The verdict came in yesterday, and the question wasn't if Johnny Depp should win his case, but if the jury could get past societal pressure to rule in his favor. I have to admit that I was expecting the jury to skirt the issue and rule that neither party “defamed” the other. But make no mistake about the verdict that was handed down: Depp gambled big and won big, while Amber Heard appeared to have a stacked deck and ended up losing big. She didn't actually "win" anything in her countersuit; Depp was just held responsible for the one Adam Waldman statement that was found "defamatory" for lack of proof—and it was clearly a bone thrown to Heard because if every “conspiracy” theory was subject to a defamation lawsuit, 90 percent of court cases would be one.
On the other hand, Heard was convicted of defamation on all three of the statements that were attributed to her and she signed off on in the Washington Post op-ed, and that is a huge difference. That the ACLU had a hand in concocting Heard’s op-ed and using both her and Depp for their own agenda makes little difference in Heard’s guilt, since she also used the ACLU as a platform to become an essentially “paid” spokesperson to help her propagate her claims—paid because the ACLU apparently didn’t insist that Heard pay the “donation” that she “pledged.”
Why was the mainstream media and the tabloids “shocked” by the verdict? Because they allowed themselves to be so; as we have seen in almost every aspect of society and politics, the truth is no match for paranoia and fear. No matter how the media wants to spin it, Depp winning the case should be seen as a landmark in judicial history in this country, because few outside social media saw it coming, because the mainstream media is too blinded by the fears stoked by gender activists which it helped stoke in the first place, too wedded to the concept of gendered victimization, or worse yet, fearful of backlash or being “canceled” if they say anything in contradiction to the prevailing dogma that women are either “victims”—or “imperfect victims,” women who abuse, but the abuse they suffer is “worse.”
Men, of course, are never themselves “imperfect victims,” as Depp himself could be characterized. And women, of course, never lie according to societal dictates, and they know they can destroy a man’s life by simply making the insinuation that they were abused. It is this belief that is fueling Heard attorney Elaine Bredehoft's current gaslighting tour of news programming, refusing to tell the world the truth, which is that her client was far more "imperfect" than she wants anyone to know. And by the way, is it network policy to only give credence to the "correct" side, meaning the woman's regardless of what the facts are?
It sure seems that way--although there were exceptions, such as the CBS Morning show hosts being somewhat skeptical of the assertion that Heard made no mistakes during her testimony, and that after the trial it was claimed that Heard told her lawyers that she felt more sorry for all the women of world than merely for herself, which judging by the stony expressions that greeted this proclamation there was some skepticism as to its truthfulness:
What I’m seeing posted around the Internet from the major news providers here and in the UK is a deliberate avoidance of understanding why the jury could find Heard guilty on all three counts of defamation “with malice.” Moira Donegan of The Guardian made the sickening claim that the trial was an "orgy of misogyny," which clearly indicated facts did not interest her, only gender politics. It was the jury, not Depp "fans" on social media, that decided this case. We did not see after the verdict any attempt by those who were so certain that just one micron of acceptance of just one incident of abuse claimed by Heard was sufficient to destroy Depp’s case to ascertain why they could be so wrong based on the facts presented during the trial; instead we found nothing but whines about how he is “man” and the law and society is rigged against women.
There are people who are so warped in the views that unless they win every single case, just one that goes the other direction wipes out all the rest. They act in fear of one single victory of a man who claims domestic violence was perpetrated on them by woman to be like a pin prick that lets out the air from the balloon. They don’t realize that they only have themselves to blame for this paranoia because of their abject refusal to abide by the concept of innocent until proven guilty; men are always guilty.
Rolling Stone magazine devolved into this pit, and one would think that publication would know better after its experience with that completely fabricated story in 2014 about a fraternity gang rape claim by a student named “Jackie” at the University of Virginia, which was converted into a “bombshell” expose written by Sabrina Erdely; she was later convicted of defamation against a school administrator. Those defending Erdely’s article claimed that it didn’t matter if it was true or not, but that it was the “thought” that counted.
