Depp vs. Heard

[Beorning]

Question: have you guys followed the Depp vs. Heard trial (and the whole situation as it developed)?

I'm asking, as from what I gather, it turned out that a lot of what Heard claimed turned out to be untrue? As in, she was deliberately lying when accusing Depp of abusing her etc.? I'm not a big fan of Depp and he clearly has issues - but based on what I've read, it seems like it was Heard who was the bigger villain?

Meanwhile, I recently read an article by a Polish feminist-minded journalist claiming that Heard had the misfortune of being "imperfect victim" and people ended up not believing her because of that. Also, she couldn't win against Depp's fame, connections etc. Basically, Heard is an abuse victim who got trampled by the court and the general public due to not being a saintly woman and due to her ex-husband being a male with much bigger clout.

I don't know, am I missing something here? I'm genuinely curious...

[RedRose]

I heard. No pun intended
As a French I guess I am not familiar enough

[Vekseid]

There were a number of things that were very clear from the evidence presented at the trial.

She staged her photo op with TMZ paparazzi, admitting that they had been alerted during deposition.

The TMZ witness testified that they managed so secure copyright almost immediately, with the video pre-edited, where her giggling after already being edited out. As she was the recorder of the video, this would only be possible if she gave it to them.

Amber Heard's team refused to comply with a subpoena to hand over original devices for imaging. This led to evidence being submitted that the files could have been manipulated, as the chain of custody was provably broken. In one case two photographs taken at the exact same second were presented as evidence for photos supposedly taken hours apart, with different tints. Even the judge called this out (though not in front of the jury) when determining evidence numbers.

Because she never sought treatment for her supposedly broken nose, or any other alleged injury, there were no medical records of it. This, combined with the fact the chain of evidence for Heard's photos was intentionally broken, made it very easy to discount all evidence of Heard's save for her own words.

Which brings us to the strength of her word. She lied about her donations to the ACLU and children's hospital, in several egregious fashions. She lied about damage to places. You can only get caught lying so many times before the jury gives up on you.

Hearing some abuse survivors describe it, there was one common thread that stood out to me. If you're living in fear of a person, you don't corner them, escalate with them, mock them, taunt them, provoke them, as Heard was shown to be. There was no piece of evidence showing Heard was ever afraid of Depp, while quite a bit suggested the converse. Depp would try to remove himself from a situation and Heard would prevent that. Which is the abuser and the abused, there?

"No perfect victim" certainly applies to Depp, here. He is a flawed person. His testimony was consistent, however, and his injury was pretty thoroughly documented and discussed medically.

Watching the trial objectively, you could not come to that conclusion for Heard. She wasn't just imperfect, she was actively deceptive and malicious.

She didn't just make one or a few mistakes. She couldn't demonstrate that she was a victim at all.

[Bezukhov]

[...]

Meanwhile, I recently read an article by a Polish feminist-minded journalist claiming that Heard had the misfortune of being "imperfect victim" and people ended up not believing her because of that. Also, she couldn't win against Depp's fame, connections etc. Basically, Heard is an abuse victim who got trampled by the court and the general public due to not being a saintly woman and due to her ex-husband being a male with much bigger clout.

I don't know, am I missing something here? I'm genuinely curious...

This very same argument can be easily found in centre-left-leaning newspapers here in Italy and elsewhere. I didn't keep a close eye on the whole trial until it became a trending topic among my acquaintances and I believe Vekseid's rundown covers all the key issues.

What worries me, however, is that alt-right media outlets are feasting on the Depp vs. Heard trial to discredit or belittle victims of domestic violence... or the whole issue altogether, which is rather big down here.

[Azy]

The one thing that really stood out to me was when she described her alleged sexual assault.  Trigger warning here.  She was very vague on details.  He allegedly used a bottle on her.  She said at first she wasn't sure if it was a bottle or his fist, it just felt hard.  Then she was shown pictures of two empty liquor bottles on a desk.  One of them was a square shaped Maker's Mark bottle.  Suddenly she remembered that the object she was assaulted with was hard and square feeling. 

I've been assaulted.  It wasn't anywhere near as brutal as what she described thankfully.  I don't remember the exact date, but I do remember month and year.  I remember about what time.  What happened to me was attempted rape, and it happened 20 years ago.  I don't need photos of objects to remind me of exactly what happened.  I could describe what happened in great detail, right here and now with no leading.  That's not shit you forget.   

