The biggest problem with Amber Heard Stans that we really haven’t addressed in enough detail is their blatant sexism and their fetishizing of abuse.
When women defend Johnny Depp they simply must be doing it because they like him, they can’t possibly be capable of an independent thought; they can’t possibly have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion based on facts. They simply must be huge Pirates fans who wish he’d make another movie.
When men defend Johnny Depp it’s because they simply must be in the boys club. They must hate all women. They must be abusive. They couldn’t possibly be forming an opinion based on facts; it must be absolute sexist hatred. They couldn’t possibly be victims of DV themselves. They couldn’t possibly be advocating for Johnny to protect the survivors in their own lives.
The worst is being an SA/DV survivor defending Johnny Depp. Because again, there’s no way we looked at the facts. And because we couldn’t possibly be defending him because we know how it feels to not be believed or because we relate to the physical and emotional pain of what he went through. We couldn’t possibly be defending Johnny Depp because we know what it’s like… There’s no way that I spent hours curled up in a corner crying after I saw that video of him and Dakota Johnson.
No, it’s none of that. I simply must have the hots for him. I must like him and wanna fuck him. I’m an SA survivor defending Johnny Depp so I must be a hoe. That’s what Amber Heard Stan’s think. That I was asking for it. That I am asking for it.
What happens when non-binary people defend him?
considering most of her supporters are radfems i highly doubt they’ll even acknowledge the existence of non binary people
In light of the trial that has started this past week, I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of my followers that this is a pro-Johnny Depp blog.
Guys, we are not out the weeds yet for Johnny, I’m afraid.
There’s another civil trial against Johnny in the Greg Brooks v. Johnny Depp, et al. in California happening in July. Brooks is suing Johnny for emotional distress, and assault & battery.
Luckily, Camille is also representing Johnny in that case. Poor Camille, she gets no breaks.
Also, there’s no cameras in that trial, so we have to rely on the media to tell us about it, as well.
All I’m saying is that, this interview, was definitely foreshadowing what she would be like on the stand.
She has those same mannerisms in that video (which was universally hated while she was in a much better light) like she does when she was on the stand.
The only thing I’m a little shaky on is how JD’s team talks about how AH does not have PTSD. It’s possible she does have cPTSD from childhood abuse or otherwise. The recordings reflect hardcore abandonment trauma, which is a telltale borderline trait. If AH hadn’t taken her lies this far and caused so much harm, I would have more compassion for her bc she does need serious help.
Understandable. But that’s not what Amber, herself, is claiming. She claimed that she suffer from PTSD, not cPTSD. There’s actually a difference there, and not only that, she’s claiming that suffered this from the hands of Johnny, not her childhood at the hands of her father.
There’s a reason while she was on the stand, she talked very, and I do mean, very little about her childhood and the alleged abuse from her father. Even when Whitney on the stand, Elaine didn’t really ask about their childhood.
If Amber’s team would’ve dived in to it, it would contradict her earlier claims to suffering from PSTD from the relationship. That’s simply why she had an IME in the first place.
So yeah, it’s could very well be a possibility, but that’s not the issue that was brought forth by her. And to speculate otherwise, is kind of disrespectful to her imo.
The list on who’s on the final jury in the Depp v. Heard civil trial that is currently ongoing in Fairfax, Virginia.
(demonstrations from CourtTv & Rob from @Law & Lumber, one to show the full jury & the other to show the dimssed alternates)
The two alternates were Juror #2/B & Juror #8/H. Juror #2 is a Asian male, who is in the mid 20s. Juror #8 is a older White woman, who’s in her fifties. They were both assumed by lawyers and reporters, Ian (@.RunkleOfTheBailey), Larry @.DUI Guy), Rob (@.Law&Lumber), and James, (@JamesFromCourt) to be Pro-Johnny.
The remaining jury are these 7 individuals in total below.
1. Juror #1/A, a Asian male, assumed to be in his mid 20s to early 30s.
2. Juror #3/C, a Asian male, assumed to be in his mid 30s.
3. Juror #4/D, a Black woman, assumed to be in her mid 40s to early 50s.
4. Juror #5/E, a Asian woman, assumed to be in her early 30s.
5. Juror #6/F, a White man, assumed to be in his mid 60s.
6. Juror #7/G, a White man, assumed to be in his late 20s to early 30s.
7. Juror #9/I, a Asian man, assumed to be in his 40s. Interesting enough, this juror is assumed to be very Anti-Amber, to point of out right give her a scrawl when she was on the stand.
5 men, 2 women.
All of these 7 jurors must come to an unanimous decision to reach a verdict in this case.
I suspect the juror’s identities are gonna be a source of a lot of Op-Eds if they rule unfavorably for Heard, particularly the ratio of male to female. Since most of them are non-white I suspect some racist commentary under the guise of feminism might be smuggled in too.
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think it will work out to well for her on the PR move on either of your proposed fronts.
The issue on complaining about the gender ratio on jury will be, her team picked and agreed on the jury. So, that will literally go nowhere, and will actually reflect really badly on her team.
