Guest viewing is limited
- You have a limited number of page views remaining
- 2 guest views remaining
- Register now to remove this limitation
Anyone following the Johnny Depp trial?
- Thread starter Ash
- Start date
I just posted in another thread about this. I'm certainly not condoning the abuse of anyone but Personality Disorders, like many mental health issues nowadays, are so misunderstood. I was laughing and enjoying Amber getting what now appears to be a large dose of karma. But if she really does suffer with Histrionic and Borderline Personality Disorder, Johnny is trying to avenge and publicly humiliate someone who is not in complete control of themselves mentally and that is a really sad state of affairs. This claim against Amber has also got Personality Disorder experts outraged as they say it labels all BPD sufferers as narcissistic, controlling and manipulative and apparently that is not always the case. Amber's friends have rubbished the claims. And ultimately, it's Johnnies clinical and forensic psychologist who has "diagnosed" Amber with with Borderline Personality Disorder and Histrionic Personality Disorder. Dr Shannon Curry also testified at the Fairfax County Circuit Court that, in her professional opinion, she does not believe that Ms Heard suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's not uncommon in the US legal system for a forensic psychologist to be called upon to advise of the state of mind of say, a serial killer. But that's usually following a prolonged period of time working with the individual, not during a defamation trial having spent no time with the person. It's been interesting to watch and comical at times but there's an element of sadness to it all as well. Two people who are clearly damaged in so many ways are airing their laundry for whole world to see and they are being exploited by the US legal Sharks because they are multi-millionaire movie stars.
I agree. It's pretty grim. Although I can understand that JD has completely lost 30 years worth of good reputation and needs to get his name cleared. But who knows who is telling the truth? Today's viewing wasn't so great as it seemed like a classic DV case - both of them will have psychologists testifying opposite things.
On the lighter side the TikTok videos have been comedy gold. Amber's legal team have copped some flack for their incompetency. That reached new levels of dopey when one of her lawyers objected to the answers given by the witness during his own cross-examination! The judge appears to be having a hard time keeping her sanity in check.
Yes there have been some funny moments and funny takes on the odd thing 
I got quite into it - interesting in all kinds of ways - hearing all his security guards and agents and people who work in hollywood, but it's too time consuming. The next day or so is all going to be about Amber being a victim of DV. You can see how people just accept it - because she's a woman and her allegations are so horrific. But there are plenty of men who've been on the receiving side of that and it be false. She didn't make any allegations till he left her.
I got quite into it - interesting in all kinds of ways - hearing all his security guards and agents and people who work in hollywood, but it's too time consuming. The next day or so is all going to be about Amber being a victim of DV. You can see how people just accept it - because she's a woman and her allegations are so horrific. But there are plenty of men who've been on the receiving side of that and it be false. She didn't make any allegations till he left her.
The more I watch Amber Heard's testimony in this defamation trial the greater the resemblance with my own experience. I think in many ways, this event could serve as a very good training aid for those dealing with someone with a similar set of traits. This is an extremely complex area of medicine that almost all of us will have no experience in managing and it is incredibly sad that the whole world is watching two broken people publicly humiliate each other. But being aware of such manipulative personalities, the way in which people like this operate to get what they want, could help counter it.
This will be the first time many people have heard of a mental health condition called borderline personality disorder. As part of Depp’s defence, an expert witness testified that in the course of two sessions, she had diagnosed Amber Heard with two “overlapping” disorders. Borderline personality disorder, and the rarer histrionic personality disorder.
On the stand, the expert witness explained in a matter-of-fact way what her diagnosis meant. Sufferers of these conditions, she said, can show “a lot of cruelty”, are “very concerned with their image”, play “a victim or princess role” to get what they want, can be “overly flirtatious” and can act in “an overly girly way” to “avoid getting negative feedback or criticism”.
They show “extreme discomfort with not being the center of attention” and will “make up stories” to try to regain it. They are “full of rage”, which can “explode out at times”. They are compulsive liars to the extent they often cannot tell whether they are lying or not. Some of us may have an uncomfortable relation to this.
