VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #2

[Lillymac]

all these people are just pundits speculating.

that’s why I haven’t been paying any attention to them, except half to Chanley Painter who has been in the courtroom; and like Mark Means being called as an ‘expert’ for CourtTV because of his involvement in the Lori Vallow treatment, these lawyers are all trying to make their mark by any
means possible so that CourtTV keeps paying them to show up as ‘experts’; which means they all have to have something ‘new’ to say regardless of whether or not they believe in it.

the only possible reason any US pundit could be saying it, IMO, is because they know she’s an actress. They don’t have any more foresight into the Heard trial lawyers’ intent than they do into the Depp trial lawyers’ intent; nor into what kind of a witness AH will make.

It’s not because the people so opining have studied Amber Heard, her level of veracity, or how she delivers anything - sometimes I’ve been getting the feeling that many of the commenters have just tuned in for the segment/day upon which they are scheduled to comment, for the first time; and different commenters have filled most every point of view slot from ‘Blank is a terrible witness’ to ‘Blank is a wonderful witness’ to ‘Johnny Depp is very credible’ to ‘Johnny Depp is a horrible person’.

I totally agree and my feelings exactly. She can't be judged by her appearance here because she hasn't said anything and rarely does her expression change. Not even when those tapes and videos are played presenting her in the worst possible way.

 

[Chelly]

From what I read and hear from commentators she could do very well on stand...stand up strong to cross (not saying that will happen) and people will call say she is awful and sealed the case for JD. There is some sort of loyalty to JD that seems to deify him...he can and did not do anything wrong. The worship of this man no matter what escapes me. I am hoping that some of these groupies are not on jury and that the legal case is judged based on law not adoration of JD.

I am Switzerland in this case. I continue to remain neutral. Before Depp's ugly marriage, I enjoyed his movies but never once fell under his spell. All I know is what I see and hear in the Fairfax County Virginia courtroom. AH's testimony and testimony of Heard's witnesses next week will most likely tip my scale of justice.

 

[squareandrabbet]

Why, @squareandrabbett! It's almost as if you have seen the puppet strings! Lol IMO, Once you have seen them, you cannot un-see them.

yeah, it became kind of obvious to me after a few days that it was very like trying to empanel an episode of Bill Maher… plus simple logistics. I mean, I have all I can do to keep up with the trial and I’m not there live… it’s fairly obvious to me that these people aren’t going home doing tons of homework, lol. Maybe 30-60 minutes of prep per day…

 

[squareandrabbet]

I totally agree and my feelings exactly. She can't be judged by her appearance here because she hasn't said anything and rarely does her expression change. Not even when those tapes and videos are played presenting her in the worst possible way.

i know, I’d be happy to forward some clips of her odd and IMO laughable deposition back in the day; but most of them come with YouTube commentary and thus are unpostable.

 

[squareandrabbet]

I am Switzerland in this case. I continue to remain neutral. Before Depp's ugly marriage, I enjoyed his movies but never once fell under his spell. All I know is what I see and hear in the Fairfax County Virginia courtroom. AH's testimony and testimony of Heard's witnesses next week will most likely tip my scale of justice.

All the verbal testimony only?

What about any of her side’s evidence, and/or lack thereof? Do they just have to be convincing by verbal sleight of hand,; or should they bring recorded receipts, a la Depp’s side?

Because one thing I can guarantee, with a pile of potentially 85 witnesses, that the Heard team will have no compunction going with the ‘if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance (and facts), then let’s attempt to bury them in BS’ tactic, counting on people to get hopelessly snarled up in the ‘she said’ portion and throw up their hands when it comes to sussing out truth.

ETA: I just realized I didn't know if we had seen the index page for the court filings... won't be much help IMO, as there are a ton, and a lot are dull and pointless (if you've seen one subpoena, you've seen 'em all), but I don't want to be accused of holding back, lol)... also contains the witness lists to which I have referenced.

