Johnny Depp abusing his wife OR being screwed by her?

Natus Videre

Jedi Master
The conditions of our world are designed to create the maximum chance that evil will prevail and the good people will be punished by being good and telling the truth.
HP: Honest Person
PL: Pathological Liar
LPL: Lawyer of Pathological Liar
LHP: Lawyer of Honest Person


Testimony of PL
PL: HP was crazy. He hit me, smashed my head against the wall.

Testimony of HP
HP: I remember losing control over myself, but I have never injured anyone.

Cross-examination of HP
LPL: HP, you said that you've "lost control" over yourself at some point. How often do you remember "losing control" over yourself?
HP: Very rarely. I can't give you an exact number.
LPL: When you were in that state, what did you do exactly?
HP: I did throw some things at the wall.
LPL: Because you were in that "crazy" state, you didn't realize that it was PL's face that you smashed against the wall, did you?
HP: I would never do such a thing. I have never assaulted PL.

Cross-examination of PL
LHP: PL, did you request medical attention after HP allegedly smashed your face against the wall?
PL: No, it wasn't needed.
LHP: So HP didn't really hit you, did he?
PL: He hit me so hard there was blood all over the wall!
LHP: On this photo, hours after the alleged incident, there were no marks on your face, do you agree?
PL: You can't see them because of the lighting.

False Conclusions
HP is guilty, because he has displayed "aggressiveness" at some point in his life. Experts say that aggressiveness is a popular trait among criminals. He must have unleashed his anger toward PL, because they were living together when he was "crazy". Because PL testified getting her face smashed against the wall and HP admitted throwing things at the wall, it is safe to conclude that HP smashed PL's face against the wall. PL's emotional testimony and the blood on the wall also prove the last point.


At least we can SEE. 😉
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Really, one wonders how anyone could not laugh here:


The strange thing is that Amber Heard's attorney Elaine Bredehoft (similarly to Amber's other attorneys) does seem to mean it very seriously! As seen earlier as well, Amber's attorneys seem to be something else as well. I mean, what the heck!? On the other hand, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that rather strange attorneys would gravitate towards representing Amber.
 

BlueKiwi

Jedi
Here's a question - can things be any different? Reading the above mechanics of how the system works I can't help but wonder whether this was inevitable given the competitive nature of society and also scarcity of resources.
I think things can be different, there just has to be enough people to wake up and realise this situation and do something about it.
At the moment many people are forced into certain behaviours due to how the system is structured, and has placed them. They feel they have no choice but to commit crimes, or violate the rules of the legal system.

What the true crime I think is the violation of our free will.
I feel that it must be acknowledged there are also those who are willing to be lied to and be convinced. There's a dance and usually, if each part plays there part perfectly, life continues a-okay. The one being lied to doesn't want to know they are being lied to so as long as the liar plays their part well and correctly then all will be well.
Maybe this is not wanting to see the truth, since realising the reality of it would be too shocking to some people.

and even then, what is a crime? America attacking Iraq is supposedly not a crime but Russia "attacking" Ukraine is a crime. It's all very strange indeed...
Another blatant example of just how absurd things are that many people don't even see how contradicting things like this are. This information is portrayed in the media in such a biased way and how many people blindly believe such contradictions is an example of the control being applied and having the desired effect.

What do you think ?
 

Amor

Jedi
Worse than that, actually. Psychologist George Simon writes:


As Robert Canup writes, we face a particular, even monstrous, problem in our world: that most of what we know or think we know is based on plausible lies. A person who is sincere and speaks the truth really has almost no chance against a plausible liar. Yes, I know that goes against everything we have been taught from childhood in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave,” but it is all too sadly true. We have been taught that “the Truth will always win” and that “anybody who believes a lie about you wasn’t your friend to begin with”, and a whole host of other platitudes that actually would work in a different world: a world run by people who tell the truth!

But since our world is run by people who lie for a living, you might expect that they have set things up so that liars will always win. And that is, oh so sadly, the case.



The problem is, if there is a psychopath – or those with related characteropathies – who doesn’t know how to keep good eye contact when lying, they haven’t been born. Eye contact is “universally known” to be a sign of truth-telling. The problem is liars will fake anything that it is possible to fake, so in reality, eye contact is absolutely NOT a sign of truth telling.

