Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won’t be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant
Johnny Depp. I didn’t start as a fan of his, his work never saved my life, his generosity never helped me. Fourteen months ago, I could watch a film of his on TV and not tell it was him.
Let me start with why I don’t defend him.
- I don’t defend him because he’s pretty.
- I don’t defend him because he played Jack Sparrow.
- I don’t defend him because of his sex appeal.
- I don’t defend him because he’s rich, or white or male.
I defend him because those who attack him lie, either blatantly or by omission.
- The reason I defend Johnny Depp is media. It may sound weird, but that’s the truth. And if you have to lie or hide part of the facts to support your opinion something is wrong with your opinion.
- The reason I defend Johnny Depp is because I see his case separately from the plague that domestic abuse is.
If you have ever read one article about how «Amber did everything a victim is supposed to do & we still didn’t believe her«, you’ve read all of them.
They start with the «everything a victim is supposed to do» a.k.a. she called the police, she catalogued her «abuse», she asked for a TRO (and we still didn’t believe her) and gave away the money thus she was not a gold digger. They will mention the «Neither party made accusations for financial gain» to further point out how bad I am for not believing her.
VOX, HuffingtonPost, Variety, Vogue, SlashFilm, Eonline and many more came up with articles of opinions from the good people who did believe her claims and are so proud of themselves that are not part of the «bad society» who didn’t believe her. They make all sort of assumptions of why we didn’t believe her.
And you know what? I won’t lie. They have a point. I doubt most of the people who didn’t believe her spent their time reading court docs, following every aspect of the case to form an opinion on the matter. They just didn’t believe her. And that’s bad.
That’s not why I (and all the people I personally met) don’t believe her.
Do you know what else is bad? Just because «society» doesn’t believe victims of abuse for x reasons, doesn’t mean we don’t get to question those who claim abuse, their motives, their evidence, or their honesty.
The reason I don’t believe Amber Heard was abused by Johnny Depp is her lack in the latter; her evidence was questionable and she flat out lied.
I don’t tend to believe someone who blatantly lies because someone else hasn’t lied.
I won’t believe Amber Heard was abused because other women have been abused. I don’t really understand how that helps us move forward as society.
Is Johnny Depp’s life and reputation forfeit on behalf of all abuse victims who weren’t believed despite the fact they were abused? What about THEIR abusers? Why does Johnny Depp have to pay for that?
In the articles of how «Amber Heard did everything a victim is supposed to do»,
I read: «Amber Heard called the Police»
I don’t read: «The police saw no evidence of a crime & the police officers were in Johnny Depp’s witness list, alongside their audio tapes of the call.»
Either Amber Heard or the police officers (and the concierges, neighbours, stuff) lie. And say, I give you that, the police officers were corrupted and lied to protect Mr. Depp, even though they didn’t know it was his residence. How about Ms. Heard’s actions? They say she called the police, but she didn’t want to let them check the area, and when they did there was no sign of abuse. What exactly did she succeed by calling the police other than saying «she called the police»?
I read: «Amber Heard had photos, video that proved the abuse.»
I don’t read: «Amber Heard’s photos & videos were never examined by any expert who could prove their authenticity.»
I have said it before, I will say it again, evidence not examined by court experts are not evidence. Bruises not examined by doctors and bruises that tend to change places and/or suddenly disappear or some people see them some people don’t see them need to be questioned. I don’t say they weren’t real. I say they are questionable, at the very least.
I read: «Amber Heard had text messages with Depp’s assistant that were verified by an expert even thought his assistant denied it.»
I don’t read: » The expert authenticated the backups (screenshots) of the texts, not the authenticity of the messages. Stephen Deuters denied he’s ever witnessed Mr. Depp being abusive towards Ms. Heard and was willing to testify in court that the texts were doctored. Ms. Heard had neither the backups, nor the texts, nor Mr. Deuters in her exhibit/witness list. Mr. Depp’s attorney claimed Ms. Heard was uncooperative in providing her evidence to his side«.
I read: «She had witnesses to support her claims.»
I don’t read: «The witnesses lived next door to Depp/Heard residence but never witnessed him being abusive towards her. They witnessed the aftermath of the abuse. Their affidavits are either contradictory or one seem copy/paste of the other. Johnny Depp had witnesses too. Witnesses that saw her being violent towards him and witnesses who saw her without any bruises the days after the alleged incident.»
I read: «Amber Heard & Johnny Depp settled the case and she donated the money to charities«.
I don’t read: «Amber Heard dropped her PRO request, a day before its hearing, and then she and Mr. Depp settled their divorce. She promised to donate the money to charities«.
I don’t read: «Amber Heard asked for divorce without mentioning any abuse while she sent a blackmail letter to Mr. Depp a couple of days after his Mother passed away.»
