top of page
  • Writer's pictureMercy Ogole

Triggering to watch / Possible through fingers


Not that anyone asked but here’s my take on Heard (AH) vs Depp (JD), as someone who has only started to engage with it 2022 and from what I understand is trial day 17. I’ll be honest, Amber Heard (AH) did not exist in my universe until I engaged with this trial this Wednesday (18.05.22), only then did I connect the dots that she was in fact the red headed superheroine and warrior queen Mera in Aquaman. Shame on me for not feeding my waning need to know the life of the celebrity.


I began engaging and almost instantaneously, I felt a little saddened that I became a voyeur being entertained (extraordinarily) by the grotesque part of the lives of others. I stand by the word grotesque; which ever way you look at it, the simple truth is, we are purveyors of some form of abuse regardless of whoever is or isn’t guilty. A sort of perverse distraction to reality reminiscent of the OJ Simpson trial. I understand we need every escape from reality at this moment, but it still remains perverse.

I pushed passed this, it is after all mesmerising to watch, that is the truth. I consume it, as I hold back my natural instinct to jump to conclusions, I purposefully consider the underside. What if she isn’t lying and what if she is, what if he did it or didn’t do it? The scale will only tip to an ugly truth right? And the consequences are pretty extreme. If she lies, it speaks to a system that can be hacked and sets a movement backwards, thinking in terms of precedence that lawyers will employ to disprove cases that are in fact true and real. If he did it, it speaks to a well finessed system that is still greased by fuel for patriarchy because let’s face it, you wouldn’t think me stupid to observe that the general opinion of the public is Amber is a wicked woman. if it’s true its disgusting.

It’s murky waters, that is said with certainty. There is also something else that triggers me, that I can’t logic erase…that if she is lying she is just another, dare I say it, white female using oppression and a legal system to her advantage. Might I, at this point, remind you of cases where women have cried rape, abuse and more because they can, because it works to their favour and more mortifying because they gain something from it - as big as a life changing money and as sadistic as certifyimg superiority. Names for specificity that come to mind are the cases of Emmet Till and Carol Bryant or for a more gen z appropriate reference, Amy Cooper. I implore you to google them if they are new to you. They speak to more than race but of the abuse of power.


But. But what if, he did do it all and he is as AH has said in her op-Ed article in the Washington Post, where JD is imagined as “as a ship, like the Titanic...and there are a lot of people on board desperate to patch up the holes - not because they believe in or even care about the ship, but because their own fates depend on the enterprise”. Wow, what if regardless of #metoo, this is in real-time what we are witnessing?


So here’s where it becomes interesting for me because I understand that the truth is sometimes never known but instead I like to employ safeguards to my opinion. The first is, the fact that facts are facts. You can employ as much wordplay as you like but the truth remains the truth remains the truth. I can thank my brief but very fruitful love of GCSE science for coming to this conclusion. If there is evidence, it is fact. There are at times holes in AH’s cross examination, especially where she is asked questions to highlight a fact. For example, the questions regarding her said article. Undeniably, the article could not have been written without the existence of her abuse and therefore the existence of JD himself.


she could have talked loosely on her opinion on abuse as a woman navigating life and her profession without referencing specifics. But she references her claim of domestic abuse. Yada yards yada










Yadhad a Not that anyone asked but here’s my take on Heard (AH) vs Depp (JD), as someone who has only started to engage with it 2022 and from what I understand is trial day 17. I’ll be honest, Amber Heard (AH) did not exist in my universe until I engaged with this trial this Wednesday (18.05.22), only then did I connect the dots that she was in fact the red headed superhero one and warrior queen Mera in Aquaman. Shame on me for not feeding my waning need to know the life of the celebrity.


I began engaging and almost instantaneously, I felt a little saddened that I became a voyeur being entertained (extraordinarily) by the grotesque part of the lives of others. I stand by the word grotesque; which ever way you look at it, the simple truth is, we are purveyors of some form of abuse regardless of whoever is or isn’t guilty. A sort of perverse distraction to reality reminiscent of the OJ Simpson trial. I understand we need every escape from reality at this moment but, it still remains perverse.


