Johnny Depp – The Conclusion – Live

Be ready to receive the conclusion live from HG Tudor. Understand what Johnny Depp is.

290 thoughts on “Johnny Depp – The Conclusion – Live

  1. I needed to come back to this thread today after thoughts I was expressing about this trial and its outcome were highlighted today in an “Open Letter in Support of Amber Heard”, titled in the DM: “We condemn the public shaming of Amber Heard – Gloria Steinem joins intimate partner violence experts in signing open letter supporting star after she lost trial against Johnny Depp.”

    Article can be found here:

    I have some questions to ask.

    Where was this feminist icon and those attempting to uphold women in family violence situations while this trial was going on? Did it really take them five months to realise the fallout that was going to occur? Was the heat on social media in favour of Johnny Depp too much for them to bear?

    I believe these people are only now beginning to realise the fallout from JD/AH trial as women find men using the JD defence, or threat of the same, which is causing more reluctance in reporting abuse and having violent men charged.

    They have damaged their own cohort with their previous deafening silence.

    What a travesty that these organisations and more prominent women didn’t speak out at the time.

    1. annaamel says:

      It’s interesting to me LET that you are much more frustrated at the outcome of the trial than I am since I consider myself a feminist and you don’t consider yourself one. But a lot of our views are independent of any particular ideology. And even ideological movements like feminism have a range of positions on different issues and there is much debate within feminism about how best to support women and ensure equality. I know I have different opinions to others who identify as feminists. We have some beliefs in common but not all.

      I supported the verdict against Amber. I would’ve considered a verdict in her favour very disappointing and concerning.

      But I’m very unhappy with the treatment she continues to receive on social media. It should have stopped after the trial ended. The judge decided a punishment but she’s now being endlessly punished on social media.

      I expect that is what has united these feminists – the shared belief that the ongoing campaign of harassment against Heard using common sexist tropes is damaging the progress that has been made towards treating women fairly and treating those who have potentially been victims of violence fairly.

      Many of those who signed were very vocal during and immediately following the trial and didn’t just start talking about it. Steinem (who’s now 88) is not one of the initiators. She’s just a co-signer but a famous name so she’s mentioned in press releases.

      I can imagine that as someone who believes Heard was abused by Depp (and the main victim in the relationship) you’d be horrified at the continued bad treatment she’s been receiving, largely though social media. But I’m curious – if you thought she had lied and deserved to be found guilty of defamation, would you still find it unacceptable, as I do? Some people, I think, believe she’s now fair game and deserves anything and everything anyone can throw at her.

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        Hi Annaamel, you’re right, I don’t consider myself a feminist and feel that is a legitimate position from which to still consider issues affecting women. That means I can agree our views aren’t necessarily tied to a particular ideology but simply a reflection of our beliefs and understanding around this case.

        As you know, I disagree with the verdict and feel it was a travesty Heard lost in this instance. My sense goes beyond disappointment and edges past concern. It probably hovers somewhere between distress and outrage for the most part.

        Johnny Depp threatened Amber Heard with “global humiliation” and his lawyers request for the trial to be televised ensured he got his wish. In my opinion, there was a concerted effort via the media and social media to push Depp’s narrative in this case. There may be differing reasons for this, and HG has made his own representation with regard to narcissism. Where we come to a crossroads is in the treatment of Amber Heard. Issues around narcissism are less concerning to me in the bigger picture of intimate partner or family violence. This has now extended into the wider community with the continued shaming of Amber Heard, and I’m very glad that word was used. She is being shamed for speaking out, making it more difficult for other women to do the same and making it easier for men to take advantage of that. This should have been foreseen, at least by the judge in granting the request for a televised trial. Johnny Depp intended to shame his ex-wife, he stated it clearly in a txt to a friend, and the judge allowed that to happen. From the very beginning, not just in the outcome of this trial, the process worked against victims

        It’s interesting you say the ongoing villification of Heard is what has likely united feminists, when from my perspective they should have been aware from the start. I seem to remember there were two camps at the time, with some sensing this case represented a backlash against the #metoo movement, while another felt a disingenuous Amber Heard could be the cause of a backlash. So much depends on who you are willing to believe, but there’s ample evidence from my perspective to call Johnny Depp an abuser.

        It’s good to know some of the organisations who signed the open letter were vocal during the trial and in the immediate aftermath, though I have to say virtually none of that appeared to be reported in the mainstream press (indicating a level of bias). I imagine for many people it’s gone under the wire until now with this more publicised letter highlighting the issue again, and with signers from all around the world, some of them high profile.

        I appreciate your curiosity, and don’t think she lied. You are asking me if I would accept the ongoing villification of Amber Heard if she had lied, or take a step back from that on the basis of how other victims might be affected. From my perspective, it’s never too late to revise your position when you recognise the fallout from that.

        The New York Times described the villification as “unprecedented” in both vitriol and scale.

        Here are the final paragraphs of the “Amber Heard Open Letter” which I will link below (showing the various signatories):

        “In our opinion, the Depp v. Heard verdict and continued discourse around it indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of intimate partner and sexual violence and how survivors respond to it. The damaging consequences of the spread of this misinformation are incalculable. We have grave concerns about the rising misuse of defamation suits to threaten and silence survivors.

        We condemn the public shaming of Amber Heard and join in support of her. We support the ability of all to report intimate partner and sexual violence free of harassment and intimidation.”

  2. annaamel says:

    Also sorry to all that my posts are topping threads and not sliding in where they belong and where I try to put them. I had some post failures so have been trying new options but they are resulting in my posts not not submitting as replies.

  3. annaamel says:

    Z, apologies for my cynicism in my comment to you above. Must have been a bit irritable that day. I actually think there’s a very good chance readers (and there will be many) of this thread will have read your post and been motivated to follow the links you provided in your post. 🧡

  4. annaamel says:

    I’ve been reading over threads and have looked over this one again, a few weeks after its last post. I find it interesting in lots of ways. I want to respond to a few posters.

    Firstly – Zwartbolleke – your post with the links to the evidence is phenomenal and amazing. I think I missed it when I first was looking at this thread and I wish I hadn’t. I didn’t need to follow your links because I watched the whole trial (yes, it took hours out of my life but I became addicted to seeing how it would play out) but I am so glad you have provided opportunities for others who have not followed it closely to do so before giving their judgement. (I know this won’t happen, of course, but it’s still a noble thing to do. I have read your posts elsewhere on this board and I can safely say that you are one of my favourite posters.

    Duchessbea: It’s clear you feel very passionate about respect for women and how they are viewed by men in particular. I suspect you have had more experience of women being devalued (and not in the terminology of narcissism but in general) in your life beyond what you have reported in company meetings. I imagine that there is stuff from your youth that you can recall. From relatives, maybe? I think your back and forths with HG did not annoy or offend him – although I do think in saying he responded like a ‘typical man’ would have pissed him off a bit. If a man said I was responding like a ‘typical woman’ I would definitely be bothered. I think that initial comment from you was your emotional thinking rising up and feeling defensive at what you saw was a devaluing of a woman. I don’t think HG was devaluing women – I think her gender was not a factor in his criticism of her – he was an equal opportunity critic – but I can appreciate you saw/felt it as a swipe against her or against women that was unfair. In the ongoing conversation, you became even more impassioned with every response from HG as you possibly felt talked down to. His responses, I think, continued to tickle the area in your heart and mind that is vulnerable to feeling attacked. I don’t think he was spoiling for a fight with you – but I do think he feels almost compelled to challenge an error of logic or fact. And he probably feels responsible for his readers being presented with factual material. I think that his why he continued to respond to you. I grew up with a Dad who never let me get away with any kind of emotional response – so when I read this conversation it felt like a familiar dynamic to me. I felt for both of you to be honest!

    I also notice you have said a couple of times in this thread that you are not a feminist. As I see it, advocating for women and their equal treatment (not to be dismissed, not to be devalued) is the definition of what feminism is. You say ‘i am not a feminist by any means but I am passionate about women’s rights’. Has something about feminism left a bad taste for you? Are you aware that others disapprove of feminism and you don’t want to get on their wrong side? I call myself a feminist. I expect women to be given the same respect men are given. Similarly, I expect men to be given the same respect that women are given. There are situations in our world where each gender is not given the respect that the other takes for granted. *waiting now for Sarah….

    HG – your responses in this thread implied you thought there were narcissistic traits on display. It seemed to me there were empathetic as well as narcissistic traits on display. Would this be correct? I think in the exchange between you and DB, she has become passionate, and in her desire to get you to see her point of view there’s been some hyperbole and other strategies to persuade you to agree with her, but I don’t think it means she is not empathetic overall.

    Also, HG – do you have information about what countries we are posting from? Or other intel that might challenge our claims? I am scared now that you will find out I am posting from an underground lair just south of Leeds…

  5. Duchessbea says:

    The latest on Camille. According to TMZ, on a flight, Camille came to help a passenger who was unwell. I would say Camille is possibly an Empath. Camille is definitely a woman of many talents.

    1. annaamel says:

      Duchessbea, I also think Camille is an empath. JD might have leaned towards empathetic people for his legal team because I suspect Ben Chew is also an empath. It is probably the case that that empathic attorneys will have some weaknesses in their approach – but I think they will have particular strengths as well. And as everyone has suggested, Camille is young and can only become more accomplished. For the record, I think you are an empath too.

  6. Duchessbea says:

    Oh HG, I very much don’t want to have cross words with you. I hate the fact that you were annoyed an offended. I truly wasn’t making any point, just stating my opinion and didn’t mean to offend. I’m not a feminist but I am truly passionate and can be very passionate about women’s rights. I hate the fact that you and I had cross words but I respect what you had to say as well. My saying, I didn’t like your comment, was not meant to offend you. I’m more of a lover than a fighter and would very much like to clear any bad air with you. Best, DB

  7. WhoCares says:

    Thinking further on this subject of brilliant cross examination, etc.,…the idea of “going to trial” is glamourized by movies, court room dramas (and actually the JD/AH case doesn’t help this). And, of course, going to trial and the possible theatrics that will occur there is usually associated with criminal law – which is viewed as way more “cool” than other areas of law.

    My experience – being mostly with family law in Canada – (and family law being viewed as way less glamorous) is that most cases are “won” during the preparation leading up to trial (while most cases don’t even get that far: only 1% of Canadian divorce cases ever go to trial). 

    A skilled and hard-working lawyer, with the right evidence, builds a case and then, many times the other side folds before the actual trial date (especially if the opposing side is a lower echelon narcissist presented with a body of evidence – with little fuel attached to it). 

    My ex, in his court papers, more than once has claimed “This case should go to *trial*!!”
    You know – because he wants his moment on ‘stage’. Lessers and Mid-rangers are often about all about the ‘threat’ of this or that, in terms of legal action – with many times, zero follow through. (Although not always, I suppose.)

    The courts, here at least, don’t actually want you to go to trial – they prefer you to settle outside of court and not waste the courts resources (especially when there are children involved, in a stressful family law case)… plus, if you are *demanding* to go to trial, you risk looking litigious.

    1. Anm says:

      It’s like that here in the USA. The courts never want any case to go to trial, but the judges know that it has to be done in some cases. In the past 6 years, I have had to go to court numerous times against my ex, not just family court, but also the criminal courts, etc. There have been a total of 8 court cases with us being the parties. The family court of course is the main case and it’s ongoing. I have found that it is actually often worth going all the way to trial if in court with a narcissist. They do have a delusional fantasy about gaining up and confronting their perceived traitors in court. But that shouldn’t stop victims from exercising their due process rights by asking for a trial hearing. In fact, if a case is protracted, it could hurt a victim to settle before trial, because the truth didn’t properly go on the record, in case there are more future court dates or issues. I will also say this, I have won trials against my ex narc and I have also lost against my ex narc. Even in cases where I have lost, and everyone advised me to just settle, the outcome with taking it all the way to trial was always still better than settling with whatever the narc thought he was entitled to. For example, the last time I lost, and was advised by my attorney that I would lose that specific trial, the narc and his attorney demanded that I admit to be at fault, and pay a huge fee. I took it to trial. The judge said I was at fault and ruled in the narcs favor, but ruled that I shouldn’t have to pay any fees for be punished like the narc was thinking. I have never been found to be vexatious, sometimes you just have to suck it up and go all the way.

  8. Asp Emp says:

    A mosh pit = a narcissist’s fire and nosh pit 🙂

  9. Duchessbea says:

    I loved the way you left out the ‘reply’ after your response HG. I am not arguing with you but responding to your comment. I do agree with what you have to say to a certain degree but in response to what you have to say regarding her advocacy, I thought, along with a number of few million or so people that Camille questioned Amber brilliantly. She was articulate, on point and got under the skin of Amber Heard during questioning all the hallmarks of a good and competent lawyer. When I responded to your answer to someone else’s question there was no emotional outburst or anger in what you had said. I’m not a feminist by any means but your response harkened women back to the ‘stone age’. Yes lawyers use tactics and that Camille questioning Amber, was a very good tactic but it would be nice, if for once women could be compared in the same way men are in being able to do the same job. Surely you would agree that you would not have described Mr. Rottenborn questioning Johnny Depp as ‘optics, man on man’? I know you would not have done that. As I said, I am not trying to argue with you HG, so you don’t need to go off on a huff and puff with me. But it can be quite tiresome reading sexist and downgrading remarks about intelligent, hardworking women who have worked just as hard as men to get to where they are in their career, and yet they always have to push themselves a lot harder to be viewed as an equal and not just some ‘totty in stiletto heels with a fine body’ walking around the office. It’s 2022. It’s over a hundred years ago since Women got the vote. I don’t mind finishing on this valid point, Camille got a great promotion with one of the top law firms in America after her brilliant work at the Johnny Depp trial. Not bad for a woman you said was (and let me quote you) ‘just average’. Wouldn’t you agree. I’m not trying to argue HG, far from it. But I felt it was important to respond to the point you made. Have great weekend HG. Best, DB

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Despite writing you three times you are not trying to argue, you are doing so. Your use of “you do not need to go off on a huff and puff with me” demonstrates an inability on your part to understand that correcting you is simply accuracy and not loging off on a huff and puff. You seeking to label it as such is not only incorrect but also an attempt at deflecting from the fact you are wrong. You are seeking to make it about the delivery of my response which cannot be viewed as huffing and puffing. Accordingly, you got it wrong again.

      You also keep missing the point. I commented on her ability as an advocate.

      The optics aspect was to avoid having a man cross examining Heard because that might have been viewed as more of whatHeard complained about, a man bullying a woman, therefore yo avoid that appearance a female advocate was chosen.That is not a sexist remark.

      Furthermore, nothing I have written was about based on Vasquez having to work harder to be an equal, you have made it about that completely missing the point.

      I have considerable experience of advocacy. I have watched many in action and I have been cross examined several times. Vasquez is an average advocate and that is nothing to do with her gender, it is about her ability. Her work was not brilliant, and again, if you think that, you are demonstrating how you have no experience of seeing brilliant advocates in action. You have offered no evidence to demonstrate you have had considerable experience of advocacy and you therefore keep providing my point, instead you deflect by trying to make this an issue about gender and that you are not arguing, when you patently are.

      I find it tiresome that you are unable to understand the presentation of evidence.

      1. Asp Emp says:

        Great comment, HG. I believe you do understand a great deal about advocacy and you do a great job of that in your work (thank you for doing so too) 🙂

        1. HG Tudor says:

          I do and I mentioned previously the names of several exceptional advocates of whom I have had personal experience, unlike DB’s attempt to revise history by claiming she has experience of advocacy which is patently untrue and merely an attempt to dodge being shown up to be wrong.

          1. Duchessbea says:

            HG, what? Are you serious? What part of ‘I am not trying to argue with you’ did you not understand. You are clearly spoiling for a fight when really you should be giving me an apology. It was your comment and my interpretation of same that started all this. I fully stand behind what I said about being a typical man. Although, you could prove me wrong HG and extend an olive branch. I would be willing to reach out, and meet you half way. Best DB.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            “I am not arguing with you” – proceeds to repeatedly argue. Contradiction.
            Has it pointed out that this is happening – denies it is. Denial and revision of history.
            Repeatedly argues and then accuses me of spoiling for a fight. Provocation, blame shifting.
            “You should be giving me an apology.” – use of you should, entitlement, victim mentality.
            “I would be willing to meet you halfway.” – grandiosity

            Keep digging.

          3. Asp Emp says:

            HG, yes, I believe you 🙂 While the ‘principles’ of advocacy are similar, the methods of as such can vary. How you apply this through your various mediums of your work, including the consults – very few people can use all these methods and succeed at delivering advocacy. You do this excellently well because you understand the human psyche much more than many people do. As for someone like me, I can apply / use (and have done so to a good degree) your work for my own self-advocacy, including communications through KTN blog. Thank you for your response, HG 🙂

          4. Viol. says:

            Camille’s pushy approach would go over well in NYC, where I did jury duty. I saw a public defender with a similar vibe–wore an incredibly loud Hawaiian tie, and asked everybody in the voir dire if they liked it. Did a cross on the arresting officer that focused on whether he could tell a Dominican from a Columbian, mostly in an effort to cast some doubt on any aspect of his story, while we all pretended to ignore the ginormous Exhibit bag of cocaine that stank all the way the jury, despite double bagging. If I ever committed a crime, I thought, I’d want that guy

            Was he brilliant? In retrospect, there’s no way to tell just from that case, because the case didn’t require subtlety. The point is, neither did Amber’s. As HG has amply demonstrated, she’s not very high-functioning, and much of Camille’s work was done for her when Amber readily contradicted what she had just said (let alone said on previous occasions), visibly tried to get Fuel from both Johnny and the jury (they may not have known what she was doing, but several jurors reported being creeped out), and of course there were the facial 404s.

            I didn’t watch much of the trial outside of HG’s analysis, but I’m willing to accept the possibility that whatever brilliance Camille may possess has not yet been demonstrated. She was quite adequate to demolish Amber, but how would she fare against a higher-functioning narc?

            Where brilliance is concerned, I’m going for a Scottish verdict of Not Proven.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            A considered observation.

            She did not have a difficult opponent although she did not get under Heard’s skin as Heard kept her ignited fury under control for the most part (still did not help her of course because she kept lying and contradicting herself).
            Based on her performance, to describe it as brilliant is inaccurate and people are getting carried away. It did the job, which is fair enough and played a part in getting the win, but those thinking Vasquez’s performance was brilliant have never seen an exceptional advocate at work. She might become one, but she is not one at present.

          6. k mac says:

            I can just imagine this argument playing out in person. You repeating what’s been said and stating what they are examples of. 😆

          7. HG Tudor says:

            A useful learning example.

          8. Wendy says:


            I liked Camille because she had chutzpah! I also like seeing strong professional women trying to do their best in the profession they have chosen.

            Brilliant or not she helped her team get the job done and that was enough.

            I appreciate your last comment that said she may prove to be better in the future even if she isn’t great now. That is a fair comment.

            I think another reason I appreciated her is because she went up against a narcissist and that gave me a great feeling! It made me think about my ex and how I would love to see someone go after him like that and give me some justice! Lol

            But, I’ve given myself Justice from my ex by staying no contact. So I get the win! 😊💪


          9. WhoCares says:


            “Chutzpah” is a good word to describe Camille’s approach.

            And I agree:

            “I think another reason I appreciated her is because she went up against a narcissist and that gave me a great feeling! It made me think about my ex and how I would love to see someone go after him like that and give me some justice! ”

            It is very satisfying to see someone with emotional empathy go up against a narc and “win”.

      2. Sarah says:

        I agree on all points. I’ve worked in the courtroom for years. She was okay, even good, but she let many opportunities slip by, esp. in her last cross — if she had worked harder, she could have gotten Heard to really blow, and she did not follow up on THE most important testimony: that Heard admitted writing the op-ed about Johnny. Too, she looked brilliant next to Elaine who was a cluster! Just stupid incompetant. Optics. Yep! No way could a man have cross examined Heard. It would have ruined the case and given too much opportunity to whine about male power. Snore.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Thank you.

        2. WhoCares says:

          ” It would have ruined the case and given too much opportunity to whine about male power. Snore.”


      3. Truthseeker6157 says:


        That isn’t Duchessbea.

