VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #11

[katydid23]

This is one of my favorite lines from the article. Ms Bedera obviously suggests that guilt nor innocence matter AND thinks women (and men) are idiots for supporting Mr Depp. As a woman she insults ME.

Regardless of innocence or guilt, Ms Bedera says the outpouring of support for Mr Depp is not actually surprising.


jmo

I think this 'article' is absolutely ridiculous.

I'd have to break the 10% rule to get it all in...but here are some quotes:

"During that day’s testimony, Ms Heard had described in graphic detail a brutal alleged instance of sexual assault and one of her most damning accusations against her former husband ...

Breaking down in tears, she testified that Mr Depp raped her with a liquor bottle during a violent incident in Australia in 2015.

She told the court how she was pinned down over a bar as a glass bottle was shoved inside of her body.

She sobbed as she described how she felt “this pressure on my pubic bone” and initially thought she was being punched.

And she spoke of the terror as she lay there praying that the glass inside of her wasn’t broken.

But this testimony was absent from the short video clips circulating online under hashtags such as #amberheardisaliar and #justiceforjohnnydepp.


Right, that particular testimony was absent, because many people had decided it was questionable testimony if not downright false. But the author is representing it as factual in this article and then berating others for dismissing it.
But no mention of the problems with that testimony, like the pictures of the bottle, sitting on the table, red wax still on the top and some liquid still inside. And no mention that she never went for medical treatment, and woke up the next morning and served him coffee.

There are ZERO mentions in this so called article about the many LIES that were exposed by Depp's attorneys in this trial. It is full of sociological theories like:

Himpathy​

"Given the extent of his star status and how long he has been in the public eye, people are more likely to empathise with him, she says.
The sad reality is that people would rather believe that Ms Heard is lying about the abuse than believe that the movie star they grew up watching and looked up to could have done the things he is accused of, says Ms Bedera.

As the trial progressed, she says it became something of a “moralistic problem” where people struggled to renege their support and admit they could have been wrong – regardless of any of the evidence.

“As people got more invested in the case and publicly announced they were on his side it became harder and harder to admit they were wrong,” she says.

“People are more prepared to protect their own self image than to protect the truth.”

From a sociological standpoint, it is also common for the public to have more empathy for an alleged perpetrator of sexual violence than for the victim.

Dubbed “Himpathy”, Ms Bedera says people are “programmed” to show more concern for the impact on a perpetrator’s future than on the future of the victim."


I am sorry but that ^^^is ridiculous.

So this article IS ASSUMING that Ms Heard is the purveyor of the Truth....

This entire article is full of biased gender based drivel , in my opinion.

 

[neesaki]

Try this. Has me LOL.

This is hilarious, Love it!
And I still can’t get over how ridiculous AH comes across in her testimony. Maybe she should try doing comedy, lol. Ive never seen her act in anything…. Other than in this trial…. but read some IMDB reviews of the 2020 remake of The Stand, and her portrayal of the character Nadine is described as “annoying” by one reviewer and “atrocious” by another.

 

[katydid23]

And when she called her eyeshadow palette her “bruise kit”. She was just as shocked as we were that she let that slip out.

And how about when she was in that deposition during divorce proceedings and let it slip that TMZ 'was alerted'--then she instantly covered her mouth and looked shocked she had blurted it out.

 

[katydid23]

This is one of my favorite lines from the article. Ms Bedera obviously suggests that guilt nor innocence matter AND thinks women (and men) are idiots for supporting Mr Depp. As a woman she insults ME.

Regardless of innocence or guilt, Ms Bedera says the outpouring of support for Mr Depp is not actually surprising.


jmo

Mrs Rachel Sharp | Brunel University London

Rachel Sharp is a senior lecturer in Journalism here at Brunel

www.brunel.ac.uk

Rachel Sharp is a senior lecturer in Journalism here at Brunel. She is an experienced newspaper editor, and an award-winning multi-media journalist. Rachel's main areas of interest are social justice (or social injustice!), and politics.


According to her bio, her MAIN area of interest is 'social injustice.' And I think I can see in her article that her description of this as being 'HIMpathy' instead of bothering to look at the facts revealed during the trial is very telling.

 

[MimosaMornings]

It’s the magical amica cream.

I must have bought the wrong brand.

 

[katydid23]

I have no favourite lines since the piece needs to be read objectively as a whole and in context.

As I said, I think it's a very good and sobering read about how the very dark side of social media can so critically influence opinion.

