Predator and Prey: Assault, harassment, and other aggressions in the entertainment industry

[BlackberryJam]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Johnny has been on a downward spiral for years now that has nothing to do with Amber.  She did not help.  That was one toxic AF relationship.  But, I don't know how he's going to prove she cost him work and not his drinking.

Oh yeah...that relationship is what nightmares of made of.

My real concern with the suit is powerful people suing less powerful people when the less powerful accuse the more powerful of abuse. It's could set some terrible precedent. It's lawsuits like this that struck fear into the heart of the Weinstein victims.

If they find Amber liable for defamation, which I think is a steep climb, I don't know how Johnny manages to prove damages. 

[Columbo]

https://www.avclub.com/frank-langella-fired-netflix-fall-of-house-of-usher-har-1848791430

[aradia22]

Quote

The live feed of the Depp/Heard trial is less like a CNN feed and more like the VMAs or a Twitch stream. That’s because, for a reason I can’t quite determine, a variety of Gen Z internet users have taken an active, if not aggressive, interest in the case, joining hands across the world to support Depp, who they see as a pious, gentle victim, against Heard, who they see as a vindictive, lying manipulator. 

[...] Johnny Depp was People’s Sexiest Man Alive twice: in 2003 and in 2009, bookending the years of my adolescence. In the years since his height of fame in the mid-aughts, he’s starred in movies like Alice in Wonderland (bad), Public Enemies (good), The Tourist (idk), Mortdecai (remember this?), Black Mass (you DEFINITELY don’t remember this), and two out of three of the Fantastic Beasts movies, both of which saw Marvel-like numbers in the box office and are arguably the only massively successful projects of his later career. For an audience born between the late ‘90s and early 2000s, their primary hook for Depp would otherwise be, what, Pirates 4? Dark Shadows?

It is difficult to determine what the Depp stan army sees in their idol. On the one hand, he’s a soft-spoken, Euro-aspiring actor who they can pin their childhood nostalgia to: the ubiquity of the Pirates films and reemergence of Tim Burton-style aesthetics are rampant on TikTok. (Remember, this is the platform where everyone got obsessed with sea shanties for all of twelve minutes.) On the other hand, well documented stories about his excessive drinking and uncharming texts with Paul Bettany go unmentioned. What this reminds me, perhaps, most of all, is the “woobification” of a dark, brooding male figure often seen on LiveJournal and Tumblr. We went through this with Severus Snape and Loki and the BBC Sherlock. That this would eventually cross over into a real-life scenario – especially regarding someone often seen in properties that have their own fandoms – is unsurprising. This, in tandem with the platform’s ability to make everything a true crime investigation, has allowed TikTok, more than Twitter, more than the courthouse in Virginia, to be a place of mounting evidence, of argument, of long-winded pleas for justice and righteousness.

Perusing the #justiceforjohnnydepp tag doesn’t suggest that this is a movement driven by an overwhelming contrarian take on the nature of domestic violence. These are not people who clamor against social justice warriors. These are people who are inclined to believe abuse allegations and who use terms like “gaslighting.” Yet the Depp/Heard case is an outlier of the #MeToo era, in that its coverage has not easily led to the exiling of one specific (male) party. It is difficult to scroll through the mountains of evidence on either side of their tumultuous divorce and find a worthy victor, or a perfect victim. But on the internet, that has never stopped anyone from trying.

https://www.gawker.com/culture/what-does-gen-z-see-in-johnny-depp

[Vermicious Knid]

‘GOT’ Actor Joseph Gatt Arrested For Alleged Explicit Sexual Communication With A Minor

Quote

Police allege that at 4:45 a.m. on April 6 detectives served a residential search warrant at Gatt’s Fairfax-area home, saying they did so “after they received information that Gatt had been engaged in online sexually explicit communication with a minor across state lines.” The actor “was subsequently arrested by detectives for an outstanding felony warrant for…Contact with a Minor for Sexual Offense.”

Molly Shannon Says Gary Coleman Sexually Harassed Her: ‘He Was Relentless’
 

Quote

 

Molly Shannon said on a recent episode of “The Howard Stern Show” (via People) that she was sexually harassed by comedian and “Diff’rent Strokes” star Gary Coleman. The “Saturday Night Live” veteran also detailed the alleged incident in her new memoir, “Hello, Molly!” Shannon said she had just signed with Coleman’s manager at the time and got the chance to meet him at his penthouse hotel room.

“I think he was like, ‘Sit down [on the bed].’ It was very sweet,” Shannon said. “And then he’s, like, tickling me a little. This and that.”...

“He was relentless,” Shannon said. “Then, he was like trying to kiss me and get on top and I was like, ‘No, Gary. Stop.’ So, I push him off. Then, I would get off the bed. Then, he would bounce on the bed. Jump, jump, jump. And wrap himself around me. Then, I would fling him off. And then he got on top of me. I guess because of his size I didn’t feel physically threatened. But … it was going on and on. Repeating. I would throw him off, he would get back on. And then finally, I throw him off. I was really getting out of breath because it was athletic and aerobic.”

“He grabs me onto my leg and I was like [trying to] kick him off,” Shannon continued. “And then, I go lock myself in the bathroom and then he sticks his hands under the door. And he’s like, ‘I can see you.'”

 

 

[Blergh]

18 minutes ago, Vermicious Knid said:

‘GOT’ Actor Joseph Gatt Arrested For Alleged Explicit Sexual Communication With A Minor

Molly Shannon Says Gary Coleman Sexually Harassed Her: ‘He Was Relentless’
 

 

What a creepy experience for Miss Shannon but what makes it even more weird in retrospect is that for a time, the late Mr. Coleman actually claimed he was still a virgin long after his legal adulthood- even going so far as having banter about it  with the host Anne Robinson when he participated in The Weakest Link (2002). Could he have been claiming that to recruit and/or get women to let their guards  down thinking he was 'harmless'?

