He said, she said: A media circus is not how marriages should end

Like sinking into quicksand, I was sucked into the defamation trial between celebrity actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. My news and social media feeds were flooded with memes, hashtags, TikTok rants and fake news on the saga. Friends and family members forwarded links and updates.

The allegations are disturbing, but not new in substance. Among other things, Heard accuses Depp of physical violence and sexual assault, while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Depp accuses Heard of being the abusive one in the marriage that lasted from 2015 to 2017, including by hitting him, throwing a vodka bottle which severed the tip of his finger, and defecating in their bed.

These allegations were already widely reported in 2020, when Depp's lawsuit against The Sun for publishing an article calling him a "wife-beater" trialled in London courts. Depp lost that case, with the judge finding that 12 of the 14 alleged incidents of domestic violence were proven to a civil standard.

In this trial, Depp is suing Heard to the tune of US$50 million (and she has countersued for US$100 million) for a 2018 opinion piece for The Washington Post. In the ghost-written piece that bore her name, Heard called herself a "public figure representing domestic abuse". Days later, Depp was reportedly dropped from the sixth Pirates Of The Caribbean movie.

What feels different about this trial is how much public interest it has whipped up, and the widespread condemnation of Heard by those who believe she is lying. Court proceedings were live-streamed from a pool camera feed, providing an ample supply of material for repackaging into social media memes, commentary, and amateur sleuthing on the veracity of claims.

Public opinion appears to overwhelmingly favour Depp, who took the stand before Heard in the trial. As at Friday, the hashtag #JusticeForJohnnyDepp has received 16.6 billion TikTok views, while #IStandWithAmberHeard has only 9.2 million. Depp's supporters have thronged the streets outside the courthouse, waving signs and even bringing live alpacas.

With closing arguments presented on Friday, the brutal six-week trial is finally at the finishing line. What are we to take away from all of this?

Some think the saga is high stakes for the #MeToo movement against sexual assault, and for victims of domestic abuse. Michelle Goldberg, writing for The New York Times, has argued that if Depp wins the case, one can expect similar lawsuits against other women who say they've survived abuse. The Guardian's Martha Gill writes that "#MeToo is over" if we don't listen to "imperfect victims" like Heard.

These all-or-nothing frames may be unwise. Across countries, it is consistently found that a small minority of alleged victims lie about sexual assault, while most do not. Whether Heard's allegations fall into the minority or majority of these cases, is a drop in an ocean of statistics. It is also worth noting that Depp has not been put on trial in a criminal court, let alone convicted, for domestic abuse, which means his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The current defamation trial, therefore, should not be allowed to define how allegations of domestic abuse should be treated. Even if Heard's allegations are found to be false, that Heard may be an unreliable witness should not tar the testimony of other women who claim to have faced domestic abuse.

Rather than focus on the "he said, she said" aspects of the case, the more useful takeaway for me is simply this: that there are profoundly unhealthy marriages in the world, and that we can end them better.

It is clear that throughout their marriage, Depp and Heard were deeply unsuited for each other. Even in their statement after the divorce, the couple admitted that their relationship "was intensely passionate and at times volatile", albeit "always bound by love".

Those with experience of dysfunctional relationships - either as a party to one or a family member caught in the crossfire - may feel a sense of discomfiting familiarity when listening to audiovisual clips of their fights.

There's the explosive unpredictability of a spouse who bangs furniture, punches walls, and hurls objects; the knife's-edge fear of physical violence erupting at any time. There's the vicious verbal diatribes - the mocking, the undermining of each other's accomplishments - as one claws and swipes at the other's weakest spots and deepest insecurities.

There's the action-reaction spirals of escalating conflict, and the difficulty of removing oneself from the situation in the close quarters of a shared home. There's the aftermath - ranging from cold silence, to words of love and affirmation - only for the cycle to repeat the next day, or week, or at a time one just can't predict.

As the copious recordings and screenshots of their intimate conflicts show, there is also the bitter winter that looms when couples begin to mount evidence for an imminent legal war. In that phase, private words and vulnerable moments become yet another card in the deck for Exhibit A. Such battles can last for years, wreaking profound and lasting damage on reputations and careers.

In a better world, Depp and Heard would have moved quickly to address their incompatibilities.

They would have exercised awareness of their individual shortcomings, and sought help for destructive patterns of behaviour - whether relating to past traumas, their mental state, or substance abuse - to limit the damage done to the other party.

They would have prioritised healthy ways to communicate, and observed red lines. Physical violence would never have entered the equation, nor would they have sniped and picked at each other's self-esteem and life choices. And if, despite best efforts, they simply could not make it work, they would have parted ways in a manner that preserves the reasonable rights and privacy of both parties.

In Singapore, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) supports programmes that offer couples support in preparing for and strengthening their marriages. By design however, the divorce process is lengthy and difficult for couples who decide to part. Couples can file for divorce after being married for at least three years, unless they prove exceptional depravity or hardship.

Currently, couples can divorce by separating for three years with consent to divorce, or four years without consent; or by proving adultery, unreasonable behaviour, or desertion. This gives couples more incentive to pin blame on each other, if they want to move on sooner with their lives.

In January, Parliament passed amendments to the Women's Charter to allow divorce by a new option of "mutual agreement" that a marriage has irretrievably broken down.

When the new option takes effect, couples can choose to signal joint responsibility for divorce.

This should ease some of the pressure to play combative blame games, although it does not prevent couples from going down more acrimonious routes.

Healthy marriages have many benefits to offer individuals and society, including loving homes, emotional support, companionship in old age, and shared parenting responsibilities and joy.

But unhealthy marriages, and subsequently brutal divorces, are emotionally and physically damaging, with lasting scars on everyone involved. Wherever possible, we should spare ourselves that pain.

With any luck, the unhappy tale of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard might teach us something after all.

May we marry wisely, and love well. And if the road still ends, may we part ways with grace.

• Gayle Goh is a correspondent with The Business Times.