EXCLUSIVE: 'I can't promise I won't get physical again, I get so mad I lose it.' LISTEN as Amber Heard admits to 'hitting' ex-husband Johnny Depp

[cerebus]

Come on guys. Amber and Johnny have moved on.

Perhaps you should too.

They both filed appeals

 

[s0lar]

They both filed appeals

And let’s pick up again once they are heard. Either bored or no other news? Chaps?

 

[Howdy]

Come on guys. Amber and Johnny have moved on.

Perhaps you should too.

And let’s pick up again once they are heard. Either bored or no other news? Chaps?

You misunderstand. Plenty of work and other news, but we need to take a break now and again.

This has long since passed being about JD vs Amber, Mybb vs The Knight.

 

[tetrasect]

You misunderstand. Plenty of work and other news, but we need to take a break now and again.

This has long since passed being about JD vs Amber, Mybb vs The Knight.

AKA Those who watched the trial vs the one guy who didn't watch the trial, yet has the most to say about it.

 

[lumeer]

All that Dr Hughes testified to was that Amber Heard's clinical presentation was consistent with that of an abuse victim. It does not follow that she was necessarily abused. It also didn't help that Dr Hughes came across as a man-hater, something which probably didn't leave a good impression with the mostly male jury. She seemed unwilling to concede that a woman could abuse a man.

@cerebus: You have previously stated that the jury in this case was influenced by social media and reached the wrong verdict. I suspect however that you are satisfied with the verdict that was reached by the jury in another high profile case, namely that of Derek Chauvin who was convicted of the murder of George Floyd. Is that not a double standard? In the case where you disagree with the verdict, you impugn the integrity and intelligence of jurors and argue that they were influenced by social media, while in the case where you agree with the verdict, you seem to have no such concerns.

 

[cerebus]

All that Dr Hughes testified to was that Amber Heard's clinical presentation was consistent with that of an abuse victim. It does not follow that she was necessarily abused.

Well, she diagnosed her with PTSD and strongly criticitized the methodology used by Dr Curry. And in her cross examination she made it clear that she believed Amber and that Amber's attacks towards JD were reactive in nature.

It also didn't help that Dr Hughes came across as a man-hater, something which probably didn't leave a good impression with the mostly male jury. She seemed unwilling to concede that a woman could abuse a man.

What she said is:

"Stalking and surveillance behaviors are a common tactic of, typically men, who use violent behaviors in an intimate relationship"

She never claimed that a man couldn't be abused, she just said that abusers are typically male. And that is of course true.

Domestic abuse is a gendered crime - Women’s Aid

Whilst both men and women may experience domestic abuse, women are more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of abuse, including sexual violence.

www.womensaid.org.uk

The large majority of defendants in domestic abuse-related prosecutions in the year ending March 2020 were recorded as male (92%) and the majority of the victims recorded as female (77%, compared with compared with 16% who were male).

@cerebus: You have previously stated that the jury in this case was influenced by social media and reached the wrong verdict. I suspect however that you are satisfied with the verdict that was reached by the jury in another high profile case, namely that of Derek Chauvin who was convicted of the murder of George Floyd. Is that not a double standard? In the case where you disagree with the verdict, you impugn the integrity and intelligence of jurors and argue that they were influenced by social media, while in the case where you agree with the verdict, you seem to have no such concerns.

Bot Sentinel came out with a report showing that the scale of online abuse directed towards Amber Heard was unprecedented:

https://botsentinel.com/reports/documents/amber-heard/report-07-18-2022.pdf

Worryingly, Johnny Depp's lead lawyer Adam Waldman also admitted on stand to meeting with the major YouTube pro-Depp channels, obviously to orchestrate the campaigns:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1527329111772782608

I can't imagine that the scale of one-sided social media attention was ever nearly as prevalent in the Chauvin trial.

But anyway, maybe I'm wrong about the jury and they weren't influenced at all by the crowds at the trial and the social media. They still made a bad verdict and it's going to become more and more clear as time goes on.

 

[tetrasect]

Well, she diagnosed her with PTSD and strongly criticitized the methodology used by Dr Curry. And in her cross examination she made it clear that she believed Amber and that Amber's attacks towards JD were reactive in nature.