[Iniquitous]

First. I am a survivor of aggravated rape (read violent with a weapon involved). I remember the date, the time of day, what I was wearing, what movie was playing on the TV, miniscule details of the room it happened in. I can't tell you the linear order of everything they did to me but I can tell everything that was done without leading questions. I do understand that the brain will hide things from us until we are better equipped to handle the trauma. Going through therapy had things coming back to me for years so I wouldn't outright dismiss someone who had issues remembering things.

That said, I do dismiss Ms. Heard as a liar because her stories do not add up. They change, the abuse done gets worse each time she tells them, and she lied. A lot.

The fake crying, the smugness, the absolute lack of fear (even asking Ms. Vasquez why should she be scared to take embarrassing photos of her husband and show them to people).

Let's be honest though. He -was- verbally abusive, possibly emotionally abusive. Granted, the recordings seem to indicate that Ms. Heard instigated, pushed, and kept him from disengaging until he verbally lashed out, but it is still abuse.

In the end I feel like the right verdict was given.

[Azuresun]

What worries me, however, is that alt-right media outlets are feasting on the Depp vs. Heard trial to discredit or belittle victims of domestic violence... or the whole issue altogether, which is rather big down here.

What should happen is that it expands awareness of domestic violence. Men can be and are the victims of emotionally and physically abusive relationships, and that gets discounted far too much.

[Azy]

Oh yeah, it definitely seems like they brought out the worst in each other.  As someone who was emotionally abused for years, I was a different person until I got away and got some therapy.  Another telling thing that was not allowed in court was the support of his ex Vanessa Paradis.  I can't remember how long they were together, but it was a while.  If I remember right, Depp left Vanessa for Amber.  If he truly was an evil abuser with no provocation, that would have been the perfect time for Vanessa to speak up and go yeah, he was that way with me as well.  She did not.  She publicly supported her ex and said that while they were together he never acted that way, and never hurt her. 

I did caution someone about believing and supporting Amber just because she was a woman, because yes, men can be abused as well.  The abuse usually is emotional and mental because the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman.  Though you do have instances where the woman emotionally wears the man down, then gets physical because she knows he would never fight back. 

[Bezukhov]

What should happen is that it expands awareness of domestic violence. Men can be and are the victims of emotionally and physically abusive relationships, and that gets discounted far too much.

I couldn't agree more and I expressed myself badly: they are now belittling women who are victims of abusive relationship.

[Dice]

I actively avoided all discussions of this topic online and have next to no understanding about what happened. I assume it's better to stay that way in this case? Asking, because now it's over I don't know if I want to understand this cultural moment or just stay oblivious.

[Envious]

I followed the case, which is highly unusual for me, but it triggered a lot of personal experiences.

She isn't an imperfect victim. She is a liar who took molehill problems and tried to turn them into mountains to drive her career. I equate it to the person retelling the story of their fishing trip. It's always a bigger fish or more fish caught each time it's retold. Is there a kernel of truth to her claims that Johnny assaulted her? I don't believe the story the way she tells it. If anything, I'd say that it's much more likely that Johnny reacted defensively in situations where Amber was 100% the instigator and aggressor. The evidence, from pictures to testimonies to witnesses, did not match her alleged experience. She dramatized and exaggerated when it suited her, diminished and deflected when it did not (example link. 13 seconds, curse words) and the evidence very clearly indicated that her stories were heavily embellished for shock value to continue the facade that she was a victim.

[Vekseid]

I actively avoided all discussions of this topic online and have next to no understanding about what happened. I assume it's better to stay that way in this case? Asking, because now it's over I don't know if I want to understand this cultural moment or just stay oblivious.

I would not say so.

I did not give one shit about Depp, his life, or his movies. Same for Heard.

Nonetheless the fact women can be instigators and men victims is something we are aware of here. We've had to ban a couple of women for it, and many didn't even make it through the approval process simply because they did not believe it was even necessary to hide who they were when applying.

I believe this trial is an important moment where that was genuinely understood by any who paid attention. A man was a victim, the woman the perpetrator, and she did everything in her power to try and reverse these roles.

I believe understanding this is important for society to be able to continue moving forwards.

