Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

She kept going on saying Depp considered female actors basically like prostitutes and berated her for her profession which doesn’t make sense as his daughter is an actor and he seemed to only date other actors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a huge Depp fan, and I remember seeing Edward Scissorhands in the movie theater as a teenager, and loving the movie. I'm a 52-year-old woman (also a lawyer, but in corporate American, rather than a litigator).

I truly thought Johnny's case was going very well, but Amber seemed believable to me today. She had so many details. I hope that what she's saying is NOT true, but it seems like it could be. How could a person make up so many details? Again, I want to think the best of Johnny, as I am a huge fan.

Some of it definitely rings true, some seems heavily embellished. I'm back to toxic mutual abuse, personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s done. She’s believable. Nothing more to see here. He’s an actor that can’t get out of character (forgot the term for this). She points out how he speaks poetically (rhapsodic prose). All the world’s a stage.

And the world heaves a collective sigh of relief that you are clearly not a trial lawyer.

Or a jurist. Omg. If you believe her, I have a bridge to sell you.

If Depp was abusive, why didn't she leave him? She is a celebrity. Surely she had financial means to get her own place.

If Depp was abusive, why didn't the bazillion staff they employed in their homes all see it?

Why did she gift the big knife?

Why is she on tape admitting she hit him?

Right? Can you imagine….Well, ten minutes into her testimony, she seems believable! Pack it up, boys! We lost!

Give me a break.

There are questions here.

[Anonymous]

Turns out she is a better actor than I thought.
The part where she said he was the love if her life but also "this other thing" seemed very planned and rehearsed. It could very well be true, I really have no idea, but that was way over the top.
I found myself believing her but that made me wonder if this is a lot of acting.

[Anonymous]

Somebody explain why all those convoys were taped?
Seems crazy to have all those tapes for either side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s done. She’s believable. Nothing more to see here. He’s an actor that can’t get out of character (forgot the term for this). She points out how he speaks poetically (rhapsodic prose). All the world’s a stage.

And the world heaves a collective sigh of relief that you are clearly not a trial lawyer.

Or a jurist. Omg. If you believe her, I have a bridge to sell you.

If Depp was abusive, why didn't she leave him? She is a celebrity. Surely she had financial means to get her own place.

If Depp was abusive, why didn't the bazillion staff they employed in their homes all see it?

Why did she gift the big knife?

Why is she on tape admitting she hit him?

I don’t care if you support JD, AH or neither but your comments are gross and absolutely contribute to the culture of domestic violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Somebody explain why all those convoys were taped?
Seems crazy to have all those tapes for either side.

Exactly. But more it was more her recording everything, than him. While "being madly in love"

I believe it was a mutual abuse, and her testimony seems like an exaggerated true, based in reality. She is still very calculated, vicious person.
And a terrible actress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s done. She’s believable. Nothing more to see here. He’s an actor that can’t get out of character (forgot the term for this). She points out how he speaks poetically (rhapsodic prose). All the world’s a stage.

And the world heaves a collective sigh of relief that you are clearly not a trial lawyer.

Or a jurist. Omg. If you believe her, I have a bridge to sell you.

If Depp was abusive, why didn't she leave him? She is a celebrity. Surely she had financial means to get her own place.

If Depp was abusive, why didn't the bazillion staff they employed in their homes all see it?

Why did she gift the big knife?

Why is she on tape admitting she hit him?

I don’t care if you support JD, AH or neither but your comments are gross and absolutely contribute to the culture of domestic violence.

+10000 .. very alarming and disturbing and absolutely no understanding of trauma bonding or dynamics in abusive relationships. But this is also the same poster from another thread talking about selling bridges and not making much sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Turns out she is a better actor than I thought.
The part where she said he was the love if her life but also "this other thing" seemed very planned and rehearsed. It could very well be true, I really have no idea, but that was way over the top.
I found myself believing her but that made me wonder if this is a lot of acting.

The part about how he made her “feel like a million dollars” seemed fake.

When she said he texted her something while she was “taking care of his daughter…” Nope. No way do I believe she was taking care of his daughter or that his daughter was crying in Heard’s arms. Watching her makes my stomach queasy, because she sounds so fake and rehearsed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Turns out she is a better actor than I thought.
The part where she said he was the love if her life but also "this other thing" seemed very planned and rehearsed. It could very well be true, I really have no idea, but that was way over the top.
I found myself believing her but that made me wonder if this is a lot of acting.

The part about how he made her “feel like a million dollars” seemed fake.

When she said he texted her something while she was “taking care of his daughter…” Nope. No way do I believe she was taking care of his daughter or that his daughter was crying in Heard’s arms. Watching her makes my stomach queasy, because she sounds so fake and rehearsed.

My favorite part is when she's going through talking about this traumatic experience, she's cries without tears, losing her breath, making all those weird faces and then her attorney asks a different question and she just sort of picks her next mood and responds in a super collected and calm way. Like 3 sec later after it almost looked like she'll collapse.

What an actress, the whole trial feels like we are in a theatre!

[Anonymous]

Of course Amber read about the standard abusive/controlling man tactics, and incorporated them into her entirely unsubstantiated testimony. She isn't so ignorant. She makes up believable lies, just like any male narcissist does.

Honestly I got the doubts too but didn't watch, only read about it -- she knows the details of being abused, but I still do not believe her. Her word (worth poop in the bed) vs. Johnny Depp.

[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.

Here's the problem. There's a rule that you can't say a fact in an opening statement that will not be introduced as evidence in the trial. ("The testimony will show that...."). Most lawyers will be cautious about the opening statement because they don't want to overpromise something that they can't deliver when it comes to the actual evidence. Because her attorney talked about it in opening statements, the attorney is going to have to elicit that evidence from her in her direct, and then she'll be open to cross that will make her look bad. I assume she'll have an answer --- like that it was a very similar brand, and she just got mixed up as to the brand. But it was totally an unforced error. It's hard to go through a trial without one --- I would feel badly for the lawyers who are under so much pressure and public scrutiny, except that I think this is all so stupid tat they bear some blame in it.

[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.

Agreed. People make a big deal about the UK system being more favorable -- the legal burden is lower (because they don't have the same First Amendment protections), but it may be that their juries are a bit more skeptical and less sympathetic to people airing their dirty laundry in public--- maybe the Brits are more likely to just tell them both the "sod off" as a PP said. Whereas American juries might be more likely to feel sympathetic to Johnny that they grew up with, or more likely to feel personally betrayed by the Johnny they grew up with, or whatever. Juries are wildly unpredictable, which is why very few civil cases now go to a jury trial.

[Anonymous]

I think you guys are nuts. I just watched her testimony on youtube and I find her extremely believable.

One of the things I found most persuasive was when she talked about how he accused her of having affairs with these women she didn't know at all, and then talked about how he didn't really know or understand what was really going on around him and nobody called him on it. He held the dog outside a moving car and howled and everybody froze but nobody told him not to do that weird shit. People cleaned up his vomit and excrement and nobody said anything.

Also I can totally understand his 14 year old daughter seeing him basically bellyflop off a yacht while high and get upset about how out of control he was and start crying.

He testified that he didn't do anything wrong basically because he was on drugs and pills and booze the whole time and he legit didn't think he did anything wrong because he didn't know wtf he was actually doing.

Was anyone looking at him while she was testifying that she felt like they knew the deepest parts of one another, like they recognized each other, but then there was this whole other part of him that behaved in this terrible way? He was covering his eyes. He looked embarrassed and hurt. He looked to me like he agreed with her. ymmv

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.[/quot



I’m sure her new damage control team said no more hard contouring. Soft and just the right amount of glow.