I pushed passed this, it is after all mesmerising to watch, that is the truth. I consume it, as I hold back my natural instinct to jump to conclusions and purposefully considering the underside. What if she isn’t lying and what if she is, what if he did it or didn’t do it? The scale will only tip to an ugly truth right? And the consequences are pretty extreme. If she lies, it speaks to a system that can be hacked and sets a movement backwards, thinking in terms of precedence that lawyers will employ to disprove cases that are in fact true and real. If he did it, it speaks to a well finessed system that is still greased by fuel for patriarchy because let’s face it, you wouldn’t think me stupid to observe that the general opinion of the public is Amber is a wicked woman.


It’s murky waters, that is said with certainty. There is also something else that triggers me, that I can’t logic erase…that if she is lying she is just another, dare I say it, white female using oppression and a legal system to her advantage. Might I, at this point, remind you of cases where women have cried rape, abuse and more because they can, because it works to their favour and more mortifying because they gain something from it - as big as a life changing money and as sadistic as ‘because I can’. Names for specificity that come to mind are the cases of Emmet Till and Carol Bryant or for a more gen z appropriate reference, Amy Cooper. I implore you to google them if they are new to you. They speak to more than race but of the abuse of power.


But. But what if, he did do it all and he is as AH has said in her op-Ed article in the Washington Post, JD is imagined as “as a ship, like the Titanic...and there are a lot of people on board desperate to patch up the holes - not because they believe in or even care about the ship, but because their own fates depend on the enterprise”. Wow, what if regardless of #metoo, this is in real time what we are witnessing?


So here’s where it becomes interesting for me because I understand that the truth is sometimes never known but instead I like to employ safeguards to my opinion. The first is, the fact that facts are facts. You can employ as much wordplay as you like but the truth remains the truth remains the truth. I can thank my brief but very fruitful love of GCSE science for coming to this conclusion. If there is evidence, it is fact. There are at times holes in AH’s cross examination, especially where she is asked questions to highlight a fact. For example, the questions regarding her said article. Undeniably, the article could not have been written without the existence of her abuse and therefore the existence of JD himself to talk loosely on her opinion on abuse as a woman navigating life and her profession without referencing specifics.















Not that anyone asked but here’s my take on Heard (AH) vs Depp (JD), as someone who has only started to engage with it 2022 and from what I understand is trial day 17. I’ll be honest, Amber Heard (AH) did not exist in my universe until I engaged with this trial this Wednesday (18.05.22), only then did I connect the dots that she was in fact the red headed superhero one and warrior queen Mera in Aquaman. Shame on me for not feeding my waning need to know the life of the celebrity.


I began engaging and almost instantaneously, I felt a little saddened that I became a voyeur being entertained (extraordinarily) by the grotesque part of the lives of others. I stand by the word grotesque; which ever way you look at it, the simple truth is, we are purveyors of some form of abuse regardless of whoever is or isn’t guilty. A sort of perverse distraction to reality reminiscent of the OJ Simpson trial. I understand we need every escape from reality at this moment but, it still remains perverse.


I pushed passed this, it is after all mesmerising to watch, that is the truth. I consume it, as I hold back my natural instinct to jump to conclusions and purposefully considering the underside. What if she isn’t lying and what if she is, what if he did it or didn’t do it? The scale will only tip to an ugly truth right? And the consequences are pretty extreme. If she lies, it speaks to a system that can be hacked and sets a movement backwards, thinking in terms of precedence that lawyers will employ to disprove cases that are in fact true and real. If he did it, it speaks to a well finessed system that is still greased by fuel for patriarchy because let’s face it, you wouldn’t think me stupid to observe that the general opinion of the public is Amber is a wicked woman.


It’s murky waters, that is said with certainty. There is also something else that triggers me, that I can’t logic erase…that if she is lying she is just another, dare I say it, white female using oppression and a legal system to her advantage. Might I, at this point, remind you of cases where women have cried rape, abuse and more because they can, because it works to their favour and more mortifying because they gain something from it - as big as a life changing money and as sadistic as ‘because I can’. Names for specificity that come to mind are the cases of Emmet Till and Carol Bryant or for a more gen z appropriate reference, Amy Cooper. I implore you to google them if they are new to you. They speak to more than race but of the abuse of power.


