Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11177689)

You mean the support she has is underwhelming in comparison to the support that Johnny Depp has. She has a lot of support, he happens to have far more for various reasons. I’m sure SOME are just people who on balance believe him, that would be reasonable - but the vast majority are mindless, often very young,“#JusticeForJohnny” drones who copy-pasted their opinion from the latest YouTube video on the subject.

So does she have lots of support? Yes, by numbers, as much as if not far more than most domestic abuse victims.

Does she have lots of support when weighed against Depp’s? No. Depp is more popular than Heard by orders of magnitude. That’s not in dispute, but it also means nothing, other than throwing the result of a JURY DECIDED trial into serious question.

Imagine putting the most popular kid in class up against the kid no one likes and then deciding who’s the more truthful of the two on the result of a vote from the other kids. A quick way to find out precisely nowt.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11177707)

Inappropriate Jack Sparrow style responses to questioning and chuckles, smirks and fist-bumps with the lawyers in court… apparently.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11177702)

What does a Domestic Abuse victim sound like?

Originally Posted by ThomasC (Post 11177708)

So the vast majority of people are mindless because they don't believe Amber? Really?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11177715)

No no I think the majority of people commenting on these videos are mindless and are just repeating what they’ve heard elsewhere. That’s why you’ll see the exact same “revelations” with the exact same phrasing cropping up time after time.

The tide of that then favours one type of video and one type of analysis over the other (in this case, often MRA rhetoric or even directly from MRA accounts) and that in turn furthers more videos along the same lines. That’s how these viral algorithms work. Once a zeitgeist narrative takes off it quickly starts to look like the only narrative m. It’s an illusion.




A jury of experts maybe, a jury of “peers” I’m afraid I just disagree, you can see above with the silly “that’s not what victims sound like” comments that average people simply don’t understand the nuances of abuse scenarios and are confused if it doesn’t look “like what they would expect” … when it very rarely does.

I didn’t say anything about them breaking the law or not doing their duty but to suggest that jury verdicts are infallible is of course just false; appeals exist (and are regularly won) for a reason. People have been put on death row for decades only to be found innocent because of some new emerging evidence. That’s an extreme example and murder trials usually go the “right way” because of the burden of proof required, but civil cases are a whole other matter. There’s no “beyond reasonable doubt” stipulation. One side just have to be anecdotally convincing; as we saw.



The odds were always clearly stacked in Depp’s favour and more so with it being a televised jury trial. If you look back you’ll find me stating without very little doubt that Depp would unfortunately win the trial. I wasn’t surprised in the slightest by the outcome.

I would point out that there was evidence in the US trial that was not in the UK trial but also that evidence that was allowed in the UK trial was suppressed from the US trial (with not particularly good explanations). You might also want to look into why the trial was held in Virginia and. It California, despite neither Heard nor Depp having any significant link to Virginia. Which arguable should not even have been allowed and is likely to form part of the appeal - the Virginia Supreme Court May decide that the trial should never have taken place there in the first place.

He wouldn’t even have got to trial in California. Hence why they went window shopping for a state to hold the trial in.

Originally Posted by ThomasC (Post 11177714)

I think she became besotted with him. Massively and deeply fell in love, but a very toxic love that was really unhealthy. I don't think she could deal with him not being there. He wanted space and she couldn't cope with that. Even now, I still think she absolutely idolises him and would probably take him back if he would let her. Love can be blinding and I always think of being unable to see the wood through the trees when love takes over and you become irrational, manic, obsessive and controlling.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11177721)

Sure. And this is a classic scenario for the start of abusive or mutually abusive relationships. :shrug:

All of the evidence of the trial points to them being possessive and controlling of each other, they’re both on record talking about how they had an “intense and passionate relationship”. But then we’re asked to make the logical leap that she was physically abusive, but he - someone with a proven record of violence and aggression and massive substance abuse problems - never laid a finger on her?

You apparently pride yourself in seeing the realistic path Thomas, the phrase “pull the other one, it plays jingle bells” comes to mind when I hear people suggest that Johnny Depp was a passive participant in this “intense relationship”. I think your bull**** detector must be broken on that one.