What she said is:

"Stalking and surveillance behaviors are a common tactic of, typically men, who use violent behaviors in an intimate relationship"

She never claimed that a man couldn't be abused, she just said that abusers are typically male. And that is of course true.

Domestic abuse is a gendered crime - Women’s Aid

Whilst both men and women may experience domestic abuse, women are more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of abuse, including sexual violence.

www.womensaid.org.uk

More waffle that makes it apparent that you haven't watched the trial.

@lumeer is right, the lawyer basically had to corner her and put the words in her mouth in order to get her to admit that women can also be abusive. Was painful to watch and showed how dishonest she is.

And the "criticism" of Dr. Curry was completely unfounded and frankly laughable coming from a supposed professional who not only fails at using the correct diagnostic tests but also completely dismisses the proper way to perform them and "does it her way" instead.

 

[Emjay]

This was interesting to watch.

 

[cerebus]

More waffle that makes it apparent that you haven't watched the trial.

I did watch the questioning of Dr Hughes linked by Konfab. She came off well in my opinion. At one point the lawyer even apologized for misunderstanding some point on the questionnaire. I was waiting for some moment where it all fell apart but it never did. What am I missing here?

@lumeer is right, the lawyer basically had to corner her and put the words in her mouth in order to get her to admit that women can also be abusive. Was painful to watch and showed how dishonest she is.

That's just not true. Actually and I quote "what I said is that you have to pay attention to gendered stereotypes. You can't assume that the male is the perpetrator and the female is the victim. You have to go into the evaluation understanding that the male also could be the victim of intimate partner violence."

Then the lawyer said "There are large scale studies that say that IPV towards males does exist".
"Of course".

You're seriously misrepresenting what she said in a pretty dishonest way now. What she said is the opposite of what you're claiming.

And the "criticism" of Dr. Curry was completely unfounded and frankly laughable coming from a supposed professional who not only fails at using the correct diagnostic tests but also completely dismisses the proper way to perform them and "does it her way" instead.

Also nonsense. Fact is, Dawn Hughes is far more qualified than Dr Curry. Her criticisms are based in her expertise.

 

[YoungSandwich]

I did watch the questioning of Dr Hughes linked by Konfab. She came off well in my opinion. At one point the lawyer even apologized for misunderstanding some point on the questionnaire. I was waiting for some moment where it all fell apart but it never did. What am I missing here?

If you seriously believe this, then I think we can all confidently say that you do have a gender bias in this whole thing.

 

[cerebus]

If you seriously believe this, then I think we can all confidently say that you do have a gender bias in this whole thing.

Well, I already debunked the patently false claim made against her. So not sure what else she did wrong.

 

[YoungSandwich]

Well, I already debunked the patently false claim made against her. So not sure what else she did wrong.

Sure you did.

 

[cerebus]

Sure you did.

I did, yes. She was unequivocal in stating that as a therapist she needed to be careful not to hold gendered stereotypes in her evaluations and be aware that even though IPV is majority male, men can also be victims of IPV. She couldn't have been any more clear and upfront.

 

[UrBaN963]

I did, yes. She was unequivocal in stating that as a therapist she needed to be careful not to hold gendered stereotypes in her evaluations and be aware that even though IPV is majority male, men can also be victims of IPV. She couldn't have been any more clear and upfront.

From what we've seen in this thread and your lack of knowledge regarding anything to do with the actual trial, I sincerely doubt you could even debunk this image, never mind this case.

 

[YoungSandwich]

I did, yes. She was unequivocal in stating that as a therapist she needed to be careful not to hold gendered stereotypes in her evaluations and be aware that even though IPV is majority male, men can also be victims of IPV. She couldn't have been any more clear and upfront.

Damn, that's crazy man.

 

[tetrasect]

I did watch the questioning of Dr Hughes linked by Konfab. She came off well in my opinion.

Do you acknowledge that her statement @1:30:50 is that Amber abused Depp?

 

[cerebus]

Do you acknowledge that her statement @1:30:50 is that Amber abused Depp?

