LogFAQs > #964584370

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I mean it probably should given that the term given in the article is "domestic abuse" which encompasses more than just the physical violence the trial has been focused on.

If I have a point it's that this is nebulous enough to me that I have no idea how Depp expects to win. Not to mention the net result of people saying "not naming any names or details but I experienced domestic abuse" being considered a legally actionable claim of libel is uh. Probably not good.

Yeah that's a good summary, people are coming at Heard as if everything she's saying is made up but all she needs is ONE credible instance of abuse to not be lying and that's not totally out of the picture imo.

Okay! I understand what you're trying to say better.

The difference between saying "Not saying any names but I was a victim of abuse" is different than this case. She specifically talked about stories of things she did to Johnny Depp and put a time on it. This is a major reason this wasn't thrown out, while they would probably be thrown out in the latter situation. It also helps that there is overwhelming evidence of Johnny being the one being abused and plenty of evidence in his favor that the stories she was telling were false.

The thing is though, it does seem like she made literally everything up. I have the bonus of knowing what she said at the UK trial and an understanding of how trials work. If she had any tangible evidence in all of these recordings, in all of these stories that aren't contradicted by the facts or eye witnesses, among other things, it would have come out on the cross of Johnny Depp. Her stories are contradicted by herself. She says she was so frequently beaten but there's never been an image or photo of a single bruise or swelling (aside from the proven false one for when she got the restraining order). And she hasn't had a story that isn't debunked somehow, despite her supposedly having been beaten on a constant basis.

Like, it's possible but I just don't see it at this point. But at the worst we have a 3 instances of name-calling and no other proof of any kind of abuse whatsoever. So then it's a question of, if someone is abusive 99% of the time towards you, and you are abusive back 1% of the time, are you still an abuser? That's probably going to be up to the jury to decide.

Also they have a forensic psychologist on the stand now who is grossly overqualified and had Amber do 13 hours of testing who basically amounted to "Amber lied, she lied about situations, pretended to have PTSD, but our testing is sophisticated enough to know when someone is pretending to have PTSD for this test meant to be presented in court as proof that she had PTSD."