The racism angle will be really weird and also backfire horribly on her. Amber has a history on being seen as “racist”, so this will probably add to it if they try to conjure up the angle. Also I wonder how that racial angle will go? Amber is a cis-white woman obviously; so let’s disregard her past a moment. If they push too hard, it could also backfire in which “POC abused women are never heard, and we only care about white women who’s abused”.
But I definitely think they are going down that radical feminist route. Sprinkle in how the trial shouldn’t be televised, people leaking things on Twitter, memes on her appearance and behavior in court, and you got a pretty dumb PR stunt. Also tie in some biphobia, cause why not?
The list on who’s on the final jury in the Depp v. Heard civil trial that is currently ongoing in Fairfax, Virginia.
(demonstrations from CourtTv & Rob from @Law & Lumber, one to show the full jury & the other to show the dimssed alternates)
The two alternates were Juror #2/B & Juror #8/H. Juror #2 is a Asian male, who is in the mid 20s. Juror #8 is a older White woman, who’s in her fifties. They were both assumed by lawyers and reporters, Ian (@.RunkleOfTheBailey), Larry @.DUI Guy), Rob (@.Law&Lumber), and James, (@JamesFromCourt) to be Pro-Johnny.
The remaining jury are these 7 individuals in total below.
1. Juror #1/A, a Asian male, assumed to be in his mid 20s to early 30s.
2. Juror #3/C, a Asian male, assumed to be in his mid 30s.
3. Juror #4/D, a Black woman, assumed to be in her mid 40s to early 50s.
4. Juror #5/E, a Asian woman, assumed to be in her early 30s.
5. Juror #6/F, a White man, assumed to be in his mid 60s.
6. Juror #7/G, a White man, assumed to be in his late 20s to early 30s.
7. Juror #9/I, a Asian man, assumed to be in his 40s. Interesting enough, this juror is assumed to be very Anti-Amber, to point of out right give her a scrawl when she was on the stand.
5 men, 2 women.
All of these 7 jurors must come to an unanimous decision to reach a verdict in this case.
I just wanted to bring out that whatever negative speculation we have about AH’s lawyers: that they are the worst attorneys, that they must have this hate towards JD and his lawyers. We should remember that they are for the most part just doing their jobs. Yes they come off like they have a disdain towards the opposing side but they are trying to argue for their client. And a lot of lawyers have had times where they’ve done a bad job or took on a bad client or is just fighting a case where the evidence is not on their side. I’ve legit heard a lawyer who represented someone who is clearly guilty of murder, say on closing that “Just ignore the evidence; my client couldn’t have killed this person because he came from a good family”.
Yes to of this 100%. It’s actually being reported that after closing, Chew & Bredehoft was seen shaking hands and being very friendly with each other. As well as the same with Rottenborn.
It must be said, time and time again. While Elaine is terrible, and I do mean, terrible at trial, I have no doubt she’s worth every bit of that $600/h she’s getting paid. The realest MVP is Ben Rottenborn for them, and while the arguments are shit, he’s a damn good attorney. Honestly, if he was on Johnny’s team, we’ve would be saying he’s the best damn attorney in the world. Not only that, he’s getting paid peanuts compared to everyone else in this case. Literally, everyone else. He’s getting paid $325/h. He’s definitely worth more, at least $800/h honestly.
So again, don’t ever say that anyone on Amber’s team are bad “lawyers”. They are not, they are just working with bad “facts”.
And I still stand by my assertions that Rottenborn doesn’t like Amber one bit.
It’s not just that they are working with bad facts, they are working with a bad client who refuses to do her job.
Fuckin’ yes. A lot of decisions in this case was clearly made by Amber, and Amber alone. Like keeping the counterclaim.
I just wanted to bring out that whatever negative speculation we have about AH’s lawyers: that they are the worst attorneys, that they must have this hate towards JD and his lawyers. We should remember that they are for the most part just doing their jobs. Yes they come off like they have a disdain towards the opposing side but they are trying to argue for their client. And a lot of lawyers have had times where they’ve done a bad job or took on a bad client or is just fighting a case where the evidence is not on their side. I’ve legit heard a lawyer who represented someone who is clearly guilty of murder, say on closing that “Just ignore the evidence; my client couldn’t have killed this person because he came from a good family”.
Yes to of this 100%. It’s actually being reported that after closing, Chew & Bredehoft was seen shaking hands and being very friendly with each other. As well as the same with Rottenborn.
It must be said, time and time again. While Elaine is terrible, and I do mean, terrible at trial, I have no doubt she’s worth every bit of that $600/h she’s getting paid. The realest MVP is Ben Rottenborn for them, and while the arguments are shit, he’s a damn good attorney. Honestly, if he was on Johnny’s team, we’ve would be saying he’s the best damn attorney in the world. Not only that, he’s getting paid peanuts compared to everyone else in this case. Literally, everyone else. He’s getting paid $325/h. He’s definitely worth more, at least $800/h honestly.
So again, don’t ever say that anyone on Amber’s team are bad “lawyers”. They are not, they are just working with bad “facts”.
And I still stand by my assertions that Rottenborn doesn’t like Amber one bit.
