♀

I think the most tragic thing about the Depp v. Heard thing is that people will literally rather take the rotting ol’ uggos side than even consider the most simple likelyhood. I mean, think about it. Even disregarding the fact that she has lots of evidence, witnesses and more confirming her story, the fact that he already lost in court because they could prove he was a wifebeater, the fact that his own witnesses are contradicting his statements and confirming they’ve seen injuries on Heard…. Even ignoring all that, just tell me what’s more likely:

A) A woman in her early twenties played the long game and staged a five year con to get a man twenty years her senior to divorce his wife, marry her and then collected false evidence over the years, including faking bruises and “provoking” outbursts of violence that she could film, to then take him to court with a phoney accusation of domestic violence to get his money and fame, despite the fact that she was already rich and famous?

or

B) An ageing, washed up actor as well as proven alcoholic, with a long history of violently acting out (that he’s not even denying himself) who dated a teen in his mid to late twenties and has used incredibly misogynistic language about the women around him, had a middle age crisis and got a trophy wife who he then, shockingly, did not respect and then ended up becoming violent with her. Could the misogynistic old man really be a misogynist and do bad things to women? Surely not!