In other words, a mental health diagnosis was used to paint Amber Heard as utterly unreliable: someone who was by nature a cruel, raging liar. It was noted that this may or may not turn out to be an accurate assessment of Heard’s character at the time following the forensic psychologists assessment. And I too advised caution to friends who took it as gospel. But she is now on the stand herself doing a great job of justifying that forensic psychologists diagnosis.
Her antics have got behviour experts all over the world having a field day.
This will be the first time many people have heard of a mental health condition called borderline personality disorder. As part of Depp’s defence, an expert witness testified that in the course of two sessions, she had diagnosed Amber Heard with two “overlapping” disorders. Borderline personality disorder, and the rarer histrionic personality disorder.
On the stand, the expert witness explained in a matter-of-fact way what her diagnosis meant. Sufferers of these conditions, she said, can show “a lot of cruelty”, are “very concerned with their image”, play “a victim or princess role” to get what they want, can be “overly flirtatious” and can act in “an overly girly way” to “avoid getting negative feedback or criticism”.
They show “extreme discomfort with not being the center of attention” and will “make up stories” to try to regain it. They are “full of rage”, which can “explode out at times”. They are compulsive liars to the extent they often cannot tell whether they are lying or not. Some of us may have an uncomfortable relation to this.
In other words, a mental health diagnosis was used to paint Amber Heard as utterly unreliable: someone who was by nature a cruel, raging liar. It was noted that this may or may not turn out to be an accurate assessment of Heard’s character at the time following the forensic psychologists assessment. And I too advised caution to friends who took it as gospel. But she is now on the stand herself doing a great job of justifying that forensic psychologists diagnosis.
Her antics have got behviour experts all over the world having a field day.
Yes I think that psychologist was spot on with those personality disorder diagnoses. It is actually what they do in family courts in severe alienation cases. Ask for psychologists reports and they find the alienating parent has a personality disorder and they usually recommend transfer of residency then. Because only people with those kind of disorders alienate usually - because they don't care enough about their kids not to use them as weapons. That is higher evidence than Cafcass and a Judge usually follows the higher evidence.
Of course the psychologist on the other team was of the feminist school of "believe every word she says".
The whole thing can be quite triggering in a way. So after a while I stopped listening to her, turned the sound off and speeded it up lol! She looks mad, overacting, and waving her arms about and pretending to cry. It does make you wonder if they were both abusive - I have no idea - but I didn't believe a word she said and in a way this case could be a landmark for falsely accused men, if she is not believed this time.
I reckon the outcome will be stalemate though. It'll be classed they were both abusive and nobody gets paid anything (not sure if it's that simple).
But it occurred to me AH has MASSIVE motivation to put on the performance of a lifetime with graphic allegations - because if she wins she gets 100 million dollars and gets to destroy Johnny Depp permanently. Ugh.
Of course the psychologist on the other team was of the feminist school of "believe every word she says".
The whole thing can be quite triggering in a way. So after a while I stopped listening to her, turned the sound off and speeded it up lol! She looks mad, overacting, and waving her arms about and pretending to cry. It does make you wonder if they were both abusive - I have no idea - but I didn't believe a word she said and in a way this case could be a landmark for falsely accused men, if she is not believed this time.
I reckon the outcome will be stalemate though. It'll be classed they were both abusive and nobody gets paid anything (not sure if it's that simple).
But it occurred to me AH has MASSIVE motivation to put on the performance of a lifetime with graphic allegations - because if she wins she gets 100 million dollars and gets to destroy Johnny Depp permanently. Ugh.
So I've been following this trial. I decided to look at it as if I was a juror, without taking sides. And partly out of legal interest. Some of the legalities have been fascinating (and some very good cross examinations).
This last week has been "rebuttals" - where further witnesses are allowed to "rebut" the other side's expert witnesses.
