Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess I am just wondering how they possibly established that the injury was in the op-ed and not as a result of the massive set issues he had on Pirates 4 combined with its declining box office. Seems like it would be really hard to extrapolate what caused the career decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess I am just wondering how they possibly established that the injury was in the op-ed and not as a result of the massive set issues he had on Pirates 4 combined with its declining box office. Seems like it would be really hard to extrapolate what caused the career decline.

It is really that hard to believe the Op Ed injured his reputation? It doesn't take a giant leap, and he had witnesses testify to it. Does she have a rebuttal witness who can establish that it didn't injure his reputation at all?

[Anonymous]

I have been wondering if she is really the “victim” of abuse when it appears she often instigated and/or perpetuated the abuse. Not saying anyone here is innocent of course but when you are initiating the abuse I don’t easily see you as a victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Thanks for the PDF, PP!

Many thanks for the PDF of the actual court documents. (Didn’t want a long blue). Once you read it … she’s the one crazy, not very smart, malicious person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jennifer Grey on Depp's crazy back in the day. Interesting timing.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/jennifer-grey-says-johnny-depp-was-paranoid-during-engagement/

How else will she sell her book if not by reminding everyone that she was connected to Johnny Depp for a few months

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess I am just wondering how they possibly established that the injury was in the op-ed and not as a result of the massive set issues he had on Pirates 4 combined with its declining box office. Seems like it would be really hard to extrapolate what caused the career decline.

It is really that hard to believe the Op Ed injured his reputation? It doesn't take a giant leap, and he had witnesses testify to it. Does she have a rebuttal witness who can establish that it didn't injure his reputation at all?

As someone who reads a ton of celebrity gossip yes that’s hard to believe. Rumors were circulating for years about his decline and the shutdown of the pirates set for a month was a huge blow to his hireability/insurability

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess I am just wondering how they possibly established that the injury was in the op-ed and not as a result of the massive set issues he had on Pirates 4 combined with its declining box office. Seems like it would be really hard to extrapolate what caused the career decline.

It is really that hard to believe the Op Ed injured his reputation? It doesn't take a giant leap, and he had witnesses testify to it. Does she have a rebuttal witness who can establish that it didn't injure his reputation at all?

As someone who reads a ton of celebrity gossip yes that’s hard to believe. Rumors were circulating for years about his decline and the shutdown of the pirates set for a month was a huge blow to his hireability/insurability

His lawyers allege in the complaint that the words were defamatory "per se," meaning that damages would be presumed form the words, if found to be defamatory. Therefore, getting caught up in whether he established damages is a red herring.

[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.

I actually think k this does nothing to help him with the studios.

I don't think he looks good at all. To me, pursuing a clear losing case is a sign of abusive behavior. It's all about punishing her.

You are 100% wrong. He is going viral for the last few weeks for being *so* charming and for being a victim. He's still got "it" factor and American love a comeback, see. Robert Downey Jr. He can also easily lose 10-15 more pounds and get hair surgery to restore his receding hairline if he wants to immediately look 10-15 years younger. He's a bonafide star.

[Anonymous]

He's a bonafide star.

He really is!

[Anonymous]

Has anyone else noticed the similarities of Heard's look and conduct to Michelle Carter, the crazy jailed girl who egged on her b/f to commit suicide? In court she tried to play the innocent cute victim, too. Judge and jury saw through it. She served 12 months in jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else noticed the similarities of Heard's look and conduct to Michelle Carter, the crazy jailed girl who egged on her b/f to commit suicide? In court she tried to play the innocent cute victim, too. Judge and jury saw through it. She served 12 months in jail.

No not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else noticed the similarities of Heard's look and conduct to Michelle Carter, the crazy jailed girl who egged on her b/f to commit suicide? In court she tried to play the innocent cute victim, too. Judge and jury saw through it. She served 12 months in jail.

No not at all.

NP. Amber does have that cold, empty stare, sometimes it looks like she's medicated. Can't wait to hear her speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else noticed the similarities of Heard's look and conduct to Michelle Carter, the crazy jailed girl who egged on her b/f to commit suicide? In court she tried to play the innocent cute victim, too. Judge and jury saw through it. She served 12 months in jail.

No not at all.

+1

Nothing alike at all. Not all crazies are the same.

[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.

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.

If it doesn’t matter if he wins in court why do the lawsuit? He could’ve written a book instead

[Anonymous]

Everyone focusing on the legal standard is forgetting one very important thing. This is a jury trial. They may be tasked with following a legal standard but there’s no guarantee they won’t just find favor for Depp as a result of their distaste for Heard’s manipulation. OJ Simpson had a jury trial and you know the rest.