Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Johnny Depp Libel Case

frogwoman said:
They both come out of this looking awful. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were further allegations about one or both of them later on
Click to expand...
There have already been allegations about AH, she’s been arrested for it before but the charges were dropped. I agree we’ll see more about one or both in the future though.

I think that more’s going to come out soon-ish though - she’s already signalled that she’s going to appeal.
 
cesare said:
It was properly toxic both ways, and the jurors heard her admitting that she physically abused him. I dislike that she thinks it’s ok to hit people.
Click to expand...
And this is why I would be interested to see as neutral a run down as possible of everything that was shared, just description no opinion.

It is undoubtably as complex as it is horrible. I’ve found it impossible to get an idea of context from the bits I’ve read, and tbf it’s probably not even possible with a full trial transcript in front of you. Truths are often subjective in some way and two retellings of the same event can sound like two completely different events. Observers read their own truths into what’s reported which distorts things even further. Ultimately there will have been power dynamics at play which will influence how meaningful each specific action was, and none of us will ever really know about those.

But yeah, everything I’ve come across suggested there was mutual abuse even if the precise power dynamics have been harder to pinpoint. I’m still clueless as to how the sharing of mutual abuse has led to the “poor him, evil her” stance - apart from the enduring, background static of misogyny of course.
 
8ball said:
Yes, the internet has been a horrific shitshow.
Click to expand...
It’s been awful, truly shameful, and if you prefer the evidence of Dr Curry AH has two concurrent personality disorders to contend with. Even if you prefer the evidence of Dr Hughes, AH has one disorder to deal with. The Internet has certainly brought out some of the very worst of behaviour, hasn’t it.
 
Agent Sparrow said:
I’m still clueless as to how the sharing of mutual abuse has led to the “poor him, evil her” stance - apart from the enduring, background static of misogyny of course.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, I think this came down to her being shown to have lied. She undermined her own credibility, which gave reason to regard everything she had said as suspect.
 
Agent Sparrow said:
And this is why I would be interested to see as neutral a run down as possible of everything that was shared, just description no opinion.

It is undoubtably as complex as it is horrible. I’ve found it impossible to get an idea of context from the bits I’ve read, and tbf it’s probably not even possible with a full trial transcript in front of you. Truths are often subjective in some way and two retellings of the same event can sound like two completely different events. Observers read their own truths into what’s reported which distorts things even further. Ultimately there will have been power dynamics at play which will influence how meaningful each specific action was, and none of us will ever really know about those.

But yeah, everything I’ve come across suggested there was mutual abuse even if the precise power dynamics have been harder to pinpoint. I’m still clueless as to how the sharing of mutual abuse has led to the “poor him, evil her” stance - apart from the enduring, background static of misogyny of course.
Click to expand...
The New Yorker article posted above talks about the many ways Heard was fucked over in this case. Disallowed evidence, where the case was heard, the jury.

I think the full transcript is the only chance you’d have of an opinion free account but if there is evidence the jury didn’t hear then that isn’t going to give you the full story either.
 
8ball said:
Might see if I can get around that paywall...
Click to expand...
The Washington Post published the op ed in the first place so I don't really think I'm going to get a neutral view from the New Yorker. Not enough to pay for it anyway :D
 
cesare said:
The Washington Post published the op ed in the first place so I don't really think I'm going to get a neutral view from the New Yorker. Not enough to pay for it anyway :D
Click to expand...

This had occurred to me too.

When I said "getting around paywall", this did not involve any attention of paying. ;)
 
cesare said:
Yes, that’s my understanding too. That he sued her for writing and re-publishing an op ed about physical and sexual abuse, that anyone reading it would draw the conclusion it was about him. Yes I believe that victims of DV should have a voice and men victims apparently under-report. But I think there are other ways of illustrating your point/asserting your rights when you are a celebrity and very rich. For example all of those lawyers fees would have been better of in DV charities and he could have become an activist for DV victims rights.
Click to expand...
Would a DV charity have wanted to accept money from Depp under such circumstances though?
 
Could just imagine some misogynist going 'Oh but Women's Aid accepted money from wife-beater Johnny Depp so x statistic they put out has no value' or something
 
frogwoman said:
Would a DV charity have wanted to accept money under such circumstances though?
Click to expand...
I don't know. Taking a principled stand on not taking money from one abused party in a 2-way toxic relationship? If I were a DV charity I'd accept and direct the funds where they were most needed as long as there weren't any conditions attached. But yes, maybe they wouldn't. There are men's refuges too, perhaps they'd be more likely to accept.
 
cesare said:
That's helpful thanks.

Don't they share the same website? I might be mistaken and if so I apologise.
Click to expand...

Nope, no ties at all as far as I can tell, though it's a reasonable suspicion to have, with the state of US media ownership - the New Yorker is published by Conde Nast, its parent company, Advance Media, owns a couple of dozen regional papers but the Post's not one of them.
 
Yossarian said:
Nope, no ties at all as far as I can tell, though it's a reasonable suspicion to have, with the state of US media ownership - the New Yorker is published by Conde Nast, its parent company, Advance Media, owns a couple of dozen regional papers but the Post's not one of them.
Click to expand...
Ah, ok thanks for the clarification. My Google search obviously failed me. Apologies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PR1Berske
Johnny Mercer's witness statement
Replies
15
Views
771
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
PTK
Colonel B, the ABC case, and The Leveller
Replies
6
Views
377
The39thStep
The39thStep
editor
Basic libel law in the UK: please read before posting your latest witty comment about the ongoing BBC presenter 'scandal'
Replies
3
Views
705
StoneRoad
StoneRoad
l'Otters
Joint Enterprise case in Manchester - Life sentences for text messages?
Replies
16
Views
934
hitmouse
hitmouse
co-op
Maya Forstater Appeal case
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
5K
belboid
belboid
Back
Top Bottom