[Twisted Crow]

Similarly, I did not have any 'side' to pick in regards to Depp & Heard. Early on, I had a few friends ask me what my thoughts were about them and I would just tell them to try to focus critically on which story felt more consistent.

As a male survivor of sexual abuse and surviving a destructive relationship with a violent female partner, I do try to remind all people that men are victimized more often than we are lead to believe in society. It is compounded by this perception that men can 'never really be victims' in these situations. And it hurts me every time I see someone perpetuate it (knowingly or otherwise).

I believe that if we are to be truly equal to one another, then one crucial step in getting there would be the logical application that men and women are equally people. And this goes in more than just one direction. In this case? People can lie about anything. Therefore, I feel that it is ideal that people should be equally held accountable when they are caught in such deceit that might bring another person harm. I feel that we should take these sorts of accusations seriously, but without impulsively just jumping to the defense of one side from the start. Because it is often a time when there is insufficient information on the table at that moment. 

[Twisted Crow]

Er, some clarification. My bad:

As a male survivor of sexual abuse and a (past) survivor of a destructive relationship with a violent female partner ...

[CopperLily]

For my part, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the narrative that formed around Heard, the tone it took, and how the case transformed from what it was actually about - a fairly narrow question - to a referendum on whether or not people liked her.

"The wisdom of the crowd" doesn't have a great track record when it comes to jurisprudence.

[Azuresun]

For my part, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the narrative that formed around Heard, the tone it took, and how the case transformed from what it was actually about - a fairly narrow question - to a referendum on whether or not people liked her.

"The wisdom of the crowd" doesn't have a great track record when it comes to jurisprudence.

I think some cases become almost lightning rods for long-running resentments on periperally related issues. In this one, I think the perceived issues included--

--The way that men accused of abuse can have their reputation ruined (usually through trial-by-Twitter) in a way that means it barely matters if the accusations are found to be unprovable, or even entirely without merit in an actual courtroom. The "wisdom of the crowd" had formerly been turned against Depp, after all.

--A strong bias against men when it comes to accusations of abuse. Both presumptions of guilt when the man is accused, and when he's not accused, presumptions that a man can never be a victim of domestic abuse, or is less of a man if he is (something that feels extremely unfair, especially to men who DO suffer abuse and find that discriminatory attitudes towards them have not been revised nearly as much as the ones that discourage women from reporting it and getting help and justice).

--A perception of feminism as being an anti-male movement rather than pro-female, and many commentators seeming hypocritical when it came to this case; supporting Heard on reflex, no matter how much the evidence suggested she was far more at fault.

(Notice that I'm not commenting on how much or little I agree with any of those assertions, nor am I denying that a huge number of misogynist dingbats are taking the chance to jump up and down and use this as "proof" that all women are man-hating harpies.)

Put those together, and Heard becomes the perfect villain for those with a beef with one of those issues. The validity of that beef could range from "someone who legitimately suffered harm from being in a similar situation and wants this to be a catalyst for positive change for male sufferers of abusive relationships" to "raving misogynist looking to trivialise women who come forward about domestic abuse".

[Azy]

There is also the fact that a woman crying abuse when it isn't actually true makes it harder for women who actually have been abused to come forward and be believed.  Basically, well, if you remember, Amber Heard lied and faked it well, will be the go to argument in the defense of actual abusers.  It's not a common thing for women to do, but there are a few who have, and it pisses me and many others off. 

[Sessha]

 The part of this whole trial that I find most amusing, is the fact Amber is still trying to play the victim card. Yet what has been Johnny's response? He got his verdict and walked away. He did not look back, just walked away from it once it was done. He hasn't tried to gloat in public or otherwise demean his ex-wife. He walked away. That by itself to me speaks volumes to his character.,he could have milked this decision for all it was worth, but no. In a rare instance thr victor took the high road and left it be in the court room.

Now as for my thoughts on it, honestly I think Veks summed it up perfectly

[Thufir Hawat]

I think some cases become almost lightning rods for long-running resentments on periperally related issues. In this one, I think the perceived issues included--

--The way that men accused of abuse can have their reputation ruined (usually through trial-by-Twitter) in a way that means it barely matters if the accusations are found to be unprovable, or even entirely without merit in an actual courtroom. The "wisdom of the crowd" had formerly been turned against Depp, after all.

