You really do see everything in extremes don’t you? There’s no nuance for you. You write that making it sound like I defend police in general. I brought up the multiple police reports because it’s additional evidence, including bodycam footage. If those police reports were in Amber’s favor you bet your ass you’d be…

Yes, I am. Just because I am willing to call out a female for being an abuser doesn’t suddenly make me not hard-left. I’m pro-socialist policies/regulation, pro women’s/LGBTQ+ rights, anti-gun, police defunding/reforming, pro-choice, climate-change worrying and everything else under the sun of the left.
From what I’ve…

Why is Amber Heard incapable of showing her side of the story and cherry-picking and editing tapes just as much?

He leaps to that because Recognitions is a white knight tilting at windmills.  

I don’t know why you’re going around here trying so hard to spin this as some right-wing conspiracy. I’m very hard-left. I watched the whole trial, the whole tapes. Nothing needed to be cherry-picked, the whole thing is damning. Please go actually listen to those tapes, because it sounds like you yourself have just…

There are up to an hour long recordings (some of which were leaked by Heard herself) but ok. The Daily mail is an appalling rag but sometimes institutions you hate can be correct for the wrong reasons.

No comment on anything else about this case, but a few small clarifications:

Like it not, a whole lot of people do not believe Amber Heard including other abuse victims. That isn’t gamergate like behavior, that isn’t a repudiation of MeToo. Its simply a recognition that in this case, she wasn’t believable.

Nor is it hard to find evidence of Amber Heard being a shitty person and giving the public reason to completely distrust her.

She had over a year to fulfill her pledge before Depp decided to sue. And during that time, she had not make a single payment with any of the $7 million from her divorce settlement. The receipts were on the table, and you’d think this would be a point to refute and clarify during the trial, but no. Heard doubled down…

Depp has never had a judgment against him for beating his wife or any other woman, at all, ever. Making up history doesn’t change the fact that Amber is clearly the abuser in this relationship. Even if Depp had a history of abusing women, which he doesn’t, you can’t ignore the facts of this case and how a obvious it…

Well said. 

This is a great way to put what I was going to comment so I'll just let your interpretation stand

But Johnny Depp does have to be a perfect victim, otherwise the default position has to be we support the woman, no matter how “imperfect”?

You don't end up with this shitty hot take if you watch the full trial. Make that effort first before siding with a violent abuser. 

Not dude bro, but a feminist woman who did not believe a single word Heard said. She was contradictory. She had not evidence of any of her claims. Even her friends denied ever witnessing the events Amber recounted. Her testimony was garbage.

Originally, I supported Heard. Then, I heard those tapes. I don’t know how anyone can defend Heard after listening to those tapes. She’s not you. You’re not her. It’s OK to condemn her actions. It doesn’t equate to defending or even excusing Depp and his actions.

Only recordings existing are the ones where she admits to being violent, not Johnny.

“Amber Heard may not be a great person”

I am so tired of the media trying to maintain their feminist clout by trying to defend Amber Heard. We all believed her when she first made the accusations. We all turned on Jonny Depp. Then we watched the trial and it turned out that perhaps she was a liar.