Originally Posted by ThomasC (Post 11177720)

People can form their own opinions which they have done.

Originally Posted by ThomasC (Post 11177726)

No the evidence presented in the US trial did not show them being possessive and controlling of each other. It showed Amber being the possessive and controlling one.

I'm not on about what proven record he has or what paparazzi he punched etc. I'm on about what I saw in THIS trial and the evidence in THIS trial.

Yes she was physically abusive, FACT and proven. Show me some evidence that he was physically abusive towards her?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11177728)

On YouTube comments? Maybe 1 in 20 being generous. A huge chunk of them aren’t even people, they’re repost bots.



They weee also (admittedly from a couple of them post-trial) looking at Social Media or discussing the Social Media coverage with family members. A point of appeal.

One juror also openly stated that he made up his mind very quickly, based entirely on their behaviour on the stand … which is not even remotely the job or a juror. Another point of appeal. A few of the jurors got a little too chatty after the trial.



Maybe, I still understand why she did it and strongly disagree that Depp wont care. We all saw his texts. He’d have to have had a personality transplant to not be irked that she’s still talking about him.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11177731)

I’m not sure how much clearer I can be that my assessment of who I believe in this case and why has little if anything to do with the outcome of the trial? A three ring circus in a kangaroo court. I’m not interested. I listened to a believable account of an abusive relationship and I saw with my own eyes videos of an abusive man, and text messages of a violent individual. I believe that Amber Heard has the right to talk openly about that. I don’t care what Ted from Virginia thinks of that? It has zero bearing on my opinion. I’m not asking for Depp to be charged.

Originally Posted by ThomasC (Post 11177734)

Yeah and most of that abuse was from her
Everything she has done is well timed, just like this interview, she couldn't wait.

We've been through the text messages and the cupboard in depth as it's the only two things that you can really draw on from a 7 week trial with very little regard to all the other evidence submitted

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11177740)

Even you just said “most”. If you’re not saying “all” then the outcome of the trial was incorrect. The trial wasn’t to decide “who was worse”.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11177710)

Oh yes, silly me

Originally Posted by ThomasC (Post 11177748)

I think we've been through this before too in which I admitted that the text messages were wrong and that him smashing cupboards up was violent...but I also said that I don't think that constitutes being labelled a domestic abusive because you've had enough of how you have been treated. I don't use the word so flippantly like some may do because you've had an argument with your spouse. Are we saying that I would be a domestic abuser and be labelled as such if I had a partner and had a huge argument one evening so I smash up some cupboards in a rage and start swearing? No and I don't think most people would see it like that, I would say most would probably say DV is sustained and regular.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11177774)

This is the difference between branding a person and describing an action though; she did not say “Johnny is a domestic abuser”, she said she has experienced abuse in a relationship. The letter can be true (experiencing incidences of abuse) without the former being true (that the other partner is GENERALLY abusive). From what I saw and heard, it’s pretty clear that elements of control and emotional abuse were present from both of them in quite a sustained and regular manner. In terms of things getting physical this seems to have been more rare, and worsened later into the relationship. It’s worth noting that some of Depp’s exes - whilst defending him and saying he was never violent — HAVE described him as being at times jealous/controlling (e.g. unhappy about them talking to other men at parties).

Would I brand you an abuser if you smashed the place up and swore at a partner? No. Would I recognise those as acts that are abusive…? Sorry but yes. These actions can be explained and I’m not saying that anyone who has ever lost their cool should be forever condemned, but it shouldn’t be excused or defended either. It can be recognised as explainable but wrong. I think there are many explanations for Depp’s behaviour. I think looking at it all of this aside, his life has been full of abuse and trauma from the start and I have sympathy for that. It just doesn’t change my opinion on his relationship with Heard.



I fundamentally disagree with the idea that people need to have physical evidence of sexual assault to talk about having been sexually assaulted. This is a known and massive issue; there is RARELY physical evidence of sexual assault and so having that as a requirement for speaking out is dangerously inappropriate.

FWIW my thoughts on the bottle incident;

- I believe it happened, most likely the bottle neck rather than the “whole bottle so it would have done massive damage” story that people have used as evidence that it didn’t happen.

