IF YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT THE TRIGGER WARNINGS ARE FROM THE TITLE DO NOT READ
THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE. AN EXPLANATION OF WHY I TOOK A PRO-JOHNNY STANCE LONG BEFORE THIS CASE WENT TO TRIAL AND WHY THAT STANCE HAS REMAINED UNCHANGED
I have been #TeamJohnny from the get-go. Not because I am a fan, but because it was, for me, the logical stance.
I am a female of the species but I identify as agender and I am egalitarian. Oppression, violence, victimhood... these things can be caused or exacerbated by gender but it's not all one way, and the Depp Vs Heard case is a prime example.
Amber Heard was believed because she is a woman. That's it. Not because her claims were proven true, supported by evidence or even plausible. Because of her sex-slash-gender-identity. Like women can't / don't / won't lie. Like they wouldn't lie about THAT.
Can you hear the eyeroll as I typed?!
Anyone can lie. Some more effectively than others. But believing a lie because of the sex of the person telling it? Beyond stupid.
I've had rows on social media with feminazis (so shall I call them if so shall they act) who would believe ANY woman, regardless. They would literally throw their fathers, brothers, partners and sons under the bus on the word of a stranger who just happens to be female. Zero loyalty, zero faith in the men in their lives. Nice.
So yeah, that's my starting point.
I do not #BelieveAllWomen or even #BelieveAllVictims as a default setting. Which is not to say I disbelieve them, of course. But it's this little thing called critical thinking: the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.
I can at least start at the chronological beginning.
When Johnny married Amber my knee-jerk reaction was OMFG he's got himself a gold-digger, she's gonna bring him down. Call it a premonition. I knew NOTHING about this woman.
When Amber first made her claims my knee-jerk reaction was OMFG she went THAT FAR???
First Allegations
In the first instance I don't know either of these people, obviously. However there's always unconscious bias - this is where gender is a very strong factor, along with race. Most people will lean toward the female, especially a pretty blonde one (see Missing White Woman Syndrome) whether they are overtly sexist or racist or not; it's almost a learned behaviour as the news more heavily reports missing white women / children creating the idea that men and women or children of colour are less vulnerable. Meanwhile, there are others who will default in favour of men, wealth, fame, or perceived power.
I defaulted in favour of Johnny Depp. Why? Because I am a misogynist who respects fame & wealth? I certainly hope not. I certainly believe it's because I know OF Johnny (whereas I only knew of Amber as his Mrs), and had been aware of him / his career for decades. I knew the man had substance abuse issues but from the outset it seemed curious that there had never been a sniff of violent or sexual scandal around his name.
Of course you never *know* but the fact he'd worked repeatedly with certain directors (eg. Tim Burton) and actresses (eg. Helena Bonham Carter, Keira Knightly) suggested that he wasn't a monster to work with.
This was a very short time later amplified by two of his highest profile exes (Vanessa Paradis and Winona Ryder) saying publicly NOT me too. Along with a number of co-stars (inc. Penelope Cruz and Kate Winslet) speaking of him positively. Of course, being an abuser in one relationship does not mean you will be in all of them. But, for me, it was telling that a number of high profile women said 'he wasn't like this with ME'. Naturally some of that might have been their fans asking them to say #MeToo or offering sympathy for their presumed past suffering at JDs hands. But again, respect for saying openly that it didn't happen.
Even more telling has been the distinct lack of anyone coming forward to say #MeToo. For a man now 58 that seems pretty solid. The only ex who spoke against him was Ellen Barkin who recalled him once throwing a bottle at a wall, had no idea of the context, and couldn't even remember how long their relationship lasted.
Honestly, at this point I've lost the plot as to when exactly which photos / statements came into the public eye so I'm just gonna look at the salient points individually.
The Photos
The newspapers carried photos of a 'bruised' Amber Heard coming out of court having applied for a restraining order. Even in grainy newsprint it looked like nothing. Looking at the photos presented in court with the 'bruises' supposedly shown in the 'best light' of the apartment and ignoring, for the moment, the idea of filters, resolution discrepancies etc etc I looked at the pics... is that a pimple? is that a mosquito bite? is it blusher? why can't we see her OTHER cheek for comparison?!
That's not to say she didn't have a bruise. *I* don't bruise well, especially on the face for some reason. *I* have tried to photograph injuries and failed. But then *I* have never tried to use my inadequate photos as 'evidence' in the press or in a court room.
Then there's the black eyes, broken nose, split lip that she supposedly had on the James Corden show. Yeah, not believing that either. Makeup on a split lip? I don't think so. Also, where's the show's make up artist testimony? And the mouth stretched wide photos? Lord, give me strength...