"You cannot testify that Johnny Depp was not abused can you?"
"I can testify that he had physical acts of violence perpetrated on him as well as psychological aggressive acts perpetrated on him".
"No further questions".

She deliberately wouldn't characterise those acts as "abuse", so no. She was pretty clear earlier in her testimony that while Amber was aggressive towards Depp, it was reactive in nature, and then Depp used it as a form of reactive abuse.

What is Reactive Abuse? Everything You Need to Know - YANA Mental Health

During an act of abusive violence, it is common for an abused person to lash out toward their abuser. They may scream, cry, use insults, or even physically defend themselves against the attack. In turn, an assailant may retaliate against them by claiming that the victim is in fact the abuser.

yanahelps.com

During an act of abusive violence, it is common for an abused person to lash out toward their abuser. They may scream, cry, use insults, or even physically defend themselves against the attack. In turn, an assailant may retaliate against them by claiming that the victim is in fact the abuser.

This is called reactive abuse, informally referred to as “gaslighting.” Reactive abuse is extremely dangerous for a victim of sexual assault, as it allows abusers to hold something against the them. However, reactive abuse can also occur in situations of verbal abuse, psychological abuse, or physical abuse.

If a person - man or woman - is in an abusive relationship, are they allowed to fight back? Does their fighting back make it mutual abuse, or is it a sign of strength? I think you'll find any DV expert will tell you the answer to that. Domestic abuse is coercive control and there is always one primary abuser.

 

[YoungSandwich]

"You cannot testify that Johnny Depp was not abused can you?"
"I can testify that he had physical acts of violence perpetrated on him as well as psychological aggressive acts perpetrated on him".
"No further questions".

She deliberately wouldn't characterise those acts as "abuse", so no. She was pretty clear earlier in her testimony that while Amber was aggressive towards Depp, it was reactive in nature, and then Depp used it as a form of reactive abuse.

What is Reactive Abuse? Everything You Need to Know - YANA Mental Health

During an act of abusive violence, it is common for an abused person to lash out toward their abuser. They may scream, cry, use insults, or even physically defend themselves against the attack. In turn, an assailant may retaliate against them by claiming that the victim is in fact the abuser.

yanahelps.com

If a person - man or woman - is in an abusive relationship, are they allowed to fight back? Does their fighting back make it mutual abuse, or is it a sign of strength? I think you'll find any DV expert will tell you the answer to that. Domestic abuse is coercive control and there is always one primary abuser.

Oh, what a bunch of ****in baloney this **** is.

What was he supposed to stand there, smile, and ask for more?

Multiple times it has been testified he would leave the room to avoid escalation in the argument, only for Amber to follow and beat on the door to reengage the argument - what was he supposed to do?

Yes, they are allowed to fight back. No, it is not mutual abuse, it is defending yourself.

 

[cerebus]

Yes, they are allowed to fight back. No, it is not mutual abuse, it is defending yourself.

Thank you. Then that's the whole point here. Amber Heard is the one who defended herself and fought back. She also testified that yeah after a while of that kind of abuse she lost the plot and did sometimes instigate fights. She probably became a bit of a nightmare herself at one point, but she was systematically abused by Depp so can you blame her? That's exactly what Dr Hughes is saying.

In their conversations it's also clear. He complains about her throwing a can at his nose, and she said that she thought he was going to kill her. But you believe him and not her, despite the fact that it's coming from the same piece of audio.

 

[YoungSandwich]

Thank you. Then that's the whole point here. Amber Heard is the one who defended herself and fought back. She also testified that yeah after a while of that kind of abuse she lost the plot and did sometimes instigate fights. She probably became a bit of a nightmare herself at one point, but she was systematically abused by Depp so can you blame her? That's exactly what Dr Hughes is saying.

In their conversations it's also clear. He complains about her throwing a can at his nose, and she said that she thought he was going to kill her. But you believe him and not her, despite the fact that it's coming from the same piece of audio.

You have a complete lack of understanding of what happened between those too, and if you don't understand yet you never will. And I am not going to be the one to explain it to you for the 500th thousand time.