Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[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.

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

I agree that was the goal. I think that he has ensured she will never become a major movie star. But I would expect that she continues to work steadily.

[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:

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.

Oh boy. So you cannot read I see. Please get back to us after you’ve re-read the prior responses.

[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.

Thank might be, but even her best guess was that she is in a such a bad position in this process, that she should fire her PR team.

[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.

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

Um, but for her article, there wouldn't be any defamation lawsuit about the truth of that article. She can't cry foul that she landed herself in the hot seat over the truth of it.

[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.

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

He wanted his day in court in the US to show what a dangerous loin she is.

Mission accomplished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Um, but for her article, there wouldn't be any defamation lawsuit about the truth of that article. She can't cry foul that she landed herself in the hot seat over the truth of it.

Did PP say amber was crying foul? What point are you responding to with your post? It seems like you're making an entirely new point in order to distract from the point that you guys don't know anything about the american legal system.

[Anonymous]

I heard he likes cigar shops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Um, but for her article, there wouldn't be any defamation lawsuit about the truth of that article. She can't cry foul that she landed herself in the hot seat over the truth of it.

Did PP say amber was crying foul? What point are you responding to with your post? It seems like you're making an entirely new point in order to distract from the point that you guys don't know anything about the american legal system.

Neither do you so I guess we’re even.

[Anonymous]

Depp had a bad today. Bad witness about Q scores who was an utter disaster. Painful to watch.

[Anonymous]

It's blatantly clear the posters haven't read the Op Ed in question. Go read alit and you'll see what an utter sham this case is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depp had a bad today. Bad witness about Q scores who was an utter disaster. Painful to watch.

I thought his graphics were compelling and showed how it affected JD.

[Anonymous]

I just looked at the psychologist for Depp saying Heard has mental troubles. The psychologist couldn’t brush her hair for this appearance in court?

[Anonymous]

Wow. I have a hard time believing any of her abuse claims.

Today, on Day 11 of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, the American Civil Liberties Union revealed in damning testimony that Amber Heard has given just $1.3 million to the organization after promising in 2016 to give $3.5 million of her divorce settlement to the organization—and her ex Elon Musk donated nearly half of that money ($500,000, to be exact).

Worse yet, ACLU staffers actually ghost-wrote The Washington Post op-ed at the center of the trial, in which Heard claimed to be a survivor of domestic violence, and they pitched on her behalf, timed to the release of Heard’s then-upcoming film, Aquaman.

Email correspondence shows that Robin Shulman, a communications strategist with the ACLU, wrote the first draft of the op-ed in November 2018, a month before the article was published, while Heard’s legal team made edits to avoid obvious incrimination of Depp. Terence Dougherty, general counsel and COO of the ACLU, said the ACLU was charged with pitching the op-ed to a number of outlets and had considered the New York Times, Teen Vogue and USA Today before eventually placing it in the Post. Another ACLU communications associate, Gerry Johnson, emailed other team members about timing the op-ed so it would be released near the premiere of Aquaman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I have a hard time believing any of her abuse claims.

Today, on Day 11 of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, the American Civil Liberties Union revealed in damning testimony that Amber Heard has given just $1.3 million to the organization after promising in 2016 to give $3.5 million of her divorce settlement to the organization—and her ex Elon Musk donated nearly half of that money ($500,000, to be exact).

Worse yet, ACLU staffers actually ghost-wrote The Washington Post op-ed at the center of the trial, in which Heard claimed to be a survivor of domestic violence, and they pitched on her behalf, timed to the release of Heard’s then-upcoming film, Aquaman.

Email correspondence shows that Robin Shulman, a communications strategist with the ACLU, wrote the first draft of the op-ed in November 2018, a month before the article was published, while Heard’s legal team made edits to avoid obvious incrimination of Depp. Terence Dougherty, general counsel and COO of the ACLU, said the ACLU was charged with pitching the op-ed to a number of outlets and had considered the New York Times, Teen Vogue and USA Today before eventually placing it in the Post. Another ACLU communications associate, Gerry Johnson, emailed other team members about timing the op-ed so it would be released near the premiere of Aquaman.

What is the smoking gun here? Most actors/actresses don’t write any of their communications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I have a hard time believing any of her abuse claims.

Today, on Day 11 of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, the American Civil Liberties Union revealed in damning testimony that Amber Heard has given just $1.3 million to the organization after promising in 2016 to give $3.5 million of her divorce settlement to the organization—and her ex Elon Musk donated nearly half of that money ($500,000, to be exact).

Worse yet, ACLU staffers actually ghost-wrote The Washington Post op-ed at the center of the trial, in which Heard claimed to be a survivor of domestic violence, and they pitched on her behalf, timed to the release of Heard’s then-upcoming film, Aquaman.

Email correspondence shows that Robin Shulman, a communications strategist with the ACLU, wrote the first draft of the op-ed in November 2018, a month before the article was published, while Heard’s legal team made edits to avoid obvious incrimination of Depp. Terence Dougherty, general counsel and COO of the ACLU, said the ACLU was charged with pitching the op-ed to a number of outlets and had considered the New York Times, Teen Vogue and USA Today before eventually placing it in the Post. Another ACLU communications associate, Gerry Johnson, emailed other team members about timing the op-ed so it would be released near the premiere of Aquaman.

What is the smoking gun here? Most actors/actresses don’t write any of their communications.

Sure. The ACLU writing a piece about an extremely personal topic timed to the release of movie in which she stars.
Sorry. Sounds like a PR stunt.