Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[Daymanmb]

Then you have no idea what you're talking about.

The diagnostic criteria was entirely based on my own descriptions of my own inner experience, my descriptions of my difficulties with certain tasks and conditions, my provision of my own scholastic records showing a consistent childhood history, and so on.

Without my honest contributions, the psychiatrist would have nothing.

Thats entirely false. The psychiatrist also relied on their observations, because you show signs and characteristics of ADHD.

[Endus]

Thats entirely false. The psychiatrist also relied on their observations.

Of what? It's not like having ADHD means that a big blinking "ADHD" sign appears on your forehead. Visible symptoms are not diagnostic in and of themselves, particularly as they're only even partially diagnostic if the patient can honestly describe them as ongoing issues rather than just nerves or something at the doctor's office.

Again; you really don't seem to have any understanding of how psychiatry works.

[Daymanmb]

Visible symptoms are not diagnostic in and of themselves

Im not saying they are... youre saying your psychiatrist solely relied on your honest input to achieve a diagnosis. Im saying thats not true.

[Endus]

Im not saying they are... youre saying your psychiatrist solely relied on your honest input to achieve a diagnosis. Im saying thats not true.

And you're wrong. Because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

But go on, tell me again that you know better what my diagnostic process was than I frickin' do. It's hilarious.

[Daymanmb]

And you're wrong. Because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

But go on, tell me again that you know better what my diagnostic process was than I frickin' do. It's hilarious.

You may have normalized your signs and symptoms bc youve probably been living with them for a very long time. That doesnt mean a trained professional, on the outside looking in, couldnt identify those indicators.

I hate to break it to you, but simply being diagnosed with a condition, doesnt suddenly make you an expert on the process.

[Edge-]

You may have normalized your signs and symptoms bc youve probably been living with them for a very long time. That doesnt mean a trained professional, on the outside looking in couldnt identify those indicators.

I hate to break it to you, simply being diagnosed with a condition, doesnt suddenly make you an expert on the process.

Have you literally ever received mental health care? Because the way you keep talking about it, it seems like you're wholly unfamiliar with the processes.

[Daymanmb]

Have you literally ever received mental health care? Because the way you keep talking about it, it seems like you're wholly unfamiliar with the processes.

Please tell me how your anecdotal experience makes you an expert also.

A couple of mental midgets get diagnosed and become the authority on the subject matter...

[PACOX]

Some people really want Aquaman 2 to be hit.

[Daymanmb]

Some people really want Aquaman 2 to be hit.

Aquaman 1 was shit. Wouldnt expect 2 to be better...

[Endus]

You may have normalized your signs and symptoms bc youve probably been living with them for a very long time. That doesnt mean a trained professional, on the outside looking in, couldnt identify those indicators.

I was the one highlighting those indicators for them.

I hate to break it to you, but simply being diagnosed with a condition, doesnt suddenly make you an expert on the process.

Sure means I know a hell of a lot more about the process than you apparently do.

[Daymanmb]

Sure means I know a hell of a lot more about the process than you do.

And on what grounds can you make that claim? An argument akin to "I know you are but what am I".. come on.. be better.

[Endus]

And on what grounds can you make that claim? An argument akin to "I know you are but what am I".. come on.. be better.

That you don't know how psychiatry works. As we've already demonstrated. Asked and answered.

Note that I don't have to and am in no way obliged to convince you of this. We've got an audience. They're the ones I'm actually speaking to.

[Daymanmb]

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.

[Daymanmb]

BPD is not easy to diagnose

Never said it was... thats a complete 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?