[BlackberryJam]

11 hours ago, Columbo said:

https://www.avclub.com/frank-langella-fired-netflix-fall-of-house-of-usher-har-1848791430

Dammit Frank. He was one of the old guys that I actually thought was attractive. 

9 hours ago, aradia22 said:

https://www.gawker.com/culture/what-does-gen-z-see-in-johnny-depp

I looked at some of those live feed comments, and wow are there some stupid people in this world. It's like they missed basic civics and think a trial is a popularity contest. They also seem to think this is a criminal trial against Amber and she can be sentenced to jail time. 

I'm pained. 

[Spartan Girl]

46 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I looked at some of those live feed comments, and wow are there some stupid people in this world.

“Some”?!

But in all seriousness, yup. I too am pained by it. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[bluegirl147]

1 hour ago, BlackberryJam said:

It's like they missed basic civics and think a trial is a popularity contest.

When you are dealing with celebrities on trial it very well could be.  How many times have we heard jurors speak to the press after a trial and say supremely stupid things?  It happens a lot.  

[Wiendish Fitch]

16 hours ago, Columbo said:

https://www.avclub.com/frank-langella-fired-netflix-fall-of-house-of-usher-har-1848791430

I'm going to go ahead and be an asshole and say I'm not the least bit surprised. I made the mistake of reading Frank Langella's memoir Dropped Names, and he sounds a like a grade-A creep. He honestly revels in his shallow, ageist, hypocritical, and downright gross and judgmental attitude towards other women. Whether it's rambling on and on at how old Susannah York looked (um, she was only a year younger than you, shithead), or allegedly having a fling with Rita Hayworth after mocking her in private (she was suffering from Alzheimer's), Langella is just disgusting. Can't believe it took him this long to get caught.

Oh, and I found him to be a very boring Dracula. Give me Bela Lugosi any day!

Edited April 14, 2022 by Wiendish Fitch
I got a minuscule detail wrong (doesn't change that Frank is awful)

[Guest]

13 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I looked at some of those live feed comments, and wow are there some stupid people in this world. It's like they missed basic civics and think a trial is a popularity contest. They also seem to think this is a criminal trial against Amber and she can be sentenced to jail time. 

I'm pained. 

What really drIves me crazy is that the same people who go on and on about innocent until proven guilty when victims come forward twist themselves into pretzels to dismiss when judges rule in favor of women. If this case ends up in Depp’s favor they won’t shut up about it being justice and if it doesn’t it will be a travesty just like the UK one was. It’s literally impossible to have a reasonable conversation when the goalposts are on wheels. 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Guest

[Columbo]

What's the opinion on Michael Jackson? Did he sexually abuse those kids or not? 

I feel he did everything you don't want to do if you don't want to be accused of being a pedophile.

 

Also, I never got how he never got a childhood excused his sketchy behaviour in public regarding kids.

[Ms Blue Jay]

This review convinced me.  Warning:  it's not for the faint of heart.  It's not for anyone.  But it did convince me.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/01/leaving-neverland-review-michael-jackson-hbo-sundance-1202038317/

[bluegirl147]

8 hours ago, Columbo said:

What's the opinion on Michael Jackson? Did he sexually abuse those kids or not? 

I feel he did everything you don't want to do if you don't want to be accused of being a pedophile.

 

Also, I never got how he never got a childhood excused his sketchy behaviour in public regarding kids.

I always believed it. From the first accusation.   But the second accusation, the one that went to court, definitely confirmed it for me.

7 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

This review convinced me.  Warning:  it's not for the faint of heart.  It's not for anyone.  But it did convince me.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/01/leaving-neverland-review-michael-jackson-hbo-sundance-1202038317/

Yep.  This just made me realize how he continued to get away with it. So many people turned a blind eye. Even after there were public accusations. 

I don't understand how anyone that watches that documentary can continue to defend Jackson. 

[Bookworm 1979]

9 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

This review convinced me.  Warning:  it's not for the faint of heart.  It's not for anyone.  But it did convince me.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/01/leaving-neverland-review-michael-jackson-hbo-sundance-1202038317/

I read the first few paragraphs and I wish I hadn't.  How horrible for those children.

[Irlandesa]

Finding Neverland was such an eye opening documentary for me.  I believed the accusations before I saw the documentary but what I found really illuminating was how specific it got about grooming.  It also talked about something I'd never heard before and that is how victims felt at the time--that they were convinced it was real love, that they got jealous, how they wanted to protect him...etc. 

There was an after-documentary special with Oprah and she talked about that too and how deep the feelings for the abuser go as a child.  For the men, it wasn't until they got older that the damage started coming out. 

[Rootbeer]

12 hours ago, Columbo said:

What's the opinion on Michael Jackson? Did he sexually abuse those kids or not? 

I feel he did everything you don't want to do if you don't want to be accused of being a pedophile.

 

Also, I never got how he never got a childhood excused his sketchy behaviour in public regarding kids.

Finding Neverland confirmed what a lot of us already thought to be true: that Michael Jackson was a pedophile who used his fame and money to keep committing crimes against children.

From the time he reached adulthood, he was claiming that he missed out on his childhood which was why he liked to be around kids.  He claimed that for more than 30 years.  Nobody gets 30 years of childhood, not even Michael Jackson.

His insistence that it was a loving act to sleep in the same bed as a young boy was also pretty telling.  I always thought the boys were telling the truth and that MJ's statements on the issue were BS.

