Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Because they are not getting the results they need. Right now they look like bafoons.

I don’t like the woman’s (her name is Elaine) style but she made some excellent points on cross examination as to timing. Remember this is about the Washington post op-Ed and there was a whole lot of other crap floating around out there about Johnny Depp that could have influenced the studios.

Of course you’re not going to think they’re getting good results. It’s his case so far, and all the witnesses have been for his side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that Depp can't form a coherent sentence and an answer?
It is beyond painful to watch him mumble like a drugged person.

He probably IS a drugged person. His bodyguard just testified that he saw Depp use marijuana “daily.”

I simply cannot get over the chaotic way these people lived. They seem so miserable.

I don't know how he lived before Heard, but the two of them together seemed to result in a lot of chaos, arguments, wasted time, and wasted energy. Time could have been better spent with his kids...

His kids are in their 20s.

They weren't when he started hanging out with Heard ~10 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Because they are not getting the results they need. Right now they look like bafoons.

I don’t like the woman’s (her name is Elaine) style but she made some excellent points on cross examination as to timing. Remember this is about the Washington post op-Ed and there was a whole lot of other crap floating around out there about Johnny Depp that could have influenced the studios.

Of course you’re not going to think they’re getting good results. It’s his case so far, and all the witnesses have been for his side.

I think Rottenborn is doing OK; I don't care for Elaine's style, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Because they are not getting the results they need. Right now they look like bafoons.

I don’t like the woman’s (her name is Elaine) style but she made some excellent points on cross examination as to timing. Remember this is about the Washington post op-Ed and there was a whole lot of other crap floating around out there about Johnny Depp that could have influenced the studios.

Of course you’re not going to think they’re getting good results. It’s his case so far, and all the witnesses have been for his side.

I think Rottenborn is doing OK; I don't care for Elaine's style, either.

I would agree with that. There’s a younger lawyer who I see people keep confusing with Rottenborn and that guy has had some amusing blunders (like objecting to his own question) but it’s definitely not him. Rottenborn is obviously a solid lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Yes, the Tik Tok stuff is ridiculous. Her lawyers have done fine. A lot of the criticism is coming from people who only have seen lawyers on TV and that's not how it works at all.

And yes, you approach a witness differently on cross examination. The rules are quote literally different regarding how you can ask them questions.

So it’s normal for a lawyer to object to their own question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Yes, the Tik Tok stuff is ridiculous. Her lawyers have done fine. A lot of the criticism is coming from people who only have seen lawyers on TV and that's not how it works at all.

And yes, you approach a witness differently on cross examination. The rules are quote literally different regarding how you can ask them questions.

So it’s normal for a lawyer to object to their own question?

Quite. I think her lawyers are freaking out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Yes, the Tik Tok stuff is ridiculous. Her lawyers have done fine. A lot of the criticism is coming from people who only have seen lawyers on TV and that's not how it works at all.

And yes, you approach a witness differently on cross examination. The rules are quote literally different regarding how you can ask them questions.

So it’s normal for a lawyer to object to their own question?

They were objecting to the answer. That is absolutely 100% a fine thing to do. It instructs the jury they aren't supposed to consider the statement by the witness.

A witness can give a hearsay answer, for instance, to a question that doesn't elicit hearsay. The questioner absolutely can object.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Yes, the Tik Tok stuff is ridiculous. Her lawyers have done fine. A lot of the criticism is coming from people who only have seen lawyers on TV and that's not how it works at all.

And yes, you approach a witness differently on cross examination. The rules are quote literally different regarding how you can ask them questions.

So it’s normal for a lawyer to object to their own question?

They were objecting to the answer. That is absolutely 100% a fine thing to do. It instructs the jury they aren't supposed to consider the statement by the witness.

A witness can give a hearsay answer, for instance, to a question that doesn't elicit hearsay. The questioner absolutely can object.

Well, even the judge was like “you asked the question”. It’s not a common thing at all and was widely perceived as a blunder. You’re supposed to be able to control your witness on cross so this doesn’t happen. He looked pretty silly and I think he knew it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Yes, the Tik Tok stuff is ridiculous. Her lawyers have done fine. A lot of the criticism is coming from people who only have seen lawyers on TV and that's not how it works at all.

And yes, you approach a witness differently on cross examination. The rules are quote literally different regarding how you can ask them questions.

So it’s normal for a lawyer to object to their own question?

They were objecting to the answer. That is absolutely 100% a fine thing to do. It instructs the jury they aren't supposed to consider the statement by the witness.

A witness can give a hearsay answer, for instance, to a question that doesn't elicit hearsay. The questioner absolutely can object.

Well, even the judge was like “you asked the question”. It’s not a common thing at all and was widely perceived as a blunder. You’re supposed to be able to control your witness on cross so this doesn’t happen. He looked pretty silly and I think he knew it.

But the ridicule is just plain wrong. And objections that are overruled aren't rare at all. Jumping on a single moment like that is just silly. It's a weeks long trial, people misspell.

The idea that you're supposed to control a witness on cross is also highly u realistic. It's cross, it's not your witness, they're often going to try to undermine the questioner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Yes, the Tik Tok stuff is ridiculous. Her lawyers have done fine. A lot of the criticism is coming from people who only have seen lawyers on TV and that's not how it works at all.

And yes, you approach a witness differently on cross examination. The rules are quote literally different regarding how you can ask them questions.

So it’s normal for a lawyer to object to their own question?

They were objecting to the answer. That is absolutely 100% a fine thing to do. It instructs the jury they aren't supposed to consider the statement by the witness.

A witness can give a hearsay answer, for instance, to a question that doesn't elicit hearsay. The questioner absolutely can object.