While the mainstream media was confounded by the verdict and wailing about how this was a “defeat” for women and was “proof” of the continued existence of the “patriarchy,” on social media, many people—both male and female—were dissecting the trial bit by bit and eventually the evidence in favor of Depp’s version of what happened in the relationship was like a flood of truth where lies were scurrying about like rats in search of cover wherever they could find it, and in the end there was no escape. While dozens of witnesses came forward to either refute Heard’s claims of abuse or claim to have witnessed abuse by Heard, Heard’s principle “witness” was her own claims, a façade that looked “good” from the front, but there was nothing to hold it up for long.
Social media has also been privy to evidence not heard in court. Perhaps the most damning for Heard is the audio taken from the incident in Australia; for people wondering where these damaging-for-Heard audio clips came from, she recorded them herself, and we can only surmise that her level of conceit was so great that—like Richard Nixon and his Oval Office tapes—she thought no one would ever hear them, or maybe she found them of “historical” value. The Australia audio were not allowed in as evidence at the trial, apparently because it was regarded as “hearsay,” since although Heard is present, most of the conversation is between Depp’s doctor and Heard’s personal nurse.
Why they needed
to be around Heard is a question, although we learn from that audio that she is
on “antipsychotic” medication, and the doctor wants to fly her right away to
Los Angeles to be among her “support group.” While the doctor is looking for
Depp’s fingertip to use as a skin graft, we hear Heard—who doesn’t want to
leave because she apparently wants to keep close to Depp to control the
narrative—admit that she was responsible for Depp’s injury, although this
admission seems to be overlooked by the doctor. At no time does she mention the
alleged sexual assault with a liquor bottle, which was a new “detail” brought
up at the trial, as was Heard’s claim that Depp was the one who injured his
finger.
There is also this story out, concerning a private investigator hired by Heard to find evidence that Depp abused other women in his life, and was discharged when he didn't find any such evidence. He also mentioned that what he did find was that Heard used Depp to further her own career, and his good nature was also taken advantage of by so-called friends:
https://nypost.com/2022/06/02/amber-heards-ex-pi
I would also suggest listening to another video, where Heard--who only months earlier had filed for a temporary restraining order--set up with a mutual friend a meeting with Depp in San Francisco in which Depp had been led to believe was an attempt at reconciliation despite everything he admitted he had to "swallow" to avoid "choking" on in regard to their relationship. But Heard the narcissist was evidently manipulating him, still wanting a divorce, but apparently still wanting to be "friends" so that he would not speak out about her abusive behavior. This meeting ended with Depp saying enough was enough because he now realized that Heard was a truly evil person, and she would never "see my eyes again": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYdczqCfgJM
What was Depp talking about? Listening to the following audio makes one cringe--and not to Heard's benefit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM9hMEEIQCo
In this dispiriting audio, Heard is trying to justify why she should be allowed to make hateful claims about Depp, but he should not be allowed to defend himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg2ACYJSIEc
And the damning testimony of Heard's former personal assistant/slave, Kate James, who could not conceal her contempt for Heard as a person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdvVZu0pWj4
The truth was out there, and everyone who watched the trial knew that the real star of the “Johnny Depp Show”—as Heard called it—was attorney Camille Vasquez...
…who seemingly against all odds turned Heard from at least what the mainstream media was "seeing" as a pathetic “victim,” into an extremely unlikable person caught in the web of her own lies and fabrications. For every story that Heard told, Depp's team had an alternative story that was more credible. It certainly helped the case that Vasquez’s demeanor indicated that she sincerely believed that Depp was innocent. All those “feminists” and defenders of “survivors” were curiously unimpressed by the way a woman was shredding away the lies layer by layer that Heard thought would protect her from the truth.
After two days of increasingly tiresome antics and accusations by Heard on direct examination that quickly inspired incredulity not just on social media, but eventually for the jurors who—according to courtroom observers—were beginning to react to Heard’s obviously staged performance like this…
…as Heard desperately looked from one face to another to find a “friend” on the jury. Were jurors thinking the same thing as many observers on social media were when Heard at one point looks to her PR team for her "cue" and then holds this pose for several seconds to wait for the cameras to click--and made people wonder of the mainstream media's collusion in framing the narrative in favor of Heard's side of the story?:
In between the "tears" and the sneers, Heard often seemed to make up new “details” on the fly that only made her contradictory tales even less believable, especially the ones that were more lurid. She seemed to mix and match stories from different times, and even from different years. Further, she frequently spoke as if she was "observing" her alleged abuse, rather than actually "experiencing" it.