--A strong bias against men when it comes to accusations of abuse. Both presumptions of guilt when the man is accused, and when he's not accused, presumptions that a man can never be a victim of domestic abuse, or is less of a man if he is (something that feels extremely unfair, especially to men who DO suffer abuse and find that discriminatory attitudes towards them have not been revised nearly as much as the ones that discourage women from reporting it and getting help and justice).

--A perception of feminism as being an anti-male movement rather than pro-female, and many commentators seeming hypocritical when it came to this case; supporting Heard on reflex, no matter how much the evidence suggested she was far more at fault.

(Notice that I'm not commenting on how much or little I agree with any of those assertions, nor am I denying that a huge number of misogynist dingbats are taking the chance to jump up and down and use this as "proof" that all women are man-hating harpies.)

Put those together, and Heard becomes the perfect villain for those with a beef with one of those issues. The validity of that beef could range from "someone who legitimately suffered harm from being in a similar situation and wants this to be a catalyst for positive change for male sufferers of abusive relationships" to "raving misogynist looking to trivialise women who come forward about domestic abuse".

Yeah, that's been my impression as well. Amusingly, Heard obviously lying about it all has probably helped those with legitimate complaints on the above issues.
Though she also helped those who want to abuse said issues, so it's a wash.

[Tolvo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OQu9q70YkE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMeaBvJI5_w

If you want Legal Eagle did some simplified rundowns of what has been going on and the verdict(With both Depp and Heard winning their most recent suits despite Johnny previously losing so many after being proven to be considered a wife beater for instance or for there to be enough evidence to suggest it). This is mainly focusing on the legal aspects, also some of the more confusing elements for many such as how they both won in the most recent instance. I am still surprised that he lost his recent defamation case in England but managed to get a positive verdict for himself this time in the USA, as defamation cases are generally much easier to win in England. From following the case for years as best i understand it they were both toxic, Johnny Depp would get incredibly drunk and in his words his Demon would hurt others. He has battled with alcoholism for years, both lied at various points and told truths, Johnny very frequently tried to use his court cases to make outrageous claims to try and get horrible things spread about Amber(Such as claiming she shit on his side of the bed to get back at him, something which doesn't make any sense as a way to get back at him as he leaves). In my opinion Johnny is the far worse culprit but she did try to manipulate evidence as well. Whatever the case they really should not be anywhere near each other.

[Iniquitous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OQu9q70YkE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMeaBvJI5_w

If you want Legal Eagle did some simplified rundowns of what has been going on and the verdict(With both Depp and Heard winning their most recent suits despite Johnny previously losing so many after being proven to be considered a wife beater for instance or for there to be enough evidence to suggest it). This is mainly focusing on the legal aspects, also some of the more confusing elements for many such as how they both won in the most recent instance. I am still surprised that he lost his recent defamation case in England but managed to get a positive verdict for himself this time in the USA, as defamation cases are generally much easier to win in England. From following the case for years as best i understand it they were both toxic, Johnny Depp would get incredibly drunk and in his words his Demon would hurt others. He has battled with alcoholism for years, both lied at various points and told truths, Johnny very frequently tried to use his court cases to make outrageous claims to try and get horrible things spread about Amber(Such as claiming she shit on his side of the bed to get back at him, something which doesn't make any sense as a way to get back at him as he leaves). In my opinion Johnny is the far worse culprit but she did try to manipulate evidence as well. Whatever the case they really should not be anywhere near each other.

Sorry.  I'll disagree with you here.  I heard those recordings where she taunted him, mocked him, threatened him, and admitted to hitting him.  It was extremely clear that he -tried- to leave these situations and she would follow to harass him.  As for the "claiming" she shit on his side of the bed - that did happen, The picture of the feces on the bed was submitted into evidence. Johnny was not innocent but he was not the worst of the two.  She cut off the tip of his finger ffs.

Amber is a liar, plain and simple.  She exaggerated the stories of abuse from Johnny - each time the story was told, she made it worse than previous tellings.  She got caught in so many lies.  She was not afraid of Johnny at all.  And if he had abused her badly as she claims he did there would have been medical proof.

[Oreo]

To preface, I had no bias about either side before watching. I've seen 3 Depp movies back when they released.

It was her chasing after him that triggered me most. After 20 years of being a victim of verbal abuse I cannot tell you how many times and ways I tried to just leave the room, or escape the 'noise of the accusing voice'. If I left the house he would be outside screaming that I better get back. The whole 'you can't leave' vibe hit me as Heard exhibiting abusive behavior. She did a disservice to any abuse victim, whether male or female.

