Note: at the time of writing this post, I knew very little, which made me take a moderate position with regards to Depp. Fast forward a few months, and the truth is as clear as day: the man is an abuser, and given a plethora of factors, as well as concrete evidence, I have no reason to doubt anything Amber Heard accused him of.

For weeks, the world has been following the 50 million dollar lawsuit filed by Johnny Depp against his ex-wife, Amber Heard, for allegedly defaming him through public claims of domestic abuse. The ongoing trial has been extremely frustrating in terms of public discourse.

Viewers started following the trial with one goal in mind – to figure out who would be cancelled afterwards. For them, it’s not a matter of objectivity and moderation, or having compassion for both sides – it’s (metaphorically) about who they will get to eviscerate and have for breakfast. Most made their choice very early.

In order to complete that process, they have to raise one party to the level of sainthood and demonise the other. They could, of course, continue to support imperfect individuals in all honesty – however, they are so obsessed with the way those they support reflect on them, that they whitewash reality and turn into fanatics.

The purpose of this post is not to infer that Johnny Depp is an awful human being, that he did all that was alleged against him, that he was not himself physically attacked or that whatever he did takes away from his positive qualities. In light of the fact that he without a doubt mistreated his partner/wife to some degree, according to his own words, his current deification by the public and complete denial of responsibility make zero sense.

Amidst an avalanche of adulation for Depp, after his testimony portrayed him as a sympathetic figure, evidence has come out that he has undoubtedly had episodes of drunken rage and unprovoked jealousy, making it less likely for Heard’s accusations of physical abuse to be, as the public wants to think, completely false.

Whereas some of the claims against him may seem less plausible in terms of severity (for lack of evidence), people ignore the obvious: Depp had a history of unhinged behaviour long before he met Amber Heard. His behaviour while with her was, at least sometimes, similarly unhinged. For more information, please see this very detailed article, which lists both historical incidents and evidence arisen during the trial.

His cross-examination revealed a multitude of texts displaying regret for the problems his intoxication was causing in the relationship (to put it mildly). However, viewers glide over those admissions like water off a duck’s back. Everything he said and did was apparently caused by Heard herself. Every single thing, every single time.

Due process

Over the years, one of the major complaints of the Johnny Depp stan association consisted of the expediency the media showed in believing Amber Heard when the allegations first came out. This would suggest their stance of wanting to hear all available evidence, which is a rational one. The media does try and convict individuals in the court of public opinion, with impunity, and often with severe consequences for those who are innocent.

During this trial, however, Depp’s supporters have consistently refused to acknowledge anything the defence brought forward, even when extremely relevant, such as Depp’s own words and documented actions. They effortlessly dismiss or minimise anything suggesting Depp could have, even in limited ways, mistreated her. It’s safe to conclude these people are not concerned with due process; a witch burning of their choice should not, in their opinion, be hampered by the efforts of defence attorneys.

It’s also worth mentioning, in terms of their complaint of dirty laundry being aired by the defence, that it was Depp who sued to begin with, knowing every sordid detail of the relationship would be brought up.

She caused every conflict – really…?

Addiction is an awful thing to go through and compassion for addicts is completely justified. But let’s not forget the destructive conduct people can engage in while intoxicated, which may be the exact opposite of their character. One doesn’t have to be a monster to temporarily emulate one.

People somehow bring themselves to think that when Depp was off his head on strong alcohol and drugs, he was never, ever the source of trouble, and always the calm, more rational person in the room. This flies in the face of common sense, as well as his own admissions.

When you see text after text after text of someone apologising for misconduct caused by their substance use, how can you still come to the conclusion that their addiction didn’t cause those incidents? It’s baffling.

They act as if the relationship could’ve been completely loving, normal, supportive and mutually respectful, had it not been for “Heard’s mental problems”. These people obviously haven’t had to manage and reason with a person who is regularly in that state, at times as far from reality as anyone could be.

It can be a herculean task to achieve the following:

  • Talk them out of doing something stupid when they get a brilliant idea (especially one that would get them into trouble);
  • Remind them of their schedule and current obligations;
  • Convince them it’s time to go home from a public venue;
  • Put up with hearing every grievance they’ve had as far as their memory goes;
  • Put up with them causing a disturbance and try to minimise it;
  • Convince them that their momentary delusions/accusations against you aren’t real;
  • Crisis management (apologising for any incidents they caused or covering them up);
  • Try to appease them so that their anger doesn’t escalate;
  • Have a plan B, plan C, Plan D etc, based on when they might sober up and what they might do.
  • Try to anticipate where their mood is leading (whether they might become aggressive) etc.

It’s not a rose garden. It can’t possibly be. Heard compellingly described having to navigate through his vastly different states, always dependent on what he was taking, constantly adapting her approach to what she could expect. That part of her testimony is not only 100% plausible but also corroborated by his own words.

People completely ignore what an effort it is, mentally and emotionally (and for many who are not privileged, in practical ways as well) to cope with that situation. The sheer unpredictability of the next hour, day, week, month, year takes a toll on someone’s mind.

Smashing up rooms is no big deal to the public (apparently)

Depp, who has a history of drunken vandalism, makes light of it by detaching it from abusiveness: “I assaulted some cabinets”. The many who agree have never spent time with a person who regularly damages property in a fit of rage; if they have and make light of it, they are being deliberately hypocritical.

It’s extremely intimidating – even if they don’t end up assaulting someone, the possibility is always there. The rage is present, combined with the urge to cause destruction, and the person is giving in to that urge, being either unwilling or unable to control themselves.