It is hard for me to read it objectively as a whole because I don't think it was written objectively. The author takes Amber at her word, assumes she is speaking the truth.
Then the author states that those who do not believe Amber, are suffering from 'HIMPATHY' because they cannot accept that their idol Johnny would ever be as violent as he really is.

What is sobering, in my opinion, is that this author is the editor of a large msm publication and is putting forth her favourite sociological theories instead of reporting objectively about the results of the trial testimony.

 

[katydid23]

View attachment 347014
Steven.W.Guerin @stevenWguerin1 on Twitter

Too bad Rihanna didn't just call Amber and borrow some Arnica and her magical bruise kit. Rihanna could have looked perfect and fresh faced the very next day, if so....

 

[they'll get you]

^That, and when AH herself admitted she wrote the ACLU op-ed about JD. My jaw literally dropped when she said it.

She said it but it went missed. Lawyer should’ve asked her to repeat it. Again could you repeat that?!

 

[katydid23]

She said it but it went missed. Lawyer should’ve asked her to repeat it. Again could you repeat that?!

Yah, but that's OK because Amber admitted it again about 30 seconds later for emphasis. And she was looking directly at the jury when she repeated it. lmao

starts about 2:30 below:

 

[katydid23]

Camille to AH:
Q: It was you that alerted TMZ to come to the courthouse when you got your TRO, wasn't it Ms Heard?
A: Absolutely not! What actual survivor of domestic abuse wants that?
[she says that with emphasis---which is funny because DUH---an 'actual' survivor of domestic abuse does not want that--so she is correct]

[the atty on this YouTube points out that all of the reporters were lined up on the right side of the exit----so they did know where to be when she came out for the photos. Morgan was telling the truth about being told where the bruise was when the 'tip' came in. ]

[And AH tried to squeeze in her BS comment that her attorneys had alerted Johnny's team about the TRO being asked for that day----I highly doubt that happened. But even if so, why the heck would they call TMZ about that? I am sure the jury is picking up on that too. Her deceptive ways are so obvious when she testifies]

I really hope the jurors watch this final testimony from our girl Amber before they fill out any of the questionnaires. It is a gold mine.

 

[Aussieboy]

He is by far the most bizarre. I’m wondering if his patients are scratching their heads. I sent it to 3 friends that didn’t watch the trial. Each of them thought is was parodied. The whole trial had several unusual moments.

Did you see Morgan Night?

His facial expressions were odd and funny at the same time. His bottom jaw was getting a bit heavy, I'd say he was high as a kite.

 

[katydid23]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531519192855453697

 

[katydid23]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531284483600793601

I think AH's PR team is getting a lot of articles out now saying essentially :

WHO CARES what the truth is or whether Amber lied or not? The important thing is this hurts the #MeToo movement if we try and support the idea that men are being falsely accused because that never happens---so this notion is dangerous--we should be careful supporting that trending idea because it hurts the 'BelieveAllWomen' rule---

 

[squareandrabbet]

I think this 'article' is absolutely ridiculous.

I'd have to break the 10% rule to get it all in...but here are some quotes:

"During that day’s testimony, Ms Heard had described in graphic detail a brutal alleged instance of sexual assault and one of her most damning accusations against her former husband ...

Breaking down in tears, she testified that Mr Depp raped her with a liquor bottle during a violent incident in Australia in 2015.

She told the court how she was pinned down over a bar as a glass bottle was shoved inside of her body.

She sobbed as she described how she felt “this pressure on my pubic bone” and initially thought she was being punched.

And she spoke of the terror as she lay there praying that the glass inside of her wasn’t broken.

But this testimony was absent from the short video clips circulating online under hashtags such as #amberheardisaliar and #justiceforjohnnydepp.


Right, that particular testimony was absent, because many people had decided it was questionable testimony if not downright false. But the author is representing it as factual in this article and then berating others for dismissing it.
But no mention of the problems with that testimony, like the pictures of the bottle, sitting on the table, red wax still on the top and some liquid still inside. And no mention that she never went for medical treatment, and woke up the next morning and served him coffee.

There are ZERO mentions in this so called article about the many LIES that were exposed by Depp's attorneys in this trial. It is full of sociological theories like:

Himpathy​

"Given the extent of his star status and how long he has been in the public eye, people are more likely to empathise with him, she says.
The sad reality is that people would rather believe that Ms Heard is lying about the abuse than believe that the movie star they grew up watching and looked up to could have done the things he is accused of, says Ms Bedera.