If you haven't seen Finding Neverland, it is an outstanding documentary, well worth your time.  There is some very graphic imagery in it and it will make you cry for how the adults in their lives completely failed these kids just to get access to Michael Jackson and his money.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Rootbeer

[Zella]

I'd been meaning to watch Finding Neverland when it was released--I read interviews with the boys featured and found them very credible and was absolutely appalled at their parents' decisions--but I've been shying away from it. It came out right after I'd watched Surviving R. Kelly, and I just couldn't handle another disturbing documentary series about sexual abuse so close to that. Based on the discussion here, I really do need to make time to see it. 

[BlackberryJam]

5 minutes ago, Zella said:

I'd been meaning to watch Finding Neverland when it was released--I read interviews with the boys featured and found them very credible and was absolutely appalled at their parents' decisions--but I've been shying away from it. It came out right after I'd watched Surviving R. Kelly, and I just couldn't handle another disturbing documentary series about sexual abuse so close to that. Based on the discussion here, I really do need to make time to see it. 

Based on the discussion here, and what I had heard and believed beforehand, I’m certain I don’t want to see it. I don’t need convinced. I already feel a little sick whenever I hear a Michael Jackson song, and I feel especially sick when his music is used for a figure skating/gymnastics routine, in a soundtrack, etc. I am especially disgusted by the Jackson family’s attempt to shut these boys down to save the cash cow.

[SusanM]

I read something recently, maybe an article linked here, not sure, anyway it was someone pretty well known.  He very casually mentioned Michael Jackson staying with them at some point when these accusations were coming out, possibly the lawsuit -- this person made it seem like it was no big deal, they might have been referencing Jackson going to court for a jaywalking ticket.  Very offhand.  Jackson managed to fool a lot of people who should have known better or else a  lot of people knew damn well what he was doing and simply did not care.  

[bluegirl147]

36 minutes ago, SusanM said:

Jackson managed to fool a lot of people who should have known better or else a  lot of people knew damn well what he was doing and simply did not care.  

The sexual molestation is horrifying enough but you don't do that for as many years as MJ did without people facilitating that.  I mean he continued to do it after the first accusation way back in 1993.  I'm inclined to believe he continued even after the court case.  How anyone could ignore what was at the very least inappropriate behavior sickens me.  I remember in interviews he would defend having young boys sleep in bed with him and I always thought why isn't the interviewer saying you sick fuck there is nothing loving about that. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

6 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

The sexual molestation is horrifying enough but you don't do that for as many years as MJ did without people facilitating that.  I mean he continued to do it after the first accusation way back in 1993.  I'm inclined to believe he continued even after the court case.  How anyone could ignore what was at the very least inappropriate behavior sickens me.  I remember in interviews he would defend having young boys sleep in bed with him and I always thought why isn't the interviewer saying you sick fuck there is nothing loving about that. 

I feel like his fandom is very powerful and they have been controlling the narrative for years.  I am grateful for the documentary.

I am also not excited to see it but I am grateful for people who recap and review it.  I can't even bear reading that but at least now I know.

[Columbo]

I wonder if the fandom is so zealous in defending him because they're afraid that if they accept the truth they'll have trouble listening to his music again? Because Michael Jackson is the ultimate seperate the art from the artist kind of conundrum.

[FilmTVGeek80]

On 4/14/2022 at 11:24 PM, Dani said:

What really drIves me crazy is that the same people who go on and on about innocent until proven guilty when victims come forward twist themselves into pretzels to dismiss when judges rule in favor of women. If this case ends up in Depp’s favor they won’t shut up about it being justice and if it doesn’t it will be a travesty just like the UK one was. It’s literally impossible to have a reasonable conversation when the goalposts are on wheels. 

It's basically the same on the other side of it. People talk all the time about believing women, with little to no evidence. And, crowing when an investigation happens and/or someone goes to trial. But the second an investigation doesn't result in charges or someone's found not guilty, those same people just cry about powerful people getting away with things and believe the person is guilty anyway. I don't know why it would be silly for the people who believe in Depp's innocence to not see a win as vindication. 

 

On 4/13/2022 at 6:37 PM, BlackberryJam said:

My real concern with the suit is powerful people suing less powerful people when the less powerful accuse the more powerful of abuse. It's could set some terrible precedent. It's lawsuits like this that struck fear into the heart of the Weinstein victims.

Why shouldn't the more powerful sue less powerful people if they can prove their case? Less powerful people shouldn't be able to get away with defamation just because they're less powerful. Amber Heard is not some innocent waif with no resources. She may be less powerful with less money, but she has more money than the average person.

[FilmTVGeek80]

On 4/13/2022 at 4:42 PM, BlackberryJam said:

I've seen "Justice4Johnny" stuff, but I think that's just a misunderstanding of the legal issues. Johnny isn't charged with anything criminal. He's suing Amber for an OpEd she wrote that doesn't even use his name, saying she cost him work based solely basis of that OpEd and she should pay him 50 million for it.

I think it's near impossible for him to prove that the OpEd alone, and not the mutual court filings, his behavior, his aging, his multiple lawsuits against other, etc, are what cost him roles. 

Also, the UK court has already found that under a civil standard, it's appropriate to name him a wifebeater based on 12 acts of violence against her. 

Primarily the JusticeForJohnny, isn't necessarily about misunderstanding legal issues. It isn't just about this specific case. It's believing that Amber was the abuser in their relationship and that it's not right that his career has gone downhill and he's blacklisted, while she isn't.

The UK case has no bearing on this one. Because he wasn't suing Amber specifically there was evidence that wasn't considered in that case. It's why, try as she might, Amber couldn't get the case thrown out here. 