I had ups and downs along the way, and doubts. Maybe Amber Heard really was a victim (especially after a depressing day of her expert witnesses). Then it all turned around. And by Wednesday there were a couple of witnesses for Depp's team that blew Amber Heard's stories out of the water. And it became very clear she had set up the whole restraining order from the start. A classic case of false allegations. She has been shown to have lied about so many things now. Some fake evidence was spotted as well.
Yesterday Johnny Depp was up again as a rebuttal witness. That seemed like a bad move at first as he had a harsh cross examination from the other side and wasn't particularly good at hiding his dislike of AH counsel!
But it was actually a very clever move - I think they predicted that Amber Heard would never want Johnny Depp having the last word, so she was also on as a rebuttal witness today - having the last word. And it completely bombed. Another very dramatic display - again momentarily I believed her. Then I remembered that evidence shows otherwise. And then she was cross examined and her whole story fell apart. She even denied and lied about some of her own evidence.
Anyway the upshot is - I am sure the jury will find for Johnny Depp. Amber Heard actually said, when carried away, that's why she wrote the op-ed - referring to Johnny Depp. Which is what the whole defamation case is about. Her team have been trying to prove she didn't write it herself. She has just come out and said she did and made it clear it was about Johnny Depp.
So as I see it - as her abuse story has been blown out of the water, then her op-ed was defamatory. If the jury don't find for Johnny Depp I'll eat my hat. But you never know with these things.
I hope they do because it's about time people who make false allegations are shown publicly what they are doing.
Tomorrow is the summing up and after that the jury deliberate - which could go on for a week or more. Doubt they'll decide tomorrow.
This last week has been "rebuttals" - where further witnesses are allowed to "rebut" the other side's expert witnesses.
I had ups and downs along the way, and doubts. Maybe Amber Heard really was a victim (especially after a depressing day of her expert witnesses). Then it all turned around. And by Wednesday there were a couple of witnesses for Depp's team that blew Amber Heard's stories out of the water. And it became very clear she had set up the whole restraining order from the start. A classic case of false allegations. She has been shown to have lied about so many things now. Some fake evidence was spotted as well.
Yesterday Johnny Depp was up again as a rebuttal witness. That seemed like a bad move at first as he had a harsh cross examination from the other side and wasn't particularly good at hiding his dislike of AH counsel!
But it was actually a very clever move - I think they predicted that Amber Heard would never want Johnny Depp having the last word, so she was also on as a rebuttal witness today - having the last word. And it completely bombed. Another very dramatic display - again momentarily I believed her. Then I remembered that evidence shows otherwise. And then she was cross examined and her whole story fell apart. She even denied and lied about some of her own evidence.
Anyway the upshot is - I am sure the jury will find for Johnny Depp. Amber Heard actually said, when carried away, that's why she wrote the op-ed - referring to Johnny Depp. Which is what the whole defamation case is about. Her team have been trying to prove she didn't write it herself. She has just come out and said she did and made it clear it was about Johnny Depp.
So as I see it - as her abuse story has been blown out of the water, then her op-ed was defamatory. If the jury don't find for Johnny Depp I'll eat my hat. But you never know with these things.
I hope they do because it's about time people who make false allegations are shown publicly what they are doing.
Tomorrow is the summing up and after that the jury deliberate - which could go on for a week or more. Doubt they'll decide tomorrow.
A couple of last minute witnesses yesterday really turned it around. One was the owner of a trailer park where JD and AH stayed - and actually witnessed a few things. The other was a former employee of an entertainment online magazine TMZ - who had actually arranged for the Paparazzi to be there when Amber Heard left court after her TRO and confirmed it was Amber Heard (or a publicist for her) who tipped them off - and they were instructed to get a good photo of an "alleged" bruise on the right side of her face. A complete set up. A photo of her the next day looking happy, no bruise!
There was a lot of legal wrangling before the witness from TMZ was allowed to testify. Amber Heard's team were trying to block it and TMZ made an emergency order to try and block it, sending their own solicitor. The Judge overruled both of them and the witness was allowed to testify.
