Depp/Heard Trial Verdict

Media outlets seem absolutely terrified to mention the fact she lied on numerous occasions and that might be one of the reasons she lost this deformation case but gladly announce Johnny Depp as a wife beater at any opportunity. This Morning for example only chose to cover this story twice since the trial, yesterday after the verdict and back when Amber heard testified.

Johnny Depp certainly has a long running problem with drugs and alcohol, which he openly acknowledges. Given how the evidence showed Amber handling herself in their relationship, her personality, the fact that she also consumes drugs and alcohol and evidence of her verbal and physical abuse of Mr. Depp, it is impossible to say beyond reasonable doubt whether Mr. Depp did or not lose it and hit her or abused her as well. What is clear is that no sufficiently convincing evidence was shown at the trial of the alleged abuse by Mr. Depp.

The alleged abuse of Ms. Heard may have happened in some measure, but she and her team did not produce sufficiently convincing evidence that such abuse happened. On top of that lack of convincing evidence, then there's the outright lies and inconsistencies in Ms. Heard's testimony. The lack of witnesses on her part and the abundance of testimony and witnesses to the contrary. Also, there was straightforward evidence presented of (now ruled as malicious) intent to discredit Mr. Depp and use that as a springboard for her rise with the me-too movement and the ACLU. This last part puzzled many people. The militantism, vindictiveness and almost "revenge-porness" on the part of Ms. Heard. It just doesn't compare well with the behaviour of other, real, proven, victims of abuse.

The jury was left with a very simple choice, to find in favour of Mr. Depp. I believe that the verdict of the jury was correct in this case because, should they have found in favour of Ms. Heard, then that would set a precedent in law that could mean any woman could accuse any man without sufficiently convincing evidence, on her say-so and how-I-say-so, inflate, overstate, fabricate so-called evidence or otherwise distort allegations, etc... with the result of having him charged with some of the most heinous accusations and ruin his life. Sorry for real victims of abuse, but that cannot ever be allowed to happen. This was a civil trial, i.e. basically, for money and reputation. But a precedent like that could easily be used at a criminal trial in future.

All those NGO's that suckle on the government tit never seem to be held accountable for anything they say. She clearly just caught some clips and soundbites from the trial and went into full judgemental mode. It would have been too much to expect a group that seemingly cares about domestic abuse to comment on the fact that Depp was clearly abused in the relationship and that ANY victim should feel comfortable coming forward regardless of gender. I mean, the woman admitted to hitting him on several occasions, amazingly each one was the first time (not like a typical absurer at all, no siree), and she chopped his bloody finger of with a vodka bottle.

Does sobbing not indicate at least a single tear was shed?

I mean, even her acting coach said she struggled with crying and that was very clear during her testimony, especially when her dog stepped on a bee.

Anyone who latches onto behavioral stuff like that in court course, especially those who give it more credence than actual evidence, are either dense or desperate. I've seen it many times in true crime cases, where idiots thought that someone was guilty purely due to how they behaved in court.