Consider our legal system. Here you first have to ask yourself just what kind of people were in charge of the creation and shaping of our “social norms.” Now sure, everybody will agree with the saying that “you can’t trust a politician,” or “power corrupts” and so on, but have you ever really stopped to think about that and what it must really mean?

Richard Dolan has pointed out that those at the top will ALWAYS take whatever measures necessary to stay at the top, and when knowledge is power, that means that they will make sure that they are in control of what people know or think they know. The sad fact is that as a society gets larger and more competitive, individuals become more anonymous and more Machiavellian. Social stratification and segregation leads to feelings of inferiority, pessimism and depression among the have-nots, and this promotes the use of “cheating strategies” in life which then makes the environment more adaptive for psychopathy in general. Such individuals may begin their lives in the lower socio-economic levels, but they often rise to the top. Psychopathic behavior seems to be on the rise because of the very nature of American capitalistic society. The great hustlers, charmers, and self-promoters in the sales fields are perfect examples of where the psychopath can thrive. The entertainment industry, the sports industry, the corporate world in a Capitalistic system, are all areas where psychopaths naturally rise to the top. Psychopaths seek power over others, it’s that simple, and they gravitate to any field where there is power: medicine, law, industry, politics. It has always been that way; this is nothing new. Indeed, they comprise a very small segment of the population with an extremely large influence. It is due to this influence and the plausible lie that they can magnetize normal, decent people to follow them. They can make social conditions bad so that people feel oppressed and abused, and then they can easily blame it on someone else and agitate the people to go after and kill others based on such lies. Machiavelli discussed this sort of system plainly and openly and it has been the system of power since Cain killed Abel.

So, consider the idea that the ideas behind our social and cultural systems – including the legal system – were created by people whose agenda was to control society so that they could stay on top. And think about all the many ways they might go about doing that.

These are the same people who set up the legal system so that people would “get what they deserved”.

Now, just think about that for a moment.

Imagine that you are a person at the top of the heap who knows that if you really set up a system where people got what they really deserved, you, yourself, would be instantly replaced – out the door in an instant! And so, if you are not just intent on staying on top and holding power, but cunning also, you will do everything in your power to insure that you and your kind are in charge of setting up that system, and that you remain in charge of it. You would make certain that evil was blended into the social and cultural concepts so seamlessly that nobody would ever notice.

And that is, quite literally, what happened. The individuals “at the top of the heap,” who had gotten there by being the most vile and rapacious, then set about figuring out ways to deceive the masses all the while keeping their favor and adulation. They knew they had to make laws to keep order, and they knew they had to make those laws seem fair and reasonable to the masses of people or they would lose control. Losing control was the thing to be feared as anyone who has read The Prince by Machiavelli realizes.

And so, Machiavellian manipulators at the top of the heap were deeply involved in the formation of our cultural and social norms, including our legal system.

In the earliest days of this “legal system” there was a form of “justice” called “trial by ordeal”. An example of trial by ordeal was holding a red hot iron to a defendant’s tongue. The plausible lie used to justify this behavior was: if the defendant was telling a lie they would have a dry mouth and would be burned by the iron – while a truthful person would have a moist mouth and would be protected.

The fact is a NORMAL person who is telling the truth would most definitely have a dry mouth from fear, while a psychopath, who is incapable of feeling fear, would be the one with the moist mouth!!!

Now, just think about that for a few minutes.

Now, our current legal system is descended from “trial by ordeal” – and really isn’t much different though it is much cleverer and simply not as obviously evil as that one was. You have already read a few examples above of just how the system works. As Anna Salter said, if she was accused of a crime, she would rather have a good lawyer than be innocent. That is a truly sad statement on our reality. Here’s a simple way to understand our legal system, adapted from the writings of Robert Canup:

Suppose that you are on a team that is engaged in a game and you discover that:



That is precisely how our social, cultural, and legal systems operate.

The conditions of our world are designed to create the maximum chance that evil will prevail and the good people will be punished by being good and telling the truth.

Punishing normal, decent, good people involves more than just creating a social system that acts against them. The system is designed to insure that these good people are subjected to as much pain as possible for the simple fact of being good and honest.

The system that controls our thinking is set up like the legal system. People are taught to assume that, in any conflict, one side is lying one way, and the other is lying the other way, and people can just form opinions about which side is telling the truth. They are taught that the truth will lie somewhere between two extremes.