But. But what if, he did do it all and he is as AH has said in her op-Ed article in the Washington Post, JD is imagined as “as a ship, like the Titanic...and there are a lot of people on board desperate to patch up the holes - not because they believe in or even care about the ship, but because their own fates depend on the enterprise”. Wow, what if regardless of #metoo, this is in real time what we are witnessing?


So here’s where it becomes interesting for me because I understand that the truth is sometimes never known but instead I like to employ safeguards to my opinion. The first is, the fact that facts are facts. You can employ as much wordplay as you like but the truth remains the truth remains the truth. I can thank my brief but very fruitful love of GCSE science for coming to this conclusion. If there is evidence, it is fact. There are at times holes in AH’s cross examination, especially where she is asked questions to highlight a fact. For example, the questions regarding her said article. Undeniably, the article could not have been written without the existence of her abuse and therefore the existence of JD himself to talk loosely on her opinion on abuse as a woman navigating life and her profession without referencing specifics.


But she references her claim of domestic abuse ergo it is about JD. The dance AH does to avoid admitting that it refers to JD sprouts further questions about why she wouldn’t admit a simple admittable truth. What was that about? Ego? The very reason for this dark fayre is because of what AH said about JD, and rightly so it troubles me about the indignance at it being about JD. It cries to narcissism, dillusion and greater indications of thinking about self, particularly in context to others; I exist in a vacuum kind of thinking. Need I say, mental health should also be a consideration.


In my side notes are that time AH says she has never hit him but it’s on oral record that she did and her retort is that it was not a punch but hit him. This is information streamed direct from court, nothing short of Sunset Beach drama. I also consider the many occurrences of AH’s apologies, which begs consideration, what’s the cause of this penitance. Head tilted and question asked ‘why so sorry darling?’. I’m no psychologist, however, something like this irks psychology out of me. We often, see traits of behaviour that are litmus test for surprisingly common signs of deeper issues but it’s harder to see past our own reflection or for fear of what it means. What did I say, mesmerising, albeit dark. That’s what I read on my first ride.


Speaking of which, that’s a human fail safe employed almost daily when interacting with others and determining how close we allow ourselves to become to them. Reading - reading the room, reading the face, reading the verbal and non verbal language of others. Again, I remind you I have no experience of academic or professional psychiatry, but I’ve lived long enough and met enough people to recognise some small signs in the unwitting behaviour of others. Small things for me, like facial ticks, appear in highlight orange against a white page. She has ticks and mechanisms of control. Particularly when her lips curl upwards to her left, or when she drinks to reduce the swell of her emotion. It’s super subtle but it’s there. Like when someone laughs when they’re nervous. You begin to understand that they are nervous when they laugh. Trés obvious.


Another thing, if I consider where the majority of her eyes fall, it’s always to an appeal and not to the person asking the question or encouraging a judgement. She often answers questions to the jury. Interesting, it is more important to engage with the people who form an opinion rather than disproving the lies that the questions seek to uncover? Better to conjure connection than tell the truth perhaps? Then again, this might be her legal counsels counsel. I’m ok with being wrong about this, but there is a certain Je ne sais quoi in the subtleties of performance.


If it were emotion that guides me purely, I’m aware I’m overlaying my own idea and experience of being a woman and what I would do in her situation. I admit, there is an air of judgement that sways me to distrust her. Would I be so apologetic if my husband did to me what she said he did to her? Would I stay? Why would James Franco be coming to see me at night? Would I tell him to suck my dick if I were afraid of him? I’d be a fool to believe I know it all and my opinion and my gaze is enough to know the truth.


I accept the very real possibility that I may be swayed by courtroom propaganda too, which is why I won’t accept what my emotions tell me. Everything in context too, we are not privy to all the conversations, all the messages, things said and done outside of the lens and microphone. Let’s not forget this is a case of professional actress vs professional actor with an extra-ordinary breadth of legal resources. Let’s not lose our heads with the dizzying broadcast of the elusive life of the one percenters.