      4. Duchessbea says:

        HG, you couldn’t be more wrong. I plainly stated a few times that I am not, and am still not trying to argue with you because I’m not. I know how discussions like this can go and how people can get quite heated about things. With what you have stated in your comment, I do as it happens also have advocacy experience and like you I have seen brilliant and crap lawyers cross examine. I agree with your point regarding a man cross examining Amber Heard and how that possibly would have been portrayed in the media and how Amber would possibly have acted differently aswell. Going back to my original comment that you took umbridge with, I was responding to your comment and what you had written. But also the way you had written it. You obviously meant it one way, but as you know yourself, a reader can interpret what you have written differently. Comments like that can sometimes come across to a reader as objectifying women. I cannot stand comments that portray women to be nothing more than arm candy and the so called ‘Stepford Wives’ way of looking at things. I work with a lot of men, who on the whole 70% are very sound, great guys and treat you like an equal. But I also work with men of various ages who, when you enter the conference room for a meeting that you could be chairing, some of them look at you like you are the tea lady and the others look like they want to have you on the table, then and there and spend more time looking at your body. I have no problem dealing with any of those types of men. But, you never see those men in meetings being chaired by other men, behaving in that manner. They have a different attention span. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with men. Just reading your comment and my interpretation of same, it was like you were downgrading women. This is gone off point altogether, but again all I was trying to say was, what you write might be interpreted by you one way, and by me or someone else another way. And the gender topic is a very dangerous topic to get into. I wish you well HG. Best, DB.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Thank you for proving my point again, although you cannot see it.

          1. Duchessbea says:

            HG, are you serious? I didn’t and wasn’t proving any point. Or saying you were right and I was wrong. That wasn’t the issue. We are quite clearly coming at this from two completely different ways. I was merely stating facts. You were trying to say you were right in what you said. All I was trying to say was, I didn’t like what you said. I didn’t say you were right or wrong. I didn’t comment on that. You might not have liked my comment and that is fine. But that was my opinion and I’m sticking by it. I think it is best that we agree to disagree. Or in your language – we are both right. Best, DB

          2. HG Tudor says:

            I agree, you did not prove your point, you proved mine.

      5. Duchessbea says:

        HG, if we were to put your comment to a vote on your blog to see what the other people have to say regarding the Camille Vasquez cross examination of Amber Heard, I think I would be confident in saying that they would all have thought Camille did a good job. I know there would be a few strays who will vote on what you have said, but weeding those out I think I could confidently say that many would agree with me. Don’t get me wrong HG, I am not trying to be arrogant or obnoxious in saying that. I am baseing my answer purely on comments I have read on your blog but also on the hundreds if not thousands of articles I have read online since this trial began. Also the most recent comments being said after the interview with Amber Heard and Savannah Guthrie. Camille is more than just average. She is a very competent and articulate lawyer who did a very good job cross examining Amber Heard. I, like you would be very familiar with UK Law, and yes, I have seen some brilliant barristers in the Courts in the UK. But I also watched the questioning of Amber Heard by Camille live, and she did a good job. She was certainly better than some of Amber’s lawyers, I think you would agree with that. I don’t want to fight with you HG, and I think you have the impression that I am trying to and no doubt I will probably have a few people weighing in on your behalf too, but putting all that aside, it was your comment and the way you wrote it, that just kinda lowered the tone for me. If I’m truly honest, I just didn’t like what you wrote, I felt it was downplaying women, and I said as much. I stated the fact that I wasn’t trying to argue with you because I knew you would not like my comment and you would think I was trying to fight with you, when I wasn’t. Now that we have gotten to the bottom of that, if you feel like throwing an apology my way, I’d be willing to accept. Best, DB

        1. HG Tudor says:

          1. Telling me to have a vote on my blog – poor boundary recognition, sense of entitlement.
          2. “many would agree with me” – grandiosity
          3. “I am not trying to be arrogant or obnoxious” – blind to actual behaviour
          4. “I am baseing (sic) my answer on the hundreds if not thousands of articles I have read since this trial began” – lie.
          5. “I have seen some brilliant barristers in the UK” – lie.
          6. “i don’t want to fight with you” but I am doing so, contradictory.
          7. “kinda lowered the tone” – deluded
          8. “if you feel like throwing me an apology my way, I’d be willing to accept it” – entitled

          Keep digging.

          1. Sarah says:

            Haha, histrionic much, Miss Duchessbea???

          2. Asp Emp says:


          3. Duchessbea says:

            You know it is funny HG, when the shoe is on the other foot you don’t like it. Who would have guessed that. I don’t need to keep digging you are doing a fine job of that yourself in that department. I have merely just stated that I didn’t like your comment and backed up what I have said with facts. I stated I did not want to fight with you because I knew you would not like my comment. You seem to be having a canary. You need to calm down. Try some Netflix and chill. There was no point to be proved. Just my opinion was stated. I shall keep my opinions to myself in future. If, as I suggested you want to put to a vote on the blog as to how good Camille Vasquez was during cross examination and get everyone else’s opinion, by all means do. I am not telling you what to do, I would never do that. Be interesting to see the outcome of what everyone thought. I don’t want to anger you anymore. Count to ten and breathe deeply, it’ll help calm and relax you. I wish you well. And this Empath sends you much love. Best, DB

          4. HG Tudor says:

            Deluded, patronising, contradictory and entitled.

          5. Asp Emp says:

            HG, I think I should turn my tv off 🙂

          6. Viol. says:


            “And this Empath sends you much love.”

            You have not been exhibiting empathic traits in this interchange.

          7. StrongerWendy says:

            “If you feel like throwing an apology my way, I’d be willing to accept.” Oh my….

          8. HG Tudor says:

            Indeed SW.

        2. k mac says:

          Sweet DB,
          Has HG taught you nothing? It’s a losing battle. ❤

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Give them enough rope.

      6. NarcAngel says:

        I’m left wondering whose brilliance it was to present a pre recorded deposition where the subject is shown vaping and driving.

        1. Wendy says:

          NA, haha. That was so funny to me. The guy was like “ come on let’s get this BS over with. I got a job to do.” 😂

      7. Contagious says:

        As an advocate in 3 states and a qualifier for ABOTA, she was a good young litigator. But there are much better as HG pointed out. This does not take away the ability she performed at her young years of experience. Give it time. Litigators grow through experience. Nothing replaces experience, my thoughts given time she will become excellent. Lawyers learn trial by trial. It’s like anything else:) Some say Johnny Cochran is the best criminal defense lawyer… Where was he he when young? Learning.

        1. Foreigner74 says:

          Could anyone explain to me the difference between advocate, attorney, lawyer and litigator, please?

    2. Viol. says:


      If a conversation goes on for some length, you stop getting the Reply option at the bottom. You have to scroll up and find the last Reply option in that thread, and usually put the person’s name (if it’s not a general response). I would blame this one on WordPress, not HG

      1. Duchessbea says:

        Thank you Viol.
        Best, DB

      2. Duchessbea says:

        Hi Viol, I read your comment saying what I had written was not very empathic. I didn’t insult anybody and I didn’t argue with anyone. HG is a narcissist and his reaction was not unsurprising given that I said I didn’t like his comment. As this is HG’s blog he is fully entitled to comment how he chooses. I on the otherhand am a longtime supporter of HG’s work and think he is fantastic for the time and effort he puts in to help all of us. I just didn’t like a comment he made, I interpreted it one way, and he meant it another way. Things like this happen all the time. That’s life. I appreciated what HG had to say to me, I took some of it on board the rest was just him spoiling for a fight with me, but was not meant in a hurtful way or with any animosity. Remember HG is a Narcissist and I am an Empath, when an Empath challenges, a narc will rise to the occasion. Empaths can have opinions and state same, just because they don’t come across empathic doesn’t mean that person is not an Empath. Empaths are not wall flowers or sheep. If we have something to say, we will say it. I knew HG would take umbridge with my opinion. But I stand by my opinion as that was what I felt when reading it. I was not offended by what HG said to me and likewise I am sure HG was not offended with what I said to him. It is thanks to HG that I learned to control my ET and LT. I have massive respect for the man and am very grateful to him. Best, DB

        1. HG Tudor says:

          No, I was not spoiling for a fight, I was correcting you.

          Your behaviour, as I broke it down and how others have also seen it, spoke for itself, albeit you cannot see that.

          1. Asp Emp says:

            HG, your comment here reminds me of a video you posted yesterday – Harry’s Wife Part 92.62 ‘Will She Ever Be Aware Of Her Behaviour?’. Good to read that one again 🙂

          2. Duchessbea says:

            HG, I appreciate what you have to say, yes I am an Empath but I also have some narc traits though thankfully they are few and far between. You might spot a narc comment in how I might have written something, but that doesn’t mean anything other than the way something was written. Just because I am an Empath, does not mean I am a doormat. If I have something to say, or feel passionate about something, I will say it. Something I feel very passionate about and something that is also a dangerous topic to talk about is the gender topic. Things can get quite heated very quickly. I read what you had to say yesterday, and yes I will I admit, I was perhaps slightly smart in my answers back to you, but you also answered in a rather heated way to. As the old saying goes ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’. In future if I see any comments like that, I shall refrain from commenting. Again, I’m not arguing with you, just saying that’s all. I didn’t say I didn’t like your comment to start a full scale riot, I just said my comment as that was how I felt at the time. I was aware that you might not like what I had to say, but this is your blog, if you wanted to block me, you would have. I am a long time commenting on this blog and last year with my sister and her behaviour, I had my fair share of trouble, but fair play, you allowed me to remain on the blog. Best, DB

          3. HG Tudor says:

            No, my comments were not heated in the slightest, you are projecting and deflecting again.

            My comments were to the point and logical.

            Once again “I am not arguing with you” but you are. You keep contradicting yourself.

            Every time I point out the inaccuracies in what you state, you keep trying to argue with me but you fail to see that all you are doing is proving the very points I make.

          4. Viol. says:


            I won’t ask, because I have no right to know, but I hope you are considering whether HG said you were an empath, or you came to that conclusion yourself.

        2. Viol. says:


          “I didn’t insult anybody and I didn’t argue with anyone.“
          Your comments were sarcastic (“I loved the way you left out the ‘reply’ after your response HG“), condescending (“What part of ‘I am not trying to argue with you’ did you not understand. You are clearly spoiling for a fight when really you should be giving me an apology“), and high-handed (“if you feel like throwing an apology my way, I’d be willing to accept“).

          Do I entirely agree with HG? I thought Camille was pretty good, but my legal knowledge is primarily from proofreading, copy editing, and transcription. What I would NOT be able to spot is whether she missed any opportunities in court. I can evaluate what she did, but I cannot evaluate what she failed to do.

          So when HG says that whether or not she may become brilliant, she is not brilliant yet, I can only concede that if she is, it is not demonstrable by this case.

          1. Wendy says:

            I get the feeling we have been cut off! Silenced by the Ultra. I think he needs a break from us and our shenanigans!

            Come on HG, we provide nice fuel for a tertiary source right?!

          2. HG Tudor says:

            No, I have been busy with professional matters.

        3. Contagious says:

          Dear Duchess: There is a lot of talk about her abilities. She has created a fan base and is a capable young ( emphasis) attorney. She deserves praise. But HG is dead right. There are much more experienced lawyers who could have done better. But moreover lawyers don’t win cases. Some may think they do but we put the facts to light. Facts. Evidence. No doubt the jury was looking to hard evidence of her rape. Admissions. We heard Amber admit to assault. Johnny? The witnesses. Who was credible. Who not. And jury selection. Who were these people? Narcs? Empaths? Etc… it’s often a crap shoot as I have heard multimillionaire lawyers say. Venue matters. Who chose that. Now I think the judge was as fair as you can find. But it is my humble opinion the hard credible evidence lacked in her case and favored him. Now if this was a trial over substance abuse, she would win. Lawyers don’t win cases and I am one. I know some of the best. Or at least wealthiest and well regarded. It helps but the facts and the players matter more. Unless … as I feel … OJ won because the jury was selected from a part of Las that distrusted police … and for good reason at the time. Also why did “ Amber” win in the Uk. She did not really. Rupert Murdoch won and the standard was different. Again different party. Different laws. Not the attorneys but no doubt his were good.

          1. Duchessbea says:

            Contagious, I very much agree with what you say, and in particular regarding the facts of the Depp v Heard case and the presentation of same by Camille Vasquez. HG made very valid and good points about Camille Vasquez. I never said Camille was outstanding and no one would ever equal her. I felt she presented well on the day in question when she was cross examining. I felt she was much better than Amber’s lawyers. That’s just my opinion. I very much agree with your point that a much more experienced lawyer would come across as truly brilliant. I was in no way putting down anyone’s opinion or comment. I just stated I did not like HG’s comment and I knew the great man himself possibly would not like that. I wasn’t trying to prove a point, just stating my opinion.The comments you say about the English case, I would agree. If I remember correctly she was a witness to prove the substance of a newspaper story. At the time of this case in the UK, Domestic Violence was a very big issue in the media. I think the correct outcome was decided in the US courts in relation to the Depp v Heard case. But having watched and read about the case, it was clear that both Depp and Heard were in a very toxic relationship and it’s amazing they lasted as long as they did. Having listened to HG’s breakdown of Johnny Depp, we are now aware he is narcissistic, maybe that is why he was willing to put up with the abuse from Amber Heard and turned to drugs to deal with it. Either way it was an interesting case. Best, DB

  10. annaamel says:

    Hello all.

    I’ve been watching Amber Heard’s post verdict interview and only if I view her as a narcissist does her decision to do this interview, and answer the questions asked in the way she does, make sense.

    I felt she came across as disingenuous, condescending and seemingly oblivious to the reason she was sued by Depp in the first place, potentially damaging her reputation with the general public even more.

    But I can appreciate she may not be able to see herself that way. She may feel she did a good job and the answers she’d prepared served her well. She may believe she came across as dignified and respectable, that she rehabilitated her reputation and skilfully diminished those who’d challenged or critiqued her.

    Also, I realise I’m likely not her target audience. Perhaps for Amber, it is irrelevant whether people like me don’t accept what she says. As those who don’t or won’t admire her, she tunes us out. For her it’s only about whether those who already love her will love her more. In saying what that group already believed she probably did earn their further love and admiration.

    Mission accomplished from her perspective it would seem.

    1. Viol. says:

      Especially if she can provoke a response from Johnny and get some Fuel from him. Fuel from the public is all very well, but she’s jonesing for the primary stuff. I hope he has been well-advised to do nothing of the kind.

    2. Wendy says:

      The Daily Wire interview of her was more of the same BS and the way she presented just as unbelievable as she was in court.

    3. Viol. says:

      Dm headline:

      “Amber Heard releases ‘years’ of therapist’s notes that she says PROVE she was abused by Johnny Depp – detailing instances where she claims he ‘hit her, threatened to kill her, and threw her against a wall’ in explosive sneak peek of Dateline interview”

      If I tell my therapist the moon is made of green cheese, can it be used in court? I mean as evidence on astronomy, not on my mental health.

      Don’t go for the bait, Johnny. Your reputation & career are recovering now that she’s shown her true self on the stand. You don’t need her money & you don’t want to be in a courtroom with her. Ignore her, & she’ll have to get her Fuel elsewhere.

      1. HG Tudor says:

        Indeed and if it does, why did you not admit it as evidence when you had the chance to do so.

        1. lickemtomorrow says:

          The Judge declared it was “hearsay” and Heard’s team was not allowed to admit at trial. They said at the time there was a lot of evidence (going back to 2012) they were not permitted to present.

  11. Viol. says:

    DM headline:

    “‘This could spur another lawsuit’: Legal experts reveal Johnny Depp could take ex-wife Amber Heard to court for ‘republishing’ her abuse allegations against him in Today interview”

    Am I right in suspecting she is trying to hoover him? If so, am I right in suspecting that he won’t take the bait?

    He already got what he really wanted, which was to have her reveal her true self to the public. He doesn’t need the damage money, and he sure doesn’t want to sit in a courtroom or any room with her again!

  12. Another Cat says:

    HG, do narcissistICs triangulated much?

    Like many, I always enjoyed listening to the guitarist Jeff Beck.

    Now if Johnny Depp were a narc I would DEFINTELY notice Beck as his new primary source of fuel. Immediate touring with the guy, playing lots of music for the masses together, pun very much intended. At a perfect moment too, when Depp already has the world’s attention. Beck being quite advanced age also makes it easier for Depp in making this possible I guess.

    Since I know he is no narc (and I assume Jeff Beck is none also) the friendship could be genuine?

  13. NarcAngel says:

    As I see it, a lot of differing opinion (in any case – not just this one) has to do with what people individually accept as “evidence”. Both sides in court present what they believe to be the best evidence for a successful outcome and yet it is usually vastly different. In all of the parts HG presented on Johnny, he would offer that the behaviour could mean “this” (leading to conclusion of narcissist behaviour) or it could mean “this” (leading to conclusion of other than narcissist), and it struck me that a lot of people could, and would, accept as “evidence” whatever fit the need for their preferred outcome. Not all information is allowed in court as evidence even though it may be thought as such by the party seeking to use it. The outcome decided by a jury who will make a determination based on the information they were presented with and what those jurors individually believed to be “evidence”. This can be largely affected by the ability/skill of the person or teams presenting the most strength in supporting their argument and is the case where money and status is believed to sway. Are hung juries not an example of this? Same information presented and heard to all, but different individual beliefs leading to disagreement as to what constitutes evidence and prevents a collective decision? If “evidence” is irrefutable certainty a decision could surely be made?

    1. Another Cat says:

      NA wrote

      “If “evidence” is irrefutable certainty a decision could surely be made?”

      Even though I haven’t exactly followed the case closely, in the way Northern Americans have, I was also confused by what was counted as evidence, as you say. Much was object ed.

      When there are roughly an equal amount of irrefutable evidence pointing to party A being right, as the amount of irrefutable evidence pointing to party B being right, and all has to be accounted for by the jury … quite a mess for the jury to work with such a material.

    2. Contagious says:

      Narc Angel: There are laws on evidence but this judge was good. Fair. I think she let only the nonhearsay evidence in. She was tough. Direct evidence only. She was hard on it. Other judges would have allowed some opinion or hearsay. She was hard on letting in witness testimony my guess many witnesses were denied to speak, she let in direct photos, the admissions, the in person direct witness testimony. Experts can opine of course. …..Johnny had the hard evidence in his favor on the issues presented. That is why he won. HG’s analysis is of an expert. He can comment on articles or what others said but that would only come in as an expert. The judge would have denied him his testimony on any other basis other than expert. He is an expert. Which he is in my opinion top of his game. Going to go farther …

  14. psychologyandworldaffairs says:

    My thoughts on this… In the words of my mom when my sister and I would fight…

    ‘Half a dozen of one, half a dozen of the other – I will knock both your heads together!’

    Don’t worry – no physical violence happened..

    Her way of saying = ‘you are both as bad as each other – I am not taking sides – end of story!!!!’


    Quite effective…

  15. Sweetest Perfection says:

    I feel like Johnny Depp!!! (cleaner and sober, though I’m having a mega pint tonight to celebrate). I BEAT WORK NARC!!!! The lawyer was able to find the evidence I was talking about and withdraw any legal rights from whatever we were contesting and give them to me!!!!! Ahhhhh, it feels good to be mischievous sometimes. I also was able to do this without wasting a single drop of fuel because I demanded that all forms of communication were through the lawyer and the Dean without having any personal contact with him. And who taught me that????????? ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️HG!!!!!!!!! Thank you so much!!!!!!

    1. HG Tudor says:

      You are welcome.

    2. Viol. says:

      May all work narcs be tortured by HG’s minions for all eternity!

      1. Sweetest Perfection says:

        This one only took me 11 years. His fucking façade is so strong that nobody would ever believe he could be such an asshole, but like HG said, give them enough rope…. Now it came out to light he has also been lying all these years, apart from exposing himself as a horrendous non-collegial prick. In the words of the lawyer: “This guy just loves control!”

        1. Z - zwartbolleke says:

          💥 well done!!!
          Enjoy the sweet feeling and the mega pint 😉

          Something for me to set as an example, I’m still in full battle with the work narc

          1. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Don’t give up, Z!!! And follow HG’s recommendations in his package about dealing with narcs at work. I have followed everything to a T. Now I need the next step, which I’m still planning.

        2. Viol. says:


          Please give all the details you can without violating narcsite anonymity protocols. I want to know how he tried to sabotage you and how it came back to bite him in the backside.

      2. Sweetest Perfection says:

        Also: he resigned.

        1. Viol. says:

          Omg, it’s a Royal Flush!

          Meanwhile, Miss Minchin’s is STILL listed as “Temporarily closed.” It’s been over a MONTH; I noticed it on April 20-something when preparing documents for my benefits hearing.

          Would it be breaking No Contact to ask another former employee if she can find out from someone who still works there (and was relatively friendly, if naive) what’s going on? Those two are both on FB.

          1. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Violetta, I understand your curiosity but, isn’t it good enough to know it’s closed?

          2. Viol. says:


            Temporarily. And NOPE!–I want to know if they got nailed on one of those safety protocols they practiced so inconsistently or GrinchLady went into Joan Crawford mode in front of someone who mattered.

        2. WhoCares says:

          “Also: he resigned.”

          Seriously, SP?

          Wow, just wow. That was unexpected…

          I bet.

