Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Uncanny valley doesn’t mean what you think it means.

[Anonymous]

Watch this

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZTdgNth3K/

[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.

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

I am not saying that I think S&M is OK but people role play, play games. No is supposed to get bruises and bleed. She obvi went along with him
for awhile but things got too insane. She went to a program for codependency too so no surprises that this was not working put. Some people have
said that she also had a substance abuse problem- that was not really developed in testimony. Maybe it is coming in crossexam.

[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.

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.

consealor has been around forever- curious if AH as an actress knows as much about make up as she does about clothing, hair and flooring. Am curious if she will address this, but it does not make or break the defamation case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You mean you like his slurred speech? Gross!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Have you spent any amount of time with drug addicts???? I have. Everything that Amber explained about JPs behavior, the ups and downs, the foggy memory, his bizzare behavior (dissapearing, mood swings), etc. CLASSIC behavior of an addict. Which he has admitted to that and has been in rehab for.

The people that work FOR him, knew him like that....so, sadly, his behavior wasn't shocking to them.

Was she a bit crazy then?, yes, a liar about she lived with him? No. She was in her mid 20s dealing with an old drug addict. He's gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In 2016, Amber's lawyer (Samantha Spector) sent a letter to Johnny's lawyer asking for some penthouses and a Range Rover. I know hindsight is always 20/20, but it seems like he could have just taken that deal, and avoided all of the bad publicity of the TRO and the op-ed.


In other words, if Johnny had settled this back before Amber got a TRO, then it seems like all of this damage could have been avoided. Instead, two careers are ruined, and so much dirty laundry is on display. I'm guessing it's harmful to both of them to sit through this trial and re-live all of this.

So you’re saying that Amber blackmailed Johnny? Interesting. And abusive.

It seems like it was a settlement offer. Also, Johnny ended up paying $7 million anyway. So I believe that the first offer would have been a bargain, since the penthouses were worth a bit less than $7 million together (per an article at the time that the penthouses were on sale).

[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.

Maybe he could have sued her for violating the NDA, and then at least clawed back the $7 million from the divorce settlement?

[Anonymous]

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

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

I think I am going to miss Twitter when Musk purchases it, for I am not going to pay to be on Twitter. I only read, and never post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe he could have sued her for violating the NDA, and then at least clawed back the $7 million from the divorce settlement?

NDA? All his little laundry is out now thanks to Amber. I wonder if his people's didn't say anything about his bizarre behavior due to a NDA.

Can it be break in court?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In 2016, Amber's lawyer (Samantha Spector) sent a letter to Johnny's lawyer asking for some penthouses and a Range Rover. I know hindsight is always 20/20, but it seems like he could have just taken that deal, and avoided all of the bad publicity of the TRO and the op-ed.


In other words, if Johnny had settled this back before Amber got a TRO, then it seems like all of this damage could have been avoided. Instead, two careers are ruined, and so much dirty laundry is on display. I'm guessing it's harmful to both of them to sit through this trial and re-live all of this.

So you’re saying that Amber blackmailed Johnny? Interesting. And abusive.

It seems like it was a settlement offer. Also, Johnny ended up paying $7 million anyway. So I believe that the first offer would have been a bargain, since the penthouses were worth a bit less than $7 million together (per an article at the time that the penthouses were on sale).

No. A settlement offer doesn’t include a threat of give me this or I go to the police. That would be blackmail. If true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe he could have sued her for violating the NDA, and then at least clawed back the $7 million from the divorce settlement?

NDA? All his little laundry is out now thanks to Amber. I wonder if his people's didn't say anything about his bizarre behavior due to a NDA.

Can it be break in court?

No, all his laundry is out now due the the lawsuits he filed in the UK and Fairfax. None of the dirty details were public before these lawsuits he instigated. He lost the UK case and I’m guessing will lose this one. He didn’t do himself any favors by pursing these claims. Now everyone knows what a crazy, out-of-control drug addict he is. Whether you believe Amber or not, I don’t know how anyone can think he’s a decent human after hearing about the text he sent to Paul Bettany. And whenever I picture him, he’s not the handsome actor of the 90s, but a bloated, dirty, has-been curled up in his own vomit with piss all over his pants. That’s the reality for a drug addict.

[Anonymous]

She was in her mid 20s dealing with an old drug addict. He's gross.

Don't worry she'll be gross by the time she hits his age as well. If not earlier.
She is a druggy too. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

Is she wearing the same outfit today?

[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:

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.

consealor has been around forever- curious if AH as an actress knows as much about make up as she does about clothing, hair and flooring. Am curious if she will address this, but it does not make or break the defamation case.

Itt's a compact correcting concealer that hasn't been in mainstream production or usage until recently. She'd definitely remember what she used in the past, because women remember what works on their faces.
I agree that it doesn't make or break the defamation case. In addition to her some of her other claims, it just shows that she's a lier.