Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[Eugenik]

I was the one highlighting those indicators for them.

Sure, you were. Not everyone is you. Your experience isnt everyones. AND you showed signs and characteristics that a trained professional could identify and help you figure out. If you think the bold part isnt part of the equation, its you sir who lacks the understanding required to proceed in this conversation.

[minteK917]

My man, BPD is a serious disorder. Youd show signs and characteristics. And if its so easy to hide from psychiatrists for almost half a decade, what makes you believe someone interviewing her for less than 20 hours could accurately diagnose her? Your line of thought is inconsistent.

WHAT NO, Thats the most missinformated shit i have ever heard. BPD is not easy to diagnose, like at all. Its very hard to diagnose most of the major personality disorder. So much so that many psychiatrist will not even try to diagnose these kind of disorder. Psychiatry nothing like normal medicine when it comes to examination and conclusion. They only start the same where they investigate your symptoms.

[Eugenik]

BPD is not easy to diagnose

Never said it was... thats a complete non-sequitur.

[Vegas82]

Never said it was... thats a complete non-sequitur.

You implied they’d be able to see it, even if someone was hiding it, in 5 years. It’s not even remotely a non-sequitur.

[Biglog]

In US courts about 9 times out of 10 it's the client with the most expensive lawyer(s) that win, sad but true. It's tougher to call in this instance where they are both pricey.

I don't really understand her defamation defense largely being around his drug use, which she has admitted also. It seems like a lot of her defense has been off-track and irrelevant. We'll see how much it swings the decision.

As for who's telling the truth about the abuse, no one will ever know except these 2. I've seen all 3 versions of what could be the truth personally myself or with close friends. Women that were abused in abusive relationships, Women that made false allegations against men out of revenge after a breakup (3 different women to 3 different men btw, it is not uncommon), and simply mutually abusive toxic relationships where the woman was as abusive as the man. My gut feeling based on her being found to have lied in some of her claims is that Heard and Depp are a mix of the last 2.

[PACOX]

Not only does Heard shit on beds, she is a narc who dry snitches on everyone she is around.

[Veggie50]

But we all accept a psychologist with less than 20 hours of work with Amber could accurately make that determination?

- - - Updated - - -



I highly doubt that.

No actually… we’re just arguing a psychologist might find something a previous therapist didn’t without that previous therapist being incompetent, as you asserted.

- - - Updated - - -

In US courts about 9 times out of 10 it's the client with the most expensive lawyer(s) that win, sad but true. It's tougher to call in this instance where they are both pricey.

I don't really understand her defamation defense largely being around his drug use, which she has admitted also. It seems like a lot of her defense has been off-track and irrelevant. We'll see how much it swings the decision.

As for who's telling the truth about the abuse, no one will ever know except these 2. I've seen all 3 versions of what could be the truth personally myself or with close friends. Women that were abused in abusive relationships, Women that made false allegations against men out of revenge after a breakup (3 different women to 3 different men btw, it is not uncommon), and simply mutually abusive toxic relationships where the woman was as abusive as the man. My gut feeling based on her being found to have lied in some of her claims is that Heard and Depp are a mix of the last 2.

Her defense is out of their depth, but in the end, she’s gonna win the trial.

Not because she’s right. Because the burden of proof on defamation cases is impossibly high. He has to PROVE there was no abuse. Basically arguing a guilty until proven innocent position.

He likely doesn’t care if he loses though. What matters is if his reputation gets repared.

[Witchblade77]

the irony here is that it probably would be beneficial for her if they go with BPD diagnosis rather then just "she is an asshole who knew exactly what she was doing and chose to be an asshole because she could, rather then because she has a mental health disorder that would have impeded her judgement"

also, there is a reason why it could literally take decades to diagnose mental health disorders, including ADHD. there are a lot of people out there who were diagnosed as adults, despite showing signs as kids, because as long as you are at least mostly functional, and in case of ADHD do not display extreme hyperactivity? its more likely that they chalk it up to laziness or whatever.