          1. Sweetest Perfection says:

            He has been getting his way for a long time and thought this was gonna be the same. He wanted to work in another place while still maintaining his control over me by saying it was temporary and we would be collaborating meanwhile. I explained to the administration this situation is atypical. Because I am the chair of an important committee I have access to the legal process for hiring practices so I proved that was he was proposing was not part of the legal procedure. They gave him an ultimatum and he had to resign because he already signed a contract with another place thinking he was gonna keep this job. On the way out, he tried to take important documentation that my department needs and that he claims belongs to him. I demonstrated this documentation was actually in a website that belonged to my work, because we have been paying for it. So they simply contacted the company and asked them to remove him from it and put my name instead as the new manager. I have also become the head of the department. And initiated a hiring opening to replace his ass, which I’m sure he will see soon as it is made public online. Bwaaaahahaha!!! 😈

    3. WiserNow says:

      Well done SP (and also HG)!
      Productive teamwork that utilises diverse strengths can really improve a workplace…
      …if you know what I mean 😉

      1. Sweetest Perfection says:

        I don’t work with HG! I learn from him.

        1. WiserNow says:

          Same with me SP!

          1. Viol. says:

            This is one of those rare cases in which doing what your boss says and giving him full info to make his determinations actually works.

            Too many of us are used to conferring with other worker bees to get stuff done, hoping they’re not management spies who will stab us in the back, and giving the boss need-to-know info only, so he doesn’t gum up the works.

          2. WiserNow says:

            To some extent, I agree. I think it depends on the size and type of organisation and how well it is structured and managed. It also depends on the job and the work being done.

            My comment about ‘productive teamwork’ was an ironic joke. I recently read some work-related information about diversity in a workplace. It discussed findings that workplaces including people of different ethnicity, age, gender, social status, education, etc, were more innovative and productive due to the variety of ideas, skills and viewpoints.

            When commenting above, I thought of that information and it made me see SP’s situation where HG’s strategies culminated in a resignation as productive teamwork improving a workplace.

            Of course now I see that HG is a boss. There is no ‘I’ in team and HG, being a colossus striding the earth at will, doesn’t do ‘teamwork’.

        2. Contagious says:

          Hi sweetest! Great name. I find myself becoming more addicted to this site because it’s widened to address not just interpersonal relations but global issues. I read a book or watch a movie and see the psychology behind it now or a news article. It’s in my head. Not sure how all this education helps me make the world a better place, but to know better is to do better. Thanks to HG and my consults, reading, blogging, I let narcs roll off me more easily. The term “ narc” bothered me at first as I asked HG what’s the difference between a narc and a f$@&ing asshole. He replied why does that matter? Lol Yet the education about the insidious types and ways “ narcs” abuse has opened my eyes and I know am smarter on the topic and feel I have more to learn. It never ends. Even if you control it “at home” it’s out there in the world. I learn from him too. Oprah says to know better is to do better. Guess that’s all we can do. Try our best in this thing called life:)

    4. Jenmie says:

      So so very true. And I do not give a hoot disagrees here. The one and only true narc here, is Johnny. To the fullest. What is sad, is he pulked it iff and everyine reigns him king. He acted, performed, behaved himself perfectly! Just as a narc does! That is what they do. See Johnny would start the shit, twist it all around, turn it all on her, and they cry abuse. Amber certainly didnt start out this way. Johnny was sloppy, haggard, getting old and well Ive heard his hygeines pathetic. Ambers is what, 20 years younger, and whilst this old mans grtting drunk and high all day, shes coming to the conclusion that this is not what shed signed up for. I believe she felt a genuine love for him, in fact she probably was deeply in love with him .
      And for Johnny, well she was an escape. She made him feel young and hip and great and he love bombed her, no doubt. I can swear by it. He probably put her on a pedastal so high, that look what happened when it was time to come down. And she was not hip to narc behaviours and all that fun stuff. She fought back, she wanted that same attention and devotiin he dumoed on her in the beginning, like all the time. His drinking and drugging altered his perception enough to where he began to bicker or rather, was feeling insecure about her c stars etc, and even when she’d done all she could to show him otherwise, hed was still insecure , which is really only jealousy. So his insecurries and jealousy, began to knock her down, accuse her, belittle and degrade who she is as a person and in her professionm. She is confused because, diesnt he love her? Why is he doing or saying these things. So she becomes a little defensive, and slowly kind of begins to push him away. He is hurting her, but cant see it, or doesnt care ir for whatever reason. Shes not sure of how else to react to his anger towards her or her co workers, And he sees her backing away, as a sign of her being up to no good. This angers him more, resulting in more abusive behaviors to himself as well as her. Eventually, and belueve me, we learn how to behave just like you narcs, in our own way. We learn to pull the same games out of your hat. We fight back in our defense and then suddenly you stop. You step back , smile, and let the shit show begin. That man is an honirary actor. One of the best in the world. Are you kidding me? Behind every crazy woman is the man, whi drove her there. And that is the truth! Let me tell it to you directly from an empaths pov. Let me say what it really is. Youre good though H.G. Of course its all Ambers fault America. Duh! No shame in a narcs game.

      1. Viol. says:

        Plus her dog stepped on a bee.

      2. seraphicanarchy says:

        That’s some major league projection going on there, undoubtedly because she’s beautiful (or once was) but your myopic infatuation won’t alter the fact she’s a vile, conniving, narcopathic parasite.

  16. WiserNow says:

    This is a sad and sordid case, in a number of ways.

    I’m not saying that because Amber Heard lost or because Johnny Depp won. I think the verdict was appropriate.

    On the same day as the Depp and Heard trial verdict was read out, (June 1), new sexual consent laws came into effect in New South Wales, Australia. The new legislation requires affirmative consent and is aimed at ensuring that consent emphasises ongoing communication. The new laws will coincide with an education campaign that will run on social media. The campaign aims to teach young people to better understand consent and their own agency.

    The new laws were introduced after an eight-year campaign that began in 2013, in which Saxon Mullins pursued an advocacy campaign for reforms to the way the justice system responded to sexual violence.

    Saxon Mullins was an 18-year-old virgin when she was raped in an alleyway at the back of a nightclub a few minutes after she met the rapist. Saxon went through two trials and two appeals before a judge found she had not consented.

    After Saxon spoke out on a national TV program about her case, in which the whole country learned who she was and what happened to her, a review of consent laws was initiated.

    After her eight-year campaign, she was praised for her “extraordinary bravery” and “tireless advocacy”.

    Saxon Mullins is now a director of an organisation called ‘Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy’. The advocacy group says the new laws don’t go far enough and that the criminal justice system needs an overhaul to improve the experiences of victims/survivors throughout the criminal process system starting with police.

    It also says that it is a struggle to change a system that is built on patriarchal white privilege.

    In my opinion, both the public airing of the Depp/Heard defamation case and the eight-year campaign for changes to consent laws in New South Wales are a sad indictment of general male attitudes towards women and sex.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      And what about the fact that a man was abused by his wife in the Depp case? Ah, but mean do not really matter do they?

      1. WiserNow says:

        Of course men matter. All people matter. I didn’t say that men don’t matter HG.

        My point is how the law works and how the law is a system that’s built on male attitudes and male privilege – particularly when it comes to matters of sexual and domestic abuse.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          You didn’t say men matter either, you very clearly focused on men as perpetrators and women as the victims. Whilst the proportion of male perpetrators is greater than that of female perpetrators, the number of female abusers is not de minimis.

          1. WiserNow says:

            The thing I was focused on was the law and the ‘system of law’ – from police to judges. The system of law is built – historically – to cater more to general male attitudes and male privilege, particularly when it comes to matters of sexual and domestic abuse.

            I also said that I thought the verdict against Amber Heard was appropriate.

            The ‘male privilege’ I referred to is based on narcissism and narcissistic attitudes that regard ‘power’ or ‘authority’ as a ‘male’ construct.

            I realise there are female abusers and female perpetrators. The number of female perpetrators charged and convicted is smaller than male perpetrators when it comes to sexual and domestic violence.

            In my view – which is also backed by scientific and medical evidence – a man is more likely to be the ‘physical’ or sexual aggressor in sexual violence cases because men have more testosterone, which causes aggressive and overtly sexual behaviour. This fact in addition to narcissism, causes men to be more likely to perpetrate crimes of sexual violence.

            Women can also be physically abusive, however, women are more likely to be emotionally or psychologically abusive, simply because they do not have the physical strength of a man. Again, the abuse is due to narcissism.

            Both men and women are capable of being emotionally and psychologically abusive.

            When it comes to the law, I believe the law needs to be much more aware of narcissism and empathy – in all humans. The law is a system and the system can and will change only after social attitudes and social demands change.

            I think it is also social attitudes and social demands that prevent male victims from speaking out and from being treated with empathy.

            Social attitudes *in general* demand that men are stoic and unemotional. These attitudes are unfair on men. If a man shows emotion or empathy, he is more likely to be regarded as ‘weak’. This is a stigma that is tragically unfair, because it means the empathic men of the world are kept silent and disempowered.

            …And by the way, I believe Johnny Depp used the law to globally humiliate Amber Heard in an act of retaliation more-so than truth-telling or justice.

            In the days when Amber was giving her final testimony under questioning, Johnny looked down because he childishly and stubbornly refused to look at her and he also looked embarrassed and uncomfortable.

            He didn’t even attend in court when the verdict was read out. To me, that showed an arrogant and self-entitled disrespect for the trial, his legal representatives, his fans who were there to support him, viewers on social media, and the law in general. He didn’t have the decency to stand there, listen to what the jury had concluded, and be in attendance.

            I believe Johnny Depp treated the law like a rag he could wipe his dirty shoes on and the law complied. He had the money to buy the legal defence that would ensure Amber was well and truly defamed and humiliated.

            He cleared his name and based on the evidence, Amber was ‘brought to justice’. The way the trial played out though, was not the way it would have played out if the shoe was on the other foot.

        2. mollyb5 says:

          @Wiser now ..HG helps people legally with consults and possibly more …I don’t know . He is very familiar with laws. Men and young boys have been abused physically and verbally and emotionally by women and have kept quiet because, it’s not manly to speak up about it.

          1. Joa says:

            Molly, this is no argument.

            The women are silent:
            – because nobody believes them,
            – because then they wear a mark like a seal on the forehead,
            – because they are afraid, that it will affect their relationship,
            – because they are afraid, that it will affect their work,
            – because they are disregarded and ridiculed (interestingly, especially by women, who have much less pity towards other women),
            – because they are not ready for forensic examination after such an event,
            – because they often have to testify in front of another man (policeman),
            – because they have to face the perpetrator one more time,
            – because they have to prove to the whole world and there is a risk that they will fail and public opinion will destroy them.

            – Why did she go there?
            – How was she dressed?
            – She asked herself.
            – She was interested in money and luxury, and now she’s playing the victim.
            – She could have screamed louder.
            – Her ass is spinning, then she is surprised. – She has a husband, so why was she going out with someone else?
            – Seemingly so decent, and she was no longer a virgin.
            – What kind of mother she is, how will it affect her children?
            – Celebrity wants to be.
            – You’re lying, he could never do that!
            – He said, she wanted to.
            – She ran after him, accosted him, she finally got it.

            And dozens of others.

            And finally, the most interesting. I once heard from a friend of mine, an educated (!), very calm man (he was not a Narcissist): “But how is it? I always wonder. How is it possible, that he put in, if you didn’t want to?”

            “How…? Fuck, get undressed bitch, and be fucking silent! Try to scream and I’ll break your hands off! Close the snout or you won’t get out of here! Stop breaking free or I’ll call a friend and we’ll take turns fucking you! “- I replied in a strangled, feverish voice, a hideous twisted face and madness in my eyes.

            I gave him a sample. He understood.

            We never went back to that topic again.


            Lots of people confide in me. Lots of women. I estimate, that approximately one in three women is raped or has had sex under pressure. And I’m not overstating the statistics.

            We’re silent, aren’t we?

            Every woman in my family. Each one.

          2. mollyb5 says:

            @ joa. Yes many women stay silent. I’m a woman and yes I know . But there are laws that help the vulnerable now. Women have come a long way. We have a choice now. We can be silent if we want to. And , men are silent if they want to be also. I have four brothers 3 younger and I have a son. Men have their own societal burdens placed upon them that can be just as harmful. I won’t list all their burdens here. I have been told by a city worker in my area about the numerous Male suicides they may not report in our city statistics . ( it’s a country club and golf course area Expectations on men are high) There is a lot of pressure on men also.

          3. Viol. says:


            Ever see The Boys of St. Vincent? Based on actual events.

            Think about how many similar events have taken place over the centuries that never made it into a movie. Not just Catholics, because the predators go to gyms, borstals, orphanages run by other faiths or by the government–any place where there are children, you’ll find predators.

            It’s true that men generally grow up to be physically stronger than women, but that doesn’t stop some women finding a man with learned helplessness–or just abusing little kids, because kids won’t even know which laws are on the books, let alone which are enforced.

            Ever think why so many women used to become nurses and elementary teachers? It wasn’t always because they were so nurturing or even that other careers weren’t open. Some of them instinctively wanted power over the helpless.

            Gender may augment certain forms of power, but the crucial factor for abuse will be whether the individual is a certain kind of narcissist, not whether their pee-pee is an innie or an outie.

      2. Sarah says:

        Not to the Femi-nazis. So convenient to blame your life on someone else.

      3. Asp Emp says:

        Over thousands of years, men were abused but it was rarely, if ever, reported and never “discussed”. Even if a man talks about it, today, there will always be contradicting views from all sorts of people. Because of this, I am glad Johnny Depp won his defamation case. It needed to be ‘aired’, made public. For people to witness it for themselves.

        Why do I “support” Johnny?

        Because, for me, it’s personal. My father, his illness and still being treated like that by a so-called-supposedly “nurturing” female who was also a mother. Wow. I could not protect my father either, I was too young to understand.

        1. Sweetest Perfection says:

          I agree with you, Asp Emp.

          1. Asp Emp says:

            Thank you, SP 🙂

        2. Contagious says:

          I met a man in the dog park who spent two hours telling me his research on the Catholic Church. His role was for years to work for the Anderson firm for ten years to go to various states and pull up the criminal court files to add the victim to the civil case. He told me of the vetting process they went through. It was not a class action but co- joined so that the victims could get more than a class stipend. He read every case for ten years as the researcher. If they popped up he read the file. He told me 6% of the priests were involved. Most were boys not girls. That it wasn’t the “ creepy” priest but the young dynamic handsome charming one usually. He said for years the Catholic Church buried it or moved the priest. One was televised as going to Ireland from the states without any notice from the church. He violated again. He said many many victims didn’t want money. They just wanted to protect others. I asked him if he became paranoid after reading so many horrific cases. He said he would not ever let his kids go to a Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic. Every institution has these types. I don’t know or believe the entire church covered it up but horrific mistakes were made. I asked why did these priests join? He said in his research it was access and also the fact the church forgives their “sins.” Some of the perpetrators were horrid at themselves but could not stop. I asked what about their victims? He said their lives were ruined. Many turned to drugs and alcohol or oddly became promiscuous themselves. I just add this as an in person account of antisocial and narcissistic behavior that destroys both sexes. I hope I relayed my recent account neutrally. Personally, I don’t get the justice system. We have Meghan’s law in the States but does that help. Victims fall prey to the most trusted sources and the law doesn’t lock them away. They are released. Some as shown above with help. He told me if one man who said he would murder anyone for touching his daughter. To protect her father from jail time, she didn’t tell. At the trial, the father was consumed with guilt. Awful. Just thought I would share a true account. This man was also hired by a studio that did a major film on the topic. I can’t recall it. I think Devil is in the title.

          1. Asp Emp says:

            Contagious, thank you for sharing about this. It goes to show that could and maybe would have happened in some workhouses; orphanages; boarding schools; to name but a few, it can happen anywhere, to anybody. ‘Moving the priest’ would not necessarily have been the “solution”. I agree, that these people in these positions are viewed as ‘trustworthy’ and, granted, only a small number would be abusers. I knew a teacher who’d verbally and / or physically abuse pupils (I did not find out about the physical side until after I left school) but I was one of the pupils in class when it was verbally done. Having said that, it was the boys at this school that got caned, the slipper, I had never heard about any girls being punished in this way. Yet, some of the girls ‘acted’ worse than boys. So, for some of the pupils, the school was not an ‘intervener’ when it came to formation of narcissists. There was also a matron, who was in her role for about 2 years, she was “too much”.

            There are several films, also documentaries and docudramas of such institutional malpractices.

      4. Joa says:

        HG, the fact that a wronged woman fights for other wronged women does not mean, that she discriminates against men in the same situation.

        I think, on the contrary, she perfectly understands what they experienced and how they felt.


        In my country, a famous court case from about 30 years ago was a phenomenon. A mother and two daughters recruited young boys into their luxurious (at that time) car. They humiliated and raped them.

        One of them dared to bring the case. He won. Womens have been doomed. After him, others came forward.

        There are also some cases related to rapes of boys (but not only) by priests.


        In my life, I have met two men, who had to have sex with their mother on a regular basis (for many years) as children. Both were raised without a father. One committed suicide in adulthood (about 15 years ago). His mother is alive and well to this day.

        I won’t write anything else, because a lump is in my throat.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          It depends on who that person is Joa though, that is a very pertinent point that you are overlooking.

      5. Contagious says:

        There is a saying that there is nothing more blind than those who can’t see. Both were abusive in their own ways. To feel sorry for just Amber means you didn’t listen to the evidence against her… and it was weighty. No one makes you abuse another. To me, it was an ugly divorce. But your analysis was right. I am all about equal rights, equal pay, and feel for women who traditionally are the more abused and down trodden. Men have historically and in many sectors of the WORLD hold the power so there are statistically more female victims. With that being said men deserve equal compassion and are often victims too. I think this case showed abuse on both sides. Anyone who heard the tapes would have to agree. But your analysis was right HG and I didn’t even consider narcissistic v narc. A new nugget in my brain;)

    2. Sarah says:

      Omg. Please leave the wokeness out of comments here.

      1. Sweetest Perfection says:

        No, let’s instead listen to you and your extremely educated terminology, like “feminazi.” Let’s start telling everyone that doesn’t agree with one’s opinion that they are “woke.” Let’s pretend that we own the site and can tell commenters what to keep away from it. Bwaaahahahahahaha!!!

        1. WiserNow says:

          Thank you for this comment SP – it is appreciated 🙂

  17. Wendy says:

    My new hashtag is #teamcamille! She’s a beast! I want her for my attorney if I ever need representation! Also, #teamchew! Excellent attorneys!

    1. HG Tudor says:

      You’ve clearly not had much experience of lawyers, she’s not that good. Ask one too many questions when following a point in cross examination, demonstrates her overly emotional investment, talks over witnesses (something which a competent opponent would exploit in re examination) and let’s not forget Amber Heard kept shooting her self in the foot so she’s hardly the most difficult opponent. I’ve used, watched and gone up against certain legal heavyweights far superior to Miss Vasquez and they rinse on her.

      1. Viol. says:

        I think many of us were so eager to see Amber “get it,” we were readily satisfied.

        Amber is easily provoked. I wonder how Camille would do against ‘Arry’s Wife. She’s somewhat smoother and has a little better control of her facade.

      2. Wendy says:

        Hi Hg, I hear your point of view and it is well taken. I do not have much experience with lawyers that’s for sure! I think that Camille is a young lawyer who has not been practicing for long and her inexperience showed in a-lot of ways.

        Even with some of the mistakes she made she still stood out to me as being very effective. I think she did show a lot of emotion but I think she did some of that on purpose while cross examining Amber. She was attempting to get Amber to show her true self by getting her rattled. I think it absolutely resonated with the jurors and helped them come to the conclusion unanimously. The closing argument she gave was very effective and excellent in my opinion! Depp’s other attorney Mr. Chew became a little emotional as well. I think this helped Johnnys case.

        You are right, Amber did keep putting her foot in her mouth but I think had Depp’s attorneys not presented the argument in the way they did she may have pulled the wool over one or two of the jurors eyes. Amber believed her case and she will go to her grave believing she did nothing wrong!

        Her testimony was easy to pick apart by a lawyer and for us looking in on it but for the jurors seeing her on the stand without knowing much about her and not hearing any outside opinions they could have fallen for some of her pitiful display much easier.

        I think Camille has a great future especially with more experience under her belt! I also think by having a beautiful young woman go up against another beautiful young woman this gave Johnny more credibility. Why would this young bright attorney be defending such a horrible abusive junky?! It’s not supposed to matter but it really does I think.

        Thanks for that response HG. I’m sure you have seen and worked with some of the very best! I am hoping to stay out of the courtroom if I can, lol. I would love to hear more about how you’ve gone up against some of the best!

        Care to share?

        JK, I know you won’t. 😊


        1. HG Tudor says:

          She did not show her emotion on purpose, she could not help do so because she was emotionally invested.

          Serious cross examining heavyweights are these individuals – Davids Joseph QC, Duncan Matthews QC, Paul MacGrath QC and Hodge Malek QC. Vast intellects, impressive command of their subject matters and highly forensic cross examination.

          1. Wendy says:

            HG, thanks! I will check them out.

