“We all loved him, but especially, especially her, and she wanted to believe that the behavior wasn't going to last. The reports of violence started with a kick on a private plane, then it was shoves and the occasional punch, until finally… she described an all-out assault.”
“I know this because I went to their house. I saw the pillow with my own eyes. I saw the busted lip and the clumps of hair on the floor. I got the phone call immediately after it happened, her screaming and crying, a stoic woman reduced to sobs.”
“I witnessed firsthand the absolutely baffling mental pretzel that an abused person puts themselves into, trying to balance the desire to protect their aggressor, with the knowledge that their swollen face is unacceptable.”
“I listened as she cycled through things she could've possibly done to provoke him, or how she could've made him upset enough to do this.”
And he writes about her going on James Corden the next day:
“I watched a woman with a broken spirit go on national television the next night, covered in makeup, smiling through a bloody lip, who nearly jumped out of her seat when someone casually put a hand on her shoulder.”
“I had to stand up for my friend, and for what I believe in my gut to be the code of conduct by which human beings have to behave with each other. Whether we loved him or not has nothing to do with it. When it comes to violence, "love" is no longer part of the equation.”
This bit is crucial:
“I knew him to be soft and gentle, with a temper and a dark side, but a golden heart. I didn’t want to believe it either, until I saw the wreckage. When you call someone your brother, you also commit to calling them out when they are wrong.”
THREAD 🧵: When Virginia Guiffre settled her sexual abuse lawsuit against Prince Andrew for £12 million, he forced her to agree not to speak about the allegations or the settlement until the end of the year.
That’s reportedly because the royal family really didn’t want anyone talking about these sexual abuse allegations, or the fact that Prince Andrew settled them, during her jubilee.
But that NDA can’t stop the rest of us from talking about it. So, as we enter jubilee week, here’s @OwenJones84, @DrProudman and I speaking about that lawsuit, the settlement, and what it means for survivors of sexual abuse, on Owen’s fantastic show:
"Ms Heard has no right to tell the world that Mr Depp physically and sexually assaulted when that isn't true... That isn't protected speech."
"Ms Heard made up claims of abuse, and then she gave a performance where she passionately repeated those claims of abuse, on the stand in front of you."
“Think about the message Mr Depp and his legal team are sending to Ms Heard and, by extension, all victims of domestic abuse: If you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen. If you did take pictures, they’re fake.”
“If you didn’t tell your friends, you weren’t injured. If you did tell your friends, they were part of the hoax.”
“If you didn't seek medical treatment, you weren't injured. If you did seek medical treatment, you're crazy… if you finally decide that enough is enough, you've had enough of the fear, enough of the pain and you have to leave to save yourself, you're a gold digger”
Amber Heard returned to the stand. Her lawyers asked her how this trial has affected her, and tbh it was heartbreaking. I know people are saying that they don’t find her emotion credible but personally I don’t see that; I see a very distressed person.
AH was asked about the mockery and harassment she has received from JD fans. She says she gets “thousands” of death threats.
“People want to put my baby in the microwave, and they tell me so.” She also talked about being harassed by JD fans outside the courthouse.
I'm seeing a lot of people say that because Heard mentioned on the stand that the op-ed was about Depp's power, that this is an admission that the op-ed is about him and is enough to prove malice, and therefore he wins. That's not right. An explainer:
I see this mistake a lot so I think it's important to clarify how the law works here. Malice on its own is not enough to prove defamation; it's a secondary question for the jury. The first question is whether or not the statements in the op-ed were "false".
So, first the jury has to decide if the statements were false. If they are not convinced that the statements were false, malice and intent do not factor into the question AT ALL. Substantially true statements cannot be defamatory even if made with the world's most evil intentions
Wow. Absolutely huge day yesterday. I’ll do my best to summarise. #DeppHeardTrial
JD returned to the stand. I thought this was going to be very narrow in scope, just confirming that he didn’t know about the Waldman statements – in the end it was anything but. As before, JD was (for the most part) a very personable witness. He’s friendly, polite, makes jokes
He was asked what it was like listening to AH’s testimony and allegations during this trial. He replied: “Insane. Horrible. Ridiculous, humiliating, ludicrous, painful, savage, unimaginably brutal, cruel and all false. All false.”