[Calfredd]

No actually… we’re just arguing a psychologist might find something a previous therapist didn’t without that previous therapist being incompetent, as you asserted.

- - - Updated - - -



Her defense is out of their depth, but in the end, she’s gonna win the trial.

Not because she’s right. Because the burden of proof on defamation cases is impossibly high. He has to PROVE there was no abuse. Basically arguing a guilty until proven innocent position.

He likely doesn’t care if he loses though. What matters is if his reputation gets repared.

Isn't this whole case not about the abuse but that she may have lied about how much more abuse took place?

[Mayhem]

Watching this stuff I have absolutely no clue what this case is about right now. The way Amber describes how she met Johnny and everything paints him in the nicest way possible. I don't get it.

[Winter Blossom]

Watching this stuff I have absolutely no clue what this case is about right now. The way Amber describes how she met Johnny and everything paints him in the nicest way possible. I don't get it.

Her lawyers and the psychologist that evaluated her said Amber’s father abused her, so I think they’re trying to say that an abuser got along well with another abuser.

It’s stupid.

[Veggie50]

Her lawyers and the psychologist that evaluated her said Amber’s father abused her, so I think they’re trying to say that an abuser got along well with another abuser.

It’s stupid.

It’s nothing that malicious really… they’re just building the narrative why she stayed with him even when she got “abused”. Im putting that in quotes because so far all evidence of such is based on HER testimony. Her psychologist refers to it as “love bombing”.

The second part of her testimony was very much about being smacked around.

[Mayhem]

It’s nothing that malicious really… they’re just building the narrative why she stayed with him even when she got “abused”. Im putting that in quotes because so far all evidence of such is based on HER testimony. Her psychologist refers to it as “love bombing”.

The second part of her testimony was very much about being smacked around.

I don't quite get the timeframe, she says he started abusing her in 2012, however they got married in 2015.

So she said yes to her abuser?

[UnifiedDivide]

So she said yes to her abuser?

Something that is far from unheard of, tbf.

[Mayhem]

Something that is far from unheard of, tbf.

I am just a bit dumbfounded by her story. Some parts make sense, others on the other just don't.

[Flarelaine]

I am just a bit dumbfounded by her story. Some parts make sense, others on the other just don't.

Abusive relationships often make no sense.

[UnifiedDivide]

I am just a bit dumbfounded by her story. Some parts make sense, others on the other just don't.

Very much this:

Abusive relationships often make no sense.

As far as I've seen, though, there isn't much sense to be found in the courtroom anyway.

[Winter Blossom]

It’s nothing that malicious really… they’re just building the narrative why she stayed with him even when she got “abused”. Im putting that in quotes because so far all evidence of such is based on HER testimony. Her psychologist refers to it as “love bombing”.

The second part of her testimony was very much about being smacked around.

I listened to her testimony yesterday and briefly today, and it’s just very fake and over-dramatic. She keeps looking at the jury and trying to appeal to their emotions, like she’s acting (not surprising). And she has to cause her entire defense lacks evidence, unlike Depp.

[Jotaux]

Well it’s pretty telling that the only “witness” to say Amber was abused is some she told. Zero first hand accounts or anyone who saw evidence of her being abused. Add in that the psychologist refused to acknowledge men can be abused by women AND never even spoke to Depp.

[Mayhem]

Abusive relationships often make no sense.

True, but I mean by how she's telling it. Like, his daughter was crying because it looked like he fell into the water while everyone was jumping from the yacht but they were in a boat next to it and suddenly they were in their bedroom.

- - - Updated - - -

Well it’s pretty telling that the only “witness” to say Amber was abused is some she told. Zero first hand accounts or anyone who saw evidence of her being abused. Add in that the psychologist refused to acknowledge men can be abused by women AND never even spoke to Depp.

The part where she never talked to Depp really made me scratch my head.