      3. mollyb5 says:

        HG. I was glad jD s truth was seen. Most people don’t know the facade of a real narc and how they get away with lies all their lives. Jd just has narc traits . He’s good at his jobs. He had empathy and was emotionally reactive with texts to a friend ( so what) to her fucking Elon mollusk ( I love Elon ) and Franco(the perv) and more that we did not see at his penthouse . I’m sure there is a lot more we will never know . Or , it will slowly come out . But most people will mentally move on to the next big emotional attraction. I predict both their careers will be just fine with millions and millions . People need to stop the pity for millionaires .

      4. WiserNow says:

        I’m curious about your opinion. Why do you believe Camille Vasquez did the final examination of Amber Heard and gave the closing argument rather than Benjamin Chew, the more senior and experienced litigator in Depp’s team?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Optics. Female on female.

          1. WiserNow says:

            Yes, I thought so too.

            I also thought that placing her in that position was a high-pressure situation, a young woman and relatively inexperienced litigator in a publicly aired, high-profile case with Johnny Depp as the client. That was likely to show up Camille’s inexperience in that situation.

            I can see why the optics strategy was used and how it worked, and at the same time, I think it also damaged the credibility of Depp’s team.

          2. WiserNow says:

            HG, Thank you for being at the coal-face and bearing the brunt of these ‘gender war’ and ‘feminazi’ questions. You might have to put your feet up tonight and relax with a G&T yourself.

            It reminds me of a joke my father made recently…
            I said to my dad that he was lucky he had two daughters who looked after him and made sure he was okay. He didn’t hesitate and said, “Yes, I’m as lucky as a cow on ice”.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Doubt they will care, they won. Victoria aut mort.

          4. Contagious says:

            I was asked to participate on a death penalty rape murder case of a 14 year old …although a young inexperienced lawyer. What made me sick and in part to switch to civil law was the DA suggested if I wore a shorter skirt I could get a rise out of the criminal defendant. I was disillusioned by the system that since third grade I wanted to join. Of course it’s a system filled with people. I met the wrong one. It’s not an indictment of the entire system. But if you have to deal with the worst of society on a day by day basis it affects you. Most DAs carry guns. They become “ police” like in thinking. They are desensitized to violence. I will give an example…I was working with the JFK family member rapist expert on dirt prints. I lied down in the cut out rug , examined the blood spatters for a timeline. The DA office was in a bank building. We were in a hallway. People walked by screaming, threw up. I knew then something had changed in me as it was “work.” You need people to be able to “handle these cases so it is not a criticism to become desensitized to do your job. It is an observation. I was too sensitive. I left.

          5. mollyb5 says:

            HG , I don’t feel all victims are doomed to be drug addicts or messed up or perps the rest of their lives . Some if not many learn to NOT blame themselves for others wrong doings . Many move on to teach others and are enlightened to protect others. Our souls can learn lessons from damaging hurtful , and hateful perps and spread knowledge to other young people .

          6. Duchessbea says:

            Typical man to think like that. Honestly. Camille Vasquez is a very highly qualified and respected lawyer. She can do the job just as good as Ben Chew, if not better. Both portrayed themselves brilliantly at the trial and certainly seemed very much on top of their game.

          7. HG Tudor says:

            Utter nonsense, it is nothing to do with “being a typical man”. Your response is based on a knee jerk emotional response, mine is based on evidence.

            1. I was not comparing her to Ben Chew, so your observation there is redundant.
            2. I was not comparing her to any man, so why are you making it about gender?
            3. Based on my experience with various lawyers, she is an average advocate. If you think she is a brilliant advocate you clearly have no experience of advocacy, because if you have, you would not hold that opinion.

          8. seraphicanarchy says:

            Female more threatening/intimidating to narc female also.

      5. Contagious says:

        I do think too much emphasis is placed on the lawyer to win a case. Facts win cases. People win cases. Juror selection and venue is key. You can have two incompetent attorneys and one side wins. OJ is an example was it his “ dream team” or the fact the jury was pooled from a region where cops were known and convicted to abuse on the basis of race. The jurors didn’t trust cops. I know award winning lawyers who say every trial is a crap shoot. You never know. But with that said both sides had competent attorneys not “ stars” so to speak. Both sides won on defamation. We heard Heard say she abused Johnny. Abuse occurred. It doesn’t matter whether a man or woman, the point is violence is violence. It risks injury and does not belong in any dispute marital or not. “ they” need to keep their fists to themselves or if it arises, get out.

        1. Wendy says:

          Contagious, thank you for sharing a bit of your experiences with the legal system. It’s nice to hear from a person who has actually been there and done it so to speak when it comes to what actually goes on in the world of lawyers and court systems. Very interesting and I definitely learned some things from your comments.


          1. Contagious says:

            So very kind Wendy;)

        2. Another Cat says:

          I agree that the two parties had very different amounts of resources. Amber Heard with her crew of Doctor Browns. That gang wouldn’t have helped a completely innocent person either.

      6. Sweetest Perfection says:

        She was good enough to win the trial, to win the appreciation of the general public, and to win a partnership in her company. I am very glad to see emotionally invested people win stuff.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          She did not win the trial single handedly.
          It was hardly difficult to win the appreciation of the general public in this particular case.
          Would she have attained partnership at this juncture without this trial? I very much doubt it.

          Her success in this case is what is known as a flat track bully.

          Your dedication to Depp is colouring your judgement.

          1. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Not really, I feel more identified with her for being Hispanic and very passionate in her demeanor. It has more to do with a defense of geopolitics against the consistent attack to women of color for being “loud” or “too emotional” in their expression as opposed to the robotic white Eurocentric standards of good corporate conduct. I don’t give a shit about Depp past this trial. What is a flat track bully? Googling it…

          2. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Colouring. Colouring. You always use the best words. “Colourless green ideas sleep furiously” in my mind about Depp.

          3. NarcAngel says:

            I wasn’t impressed by CV at all (or with the trial for that matter). She seemed inexperienced and more concerned with making an impression on JD with an eye to whatever future opportunities might arise from favour with him (personal or professional) no matter the outcome. Given JD’s wealth, I was surprised at the seemingly low level of representation procured. I was left thinking that if AH had had better representation we may be looking at a different outcome. Much like outrunning a bear, JD’s team only had to be slightly better than AH’s and that was not very hard to do.

            I am glad AH was exposed but unconvinced that JD only did this to clear his name and for his children as he claimed. I’m sure they’re relieved for him not to be known as a wife beater, but all of the other things that came out can hardly leave them proud either.

            Was it ever proven that JD was not to play Jack Sparrow again specifically because of the article? Might it have been related to his many and ongoing addictions and matters related to those?

          4. WhoCares says:

            “Much like outrunning a bear, JD’s team only had to be slightly better than AH’s and that was not very hard to do.”

            Interesting analogy, NA.

          5. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Well, thanks for enlightening me with a new expression I certainly never heard before. It seems to me being a “flat track bully” is not really a bad thing. When used as an insult, it sounds like the typical narcissist’s way of diminishing someone’s accomplishments by belittling the winner’s obstacles to success. This piece was interesting:
            She won. It doesn’t matter how, or helped by whom, she probably achieved more than she ever dreamed of: prestige, fame, public acknowledgment, career stability… she won, according to her own standards, and what the rest thinks doesn’t matter. The end justifies any criticism!

          6. HG Tudor says:

            The point is you are holding her out as an example of a brilliant cross examiner and she is not. Yes, Depp won and she was part of the team (not the reason for it) that assisted in that victory, but those who think she is some brilliant cross examiner are clearly people who have never actually witnessed brilliant cross examination.

            It is akin to those who thought 50 Shades of Grey was a brilliant book, most likely had never read any other books.

          7. Sweetest Perfection says:

            No, HG, I am not holding her as an example of a brilliant examiner, don’t get me wrong. I just said she did her part and got promoted. That is success to me, and due to her background, her visibility in the US has brought up a lot of talk about successful women of color which is an excellent thing. I understand your point, I know what it feels like to see someone that you consider mediocre perform a task that you know you know could be done a million times better….where have I felt like that recently?

          8. WiserNow says:


            “she won, according to her own standards, and what the rest thinks doesn’t matter. The end justifies any criticism!”

            Those words (or similar) are probably going through Putin’s mind about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, about himself and his beliefs (i.e. “I won, according to my own standards…etc”).

            I actually do know what you mean, though. If Camille has become a partner, it’s probably not only because of her ‘achievements’ in the Depp/Heard trial. She probably worked her way up in the field of law and will have to keep working now that the trial is over.

            I’m just not altogether in agreement with you that “the end justifies any criticism”.

          9. Sweetest Perfection says:

            The sentence was for HG as a homage to Machiavelli, it, of course, was a parody. Relating this to Putin is, in my opinion, a way to twist my comment and look for trouble. I’m out of it.

          10. WiserNow says:

            There’s nothing to be ‘out of’.
            My comment was a harmless comparison illustrating another version of your ‘parody’.
            Don’t worry SP – I’m not packing or strapped. Guns are banned in Australia 🙂

          11. HG Tudor says:

            You don’t live in Australia.

          12. Asp Emp says:

            Dum de dum…..

          13. WiserNow says:

            Do you mean me specifically HG, or are you referring to all Australians?

          14. HG Tudor says:

            Naturally I am telling all Australians that they do not live in Australia because the is entirely logical.
            No, I am addressing you.

          15. WiserNow says:

            Well… personally, I have no need or use for a gun and I’m very glad they are banned here. I live very safely and happily too, knowing there is hardly any chance of being shot.

          16. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Guns are banned here too, thank goodness! I’m not in the US presently.

        2. Wendy says:

          I agree SP, and I think after another few years under her belt she will improve a lot. She had a spark and whether or not she could stand up to a very seasoned legal eagle she got the job done with the help of her team regardless of Heard’s ineffective team.

          I liked the emotion she displayed because it resonated with almost every person watching! She felt what I felt!

          She may be considered a “flat track bully” by some, but whether or not that sticks is yet to be seen. She has a few good years in front of her to prove that theory wrong!

          I’m rooting for her. Go Camille! 💪😊

          1. HG Tudor says:

            “I think after another few years under her belt she will improve a lot.”

            Proving my point.

          2. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Wendy, I understand what HG says but I agree with you that at least in this particular case, the emotion and passion she displayed played along very well with the whole Hollywood theatrical apparatus of the trial so it kept people invested. And yes, she can always get better!

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Bread and circuses.

          4. Sweetest Perfection says:

            Panes et circenses, absolutely. Nothing to object.

          5. Contagious says:

            I liked CV. She was a young hard working lawyer. Emphasis on young. HG is right. Their are loads better and… with more courtroom experience. But the best fail and the worst win. Put 12 people in a room, roll the dice. Jury selection and venue matter but the players are critical and the facts seem to come out and are even more critical. I saw the entire case as an ugly divorce. I would wash toilets before entering family law. What always bothers me is the human error in the system. It is not a just system or perfect. They say to know how law is made look into a slaughterhouse. Being a part of it, I have seen justice prevail… slowly of course. It happens. But…when I got experience I realized it’s a business of problem solving with tools at hand. The best result is a settlement. Always. But like every system it’s flawed. Flawed. Scares me when I think the medical system is also the same. Lol But if there were no lawyers to call, what would man do? Would they walk away from a real or perceived injustice? What I took from Johnny and amber was that despite all the money and fame, an echelon of privilege most don’t have, there is still unhappiness, real life problems and addictions. Adele sang: all of the people she knows aren’t content. I know that most feel give me 10% of their money, I would be happy. But he think it’s better to be grateful. Every time we feel satisfied with what we have we can be rich however little we may actually possess. And social media is a tool to make us feel otherwise. That’s what I took from it. I thought HG was point on as far as the psyche analysis although my feeling was Johnny was an empath as I felt his empathy for his children. To me, that is the greatest indicator, next partner, next friend, next business…

          6. WhoCares says:


            Thank-you for sharing your insights into the legal system, I find your commentary interesting.

            As for this point,

            “What I took from Johnny and amber was that despite all the money and fame, an echelon of privilege most don’t have, there is still unhappiness, real life problems and addictions.”

            So true, all the money in the world doesn’t necessarily make people happy or satisfied. Just look at the combined wealth of Prince Harry, Will Smith and Johnny Depp… didn’t protect them from desolation of narcissistic abuse…not one of them are “happy”, I’d say.

            Well, maybe Depp is a little bit more happy these days ..

  18. lickemtomorrow says:

    In response to the outcome of the trial, I’m aligned with Guardian US columnist Moira Donegan:

    “In some ways, one could see the defamation suit itself as an extension of Depp’s abuse of Heard, a way to prolong his humiliation and control over her. The only difference is that now, the legal system and the public have been conscripted to take part. This seems to be at least partly how Depp sees it. In 2016, as their marriage broke apart, Depp texted his friend Christian Carino, vowing revenge against Heard. “She is begging for global humiliation,” Depp wrote. “She is going to get it.”

    She also describes the lawsuit as abuse, and abuse which has now been sanctioned by a jury.

    Sadly, I agree.

    1. mollyb5 says:

      I don’t agree.

      1. mollyb5 says:

        HG ..I didn’t agree with #lickmetomorrow Sorry

        1. lickemtomorrow says:

          No need to apologise, mollyb5. We all have our opinions and I’m glad you shared yours.

    2. mollyb5 says:

      #LickmeThey have crafted …statements by publicist. They both will continue to be used in public / or entertainment and make millions upon millions .

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        No doubt, mollyb5, they both have their supporters and detractors, though a great deal more in favour of Johnny Depp. As he held the greater fame, he will have the greater chance of making further millions compared to Heard, I think. He has certainly upped his profile again during this trial. Going in his favour should help rebuild his career. We will have to wait and see.

    3. Sarah says:

      Omg. No. Nope, enough with believe all women. Many many women lie, abuse, etc. Ah is a cogent example of it. I’m so ober the femi-nazi’s.

      1. Sweetest Perfection says:

        That doesn’t exist. Internalized oppression gotcha.

      2. lickemtomorrow says:

        Believe me, Sarah, when I say I am not a feminist and also not a fan of what you call “femi-nazi’s”. The most surprising thing to me of all is that I disagree on a fundamental level with most of the people supporting Amber Heard – certainly in terms of my values and beliefs. That is reason enough for me to question why I would be in agreement with them on this matter and in support of Amber Heard.

        The article I quoted describes the outcome of this case a being a potential backlash to the #metoo movement, and I wasn’t a supporter of that either, so I’m not even in complete agreement with her.

        All I can say is that I go on my gut, or instinct, as I’m sure some others do, too. Lawyers are capable of making a case and selling it so that the guilty get off scot free and the innocent get imprisoned for life. It’s a fact. Juries can be swayed and I watched an interesting YT video yesterday where Russell Brand discussed this phenomenon with David Rudolf, Michael Peterson’s lawyer from “The Staircase”, titled “How Lawyers Manipulate Juries”.

        The difficulty is always going to be in weighing up the evidence presented by both sides, who made the more influential argument, and ultimately putting aside our own bias. Is there anyone out there who still believes OJ Simpson didn’t kill his wife even though he won the criminal trial? Maybe. Probably an OJ fan.

        I also love movies that portray the cleverest of criminals duping their well heeled and fully convinced attorneys that they are innocent, to the point the attorney convinces the jury and they go free, the attorney only discovering their mistake in the aftermath. Classic film, “Primal Fear” with Richard Gere.

        Lawyers get duped, jury’s get duped, criminals get off, innocent people get convicted.

        I can only go on my gut.

        I’m all for men not having to bear the weight of all our womanly woes, but some of those woes belong to them and I would have found in favour of Amber Heard.

        1. Contagious says:

          OJ wrote a book in jail admitting he killed her and Ron in great detail. It was quashed as the USA does not permit criminals to profit from a crime. His pension from football however was not touchable and he lives on it to this day. I just finished Peaky Blinders and there was a part where his daughter is in the hospital dying from TB and so people wore masks to avoid catching it. Thomas Shelby did not. His wife said, Tom, you should be wearing a mask.” He replied, “ I am.” I thought of HG. Lol

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Thanks for the spoiler.

          2. WhoCares says:

            Ditto what you said HG.

          3. StrongerWendy says:

            Still worth a watch 👍

          4. WhoCares says:

            SW, agreed.

          5. lickemtomorrow says:

            “OJ wrote a book in jail admitting he killed her and Ron in great detail.”

            Imagine the ‘duper’s delight. Glad he couldn’t profit from it, sad his ex-wife and friend could not get the justice they deserved.

            This from Amazon – “If I Did It – Confessions of the Killer” by O.J.Simpson:

            “All author royalties from the sale of this book are awarded to the Goldman Family. In 1994, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson were brutally murdered at her home in Brentwood, California. O.J. Simpson was tried for the crime in a case that captured the attention of the American people, but he was ultimately acquitted of criminal charges. Twelve years later, HarperCollins announced the publication of a book in which O.J. Simpson revealed how he would have committed the murders—under the pretense that his confession was “hypothetical.” In response to public outrage that Simpson stood to profit from these crimes, HarperCollins canceled the book. Just one year later, Federal Court Judge A. Jay Cristol awarded the Goldman family the rights to If I Did It. Thus began one of the strangest odysseys in publishing history. Originally written by O.J. Simpson, the Goldmans published a new edition of the book in the fall of 2007, which included essays written by members of the Goldman family. The Goldman family views the book as his confession and has worked hard to ensure that the public will read this book and learn the truth.”

            About the Author
            Fred and Kim Goldman are the father and sister of Ron Goldman, who was brutally murdered along with Nicole Brown Simpson in Brentwood, CA on June 12th, 1994. Although O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury in the criminal case, he was found responsible for the crimes in a civil case which awarded the Goldmans a judgment of $19 million.

    4. Contagious says:

      Lickemtomorrow: as an attorney I thought Johnny would lose because abuse can be verbal, financial and physical. Johnny was verbally abusive. You are right. I found it odd that the trial focused mostly on physical abuse. There was more hard evidence on Johnny’s side. If there was a rape, there was no hospital rape kit evidence. All I can say is as far as abuse goes, both sides engaged. But a jury has to choose one side in a trial, the hard evidence was in Johnnys favor. It could have gone either way, but it didn’t. I wondered why the defense of defamation was not more broadly interpreted by her team to the jury…but she used sexual abuse in her opt Ed.

  19. In so many words says:

    HG, you have said that being a narcissist is binary; someone has emotional empathy or doesn’t. But with narcissistic people, is there a spectrum to number and strength of their empathic traits (that are nevertheless lower or considerably lower than narcissistic traits)? It seems like if there is a spectrum (and it is for you to tell us whether there is one), the line where narcissistic ends would be not between narcissistic and normal, as a normal has low narcissistic traits, but between narcissistic and super empath, as a super empath has strong narcissistic traits, but even stronger empathic traits.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Listen to Narcissist or Narcissistic and my most recent interview with Doug from Dazed But No Confused, both of which can be found on my Youtube channel.

      1. In so many words says:

        Thank you HG, have now listened to both. I am wrong about the spectrum of narcissistic to super empath theory. Wouldn’t miss your interview with Doug. And glad that you posted the very first interview with Doug on your channel; I missed that one. The beginning of a beautiful rapport. And you covered some topics in that first interview that I was hoping that you would discuss (narcissist politicians, teaching narcissism in schools). I hope that I see the day when understanding narcissism is taught in college (high school is too much to hope for). With your books collected in a large textbook tome.

  20. mollyb5 says:

    HG ..I didn’t get to hear the streaming video of JD. But I can read the comments and you feel he has narc traits ? I don’t want to ask anything else until I hear your account / perspective . So where can I hear this account ?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      On the video you are commenting about.

  21. Emc2gion says:

    Thankyou for doing this series HG. I have struggled trying to pin point what Depp is. I felt Amber was a narc straight away but I didn’t feel Depp was. I forgot about the narcissistic type. I thought empath because of demonstrated emotional empathy and maybe acting narcissistic due to drugs, alcohol, being with a narc and fame. After listening to your series I understand how you came to that conclusion. I also think I didn’t want Depp to be a narc and was somewhat blinded my emotions. Do you have an idea of what the verdict will be HG?

  22. Patricia N says:

    Thank you for this series, HG. I’ve appreciated that you pulled together all the material, and presented it in such a clear, methodical and logical way. And I liked how you spoke about each piece of evidence and showed how it could be seen in different ways, depending on whether it was because of narcissism, empathy, addictions, or outside stressors.
    The addictions were what muddied the waters, I thought, making it tricky for me (with little experience of narcissists) to decide what he is. I’d changed my mind almost after every episode, wavering between all the options at various times but mostly somewhere in the middle, not thinking he was at either extreme of narcissist or empath.
    Your explanation of what he actually is was masterful, and completely logical – as you explained it, I was thinking, “well yes, of course”.
    The whole thing has been utterly enthralling.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      You’re welcome

      1. Susan Parker says:

        so what is he? I missed the live stream 🙁

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Listen to the video you lazy hound!

