When I observed that Amazon Prime claimed to offer the Johnny vs. Amber: The U.S. Trial documentary though a 7-day free trial subscription for Discovery Plus videos, I decided what the hell, let’s see what’s it about. But then I “discovered” they only had the UK trial version available for viewing now, and the Discovery website had exclusive rights until October 21. Well, OK, I saved myself some money just in case I neglected to cancel the subscription, and given the mainstream media and Warner’s desire to sweep Heard’s sins under the rug, I was going to avoid spending money on it all costs.
Besides, the trailer for the documentary had red flags all over it, such as one talking head speaking for Heard’s side lying about all the “medical evidence” proving Heard’s claims, when it fact as we’ve discussed over and over again that “evidence” simply doesn’t exist, save for doctored photographs provided by Heard that she only took for purposes of extortion to begin with.
There is no indication that Heard ever sought medical attention for any of the alleged grievous injuries she claimed she suffered—including those where she claimed blood splattered all over. Remember that image which she showed her arm with a bruise that Depp allegedly caused? That was the same incident that Heard claimed that he struck her so hard in the face that blood splattered all over the wall (or refrigerator, it was hard for her to keep her stories straight); yet on that same image there was not a hint of any injury on her completely unblemished face.
The reviews from those who have seen it are mostly negative, depending on what side you are one; the biggest “sin” is that there are no “shocking” new details for Heard supporters to get excited about. The fact that Depp’s legal team participated in the documentary and Heard’s did not obviously slanted the bias closer to the center than it would have; those who offered a perspective from Heard’s side had obvious political agendas that ignored the truth, and that would be clear to anyone with an open mind.
As promised, social media was in for a flogging. The dirty dealing from the pro-Heard side was evident from its sandbagging of Jessica Reed Kraus—who broke the story about Heard’s attendance of sex parties in which she corralled female friends (some underage) to “perform” in Eyes Wide Shut-type orgies for the pleasure of rich men—by twisting her comments as “proof” of the claim that social media truth-seekers were not interested in gathering facts and analyzing the evidence, but were dealing in “misogynistic” gossip and “revictimizing” Heard and other “survivors.”
Pro-Heard Newsweek’s “ah-ha” moment was when Camille Vasquez asserted that Depp’s substance abuse didn’t make him physically abusive. If that was not true, then why did Heard take all those photos of him crashed out...
...as “proof” that this is what happened when he was under the “influence”? Depp testified that he increasingly used substances to avoid dealing with Heard’s abusive behavior, and Heard knew that whenever he left during one of her tantrums he wouldn’t be back to “be a man” and take what she was dishing out, likely spending the night passed-out—a convenient excuse for him to ignore her pleadings over text messages to come back to be beaten on again.
Never, not even in that kitchen cabinet video—when a smirking Heard clearly showed no fear that Depp would strike her—did Heard ever record an alleged incident of physical or even verbal abuse by Depp, even in those “conversations” that lasted for hours at a time. Oh no, she would make sure the recorder was be off when she started throwing punches.
There is much more we can discuss, such as Heard using the term “monster”—that in fact was what she was—as yet another “histrionic” term to gaslight Depp whenever he ran away from another” argument” that the endlessly needy Heard only kept escalating to no end. As far as the documentary is concerned, the general consensus is that it adds no new information that isn’t already in the “public domain”; it is just a matter of “interpretation” and what you want to believe.
The documentary does at least interview two women who claimed to be on the “undecided” side before the trial, and who came away—like the jury and everyone else who was swayed by the evidence and not politics—finding both Heard and her abuse claims to be not credible, and eventually siding with Depp:
This won’t end the “war” between the mainstream media, their shills like Kat Tenbarge and Taylor Lorenz, and Heard’s remaining diehard pals like Eve Barlow and Michelle Dauber—and pretty much everyone else with an opinion on the case. Some truth-seekers on YouTube are finding their content being “monitored” by YouTube and sometimes demonetized after being flagged for “manual” approval if the words “Amber” or “Heard” appear in their videos. Pro-Heard bots trying to disrupt the truth are there to be found; in one (of the few) videos that I have encountered that put Depp in a negative light, it came across quite desperate for “views,” and YouTube seems to have missed this clear evidence of botifying:
My feeling is that this is a “war” the mainstream media can’t win and has boxed itself into a corner where it cannot admit that they lost it. Even if Heard’s team somehow gets a “win” in the appeal process (however unlikely), this won’t change the minds of people who saw injustice in the UK trial verdict from clear bias from a judge who had a son working for the newspaper being sued, and who took as evidence Heard’s “word” despite the lack of supporting documentation and incidents of admittedly false testimony. The pro-Heard mainstream media sometimes behaves as if this is an Orwellian society: you are shown four fingers, and MSM tells you it is only three, and they try to beat you into submission until you say you also see three fingers.
But it isn’t working. People who believe in the truth are still insisting they see four fingers when there are four fingers staring at them right in front of their eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment