Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m the PP and wrote this poorly. I meant his intention is to prove she’s a bad person even though that is not what the case was filed about.

[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.

You are correct, it is much easier to win this kind of lawsuit in the UK than it is here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe she is a horrible violent person. She only has one marriage so if she is saying she is a survivor of spousal abuse there is only one person that could be: Depp. She has no other husbands who could have abused her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe she is a horrible violent person. She only has one marriage so if she is saying she is a survivor of spousal abuse there is only one person that could be: Depp. She has no other husbands who could have abused her.

Did she say spousal abuse? I thought the article said domestic violence?

[Anonymous]

Is she accusing her parents of domestic violence? Her boyfriends? Elon Musk? No just one person fits the description. Her former husband.

[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.

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

Trials and witnesses can be unpredictable. Trial work is challenging. Making objections, defending objections, following testimony. You have to constantly be "on." Instead of "objecting," you could interrupt the witness and say something like, "Please don't say what someone else told you," I guess.

[Anonymous]

You guys can hate her all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you have a woefully inaccurate understanding of the american legal process/system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Caught lying by who? The media? You’re jumping the gun on all of this. Wait for what happens when it’s actual testimony that can be impeached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe she is a horrible violent person. She only has one marriage so if she is saying she is a survivor of spousal abuse there is only one person that could be: Depp. She has no other husbands who could have abused her.

I have to assume this is a defamation case on Depps end,, with a "false fact" as one element to be proven. Basically, that it's false that he abused Heard or whatever the article in question stated about him is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Caught lying by who? The media? You’re jumping the gun on all of this. Wait for what happens when it’s actual testimony that can be impeached.

PP it’s irrefutable they lied about the makeup product that she used. I get that you want to be a contrarian, but stick to areas where you have your facts correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys can hate her all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you have a woefully inaccurate understanding of the american legal process/system.

PP you’re embarrassing yourself at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Caught lying by who? The media? You’re jumping the gun on all of this. Wait for what happens when it’s actual testimony that can be impeached.

PP it’s irrefutable they lied about the makeup product that she used. I get that you want to be a contrarian, but stick to areas where you have your facts correct.

I’ve seen the media articles. My facts are fine. Please direct me to the witness IN THIS TRIAL who has testified about the Milani makeup kit and been called out on cross examination as being untruthful. I’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can hate her all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you have a woefully inaccurate understanding of the american legal process/system.

PP you’re embarrassing yourself at this point.

More than one of us is responding. You're the clown fanboy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys can hate her all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you have a woefully inaccurate understanding of the american legal process/system.

Do hollywood casting directors care about the legal process? He's ruined her name with this trial and it seems like that was the goal all along

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys can hate her all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you have a woefully inaccurate understanding of the american legal process/system.

Reminds me of those who want to prove that they were right when driving a car. Too often, they're found to be dead right