High-Profile Cases | Circuit Court

 

[ZoriahNZ]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...s/news-story/e40a331810becf515a6e1de7bf3d0474

Nearly 11 per cent of all Twitter accounts participating in discourse surrounding Johnny Depp’s defamation trial against his ex-wife, Amber Heard, are fake, new research shows.

The majority of those inauthentic accounts are supportive of Heard, while most authentic accounts are supportive of Depp, according to an analysis of 2300 Twitter profiles conducted by Cyabra, a tech company dedicated to improving online distance by detecting inauthentic behaviour online.

While 11 per cent may not seem like much, it is about on par with the percentage of inauthentic accounts that participated in “aggressive election interference,” Mr Brahmy said.

“The average of inauthenticity usually ranges between 3 per cent to 5 per cent,” the CEO explained, meaning the 11 per cent of inauthentic accounts engaged in Depp-Heard discourse is about three to four times higher than the percentage of inauthentic accounts engaged in other topics of interest.

Interesting article. I think it's also extremely relevant because AH was trying to claim, as part of her counter-defamation suit, that JD was employing fake bots to defame her/cancel her. That part of her counter-suit was not allowed by the judge, citing insufficient evidence.

Source: Amber Heard’s $100 Million Defamation Countersuit Against Johnny Depp Is Moving Forward

However, while Heard will be able to pursue her countersuit, the judge did throw out one aspect of her case that cited the Virginia Computer Crimes Act and claimed that Depp organized a social media bot attack against her to have her removed from Aquaman.

It's sad to think that global social media disinformation/propaganda wars not only permeate election cycles and geopolitical conflict/war coverage but now celebrity court cases as well.


I'm not a huge fan of JD and it pains me that I even feel compelled to have to say that. I don't think it's good idea to assert that anyone is under "his spell" just because a person supports his case as it stands right now. One doesn't need to be star struck in order to believe the testimony presented in court. Many of us are looking at the facts and the claims as being revealed through the trial and via past news sources or other media (such as the RTL interview clip of AH that I posted). As is seen in the trial testimony, JD freely admits to his substance abuse, he doesn't deny his flaws. Has he been irresponsible with money, too? Yep. But partly due to mismanagement (he won a $25 million settlement over that). But he has maintained that the only person he has abused is himself.

I strongly urge those who plan to follow this trial to listen to and watch all the video and audio evidence that is available. In their entirety, if possible (because sometimes out of context snippets can be a bit misleading). Why? Context matters. And because I believe that if you did, it will be very difficult to believe that AH is the DV victim and that JD is the aggressor. The recorded evidence really does expose discrepancies in many of AH's claims plus it reveals the dynamic between them. Not only does she admit that she hit him, that she started the physical fights, she also can't promise that she will stop. She also taunts him that no one will believe that he's a DV victim if he tries to go public. She rages at him for constantly running away and disengaging when they have a fight.

Listening to those tapes was a harrowing experience. But I'm glad I did, because it's just unmistakable who the abuser is, who's lying, who's trying to dominate/control and manipulate the situation, who's trying to de-escalate or escape the fights etc. MOO.

We also should be mindful of the idea of a 'perfect' victim. There's a tendency to need a victim of violence to be blameless, squeaky clean, unimpeachable, in order to be able to accept that they didn't somehow deserve it, or bring it upon themselves. There seems a tendency to expect a victim to not defend themselves, or to not lash out in self defense when being constantly emotionally and physically abused. Please look up coercive control and reactive abuse.

This is especially difficult when the victim is a man, one who may be larger in size than the person abusing them. In society we still struggle to take male DV victims seriously. Hopefully we can improve on this, while still working to encourage female victims to come forward and be heard, believed and supported. It needn't be a zero sum game.