In this letter she/her lawyer describes the abuse & claims she wants to keep the divorce private and amicable as long as he pays her up. When opinion articles declare she didn’t do it for money (she promised to donate, after all, and ah… joint statement» they think we have the -metaphorically speaking- memory of a goldfish (A/N: yes, I know it’s a myth, but I like the simile) and we forget the «extortion letter«. She asked for money/car/penthouses and he to keep paying for them to keep the abuse private. Or she would ask for a DVRO. Do you know what’s missing from that letter? Her wish for him to stay away from her. Sure, he was in Europe touring with his band at the time, but if he had paid her up she wouldn’t have asked for a DVRO so I guess she thought he’d stay in Europe and never return to USA? I mean, someone, in those opinion articles, who believes he abused her, explain to me: where exactly would the fear for her life have gone if he had paid her? It’s not as if she did it to blackmail him! No! She was in fear. A fear that would go away if he paid her. But…. she didn’t do it for money.
I’m dizzy. It makes no sense. Not to me at least.
If you see anywhere in this letter her lawyer asking Depp to stay away from her because she’s afraid, please point me there. On the contrary, she asks «with Johnny to continue to make all payments for any encumbrances thereon” for the range rover and “with Johnny to continue to pay mortgage, utilities etc., associated therewith” for the penthouses; so, in other words, she demands to keep having a financial relationship with him. Or she will ask for a DVRO. Because she’s afraid of Johnny, and make no mistake.
But hey! “Amber is afraid of Johnny” so there’s that.
I don’t read: «Amber Heard hasn’t donated money yet.»
I don’t read: «Amber Heard didn’t want the police involved.»
I don’t read: «Amber Heard didn’t know why people saw her with no bruises.»
I don’t read: «Amber Heard tried to avoid her deposition many times, through lying and deception and temper tantrums. Amber Heard dropped her PRO request before she realised she had to be deposed either way.»
I don’t read: «Amber Heard dropped her PRO request after she ran a smear campaign in tabloids.»
She sold photos to People magazine (that were not part of her evidence list), her friend iO Tillet Wright wrote an essay for refinery29 in which he contradicted her (why did he call the police? Because «she never would?» or because «she yelled to him to call the police?»), leaked/sold the unverified texts between herself and supposedly Mr. Depp’s assistant, Stephen Deuters (not on her evidence list either), sold (according to TMZ’s Harvey Levin) a video to TMZ , leaked the mirror photo/finger injury story (after she signed to drop the PRO) that made no sense other than ridiculing Mr. Depp. And then she went on becoming the face «against domestic violence» who urged her «silent sisters» to talk about their abuse, in the meantime promoting no other than herself.
And while she refused to be deposed again and again, postponing the PRO hearing, she realised she was too tired by all of it. So, she dropped it. Just a day before she had to prove the abuse. Convenient .
Because let’s not forget the extortion letter where her lawyer claims:
“she strongly insists we do everything possible to keep this personal matter out of the media spotlight”
I’m sorry, dear ladies & gents of the opinion articles, but all I see is a hypocritical, self-centred, aggressive attitude of a woman focusing on her image and media rather than proving her accusations.
I don’t read: «Yes, that straight line bruise was a bit questionable because blood doesn’t work that way, Iphone bruises don’t work that way either, especially when thrown to another person instead of… well, I don’t know, sleeping on them?»
I read: «Johnny Depp was jealous of his bisexual wife. He’s homophobic, biphobic, misogynistic etc» with absolutely no evidence to back these assertions (sic).
Lastly, one of the most important things
I don’t read: «Amber Heard openly lied about his charitie’s interests when he donated the money on her name. She lied about him having a « novel interest in supporting two of her favourite charities… This is great and unexpected news» and ««Anything less would be a transparent attempt by Johnny’s counsel, Laura Wasser and Patti Glaser, to reduce their client’s true payment by half under the guise of newfound concern for charities that he has never previously supported«.
It was a lie easily debunked, considering one of those charities (CHLA) had awarded him in 2006 «because he puts smiles on the faces of thousands of children through his great work on film, and his longtime private advocacy of children and children’s charities is nothing short of inspirational,» that was still said with no shame. And Johnny Depp never gave an answer to it. Same as he never gave an answer to anything else, other than to claim through his publicist that the accusations were not true.
When her side lies so blatantly over something like this, what stops them to lie over… everything?
And until I read an opinion piece in which all the above are listed and explained as why they are everything «a victim of abuse is supposed to do» instead of a controlling individual’s methods to put fear on their victim, I will keep defending Johnny Depp. Because if he’s innocent (which I believe he is) he is the victim of a vindictive woman (and her pals), of media, and of those who are jealous he has more money to spend than them. Still, not an abuser.
I can disregard all the above and decide to condemn Johnny Depp as an example because he’s rich and famous. But, let me tell you, it won’t stop abusers. And it will also enable liars. So what is there to gain by condemning a possibly innocent man? Victims following Ms. Heard’s example will find themselves in dire situations.
The reason I defend Johnny Depp? It’s because Amber Heard’s behaviour and media/social media made him the victim. And damn it, I will always support the victim.