This proved two things. 1. that Amber Heard had lied (about multiple things) 2. That the restraining order hearing was a set up. He was also a very good, believable witness.
A third last minute witness had seen Amber Heard being violent with an ex.
There was a lot of legal wrangling before the witness from TMZ was allowed to testify. Amber Heard's team were trying to block it and TMZ made an emergency order to try and block it, sending their own solicitor. The Judge overruled both of them and the witness was allowed to testify.
This proved two things. 1. that Amber Heard had lied (about multiple things) 2. That the restraining order hearing was a set up. He was also a very good, believable witness.
A third last minute witness had seen Amber Heard being violent with an ex.
Last edited:
On a serious note though, she almost certainly is mentally ill and does have a personality order, and she is the sole parent of a very young child! Which is concerning. She acquired the child via a surrogate Mother and unknown sperm donor. Hence being the sole parent.
Her testimony today was so full of inconsistencies it almost made you doubt your sanity. She started out saying about people saying bad things on social media about her (so she'd been reading it!) and said she was not "snickering and laughing" in court - in a very emotional way. When it was televised and she most certainly was snickering, laughing and pulling faces the day before (and the jury saw that).
The point when she was smirking was when Johnny Depp was being shown a photograph and questioned about how his finger was chopped off by the bottle. The photo was of the area where it happened, showing the broken bottle. That was the moment it was clear to me she was not a rape victim. She was smirking and laughing during this and considering she claimed that during this incident she was held down by the throat and raped her reaction did not seem the slightest bit consistent with remembering such a traumatic event. Because no doubt it never happened.
Her testimony today was so full of inconsistencies it almost made you doubt your sanity. She started out saying about people saying bad things on social media about her (so she'd been reading it!) and said she was not "snickering and laughing" in court - in a very emotional way. When it was televised and she most certainly was snickering, laughing and pulling faces the day before (and the jury saw that).
The point when she was smirking was when Johnny Depp was being shown a photograph and questioned about how his finger was chopped off by the bottle. The photo was of the area where it happened, showing the broken bottle. That was the moment it was clear to me she was not a rape victim. She was smirking and laughing during this and considering she claimed that during this incident she was held down by the throat and raped her reaction did not seem the slightest bit consistent with remembering such a traumatic event. Because no doubt it never happened.
It's been a fascinatingly, typical American (sorry any Americans watching) mad show!
JD's team have done a really good job however. And Camille Vasquez is the kind woman that I would employ to manage my entire life. Her mastery of human psychology going as far as to understand the value of consistently wearing white during the rebuttals.
AH's legal team would make great characters for a modern remake of Blackadder! You're unlikely to be in a position to use careful consideration and rationale in selecting a legal team when you don't possess any and they have exploited her for all she's worth.
The lies, distortions, deceit and downright fakery by the AH team have been their absolute undoing as they haven't done it in a way that is in the least bit convincing. Amber's play acting and tearless faux crying, particularly during her rebuttal, will stay with me for a very long time. She is an incredibly dangerous woman and I hope no other man finds himself stuck on her web ever again.
If I was a member of that jury, my decision was made after she committed trial suicide by foolishly submitting a photo accusing JD of being passed out to discredit him which also contained a four colour palette bruise make-up kit in the image!
What will make this trial particularly challenging for a jury is the fact that both parties are trained actors whose job is to make the audience believe they are, in fact, the role they play. But to answer the question; did AH's Washington Post article directly cause personal and financial damage to JD's reputation by costing him roles in franchises such as Pirates of the Caribbean and Fantastic Beasts and other work?
Of course it did!
JD's team have done a really good job however. And Camille Vasquez is the kind woman that I would employ to manage my entire life. Her mastery of human psychology going as far as to understand the value of consistently wearing white during the rebuttals.
AH's legal team would make great characters for a modern remake of Blackadder! You're unlikely to be in a position to use careful consideration and rationale in selecting a legal team when you don't possess any and they have exploited her for all she's worth.