  23. Sarah says:

    Thx for the rundown. Very appreciative. Do you have any articles on narcissistic vs. Narcisssist? Must one goso with the former? Are they as insidious?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      See video by that name.

      1. Sarah says:

        Found it!! Thank you. ❤️

  24. lickemtomorrow says:

    I’ve viewed an interesting video of Depp’s testimony today which I believe shows an element of ‘duper’s delight’ – narcissistic trait?

    “Mr Depp, what has it been like for you to listen to Ms Heard’s testimony during this trial?”

    “I’m sorry … ” Time needed to come up with an answer, narcissistic glitch, IMO.

    Objection overruled.

    After giving a number of descriptors (e.g. cruel, brutal, etc.) he finishes with:

    “All false” and immediately we see a smile appearing which he quickly brings under control.

    “I have never … ” (almost smiles again) “… in my life committed sexual battery”

    “I did speak up for what I’ve been carrying on my back, reluctantly” laughs.

    Who laughs at the suggestion they’ve carried something reluctantly?

    His narcissistic nature is evident once you become more aware.

    Sounds like he also future faked Kate Moss around marriage and very quickly fell in with his next partner, Paradis, who also fell quickly pregnant to him after Johnny suggested men could become broody, too. That sent Moss into a tailspin. He held it out to her, then gave it to somebody else. Evidence to state he didn’t push he down the stairs doesn’t say much when you put all the pieces of their relationship together, including trashing one of their hotel suites.

    Here is Moss on Depp:

    ” Moss later reflected: ‘There’s no one that’s ever really been able to take care of me. Johnny did for a bit. I believed what he said.

    ‘Like if I said, ‘What do I do?’, he’d tell me. And that’s what I missed when I left. I really lost that gauge of somebody I could trust.'”

    She was young. The majority of his women have been young it seems. How much control can a man of power and influence have over young impressionable women?

    He’s got the facade all stitched up, his final act being this psychodrama which he hopes will take down his nemesis who dared to speak out.

    He needs to lose this case, and the Judge quipping with him about not breaking anything on his way out is a dereliction of her duty as a judge. Where is her impartiality? Very unprofessional.

    1. Elili says:

      Wait… I thought the smile was because he reliving the incredulity of the accusation? And I thought both Amber and Kate are narcissists?

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        Hi Elili,

        No doubt people are interpreting this case from different perspectives and we also have HG’s analysis to consider. One possible interpretation, as you suggest, could be an element of incredulity on Depp’s part. I don’t see it that way. I see a man who apparently promised to humiliate his ex-wife in front of the whole world and is enjoying the spectacle he has created. My wish is that he get his comeuppance in the outcome of this trial, which we should know shortly.

        I have commented before that my main concern was not with any party’s narcissism or narcissistic nature, but with the truth of the accusation that Johnny Depp physically beat, or assaulted, Amber Heard. I believe he did, and his raging sessions caught on camera leave me with no doubt. He is out of control, and some people might put this down to drink or drug fueled rage. I posited the notion it was an ignition of narcissistic fury. Either way, anyone who has ever had to endure moments such as these will recognise them as moments of fear, foreboding, anxiety and terror. They are not moments which can be excused under the title of ‘provocation’ for me. A lot of the confusion or questioning lies in who is the provocateur in this case?

        There is also “The Myth of Abuse” – “look what you made me do”, in other words.

        Johnny is not admitting he did this, Amber did not accuse him by name.

        It will be interesting to see how it all pans out, but I fully agree with Amber Heard’s team’s closing statement:

        “‘think about the message’ Johnny Depp and his legal team are sending Heard and ‘by extension every victim of domestic violence.’

        Taking the floor Friday, Heard’s lawyer Benjamin Rottenborn said, ‘If you didn’t take pictures it didn’t’ happen. If you did take pictures they’re fake. If you didn’t tell your friends they’re lying. If you did tell your friends they’re part of the hoax.’

        ‘Failure to seek medical attention meant you were not injured,’ Rottenborn said. ‘If you do seek medical treatment then you’re crazy and if you do everything to help your spouse rid himself of drugs and drink then ‘you’re a nag.’

        Rottenborn continued, ‘And if you decide enough is enough and you have to leave to save yourself you’re a gold digger. That’s the message Mr. Depp is asking you to send.

        He said that in Johnny Depp’s ‘world’ you don’t leave him, and if you do ‘he will start campaign of global humiliation against you.

        ‘He will do everything he can to destroy your life, to destroy your career. That’s what they’re trying to get you to be an accomplice to.’

        ‘Mr. Depp cannot and will not take responsibility for his own actions.'”

        I won’t be an accomplice to Johnny Depp’s misogyny or further humiliation of a victim of domestic battery. That pretty much sums up where my thoughts are on this one at the moment.

        1. Wendy says:

          Hi Lickentomorrow, we found out today that a unanimous decision was made by a jury in favor of Johnny Depp. We found out that the only way they could come to that decision was if they totally and completely did not believe Amber’s testimony on every count they had before them and that of her witnesses.

          I hear what you are saying. I believe Johnny was verbally abusive to Amber. Maybe even emotionally just by being so jealous and authoritative by means of attempting to keep her from certain roles and such.

          I can agree that it wasn’t a good thing for her being with someone who was addicted to substances. I’m sure that in itself was horrible! I know what it feels like to be in a situation with someone strung out on drugs and alcohol. I’ve lived this experience and trust me when I say it is truly traumatic!

          But, and a big BUT here, there was absolutely no evidence to support her claims of the kind of horrific physical abuse that she accused him of. Not one shred of evidence! She had multiple opportunities to document that evidence if it existed. She documented everything else. Especially the pics of Johnny passed out and recording his cabinet outburst.

          We can’t just ignore the fact that she was seen right after the horrific accusations without the injuries to herself that that kind of physical abuse would have caused! Beating her in the face with rings on all fingers, breaking her nose, holding her down with his knee jabbed in her back, and last but not least raping her with a potential broken wine bottle!!

          In terms of the domestic battery accusations look at the actual confessions from Amber herself revealed in the audio that he took. If she “hit” him once and confessed to it then she is a perpetrator of physical violence. She can’t set herself up as an ambassador for all domestic violence survivors. If she hit him in defense that’s a whole different ball game. But it is quite apparent by the audio that this was not the case. Maybe there were other times he did abuse her, we don’t know, but the jury only had what was brought before them in the court. She can appeal this case and she should if she believes he did this to her!

          I respect what you said and agree with some of it. I feel that based on the actual defamation Johnny’s team could not have been more professional and on point with their representation.

          Do I think there are some truths sprinkled in Ambers testimony? Yes, but not enough to make me believe he physically abused her as she accused him.

          I believe justice was served and I would not say that lightly because I am someone who has been in relationships that were physically, verbally, and mentally abusive! I know what reactive abuse is because I have experienced it on my part. This abuse did not come from my ex narc but from an ex who was addicted to alcohol.

          I’m sure there are things that will never come to light but for what was being brought before the jury they had no other choice but to rule in favor of Johnny.

          This has been a roller coaster ride for so many people! I’m glad it’s over and I’m glad Justice was served.


          1. Wendy says:

            Sorry, I placed an n instead of an m in your profile name!

          2. mollyb5 says:

            Amber will prob have products and book deals , and come back into movies as a secrete performer and make more millions .

          3. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi Wendy,

            I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and you’ll see I’ve added further thoughts elsewhere on this thread that tie in with some of what you’ve said.

            “But, and a big BUT here, there was absolutely no evidence to support her claims of the kind of horrific physical abuse that she accused him of. Not one shred of evidence! She had multiple opportunities to document that evidence if it existed. She documented everything else. Especially the pics of Johnny passed out and recording his cabinet outburst.”

            I’m struggling to understand why you would say there was no evidence that Heard was assaulted. There are several photographs of bruising to her face for a start. They look genuine to me. She was accused by Depp’s lawyers of doctoring them. Who are we going to believe? That is the difficulty with this trial.

            On that basis I need to take you up on “multiple opportunities to document evidence” – she did document it and wasn’t believed. I can only defer here to her team’s closing statement again. The other thing I want to comment on is the number of times any battered woman documents her experience, or calls the police. I know I didn’t do either. I went into shock initially, then carried on – the first time with a takeout meal of Chinese (such an irrelevant fact to add to the trauma of the ordeal), the second time by leaving to buy cigarettes and wondering if anyone would notice my fat lip and maybe ask me about it. Unlike Amber, I didn’t try to cover it up.

            Her descriptions ring true to me, as I said elsewhere, and Johnny’s rages look real to me. Anyone who has seen a man in a state of rage like that knows what he is capable of and what the consequences might be. Another reason not to doubt Heard for me.

            The myth of mutual abuse is something else worth considering. From the opinion piece mentioned:

            “there’s been tremendous focus on Heard’s mistakes and worst moments over the course of her relationship with Depp. As is typical of domestic abuse victims, Heard does seem to have done things many of us would not be proud of. She fought back. Depp’s outbursts and insults left Heard resentful and angry with him, and sometimes, she told him so. Many are quick to point out that Heard is not a perfect victim. But no woman is. We are told that the lawsuit is “complicated.” But the lawsuit is not complicated. It is abuse.”

            It has been a roller coaster ride, Wendy, and time will tell if justice was served.

          4. Asp Emp says:

            LET, I read and understand what you say in your comment. What I understand is that you were abused, badly. No-one enquired after your well-being, despite you having clear injuries from what was “issued” to you. At that time, you would have felt very isolated, that people did not care. “IT” got away with it. I have no doubt that the JD / AH trial ‘opened’ the wounds of your past and brought back some painful memories for you. It affected you personally, and, because of the empath schools / cadres you have, maybe it was harder for you personally. I totally understand that.

            Will Smith’s (and, erm, Will’s “IT”) analysis that HG did had me in tears from time to time. Yes, I had “travelled” my journey of understanding narcissism and my past but it does not mean I can totally forget, or accept what I endured ie brush it under the carpet, or wipe it from our minds. Some of us may still have a full and complete skeleton remaining in the closet so to speak, some of us has a pile of cremated skeletons but those ashes will always remain in the closet but we can never sweep away those ashes in that closet because they are a part of our mind. The skeleton could (and would) become ‘resurrected’ again, if we permit it ie allow our ET to override our LT.

            For some inane reason, as I typed the above about skeletons, I was reminded of a 2014 film ‘The Babadook’. It is quite a tame film yet can be psychologically ‘stimulating’, shall we say?

            We, ACONs, react to situations in different ways. There will always be triggers in our present (ie today) and in the future. It is how we respond it today, tomorrow and for the rest of our lives.

            All, I am really saying is, that I understand exactly where you are coming from. Your ‘inner’ light is still there, maybe you closed it off slightly because of this specific topic in question? That’s ok. It’s understandable. Remember, I suggested that you are a big cuddly teddy bear? Well, you still are xx

          5. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp, you are an even bigger cuddly teddy bear right now <3 xox

            Regardless of difference of opinion, you always come through with what I will call "a loving heart." That's not easy to do, but you manage it in a way that brings a smile to my face and an element of gratefulness to my heart. I can't stay mad, or stubborn, around people of your calibre or grace. And grace is what it is. The world would be a much better place with more people like you in it. I mean that sincerely.

            Right now, you are seeing me through one of my worst moments, and it's been a hell of a week in terms of an emotional rollercoaster ride in a more personal sense as well as having contracted Covid for the first time on top of that! The 'Rona (as the kids like to call it) has left me isolated (literally) with my thoughts and a high degree of angst as well.

            Let's not allow that to excuse anything. You are trying to understand and I appreciate your efforts. You are correct to say I am personally impacted by what I have seen and heard during this trial. Does that mean a rise in my emotional thinking? No doubt. Especially aligned with what else is going on for me. Does it impact how I view the outcome? Maybe.

            You are very kind to consider how my experiences might have affected me and I know you've had your own experience of abuse at your mother's and others hands. These are distressing moments for us, and likely for many others here. In those moments we potentially had no comeback, were powerless, and deeply embedded in a lack of control environment. These are childhood memories as well as memories of experiences that elude to our childhood. That makes us particularly vulnerable.

            Now I have to weigh up what influence these things will have.

            An alleged juror in the case commented on TikTok that Heard's behaviour reminded him of his ex-girlfriend. I wonder how that might have influenced him?

            We are all going to be influenced by our experiences, and it can be hard to untangle elements of that during particularly emotional or stressful times. I value your sharing elsewhere that much of you sympathy lies with the fact you understand what your father went through at your mother's hands. It was a valuable perspective to get on how the situation between Depp and Heard might be perceived. Men as victims have been overlooked in many ways. They persevere, they don't complain, they remain stoic in the face of adversity. That is how we want our men to be, but it can also lead to their detriment.

            I understand that some people will see how the victimhood in this story belongs to Johnny Depp. He has made a case others have believed. For some people it amounts to a one way street in terms of abuse, though the case was really about defamation. He could only win that claim by attempting to prove he never abused Amber Heard, and the icing on the cake would be in showing that she was the one who abused him. Hence the reason the jury likely accepted she also acted with malice in producing the Op-Ed.

            As you can see from my other comments, I believe the argument can go both ways. Maybe that is my narcissistic trait of pride, stubborness, maybe my empathic trait of compassion. I think what we do see is that each person trying to make sense of the case and its outcome is coming from a place of empathy – at least in this arena. It's not to dismiss the concerns of others, but perhaps the Saviour in me seeks to champion something bigger than both Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. I missed the #metoo bandwagon, but I am a proponent of bringing an end to family violence and that is probably what is at the heart of my quest here.

            I didn't realise you were so deeply affected by HG's series on Will Smith and I wonder what had the biggest impact on you there. Perhaps it was once again seeing your father in the situation of the ensnared empath and all the consequences leading from that. Narcissistic women/wives/mothers are a bitter pill to swallow and they take so much away from us. We appear to be seeing a lot of them (Markle, Pinkett-Smith, etc.) with men being the victims of their narcissistic antics. It is good to recognise women are also perpetrators of narcissistic abuse. I've always thought since I arrived here the statistics have to be about 50/50 when it comes to number of male and female narcs out there. Men also have horrific stories to tell.

            Interestingly we see Harry treating his family badly, losing sympathy, Will Smith treating a fellow comedian/actor badly, losing sympathy and accolades. Both considered empaths. We see something different with Johnny Depp. We see him gaining sympathy. Yet he is narcissistic. Very few expected that. I think my curiosity is piqued as to how the narcissistic character gains sympathy in the midst of a narcissistic entanglement and the empaths lose sympathy.

            Better go before my philosophical musings cause my head to explode!

            AspEmp, you know I think the world of you and appreciate hearing all your thoughts. Your empathic qualities have washed over me again today and I can't tell you how much I appreciate your graceful accompaniment on my journey again today. Thank you <3 xox

          6. Asp Emp says:

            LET, thank you, as I read your words about the teddy bear, I recalled my grandmother’s hugs. That was a moment 🙂

            Your words did (and do) basically ‘negate’ how I was viewed by the “ITs” of my past and how I once viewed myself. You also made me recall moments where if friends had a falling out, I used to instinctively “activate” my softer side, or use my humour to pour oil on troubled waters so to speak. Sometimes, people who are having a difficult time, need just that. The people-pleasing trait of the Co-D!

            Wow, Covid? Yes, I totally and utterly understand. I do know about the isolation part and I can also understand the anger behind that too. Wishing you a speedy recovery from that xx

            What I thought about RE: JD, being a narcissistic with ADHD, with an upbringing with parental narcissist sounding similar to muvver – I can relate to how he ‘reacts’ to situations. The more I considered it, I thought to myself, well, there are empaths who can be highly narcissistic with reduced emotional empathy – some empaths have the ability to behave exactly how JD did, without hitting anybody. But it does not mean that they are not capable of being verbally responsive, add self-medication into that = potentially explosive responses. From what I have seen from you, I do not observe this behaviour within you.

            I know what you mean RE: that juror. Did they vote “based” on their ET? Probably, to a degree. If they did, let’s view it as their own ‘indirect’ version of ‘revenge’ / HG Mauls? It does not mean they did not consider the facts / evidence.

            I understand and accept that you have your own perception RE: men and being stoic in the face of adversity. My father was not a weak man, he had balls and he stood up for me. He stated his beliefs in a factual way and people respected him for that. We all have strengths / weaknesses and as long I am supported / accepted for being what and who I am, people would get the same “respect” from me. That’s why I found HG’s video ‘Harry’s Wife Part 97.7 Spray Tan : Mirroring’ very insightful.

            In regard to the abuse ie the bottle “incident”. I did think to myself, we have absolutely no details on what AH’s father actually did to her but we do know that he was done for cruelty to animals. Either she created that ‘magical thinking’ (the histrionic) against JD, or she actually experienced that as a child. We will never know, the truth in this particular instance.

            RE: Will Smith. He is such a lovely guy. Not the type to hurt anybody, intentionally. The worst part, for me, was the ‘live’ filming him in the kitchen and Jada being the cold-hearted malicious b*tch in doing this and sharing it ‘live’ to Social Media. Muvver did similar, to me, in front of other family members, or in public. But, thank fkg god, she did not film it. HG’s analysis of that video clip also gave me further insight into how it may have been for my father.

            “Bathe” away, LET 🙂 Thank you, for your kind words. Get well soon (ET / LT included 🙂 ), much love xx

          7. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp, you are very perceptive and I might put your thoughtfulness down to that rather than a people pleasing element of the CoD. Of course, CoD’s are always seeking to smooth those troubled waters and I spent many years doing just that as a child, completely robbed of my childhood in that sense. Either way, I appreciate your further input and encouragement and it’s good to know my words helped to negate more negative ones spoken over you as a child <3

            I'm in recovery mode and isolation is at an end 🙂 It did give me an excuse to really indulge myself, or should I say immerse myself, in a number of other arenas including this one, so that's looking on the positive side! Thank you for the good wishes xox

            I'm glad you don't perceive me to be like Johnny Depp – we all know he has issues added to issues (?ADHD, alcohol/drug dependency, etc.) – and we also know his LOCE has lent to him being considered narcissistic, NOT empathic. Johnny Depp is not an empath. He's not even a normal with their more reduced level of empathy. He is narcissistic, which means he has a very limited level of empathy. It's gets confusing when we consider our own narcissistic traits and try to lend our empathy to someone who is not empathic, but narcissistic. He's closer to being a narcissist. For me, he displays multiple red flags of being a narcissist also. This means he is in the 'danger zone', and it would be a mistake to consider any empathic qualities, or even empathy, would override his more narcissistic nature. I don't give the same weight to his minimal level of empathy as others might, and you wouldn't have to tip him too far over the edge to classify him as a full blown narcissist, IMO.

            I made the point about the juror in effect to show how our experiences influence us and it is almost impossible not to have a level of bias in some form or another. He may have felt vindicated himself in passing down the judgement he did, which would really be him passing judgement of an ex-girlfriend, not Amber Heard. Am I, in my deliberations, passing judgement on my ex-husband? Both the juror and I can see our stories reflected in the evidence presented. This is what both teams of lawyers will focus on, as well as countering eachother with expert witnesses. They want to influence the jury in order to win their case for the client.

            I'm curious to know why the bottle incident is not to be believed. Is there a reason for dismissing that claim? Also, why Johnny Depp's testimony is supposedly more believable than Amber Heard's. The tip of his finger was cut off. We didn't see the incident, only the aftermath. An expert witness testified a bottle thrown at him would not have caused that type of injury. His testimony appeared to be believable, even though Depp's side had an expert witness of their own to counter that. Claim and counterclaim. Who are we going to believe? We will never know the truth of any of this as claimants and witnesses counter eachother's stories. We have to potentially fall on one side or the other based on our own perspective of the case.

            Depp and Heard both recorded eachother. In that sense one could consider them both remiss, and both were also aware this was happening. Neither of them comes out looking good on occasion. This was a toxic relationship. A judgement in the UK found in Amber Heard's favour. I'm fascinated with how easily his conclusions can be dismissed based on this trial. In 12 of 14 counts the allegations against Depp were found to be "substanially true", which means he lost his case of defamation and the accusation of "wife beater" was essentially correct.

            I know we have our different perspectives on this case and there may be more to come. At the end of the day, I continue to enjoy our discussions and your kindness and empathy still linger xox

          8. Asp Emp says:

            LET, thank you RE: your first paragraph.

            So good to know that you are recovering well. I won’t ask to you “divulge” what you ‘indulged’ in……oh, is that the beginning of another rhyme? 😉

            In my opinion, I think JD’s behaviours ‘worsened’ when he was “involved” with AH, because it would have been ‘invoked’ further by being in that LOCE with AH. Maybe with where he is in his life now, he just needs some ‘outlets’ for his idiosyncrasies, shall I say? And some ‘outlets’ for quieter times too. He needs people who understand and accept him as he is, ie his friend Paul Bettany.