That is a wonderfully plausible lie.

Canup suggests that, to see the evil behind that plausible lie, we must make a different assumption: let us assume that in such cases, one side is innocent, honest, and tells the truth. It is obvious that lying does an innocent defendant no good; what lie can he tell? If he is innocent, the only lie he can tell is to falsely confess “I did it.”

On the other hand, lying is nothing but good for the liar. He can declare that “I didn’t do it” and accuse another of doing it; all the while the innocent person is saying “I didn’t do it” and is telling the truth.

The truth – when twisted by good liars, can always make an innocent person look bad – especially if he is honest and admits that he has faults. If someone is telling the simple truth, and the other side is lying through their teeth, the basic assumption that the truth lies between the testimony of the two sides always shifts the advantage to the lying side and away from the side telling the truth. Under most circumstances, this shift put together with the fact that the truth is going to also be twisted in such a way as to bring detriment to the innocent person, results in the advantage always resting in the hands of liars.

Canup points out that, even the simple act of giving testimony under oath is useless. If a person is a liar, swearing an oath means nothing to that person. However, swearing an oath acts strongly on a serious, truthful witness. Again, the advantage is placed on the side of the liars.

Proof is a familiar concept to those used to conventional logical thinking. However what passes for proof in cultural, social, and even legal terms often bears only a superficial resemblance to what would be considered proof by those who really use their minds to think.

For example: in formal mathematics, proof rules are established – postulates are set out and a structure is built based on the postulates and the theorem. Mathematical proof is pretty much inarguable: once a proof is accepted as true it is added to the pool of known truths.

In legal proof there is a set of rules and a theory which the prosecution presents, and attempts to prove the theory by clever argumentation rather than facts. Truth is not the objective. Getting other people to believe the theory IS the objective. However, the prosecution’s theory is whatever the prosecutor believes that he can get away with based on what is known about the case, or what he can PREVENT from being known. What legal ‘proof’ does is serve as a structure for convincing a group of people of the guilt of a person, about whom they know nothing.

There is another significant difference: Mathematical proofs are judged by experts in the particular case who are free to study any and all information about the case. Legal ‘proof’ is judged by people who are guaranteed to be ignorant of the case, who are only allowed to study the information presented during the formal trial, and who are not even allowed to consult the texts for what the rules say.

Our culture is so permeated with this “legal argument” system that it extends into our daily experience: the one who is the slickest at using the structure for convincing a group of people of something, is the one who is believed. Very few people take the time to obtain hard facts by carefully studying any and all information about a situation.

What we see something here that is set up to deceive people by presenting a familiar structure which, upon examination, is a sham. And again, the advantages fall to the hands of the liars.

As Canup points out, in a courtroom, juries are prohibited by law from knowing anyone involved in the trial. If the defendant is a good person who is being set up and framed, people who know him well and who have had much opportunity to interact with him over a long period of time and observe him would have much more trouble accepting lies told about him. If the jurors knew the prosecutor and knew him to be a bullying liar, they might have trouble believing the lies he was telling. If the jurors knew the defendant, and know him to be a trouble making villain they might be more likely to convict him.

By the same standards, if a person who is guilty is accused of a crime that he DID commit, , it is all too easy to get off. Corrupt lawyers, ignorant “experts,” and blind judges let guilty people literally get away with murder all the time.

But, none of the conditions conducive to finding the TRUTH prevail in a courtroom even if we have been brainwashed to think that we have the “best legal system in the world.” It is not much different than “Trial by Ordeal,” only the hot poker has been replaced by a system that works as effectively to the advantage of liars.

