Gwarf. Greetings.

“Johnny Depp’s legal team blanketed the media for days after the verdict with numerous statements and interviews on television, and Depp himself did the same on social media.

“Ms. Heard simply intended to respond to what they aggressively did last week; she did so by expressing her thoughts and feelings, much of which she was not allowed to do on the witness stand.”

Did they completely disregard the fact that Elaine Bredehoft was on MULTIPLE interviews ONE DAY after the verdict was read? Hell, that news and her narrative permeated MSM since then.

JD’s crew had interviews one day last week. And I don’t recall MSM covering that either of their interviews after.

How is that “blanketing the media”, again?

Also, wasn’t she supposed to be laying low?

The trial was held in Virginia, where cameras are allowed under approval of a judge.

Judge Azcarate was ultimately the one to decide the trial would be livestreamed. Due to already having received numerous media requests, Judge Azcarate made the decision believing that livestreaming would prevent too many reporters (and the public) from crowding the courthouse and creating hazardous conditions.

Some sources do say that Depp's lawyers did initially request cameras, with Ben Chew arguing since Heard's claims about Depp were made so publicly, the Virginia trial should also be as public as possible, while Heard's lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft, fought to keep them out.

On the contrary, people still supporting Amber Heard call Depp supporters every possible insult under the sun. Homophobe, biphobe, transphobe, misogynist, rape-apologist, etc. Pretty much everything that most people would not want to be called. But I doubt I, a woman who has been a victim of a man before (not going into details here), am a misogynist. I doubt the many other women who have been victims of violence at the hands of men but still support Johnny Depp are misogynists. I doubt my friends, most of whom are gay or bisexual or transgender/nonbinary, are phobic against themselves.

If all you saw of the trial were those videos that made light of a serious situation, then I understand your misconception, however there was and is legitimate coverage by actual trial attorneys who provided unbiased commentary, as well as education.

Heard lost the trial because her evidence was not good. Her testimony kept changing. Her witnesses were refuted by actual, empirical evidence. The forensic psychologists on her team did not meet with Depp, while Depp's psychologists met with her. This is on top of a myriad of other points in Depp's favor and/or Heard's lack of credibility, as well as her history of DV and Depp's refuted ones by former partners.

He's not a saint, but he was abused; Heard is on record (as testimony and in a recording between herself and Depp) as acknowledging she struck him, then to tell him that he will not be believed

I was under the same biases at the beginning, too, but a lot of those biases came from the internalized misogynistic* perspective that men cannot be victims of women. Women can be abusers, too; we have to think that more than we just say it and think we mean it.

If you'd like some recommendations on YouTube, see NatalieLawyerChick, EmilyDBaker, and AttorneyTom. These are practicing attorneys and/or legal professionals (Emily was a criminal district attorney, but stepped away and is now a legal consultant/commentator).

Believe who you want, but consider your reasons for doing so. Or don't.

Word on the street is she's going to appeal the verdict, but I have a feeling it will get denied. She wants peace and quiet and for Johnny to leave her alone, after all...