Let’s say the drunken vandal wasn’t a famous, obscenely rich actor with 14 houses to spare, but jobless Billy Bob from a small town in Alabama, smashing up his trailer during an argument with his wife. How would society comment on that? Billy Bob gets called a destructive waster; the community now has to chip in to replace the windows. It comes across as more egregious because he can’t afford to magically replace what he broke, and he, in general, is not a successful person. What’s the difference though, in terms of what goes through someone’s head while smashing stuff, and how it affects those around them? None whatsoever.

Take this situation for instance: Depp caused a scene out of jealousy, then had an argument with Heard, then smashed a sink. He first took issue with a woman putting her hand on Heard’s shoulder, removing said hand (even in court he argued he was defending her honour), then instead of admitting the absurdity of his behaviour, he engaged in an argument and finally, smashed an appliance. He described it very candidly in court, as if it were normal.

Depp’s entourage swears he isn’t violent

At the same time as observing scenes of property damage and having to physically carry Depp around after public binges, his entourage describes him as a very calm person who would never be physically abusive.

These people have seen him in a variety of states, including being unable to recall what exactly he’d done during a binge. As mentioned, he’d privately confessed to some that his binges were causing serious problems at home. Those were typical apologies and promises from someone who had just sobered up after doing something awful. However, they find the mere possibility of him assaulting Heard in such a state implausible. Pardon me but I find that very, very difficult to believe.

Deferring to the previous example – let’s say one week Billy Bob trashes his trailer, the next he gets into 3 bar fights, the next he scatters his wife’s belongings outdoors etc. From time to time he is heard shouting and smashing objects. Then one day, his wife confides in someone that he pushed and slapped her in a drunken rage. How will they react?

Not this little angel; he’s always compos mentis, even when he’s howling at the moon after two bottles of vodka. My God! He would never!

In reality, they wouldn’t be surprised, because the behaviour is not uncommon in those circumstances, with a number of factors warning of the risk. Again, the fact that Depp’s crowd doesn’t even entertain that possibility is suspicious.

Depp admitted to insane levels of jealousy and a need to control Heard’s career

Through incidents such as the one mentioned above, which involved Depp’s jealousy being triggered when a woman placed her hand on Heard’s shoulder, as well as admitting his displeasure with her acting career, Depp revealed a crucial issue – he has serious jealousy and control problems, which is a common factor in domestic abuse.

It is indeed peculiar for a man to date and marry an actress if he disrespects her profession, especially when having that profession himself. Does he disrespect all his female colleagues for acting in sex scenes or wearing provocative clothes? I don’t care if she went on to have sex with half a block; that incident in particular was relevant to how little it took for his insecurity to be triggered.

This is a major red flag his stan association ignores at all times.

Forensic psychologist disputes

The parties each produced an expert witness, namely a forensic psychologist, to speak on Heard’s mental health. These psychologists are meant to be unbiased; however, the very different conclusions they came to magically fit what their clients required. Given the stark contrast between their conclusions, the whole thing is very suspicious. Depp’s forensic psychologist diagnosed her with histrionic personality disorder as well as well as borderline personality disorder, whereas her own diagnosed her with PTSD, having obtained notes from therapists she had seen previously.

It’s at least a little suspicious that she had been in therapy for years, had never been diagnosed with the above-mentioned (HPD and BPD), which would be very apparent, and was conveniently assessed as such for this trial. The truth could lie just anywhere in terms of the honesty and accuracy of these assessments, both of which were paid for. It’s at least a murky situation. The public, however, is convinced Depp’s expert witness must be correct.

Scrutinising one person’s testimony and not the other’s

Amber Heard’s testimony was subjected to scrutiny and ridicule from the moment it was announced, as the crowd had already decided she was a liar. Admittedly she seemed a bit dramatic at times – however, during Depp’s UK defamation trial against The Sun, which he lost, the judge saw enough evidence from her to conclude she had been abused. Saying she has no evidence is bizarre in these circumstances.

It’s worth mentioning that at this stage, the defence has just begun to present their case, with dozens of potential witnesses on their list. Again, claiming she doesn’t have evidence they haven’t seen yet is strange.

Depp, meanwhile, calmly admitted to all of the above, with the crowd going as far as stating anything appearing to be abusive on his part was reactive abuse, after being victimised by her.

  • His substance use was a reaction to her mistreatment – though he had been using substances for decades;
  • His texts referring to her corpse were justifiable anger over her lies;
  • His apologies were just self-deprecating attempts to placate his abuser;
  • His jealousy was also justifiable because “she was a whore”;
  • His vandalism was a response to her verbal abuse etc.

Apparently it couldn’t work the other way around. It couldn’t be that some of her violence was reactive abuse. The crowd has to identify the demon, the monster, the only problem.

Words and recordings are only valuable when in Depp’s favour

Whilst every utterance from Amber Heard caught on tape is endlessly dissected, the public skips past the recordings presented by the defence during Depp’s cross-examination. On one occasion, for instance, Heard says “you beat the shit out of me”, to which he doesn’t object.The crowd’s stance continues to be that he never admitted to hitting her. He might not have directly said it (in my experience, people don’t use those words when talking about their own actions, but skirt around them gracefully).

Corroborate that bit of conversation with his pathos-laden apologies, and you at least land in a place of doubt.

Similarly, anything Depp said or wrote while intoxicated is glossed over. Some members of the public argue that such words have no meaning or importance whatsoever. I fully disagree. If someone is frequently the target of intoxicated rants, it takes a toll on them. It absolutely does. They’re very concerned with her verbal abuse, but anything he said can be dismissed.

All in all, the trial isn’t over yet, and there are weeks of evidence yet to be presented. People might at least want to hold their horses before reaching a conclusion. The lack of objectivity or attention to detail in public discourse is quite frightening.