[BlackberryJam]

30 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

Why shouldn't the more powerful sue less powerful people if they can prove their case? Less powerful people shouldn't be able to get away with defamation just because they're less powerful. Amber Heard is not some innocent waif with no resources. She may be less powerful with less money, but she has more money than the average person.

Because the less powerful don’t have the money to defend the lawsuit. It’s taken years and probably seven figures in legal fees on both sides. The less powerful, mostly poor people, are more likely to be abused and forced into keeping quiet about that abuse for fear of these types of suits. Again, it’s why the Weinstein victims kept silent for so long. I am not okay with that. I am not okay with the poor, the weak, the less privileged having to live in fear of lawsuits when they reveal abuse by the powerful. 

Amber isn’t innocent, but “crazy chicks” are much more likely to be abused because they are viewed as less credible. People with their own mental health issues are often easy prey.

It was a toxic relationship, but Johnny Depp is no innocent deserving of “justice.” He’s creep and a cretin, who with a combination of alcohol, drugs, unattractive aging, bad judgement and ill-advised business decisions has destroyed his own career. 

The UK court was a suit against the Sun, not against Amber. The different parties are the reason the US court did not dismiss, not because there was anything wrong with the UK decision, which found it perfectly valid to refer to Johnny as a Wifebeater. 

[Columbo]

I can't recall if it was an article, blog post, or in a forum, but I remember someone suggesting that Depp got too involved in portraying Hunter S Thompson in the movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. That he started emulating the drinking and drug habits of the journalist and that may have lead Depp down a path of addiction and troubled relationships.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

It's basically the same on the other side of it. People talk all the time about believing women, with little to no evidence. And, crowing when an investigation happens and/or someone goes to trial. But the second an investigation doesn't result in charges or someone's found not guilty, those same people just cry about powerful people getting away with things and believe the person is guilty anyway. 

What your describing on the other side is very different than what I was referencing. People who choose to always believe women are generally very hardline and unapologetic in that stance. I was talking about people who want to appear reasonable and not misogynistic but there is always some reason not to believe every woman. People like the Cosby supporters who celebrated him getting out of jail all the while saying that they support victims. People who use legitimate issues to appear reasonable but when you really pay attention there is also some reason to delegitimize every accuser. 

Also, it is just reality that sexual crimes are notoriously difficult to prove in court. The deck is stacked against victims for a lot of reasons. So, yeah, a legal ruling in favor of the victim is going to have more weight. That’s not bias. It’s just an acknowledgment of how the court system works. Just like if a close family member of a defendant testifies on their behalf it has very little weight because it’s expected. If they testify against them it is unexpected and therefore carries more weight. 

6 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

I don't know why it would be silly for the people who believe in Depp's innocence to not see a win as vindication. 

Personally, I think it’s silly because when you look at the details there are no winners. Depp lost his career because he is a trainwreck and even Hollywood has a limit for how much they will sweep under the rug. It’s very easy to name multiple examples which prove that physically assaulting women is not enough to ruin a career in the entertainment business. Blaming Amber Heard for destroying Depp’s career ignores a lot of other factors for which he is solely responsible. If the UK court had sided for him his career probably would have still been over. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Guest

[Hiyo]

Quote

I was talking about people who want to appear reasonable and not misogynistic but there is always some reason not believe every woman. People like the Cosby supporters who celebrated him getting out of jail all the while saying that they support victims. People who use legitimate issues to appear reasonable but when you really pay attention there is also some reason to delegitimize every accuser. 

People change when someone they like is being accused (not just referring to Cosby fans).

[Zella]

26 minutes ago, Columbo said:

I can't recall if it was an article, blog post, or in a forum, but I remember someone suggesting that Depp got too involved in portraying Hunter S Thompson in the movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. That he started emulating the drinking and drug habits of the journalist and that may have lead Depp down a path of addiction and troubled relationships.

Depp's been drinking and using drugs since he was in his early teens, long before he even thought about playing Thompson. Though he is a piece of shit (I regret being a big fan back in the day), he's always been very open about his long history of addiction and how early it started. So, I seriously doubt that role was the straw that broke the camel's back for him.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Zella

[Columbo]

59 minutes ago, Zella said:

Depp's been drinking and using drugs since he was in his early teens, long before he even thought about playing Thompson. Though he is a piece of shit (I regret being a big fan back in the day), he's always been very open about his long history of addiction and how early it started. So, I seriously doubt that role was the straw that broke the camel's back for him.

But it could have exacerbated his drinking and drug use?

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Columbo said:

But it could have exacerbated his drinking and drug use?

It’s probably more likely that his addiction issues caused him to dive too deeply into the role. When he made the movie he has already been drinking and doing drugs for over 20 years and he had already had a reputation for being out of control. 

[merylinkid]

Here is where I come down on the Depp/Heard mess.   Johnny is the one missing part of a finger that Amber chopped off.   Amber is ON TAPE admitting she hit him.  There are pictures of Amber after the alleged phone incident with not a mark on her.   Then the police report done the NEXT DAY shows bruises and cuts.   

These aren't fan opinions.   These are facts.   One has permanent injuries, the other no injuries.   I come down on the injured person.   Cutting someone's finger off is NOT self-defense.   If he had scratches and she had none, I would say "okay she scratched him while defending herself."   When she admits hitting him, she doesn't claim self-defense.   She SAYS yep because I know no one will believe you.   

Were these two a toxic mess with each other?   Damn straight.   Are they better off away from each other?   Double damn straight.