I was also raped 50 freaking years ago, and it can still play like a visual flicker show in my head. I don't need reminders of what happened to recount or recall what was done to me...or even how it felt physically.

My heartfelt empathy goes out to any and all that have suffered physical, verbal, or sexual abuse. We heal, we move forward, but it is forever a part of who we are now. I hope it has made us all kinder people, more understanding of the pain we share.

[Dice]

I would not say so.

I did not give one shit about Depp, his life, or his movies. Same for Heard.

Nonetheless the fact women can be instigators and men victims is something we are aware of here. We've had to ban a couple of women for it, and many didn't even make it through the approval process simply because they did not believe it was even necessary to hide who they were when applying.

I believe this trial is an important moment where that was genuinely understood by any who paid attention. A man was a victim, the woman the perpetrator, and she did everything in her power to try and reverse these roles.

I believe understanding this is important for society to be able to continue moving forwards.

I have read the updated posts here and, for my own piece of mind, think this is one topic I will leave lie. Thank you for your answer, I understand your point, but this is one time were while I respect your likely right, I won't touch it anyway. This does not look like a good mental rabbit hole to go down.

That said, the fact that this became a fucking spectacle says nothing good for our species as a whole. I hate how we feed off this shit while people are ripping one another apart and having to relive the worst moments of their lives or face the worst parts of themselves. Misery should not be a spectator sport.

[GloomCookie]

It would appear that Amber Herd is filing an appeal against the verdict.

https://deadline.com/2022/07/johnny-depp-verdict-dismissed-amber-heard-motion-jury-misinformation-1235057557/

[Depraved Lucidity]

It would appear that Amber Herd is filing an appeal against the verdict.

https://deadline.com/2022/07/johnny-depp-verdict-dismissed-amber-heard-motion-jury-misinformation-1235057557/

"I just want to get back to my life." Proceeds to give more interviews defaming her ex-husband, talks about trial controversy, now wants an appeal because the jurors didn't fall for her.

[CopperLily]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/entertainment/johnny-depp-amber-heard-mistrial/index.html

Juror 15 was apparently born in 1970, but the summons to be a juror was for someone of the same last name born in 1945, the court documents claim.

"Juror No. 15 was not the individual summoned for jury duty on April 11, 2022 and therefore was not part of the jury panel and could not have properly served on the jury at this trial," the memorandum reads. "Therefore, a mistrial should be declared and a new trial ordered."

An extremely normal and well-conducted trial.

[Vekseid]

Reading the motion is hilarious.

"We realize the law says verifying this information was our own responsibility during voir dire, and it specifically says such errors shall not force a mistrial. We know it looks very bad that we held this until now, but could you give us this, please?"

This is on top of the assumption that the man wasn't 77. My own grandfather looked like he was in his 50s until he was past 90.

[Vekseid]

Specifically. per the code:

§ 8.01-353. Notice to jurors; making copy of jury panel available to counsel; objection to notice.
A. The sheriff shall notify the jurors on the list, or such number of them as the judge may direct to appear in court on such day as the court may direct. Such notice shall be given a juror as provided by § 8.01-298. Verbal direction given by the judge, or at his direction, to a juror who has been given notice as hereinbefore provided that he appear at a later specified date, shall be a sufficient notice. Any notice given as provided herein shall have the effect of an order of court. No particular time in advance of the required appearance date shall be necessary for verbal notice hereunder, but the court may, in its discretion, excuse from service a juror who claims lack of sufficient notice. Upon request, the clerk or sheriff or other officer responsible for notifying jurors to appear in court for the trial of a case shall make available to all counsel of record in that case, a copy of the jury panel to be used for the trial of the case at least three full business days before the trial. Such copy of the jury panel shall show the name, age, address, occupation and employer of each person on the panel. Any error in the information shown on such copy of the jury panel shall not be grounds for a mistrial or assignable as error on appeal, and the parties in the case shall be responsible for verifying the accuracy of such information.

B. No judgment shall be arrested or reversed for the failure of the record to show that there was service upon a juror of notice to appear in court unless made a ground of exception in the trial before the jury is sworn.