However, I can stand by these purports; there is a strong thread of co-dependence tendencies. It is also clear there are troubles in these ex-lovers waters, no brain cells were used for that conclusion. Which makes it so captivating, how often can you get such an in depth view without the repercussions of actually knowing these troubled people? A-listers to boot? It’s hard to close your eyes and stop watching despite the many undercurrents of awful feelings you might have.


Let the dice fall as they may, a judgement will be made and perhaps the truth revealed…perhaps. It remains that I spent an evening consumed with an 8 hour Youtube live feed of day 17 and my interest didn’t wane after 3 hours. It’s a voyeurs dream! I didn’t have the persistence to last the entirety but I’m sure I’ll continue watching.

But she references her claim of domestic abuse ergo it is about JD. The dance AH does to avoid admitting that it refers to JD sprouts further questions about why she wouldn’t admit a simple admittable truth. What was that about? Ego? The very reason for this dark fayre is because of what AH said about JD, and rightly so it troubles me about the indignance at it being about JD. It cries to narcissism, dillusion and greater indications of thinking about self, particularly in context to others; I exist in a vacuum kind of thinking. Need I say, mental health should also be a consideration.


In my side notes are that time AH says she has never hit him but it’s on oral record that she did and her retort is that it was not a punch but hit him. This is information streamed direct from court, nothing short of Sunset Beach drama. I also consider the many occurrences of AH’s apologies, which begs consideration, what’s the cause of this penitance. Head tilted and question asked ‘why so sorry darling?’. I’m no psychologist, however, something like this irks psychology out of me. We often, see traits of behaviour that are litmus test for surprisingly common signs of deeper issues but it’s harder to see past our own reflection or for fear of what it means. What did I say, mesmerising, albeit dark. That’s what I read on my first ride.


Speaking of which, that’s a human fail safe employed almost daily when interacting with others and determining how close we allow ourselves to become to them. Reading - reading the room, reading the face, reading the verbal and non verbal language of others. Again, I remind you I have no experience of academic or professional psychiatry, but I’ve lived long enough and met enough people to recognise some small signs in the unwitting behaviour of others. Small things for me, like facial ticks, appear in highlight orange against a white page. She has ticks and mechanisms of control. Particularly when her lips curl upwards to her left, or when she drinks to reduce the swell of her emotion. It’s super subtle but it’s there. Like when someone laughs when they’re nervous. You begin to understand that they are nervous when they laugh. Trés obvious.


Another thing, if I consider where the majority of her eyes fall, it’s always to an appeal and not to the person asking the question or encouraging a judgement. She often answers questions to the jury. Interesting, it is more important to engage with the people who form an opinion rather than disproving the lies that the questions seek to uncover? Better to conjure connection than tell the truth perhaps? Then again, this might be her legal counsels counsel. I’m ok with being wrong about this, but there is a certain Je ne sais quoi in the subtleties of performance.


If it were emotion that guides me purely, I’m aware I’m overlaying my own idea and experience of being a woman and what I would do in her situation. I admit, there is an air of judgement that sways me to distrust her. Would I be so apologetic if my husband did to me what she said he did to her? Would I stay? Why would James Franco be coming to see me at night? Would I tell him to suck my dick if I were afraid of him? I’d be a fool to believe I know it all and my opinion and my gaze is enough to know the truth.


I accept the very real possibility that I may be swayed by courtroom propaganda too, which is why I won’t accept what my emotions tell me. Everything in context too, we are not privy to all the conversations, all the messages, things said and done outside of the lens and microphone. Let’s not forget this is a case of professional actress vs professional actor with an extra-ordinary breadth of legal resources. Let’s not lose our heads with the dizzying broadcast of the elusive life of the one percenters.


However, I can stand by these purports; there is a strong thread of co-dependence tendencies. It is also clear there are troubles in these ex-lovers waters, no brain cells were used for that conclusion. Which makes it so captivating, how often can you get such an in depth view without the repercussions of actually knowing these troubled people? A-listers to boot? It’s hard to close your eyes and stop watching despite the many undercurrents of awful feelings you might have.