            About the juror. And your question “Am I, in my deliberations, passing judgement on my ex-husband?”. Interesting but not surprising to read. I would suggest that you probably answered your own question. For me, personally, I can ‘relate’ more to JD than AH simply because of what JD endured as a child – there was a clip where he talked about this in particular during the trial. This was ‘Johhny Deep vs Amber Heard: The Winners and Losers’ (aired 4th June on Channel 5). There were several people sharing their perception, it made for interesting viewing. I think for you and I, the main difference is, I my worst experiences were as a child and were the start of addiction to narcissism and so I found it difficult to ‘see’ my CPTSD as a result.

            RE: the bottle incident. Why did AH not seek urgent medical assistance following that “happening”? Seriously, I think any woman (or man) would have considered that? This is a glass bottle. Bottles can have chips in the rim, that can cut someone. I was hit in the face with a glass that did not break but it scarred me (1cm under my eye). Muvver was “throwing her drink over me”. She never apologised. I left home within a year of that.

            Yes, JD & AH were not right for each other! Yes, the UK libel case that JD took that newspaper to court for. He could have ‘sued’ the US newspaper but decided to sue AH instead. Yes, I am sure that more is to come as a result of the verdict in US. Either way, JD is smarter than AH because her narcissism is just as bad as Harry’s wife’s (no finesse, to ‘carry’ it off LOL). Maybe JD acted similarly in the court trial in the UK and AH did her OTT acting?

            If we agreed that JD is a “wife-beater”, then AH is a “husband-beater”. What she ‘dished’ out may have been far more substantial in comparison. So similar to muvver.

            I believe JD knows quite a bit about narcissism and understood that AH would not stop.

            These discussions are good, healthy for our brain-cells and our cuddly, sweet selves 🙂 Thank you for your words 🙂 I am glad you are recovering 🙂 xx

          9. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp, I appreciate you continuing to engage in this conversation as we nut out our different perspectives.

            JD and AH were both victims of a childhood LOCE and both were essentially locked into a LOCE marriage together. That is partly what would make their relationship toxic. What makes it extra toxic is alcohol and drug abuse, issues JD suffered with long before he ever met Amber Heard. Both of them indulged at different times which doesn’t help either of their cases. I would say that JD was the worst abuser of alcohol and drugs which lends itself to a greater lack of control which can be seen from photographs shared widely. In those he looks harmless and mainly in a drug induced stupor, but then we have the video of him showing his very destructive nature while under the influence. That is a huge piece of evidence in my mind which multiple victims of domestic abuse will have encountered and endured. Some of her descriptions fit my own experience exactly.

            The incident with the bottle is not less believable because Heard did not seek treatment after the incident. Her description of that incident is not far fetched to me, nor is her reaction with the thought processes she shared and the eventual outcome which was harrowing to hear in the extreme. She managed to get to the bathroom where she lost control of her bladder and also noticed blood on the floor. This is a unique experience, from my perspective, related to the degree of trauma she suffered. No person would willingly admit or conjure up that type of loss of control to try and impress a jury, IMO. I believe these are truthful statements.

            I am not surprised AH never sought medical care after the incident due to the nature of the assault (shame) and the nature of the relationship (high profile). She may have realised after the assault that Depp had not used the broken bottle or understood her injuries may have been more severe if he had. She only questioned the use of the broken bottle as a passing thought in the midst of her trauma. Some women will be forced to seek medical attention, but many won’t and find excuses for abusive partners. It is a hidden epidemic in so many ways.

            As I said, both the juror and I can see our stories reflected. That is not a ‘gotcha’ moment, but an understanding of what can influence us all when having to come to conclusions and make decisions. I hear you saying that JD’s childhood is in some ways a reflection of your own. I can understand how you would relate to that, and it is a bit different to my original thought on how your father was impacted by your mother’s behaviour, but maybe both things play a role in your perspective. I saw violence perpetrated as a child, at one point had to consider whether I would be the victim of a murder-suicide, and also saw my father running the risk of killing us all as he sped down the middle lane of a highway which was meant for cars to overtake on either side of the road. In other words, I’ve seen my life flash before my eyes in violent situations as a child and had to confront that as an adult as well. I’ve seen raging men use violence to intimidate, coerce and control; to terrify and traumatise. I watch Johnny Depp, I hear Amber Heard, and I know the conclusion I draw is not a popular one, but I’ll stand by it regardless.

            We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, AspEmp. I don’t believe Depp was a victim in the sense he was the more powerful of the two people involved and as a narcissistic man does not come close to an empath in terms of his ability to be manipulated, coerced or cowed in the circumstances.

            Amber Heard left him and filed for a restraining order, not the other way round.

            I hope more women will do the same and leave their violent partners.

          10. Asp Emp says:

            LET, hello 🙂

            JD’s self-medicating would not have helped but he needed it as well as was used to it as a means of ‘escape’ for him. He was also working very long days ie 17 hours at a time. He would have needed to ‘switch off’ from a shift of acting and being around other people all day, not his friends, if you can understand – people he worked with. Then he has to come home (a LOCE) to somebody (additional contributor to increase the LOCE) who was probably already under the influence ie drink / drugs after he had spent all day working.

            “Some of her descriptions fit my own experience exactly” – understandable, self-explanatory.

            AH and the blood / bladder control – at that point, why did she not seek emergency treatment just to rule things out? Was she menstruating at that time? Was she also completely ‘out of it’ herself at that time? Is she “mixing” up things from several occasions to ‘draw’ a completely different picture?

            Apparently, it was around this time when “another woman approached” AH. AH liked both men and women. That in itself, is not questionable, nor, to be ‘judged’ upon. Was AH triangulating with this woman in front of JD? She was not as discreet when it came to having affairs while with JD. Lots of things that we do not know the absolute facts about.

            I agree with you, that abuse can be “a hidden epidemic in so many ways”.

            I understand what you mean where you describe your father & the highway driving. That is the irresponsibility muvver did after drinking whiskey and driving 2.5 hours with me and my sister in the car – from my grandmother’s house (where I felt safe). She did this twice that I recall.

            Yes, JD may have had the strength being bigger than AH. This is one relationship that JD had that resulted in physical, verbal and mental LOCEs, his other relationships were not like that at all, from what his ex’s said.

            JD’s main (or only) abuser (mother) from his childhood was on her death-bed at the time AH shat on the marital bed.

            You and I are not the only people to have different ‘Team’ perceptions where JD & AH are concerned. What is different is the fact neither JD or AH are empaths, nor normal and they are both victims / ACONs. I also look at what JD / AH has done for humanity ie money wise, giving to charity (or not, in AH’s case).

            It is still interesting for me to read what you have to say, regardless of which ‘Team’ we can ‘relate’ to more. It does not change who, or what you and I are 🙂 Thank you, LET 🙂 xx

            PS, I think Wendy is ‘reining’ us both in 😉 🙂

          11. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hey, AspEmp 🙂

            There’s a good chance Johnny Depp will ‘self-medicate’ himself all the way to the grave. Sad, but true. I saw an article about George Michael in the last couple of days who basically did the same. Regardless of status in terms of empath/narcissist, the lack of control drugs and alcohol engender potentially plot an individual’s downfall. Johnny Depp has fallen far in my eyes in terms of his lack of self control. Add his out of control actions to that and I don’t see the innocence of Edward Scissorhands anymore.

            Obviously I can’t answer the question as to why Amber Heard did not seek medical treatment, but I would assume having a bottle shoved up your vagina is going to cause at the least an element of trauma and bleeding, so it’s likely she was not menstruating at the time but suffering the consequences of that trauma. The loss of bladder control was what struck me. That is a vagal response which occurs under moments of extreme fear. If Amber Heard is to be believed, she probably did not know at that point whether she would survive the assault by Johnny Depp.

            This is a moment where I feel the need to take a breath. The ‘if’s’, ‘buts’ and ‘maybe’s’ all come out of the woodwork when we have to confront the reality of what one person can do to another and where that might lead.

            I have to agree there are lots to things we don’t know the absolute truth about and so that is why a degree of caution needs to be put into place. What happens behind closed doors can never be fully known and we only have the word of the two people involved. Both have witnesses that testified in support of them, family and friends, and we would like to think anyone sworn in under oath is always going to tell the truth, ultimately it is on their own head if they do not. The jury can only go on what they have been told and weigh the information up accordingly.

            I knew practically 0 about Amber Heard and not much more about Johnny Depp before this trial began. Her attraction to women as well as men was news to me, as was her minor fling with Elon Musk – who is baby Oonagh’s dad? Narcissist’s will triangulate, it’s true. Been there, done that. It also appears Johnny Depp was a jealous lover/husband. Narcissistic people are no doubt also possessive people. Wife beaters often fall into this category. Johnny displays quite a few red flags along these line which I’ve mentioned in comments before. Did Amber Heard bait him? Was he just extremely possessive of her? He seemed to be concerned about her relationships with other men and professionals (actors), as well as concerned about what she wore on the red carpet.

            Putting that aside, I remember the story you told before about your mother and those incidents where she drove under the influence. I understood then how frightening that must have been for you as a child. It ups the ante on the lack of control environment to the point where you understand your own survival is basically out of your hands, and ultimately in the hands of a ‘maniac’, or someone who has total control over you, your life and your death. That they seemingly don’t care in that moment has repercussions. It’s the childhood LOCE that can lead us down either path. Apparently Amber Heard’s father took enormous risks with her life by placing her on horses he was breaking in on their property.

            It’s an interesting fact that some ex’s of Johnny stand by and defend him and others – like Amber Heard and Ellen Barkin – don’t. We know he has had multiple relationships, the longest being the one with the mother of his two children. He called her unpleasant names also, which he seems to be in the habit of doing and highlights his misogyny for me. For that reason alone I’d find it hard to support him. Could be the ‘locker room’ talk that some men indulge in, but it sickens me. No man who respects women speaks of them like that. And he had every reason not to respect women considering how his mother treated him.

            It is remarkable – and I’ve reflected on that here before – how children of narcissistic parent’s will continue to profess their love for them and even hold them in high esteem. Both Amber Heard and Johnny Depp seem to have remained in thrall of their narcissistic parents. At the same time, Johnny Depp described his mother as “the meanest human being” he had ever met in his life. I find it hard to fathom he would have felt any distress at her demise and could only have rejoiced at her passing. If Amber Heard ‘shat’ on the marital bed at the time (not arguing she didn’t have the ability to do that) I don’t really think it would have had a major impact, apart from grossing a lot of people out on having to hear about it.

            I appreciate your thoughts and point of view, AspEmp. I’m winding back a little on the full force of adding my own emotion and experience to the case and what I have heard, basically because I don’t like celebrities playing with my heart or accessing my heart strings for their own purposes.

            Dialing down the emotional thinking for now. Thank you, too xox

          12. Asp Emp says:

            LET, hello 🙂

            I know what substance abuse can do to somebody. I’ve seen it first hand. In more than one person I knew.

            I think JD is basically taking his life back, doing better for himself now that he has ‘disentangled’ himself from narcissist AH. He is also free of his mother.

            AH seems to target those with a lot of money and status. So does Meghan Markle, she’ll be ‘hunting’ for another IPPS.

            Thank you for acknowledging muvver’s irresponsibilities.

            I do not ‘attach’ any emotional / mental ‘strings’ to any celebrity because they do not affect my life directly. Indirectly, they may invoke / trigger ET / LT of my past.

            No doubt that this JD / AH series has invoked a lot of discussion and thoughts / emotions and HG’s work on it has, no doubt, given people material to use for looking at things differently, including aspects of our own lives as well as other people’s.

            Thank you, LET 🙂 for the discussion 🙂 xx

          13. wensical says:

            LET and ASP EMP, I am sorry I have not been able to respond to you both before now. Let me first say that you both have excellent thoughts and opinions on both sides of the AH/JD spectrum.

            LET you asked me in one of your responses why I feel that AH was not believable in her accusations of physical abuse from Depp. My answer is this: if she lied once…. then I cannot believe anything else she said. One lie poisons whatever truth may be there and that is of her own conscious doing. She may have been abused physically BUT because we know she lied on at least one occasion(more actually) then the rest of her testimony is then BS. That’s just how it goes.

            If you cannot tell the truth in its entirety then what you say thereafter is deemed to be not credible. This and this alone is why I have to stand with Johnny. Not because he is handsome, charming, talented, wealthy and so forth and so on. ONLY AND ONLY because she was proven to have lied in her testimony. JD may have been a little unbelievable in his testimony on some points but absolutely believable when he said he never physically abused her in the way she described the abuse. Yes, abuse is abuse but the inconsistency of her story was overwhelming and his absolutely more believable.

            Did they both abuse each other in other ways besides physical? Yes, they both did. But one abuse does NOT equal the other as people may say. I would rather be called a cunt than have my face pummeled in by a fist! Words are abusive but they do not have the ability to cease my life with one death blow.

            Sorry, I have not responded before now. I hope you both are well and healthy! LET, thank you for your thoughts and feelings in this. My heart goes out to you on what you have endured. You have my utmost respect!!

            Asp Emp, no other words but to say…thank you for always having the most compassionate and lovely responses to all of us! You inspire me!!

            Hugs to you both! Now let’s move on from this Depp/Heard saga!

            To you both I say:
            Quantum ad vos!


          14. Asp Emp says:

            Wendy, hello 🙂

            Thank you for your thoughts 🙂

            I agree with you. It is the consistency. Such a big word yet a key ‘objective’ to look out for. There is also “consistency” when there are so many ‘variations’ of what is said / done. Overall, AH repeatedly changed her demeanour, JD repeatedly remained his demeanour, throughout the trial.

            Good point about the verbal V physical example you gave. There is also a big difference in being physical with things ie doors, compared to being physical with people.

            Thank you for your kind words and the hug, it is much appreciated 🙂 xx

            PS, hahaha, thank you for the yanking of my leash 😉 🙂

          15. wensical says:

            Hi Asp Emp, sorry! I didn’t mean to yank your chain, lol.

            I think someone needs to yank mine sometimes! Great conversation and thoughts from everyone on this topic.

            Hope you are doing well! It’s 100 degrees where I am today and the humidity is unbearable! I need a pool and a mega pint of something but since it’s a work night I’ll have to settle for a cup of teas and my good ole box fan! 😂

            Cheers! ☕️

          16. Asp Emp says:

            Wendy, hello 🙂 If I meant ‘chain’, I would have said it 😉 I suppose it can be more or less the same thing (ehem) as a leash. Thank you (about the conversation). I am ok, thank you for asking 🙂 It is rather warm outside today where I am. Nowt like a cupppa tea on a day like this. You can add some mint leaves to hot water as a cuppa, it is supposedly good on hot days 🙂 I am still amused – chains, leashes 😉

          17. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi Wendy,

            I appreciate you sharing further thoughts on the case and our thoughts as well 🙂

            You mentioned a rollercoaster ride and that it has been, in terms of emotions especially. Dialling those back a little for now as I reflect further on other people’s thoughts, too.

            It’s interesting what you say about Amber Heard and her not being truthful on certain accounts. The idea you express, of this lack of truthfulness being the basis for not believing anything she said, has been expressed by a legal expert in an article I read where he felt this formed the basis ultimately for the jury’s decision. He described it as a binary presentation (black and white) by Depp’s lawyers, or in other words believe everything or believe nothing in terms of the facts in the case. The jury apparently decided nothing was to believed. In my opinion that was a travesty and shows more about how lawyers operate and juries can be swayed. The Judge in the UK case could not be swayed on this basis – he knows all the lawyer tricks in the book – and so found against Depp.

            “This and this alone is why I have to stand with Johnny. Not because he is handsome, charming, talented, wealthy and so forth and so on.”

            It’s a point I made to HG in a response which hasn’t been posted yet:

            When it comes to who holds the power, we can easily see Depp held the power in this relationship. He is older, more famous, wealthier, bigger, stronger and has the backing of his position in Hollywood and all the various ties associated with that.

            That aside, I think he’s a bloated, past his use by date, addict of an actor whose fame had waned (and now been resurrected by this trial) and whose wealth is questionable, though in monetary terms he’s worth more than his nemesis, Amber Heard. What charm he may have I don’t see and is obviously wasted on me.

            I can feel the old ET rising again so I better not say too much more.

            When it comes to a man being capable of vicious name calling and potentially nothing more, I’ve probably responded to that in my comment to AspEmp. I forget who mentioned ‘sticks and stones’, but that saying is BS in my opinion. There’s nothing more damaging to our psyche than words that go to the heart of who we are and how we are perceived. Those words don’t lose their power just because there is no physical momentum behind them. People often state they’d rather be hit and have a wound that will heal than have the more long lasting psychological wounds and scars they have been forced to bear.

            Having said all that in response, I appreciate your hugs, Wendy, and any thoughts shared here are not about you but about the wider issue and its impacts. I know I have been heard and I hope others feel the same. It’s not easy when we have different perspectives, but sharing them and acknowledging they exist, along with the reasoning behind them, helps us to move to a more neutral space where we have the ability to agree to disagree.

            Not Latin, but I’m hoping to let bygones be bygones, as they say xox

          18. lickemtomorrow says:

            Wendy, I have responded to your comment, but my response has not been posted yet.

            Not sure why, but I appreciate your thoughts and in some respects mine obviously differ – what else is new 😉

            I won’t take any more time here to express them here if they are not going to be heard.

            For now, happy to let bygones be bygones 🙂

          19. wensical says:

            LKT, you are heard! I appreciate your views and I agree with so much of your thoughts and comments.

            This especially:

            “ There’s nothing more damaging to our psyche than words that go to the heart of who we are and how we are perceived. Those words don’t lose their power just because there is no physical momentum behind them. People often state they’d rather be hit and have a wound that will heal than have the more long lasting psychological wounds and scars they have been forced to bear.”

            You took me back to my childhood with this comment. It brought me to tears. It’s a part of me I think has yet to be healed. One day……


          20. lickemtomorrow says:

            Wendy, thank you for hearing me again <3

            I wasn't sure if my comment would be posted and didn't want you to think I hadn't responded.

            I'm sad to hear that words spoken over you as a child had such a devastating affect 🙁

            I remember all the while my children were growing up knowing never to use words that could stay with them for a lifetime, and words that would cut them to the heart.

            My narcissistic ex-husband didn't care. One day he called my nine year old (middle daughter) a "fat fuck" because she accidentally ran into a friend's glass coffee table. I wasn't there – it was during an access period – and it nearly broke my heart when she told me what he said to her, needless to say I was furious with him. I tried to comfort her as best I could by insisting her father had no right to speak to her that way and he was out of order for doing so, but I couldn't take back those words or put that genie back in the bottle. Calling her a "fuck" or "fucker" would be bad enough, but he called her a "fat fuck". She wasn't fat, at all. But he made her think she was. He made her self conscious, and do you think he ever bore any of the consequences of that?

            These experiences are real, and I'm sorry you are still so affected by your own, Wendy. I do hope the healing will happen, and soon <3 xox

          21. wensical says:

            LKT, thank you for those kind words and for sharing your experience. I am so sorry to hear that your daughter was called that by her own father. What an ass! It is truly heartbreaking. She is very lucky to have a mother like you!

            The words spoken about me by my step father stuck and has alot to do with my insecurities. Words hit harder and really do more damage than a fist! It’s all bad but a child being told those horrible things about themselves at such a young age by the ones that are suppose to protect and love them is hard to forget.

            I didn’t mean to be so dramatic with my earlier comments but reading what you said at that moment just hit me and those days came flooding back into my mind.

            I’m glad I felt that today because it makes me realize I have more work to do on my self healing journey! So, thank you again LKT, so sweet of you to say those words. I’m grateful! ❤️xox

          22. lickemtomorrow says:

            Wendy, you are so welcome and I thought mention of my daughter’s experience might just highlight the cruelty of the narcissist/abuser and how that can impact a child. What did any child do to deserve that? Children look to their parents to tell them who they are and what they are worth. It breaks my heart every time I hear an ugly word spoken over a child. They don’t even need to be spoken to the child, just within their hearing. So damaging, maybe even worse when it’s overheard, so the kindness to a child’s face belies the true sentiment that exists underneath. It is a gaslighting experience that can be just as harmful and the envious narcissist will seek to use those moments to ensure they remain top of the heap. Children are so vulnerable to these types of manoeuvres.

            Once again, I hope your healing journey continues and it’s one step at a time <3 xox

          23. Contagious says:

            I agree Wendy as she was able to document so much evidence. Why not the worst? She was being treated at the time by her own medical representatives. I think that is why the jury verdict resulted in part. Evidence.

          24. wensical says:

            Hi Contagious, thanks.

            Your experiences had my mouth dropped open. It’s a job I wouldn’t want to do!

            Thanks for sharing your thoughts and life experiences.


          25. wensical says:

            Contagious, I agree. If she had that kind of evidence I really wish it would have been presented! She said her attorneys would not allow it. Why?! It doesn’t make sense at all. That is why I have so much trouble feeling empathetic towards her. It’s just unbelievable. If there is real proof out there that wasn’t allowed into evidence then it should absolutely come to light! I just don’t think it’s gonna happen.

        2. In many ways I agree – in others I do not.

          Do I think JD was physically abusive to AH = yes I do
          Do I think his main abuse was psychological and emotional = Without a doubt
          Do I think AH was a victim or a perpetrator? = I think she was both.

          Here is the rub = Should AH get to play the victim when she was also a perpetrator?

          ‘Is physical violence more damaging than psychological and emotional abuse?’ – sticks and stones may break my bones – but names will never hurt me…remember that saying?

          JD won in the court of public opinion. He had everyone believing he was the victim and an empath.

          I feel the whole thing was a farce anyway. A show for the entertainment of the masses. Whilst there should be no winner and each equally held accountable – can you hear the faint echo…’burn the witch?’

          1. JB says:


            I completely agree with you re. entertainment of the masses. Tbh I don’t think trials should be available for ongoing public viewing. Definitely feels like a witchhunt of sorts, and how can it not end up influencing the outcome in some way?

          2. Z - zwartbolleke says:


            People from the blog know that I rarely comment here. I see a lot and I think a lot, but I refrain from commenting, because I don’t like conflicts or expressing my opinion, on any matter.
            But your comment drives me to make a comment.

            If you actually and factually know and studied this case, not “I think”, but going to the evidence and the facts of this case, there is no way you can find AH is the victim in this case and JD physically abused her.
            If after studying the factual elements of this case, anyone finds AH is a victim, than that is a problem for all real victims (such as JD), but as it turns out, the jury, the founders of facts, studied this case, and found that there was NO abuse by JD and that AH acted with actual malice.

            Why keep on denying the evidence?

            What more can JD do?

            Think about it, if it was the other way around?
            Would you still come to the same conclusion?

            There was NO abuse by JD, NONE. And the jury confirmed this in the most clear way possible, unanimously, with compensation and punitive damage.

            Your comment: ‘JD won in the court of public opinion”, No, JD won in court, by verdict of the jury, after careful consideration of all the evidence.
            (And even that is not true, because the audio files from Australia were not allowed to come into evidence, wherein AH admits she did al this to him and there were NO injuries on AH, NONE! That tape was not even allowed, imagine)

            It is time for MSM and Metoo to face the facts, to respect the jury and respect the evidence.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            Well stated.

          4. lickemtomorrow says:

            PAWA, I would not suggest AH is ‘playing the victim’ when she is a victim.

            The myth of mutual abuse should also help to clarify some issues if you look it up.

            The bottom line in relation to that comes down to who holds the greater power in the relationship when determining the answer to your question.

            Several experts have weighed in since the handing down of the verdict with their thoughts on the outcome and how the jury possibly came to their conclusion:

            “There were also claims that the use of “Darvo” tactics – when the alleged offender denies the behaviour, attacks the accuser, and reverses the roles of victim and offender – was not confined to the courts.

            According to the US academic who coined the term Darvo and has studied the tactics used by alleged sexual predators, social media was used to undermine Heard’s case and bolster Depp’s.

            Jennifer Freyd, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Oregon, said the traducing of Heard’s reputation online was “overwhelming”.

            “Darvo refers to a reaction [that alleged] perpetrators of wrongdoing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behaviour,” she said.

            “This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of ‘falsely accused’ and attacks the accuser’s credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.

            “What we have witnessed in the US over this case has been an overwhelming case for Depp on social media. It is like an anti-Heard campaign and there has been a lot of Darvo.”

            On TikTok, the hashtag #justiceforjohnnydepp received 19bn views. Jurors were instructed not to read about the case online but they were not sequestered and they were allowed to keep their phones.”

            – The Guardian “Why Did the Depp-Heard Libel Outcomes Differ in the US & UK?”

            Professor Freyd also adds:

            “Others who wish to make claims will see what has happened in this case, and see what has happened to Heard, and think twice. Many will be afraid to talk.”

            It’s not the falsity being held out that Heard lied which will send women back to the dark ages on issues such as these, but the truth that Depp was able to make himself the victim in a case of domestic violence against her. Bravo Johnny. You were able to beat your wife and get away with it. Let’s have three cheers for (wo)men’s rights.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            Heard´s evidence lacked credibility, she undermined herself (“Give the Narcissist Enough Rope”). If there was evidence that Depp was a “wife beater” the jury would not have found the he was defamed because Heard´s op-ed would have been true and he would have been lost. They did not find evidence that he was a wife beater and that conclusion was reached on the basis that not only was Depp seen as credible in his testimony, but that Heard was not to be believed and who caused her to not be believed? Herself. Her evidence was contradictory and lacked authenticity.

            Where I thought Depp might struggle is to demonstrate malice on the part of Heard. Knowing she is a narcissist means there is malice behind her actions HOWEVER the jury did not know this and would judge her actions on the evidence presented which to my view, did not cross the hurdle of showing malice (her op-ed came across more as a pity play than malicious) and thus his claim would fail. The jury of course reached a different conclusion.

            Your observation about who holds the greater power is an interesting one.
            Is it a man because men (generally) are physically stronger than women, but what if the woman has a weapon? Knife trumps fist, gun trumps knife.
            What about a man who will not physically strike a woman (even though he is bigger and stronger) who is being hit repeatedly by a smaller woman? Who holds the power there?
            What about where one party does not care for the children but the other does and therefore feels duty bound to remain and protect them? Who holds the power there, regardless of physicality? One can find many examples where the holding of power may well not be as it seems.

            You state that Depp was able to make himself the victim in a case of domestic violence. What about the fact that he WAS a victim, have you considered that?

          6. lickemtomorrow says:

            I would like to know how Heard’s testimony lacked credibility when she was able to describe situations as well as show photographic evidence. We had experts counter eachother over the facts, and that comes down to who you are willing to believe.

            A number of people have come out since – including a jury member on TikTok – to say they accept Depp abused Heard, but somehow that still led to an outcome of her defaming him and showing malice by commenting on his abuse. How does that make sense? If he abused her, she is not defaming him in claiming that was the case and she is not showing malice but courage. Johnny Depp’s demeanour throughout this whole trial has been one of malice, including by creating the media circus he did and having the whole thing televised.

            I’m assuming you believe the judgement handed down in the British Court holds no weight.

            Jury’s can be swayed, Judges less so. The Judge in the British Court is not going to be swayed by lawyer tactics as he knows all the tricks in the book, including DARVO.

            What appears to have ultimately convinced the jury is the fact they were able to pin her down on payment of the divorce settlement to charity. I read one legal commenter describe it as a binary presentation (black and white) by Depp’s lawyers, or in other words believe everything or believe nothing in terms of the facts in the case. The jury apparently decided nothing was to believed. What a travesty.

            To my mind it shows more about how lawyers operate and juries can be swayed.

            You say her actions do not cross the hurdle of malice, yet we have a finding in Depp’s favour in relation to that. Why?

            When it comes to who holds the power, we can easily see Depp held the power in this relationship. He is older, more famous, wealthier, bigger, stronger and has the backing of his position in Hollywood and all the various ties associated with that. If he’s narcissistic, he’s not a ‘wimp’, and his lack of empathy has been described by you. Johnny is able to stand up for himself, and I’d suggest he went further than not retaliating in his ability to do that. We saw his meltdown in the kitchen of their home. That is a man with a temper, maybe a drink or drug induced one, but a temper all the same.

            We also know he was jealous, possibly coercive. Why did he comment on what Amber Heard wanted to wear on the red carpet? Ellen Barkin said he was jealous and threw a bottle at her in a temper. The red flags I see, aligned with his narcissistic traits, tell me Johnny didn’t lie down and take it, and neither did Amber Heard. She walked away and he made her pay.

            I’m aware from my time here that – and due to my own experience – that narcissistic women exist and they can be the bane of men’s lives, and their children’s lives. They lie, they cheat, they can get physical, too. We know from everything we read here that both men and women can create scenarios in narcissistic relationships that can destroy others. Most of us are broken when we get here.

            I once held a knife up to my ex-husband when he came towards me in a threatening manner. I was eating dinner at the time and it was a steak knife. He may have cut himself on it when he lunged at me, I honestly can’t remember. A scenario like that could create an option for him to say I attempted to stab him with a knife. He has the wound, I have the knife. I think it is very difficult to determine with no other witnesses present, which causes me to wonder why Amber’s photos are not enough to convince a jury and why her descriptions (which resonate with me) are not to be believed. Who said we can’t believe her and why? Why is Johnny Depp more believable when we see him totally out of control, smashing cupboards, breaking glass, slamming down wine glasses?

            I don’t accept he is not a perpetrator and if he is then he should have lost the case on the basis Amber Heard was telling the truth about what she suffered at his hands.

          7. Asp Emp says:

            HG, brilliant comment to read. I know you did such a great analysis and the way you delivered it was top-notch. Towards the last 2 / 3 parts you created on JD’s analysis had me almost changing my original decision about JD being an empath to not being an empath.

            This is how I see it now:

            AH – narcissist; no emotional empathy; she filmed JD without his permission several times and posted that on Social Media.

            JD = narcissistic; low emotional empathy; no evidence of him filming AH without her knowing, never mind posting that on Social Media.

            The point of the court trial was a defamation claim for the op-ed.

            AH ‘hoovered’ JD by publicly smearing, albeit indirectly, with that newspaper article that kicked-off this whole world-wide public full on mud-slinging She did; He did; She said; He said ‘farce’.

            Defamation (which is illegal) can include posting and sharing (unauthorised by JD) videos on Social Media, which AH did do while in the “relationship” with JD – just like what Jada did (possibly still doing) to Will Smith. Exactly the same kind of ‘abuse’. JD did not take AH to court for this, but it was included during the court trial.

            Maybe, now, AH will stop being a nuisance to JD. But, with her being a less than evolved narcissist, who will be her next victim(s) that would be subject to similar abuse and public exposure?

            JD did not win his libel case in the UK. I think what JD really was aiming for, overall, was to stop AH posting stuff about him when their “relationship” was officially over well before the op-ed. And, to clear his name.

            HG, thank you for your time on the JD / AH analysis 🙂

          8. Joa says:

            As for me, they were both perpetrators and victims.

            They both had very good conditions to end the septic tank they were stuck in (or maybe still stuck in other configurations).

            They are both equally guilty.


            The trial was the rest of the shit they decided to spill all over the world. And saddest of all, people were enjoying this shit swimming with pleasure and excitement.

            I feel sick when I think about the condition of this world. I’m ashamed of them. I am ashamed of the people.


            I loved him as an actor. He played brilliantly. In his youth, he had a beautiful body and delicate beauty, a masculine-feminine mixture that attracts me so much.

            Today, I can’t look at him. Pulling out his dirt and smearing all of us with it like a finger on the wall – he was lost to me.

            I didn’t even know a woman. I am not interested in the private life of actors.

          9. WiserNow says:

            I agree with a lot of what you have said. I also feel sick when I think about the condition of the world. Sometimes I get irritated at people in general.

            I also resent that people like Johnny Depp think they can do what they like because they have enough money to pay the cost. It actually disgusts me that he is able to earn amounts like $US66k for each word he says in his job as a glorified actor, as HG pointed out in his analysis.

            In turn, the lawyers he pays and the legal system in general are willing to jump through hoops for him because he has the means to pay, regardless of his disordered behaviour or how it will impact the legal system and people in general.

            Depp didn’t attend the trial to hear the reading of the final verdict. He was off to rake in some more millions by running around on a stage whacking a guitar. And it seems no-one thinks anything of it because he’s famous.

            When Amber Heard was charged for not declaring their two small dogs when the dogs were smuggled into Australia, Depp and Heard were required to make a public apology. It all came across as a big joke. The charges were based on laws to protect the environment and Australia’s wildlife – the country’s natural ecological system. These two arrogant, self-entitled, perpetual teenage morons could not care less about anything but themselves.

          10. mollyb5 says:

            @ wiser now ,

            Amber heard is the one who smuggled the dogs in when she wanted to visit Johnny on his pirates set …and she was told many times that it was illegal . She almost went to jail but they accepted an apology from her if Johnny publicly apologized with her . She was the person who did not want to obey their laws.

          11. Asp Emp says:

            mollyb5, yes, I read that it was 3 times AH took the dogs there.

          12. WiserNow says:

            That’s what I said mollyb5…
            “When Amber Heard was charged for not declaring their two small dogs when the dogs were smuggled into Australia…”

          13. Joa says:

            I still have to add:

            Two main actors took part in this embarrassing performance. She and he.

            Two people without dignity and decency.

            Two egoists, who gave a clear message of how much they disregard other people and the whole world.

            No decent nue human would choose this way, even if in an intimate face-to-face situation he had ever “sailed” that far.

          14. psychologyandworldaffairs says:

            Hi Z-z

            Firstly I think you misinterpreted some of what I have said. I say ‘I think’ – because ‘I think’ it is wrong to assume one knows with any definitive proof what went on – even from the snippets of evidence we saw.

            Reasons why I think JD was physically violent on occasion = (Other than photos of AH’s face) – he was out of it on drugs and alcohol much of the time. With the incident over his finger – he started writing all AH’s transgressions on the wall – he remembers this – but does not remember how a the window or TV got smashed. Does not remember drawing a penis on a painting.

            Would it be beyond possibility to suggest he had lost control of his senses – causing rage and violence? There were other incidence throughout the trial which also led me to this conclusion.

            Do ‘I think’ AH was much more violent towards JD = oh yes without question.

            I can recount things from the trial if you want my reasoning why I feel JD was emotionally abusive.

            Public opinion vs court outcome. Why televise and choose to put camera’s in the court room? I think it was done to sway public opinion. JD has repeatedly stated he hates intrusion to his personal life – I see no other reason than this. I do feel winning was about public opinion. I do understand you may feel differently.

            I do feel I am entitled to my opinion – just as you are to yours. What was it about my response which caused such annoyance and upset? = Like you said – he won – both with the public and in the eyes of most people – he a victim – which of course I am not suggesting he was not… ‘it just that I think he was a perpetrator too’

            What ‘I think’ is irrelevant and holds no sway with how people view the situation. Why is it so important to you that I should have the same thoughts / view’s as you?

            If he had lost and the court found him guilty – would that change your view point?

            Can we not just choose – to agree – to disagree 🙂

          15. Joa says:

            Wiser, I am not irritated, I just feel disappointed.

            I also don’t mind people earning a lot of money. Let them get rich 🙂 There is nothing wrong with that.

            (Although, of course, this is somehow unfair, to compare a woman working 8 hours a day as an accountant and a few hours as a cleaner in the afternoon to feed her three children. And they don’t live luxuriously, far from there).

            However, it bothers me when people use money stupidly. They bask in nonsense. But even… let them do it – their money, their decision.

            But is it really necessary to flaunt it all over the world? They ridiculed themselves and downgraded themselves. If not now, it will be in a moment when people’s emotions subside. The bad taste will remain.


            I am not surprised by the lawyers – good earnings and the possibility to show their skills more broadly. I would do it, if I was a lawyer 🙂

            It was the clients compromised themselves, not the lawyers.

          16. WiserNow says:

            I feel a very clear feeling of irritation. I think it comes from seeing the longer-term consequences and repercussions. If there is something that can be prevented, it makes me think, don’t go there if it’s going to make it a lot harder to turn back and fix the problems that will arise. It’s like the saying, ‘prevention is better than a cure’.

            For instance, if you know that addiction is very difficult to overcome and you have heard of or even experienced the tragic life stories of drug addicts and junkies, then why would you think that giving marijuana to your 13-year-old daughter is a good idea? That is what Johnny Depp did and it appears he has no remorse because he admits to it publicly and proudly. That irritates me.

            In the same way, if you believe that people should be able to get as rich as they want and there is nothing wrong with that, then with that belief, it follows that you would also see that there is nothing wrong with people like Putin or his lieutenants for example, accumulating billions. If there are no limits to how much wealth individuals can accumulate, then there will be those who build palaces with ridiculous marble and gold features, own fleets of luxury vehicles, invest in foreign properties, and avoid tax and other laws, while average people in the same country are homeless or can’t afford to heat their own homes or find adequate work.

            To me, if someone is going to accumulate ridiculous amounts of money for themselves, then it follows like logic that they *will* use it stupidly and bask in nonsense, because the mindset of one is the same mindset of the other. Both are ‘bad taste’ or perhaps, narcissism.

            In a way, I understand what you are saying, but what you have said in your way of ‘let them do it’ also means that you can’t expect the same people to have the conscience to know when to stop or when to have ‘good taste’ instead of ‘bad taste’.

            From an economic point of view, there is not an unlimited store of money in the world. If that was the case, the main banks of the world would have to pump out new money at ever-increasing rates and that would slowly make all money worthless. Also, there is not an unlimited store of resources either. For example, if billionaires are allowed to buy up foreign land and foreign properties in other countries, then there will be less land and property available for the residents and businesses that are living in those countries. Prices and property values will increase to the point where it becomes impossible for the ‘average’ person to afford to have property.

            The idea of ‘having money’ is looking at money in the wrong way, *in my opinion*. Money itself is a tool. It enables the purchase of things. It is the ‘things’ that are more important than the ‘money’ used to buy them. If for instance, if people thought of food like think of money, it would be like saying, “I am going to accumulate so much food that I will fill a thousand cupboards up with food”. What are you going to do with all that food though? You can’t eat it and you don’t want to give it away. So the food sits there and other people are hungry for food. Then everyone gets frightened that there will not be enough food and they start to hoard their own food too. So now, the whole society is treating food like a way to compare each other. How much food has he got? how much food has she got? He thinks he’s so great because he has more potatoes/bread/ice-cream than I have – what a snob. He hasn’t got the same amount of peas and beans as me, so I’m not even going to look at him, what a loser, etc etc.

            I’m sorry if I have made this into something more involved or serious than you were intending. I do understand what you are saying and I do not for one minute believe in some economic ideologies where people are not allowed to own their own property. That is not what I mean *at all*. I just feel there should be more awareness and understanding about what happens to society in general when people are ‘able’ to earn unrealistic amounts of money.

          17. WiserNow says:

            *For instance, if people thought of food like they think of money… etc

          18. Contagious says:

            To me, it is an example of many ugly divorces. Exaggerations and lies in court, bad behavior on both parts. But the behavior had severe consequences as it happened in the metoo movement. Johnny was facing a huge loss at f he didn’t try to correct it in the USA. The laws were different in the UK where it was about a newspaper lying about a story. And that party was Rupert Murdoch. In the US it was about lying to inflict harm or defamation. That party was Amber Heard. But she won on her defamation suit too. Personally I think HG got it right. The result will be problems for both parties as a jury verdict won’t erase the dirty laundry shared or just he opinions of many people. The verdict helped Johnny but I have seen many articles discrediting him too and saying this verdict silenced “ true victims.” In the end how did this public trial help? Stay tuned.

          19. Contagious says:

            Psychology I think we should look at it as an ugly divorce played out in public. This situation is sadly common everywhere.

          20. Z - zwarbolleke says:

            Dear Psychologyandworldaffairs,

            dear other readers who have expressed their doubts about JD,

            Thank you for your answer and your arguments. Let me tell you firstly I am by no means trying to convince you, or anybody, when it comes to opinions.
            Reasonable minds can differ.
            I would never ever argue about an opinion.

            With that said, some of the things you and other contributors on this topic and in this thread bring on the table, exceed the domain of opinions and are
            a) conclusions about wrong or non-proven alleged facts, or,
            b) misrepresentations about facts,
            which both drove me to respond, because this blog is all about the evidence and actual facts.

            If you find Mr Depp screaming or yelling or using drugs and alcohol to be a wrong thing, I expressed no issue with that. That is an opinion and is totally fine. If you find Mr Depp slamming cabinet doors is not the way to behave in a relationship, again, that is totally fine and I did not express any issue with your opinion.
            It is a fact that Mr Depp uses drugs and alcohol and it is on videotape that he slams cabinet doors, so we are talking about facts, and your feelings about that, I expressed no issue with that.

            I am not convincing you how you should feel about that, nor have I stated/suggested if you are allowed to find this wrong. By all means, find this behaviour abhorrent and inappropriate, and find him an awful person.

            I have no issue with people expressing this feeling.

            If 50 people on this blog want to express how they disapprove of Mr Depp’s behaviour, all fine by me, I will read it and think: yeah hm, true, and continue with my work.

            But if you say: ”Do I think JD was physically abusive to AH = yes I do”, now I need to ask you: where is your evidence, where are your facts, and which trial did you watch, because I don’t have the impression you and I watched the same trial.

            What concerns the evidence, I will help you, here is the official link with all the evidence:


            I looked, listened and watched through every exhibit of evidence of both AH and JD, therefore I am sure I looked at this case from both sides, and avoided looking at this one-sidedly.

