Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I totally agree. I've watched some of the clips and he still has some serious charisma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is what I find so fascinating about all the people claiming to know “the American legal system”. Juries are unpredictable and they can make decisions anyway they want. The instructions from the judge mean nothing. There’s no accountability that a juror really sticks to those instructions when making their decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is what I find so fascinating about all the people claiming to know “the American legal system”. Juries are unpredictable and they can make decisions anyway they want. The instructions from the judge mean nothing. There’s no accountability that a juror really sticks to those instructions when making their decision.

Agree that juries can be unpredictable, but disagree in that the jury instructions and how they are written are important for the outcome of the trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is what I find so fascinating about all the people claiming to know “the American legal system”. Juries are unpredictable and they can make decisions anyway they want. The instructions from the judge mean nothing. There’s no accountability that a juror really sticks to those instructions when making their decision.

Agree that juries can be unpredictable, but disagree in that the jury instructions and how they are written are important for the outcome of the trial.

How are those instructions actually enforced?

[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?

Didn't his movie role get canceled after publication, plus not asked to do next pirates movie? I don't think that's hard stuff to prove.

[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?

Didn't his movie role get canceled after publication, plus not asked to do next pirates movie? I don't think that's hard stuff to prove.

Different poster: I think there was testimony that 2 months before the article came out his team sent texts or emails saying they didn't think he was getting the pirate movie renewed. Also, he had other issues, like being consistently late to a set, meaning, it isn't as if he had no issues which would cause Disney to not renew his contract but for the article. There are def. things that show Disney wasn't rehiring him before the article.

[Anonymous]

Amber heard is wearing sad looking make up today. She’s ready for her role on the stand.
She also keeps copying styles. Today her hairstyle looks like Dr. Curry‘s when she was on the stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

More people are watching the trial than will read a book. Plus less people will read his book if they believe he's an abuser. In the trial you get to hear his defense against her claims, and the back and forth that ensues. It's not just one sided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

More people are watching the trial than will read a book. Plus less people will read his book if they believe he's an abuser. In the trial you get to hear his defense against her claims, and the back and forth that ensues. It's not just one sided.

Also, the charisma that he still has would not be conveyed in a book. I would never have guessed it -- I thought he was too far gone, but I do think he could make a come back.

[Anonymous]

When is Amber testifying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

More people are watching the trial than will read a book. Plus less people will read his book if they believe he's an abuser. In the trial you get to hear his defense against her claims, and the back and forth that ensues. It's not just one sided.

+1 and wouldn’t the book trigger possible defamation claims from her? The lawsuit also forces them both to be accountable and respond to each others accusations.

[Anonymous]

I watched his testimony, he does have charisma but then when I heard the awful things he texted to his friend about his then girlfriend it made me sick. Why marry a girl you call every nasty name in the book and talk about her dying. Disgusting even if you’re drunk and high. It is clear they are both disturbed and we’re equally abusive in different ways. I’m shocked he wanted all this stuff to come out and file suit. I’d be shocked if he won.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched his testimony, he does have charisma but then when I heard the awful things he texted to his friend about his then girlfriend it made me sick. Why marry a girl you call every nasty name in the book and talk about her dying. Disgusting even if you’re drunk and high. It is clear they are both disturbed and we’re equally abusive in different ways. I’m shocked he wanted all this stuff to come out and file suit. I’d be shocked if he won.

Prepare to be shocked. He’s at the mercy of a jury, not the judge. It will either rule in his favor or be deadlocked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When is Amber testifying?

Now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

More people are watching the trial than will read a book. Plus less people will read his book if they believe he's an abuser. In the trial you get to hear his defense against her claims, and the back and forth that ensues. It's not just one sided.

Also, the charisma that he still has would not be conveyed in a book. I would never have guessed it -- I thought he was too far gone, but I do think he could make a come back.

Except he almost certainly would’ve done a big interview for promo for a book. Also it’s not the taxpayers job to fund frivolous litigation for his image. Totally inappropriate.