Code 1950, § 8-208.16; 1973, c. 439; 1974, c. 243; 1976, c. 261; 1977, c. 617; 1980, c. 452; 1981, c. 150; 1988, c. 350; 2010, c. 799.

The time for this to be addressed was during voir dire, as the responsibility of both parties. Not on appeal.

[Oniya]

Not to mention that one's 'fitness' to serve on a jury isn't governed by whether one is named Bob, Carol, Ted or Alice - it's governed on the questions about potential bias asked during voir dire, which generally don't include 'What is your name?'.  The purpose of a jury summons is to get a pseudo-random (since it's usually drawn from either registered voters or DMV records) group of people from the community.  'Person who got mis-delivered jury summons' is pretty darn random to me.

[Azy]

She just keeps digging that hole for herself, doesn't she....  If that doesn't scream I'm a spoiled bitch grasping at straws because I didn't get my way, I don't know what does. 

[CopperLily]

Specifically. per the code:

The time for this to be addressed was during voir dire, as the responsibility of both parties. Not on appeal.

This isn't part of the appeal, its a motion for a mistrial, as I understand it.

Frankly, if this was any other case, I don't think people would be going "Guess you should have checked the jury better, eh?". That's what makes me so uncomfortable about this trial - how much it's become a referendum on "Do we think Amanda Heard is a good person?"

[CopperLily]

Not to mention that one's 'fitness' to serve on a jury isn't governed by whether one is named Bob, Carol, Ted or Alice - it's governed on the questions about potential bias asked during voir dire, which generally don't include 'What is your name?'.  The purpose of a jury summons is to get a pseudo-random (since it's usually drawn from either registered voters or DMV records) group of people from the community.  'Person who got mis-delivered jury summons' is pretty darn random to me.

Ironically, at some point recently while working as an expert witness on COVID-19 related stuff, I mentioned that fear of the consequences of COVID was non-differential by both age and race, which would result in a non-random jury pool.

I was told not to bother with that line of argument because "Is this sample random" isn't something most judges will care about.

[CopperLily]

Also, one could pretty easily argue that "Someone who got an errant jury summons and kept that a secret in order to appear on the jury" has a pretty low prior probability of being an unbiased juror.

[Azy]

For one, when you get a jury summons, it doesn't tell you anything about the case.  When that juror showed up at the court there was no way he could've known that was the case summons was for.  I'm sure it's done that way to prevent unbiased people from lying as you are implying.  I've gotten a summons.  It says hi, [name here], we picked your name to serve on a jury.  Show up at this building at this time on this date.  I sent the form back with a reason I couldn't show up, and to this day have no clue what case the summons was for.  The juror in question probably didn't know it was a mistake either.  They don't put Social Security numbers or birth dates, or anything on the summons.  Just your name and address.     

Second, both legal teams had the chance to review who was on the jury before the trial.  From my understanding, they bring in a pool of people.  Each legal team gets a certain number of black balls to say we don't want this person on the jury.  Her legal team didn't have any issues at that point.  Most likely the only reason they know about the mistake at all is they were digging for an excuse for a mistrial.  That's a pretty poor one. 

Third, this isn't about whether or not Amber Heard is a good person.  Yes, this case got a lot of publicity because they are celebrities.  That being said, this was about whether or not she was lying about being abused to get sympathy and money.  There was quite a bit of evidence that she was.  I don't doubt they both did shit that was wrong.  When people who aren't compatible are together they both do crazy shit.  I have personal experience in this.  That's why both were awarded some of what they were suing for, it's just that Johnny was awarded more because there were giant holes in her story and theatrics on the stand. 

Lastly, men can be victims of abuse as well.  I hate it that people assume that since men are usually physically stronger that they are always the perpetrators and can't be victims.   

[Azuresun]

She just keeps digging that hole for herself, doesn't she....  If that doesn't scream I'm a spoiled bitch grasping at straws because I didn't get my way, I don't know what does.

I think like a lot of things, it's more about creating a narrative that those already inclined to believe her will buy. The trial was unfair, she's the real victim, etc.

Lastly, men can be victims of abuse as well.  I hate it that people assume that since men are usually physically stronger that they are always the perpetrators and can't be victims.   

Agreed. And stories from men who are falsely accused of abuse, or who are not taken seriously when they get abused, only damage the notion that feminism is about equality or helping women, vs just dumping on men.