Well, even the judge was like “you asked the question”. It’s not a common thing at all and was widely perceived as a blunder. You’re supposed to be able to control your witness on cross so this doesn’t happen. He looked pretty silly and I think he knew it.

But the ridicule is just plain wrong. And objections that are overruled aren't rare at all. Jumping on a single moment like that is just silly. It's a weeks long trial, people misspell.

The idea that you're supposed to control a witness on cross is also highly u realistic. It's cross, it's not your witness, they're often going to try to undermine the questioner.

Yeaaaaaa this is also the same team that didn’t bother to research the makeup their client claimed to use to cover bruising. She was an expert in covering up those bruises with this makeup…that didn’t exist at the time… Great lawyers PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Yes, the Tik Tok stuff is ridiculous. Her lawyers have done fine. A lot of the criticism is coming from people who only have seen lawyers on TV and that's not how it works at all.

And yes, you approach a witness differently on cross examination. The rules are quote literally different regarding how you can ask them questions.

So it’s normal for a lawyer to object to their own question?

They were objecting to the answer. That is absolutely 100% a fine thing to do. It instructs the jury they aren't supposed to consider the statement by the witness.

A witness can give a hearsay answer, for instance, to a question that doesn't elicit hearsay. The questioner absolutely can object.

Well, even the judge was like “you asked the question”. It’s not a common thing at all and was widely perceived as a blunder. You’re supposed to be able to control your witness on cross so this doesn’t happen. He looked pretty silly and I think he knew it.

But the ridicule is just plain wrong. And objections that are overruled aren't rare at all. Jumping on a single moment like that is just silly. It's a weeks long trial, people misspell.

The idea that you're supposed to control a witness on cross is also highly u realistic. It's cross, it's not your witness, they're often going to try to undermine the questioner.

Yeaaaaaa this is also the same team that didn’t bother to research the makeup their client claimed to use to cover bruising. She was an expert in covering up those bruises with this makeup…that didn’t exist at the time… Great lawyers PP.

They haven’t presented their side of the case yet. People are freaking out about the makeup on the internet and no one has said much of anything about the makeup in actual court. This case is not being litigated on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Yes, the Tik Tok stuff is ridiculous. Her lawyers have done fine. A lot of the criticism is coming from people who only have seen lawyers on TV and that's not how it works at all.

And yes, you approach a witness differently on cross examination. The rules are quote literally different regarding how you can ask them questions.

So it’s normal for a lawyer to object to their own question?

They were objecting to the answer. That is absolutely 100% a fine thing to do. It instructs the jury they aren't supposed to consider the statement by the witness.

A witness can give a hearsay answer, for instance, to a question that doesn't elicit hearsay. The questioner absolutely can object.

Well, even the judge was like “you asked the question”. It’s not a common thing at all and was widely perceived as a blunder. You’re supposed to be able to control your witness on cross so this doesn’t happen. He looked pretty silly and I think he knew it.

But the ridicule is just plain wrong. And objections that are overruled aren't rare at all. Jumping on a single moment like that is just silly. It's a weeks long trial, people misspell.

The idea that you're supposed to control a witness on cross is also highly u realistic. It's cross, it's not your witness, they're often going to try to undermine the questioner.

You ask the question better. A good lawyer knows how construct questions that get the answers they want.

[Anonymous]

I think the Depps finger issue is the turning point of the trial. If she was so violent regularly to him and he sustained an injury like that then she is the aggressor. She seems greedy. Also what a trial in another country determined is not always going to be the same as here in the US. It’s possible Depp is correct about her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Amber Heard's lawyers any good? As a layperson when I watch them and they don't seem to be any good at connecting with the witnesses. They are very aggressive.

They’re all his witnesses so far. Why would they be trying to establish a connection?!

Of course her attorneys are good.

Yes, the Tik Tok stuff is ridiculous. Her lawyers have done fine. A lot of the criticism is coming from people who only have seen lawyers on TV and that's not how it works at all.

And yes, you approach a witness differently on cross examination. The rules are quote literally different regarding how you can ask them questions.

So it’s normal for a lawyer to object to their own question?

They were objecting to the answer. That is absolutely 100% a fine thing to do. It instructs the jury they aren't supposed to consider the statement by the witness.

A witness can give a hearsay answer, for instance, to a question that doesn't elicit hearsay. The questioner absolutely can object.

Well, even the judge was like “you asked the question”. It’s not a common thing at all and was widely perceived as a blunder. You’re supposed to be able to control your witness on cross so this doesn’t happen. He looked pretty silly and I think he knew it.

But the ridicule is just plain wrong. And objections that are overruled aren't rare at all. Jumping on a single moment like that is just silly. It's a weeks long trial, people misspell.

The idea that you're supposed to control a witness on cross is also highly u realistic. It's cross, it's not your witness, they're often going to try to undermine the questioner.

Yeaaaaaa this is also the same team that didn’t bother to research the makeup their client claimed to use to cover bruising. She was an expert in covering up those bruises with this makeup…that didn’t exist at the time… Great lawyers PP.

They haven’t presented their side of the case yet. People are freaking out about the makeup on the internet and no one has said much of anything about the makeup in actual court. This case is not being litigated on the internet.

So a lawyer should only be good while presenting their side of the case? No other times?

And the makeup was a big deal because it was a major lie that they were caught in out of the gate. This wasn’t a misstep in the middle of a long trial. This was their first attempt to discuss their position and they couldn’t start with the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the Depps finger issue is the turning point of the trial. If she was so violent regularly to him and he sustained an injury like that then she is the aggressor. She seems greedy. Also what a trial in another country determined is not always going to be the same as here in the US. It’s possible Depp is correct about her.

But proving her to be violent still isn’t what his case is about per the documents filed in the case. It is about proving she is a horrible person and punishing her, which is what I think he is doing.