Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

I find it curious that Kate Moss did not make a public statement like his other exes. Did I miss that?

[Anonymous]

It’s obvious they both have serious issues. His is addiction, childhood trauma and he obviously needs therapy.
She also has a drinking problem and possibly BPD.

I don’t think he is truly an abuser, but when two people drink, use and have strong emotions things get out of hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was also not a good look for him yesterday to be flirting and laughing with his good looking female attorney.
today a different woman is next to him and I don't see the same smiling and laughing.

The brunette was flirtier than him! And he had some good exchanges with the full figured light hair attorney in the early days. She also was flirty.
In both cases he just seems friendly. He sure is a chick magnet.

DP. I do NOT get the attraction to him. He's just a bloated, greasy, tiny-mouthed, Marlon Brando-esque chubby guy. Yuck.

Are you 14?

I’m not this poster but I’m a 47 yo who finds him utterly unattractive. He was attractive once upon a time but is just gross now.

too many tatoos and rings and hair in his face but he does have a nice voice. if he really were being poetic and musical I can imagine him
being charming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it curious that Kate Moss did not make a public statement like his other exes. Did I miss that?

She did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They both seem like deeply disturbed people who brought out the worst in each other.

I think the problem with the op-ed is that Heard lied by omission. She wasn't honest about the part she played in their dynamic. But that doesn't mean she lied about her characterization of Depp's behavior during the marriage and it doesn't exonerate him from responsibility for his part in the crazy. She simply excluded from her argument the evidence of her own crazy behavior or counter-arguments that would have painted the more complex picture we're seeing play out now in court.

To those of you who know the law, is it still defamation if the op-ed was technically accurate but still misleading by way of omission? That seems like a really hard needle to thread. Most op-eds ignore counter-arguments and rebuttals.

Honestly, I think he wins even if he loses. Even if the court finds against him on defamation, he's proved the point that his marriage was a complicated sh*tshow and that he and Heard should most certainly never be in the same room again, but that doesn't mean he should never be allowed to work again because he's some sort of habitual abuser. I expect that over the next year or two we'll see him do some low-budget, critically-acclaimed art films, maybe trip through rehab, and then he'll be back where he was before the op-ed.

the issue with the op ed is not whether it is truthful or balanced- their divorce settlement included an agreement that they would not talk about each other afterward or disparage each other- so if her op ed does not ID Depp, is she OK writing it OR as he argues, is it obviously about him, even without his name in it, and "defamation" which violates their agreement and negatively impacts his family, his work prospects, his income, etc.

This is incorrect.

[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?

why didn't she leave: daughter of an alcoholic father- just her cup of tea; also the fame, money, penthouses, island
staff= all paid by JD- they are paid not to see anything bad
knife- these folks are a little S&M
that quote was about how she was just hitting him a little, not punching him. if you a little S&M, there will be some physical stuff but nobody is supposed to get really hurt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Experienced criminal trial lawyer here, with decades of experience in domestic violence advocacy.

I was compelled by Depp’s testimony and other evidence in his case in chief and understood the social media support for him. However I am also finding Heard’s testimony compelling and doubtless she has other compelling evidence to present in her defense.

Virginia requires a unanimous verdict in civil trials so I predict that this either ends in a mistrial or ends in Heard winning. I think they both perpetrated domestic violence in the relationship and I wouldn’t bet money on who was the primary aggressor.

unanimous verdict? that will take an eternity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you? Or did you just bring your emotional support alpacas to the courthouse again?

Did I say I was? I merely pointed out that it’s a good thing someone who is so easily persuaded on direct examination is not a trial attorney. You just believe the last thing you see or hear.

Maybe so but let’s roll the tape… his witnesses include his bodyguard, an easily flustered psychologist who concurs Heard does not exhibit PTSD, but a personality disorder. Mmmmkay, now do Depp.

“Let’s drown her before we burn her!!!” Depp wrote to actor Paul Bettany in June 2013. “I will f**k her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she’s dead.”

Depp referred to himself as a “f**king savage” and a “lunatic,” and fantasized about killing Heard.

“Clearly I was having a bad time,” Depp said, adding that the video was “illegally recorded.” “I did assault a couple of cabinets but I did not touch Ms. Heard.”

Depp denied that he had ever hit any woman. He also alleged that Heard had repeatedly attacked him, and had thrown a bottle at him, severing the tip of his middle finger. Text evidence indicated that he had cut his own finger. In one of them, Depp wrote to his doctor that he had “chopped off my left middle finger as a reminder that I should never cut my finger off again.” IIRC he claimed to be protecting Heard when he lied to his doctor and probably the court.

whenever I accidentally cut my finger, I trash a fancy rental house by writing messages in blood all over it(sarcasm) because, you know, artistic expression and it helps it heal better to bleed out for hours...

[Anonymous]

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.

the make up thing is stupid- it was proffered as an example; it is highly likely that while the exact compact for sale and in use in 2013-2015 is not for sale today (!), Milani or some other manufacturer sold a consealor compact very similar to what the lawyer brought forth. If Ms. Heard did use a compact 7-9 yrs ago, it was probably used up and tossed out, so not around today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wtf!!!

That’s an interesting way to blow your nose…

Is this a deep fake? Did she actually do a coke bump in court?

[Anonymous]

https://mobile.twitter.com/pipitaqueens/status/1522304491571265537

Sorry, the post above was a bad attempt at a link to this tweet I saw.

[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: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.

the make up thing is stupid- it was proffered as an example; it is highly likely that while the exact compact for sale and in use in 2013-2015 is not for sale today (!), Milani or some other manufacturer sold a consealor compact very similar to what the lawyer brought forth. If Ms. Heard did use a compact 7-9 yrs ago, it was probably used up and tossed out, so not around today.

No, the problem is not that this kind of makeup existed once and now it doesn't.
It's the opposite: it exists now and didn't exist then.

[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?

why didn't she leave: daughter of an alcoholic father- just her cup of tea; also the fame, money, penthouses, island
staff= all paid by JD- they are paid not to see anything bad
knife- these folks are a little S&M
that quote was about how she was just hitting him a little, not punching him. if you a little S&M, there will be some physical stuff but nobody is supposed to get really hurt

Wut

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jennifer Grey also said in her book that Johnny was possessive and jealous.

Ah, the forgotten uggo! Must be true.

Kate Moss isn’t an uggo and documented cases (I.e. police involvement) of his destroying property around her in arguments. I find that abusive and jealous behavior.

If you're taking about the fight at Mark Hotel, it started because Kate Moss was jealous and accused Johnny of cheating. He was also behaving very much like his icon Keith Richards, aka "trashing hotel rooms like a rock star". They were a grunge couple and that was exactly what grunge couples would do: play loud music, take drugs, have a fight, break everything around them. Pretty sure there is a report of Kate Moss destroying some hotel room, but never heard of Johnny Depp being jealous with her.

[Anonymous]

I have a very good read of whether or not people are lying (I spend a lot of time at the negotiation table), and my uncanny valley alarm was going off constantly watching Amber Heard testify. That is pretty evil to be lying so much to the world about someone. And I’m not even a Johnny Depp fan.