Let the dice fall as they may, a judgement will be made and perhaps the truth revealed…perhaps. It remains that I spent an evening consumed with an 8 hour Youtube live feed of day 17 and my interest didn’t wane after 3 hours. It’s a voyeurs dream! I didn’t have the persistence to last the entirety but I’m sure I’ll continue watching.











it is about JD directly, indirectly, sideways and up and down. The dance AH does to avoid admitting that it refers to JD sprouts further questions about why she wouldn’t admit a simple onservation. What was that about? Ego? The very reason for this dark fayre is because of what AH did about JD, and rightly so, the indignance at it being about JD troubles me. It cries to narcissism, dillusion and greater indications of thinking about self, particularly in context to others; I exist in a vacuum kind of thinking. Need I say, mental health should also be a consideration.


In my side notes are that time AH says she has never hit him but it’s on oral record that she did and her retort is that it was not a punch but hit him. This is information streamed direct from court, nothing short of Sunset Beach drama. I also consider the many occurrences of AH’s apologies, which begs consideration, what’s the cause of this penitance. Head tilted and question asked ‘why so sorry darling?’. I’m no psychologist, however, something like this irks psychology out of me. We often, see traits of behaviour that are litmus test for surprisingly common signs of deeper issues but it’s harder to see past our own reflection or for fear of what it means. What did I say, mesmerising, albeit dark. That’s what I read on my first ride.

Speaking of which, that’s a human fail safe employed almost daily when interacting with others and determining how close we allow ourselves to become to them. Reading - reading the room, reading the face, reading the verbal and non verbal language of others. Again, I remind you I have no experience of academic or professional psychiatry, but I’ve lived long enough and met enough people to recognise some small signs in the unwitting behaviour of others. Small things for me, like facial ticks, appear in highlight orange against a white page. She has ticks and mechanisms of control. Particularly when her lips curl upwards to her left, or when she drinks to reduce the swell of her emotion. It’s super subtle but it’s there. Like when someone laughs when they’re nervous. You begin to understand that they are nervous when they laugh. Trés obvious.


Another thing, if I consider where the majority of her eyes fall, it’s always to an appeal and not to the person asking the question or encouraging a judgement. She often answers questions to the jury. Interesting, it is more important to engage with the people who form an opinion rather than disproving the lies that the questions seek to uncover? Better to conjure connection than tell the truth perhaps? Then again, this might be her legal counsels counsel. I’m ok with being wrong about this, but there is a certain Je ne sais quoi in the subtleties of performance.

If it were emotion that guides me purely, I’m aware I’m overlaying my own idea and experience of being a woman and what I would do in her situation. I admit, there is an air of judgement that sways me to distrust her. Would I be so apologetic if my husband did to me what she said he did to her? Would I stay? Why would James Franco be coming to see me at night? Would I tell him to suck my dick if I were afraid of him? I’d be a fool to believe I know it all and my opinion and my gaze is enough to know the truth.

I accept the very real possibility that I may be swayed by courtroom propaganda too, which is why I won’t accept what my emotions tell me. Everything in context too, we are not privy to all the conversations, all the messages, things said and done outside of the lens and microphone. Let’s not forget this is a case of professional actress vs professional actor with an extra-ordinary breadth of legal resources. Let’s not lose our heads with the dizzying broadcast of the elusive life of the one percenters.

However, I can stand by these purports; there is a strong thread of co-dependence tendencies. It is also clear there are troubles in these ex-lovers waters, no brain cells were used for that conclusion. Which makes it so captivating, how often can you get such an in depth view without the repercussions of actually knowing these troubled people? A-listers to boot? It’s hard to close your eyes and stop watching despite the many undercurrents of awful feelings you might have.

Let the dice fall as they may, a judgement will be made and perhaps the truth revealed…perhaps. It remains that I spent an evening consumed with an 8 hour Youtube live feed of day 17 and my interest didn’t wane after 3 hours. It’s a voyeurs dream! I didn’t have the persistence to last the entirety but I’m sure I’ll continue watching.


0 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page