Here then we see the worst feature of the law: it is designed to make the world safe for evil people. In effect the law serves to take the horns away from the bulls, while leaving the lions their teeth and claws. Massive, overwhelming, advantage is placed in the hands of liars. Indeed, without the legal system insuring their safety, the world would be a much more difficult place for evil people.
That sound like one of the reasons for the saying: Why tell the truth when it is doing no good to anybody?
Don't remember where I heard it but probably from the same swamp.
The topic of toxic relationships and psychopaths is something I started reading more about lately. Its scary to consider indeed that we have a system all around us where promotes and even rewards such behavior. I have recently started to read a book about toxic behaviour in relationships to better understand it and find any such behaviour in my self. One of the reasons why such behaviour occurs in relationships as described in a book is because one person is in away asking for it by being too nice, naive, giving up ones own boundaries, expecting another to change and building buffers or tolerance to pathalogical behaviour which becomes like a food or breeding ground for the psychopath to continue that behaviour.
What for me personally is even more scary is not the very system ( which of course may be the source of any mass conditioning) but that it runs in the families of peoples, through generations and those people then grow up to become adults. Then those adults deals with others and act like rotten apples transmitting the pathogens unto the healthy ones. Like a sickness. Children being born into such families looking to their parents for love and security from early age receives nothing but disappointment and poison. Ofcourse it creates an opportunity for growth because how can we become saints without knowing of the ways of all possible evil? Its maybe not the most joyfully reality, but it something people have to deal with early on and later in life.
Even if there is a corrupt system build on toxic conditioning it can still be countered and be prepared for with certain example and upbringing of our children until such system implodes on it self or has no breeding ground left for such.
 

SOTTREADER

The Living Force
Here's an interesting thought - if we look at a bell curve where psychopaths are at one extreme end of the curve, what do we call what is on the other extreme end of the curve?

Btw, spent last night watching some bits from the trial - Amber Heard is a piece of work. In those audio recordings of her provoking Johnny I was quite impressed he didn't just snap - a good chunk of men would have and immediately all of a sudden Amber would be the "victim".

Camille, the lawyer on Johnny Depp's side is a force to be reckoned with. The contrast between these 2 women...
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I keep wondering what a time traveler from, say, the 19th century would think.

"Let me discover what marvels the future might bring!"
*jump*
"Your honor, the dog pooed on the bed because of control issues!"
"Mr. Witness, do you agree that the hashtags #AmberTurd and #WeJudtDontLikeYouAmber are negative?"

It is so utterly bizarre and Dionysian...

I don't agree with Russell Brand's assessment of Heard, but this is absolutely hilarious and a great rendition of this moment, of the utter madness we're living in:

 

Ant22

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
He won!! Jury found Amber Heard guilty of defamation. Sanity prevails at least somewhere in this world
My work chat has been very lively all evening chatting about this. Not even one person was on team Heard. Even the hardcore feminist "toxic masculinity" lefties were on team Depp. Heck, we've been sending each other updates and articles about the case for the past month. Who would have thought that a psycho case study could offer such a team bonding experience? :lol:
 

Pierre

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The jury found Amber Heard guilty of defamation on all counts but one. She was sentenced to 15+10 millions in damages. The jury found Johnny Depp guilty of only one of Heard's claim relating to defamation. Depp was sentenced to pay 2 millions. Overall I think it is a clear victory for Johnny Depp.

 
Last edited:

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Depp's message on Instagram:

Six years ago, my life, the life of my children, the lives of those closest to me, and also, the lives of the people who for many, many years have supported and believed in me were forever changed.

All in the blink of an eye.

False, very serious and criminal allegations were levied at me via the media, which triggered an endless barrage of hateful content, although no charges were ever brought against me. It had already traveled around the world twice within a nanosecond and it had a seismic impact on my life and my career.

And six years later, the jury gave me my life back. I am truly humbled.

My decision to pursue this case, knowing very well the height of the legal hurdles that I would be facing and the inevitable, worldwide spectacle into my life, was only made after considerable thought.

From the very beginning, the goal of bringing this case was to reveal the truth, regardless of the outcome. Speaking the truth was something that I owed to my children and to all those who have remained steadfast in their support of me. I feel at peace knowing I have finally accomplished that.

I am, and have been, overwhelmed by the outpouring of love and the colossal support and kindness from around the world. I hope that my quest to have the truth be told will have helped others, men or women, who have found themselves in my situation, and that those supporting them never give up. I also hope that the position will now return to innocent until proven guilty, both within the courts and in the media.

I wish to acknowledge the noble work of the Judge, the jurors, the court staff and the Sheriffs who have sacrificed their own time to get to this point, and to my diligent and unwavering legal team who did an extraordinary job in helping me to share the truth.

The best is yet to come and a new chapter has finally begun.

Veritas numquam perit.
Truth never perishes.
:thup:
 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Top Bottom