Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

My colleague just had Botox + filler this afternoon and texted photos of her bruising. It looks just like Amber’s bruise photo.

The thing that sets off alarm bells for me is that now that I look at some of Amber’s photos on my computer with the Flux app on (filtering out blue light), I can see one telltale puncture-like mark in the pink bruising, like a little raised pimple. It really could be a post-Botox/filler shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The amount of visceral Heard hatred in this thread (and over sympathy for Depp) is making it pretty unreadable for me. It sounds to me like he slapped her a bunch of times, punched the walls around her, destroyed property around her (glass, bottles) in a way that didn't show any concern by whether she was hurt by it. It sounds like the classic cycle of abuse, amped up by addictions. It's very strange to me how so many of you want to believe in him, either through fandom, or misogyny, or some belief she was out for his money, etc.

Sure, women can abuse men. But men hopped up on coke and alcohol often do get violent and abuse women and do things they don't necessarily remember later. Heard doesn't just describe one incident, she describes several, and she did tell other people around her at the time what was going on (and folks like her therapist do substantiate that).

To me, this is just demonstrating that Heard was right all along (well, the ACLU was, presumably) in that the system bends over backwards to protect men, and doesn't do much for women. He's suing her! What a crazy power imbalance. He showed up late and drugged up to sets for years, costing millions of dollars of losses on set like a total diva, but when he loses his jobs he says it's because of Heard!

She tried to help him get clean and tried to get him out of his behaviors and on to sets on time. She discouraged his worse drug use and recognized its effects on his kids when he was too blotto to see it. But somehow he takes ZERO responsibility for his job loss, and sends it all to her.

Most of you guys live in some weird parallel universe where this is all right and he is a good guy. The media is excoriating him for a reason. He seems pretty awful to me.

Parallel universe indeed. I can’t believe someone is arguing addicts “typically aren’t equipped to be physically abusive” what nonsense!

[Anonymous]

As someone with an alcoholic husband (functional alcoholic -- a partner in a law firm), I could relate Amber she talked about Johnny's reaction to her requests that he get sober. At least in my situation, the addict can get very defensive, and can get quite mean about things. It can cause a ton of tension in a marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The amount of visceral Heard hatred in this thread (and over sympathy for Depp) is making it pretty unreadable for me. It sounds to me like he slapped her a bunch of times, punched the walls around her, destroyed property around her (glass, bottles) in a way that didn't show any concern by whether she was hurt by it. It sounds like the classic cycle of abuse, amped up by addictions. It's very strange to me how so many of you want to believe in him, either through fandom, or misogyny, or some belief she was out for his money, etc.

Sure, women can abuse men. But men hopped up on coke and alcohol often do get violent and abuse women and do things they don't necessarily remember later. Heard doesn't just describe one incident, she describes several, and she did tell other people around her at the time what was going on (and folks like her therapist do substantiate that).

To me, this is just demonstrating that Heard was right all along (well, the ACLU was, presumably) in that the system bends over backwards to protect men, and doesn't do much for women. He's suing her! What a crazy power imbalance. He showed up late and drugged up to sets for years, costing millions of dollars of losses on set like a total diva, but when he loses his jobs he says it's because of Heard!

She tried to help him get clean and tried to get him out of his behaviors and on to sets on time. She discouraged his worse drug use and recognized its effects on his kids when he was too blotto to see it. But somehow he takes ZERO responsibility for his job loss, and sends it all to her.

Most of you guys live in some weird parallel universe where this is all right and he is a good guy. The media is excoriating him for a reason. He seems pretty awful to me.

But that's exactly it. If his behavior on set was such a problem, why didn't he lose roles years ago? Why was he fired around the time of this op-ed article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My colleague just had Botox + filler this afternoon and texted photos of her bruising. It looks just like Amber’s bruise photo.

The thing that sets off alarm bells for me is that now that I look at some of Amber’s photos on my computer with the Flux app on (filtering out blue light), I can see one telltale puncture-like mark in the pink bruising, like a little raised pimple. It really could be a post-Botox/filler shot.

I wish you could post this pic.