- I think he was probably heavily inebriated at the time and MAY have believed that their “passionate argument” had turned into a weird but consensual sexual act, as by all accounts, their sex life was somewhat like that. That’s not really relevant though. Plenty of sexual assaults occur without the perpetrator realising that it wasn’t consented to. It’s still an assault, as I would hope we all know.

- it’s feasible that he either doesn’t remember or that his memory of the entire incident is murky, as by all accounts he was up to the eyeballs in booze at the time.

That’s all opinion based but there is NO physical evidence either of it happening OR of it not happening. All there is is their conflicting individual statements. As is the case with 99% of sexual assault claims.



We’ve discussed this part before too; proving that someone has told unrelated lies is not proof that other things they have said are also lies. It simply doesn’t logically follow. It understandably may affect how likely someone is to TRUST that persons word but it means nothing beyond that in terms of likelihood.

Depp has admitted some of his wrongdoings and has avoided others. There are also verifiable lies told by Depp and his team. Again it’s not really relevant.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11178143)

The thing is, I can understand people looking at Amber Heard and wondering if her character is in question. She's had a messy past and been a messy person; there's a reason she was attracted to Depp in the first place. She does come across as odd. It's hard to see her as likeable. I get all of that.

The flipside I don't understand is the blinkered response to Depp who by all reasonable objective accounts is also an absolute ****ing car crash. As I said above, I have sympathy for him ... it sounds like his childhood was absolutely horrendous. Both of his parents were genuinely abusive people and cruel. Then he went down a route of Hollywood alcohol and drugs which never takes anyone anywhere good either... but it's all viewed - in my observations of this trial - through foot-thick rose tinted glasses. He quite clearly (despite claims to the contrary) has constant and ongoing demons and severe substance abuse problems. Frankly I'll be surprised if he doesn't put himself in an early grave, he's clearly still drinking pint goblets of wine for breakfast and six pints for lunch, and contrary to the claims that this is normal behaviour, it isn't anything resembling normal for an alcoholic who is claiming to have sobered up - it'll kill him. It doesn't tend to go particularly well for men in their 50's in general and if you look at pictures of him from a few years back, he's looking decidedly ... puffy ... these days.

Like I said I do have sympathy for Depp and a very complicated, messy and by all accounts rather unhappy life. I read a very lengthy Rolling Stone interview with him a while back ... put it this way, the man's misery has very little to do with Amber Heard, he was in personal crisis before he'd even heard her name and has rarely been out of it.

So yeah ... I have sympathy, but if we're assessing people on character (which we apparently are), it's on balance of probabilities HIGHLY unlikely that Johnny wasn't as much a part of this train-crash relationship as Heard and probably more. He's a very troubled man. And it's not because of Amber. It's just that simple really.

Edited to add - he also habitually surrounds himself with Hollywood's monsters, rapists and paedophiles. Where are the question marks over that?

Originally Posted by ThomasC (Post 11178269)

I don't think I have a blinkered response and neither do a lot of people. Of course he's no angel, he did wrong in this relationship too, but I think he was pushed to it and we don't know exactly the reason as to why he sent those texts or was violent in that video towards the cupboards. Context is huge and yet we just don't know of. What we do know, though, is that she physically assaulted him and then tried to tell him how it felt....she taunted him and basically said tell people what I've done and see who believes you....see has tipped off the press to capture her bruises which then disappear the next day (factual evidence), coincidentally coinsiding with the release of aquaman too and at the height of metoo, she has doctured pictures (factual evidence), she appeared on the lateshow where she was suppose to have horrific injuries (none observed) including a cracked lip, she outright lies on another programme saying she had already donated the money, she took pictures of him in extreme states, ...I don't need to go on.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11178275)

Evidence emerging of Team Depp paying off/intimidating a whole list of potential witnesses (other women that Depp has been aggressive towards) by the way, for those who wondered “why there weren’t many witnesses if that’s what he’s like”.

Perched for the appeal personally.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11178275)

Evidence emerging of Team Depp paying off/intimidating a whole list of potential witnesses (other women that Depp has been aggressive towards) by the way, for those who wondered “why there weren’t many witnesses if that’s what he’s like”.

Perched for the appeal personally.