There seems little doubt now that Heard’s over-the-top performance was seen as “acting” by the jurors, and they were ready to hear something that restored a sense of balance to the proceedings, after not hearing a single witness claim they saw Depp abuse Heard (save her sister’s “restored” memory that conveniently forgot the physical torture on her own person by Heard), but on the contrary many saw Heard physically assault him. The jury would naturally be skeptical of anyone who claimed that what they heard on those awful audio clips was not representative of the truth, and Vasquez did a magnificent job of taking advantage of that willingness to be skeptical of what Heard was claiming.
There was a report of an alleged juror speaking about the trial, who among other things noted that the jurors did believe that Heard was faking her tears, made them uncomfortable when she kept looking at them, and what most of us had suspected, that it first became clear that Heard was capable of lying when the testimony of the donations came up. I'm deleting the link to that story since it may not be legitimate, although it is still likely the jurors saw what most people were seeing.
I searched high and low for any article or commentary from a mainstream news source that betrayed any sense that they saw what the jurors saw over the six week trial. But it should have been predictable, since every story concerning the “highlights” of the trial had something to do with some “heinous” thing that Depp was accused of doing, never anything negative about Heard. I never found any indication that someone in the mainstream news actually took in the trial in its totality; the trial for them consisted almost exclusively of selected sound bites of Heard wailing away. No one in the mainstream media seemed cognizant of what was being said outside of Heard’s wild claims during her direct testimony—and thus their “shock” at the verdict. They never asked themselves “Did I miss something here? What did the jurors see that I didn’t?”
If Depp’s
victory—as those media detractors would claim—was dependent on his “male” celebrity
status, then that it is a poor commentary about where justice stands in this
country for every other male who believes he has been wrongly accused, but
can’t afford the legal representation. If too often we see men like Depp have had
their careers “canceled” without a fair hearing, what does that say about the
rights of any other man who is not a "celebrity" if they are falsely accused? We live in a society where
a film studio like Disney is deathly frightened not of what the general public
believes, but of a relative few activists who will charge them with harboring alleged
domestic abusers—or even if someone makes “gender-incorrect” comments—regardless
if they are guilty or not. But for the average working man, it may take only a woman feeling "uncomfortable" in the office to find him out on the street.
Even entertaining the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty is simply too much of a burden to allow. Gender victim activists claim that women have no “power” over “powerful” men. Yet time and again we have seen that there is no claim too small or too lacking in evidence to destroy a life no matter how elevated. It is not men who have too much power, but a cabal of gender activists who threaten Armageddon unless they get their way.
So we can surmise that those who disagree with the Depp jury are not interested in the truth; they just want men to suffer in accordance with their agenda. People who think Heard is a liar and a psychopath don’t just “hate” her, but according these people “all” women (i.e. “misogynists,” as if there is no such thing as a misandrist, a word that isn’t even in the Microsoft Word dictionary). Men “always” win, according to these people, so the rules have to be “bent” to favor of women.
The reality is
that men always lose when they are not allowed to prove their innocence because
their due process rights are taken away, as is usually the case for men in the public eye and in how
universities handle claims of sexual assault. “Due process” in the face of
false allegations such as Heard’s is only the province of those with money to
pay for top-flight legal representation, and it is only in these circumstances
than men on occasion “win.” That is why Depp’s win in court doesn’t, in the
end, “threaten” women or “survivors.” His was an isolated victory in a sea of
despair for most men who are falsely accused. We "Heard" someone say this:
Tell the world, Johnny, tell them ‘I, Johnny Depp, a man, I’m a victim, too, of domestic violence… and it’s a fair fight.’ And see how many people believe or side with you.
For once, seven people on one jury did believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment