Friday marked the end of the six-week defamation trial between Hollywood actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Depp filed a defamation lawsuit against his former wife over a 2018 op-ed she wrote in The Washington Post where she referred to herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse.

Through the lawsuit, Depp is seeking $50 million from Heard, claiming that the aforementioned article damaged his reputation and career, and thus made it difficult for him to secure roles in movies. Heard is also countersuing Depp for $100 million after his lawyer Adam Waldman referred to her allegations as false in three statements in the press.

The damaging court of public’s opinions

The trial, which has received insurmountable coverage, had many decided early on on whom they think is guilty and whom they believe is innocent. Fans of Depp have dominated social media and certain hashtags have frequently circulated voicing support for the Pirates of the Caribbean star and hurling insults at Heard. One such popular hashtag, #Justicefor JohnnyDepp has received more than 15 billion views on TikTok. In contrast, #JusticeforAmberHeard has only received 51 million views on TikTok and despite the hashtag alluding support for Heard, many of the latter’s TikToks have been negative and the videos on the popular social media site have been edited to make Heard’s accusations look baseless and untrue.

Ironically, this is precisely the kind of criticism Heard spoke of in her piece for The Washington Post. In the article, she’d written that she felt the ‘full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out’ and that is precisely what is happening to her once again through the course of this trial.

It seems to be the case that Depp’s stardom has caused many of his fans to flock to his defense. Throngs of fans be seen waiting for Depp outside the courtroom each day clamouring slogans of supporting for the actor. These same fans can also be seen booing Heard when she enters. For Heard it seems that she wasn’t already an established celebrity before her linkage to Depp and their ensuing rocky marriage and divorce, most people associate her with this and this alone. This is acutely summed up in by Jessica Winter her The New Yorker article titled, ‘The Johnny Depp–Amber Heard Trial Is Not as Complicated as You May Think’: “This is who she is now—the victim of an unprecedented Internet pile-on, a bruised face on an iPhone, a woman who makes people laugh when she cries.” In contrast though, since Depp was already an established successful Hollywood actor for several decades before the trial, his name would not in fact be similarly associated with it: “Johnny Depp cannot be frozen in time in the same way. He has been a household name since Amber Heard was a toddler, and, though it can be difficult to remember now, he was once the most wondrously idiosyncratic brand of megastar.”

Theatrics and sensationalism

In the course of the weeks since the trial began there have been several key points highlighted by both Depp and Heard’s legal teams. However, it is important to note that Depp’s entire defamation case against Heard rests on the first part of one sentence from the article: “Then two years ago, I became a figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” Heard doesn’t mention Depp by name in the article and nor does she specify the type of abuse. However, this first part of the sentence is the entire crux of Depp’s case.

Much Depp’s case has been presented by his legal team in a way which has both shocked and excited viewers. Images shown in the courtroom of Depp’s bloody finger stump and allegations from his legal team that Heard may have defecated on his bed have got fans enraged on Depp’s behalf and thus, lashing out against Heard. After all, why shouldn’t they? Both are egregious and heinous crimes.

However, many forget that those of both unproven allegations by his legal team, most likely designed to create an image as wild, deranged and raging Heard who is ‘out to get’ Depp. Depp’s legal team has not been able to provide irrefutable claim that Heard was responsible for either cutting his finger off or for defecating on his bed. For one thing, there is proof in the form of texts, where Depp himself admits to cutting off his own finger. However, it’s out there now, the possibility that Heard could have in a moment of cruelty cut off the finger of her spouse. And for many fans, that was enough to side against Heard permanently.

Depp’s lawyer’s Camilla Vasquez’ cross-examination of Heard could arguably be the most remembered part of the trial. It could be wagered that if this trial was ever to me made into a miniseries for television (I would wager Netflix would most certainly be interested in commissioning this), this cross-examination would prove to be the most ‘dramatic’ and ‘thrilling’ part of said series. Most viewers have alreadt compared it to ‘watching a movie’ and have grotesquely enjoyed seeing Vasquez take on Heard this way. One example is of Vasquez presenting Heard’s multitudes of anxiety-driven texts and calls to her missing husband, as an example of Heard’s harassment of Depp.

What is deeply problematic is how Vasquez has garnered fans in the process. Vasquez could arguably be viewed as an attractive female and thus has received relatively more attention from viewers of the trial than the other lawyers. Movie song montages have been created by fans on social media who are now ‘shipping’ Depp and Vasquez. What is also concerning is the comparisons on social media of Vasquez to fictional lawyers Elle Woods and Rachel Zane. Thus, highlighting the unrealistic tropes of female lawyers in movies and television.

Heard’s team’s defense has in comparison, been far more sober. They have cross-examined witnesses who have been able to shed light on Depp’s history of alcohol and drug dependence, his erratic behaviour while abusing the former as well as his behaviour on the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie (which included being late for upto seven hours) – all shown to demonstrate their point about his unpredictable rage owing to his substance abuse and also showing how he may have himself been responsible for losing roles due to his irresponsible and unprofessional behaviour on movie sets. However, this slowly and methodically established history isn’t as exciting for the views to grapple onto.

On such example can be seen of the cross-examination by Heard’s lawyers of Depp’s sister and manager Christi Dembrowski. Dembrowski makes several assertions that Depp isn’t an addict and did not have a problem with drugs and alcohol, but through the former’s presentation of messages between Heard and herself which clearly demonstrate that she was concerned about his use of pain medication, Heard’s team is able to prove some of Heard’s claims. This is also further proven as Dembrowski also hired Dr David Kipper to help Depp with his addiction.

Heard’s legal team also provides texts from Depp where he called her a ‘worthless hooker’ and jokes about how he will ‘smack the ugly c*** around’. In one particularly graphic description that he shared with fellow actor and friend Paul Bettany, Depp stated: “Let’s drown her before we burn her!!! I will f*** her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she’s dead.”

However, these testimonies and texts don’t elicit the same reaction of amazement and thus don’t even necessarily register with viewers.

Similar could be said of the video testimony provided by Depp and Heard’s marriage counsellor Dr Laurel Anderson who clearly describes their relationship as one of ‘mutual abuse’ and that with her, he was ‘triggered’.

According to Anderson, Heard had a ‘jack hammer’ and ‘rapid fire’ way of speaking and says Depp was often ‘cut off a lot’. The psychoanalyst went on to say that due to Heard’s fear of abandonment, “It was a point of pride to her, if she felt disrespected, to initiate a fight,” Anderson told jurors. “If he was going to leave her to de-escalate from the fight, she would strike him to keep him there, she would rather be in a fight than have him leave.”

Anderson explains that since Heard’s father had beaten her and she was not going to back down and was very ‘sensitive to feeling disrespected’ and that she ‘needed to dominate’ and ‘stand up for herself’.

Of the couple as a whole, she says ‘They don’t communicate’ and ‘have terrible skills’. Thus this ‘mutual’ or two-way abuse cycle seems to be overlooked with the onus firmly being placed on Heard.

Why it’s still important to ‘hear’ women

One important take away from the trial that should be noted is that it is important to remember that toxic relationships can give birth to mutual cycles of abuse. One partner may have more power than the other and may be exercising more control, however, the other may be reacting defensively or preemptively.

It is also imperative to remember that Hollywood (or the larger society for that matter) has never been tolerant of ‘difficult’ and ‘opiniated’ women. It may also be essential to remember that women can be unlikeable but still be victims. As Martha Gill writes in her article for The Guardian titled, ‘#MeToo is over if we don’t listen to ‘imperfect victims’ like Amber Heard’, ‘After all, when a man is treated badly it lands with a double sense of burning injustice. Women’s stories of woe are so common that they can leave us comparatively unfazed. We feel bad, but we already know women are treated unfairly. It is priced in…When something bad happens to a powerful man, it has not happened to a statistic. It has happened to a human soul.”