We see it all too often, legitimate rape and DV claims, police brutality claims being dismissed because the person accusing is not some virginal saint, perhaps they are even an unlikable person with criminal elements. The same applies here. JD should not need to be a saint or angel, to be believed that he was a victim of DV and was deliberately defamed by a vindictive ex-spouse. I think it's okay to say JD is a drug addict who has made some terrible decisions and acted irresponsibly in the past while still acknowledging that he may have also been the victim of domestic abuse and defamation (for money, fame and SM clout). All my opinion, of course.

That all being said, there is definitely value in still being open to new facts and new testimony in the coming days. I know that right now I am leaning strongly one way, but I do need to keep listening, keep investigating and be willing to consider AH's side of the case. She also deserves to be heard.

*Edited to correct some typos.

 

[escape2sc]

ZoriahNZ, liking your post simply does not do it justice.

 

[squareandrabbet]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...s/news-story/e40a331810becf515a6e1de7bf3d0474





Interesting article. I think it's also extremely relevant because AH was trying to claim, as part of her counter-defamation suit, that JD was employing fake bots to defame her/cancel her. That part of her counter-suit was not allowed by the judge, citing insufficient evidence.

Source: Amber Heard’s $100 Million Defamation Countersuit Against Johnny Depp Is Moving Forward



It's sad to think that global social media disinformation/propaganda wars not only permeate election cycles and geopolitical conflict/war coverage but now celebrity court cases as well.


I'm not a huge fan of JD and it pains me that I even feel compelled to have to say that. I don't think it's good idea to assert that anyone is under "his spell" just because a person supports his case as it stands right now. One doesn't need to be star struck in order to believe the testimony presented in court. Many of us are looking at the facts and the claims as being revealed through the trial and via past news sources or other media (such as the RTL interview clip of AH that I posted). As is seen in the trial testimony, JD freely admits to his substance abuse, he doesn't deny his flaws. Has he been irresponsible with money, too? Yep. But partly due to mismanagement (he won a $25 million settlement over that). But he has maintained that the only person he has abused is himself.

I strongly urge those who plan to follow this trial to listen to and watch all the video and audio evidence that is available. In their entirety, if possible (because sometimes out of context snippets can be a bit misleading). Why? Context matters. And because I believe that if you did, it will be very difficult to believe that AH is the DV victim and that JD is the aggressor. The recorded evidence really does expose discrepancies in many of AH's claims plus it reveals the dynamic between them. Not only does she admit that she hit him, that she started the physical fights, she also can't promise that she will stop. She also taunts him that no one will believe that he's a DV victim if he tries to go public. She rages at him for constantly running away and disengaging when they have a fight.

Listening to those tapes was a harrowing experience. But I'm glad I did, because it's just unmistakable who the abuser is, who's lying, who's trying to dominate/control and manipulate the situation, who's trying to de-escalate or escape the fights etc. MOO.

We also should be mindful of the idea of a 'perfect' victim. There's a tendency to need a victim of violence to be blameless, squeaky clean, unimpeachable, in order to be able to accept that they didn't somehow deserve it, or bring it upon themselves. There seems a tendency to expect a victim to not defend themselves, or to not lash out in self defense when being constantly emotionally and physically abused. Please look up coercive control and reactive abuse.

This is especially difficult when the victim is a man, one who may be larger in size than the person abusing them. In society we still struggle to take male DV victims seriously. Hopefully we can improve on this, while still working to encourage female victims to come forward and be heard, believed and supported. It needn't be a zero sum game.

We see it all too often, legitimate rape and DV claims, police brutality claims being dismissed because the person accusing is not some virginal saint, perhaps they are even an unlikable person with criminal elements. The same applies here. JD should not need to be a saint or angel, to be believed that he was a victim of DV and was deliberately defamed by a vindictive ex-spouse. I think it's okay to say JD is a drug addict who has made some terrible decisions and acted irresponsibly in the past while still acknowledging that he may have also been the victim of domestic abuse and defamation (for money, fame and SM clout). All my opinion, of course.