The lies, distortions, deceit and downright fakery by the AH team have been their absolute undoing as they haven't done it in a way that is in the least bit convincing. Amber's play acting and tearless faux crying, particularly during her rebuttal, will stay with me for a very long time. She is an incredibly dangerous woman and I hope no other man finds himself stuck on her web ever again.
If I was a member of that jury, my decision was made after she committed trial suicide by foolishly submitting a photo accusing JD of being passed out to discredit him which also contained a four colour palette bruise make-up kit in the image!
What will make this trial particularly challenging for a jury is the fact that both parties are trained actors whose job is to make the audience believe they are, in fact, the role they play. But to answer the question; did AH's Washington Post article directly cause personal and financial damage to JD's reputation by costing him roles in franchises such as Pirates of the Caribbean and Fantastic Beasts and other work?
Of course it did!
I also thought that about Camille Vasquez wearing white. Clever. I was reading reports on Twitter from lawyers in the gallery who were "jury watching" and said they responded to Camille and her manner. But then two jury members had to be selected to be "stand by" and apparently the two removed caused consternation among the lawyer commentators (one in particular had seemed very pro Depp apparently).
My reaction is the same - the cannot POSSIBLY find for a liar! Amber Heard has been shown to be lying about so many things - contradicted herself umpteen times. Yet it seems quite complex as regards the defamation. They have about 7 points to be able to say "yes" to, to find defamation for Depp. The main thing is IF he didn't abuse her, then it's defamation. But if they decide he did abuse her, then it can't be defamation (as in what she wrote in the Washington Post article would then be true).
Depp's team said to the jury - they only needed to consider sexual and physical abuse, as that's all that was in the op ed (and those had been clearly shown to be untrue by Depp's team and witnesses - plus AH "hoax" had been well shown by witnesses. I am convinced it was a set up and false allegations. But then AH lawyer told the jury - if you find even "one" incidence of abuse by Mr Depp then Amber wins. And then proceeded to reel off some examples, like an audio when he called her a f.....ing c..t. (well yes but that was an argument and she called him loads of names too), and referred to him throwing her clothes down the stairs - which he admitted to and wasn't trying to hide. And then said those were abuses - verbal, psychological abuse etc and the jury should consider ALL types of abuse.
I remember thinking - if I was on the jury right now I'd be very confused! But the Judge earlier said they had to find for justice and what they believed was right. But then they also have to be able to say yes to 7 statements!
I suspect they might find partly for both - ie tick 6 yes and 1 no for JD and some yes and no's for AH - which I guess makes it a draw in that neither can sue for defamation. But I have no idea what the outcome will be.
But I really think it would be a disaster if they find for lying, manipulating Amber Heard! Not only does JD get stuck with the abuser label and his life ruined, but she would get worse and worse and keep publishing more hate about him forever! That can't be justice.
On the other hand if they find for him - her life will be ruined. High stakes. But I reckon she'd cope - she's a manipulator, she'll find a way - probably seduce and marry some other rich man instead.
Somehow, maybe because of all the bad experiences we Dads have had at times, I can't quite believe a woman won't win. Because of the whole DV gender thing. But better she is known as a liar (true) than he is known as an abuser.
And here's the rest of us fighting in court with no drink or drugs, just to see our kids!
My reaction is the same - the cannot POSSIBLY find for a liar! Amber Heard has been shown to be lying about so many things - contradicted herself umpteen times. Yet it seems quite complex as regards the defamation. They have about 7 points to be able to say "yes" to, to find defamation for Depp. The main thing is IF he didn't abuse her, then it's defamation. But if they decide he did abuse her, then it can't be defamation (as in what she wrote in the Washington Post article would then be true).
