Like millions of other people, I got swept up in the Depp:Heard legal case where Depp sued Heard for defamation in an newspaper article she co-wrote saying that she was a victim of domestic abuse. I very much wanted to believe her. Even now, I don't know and I don't think the court case made especially clear what actually took place in their relationship.
For sure, they said mean and ugly things to each other. For sure, they both found the union to be sufficiently disturbing that, ultimately, there was no alternative but to split.
Whether he caused those bruises on her face, kicked her, slapped her in the face over and over, (as a witness testified), I don't know.
What we can know is that the jury and the world, generally speaking, was of the opinion, that none of these things happened, because if even one of those things happened on any given day, the jury was obliged to find for Heard.
If she suffered not physically but emotionally, then that too would count as an acknowledgement of Heard's vindication for writing the article. The jury determined that she was not emotionally abused.
Or, maybe the jury felt that they were both emotionally abused by one another and so it sort of amounted to a cancellation of abuse.
There was very troubling testimony and had I been on the jury, I would have wanted to explore that fully. A young man who became close to Johnny testified that right after their wedding ceremony he made a statement that went something like, 'Now I can legally knock her around.' I found that chilling.
I also would have wanted to explore the fact that victims of domestic abuse often want to protect their abuser and that this was in line with Heard not wanting to talk to the police after they were called, and I think they were called after a friend heard a very troubling encounter between Depp and Heard on the telephone. (I didn't see the whole trial so that may not be entirely accurate)
My point is that there was evidence that domestic abuse of one kind or another appears to have taken place and has been corroborated by other people. Maybe the jury thought these people were lying too.
It's strange, because I am of the understanding that it is a crime to give false testimony and it seems odd that so many people who gave testimony have been accused of lying on both sides. It throws into question the judicial system and the willingness of people to lie.
I was a young woman in the days of the trial of Lindy Chamberlain who woke one night whilst on a family camping trip in the Northern Territory of Australia to find her baby gone. It was a similar situation to the Depp:Heard case from the point of view that the judicial system and people at large got involved, with nearly everyone having an opinion one way or the other. (You may recall that Streep played Lindy.) Most people, and the courts, came down on the side that Lindy must have killed her baby.
I found that proposition absolutely ludicrous from the moment I heard about it. I held onto that position for years until that joyous day when baby Azaria's jacket was found, corroborating the fact that a dingo had taken her baby.
In the meantime, Lindy's life was destroyed. The (innocent) woman was in jail when she had her second baby. Can you imagine how devastating it could be for a human who loved her baby dearly to be accused and convicted of killing her? A witch hunt, indeed.
So, I wanted to believe Amber. If those awful things happened, and she made it out of there in one whole piece, then I wanted to support that strength.
But, things niggled me. For one, I would never write a public article that would destroy the life of the man I proclaim to still love. She supported him, she says, by not wanting to talk to the police, and yet she wrote the article. There's a problem there.
The 'malicious intent' that the jury believed in was a surprise. Really? She maliciously intended to hurt him? Well, yes, thinking more on this, I suppose she did write it with either the intent to inflict harm on him or else she was naive as to the repercussions of the article.
One article I read shed some light on the power dynamic of the couple. Sure, Depp was richer and more famous, but Depp came across as a codependent who couldn't navigate such deep (narcissistic) waters.
Who knows?
I do know that this trial in some way struck a cord with the world at large much like the Chamberlain tragedy which took place long before social media was a thing.
When a relationship begins wonderfully; when a person is provided with much affection that they so sorely need, and then things start to become a bit emotionally abusive - intermittent validation/affection; tactics that confuse the other person but keep them enmeshed in a relationship that is troubling - it's hard for the brain to figure out what has happened. Wasn't it once a great relationship? Wasn't he or she once so loving? Maybe, if he or she tries hard enough, they can get back to that?
I don't know what happened in that relationship exactly and I am not sure if the participants fully understand the dynamic themselves. To be sure, they were both right to go their separate ways. Unfortunately, that was not done quietly.
The relationship and the trial seem to have been a mess. The biggest problem I have with the outcome of the trial is that it seems to send a chilling message to anyone who wants to talk publicly about their abuse experience. There seems to have been pretty clear testimony that his behavior towards her would constitute AT LEAST emotional abuse. The English courts did not decide in his favor. And even with all that, she's being penalized. I think this is going to lead to lots of lawsuits by the alleged abuser and it's an ugly precedent to set. Not to mention the ugly pushback she got on social media.
ReplyDeleteOlivia: There appeared to be good reason to believe she was entitled to call herself a victim of domestic abuse. She was granted a protection order in the USA and the UK court saw reasonable grounds for the paper to make their statement.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am careful not to accuse anyone of anything if I don't have all the facts. But, a victim of domestic abuse, or someone who has lived with someone with mental illness, or addiction, or all of those things at once, knows they have been through a traumatic situation in a way that other people probably cannot fathom. Imagine waking up to your husband having painted black paint all over your canvasses or written you nasty messages across the walls? Is someone in the throes of addiction even aware of the things he or she has done or said after the event?
Since the make up artist was covering up damage to Amber's face, was it ever ascertained how she came to have that damage? Or was she lying too?
It's like 'fake news' inside the court room where even the bleeding obvious isn't believed.
I think the notion that she was too emotional in court doesn't take into account the fact that we all respond to such situations in our own unique way. There's no one way to behave under stress and the retelling of traumatic experiences. They said of Lindy Chamberlain that she must be guilty because she wasn't emotional enough.
I remember feeling great empathy for her as she retold those memories. I remember thinking, 'why isn't someone handing the woman a glass of water?'
I think all those ugly comments on social media turned the trial into a gladiator type sport with the crowds unable to turn their eyes away, as if she was less than human, or some kind of witch. The court room of Depp fans seemed so wrong. This should have been a closed court.
Millions and millions of dollars were thrown at this trial but I don't feel it led to a situation where there is confidence the truth was revealed.