That all being said, there is definitely value in still being open to new facts and new testimony in the coming days. I know that right now I am leaning strongly one way, but I do need to keep listening, keep investigating and be willing to consider AH's side of the case. She also deserves to be heard.

*Edited to correct some typos.

Aside: I should add that I’d have loved to have taken and listened to any of the long form audio clips AH provided, except if she did, the court redacted them; and they’ve in fact redacted JD’s long form audio clips from the trial homepage too over recent days, so only direct links posted here and elsewhere of them will work to pull up the unedited version (happy to be corrected with a pointer if not). As I recently indicated, with the best will in the world I couldn’t make myself commit to all of the four-plus-hour clip; so it’s not like I’ve drunk every word he provided either.

I also agree with @ZoriahNZ that one may have to know something about DV and people with AH’s particular pathologies, before one can wholly say/agree she is the aggressor and he the one who’s avoidant.

It’s very easy to spew for 60-something pages as she does particular anecdotes in which that men are abusive, whether they are or in fact are not, if you have that kind of heinous imagination. Her former assistant even said, unprompted, that AH co-opted a hideous sexual assault she herself experienced; and pretended that JD had been the perpetrator to AH.

 

[Allabouttrial]

Aside: I should add that I’d have loved to have taken and listened to any of the long form audio clips AH provided, except if she did, the court redacted them; and they’ve in fact redacted JD’s long form audio clips from the trial homepage too over recent days, so only direct links posted here and elsewhere of them will work to pull up the unedited version (happy to be corrected with a pointer if not). As I recently indicated, with the best will in the world I couldn’t make myself commit to all of the four-plus-hour clip; so it’s not like I’ve drunk every word he provided either.

I also agree with @ZoriahNZ that one may have to know something about DV and people with AH’s particular pathologies, before one can wholly say/agree she is the aggressor and he the one who’s avoidant.

It’s very easy to spew for 60-something pages as she does particular anecdotes in which that men are abusive, whether they are or in fact are not, if you have that kind of heinous imagination. Her former assistant even said, unprompted, that AH co-opted a hideous sexual assault she herself experienced; and pretended that JD had been the perpetrator to AH.

Still there. Home Page

5 1/2 hrs. in total.

 

[squareandrabbet]

Still there. Home Page

5 1/2 hrs. in total.

er, sorry to be a pest, but have you got the AH folder link? I’ve never seen hers at all… the above are all his.

ETA: disregard… I swear I keep getting different versions of the index page when I load it, maybe because the clerk is busy uploading. Now I have one, I think…

 

[Allabouttrial]

er, sorry to be a pest, but have you got the AH folder link? I’ve never seen hers at all… the above are all his.

Home Page

ETA: No long audio clips in Heard's folder. Just the short ones that were played in court.

 

[squareandrabbet]

Home Page

ETA: No long audio clips in Heard's folder. Just the short ones that were played in court.

H’m … perhaps that’s all she’s ever proffered, edited snippets that make her look good, which wouldn’t be exactly surprising… Hopefully her counsel will explain if there are longer versions, like they did last week.

ETA: the below text exchange from her folder, has got her saying to him in a lovey-dovey moment that she ‘wants to leave [his] bank full, as it were’… ahahahahahaha… you couldn’t make this up… what an unfortunate choice of words

https://ffxtrail.blob.core.windows.net/trail/Defendant Amber Laura Heard/4-21-2022/Def186A-CL20192911-042122.pdf

 

[Allabouttrial]

H’m … perhaps that’s all she’s ever proffered, edited snippets that make her look good, which wouldn’t be exactly surprising… Hopefully her counsel will explain if there are longer versions, like they did last week.

ETA: the below text exchange from her folder, has got her saying to him in a lovey-dovey moment that she ‘wants to leave [his] bank full, as it were’… ahahahahahaha… you couldn’t make this up…

https://ffxtrail.blob.core.windows.net/trail/Defendant Amber Laura Heard/4-21-2022/Def186A-CL20192911-042122.pdf

There could well be longer audio versions uploaded further on in the trial.