Also if Johnny Depp is such a horrible human being and so abusive, why is Amber Heard the only one he allegedly abused?    Wynona Ryder, never said a word.   His long time girlfriend Vannesa Paradis, who is married now and doing just fine, not a peep about ANY abuse all their years together.   

 

[bluegirl147]

11 hours ago, Columbo said:

I wonder if the fandom is so zealous in defending him because they're afraid that if they accept the truth they'll have trouble listening to his music again? Because Michael Jackson is the ultimate seperate the art from the artist kind of conundrum.

I stopped listening to his music for years.  I only recently have let some of his songs play when they pop up on Pandora. But honestly I feel guilty when I do.  

The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard thing I never really paid that much attention to. I know things that happened but this one of the few things I don't really have an opinion on.  All I can say is they both seem like they had/have issues and those issues were exacerbated when they were together. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Also if Johnny Depp is such a horrible human being and so abusive, why is Amber Heard the only one he allegedly abused?    Wynona Ryder, never said a word.   His long time girlfriend Vannesa Paradis, who is married now and doing just fine, not a peep about ANY abuse all their years together.   

There are so many possible reasons. We can’t make assumption based on how other people were treated or say they were treated. A lot of behavior can be considered abusive. Two people in the exact same situation can have completely different opinions on if it was abuse. People who do feel they were abused will never come forward for a lot of reasons.

Also, a huge factor here is Depp’s substance abuse issues. Their therapist who recently testified called them mutually abusive and that is probably accurate. What I don’t understand the need to view it as an either/or situation. What I really dislike is the times I see him painted as some passive, innocent party which seems really unlikely based on what we know about him. There was a evidence of abuse going both ways. 

[BlackberryJam]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Also if Johnny Depp is such a horrible human being and so abusive, why is Amber Heard the only one he allegedly abused?    Wynona Ryder, never said a word.   His long time girlfriend Vannesa Paradis, who is married now and doing just fine, not a peep about ANY abuse all their years together.   

 

Quoting someone from this thread, I believe: Ted Bundy didn't kill every woman he met either. The "he never did it to me" argument doesn't hold up and it's inappropriate to make. I bet "he always seemed like such a nice guy" too.

The UK court found that Depp assaulted Heard 12 times and put her in fear for her life 3 times. The Court heard and saw the evidence and made that ruling. What was not at issue, and is still not at issue in any trial, is whether or not Heard was also abusive to Depp. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by BlackberryJam

[Columbo]

4 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

I stopped listening to his music for years.  I only recently have let some of his songs play when they pop up on Pandora. But honestly I feel guilty when I do.  

The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard thing I never really paid that much attention to. I know things that happened but this one of the few things I don't really have an opinion on.  All I can say is they both seem like they had/have issues and those issues were exacerbated when they were together. 

There was a time where I too would either avoid or feel guilty for listening and/or watching things that involved people who had done some questionable stuff. Then I thought I'm not going to let their choices affect how I feel or what I do. That's just giving them more power. More control. So now I watch what I feel like.

[FilmTVGeek80]

13 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

Because the less powerful don’t have the money to defend the lawsuit. It’s taken years and probably seven figures in legal fees on both sides. The less powerful, mostly poor people, are more likely to be abused and forced into keeping quiet about that abuse for fear of these types of suits. Again, it’s why the Weinstein victims kept silent for so long. I am not okay with that. I am not okay with the poor, the weak, the less privileged having to live in fear of lawsuits when they reveal abuse by the powerful. 

Amber isn’t innocent, but “crazy chicks” are much more likely to be abused because they are viewed as less credible. People with their own mental health issues are often easy prey.

It was a toxic relationship, but Johnny Depp is no innocent deserving of “justice.” He’s creep and a cretin, who with a combination of alcohol, drugs, unattractive aging, bad judgement and ill-advised business decisions has destroyed his own career. 

The UK court was a suit against the Sun, not against Amber. The different parties are the reason the US court did not dismiss, not because there was anything wrong with the UK decision, which found it perfectly valid to refer to Johnny as a Wifebeater. 

I am not okay with people getting away with lying just because they may have less money than the person they accused. Are there powerful people who take advantage to hurt their victims? Sure. But, I'm not going to feel bad if someone truly deserving gets sued whether they don't have the money to defend it or not. They shouldn't have lied then.

I do believe he is deserving of justice nor do I believe he is a creep or a cretin. At best, I think it was a mutually abusive relationship. If he's going to suffer the consequences of it, I think she should as well.

I never said the US judge said the UK decision was wrong. But, you were acting as if the UK decision matters in this case, when it doesn't. Because Amber wasn't the defendant in that case there was evidence that wasn't used there that will be here. 

11 hours ago, Dani said:

What your describing on the other side is very different than what I was referencing. People who choose to always believe women are generally very hardline and unapologetic in that stance. I was talking about people who want to appear reasonable and not misogynistic but there is always some reason not to believe every woman. People like the Cosby supporters who celebrated him getting out of jail all the while saying that they support victims. People who use legitimate issues to appear reasonable but when you really pay attention there is also some reason to delegitimize every accuser. 

It is not very different IMO. Like I said, there are some believe women types who talk about wanting justice and are very happy when an investigation happens because "the truth will come out." But when it doesn't go there way come up with every excuse in the book as to why, everything other than that maybe that person is innocent. That is just as unreasonable in my book. 

 

11 hours ago, Dani said:

Personally, I think it’s silly because when you look at the details there are no winners. Depp lost his career because he is a trainwreck and even Hollywood has a limit for how much they will sweep under the rug. It’s very easy to name multiple examples which prove that physically assaulting women is not enough to ruin a career in the entertainment business. Blaming Amber Heard for destroying Depp’s career ignores a lot of other factors for which he is solely responsible. If the UK court had sided for him his career probably would have still been over.