The Cabinet Video
When the cabinet video first came out several things were obvious:
- Amber was recording Johnny without his knowledge in his own home which is pretty gross
- He's clearly distressed
- She's clearly goading him
- The video was clearly edited
If fact, I felt it proved the opposite - he's upset, he's goaded... he slams a cabinet door? Fair amount of restraint there. If that's the most damning video you can leak there's a problem with the claim. And before anyone starts with the 'imperfect victim' argument as stated in the summing up:
She did take photos - but they don't fit with her testimony. We can SEE they're filtered, so yeah, FAKE. She also took videos - none of which managed to capture what she claims was happening. All the way up to this case she's been saying she has copious amounts of damning evidence. The evidence we've now seen, extensively, is 'meh' at best. If she'd made these claims on her WORD alone it would have looked better!
The Bottle Incident
This really needs its own headline but most of my reaction to this is the same as in testimony... it doesn't ring true. It's implausible in the extreme that she could have been assaulted in the way she described.
Sadly there are a LOT of comments online calling this out BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUFFERED IT.
There is NO WAY you can be raped with a bottle and 'not know' if it broke. If you were bleeding and in pain to the point you thought it was broken EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE is not an optional extra. Ms Heard was in no way prevented from seeking medical care - she didn't. She was in no way unable to access medical care due to poverty or location either.
I've seen repeated claims she made and was photographed THE NEXT DAY walking and acting and dressed normally. Things many victims says is simply not possible.
I can't speak for whether those photos were taken the next day but every victim of this kind of assault, bottles broken or intact, says of her account THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. Why do I believe these self-confessed survivors over Ms Heard? Because IT MAKES SENSE. The very idea of being violated with a potentially broken bottle is enough to make most females, if not most people, wince and cross their legs.
We're supposed to believe that Ms Heard was vulnerable, intimidated, trapped in an abusive relationship but where many / most DV survivors are separated and isolated by their abusers - she was surrounded by her employees, her friends, her sister. Many / most DV / SA survivors (in the US) don't have medical insurance or can't access healthcare due to cost, or fear that it'll be reported back to their abuser. That was never her situation and a lot of survivors are pretty angry that a woman with her wealth and privilege is claiming their level of disadvantage.
As with the Rottenborn statement above it's hard to imagine anyone being assaulted the way Ms Heard describes and deliberately NOT seeking help. If she had sought help she certainly wouldn't be 'crazy' for it - there'd be records, PROOFS of what did or did not happen.
The same is true of her alleged broken nose. I got my nose broken. It was on straight, it was not bleeding profusely, so I followed the NHS advice to just let it heal. Therefore it's not on record. It's perfectly possible Ms Heard did the same... but HER FACE IS HER LIVELIHOOD. It stretches credulity that she wouldn't have at least called a professional for advice or get it checked.
The Testimony
I have said it over and over throughout the trial... I expected acting. Both parties are professional, Hollywood actors for heaven's sake. Despite having the above detailed pre-conceived ideas I still expected to have to watch closely for tells and inconsistencies.
Boy, was I wrong.
If Johnny was acting it was immaculate. There are those who criticise his smiling in court but y'all expect stoic, stone-faced for six solid weeks?! He smiled at his team, with whom he clearly had a good rapport. He smiled at certain things that were said on the stand. There was context.
Amber on the other hand... What the HECKAMAJIG was all THAT about?! On the stand she was over-acting in the style of a dramatic five year old. Only most five year olds are more convincing. Fake tears (and I do think she had something untoward in that tissue - not least cos every damn time she wiped her nose on the back of her hand anyway). All the wrong facial expressions. The borderline rage when she was interrupted or corrected. Y'all don't need to be an expert in acting or body language to see that was dodgy AF.
Off the stand she was the epitome of a cold fish. Example: if Dr Curry had been saying such things about me I'd have been in floods of tears, bright red. Telling the world I'm totally unbalanced? There should be emotion. Nothing. Nose in air, perfect Ice Queen. It's not normal, it's not natural, and no power on this earth can convince me it's genuine.
I've seen commentary that Johnny presented badly on the witness stand. I disagree. It's not about 'performance'. A person can be low IQ, mentally impaired, struggle to express themselves and still they deserve to be heard. Johnny was not eloquent, he was not reciting a script; he was hesitant, nervous, embarrassed.
Aside from expert witnesses, many of Johnny's were friends & employees of long-standing. And an ex girlfriend calling BS on one of Amber's lies about her.
Amber's witnesses included her sister. And a bunch of friends who admitted they'd been freeloading off Johnny.
Johnny's account gelled with what the experts set, what his other witnesses said. At times, even with the opposition testimony!
Amber's made no sense in and of itself and did not match with anyone else's. How can you ever reconcile that? Her testimony didn't gel with the people she and her team *chose* to back her up.
So, I was working on this opinion piece explaining my personal stance between summing up and verdict. I am literally typing this waiting as the clock ticks down and the courtroom filling up... I think I better leave my reaction for another blog. YIKES!