If they play any new clips during their case in chief, they'll be entered into evidence and uploaded to the homepage.

 

[katydid23]

this one is interesting, in light of the fact that it is yet another argument AH tried to use against JD… I believe I’ve made complaints about her mirroring style of accusation before…

Joe Rogan weighs in on Johnny Depp, Amber Heard bot claims

Speaking of her mirroring style of accusation---- my daughter pointed out how AH 'mirrors' JD's clothing styles, and even mimics his body gestures, etc.....seemingly as a way to mess with his head?

She sent me a tiktok someone did showing her 'matching suits and hairdos' with his, and how she began putting her finger to her chin, etc, just as he does when thinking.

And you can see the difference in how she dressed at the start of the trial, and then how she began wearing suits, like his, and putting her hair back in a bun, like he did later on in trial. Maybe because she thought he was gaining sympathy and so she tried to 'mirror' him ?

 

[ZoriahNZ]

I believe Dr. Curry talked about mimicry being part of BPD traits because they struggle with a sense of self/identity. AH definitely did wear a black tie with a bumble bee on it two days after JD did.

I disagree that AH has barely changed her expressions during trial. I have seen her rapidly change expressions. I find it off-putting when she puts on what I feel is an exaggerated sad face. Then other times she looks like she's suppressing an inappropriate smirk.

Now, don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with smiling during a trial. But it's the timing of it, the context.

For example, JD and his team chuckled heartily when his body guard was asked to confirm that JD was urinating in the foyer and had his penis out. The bodyguard was flabbergasted by the question, emphatically replied no, that is not correct. Then when repeatedly pressed by AH's lawyer, he said "I think I would know if I had seen Johnny Depp's penis." The courtroom erupted in laughter. Because it was absurd that AH's team kept pushing a line of questioning, after it had been already answered. Plus it seemed so absurd on the face of it.

I recall JD was also amused when A. Romero kept getting badgered about not seeing make up and marks on AH, and he kept having to say no, over and over to the point that he got frustrated and told the court he was tired of this, didn't want to keep going over it and started driving, mid deposition. Again it was the absurdity of the moment which lead to the levity.

On the other hand, when Johnny spoke about his finger being cut off, or losing his movie roles, and other moments of pain or humiliation for him, that is when I saw AH briefly smirk. Which, to me, looked like pleasure at witnessing his suffering. Duper's delight, if you will.

There's a difference.

I also saw her go from smiling & chatting to her counsel one moment to suddenly switching to a somber sad expression in literally a split second when it appeared (to me) she remembered she was on camera. To me, it feels inauthentic and thus makes it hard for me to trust what is being presented to me as the audience.

There are specific details in the audio and video recordings I would love to discuss further, or perhaps to make some transcriptions of, but I don't know what's allowed on the thread. Especially since not all of them have been submitted into evidence, or at least only parts of them have. Also, some of the stuff that's out in the public eye is from the UK defamation trial or TMZ leaks etc. Best to err on the side of caution, I guess?

 

[Luna20]

Speaking of her mirroring style of accusation---- my daughter pointed out how AH 'mirrors' JD's clothing styles, and even mimics his body gestures, etc.....seemingly as a way to mess with his head?

She sent me a tiktok someone did showing her 'matching suits and hairdos' with his, and how she began putting her finger to her chin, etc, just as he does when thinking.

And you can see the difference in how she dressed at the start of the trial, and then how she began wearing suits, like his, and putting her hair back in a bun, like he did later on in trial. Maybe because she thought he was gaining sympathy and so she tried to 'mirror' him ?

Correct and someone covered it, showing the side by side outfits. Creepy! And does she not realize it’s not a good thing to be doing? That shows a personality disorder, it’s overruling common sense and to her disadvantage.