Depp's team said to the jury - they only needed to consider sexual and physical abuse, as that's all that was in the op ed (and those had been clearly shown to be untrue by Depp's team and witnesses - plus AH "hoax" had been well shown by witnesses. I am convinced it was a set up and false allegations. But then AH lawyer told the jury - if you find even "one" incidence of abuse by Mr Depp then Amber wins. And then proceeded to reel off some examples, like an audio when he called her a f.....ing c..t. (well yes but that was an argument and she called him loads of names too), and referred to him throwing her clothes down the stairs - which he admitted to and wasn't trying to hide. And then said those were abuses - verbal, psychological abuse etc and the jury should consider ALL types of abuse.
I remember thinking - if I was on the jury right now I'd be very confused! But the Judge earlier said they had to find for justice and what they believed was right. But then they also have to be able to say yes to 7 statements!
I suspect they might find partly for both - ie tick 6 yes and 1 no for JD and some yes and no's for AH - which I guess makes it a draw in that neither can sue for defamation. But I have no idea what the outcome will be.
But I really think it would be a disaster if they find for lying, manipulating Amber Heard! Not only does JD get stuck with the abuser label and his life ruined, but she would get worse and worse and keep publishing more hate about him forever! That can't be justice.
On the other hand if they find for him - her life will be ruined. High stakes. But I reckon she'd cope - she's a manipulator, she'll find a way - probably seduce and marry some other rich man instead.
Somehow, maybe because of all the bad experiences we Dads have had at times, I can't quite believe a woman won't win. Because of the whole DV gender thing. But better she is known as a liar (true) than he is known as an abuser.
And here's the rest of us fighting in court with no drink or drugs, just to see our kids!
I think the jury will find it hard to point-point any actual facts that support JD definitely abused AH in amongst so much showboating and dishonesty, even if he did. It's quite clear they were both particularly awful to each other towards the end of their marriage with AH clearly being a significant antagonist. That behviour doesn't justify JD hitting her, (if he ever did) but it also doesn't justify AH going public with details of their private life and trying to assume some kind of mother Teresa like role in defence of abused women all over the world. Classic narcissist.
The jury is still deliberating, but the internet's court of opinion has already made up its mind. While the TikTok hashtag #IStandWithAmberHeard has amassed more than 8 million views, #justiceforjohnnydepp is at 15 billion views and counting.
The real jury are not allowed to research anything regarding the trial so you would think they won't be aware of this. But you could, for the sake of the human thought process, use these statistics to get an idea of how they might be deliberating.
The jury is still deliberating, but the internet's court of opinion has already made up its mind. While the TikTok hashtag #IStandWithAmberHeard has amassed more than 8 million views, #justiceforjohnnydepp is at 15 billion views and counting.
The real jury are not allowed to research anything regarding the trial so you would think they won't be aware of this. But you could, for the sake of the human thought process, use these statistics to get an idea of how they might be deliberating.
She also has a history of domestic violence. When she knew they had evidence of her admitting she punched him (more than once). She came out with new allegations of rape. I don’t believe a word she says. He decided to end the relationship and her punishment for that was accusing him of being an abuser to wreck his career. Vindictive - that’s all it is. I hope the jury see that. But if one member of the jury has doubts it could take a long time for them to reach a verdict - and there are weeks worth of evidence to go through. Apparently it can take months!
Well. The jury determined that Amber Heard acted with actual malice when writing her op-ed and that the 2018 article in the Washington Post was defamatory of Johnny Depp.
The article - “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”
No. You made malicious falsehoods and used the real abuse of women to hide like a Wolf in Sheep's clothing just to satisfy some sense of revenge against your ex husband.
“The disappointment I feel today is beyond words. I’m heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband,” she said in a statement.
“I’m even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women."
Not as disappointed as all the women around the world with a legitimate DV case who's voice is now substantially weaker.
The article - “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”
No. You made malicious falsehoods and used the real abuse of women to hide like a Wolf in Sheep's clothing just to satisfy some sense of revenge against your ex husband.
“The disappointment I feel today is beyond words. I’m heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband,” she said in a statement.
“I’m even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women."
Not as disappointed as all the women around the world with a legitimate DV case who's voice is now substantially weaker.