I think it's silly to pretend Amber's accusations played no part in his downfall. Sure, it's easy to name plenty of examples of people being accused of assault and it not hurting their career, but that was before Me Too where now merely being accused of something can completely ruin your reputation and career. Depp has been dealing with addiction issues for years and it didn't hurt his career. Yes, a lot of movies were failing box office wise but he was still getting work and still respected. Then Amber's allegations come along and now he's blacklisted. To pretend that she had no role, or even some minor role in that, is ridiculous to me. And, like I said, if he's going to be blacklisted for abuse than she needs to be as well. I don't want to see her being held up as some innocent victim, when she clearly is not. 

I believe Warner Bros. specifically waited for the outcome of the libel case in the UK. So, no, I don't believe his career would be over if it had been a different result. 

2 hours ago, Dani said:

There are so many possible reasons. We can’t make assumption based on how other people were treated or say they were treated. A lot of behavior can be considered abusive. Two people in the exact same situation can have completely different opinions on if it was abuse. People who do feel they were abused will never come forward for a lot of reasons.

Also, a huge factor here is Depp’s substance abuse issues. Their therapist who recently testified called them mutually abusive and that is probably accurate. What I don’t understand the need to view it as an either/or situation. What I really dislike is the times I see him painted as some passive, innocent party which seems really unlikely based on what we know about him. There was a evidence of abuse going both ways. 

OR it could be that they weren't abused. I believe that is what his former partners all said. They weren't abused. So, I do think it's a fair assumption to make that they weren't abused.

I believe their therapist also said that Amber was a trigger for him. And, everyone so far, who has testified - including the therapist - has talked about him being more passive and soft-spoken than she is. Did he have a sometimes explosive temper? Yes, but he was the one who tried to walk away from fights while she would get in his face and literally trap him somewhere and get physical. 

 

2 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

The UK court found that Depp assaulted Heard 12 times and put her in fear for her life 3 times. The Court heard and saw the evidence and made that ruling.

That was a public trial, I believe - just like this one is. The judge was not the only one who heard and saw the evidence. Just because a judge came down one way, doesn't make it face. A US court found OJ Simpson not guilty, but people still believe he's guilty as sin. 

[Hybridcookie]

 A user on ONTD compiled 'The Complete History of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard' detailing some of the allegations
https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/123158880.html

 

And other user has been reporting on the trial:
https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/123166290.html
https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/123179148.html

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Hybridcookie

[Ohiopirate02]

36 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

That was a public trial, I believe - just like this one is. The judge was not the only one who heard and saw the evidence. Just because a judge came down one way, doesn't make it face. A US court found OJ Simpson not guilty, but people still believe he's guilty as sin. 

People believe OJ is guilty as sin because he is.  He was found not guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in a criminal trial. Being found not guilty in a criminal trial does not mean you didn't do it, it means the state did not present enough evidence for the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  When Nicole's and Ron's families sued OJ in civil court, he was found to be liable for the murders.  

Everything going on with Johnny and Amber is happening in civil court. You cannot compare the criminal trial of OJ to what has happened in the UK and what is going on now in Virginia.  

[FilmTVGeek80]

5 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

People believe OJ is guilty as sin because he is.  He was found not guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in a criminal trial. Being found not guilty in a criminal trial does not mean you didn't do it, it means the state did not present enough evidence for the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  When Nicole's and Ron's families sued OJ in civil court, he was found to be liable for the murders.  

Everything going on with Johnny and Amber is happening in civil court. You cannot compare the criminal trial of OJ to what has happened in the UK and what is going on now in Virginia.  

I was using a high-profile example. The bottom line is, no court is infallible - civil or non. There are plenty of instances of people being found guilty and it turns out that wasn't the case and vice versa.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

I think it's silly to pretend Amber's accusations played no part in his downfall. Sure, it's easy to name plenty of examples of people being accused of assault and it not hurting their career, but that was before Me Too where now merely being accused of something can completely ruin your reputation and career. Depp has been dealing with addiction issues for years and it didn't hurt his career. Yes, a lot of movies were failing box office wise but he was still getting work and still respected. Then Amber's allegations come along and now he's blacklisted. To pretend that she had no role, or even some minor role in that, is ridiculous to me. And, like I said, if he's going to be blacklisted for abuse than she needs to be as well. I don't want to see her being held up as some innocent victim, when she clearly is not. 

I believe Warner Bros. specifically waited for the outcome of the libel case in the UK. So, no, I don't believe his career would be over if it had been a different result. 

I’m not pretended she didn’t play a part but it’s not accurate to say her accusations came along and her was blacklisted. Her op-Ed had very little career fallout for him. It was his decision to sue over a tabloid that imploded his career because it exposed how bad they both were. I think it’s ridiculous to blame Amber for the fallout of a legal battle he started against someone else. She didn’t make the judge decide it wasn’t a lie to say he was a wife-beater. That ruling was a direct result of his actions. 

1 hour ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

That was a public trial, I believe - just like this one is. The judge was not the only one who heard and saw the evidence. Just because a judge came down one way, doesn't make it face. A US court found OJ Simpson not guilty, but people still believe he's guilty as sin. 

In my opinion you can’t compare a decision by a jury to one by a judge. Judge are experts on the law and juries aren’t. Juries are chosen based each side trying to get the group they can manipulate the best. You also can’t compare civil to criminal. A judge sat through all the testimony and made a ruling I am inclined to believe he got it right particularly since there is evidence that she was abusive. 

