Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Premature but I think Depp will win this. Or they will settle.

He’s not going to win. And she won’t settle because she’s broke. She wrote an op-Ed saying he was abusive. With the texts about killing her and the testimony of their shared marriage therapist it seems that at the very least there’s enough there to show some amount of emotional abuse (unless in the op Ed she said it’s physical). I think Amber was MORE abusive but that doesn’t show that her implying he was abusive isn’t the truth.

I’m leaning towards this although I think Johnny has already won in the public eye. The public eye does not matter though. Semantics do.

Ambers op Ed stated “domestic abuse”. It’s clear from the evidence it was pointing towards Johnny. Now it comes down to who wrote it for the Defense lawyers. This is Why the judge was pushing the plaintiffs to include the Twitter evidence and case law into evidence for defamation and who wrote it. If the defense did, it would be mute.

Now the deceiving factor in my opinion is the down to the legal definition of “domestic abuse”. Domestic abuse l, while most common people would assume domestic violence but actually the definition can include abuse as physical, emotional, financial, sexual, and physiological. If ambers team can prove Johnny was any of these, not just violent, then they win in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Premature but I think Depp will win this. Or they will settle.

He has already won regardless of the outcome of the case. He knows this. His lawyers know this.

He comes out of this trial looking like the victim and it turns the court of public opinion which in turn will help his career.

+1

[Anonymous]

*deciding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think he has established damages from the Op Ed. I think the question will be whether or not what "she" (actually the ACLU, it turns out) wrote was true, as truth is a defense to defamation.

Not facetiously, as I have not listened to the testimony, how has he established damages directly from the op-ed (vs, contemperaneous reporting of their relationship and issues on pirates set?)

Through his experts. Heard's side will argue what you point out. His side will cite his experts. There's enough there for the jury to decide that the Op Ed damaged his career, if the jury wants to decide that way. I think the real issue is whether what she said in the Op Ed was true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Premature but I think Depp will win this. Or they will settle.

He’s not going to win. And she won’t settle because she’s broke. She wrote an op-Ed saying he was abusive. With the texts about killing her and the testimony of their shared marriage therapist it seems that at the very least there’s enough there to show some amount of emotional abuse (unless in the op Ed she said it’s physical). I think Amber was MORE abusive but that doesn’t show that her implying he was abusive isn’t the truth.

I’m leaning towards this although I think Johnny has already won in the public eye. The public eye does not matter though. Semantics do.

Ambers op Ed stated “domestic abuse”. It’s clear from the evidence it was pointing towards Johnny. Now it comes down to who wrote it for the Defense lawyers. This is Why the judge was pushing the plaintiffs to include the Twitter evidence and case law into evidence for defamation and who wrote it. If the defense did, it would be mute.

Now the deceiving factor in my opinion is the down to the legal definition of “domestic abuse”. Domestic abuse l, while most common people would assume domestic violence but actually the definition can include abuse as physical, emotional, financial, sexual, and physiological. If ambers team can prove Johnny was any of these, not just violent, then they win in my opinion.

It really doesn't matter if he wins in court. In the public eye, he's winning and is likely to start getting movie offers again - which will lead to him having a nice income again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think he has established damages from the Op Ed. I think the question will be whether or not what "she" (actually the ACLU, it turns out) wrote was true, as truth is a defense to defamation.

Not facetiously, as I have not listened to the testimony, how has he established damages directly from the op-ed (vs, contemperaneous reporting of their relationship and issues on pirates set?)

Through his experts. Heard's side will argue what you point out. His side will cite his experts. There's enough there for the jury to decide that the Op Ed damaged his career, if the jury wants to decide that way. I think the real issue is whether what she said in the Op Ed was true.

What experts did he have that testified to that? I wasn't trying to ask a gotcha question, I haven't watched the testimony and don't know if this was reasonably established. You said you thought he had established damages, what did the experts say that established this on legal grounds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Premature but I think Depp will win this. Or they will settle.

He has already won regardless of the outcome of the case. He knows this. His lawyers know this.

He comes out of this trial looking like the victim and it turns the court of public opinion which in turn will help his career.

+1

Who would have guessed that he would come out of this in such a positive way? I hope if he does get a second (millionth?) chance, he'll do well. Kind of like Robert Downey Jr. coming back after prison and waking up in a stranger's bed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think he has established damages from the Op Ed. I think the question will be whether or not what "she" (actually the ACLU, it turns out) wrote was true, as truth is a defense to defamation.