As the trial progressed, she says it became something of a “moralistic problem” where people struggled to renege their support and admit they could have been wrong – regardless of any of the evidence.

“As people got more invested in the case and publicly announced they were on his side it became harder and harder to admit they were wrong,” she says.

“People are more prepared to protect their own self image than to protect the truth.”

From a sociological standpoint, it is also common for the public to have more empathy for an alleged perpetrator of sexual violence than for the victim.

Dubbed “Himpathy”, Ms Bedera says people are “programmed” to show more concern for the impact on a perpetrator’s future than on the future of the victim."


I am sorry but that ^^^is ridiculous.

So this article IS ASSUMING that Ms Heard is the purveyor of the Truth....

This entire article is full of biased gender based drivel , in my opinion.

I think the pop sociologist “trying to make HIMpathy happen” is a major, major red flag indicating they are more concerned with making money and notoriety.

Another red flag, is the fact that the article just casually determines prior to this statement that “AN” alleged perpetrator of sexual violence is always, always ‘a man’; without otherwise this quack couldn’t say “HIM”

 

[Brooke]

Trending earlier this morning on Twitter:

#AmberHeardDeservesPrison

In response to her lying under oath

 

[Brooke]

I think AH's PR team is getting a lot of articles out now saying essentially :

WHO CARES what the truth is or whether Amber lied or not? The important thing is this hurts the #MeToo movement if we try and support the idea that men are being falsely accused because that never happens---so this notion is dangerous--we should be careful supporting that trending idea because it hurts the 'BelieveAllWomen' rule---

That makes me physically ill, and yes, that's what the jist of these articles is.

Women who promote this stuff are not doing women a favor.

 

[Moon1871]

We’re starting to see a pattern here....

Ms H’s sister:
“Johnny threatened to put the dog in the microwave”

Ms H herself:
“People want to kill my baby in the microwave”

Ms H’s father*:
“I’m going to shove this whiskey bottle up your ***!”

Ms H herself:
“JD sexually assaulted me with a vodka bottle”

*as per D.Killackey’s deposition

 

[Kiranerys]

There is enough material out there to make a documentary of a different type. It makes me curious about the UK trial because I don’t recall seeing any recorded moments like this.

We don't have recorded trials here. That's how Dan Wooton and AH were able to control the narrative in the press following the trial against The Sun.
And so the reason JD fought so hard to get this trial televised,so the world could see AH for ourselves and boy,did we!.

 

[deugirtni]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531284483600793601

I think AH's PR team is getting a lot of articles out now saying essentially :

WHO CARES what the truth is or whether Amber lied or not? The important thing is this hurts the #MeToo movement if we try and support the idea that men are being falsely accused because that never happens---so this notion is dangerous--we should be careful supporting that trending idea because it hurts the 'BelieveAllWomen' rule---

How DARE the public demand evidence and truth, instead of just blindly believing whatever any woman claims.These articles are revolting. imo.

 

[katydid23]

How DARE the public demand evidence and truth, instead of just blindly believing whatever any woman claims.These articles are revolting. imo.

Yes, here is something else I find frightening in these PR articles:

A trial by TikTok and the death knell for MeToo. Who won Depp v Heard?

JOHNNY DEPP V AMBER HEARD: With both Johnny Depp and Amber Heard resting their cases in the multi-million-dollar defamation trial, it now comes down to the jury to decide the verdict. But with Johnny Depp already winning the social media war, does it really matter? <strong>Rachel Sharp</strong>...

uk.news.yahoo.com

The way the trial is being consumed on social media – presented by the likes of internet sleuths and social media journalists – has also made facts more difficult to distinguish, he says.

Amber Heard in court on 26 May when she gave her last testimony in the case (AP)

“What separates these people who call themselves social media journalists from mainstream journalists is that [mainstream journalists] are bound by journalistic norms and practices and ethics and are held accountable for their reporting,” he says.
“Youtubers and TikTokers have a big audience but they are not playing by the journalistic playbook…
“They are not part of a community that cherishes truth but a community that cherishes clicks.”




Really? The 'journalistic playbook'? Is that something to be proud of? As far as I have seen so far, the vast majority of MSM journalists have just written PR fluff pieces siding with Amber and the ACLU and ignored the trial testimony and evidence completely.

I do not think that today's msm journalists deserve much praise for objectivity or truthfulness or transparency.