1 hour ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

I believe their therapist also said that Amber was a trigger for him. And, everyone so far, who has testified - including the therapist - has talked about him being more passive and soft-spoken than she is. Did he have a sometimes explosive temper? Yes, but he was the one who tried to walk away from fights while she would get in his face and literally trap him somewhere and get physical. 

So? I really don’t understand what difference that makes. He was still abusive. Having an explosive temper isn’t an excuse for either of them particularly at their ages. 

1 hour ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

OR it could be that they weren't abused. I believe that is what his former partners all said. They weren't abused. So, I do think it's a fair assumption to make that they weren't abused.

I never said that it wasn’t although you originally said they hadn’t said anything which is what I was going off of. Either way whether they were abused doesn’t say anything about if he has been abusive to other people. It is a mistake to assume that a person can’t be abusive because another person wasn’t abused. Or that a person can’t be both the perpetrator and the victim. Johnny Depp is an addict with anger issue. He’s not going to be a healthy relationship. The disfunction will probably manifest itself differently depending on the specific relationship. 

I watched the video of them fighting and came to the conclusion they were both abusive. If I had to deal with either of them I would feel abused. They are both toxic so I can’t feel bad that his career as fallen apart because he hasn’t shown any self awareness and won’t let this thing go. 

[SusanM]

18 minutes ago, Dani said:

They are both toxic so I can’t feel bad that his career as fallen apart because he hasn’t shown any self awareness and won’t let this thing go. 

This is what it comes down to for me.  I know very little about Depp and even less about Heard but the bottom line is in the last few years he is the reason all this keeps hitting the news and getting hashed out again and again.  He would have been better off just moving on with his life but he just can't seem to do that.

[Jaded]

If you want to watch Johnny Depp testify live Court TV has a free livestream on their website where it's happening right now.

[BlackberryJam]

You can also watch via Youtube here.

I just watched 10 minutes of Johnny testifying and wow does he seem unprepared for the questioning. The answers are rambling, run off topic; his speech is slow without being deliberate; there are multiple weird pauses. I'm not saying he looks like he's on something, but more he's talking as if he hasn't slept in five days. 

I'd expect him to be more polished. I'd also expect her attorneys to be objecting ...a lot. It appears though that this is one of those trials where they are each going to throw everything at the wall and let the jury sort it out. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by BlackberryJam

[RealHousewife]

15 hours ago, Dani said:

What your describing on the other side is very different than what I was referencing. People who choose to always believe women are generally very hardline and unapologetic in that stance. I was talking about people who want to appear reasonable and not misogynistic but there is always some reason not to believe every woman. People like the Cosby supporters who celebrated him getting out of jail all the while saying that they support victims. People who use legitimate issues to appear reasonable but when you really pay attention there is also some reason to delegitimize every accuser. 

Also, it is just reality that sexual crimes are notoriously difficult to prove in court. The deck is stacked against victims for a lot of reasons. So, yeah, a legal ruling in favor of the victim is going to have more weight. That’s not bias. It’s just an acknowledgment of how the court system works. Just like if a close family member of a defendant testifies on their behalf it has very little weight because it’s expected. If they testify against them it is unexpected and therefore carries more weight. 

Sometimes I find all of this difficult to talk about because it's so sensitive. I generally am not a fan of extremes. The people who think victims must have proof annoy me because rapes and assaults do not generally occur in front of audiences. Especially if you wait, sometimes there's nothing. I said serial killers don't kill everyone they come into contact with, and I also say people don't generally like to commit crimes in front of witnesses either. It also makes sense to not want to relive trauma. 

But then I don't fit in with the people who dismiss the % of false allegations and get triggered by their mere mention. They're oftentimes the same people who RIGHTLY care about the % of covid deaths. If small % could be you or someone you care about, it damn sure matters. I've been a victim by someone people would never, ever expect. That whole strange man in a back alley? It was the total opposite of that for me. I've also known some bs artists in my life who could destroy someone's life over nothing. 

I don't understand the Cosby supporters at all. Never did. I'm sure some of them must mean while but just don't grasp how difficult it is to come forward when you've been raped, especially by a rich, powerful man. I try to explain, you know how scary a rapist is? Is that someone you really want to cross? You can't put anything past a rapist. They're the lowest of the low. Maybe some people don't get it unless they've been in those shoes, I don't know. 

I didn't closely follow the Johnny Depp stuff. 

With Michael Jackson, I LOVED him as a child. In my younger adult years I thought maybe he was set up due to $. I watched the documentary though, and while it was difficult to watch, I'm glad I did. As talented a man as he was, I haven't been a proud fan of his since. What's astonishing is the fact these parents would just leave their very young children with him, especially after the first case. Even if you think he was probably set up, why risk the safety of your children?!

I really hope with MeToo that less abuse happens and if it does, people are more comfortable coming forward and more quickly believed. I don't think things will ever be perfect though, but hopefully it will get better and better with time. 

[FilmTVGeek80]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

I’m not pretended she didn’t play a part but it’s not accurate to say her accusations came along and her was blacklisted. Her op-Ed had very little career fallout for him. It was his decision to sue over a tabloid that imploded his career because it exposed how bad they both were. I think it’s ridiculous to blame Amber for the fallout of a legal battle he started against someone else. She didn’t make the judge decide it wasn’t a lie to say he was a wife-beater. That ruling was a direct result of his actions. 

In my opinion you can’t compare a decision by a jury to one by a judge. Judge are experts on the law and juries aren’t. Juries are chosen based each side trying to get the group they can manipulate the best. You also can’t compare civil to criminal. A judge sat through all the testimony and made a ruling I am inclined to believe he got it right particularly since there is evidence that she was abusive. 

