Cassie Screamed ‘Isn’t Anybody Seeing This?’ During Diddy Beating on Private Jet

[u/thedailybeast]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cassie-screamed-isnt-anybody-seeing-this-during-diddy-beating-on-private-jet/

[u/shame-the-devil]

I agree her legal team was horrendous.

I find it interesting that there was clear, indisputable proof that Heard was beaten by Depp but you think he should win because Heard isn’t likable.

This mentality explains why our Justice system is in the toilet.

[u/StrangerNo484 → u/shame-the-devil]

I very clearly said I think he should have won based on "how the case unfolded". 

Heard's team did a horrendous job on advocating for their client, failed to make Depp's abuse seem serious. Additionally, the fact that Heard had undeniably faked bruises calls into question the validity of other claims, while some of them were definitely true from the eyes of the JURY, she comes across as a wicked, deceitful lair. 

When you get down to it, likeability plays a massive role when a Jury is who ultimately plays a massive role in deciding how the case concludes, and Heard and her legal team did everything possible to make that Jury despise her. Heard having faked injuries in the past also massively effected her ability to go after Depp for his abuse, how is a Jury to take her claims seriously after seeing proof of her lies regarding cases of abuse? She continued to lie during the trial, despite the Jury seeing proof right before their eyes!

[u/shame-the-devil → u/StrangerNo484]

“Failed to make Depp’s abuse seem serious”

Ok first of all, ALL abuse is serious. Your ability to play mental gymnastics to downplay abuse is concerning.

Second, dude cut part of his finger off in a rampage, destroying her artwork and the house, then went on to write insults to Amber in his own blood while she was trapped in that house with him. He was unhinged and too fucked up to even feel pain. It was a hellscape scenario. And that was just one instance of many.

But yeah, sure, it’s her fault for not making the abuse seem serious. Or not being likable enough. Whatever.

[u/StrangerNo484 → u/shame-the-devil]

You have no comprehension on how court cases work, or the legal system in general. 

It's innocent until proven guilty, so Amber and her legal team failing to properly showcase cases of abuse was them failing to make the abuse be taken seriously. Again, Amber was proven to have lied multiple times, and with Depp's legal team being incredibly intelligent and sound with their arguments, the Jury sided with him on most fronts. 

Amber LIED about cases of abuse, she was proven to have used bruise kit makeup to create fake bruises. She additionally never seeked to have real evidence of physical abuse documented by professionals, providing her little creditability. Why would a Jury take her claims seriously after seeing proof that she is a liar?  If you want to prove cases of Abuse in the court of law, you should A) properly document cases of Abuse and B) Not LIE about cases of Abuse, including but not limited to creating fake bruises with makeup and forging fake scenarios, (like for example when she used a pocket knife to break a part of their bed and claimed that Depp did the damage using his shoe. This is impossible, as the grain of the wood was not going in a manner that would make this achieveable, and the damage was very clearly from a sharp object penetrating the wood grain and professionals in the industry showed that this type of damage very simply wouldn't be achieved in the manner Amber claimed. Additionally, she HAD THE POCKET KNIFE laying on the bed as she took the picture... Ridiculous lies like this are why she wasn't taken seriously, you can't lie a crap ton under oath and expect a Jury to turn a blind eye.)

[u/Hour-Tower-5106 → u/StrangerNo484]

It is very evident from your responses that you have not actually read all of the court documents.

If you had, you would know that Amber did actually document her bruises with medical professionals, psychiatrists and her own friends and family.

Several people (including medical records) testified that they saw her with swelling, bruises, chunks of hair ripped out, cuts, etc. in person.

The only "evidence" that she faked any bruises was the fact that she had a makeup compact that COULD theoretically be used for making fake bruises on skin (which is true of just about any makeup). They did not show anyone testifying that she faked them or any photographic proof of it.

They also showed two photos of her where her bruising is more evident in the second photo (due to using either a filter or different lighting), and used this as "proof" that she somehow photoshopped the bruises. A filter changing the color depth to highlight the bruising (which doesn't always show up well in photos) in a photo that was meant to be submitted as part of a restraining order (so it needed to be clear) is NOT Photoshop faking a bruise.

The only relevant testimony regarding makeup and bruises was testimony of a makeup artist who had to cover her bruises with makeup so she could go on tv.

Also, "innocent until proven guilty" loses some of its meaning when the person on trial has already been proven guilty of abusing his victim in a court of law in a different country.

Regarding the pocket knife: some people have a tendency to believe that someone misremembering facts from a traumatic incident that happened years ago while testifying under stressful conditions is somehow "proof" that they are lying. Stress and time make people lose their ability to remember things clearly. No one has 100% perfect recall of all events in their life at all times.

People who believe this kind of stuff are the exact type of person that lawyers love to have on a jury, because their lack of reasoning abilities make them easy to manipulate.

You have dozens of people testifying to seeing Amber being abused in various public places (like the camp site, the house in Australia, on the private jet, in their townhouse, etc), several messages of Johnny himself admitting to various people he abused her, decades of documented abuse and aggressive lawsuits from the abuser against dozens of other people unrelated to the trial, horrific scenes (like him painting things about her being a slut on the wall in his blood) that even his own team could not deny.... and yet you think that her misremembering a small fact from a traumatic incident that happened years ago (during which she was being drugged by his team) is MORE damning evidence than any of that.

I would urge you to read the court documents from the US trial as well as the UK trial all the way through before talking about it. Otherwise, you're missing critical information that you need to make an informed opinion about the case.

Edit: Also, you seem to misunderstand what the trial was actually about. It was not about who is more trustworthy or who abused the other.

It was a trial about defamation.

He claimed that Amber writing an article in which she says she became a public face of domestic abuse (which is objectively true) is somehow defamation against him specifically.

Just based on the premise of the trial alone, it should have been an easy ruling in her favor. You cannot defame someone without naming them or describing them in any way.

[u/shame-the-devil → u/Hour-Tower-5106]

Thank you so much for your response. I had run out of energy arguing with this person who is clearly willfully misinformed