'd be a criminal offense.
From my understanding, Main stream media don't have to tell factual truth. As long as their source comes from first party, they can print everything.
You feel free to agree with the Sun though.
Last edited:
The misogyny angle is so fecking weird.
"Yeah, but this trial is going to put the issue of domestic violence against women back by several years! Nobody believes women any more!"
And who's to blame for that? The guy who had his career ruined by a violent sociopath or the violent sociopath? Sure, there's feckwits out there that are going to claim that other actually legitimate domestic abuse accusations in the future are "just another Amber Heard case" but they're the sort of feckwits who'd be feckwits regardless of the existence or outcome of this trial, and it's still on Amber Heard, and not Johnny Depp, for adding fuel to their fallacious fire. Johnny Depp has made many mistakes in his life, but fighting for his life and career in court is not one of them. Taking Amber Heard down after what she did to him isn't either. You reap what you sow.
Whatever the feelings are about this trial, the verdict, the allegations and the repercussions of it, there's no logical way to not see Amber Heard as the chief culprit here, and some people seem to have their heads so far up the arse of feminism that they can't tell the difference between being anti-Amber Heard and anti-women in general. As much as I champion women's rights to equality, this actually feels like a win for men in one of the few places where cards have traditionally been stacked against them. A lot of people seem ignorant of the fact that men can be real victims of domestic abuse. I'm glad the jury saw Amber Heard for what she was instead of white knighting in the name of supposed "feminism". Giving a free pass to a sociopathic abuser is not feminism.
"Yeah, but this trial is going to put the issue of domestic violence against women back by several years! Nobody believes women any more!"
And who's to blame for that? The guy who had his career ruined by a violent sociopath or the violent sociopath? Sure, there's feckwits out there that are going to claim that other actually legitimate domestic abuse accusations in the future are "just another Amber Heard case" but they're the sort of feckwits who'd be feckwits regardless of the existence or outcome of this trial, and it's still on Amber Heard, and not Johnny Depp, for adding fuel to their fallacious fire. Johnny Depp has made many mistakes in his life, but fighting for his life and career in court is not one of them. Taking Amber Heard down after what she did to him isn't either. You reap what you sow.
Whatever the feelings are about this trial, the verdict, the allegations and the repercussions of it, there's no logical way to not see Amber Heard as the chief culprit here, and some people seem to have their heads so far up the arse of feminism that they can't tell the difference between being anti-Amber Heard and anti-women in general. As much as I champion women's rights to equality, this actually feels like a win for men in one of the few places where cards have traditionally been stacked against them. A lot of people seem ignorant of the fact that men can be real victims of domestic abuse. I'm glad the jury saw Amber Heard for what she was instead of white knighting in the name of supposed "feminism". Giving a free pass to a sociopathic abuser is not feminism.
You’re saying the jury was on social media? I didn’t find anything definitive on that, they were apparently instructed not to turn on their phones lest they have a news alert on the trial show up, you’d think they were instructed to stay off social media.
“The jury is not sequestered, but they were advised not to read or research the case, even to turn off their cell phone notifications to prevent them from accidentally seeing a news alert.”
https://deadline.com/2022/04/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-virginia-1235000402/
Let's be real, they went away for a long memorial day weekend, would have met a bunch of people and obviously had their phones on. Little chance none of them had any clue about what went on social media.
In any lawsuit the jury is instructed to not discuss the case with anyone outside the court but there's absolutely no way for any authorities to monitor that when they are out of court and for such a high profile case, they absolutely would have looked at a bunch of things when they were out.
You’re absolutely right on that. Its actually quite disgusting that a domestic abuser is allowed to continue to abuse her victim and be celebrated for it by using feminism and the metoo movement as a sword and shield. The rise of misandry in the world as a response to misogyny is quite worrying.
Sure, but this suggests that the methodology is flawed. There have been other celebrity trials, surely if there has been serious problem discovered with juries that aren’t sequestered being influenced, we would have seen this jury sequestered?
To me, to argue the system is flawed seems like a pretty big stretch. If there was a better argument for why the jury was wrong surely Heard’s team would have lead with that?
I suppose it’s possible the jury went out and viewed social media and were biased but it, but surely we need evidence before we speculate the jury system doesn’t work?
I’m happy to stay open minded. I’m most interested in whether Heard will be tried for perjury. If that’s not perjury then I’m not sure what is!
Of course that would be negated if she won on appeal, so we have to wait and remain open minded.
No I don't think they really care about that much. It's all about trusting them in 'good faith' and stuff. Also I think there's a point of not pushing people away from doing jury duty, its already a massive chore.
It is. They had enough evidence right in front of them to make the call, doesn't really matter much if they checked social media. 99% of the videos on social media are anyway footage from the court and they were there in person.
Exactly.
Do people really believe that the evidence is more compelling if you watch it via some idiot YouTuber/ Tiktoker VS Being In the actual courtroom and hearing everything from 10 feet away?
Last edited:
Thought the $10mil awarded as damages was to compensate for the loss suffered by Depp due to the unfounded allegations. There sure was testimony lead by both sides to argue how the allegations/wrongful statements affected them and resulted in loss of revenue for them.
Its amazing isn't it? The mental arithmetics people go through to prove their case. Looking at those clips i doubt anyone looking back on it would think "hey she comes off better a second time i really believe her" or "oh thats what she meant... this changes everything!"
There definitely is a poster in this discussion being a patronising pillock, but it certainly isn't me, plus your standard definition of misogyny is wrong, so stop using a word you don't know the meaning of.
misogyny :
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
Go back and read over that again so you can see the actual definition of misogyny, not your "standard definition", or should we have your "standard" put into the dictionary?
You haven't outright said men can't be victims, but you're strongly implying it, just like many of your ilk in this thread, I'm actually celebrating the fact a domestic abuser (Heard) has lost after using an important movement #metoo and giving actual misogynists their fuel to spout their actual crazy hatred against women - you're so busy being a White Knight you fail to see the damage this abuser has caused.
You still calling Depp a domestic abuser is factually wrong, he's the victim, does he have his problems? Obviously, everyone has problems, but not every drug addict or alcoholic happens to be abusive.
If you gave a damn about domestic violence you wouldn't be taking the side of someone who's been shown to be a compulsive liar for the past 6 weeks with overwhelming evidence against her.
I've offered this question openly in this thread, but now I'm going to ask it to you:
If a man was abusive towards a woman, physically and mentally for years, would you then condemn her for ever putting up a fight? Or would she then also be an abuser? (was said Depp tried to subdue her and clashed heads).
Why does the BBC want to perpetuate the myth that Heard was a victim and Depp the abuser
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61664982
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61664982