Not facetiously, as I have not listened to the testimony, how has he established damages directly from the op-ed (vs, contemperaneous reporting of their relationship and issues on pirates set?)

Through his experts. Heard's side will argue what you point out. His side will cite his experts. There's enough there for the jury to decide that the Op Ed damaged his career, if the jury wants to decide that way. I think the real issue is whether what she said in the Op Ed was true.

What experts did he have that testified to that? I wasn't trying to ask a gotcha question, I haven't watched the testimony and don't know if this was reasonably established. You said you thought he had established damages, what did the experts say that established this on legal grounds?

Are you cross examining me? Ha! I haven't been glued to the trial and listening to each witness, either, but he had an "expert" say yesterday that he got dropped from Disney and wasn't getting offers bc of the Op Ed. His agent(s) also testified to this, I believe. My point is that there could be enough there for the jury to find that it damaged his career, if it wants to. Do you even have to establish monetary damages in VA to establish defamation, or just injury to reputation? I haven't looked up the elements of the tort of defamation in VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Premature but I think Depp will win this. Or they will settle.

He’s not going to win. And she won’t settle because she’s broke. She wrote an op-Ed saying he was abusive. With the texts about killing her and the testimony of their shared marriage therapist it seems that at the very least there’s enough there to show some amount of emotional abuse (unless in the op Ed she said it’s physical). I think Amber was MORE abusive but that doesn’t show that her implying he was abusive isn’t the truth.

I’m leaning towards this although I think Johnny has already won in the public eye. The public eye does not matter though. Semantics do.

Ambers op Ed stated “domestic abuse”. It’s clear from the evidence it was pointing towards Johnny. Now it comes down to who wrote it for the Defense lawyers. This is Why the judge was pushing the plaintiffs to include the Twitter evidence and case law into evidence for defamation and who wrote it. If the defense did, it would be mute.

Now the deceiving factor in my opinion is the down to the legal definition of “domestic abuse”. Domestic abuse l, while most common people would assume domestic violence but actually the definition can include abuse as physical, emotional, financial, sexual, and physiological. If ambers team can prove Johnny was any of these, not just violent, then they win in my opinion.

I think the above definition is so broad as to have no real meaning. Anything could be emotional abuse, anything could be psychological abuse. It’s so broad that jurors may think “if I say something mean to my wife is that criminal abuse?” It causes doubt not certainty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think he has established damages from the Op Ed. I think the question will be whether or not what "she" (actually the ACLU, it turns out) wrote was true, as truth is a defense to defamation.

Not facetiously, as I have not listened to the testimony, how has he established damages directly from the op-ed (vs, contemperaneous reporting of their relationship and issues on pirates set?)

Through his experts. Heard's side will argue what you point out. His side will cite his experts. There's enough there for the jury to decide that the Op Ed damaged his career, if the jury wants to decide that way. I think the real issue is whether what she said in the Op Ed was true.

What experts did he have that testified to that? I wasn't trying to ask a gotcha question, I haven't watched the testimony and don't know if this was reasonably established. You said you thought he had established damages, what did the experts say that established this on legal grounds?

Are you cross examining me? Ha! I haven't been glued to the trial and listening to each witness, either, but he had an "expert" say yesterday that he got dropped from Disney and wasn't getting offers bc of the Op Ed. His agent(s) also testified to this, I believe. My point is that there could be enough there for the jury to find that it damaged his career, if it wants to. Do you even have to establish monetary damages in VA to establish defamation, or just injury to reputation? I haven't looked up the elements of the tort of defamation in VA.

Also, you really want to know what the court's jury instructions will be. That's what the jury will use to determine whether he established his claims and whether she established her counterclaims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think he has established damages from the Op Ed. I think the question will be whether or not what "she" (actually the ACLU, it turns out) wrote was true, as truth is a defense to defamation.

Not facetiously, as I have not listened to the testimony, how has he established damages directly from the op-ed (vs, contemperaneous reporting of their relationship and issues on pirates set?)

Through his experts. Heard's side will argue what you point out. His side will cite his experts. There's enough there for the jury to decide that the Op Ed damaged his career, if the jury wants to decide that way. I think the real issue is whether what she said in the Op Ed was true.

What experts did he have that testified to that? I wasn't trying to ask a gotcha question, I haven't watched the testimony and don't know if this was reasonably established. You said you thought he had established damages, what did the experts say that established this on legal grounds?