 

[Sillybilly]

There are specific details in the audio and video recordings I would love to discuss further, or perhaps to make some transcriptions of, but I don't know what's allowed on the thread. Especially since not all of them have been submitted into evidence, or at least only parts of them have. Also, some of the stuff that's out in the public eye is from the UK defamation trial or TMZ leaks etc. Best to err on the side of caution, I guess?

<rsbm>

While we actually do allow TMZ, if the article is not about evidence related to this trial, we shouldn't introduce it here; otherwise the information can end up getting confused and derail this trial dedicated thread.

 

[ar3593]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...s/news-story/e40a331810becf515a6e1de7bf3d0474





Interesting article. I think it's also extremely relevant because AH was trying to claim, as part of her counter-defamation suit, that JD was employing fake bots to defame her/cancel her. That part of her counter-suit was not allowed by the judge, citing insufficient evidence.

Source: Amber Heard’s $100 Million Defamation Countersuit Against Johnny Depp Is Moving Forward



It's sad to think that global social media disinformation/propaganda wars not only permeate election cycles and geopolitical conflict/war coverage but now celebrity court cases as well.


I'm not a huge fan of JD and it pains me that I even feel compelled to have to say that. I don't think it's good idea to assert that anyone is under "his spell" just because a person supports his case as it stands right now. One doesn't need to be star struck in order to believe the testimony presented in court. Many of us are looking at the facts and the claims as being revealed through the trial and via past news sources or other media (such as the RTL interview clip of AH that I posted). As is seen in the trial testimony, JD freely admits to his substance abuse, he doesn't deny his flaws. Has he been irresponsible with money, too? Yep. But partly due to mismanagement (he won a $25 million settlement over that). But he has maintained that the only person he has abused is himself.

I strongly urge those who plan to follow this trial to listen to and watch all the video and audio evidence that is available. In their entirety, if possible (because sometimes out of context snippets can be a bit misleading). Why? Context matters. And because I believe that if you did, it will be very difficult to believe that AH is the DV victim and that JD is the aggressor. The recorded evidence really does expose discrepancies in many of AH's claims plus it reveals the dynamic between them. Not only does she admit that she hit him, that she started the physical fights, she also can't promise that she will stop. She also taunts him that no one will believe that he's a DV victim if he tries to go public. She rages at him for constantly running away and disengaging when they have a fight.

Listening to those tapes was a harrowing experience. But I'm glad I did, because it's just unmistakable who the abuser is, who's lying, who's trying to dominate/control and manipulate the situation, who's trying to de-escalate or escape the fights etc. MOO.

We also should be mindful of the idea of a 'perfect' victim. There's a tendency to need a victim of violence to be blameless, squeaky clean, unimpeachable, in order to be able to accept that they didn't somehow deserve it, or bring it upon themselves. There seems a tendency to expect a victim to not defend themselves, or to not lash out in self defense when being constantly emotionally and physically abused. Please look up coercive control and reactive abuse.

This is especially difficult when the victim is a man, one who may be larger in size than the person abusing them. In society we still struggle to take male DV victims seriously. Hopefully we can improve on this, while still working to encourage female victims to come forward and be heard, believed and supported. It needn't be a zero sum game.

We see it all too often, legitimate rape and DV claims, police brutality claims being dismissed because the person accusing is not some virginal saint, perhaps they are even an unlikable person with criminal elements. The same applies here. JD should not need to be a saint or angel, to be believed that he was a victim of DV and was deliberately defamed by a vindictive ex-spouse. I think it's okay to say JD is a drug addict who has made some terrible decisions and acted irresponsibly in the past while still acknowledging that he may have also been the victim of domestic abuse and defamation (for money, fame and SM clout). All my opinion, of course.

That all being said, there is definitely value in still being open to new facts and new testimony in the coming days. I know that right now I am leaning strongly one way, but I do need to keep listening, keep investigating and be willing to consider AH's side of the case. She also deserves to be heard.