            For further info about the case, you can find it here:


            If we are referring to AH’s testimony to prove physical abuse by JD, or better said, her testimonies, because she had many:

            * some of what she testified was simply impossible ( I was dragged, naked, through broken glass with my feet and arms cut open, but then both Dr Kipper and Debbie Lloyd saw nothing when they saw her, gave her medicine to calm down, but NO treatment at all for any injury, be it small or big, she took a plane back home, practiced ballet for her movie on her bare feet: with no injuries, and in the audio file from Australia, she confessed she was responsible for Mr Depp injuries, contradicting herself with all later testimonies. She was SA’d with a bottle, but no medical treatment? She took a pill and went to sleep? Not even a shower?)

            Here is my evidence:

            1) JD asking to AH: do you believe I’m an abuser?


            2) AH saying: nobody saw what happened behind closed doors (-that is also what you bring as argument-), and JD’s reaction


            3) Evidence debunks injuries:


            4) The transcripts in the day after what happened in Australia


            5) ballet dancing after Australia


            6) debunking of the story that she locked herself and barricaded herself in the bedroom and who wrote on the mirrors


            7) more contradictions about Australia:


            * and other things were Inconsistent with her previous testimonies or her other witnesses (friends/freeloaders)

            1) the knife, gifted by AH to JD, what victim of physical abuse, gives a knife to her abuser?


            2) multiple inconsistencies:


            3) gaslighting, threatening, and complaining about why JD is always running away when AH wants to fight and argue, what victim of physical abuse wants her alleged abuser to stay and not run away …


            4) tell me, does this sound like a victim of physical abuse? AH keeps blaming JD for running away:


            5) this is AH with a broken nose, swelling, bruises, black eyes, from alleged beating by JD, one of the pictures from her mountain of evidence:


            6) A little soundbite, where JD walks away in an argument, no physical violence at all:


            7) All the freeloaders living for free in JD’s penthouses, called themselves friends of AH, testifying they knew about the physical abuse, and none of them advised their good friend AH, during all those years, to seek safety, get a place of her own, bring herself to a safe place? Really?

            8) The testimony of Jennifer Howell, testifying that AH physically abused her sister Whitney.

            And a video, where it is alleged Whitney has bruises caused by AH


            9) The arrest of AH, for physical assault of her then partner Tasya van Ree. ( I have videos if wanted)

            10) The arrest of AH for drunk driving and driving without driving licence (when she was under 18)

            11) No other partners of JD testified of physical abuse by JD, there was no MeToo moment in this case. The opposite happened, former partners testified in the UK trial that JD was never violent nor abusive and they always felt very safe with him.

            12) She covered alleged bruises on her face in this order: first a moisturiser, then foundation, then her ‘bruise kit’ ( which was a Freudian slip, she meant a cover bruise kit), but this is wrong, to cover bruises, you do: first color correct the bruise, and then foundation. When you create a bruise with a theatre bruise kit, then it is indeed first the moisturiser and foundation, and the colouring with the bruise kit comes in the final step. That is what AH was describing in her testimony. She only knows the process of creating bruises, and she used it in the same way to describe covering up bruises, which is false. If she was so experienced in covering up bruises, she would have known.

            13) Expert witness testifying that the photographs of AH are manipulated:


            14) Four police officers, special DV officers, saw AH in the night of 21 May 2016 and none of them saw any injuries and none of them made a report afterwards about DV. None of them!!! Specialised in DV. They are sanctioned if they make a mistake. All four of them testified there were NO injuries on AH. I can link you the testimony and the body cam footage if you want, it is in evidence. Though 6 days laters she appears in court for her TRO with a big bruise on her face ( and tipped to TMZ by the way).

            This is how easy it is to see that AH’s side of the story, backed with her friends, is an accumulation of lies and contradictions and manipulated evidence. Easy to debunk lies.


            More examples of debunking lies:
            1) debunking allegations of physical abuse in the night of 21 May 2016:


            2) I could give you many many more, but you can search for more info and more evidence on the YT channels of ThatBrianfella (Incredibly Average), ThatUmbrellaGuy, and the excellent podcast series of Movie Myths and Monsters:


            Debunking a part of the story of physical abuse on 15 December 2015, the night before the James Corden show:


            Also in the podcast of Movie Myths and Monsters is an episode for each incident, like: the staircase incident, the bed/JamesCorden incident,…if you want really deep background information about all the alleged abuse incidents.

            The very last conversation between JD and AH, tissue warning! This is after the TRO, she accuses him of physical violence and he denies:



            Why am I putting so much effort and evidence in my reply? Because this blog is all about facts and evidence, and cold hard logic, not about feelings, presumptions, and easy to debunk lies. And yes I have listened to hours and hours of taped recordings and saw the complete trial. Much more than I can bring here as evidence.

            And there is a continuation of people, here on this blog and in this thread, mixing their feelings with facts and stating: well, I know there is a verdict and all this evidence is clear, but no, I still think JD physically abused her and I chose to dismiss the evidence.

            JD broke bottles, yes, not noses.

            He battered cabinets and couches and things, yes, not people.

            He demolished hotel rooms, yes, not bodies.

            If anything, he abused his own body with too much drugs and alcohol, I agree.

            Just like you, I also don’t like JD. I find him extremely boring, I wouldn’t be able to fill an evening with a conversation with him. And his films, maybe I’ve seen 4 of them, so certainly not a fan.

            But my heart breaks when he is wrongfully accused of DV, SA, and cancelled from his job, with no evidence and even after this verdict people keep on saying well…I still think he physically abused her… I’m sorry but then I’m gonna ask: where is your evidence? And I am showing you all the evidence presented.

            Now, coming back to your statements:

            “Reasons why I think JD was physically violent on occasion = (Other than photos of AH’s face) – he was out of it on drugs and alcohol much of the time. With the incident over his finger – he started writing all AH’s transgressions on the wall – he remembers this – but does not remember how a the window or TV got smashed. Does not remember drawing a penis on a painting.

            Would it be beyond possibility to suggest he had lost control of his senses – causing rage and violence? There were other incidence throughout the trial which also led me to this conclusion.
            Do ‘I think’ AH was much more violent towards JD = oh yes without question.”

            Ok, the only evidence from Australia is pictures of writing on the wall and on some furniture. From this you conclude: well, it is not unreasonable to presume he did more than that. AH only took pictures from walls and mirrors, explicitly making sure she is not reflected in the mirror. Why would you not take pictures of your body completely scratched and bloody and why does nobody see scratches on her, nobody on the audio file says: oh my god all the scratches she has, or oh my god she is wounded, nothing!!! And those are a doctor and a nurse! Nobody is talking about her, only that she is freaking out and they give her medicine to calm down. She mentions nothing of what allegedly happened to her.

            No, did not happen, JD was the victim.

            And referring to the “pictures” AH presented in her mountain of evidence, well, let me put it this way: they were either manipulated, or the evidence itself was manipulated for the pictures. None of them proved anything.

            “I can recount things from the trial if you want my reasoning why I feel JD was emotionally abusive.”

            Do please, provide me with the evidence. I have provided you the links with all the evidence.

            “Public opinion vs court outcome. Why televise and choose to put camera’s in the court room? I think it was done to sway public opinion. JD has repeatedly stated he hates intrusion to his personal life – I see no other reason than this. I do feel winning was about public opinion. I do understand you may feel differently.”

            How about transparency?

            We see what the MSM is fabricating after the verdict, let’s all be very very very thankful that we didn’t have to rely on MSM to cover this trial.

            Can you imagine, for a second, if it wasn’t streamed, so nobody knew exactly what happened in court, and the jury came to this verdict… there would be manifestations all over the world to protest the verdict, the polarisation would be complete. Because nobody would understand how the jury came to their verdict.

            By allowing this transparency, at least everybody is aware of the facts, everybody was able to see the evidence and the facts, the witnesses and the experts, and we can understand why the jury came to this verdict.

            Why are so many people now opposing against this transparency? Is there a problem with transparency? I would like to know?

            Was JD because of this streaming able to show/tell his side of the story to the world? Yes. But so was AH. She chose to fuck her chance up. She could have chosen to bring a version-light of the abuse, and that would have been better believed. But her narcissism chose another option. Is streaming therefore to blame? I would like to see how that story gets spinned?

            MSM is now shouting that this was all unfair and a disaster for all women, (women, so men are therefore excluded as victims of DV), instead of admitting they were wrong all those years.

            “What ‘I think’ is irrelevant and holds no sway with how people view the situation. Why is it so important to you that I should have the same thoughts / view’s as you?

            If he had lost and the court found him guilty – would that change your view point?

            Can we not just choose – to agree – to disagree”

            I see a lot of people here use the irrelevant fact: I am a survivor of DV myself and therefore, ….(then follows all sorts of reasoning like: I am afraid women will not be believed again, or : I know how difficult it is after DV, etc…)

            Even more reason NOT to want a false victim of DV to be believed and get away with it. She brings more damage to all DV victims, because from now on, a lot of people will be more doubting and thinking: hm, is this an Amber Heard situation again? What she did is horrible, devastating, for all – real- DV survivors. All the more reason why it is better to distance yourself from AH, instead of turning the situation around and keep on accusing the victim of DV of committing the DV.
            Because he is a man?
            What kind of narrative is that?
            And therefore blinding your eyes for the clear evidence? (or lack thereof)

            I hope that I have proven that by no means I am trying to convince anyone of any opinion.

            Just don’t accuse anyone of DV without any evidence (or against the evidence).



          21. annaamel says:

            Z, I tried to reply a while back to this explanation of the evidence and acknowledge the amazing amount of work you put into it, but a few of my posts have failed to submit. I watched or listened to the whole trial and, like you, could not come to any other conclusion. The trial and the verdict certainly has aroused passionate responses, and I understand why. But I also think that looking at the evidence and testimonies presented as dispassionately as possible is very important. Thank-you again

          22. Z - zwartbolleke says:

            Mr Tudor,

            Congratulations yet again for another million logic hits of knowledge into your world, it’s crazy how fast million after million is reached, it would almost make you forget what an incredible kind of an achievement this really is, but I really am in awe for the numbers your work generates, both on the blog and on YT (almost 42.000.000 views, incredible)!!

            In the words of Doug:”You are a machine”, it’s true, and I thank you for everything you do!

          23. HG Tudor says:

            Thank you Z.

        3. psychologyandworldaffairs says:

          Hi lickemtomorrow,

          Being in the middle is my curse. I am always destined to cop it from both sides. I see too many gray areas and never a black and white definitive. I see all view points and angles. Hahaha I would never make a good Judge 🙂

          I am sorry – my inner thought process does not agree with you in all your thoughts – but it is good you see an alternative view – we need that in society. One should take into account different points 🙂

          I think I was not clear in my response – I was saying that many think physical abuse is the only kind. My abuse was mental and emotional. One only has to hear about all the teenage suicides – to know this is not the case 😉

          I do agree there has been an overwhelming case for Depp on social media. I do agree this has swayed public opinion…

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            PAWA, being able to see more than one point of view is a necessary part of critical thinking. Weighing up the information and options and trying to come to a decision around them is what we must do in life, though not many of us will be required to sit on a jury. The moments we have the luxury of sitting on the fence are moments to treasure.

            I thought you were referring to Wendy’s comment when you mentioned other forms of abuse, so I left it for Wendy to respond to that. I have no argument with regard to the variety of abuse we can encounter and have only recently commented here about the lack of physical abuse we see written into many of HG’s articles. Abuse, like narcissism, can be insidious, to the point we aren’t even aware we are being abused due to the gaslighting nature of the same. We take it because we don’t know what is happening to us and it often takes someone else to open a victim’s eyes to the fact they are suffering abuse. This could be particularly true in relation to elements of coercive control where no mark is ever left and no threat ever made. We can no longer consider abuse to be just of a physical nature, and even then it seems it is not always believed.

            Teenage suicide is a multifaceted thing, but heartbreaking no matter what the circumstances. No doubt an element of abuse can lie at the heart of many suicides.
            I watched an interesting program a day or so ago which related to domestic violence where women of a certain ethnicity chose to end their own lives rather than continue living in abusive situations. Abuse can lead to death not only through murder, but also suicide. Those are the statistics we will be less aware of and then, of course, we have the murder-suicide scenarios. Abuse leads to nothing but tragedy.

            It’s an enormous topic to contemplate and one that needs the necessary weight given to it in the circumstances. It’s why I’m happy to disagree.

          2. psychologyandworldaffairs says:

            LET, I am not sure I can take credit for critical thinking – do you remember the old kaleidoscope’s (or am I showing my age?). I rather think that how we see things is similar. Everyone will see a different aspect based on their own experiences, perception and ideology. No one is right or wrong as such – but collectively they make a more complete picture.

            I actually like it when people share alternative views, it adds to my picture of events – but does not mean I will erase things on the picture I have drawn. Not sure if that makes sense? The way we see things actually gives us more insight into ourselves. A better understanding – so we do perceive when we are being manipulated and abused.

            I do agree, the whole area with regards to what is abuse – is a tough one. I was not very clear at all in my response with regards to that.

            I was very curious about your thoughts on AH & JD – it took Z-Z’s response to make me reconsider. I was not taking into account how emotionally invested (myself included) we were. Makes sense when one considers we are in a place of empaths, who have most likely been abused.

            Something to take with me moving forward xx

          3. lickemtomorrow says:

            PAWA, I appreciate your further thoughts and agree that others adding their thoughts allows us to see different perspectives and in some way fill in a bigger picture. Aligning with your thoughts I have to agree, that does not mean my own perspective will be erased by that of others. If we can articulate our position then we are able to be clear on where we stand and why, so in a sense that is giving insight into ourselves, and that can also help us to formulate boundaries so we are less likely to be manipulated or abused.

            I’m not sure what you mean about being “curious” about my thoughts and Z’s response causing you to reconsider. Happy for you to expand on that if you get the chance.

            I am emotionally invested in the sense I’m also a Saviour Empath and fully invested in elements of truthseeking and justice, as well as being a victim of family violence. That does not mean my vision is coloured in response to this case. It means I see clearly the repercussions of family violence and the propensity for it in relationships that are toxic. I don’t wear rose coloured glasses with celebrity lenses, nor do I root for the social media underdog (whether you consider that to be Depp or Heard).

            My empathy is not for sale. Others don’t get to buy it for their own purposes.

            That’s important to add in a place where we do reside with many empaths and sometimes others are inclined to take advantage of that.

            The hope is we can all keep moving forward and I am grateful every day for finding a place I feel I can do just that xox

        4. JB says:


          I hope you are feeling better soon xx

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            JB, sorry I missed this earlier and I’m feeling much better, thank you 🙂 xox

  25. Duchessbea says:

    Excellent series. You worked very hard on this and you have given us an incredible in depth analysis of the evidence.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Thank you.

  26. Truthseeker6157 says:


    I thought the Amber Heard Johnny Depp series of videos were outstanding. A huge amount of material collated and synthesised into a thoroughly entertaining and insightful series.

    I would like to show my appreciation by donating to the AAF. This way, more people gain access to the information they require to GOSO, thus furthering the HG Tudor legacy.

    Thank you for the time and effort you continue to allocate to your research and analysis.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Thank you and also for your donation.

      1. Truthseeker6157 says:

        “Thank you and also for your donation.”

        My pleasure. Thank you for continuing to manage the AAF.

      2. Contagious says:

        As soon as a big check comes in, I will show my gratitude HG. You are simply the best at what you do. And your forage into public issues is appreciated. It clarifies things. For example at the start, I found Johnny to be an empath and blamed substances in the abuse. Verbal. After following your accounts I see I was mislead. I was confused. Kind people abuse substances, I know that from my father the most loving kind empathetic man I have ever known. So… I didn’t get it. I thought Johnny is an empath, look at how he loves his kids. I never considered normal lol but I didn’t know narcissistic Substances don’t create a narc. I learned that from following your series. Thank you.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          You are welcome.

        2. Wendy says:

          Contagious, me too! I thought the same about Johnny and that the substances caused him to become more narcissistic. HG turned my thinking around with the excellent series. I learned a lot of new things from it. Thanks to HG.

  27. Krista Miller says:

    For those of us who had to miss the live reveal, will there be somewhere we can learn the conclusion?

    1. HG Tudor says:


  28. StrongerWendy says:

    HG, are empaths as innately attracted to/addicted to those who are narcissistic as much as they are to narcissists? Thank you

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Hello SW, I addressed this in my interview with Doug, so have a listen to that.

      1. StrongerWendy says:

        Will do – thank you

  29. Leigh says:

    Mr. Tudor, your conclusion on Johnny Depp was brilliant. You spelled it out in a very clear and concise way. Thank you, Mr. Tudor.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      You are welcome, thank you for listening.

      1. Leigh says:

        You’re very welcome, Mr. Tudor. It was my pleasure.

  30. vandenboss says:

    He sure looks like one on the outside! Maybe he hangs out with too many,thinks its normal lol

    1. mollyb5 says:

      @Vandenboss why do you think he looks like a narcissist ?

      1. mollyb5 says:

        HG everyone that is vain isn’t a narcissist ? It’s just a trait , right ? We all may have some traits… empaths like to care for themselves and get their hair done and wear makeup etc . I get real tired of certain people thinking that only narcs care what they look like. Have you written anything telling or describing the difference for other people to understand ?

        1. HG Tudor says:


          I have repeatedly explained how narcissistic traits function in a healthy way, encapsulated by empathic traits.

        2. Truthseeker6157 says:

          I’m quite vain actually. That’s just because I’m hot though.

          Molly, the video ‘You All Have Narcissistic Traits’ uses a really good example with the vanity trait.

  31. jasmin says:

    Hello HG and thank you very much for for this excellent series!
    Because of JD beeing narcissistic rather than a narcissist what do you think caused him to propose at sush an early juncture if not a need to accert control?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      The strength of his vanity, pride and showmanship.

      1. jasmin says:

        Thank you so much for answer my question. I watched both ‘the glue’ video and the interview with Doug. It really helped to improve my understanding of their relationship and behaviors of JD!

  32. Anonymous says:

    He’s a demon in human form. What else is there to know?

    1. poshpi says:

      You need to watch more of his Amber/Johnny series, then you might change your mind…

  33. Wendy says:

    HG, the first word that comes to my mind is BRILLIANT! Then WOW!

    Thank you so much for putting so much effort into this work. I have to say that in the beginning of all this my thoughts were definitely Empath or at least a normal with higher narcissist traits. When you started breaking everything down in your videos along midway my mind started to change some. His grandiose gestures of kindness and generosity struck me as a little over the top and then hearing the negative commentary about his entitled behaviors from close people around him got me worried.

    I NEVER believed he was a full blown narcissist. I just thought normal or empath with his empathic traits eroded by external stressors causing him to be more narcissistic.

    You have done very fine work on this and I am thankful! This whole thing will bring such a better understanding of what narcissism and narcissistic traits look like. I’m a little sad he didn’t turn out to be an empath but even so I still believe he is innocent in the accusations of severe physical abuse that Heard is defaming him with! I really hope she doesn’t prevail but like you said in the livestream it’s going to be hard for Johnny to prove defamation. I think he has won the public opinion vote which will help him.

    I’m happy to know he has stronger empathic traits towards his children. I believe the abuse he sustained as a young boy and into his formative years played a big part in him having stronger narcissistic traits than empathic ones. Then add the substance abuse on top of that and it’s a recipe for disaster!

    Thank you again and bravo for the fine details and extensive work you put into this!! 👏

    I’m still team Johnny!! 😊


  34. psychologyandworldaffairs says:

    Very concise conclusion, thank you for all your hard work HG. I saw so many parallels between JD and my ex – it was hard for me to be objective. If my ex had not been diagnosed with BPD – I might have gone back to thinking – ‘is he – isn’t he’. Great work 🙂

    1. JB says:


      Hope you don’t mind me asking, but what, in your experience, is the difference between the behaviour of someone with BPD and someone with NPD? A friend of mine has been diagnosed with BPD, but to be honest, based on how they are, and what I have read here, I believe they may in fact have NPD instead. No pressure to answer if this is too personal a question.

      1. Asp Emp says:

        JB, have a look at HG’s video ‘Why The Borderline Is Not What You Think’. Maybe this will help?

        1. JB says:

          Asp Emp,

          Will do, thank you 🙂

          1. Asp Emp says:

            Thank you JB 🙂

  35. Pingback: Johnny Depp – The Conclusion – Live - Dark Triad Personality
  36. Asp Emp says:

    oooohhhhhhh mmmmyyyyyyyy gggggaaaawwwdddd………

    Yes, my computer keys got stuck! Laughing……

    1. njfilly says:

      Ha ha! Funny.

      Did you attend the live stream? I didn’t notice you commenting.

      1. Asp Emp says:

        Maybe I lurked?

  37. A Victor says:

    Oh yay! This breakdown has been transfixing, all the back and forth. Given the school and cadre of some narcs, they are quite obviously narcs. With Johnny it’s been a back and forth from empathy to narc the entire time!

  38. WhoCares says:

    This is going to be a treat!

  39. Janet- AkA Mytobytobster says:

    This is the jewel in the crown of the amazing analysis. Thank you seems so inadequate

Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.