Are you cross examining me? Ha! I haven't been glued to the trial and listening to each witness, either, but he had an "expert" say yesterday that he got dropped from Disney and wasn't getting offers bc of the Op Ed. His agent(s) also testified to this, I believe. My point is that there could be enough there for the jury to find that it damaged his career, if it wants to. Do you even have to establish monetary damages in VA to establish defamation, or just injury to reputation? I haven't looked up the elements of the tort of defamation in VA.

Sorry when you said you thought he had established damages I thought you were a lawyer and that was your opinion, as that is a legally way to say that. You do have to establish that they lied, that they are responsible for it, and that there was injury.

[Anonymous]

OK, so her lawyers argued a while ago that she had not accused him of sexual/physical abuse in the op-ed, but the blonde lady who just testified today finished up by saying that the most devastating thing out of all this for Heard was when her accusations of sexual abuse were dismissed as “a hoax.”

Also, was that lady allowed to keep reading off of her notes? The judge told her to stop that and she kept on doing it. The therapist who testified for Johnny spoke confidently without reading off her notes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Premature but I think Depp will win this. Or they will settle.

He’s not going to win. And she won’t settle because she’s broke. She wrote an op-Ed saying he was abusive. With the texts about killing her and the testimony of their shared marriage therapist it seems that at the very least there’s enough there to show some amount of emotional abuse (unless in the op Ed she said it’s physical). I think Amber was MORE abusive but that doesn’t show that her implying he was abusive isn’t the truth.

I’m leaning towards this although I think Johnny has already won in the public eye. The public eye does not matter though. Semantics do.

Ambers op Ed stated “domestic abuse”. It’s clear from the evidence it was pointing towards Johnny. Now it comes down to who wrote it for the Defense lawyers. This is Why the judge was pushing the plaintiffs to include the Twitter evidence and case law into evidence for defamation and who wrote it. If the defense did, it would be mute.

Now the deceiving factor in my opinion is the down to the legal definition of “domestic abuse”. Domestic abuse l, while most common people would assume domestic violence but actually the definition can include abuse as physical, emotional, financial, sexual, and physiological. If ambers team can prove Johnny was any of these, not just violent, then they win in my opinion.

I think the above definition is so broad as to have no real meaning. Anything could be emotional abuse, anything could be psychological abuse. It’s so broad that jurors may think “if I say something mean to my wife is that criminal abuse?” It causes doubt not certainty.

Frankly I think the videos show clearly that he was occasionally verbally abusive. Even if they were mutually abusive, she would still be telling the truth. She has it on video and the marriage counselor testified that they were mutually abusive.

[Anonymous]

Also, the blonde lady went off on a rant at the end, describing a list of physical abuse Amber had reported to her, such as Johnny kicking her in the back and violating her sexually, etc. But there were no recordings or evidence to back that up. Why was the lady allowed to introduce those details now as if they were facts, but without any evidence to back it up? Why isn’t that hearsay? (And why are we hearing this for the first time now?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think he has established damages from the Op Ed. I think the question will be whether or not what "she" (actually the ACLU, it turns out) wrote was true, as truth is a defense to defamation.

Not facetiously, as I have not listened to the testimony, how has he established damages directly from the op-ed (vs, contemperaneous reporting of their relationship and issues on pirates set?)

Through his experts. Heard's side will argue what you point out. His side will cite his experts. There's enough there for the jury to decide that the Op Ed damaged his career, if the jury wants to decide that way. I think the real issue is whether what she said in the Op Ed was true.

What experts did he have that testified to that? I wasn't trying to ask a gotcha question, I haven't watched the testimony and don't know if this was reasonably established. You said you thought he had established damages, what did the experts say that established this on legal grounds?

Are you cross examining me? Ha! I haven't been glued to the trial and listening to each witness, either, but he had an "expert" say yesterday that he got dropped from Disney and wasn't getting offers bc of the Op Ed. His agent(s) also testified to this, I believe. My point is that there could be enough there for the jury to find that it damaged his career, if it wants to. Do you even have to establish monetary damages in VA to establish defamation, or just injury to reputation? I haven't looked up the elements of the tort of defamation in VA.

Sorry when you said you thought he had established damages I thought you were a lawyer and that was your opinion, as that is a legally way to say that. You do have to establish that they lied, that they are responsible for it, and that there was injury.

The key element will be whether he has established that Heard lied. If the jury finds that she did, injury has been established, IMO.