[Anonymous]

They are both sad examples of humans that are trying to fill empty holes in their heart with attention and substance abuse. I’m not sure why anyone feels compelled to rank who is better or worse. They are both pretty awful. The JD story might be slighter sadder in some ways only because he was also very talented and that talent is now gone or irrelevant. But I don’t mean to suggest that the tragedy of a not-talented person is any less sad, really.
The only people that need to pick sides are the jurors. And it’s all such a mess that I don’t see johnny meeting us burden of proof that she falsely claimed that he physically abused her.

[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:

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.

Beyond the whole issue of concealer if you are punched in the face and have a broken nose no amount of concealer is going to disguise the swelling. And no, icing it all night like she claimed she did before going on the James Cordon show looking stunning will NOT make the swelling go down in 24 hours. I can’t believe anyone finds that credible.

her bruises look small-I think that most of us have gotten bigger bruises tripping or playing with kids or dogs or sports equipment, though I imagine if some one actually hits you on purpose, the psychological impact would be great. also- she is an actress so the condition of her face is always a big deal. Not sure if you could just have a little fracture in your nose that would hurt but not look too disfigured. And she does not go to a dr- maybe see the private nurse? In JD world you have your own private nurse, so.... I do not know what to make of these two- I am not quite at the point of thinking that AH is completely making everything up in a diabolical plot for money- but the amount of jealousy, rancor, distrust and ill will between these two is stunning. she references "the good times"- I do not recall JD even mentioning those and you do ask why they bothered getting together or getting married- so much pain and drugs and nothing very positive. I was unable to watch even part of an episode of the Kardashians, but I am riveted by this trial. Should have been a mini series on Lifetime.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if she actually cheated on him? Not that it matters but I am curious why she’s alleging he was so obsessed by this notion. Typically (not always), there is something to these feelings…some truth. Again, not that this means he can hit her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My colleague just had Botox + filler this afternoon and texted photos of her bruising. It looks just like Amber’s bruise photo.

The thing that sets off alarm bells for me is that now that I look at some of Amber’s photos on my computer with the Flux app on (filtering out blue light), I can see one telltale puncture-like mark in the pink bruising, like a little raised pimple. It really could be a post-Botox/filler shot.

It looked exactly like a bruise I got under my eye from Morpheus 8. Almost a perfect little bruise.

[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:

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.

Beyond the whole issue of concealer if you are punched in the face and have a broken nose no amount of concealer is going to disguise the swelling. And no, icing it all night like she claimed she did before going on the James Cordon show looking stunning will NOT make the swelling go down in 24 hours. I can’t believe anyone finds that credible.

+1 Where is her ace legal team in these ridiculous lies???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if she actually cheated on him? Not that it matters but I am curious why she’s alleging he was so obsessed by this notion. Typically (not always), there is something to these feelings…some truth. Again, not that this means he can hit her.

Isn’t this what Elon is going to testify to? The overlap of the relationships and supposedly seeing her battered body?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My colleague just had Botox + filler this afternoon and texted photos of her bruising. It looks just like Amber’s bruise photo.

The thing that sets off alarm bells for me is that now that I look at some of Amber’s photos on my computer with the Flux app on (filtering out blue light), I can see one telltale puncture-like mark in the pink bruising, like a little raised pimple. It really could be a post-Botox/filler shot.

Great detective work, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if she actually cheated on him? Not that it matters but I am curious why she’s alleging he was so obsessed by this notion. Typically (not always), there is something to these feelings…some truth. Again, not that this means he can hit her.

Isn’t this what Elon is going to testify to? The overlap of the relationships and supposedly seeing her battered body?

I don’t think he’s testifying. He was never subpoenaed or probably more accurately they were unable to subpoena him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if she actually cheated on him? Not that it matters but I am curious why she’s alleging he was so obsessed by this notion. Typically (not always), there is something to these feelings…some truth. Again, not that this means he can hit her.

There was a video of her and James Franco in the same elevator (they all lived in the same building) and just the way he rests his head on her shoulder as they are going down looked like they must have been intimate. They looked like lovers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if she actually cheated on him? Not that it matters but I am curious why she’s alleging he was so obsessed by this notion. Typically (not always), there is something to these feelings…some truth. Again, not that this means he can hit her.

Isn’t this what Elon is going to testify to? The overlap of the relationships and supposedly seeing her battered body?

Supposedly Elon is not terrifying now. We'll see.

There is a video of her and James Franco huddled together closely in an elevator. Not sure if there is proof other than that.