*Edited to correct some typos.

So eloquently stated...thank you.

 

[Ray_of_hope]

He truly does seem to adore all children, lol, which is another reason why it’s so difficult to envision him as a cruel abuser…

I agree and everything Ive read or viewed shows JD slamming doors or throwing things which, although immature, is not directed towards any living thing I also believe JD when he says that if he's abusive, it's only directed at himself.

 

[Ray_of_hope]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...s/news-story/e40a331810becf515a6e1de7bf3d0474





Interesting article. I think it's also extremely relevant because AH was trying to claim, as part of her counter-defamation suit, that JD was employing fake bots to defame her/cancel her. That part of her counter-suit was not allowed by the judge, citing insufficient evidence.

Source: Amber Heard’s $100 Million Defamation Countersuit Against Johnny Depp Is Moving Forward



It's sad to think that global social media disinformation/propaganda wars not only permeate election cycles and geopolitical conflict/war coverage but now celebrity court cases as well.


I'm not a huge fan of JD and it pains me that I even feel compelled to have to say that. I don't think it's good idea to assert that anyone is under "his spell" just because a person supports his case as it stands right now. One doesn't need to be star struck in order to believe the testimony presented in court. Many of us are looking at the facts and the claims as being revealed through the trial and via past news sources or other media (such as the RTL interview clip of AH that I posted). As is seen in the trial testimony, JD freely admits to his substance abuse, he doesn't deny his flaws. Has he been irresponsible with money, too? Yep. But partly due to mismanagement (he won a $25 million settlement over that). But he has maintained that the only person he has abused is himself.

I strongly urge those who plan to follow this trial to listen to and watch all the video and audio evidence that is available. In their entirety, if possible (because sometimes out of context snippets can be a bit misleading). Why? Context matters. And because I believe that if you did, it will be very difficult to believe that AH is the DV victim and that JD is the aggressor. The recorded evidence really does expose discrepancies in many of AH's claims plus it reveals the dynamic between them. Not only does she admit that she hit him, that she started the physical fights, she also can't promise that she will stop. She also taunts him that no one will believe that he's a DV victim if he tries to go public. She rages at him for constantly running away and disengaging when they have a fight.

Listening to those tapes was a harrowing experience. But I'm glad I did, because it's just unmistakable who the abuser is, who's lying, who's trying to dominate/control and manipulate the situation, who's trying to de-escalate or escape the fights etc. MOO.

We also should be mindful of the idea of a 'perfect' victim. There's a tendency to need a victim of violence to be blameless, squeaky clean, unimpeachable, in order to be able to accept that they didn't somehow deserve it, or bring it upon themselves. There seems a tendency to expect a victim to not defend themselves, or to not lash out in self defense when being constantly emotionally and physically abused. Please look up coercive control and reactive abuse.

This is especially difficult when the victim is a man, one who may be larger in size than the person abusing them. In society we still struggle to take male DV victims seriously. Hopefully we can improve on this, while still working to encourage female victims to come forward and be heard, believed and supported. It needn't be a zero sum game.

We see it all too often, legitimate rape and DV claims, police brutality claims being dismissed because the person accusing is not some virginal saint, perhaps they are even an unlikable person with criminal elements. The same applies here. JD should not need to be a saint or angel, to be believed that he was a victim of DV and was deliberately defamed by a vindictive ex-spouse. I think it's okay to say JD is a drug addict who has made some terrible decisions and acted irresponsibly in the past while still acknowledging that he may have also been the victim of domestic abuse and defamation (for money, fame and SM clout). All my opinion, of course.

That all being said, there is definitely value in still being open to new facts and new testimony in the coming days. I know that right now I am leaning strongly one way, but I do need to keep listening, keep investigating and be willing to consider AH's side of the case. She also deserves to be heard.

*Edited to correct some typos.

Excellent post! I couldn't have said it better myself.