So? I really don’t understand what difference that makes. He was still abusive. Having an explosive temper isn’t an excuse for either of them particularly at their ages. 

I never said that it wasn’t although you originally said they hadn’t said anything which is what I was going off of. Either way whether they were abused doesn’t say anything about if he has been abusive to other people. It is a mistake to assume that a person can’t be abusive because another person wasn’t abused. Or that a person can’t be both the perpetrator and the victim. Johnny Depp is an addict with anger issue. He’s not going to be a healthy relationship. The disfunction will probably manifest itself differently depending on the specific relationship. 

I watched the video of them fighting and came to the conclusion they were both abusive. If I had to deal with either of them I would feel abused. They are both toxic so I can’t feel bad that his career as fallen apart because he hasn’t shown any self awareness and won’t let this thing go. 

The whole American legal system is based off of juries. So, yes, I would take my chances with a jury a hundred times over a judge. As if judges can't be biased just as much as juries. Look at what's going on with the Supreme Court, especially lately. Just because someone has studied the law and is an expert doesn't make their decisions infallible or make something a fact. Neither civil cases, or criminal cases, are without pros and cons, and without mistakes being made.

All of this started because of her accusations and trying to portray herself as an innocent victim. So, yes, I will - and do - lay a lot of this at her feet.

First off, I never said having an explosive temper was an excuse for abuse. You said that based off everything we know about him you couldn't imagine that he was just a passive person. My point was that just because we know he has an explosive temper -which is what I assume you meant by 'everything we know about him' - that doesn't mean he's not a passive person. And, I think there is a huge difference between being abusive and defending yourself against abuse towards yourself.

I don't believe I said anything about his previous partners. That was someone else you were replying to. 

47 minutes ago, RealHousewife said:

The people who think victims must have proof annoy me because rapes and assaults do not generally occur in front of audiences. Especially if you wait, sometimes there's nothing. I said serial killers don't kill everyone they come into contact with, and I also say people don't generally like to commit crimes in front of witnesses either. It also makes sense to not want to relive trauma. 

Why is that annoying? It's one of the reasons sexual assault is so hard to prove because it usually does just come down to a he said/she said thing. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some kind of proof, beyond just someone's word, before someone else gets their life destroyed.

Edited April 19, 2022 by FilmTVGeek80

[Irlandesa]

10 hours ago, merylinkid said:

These aren't fan opinions.   These are facts.   One has permanent injuries, the other no injuries.   I come down on the injured person.   Cutting someone's finger off is NOT self-defense.

Johnny has had part of his finger cut off.  That is a fact.  I am pretty sure it is not a fact that Amber did it--not when he texted his doctor that he did it to himself. 

A text, by the way, that we wouldn't know about if Johnny Depp hadn't kept bringing lawsuits with discovery. 

From what I remember after the accusations is that his PR team had largely gotten the narrative out there that Amber was either a full on liar, the abusive one or, at best, equally as awful.  I feel like he was kept on projects even after the accusations came out and once the divorce was finalized, it'd just go down as ugly incidents in an ugly divorce.  Sure, there might be people who never looked at him the same way again but he was enough of a bankable star that studios would likely still put money behind him.

But then he decided he needed to get sue happy.  And that's when his texts came out.  Texts where he talks about wishing her dead and hoping she was in the trunk of a car. Never underestimate the damage that his own words have done to him in comparison to what Amber said.

4 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

I believe Warner Bros. specifically waited for the outcome of the libel case in the UK. So, no, I don't believe his career would be over if it had been a different result. 

And this matters because, from what I understand, this case isn't just about the accusations of abuse in general but specifically Amber's op ed and whether or not that caused his career issues.  From what I understand, it's easier to win a defamation case in certain states which is why he's doing this in VA as opposed to CA.  In other words, he's district shopping (another benefit to being rich.)  If he felt this was truly an awful lie, he'd feel comfortable doing this in a CA court.  

And to get damages, he has to prove that it was specifically the Op Ed that caused his career stumble*.  But if it comes out that it's more likely related to the decisions made in the UK court case and what came out during that trial?  Then he should be awarded no damages. 

*I say stumble because I've seen a lot of people come back from these accusations after a brief pause. 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Irlandesa

[peachmangosteen]

4 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

... but that was before Me Too where now merely being accused of something can completely ruin your reputation and career.

Or it can not and you can win a Grammy a mere 5 years later.

32 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

*I say stumble because I've seen a lot of people come back from these accusations after a brief pause. 

Exactly.

[Kel Varnsen]

10 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

Quoting someone from this thread, I believe: Ted Bundy didn't kill every woman he met either. The "he never did it to me" argument doesn't hold up and it's inappropriate to make. I bet "he always seemed like such a nice guy" too.

But a person's past also makes a difference I think. The number of crimes committed by repeat offenders vs first time offenders is crazy. If someone is a suspect in a crime the cops are absolutely going to look at their past crimes and past behavior. So sure Ted Bundy didn't kill every person he met, but at the same time if Ted Bundy's neighbors died suspiciously, he would be a more likely suspect than another neighbor who doesn't have a history of violence. 

Even in public opinion I think someone's past matters. If another Cosby accuser came forward, the fact that he had been accused by 50+ other people would add credibility to their story.

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Kel Varnsen

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Even in public opinion I think someone's past matters. If another Cosby accuser came forward, the fact that he had been accused by 50+ other people would add credibility to their story.

True but that also supports why you can’t draw any real conclusion by a lack of other people speaking out. The sheer mountain of evidence required for anyone to actually be “cancelled” is astounding. While someone like Anthony Anderson who has three accusations against him with zero negative effects. Even with #MeToo Hollywood still has a culture of silence and a culture that works against women as a whole.