Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Doesn't she have a young child? not a fan of AH, but very unforgiving group here on the weight gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't she have a young child? not a fan of AH, but very unforgiving group here on the weight gain.

Well, considering the fact that she didn’t give birth to her child (used a surrogate) and can afford round-the-clock nannies, I have a hard time believing this is the reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think her face looks exactly the same as always, she’s just gained weight.

It looks the same in a sense that we know it's her. But a couple of millimeters here and there make a huge difference in face features and overall beauty.

exactly. part of her stunning beauty is her chiseled face that is now covered with fat.

Is it just possible she did this intentionally? Like when Renee Z had to gain weight to portray frumpy Bridget Jones? Amber is a professional actor, so it might make sense for her to go all in to embody the look her team advises for the trial.

maybe. I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amber's fashion choices, especially the tuxedo jacket with the satin lapels, are a masterclass on what not to wear to court.

She is dressing like Depp does.

In court it's appropriate for Johnny to wear a suit, colors and cut notwithstanding. But Amber shouldn't be wearing what she's wearing for this jury trial

Curious what you think she should be wearing to court? Her outfits look fine to me and not much different different from what Depp's female attorneys are wearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Media headlines are eviscerating him. I have to wonder if the reporters have watched a substantial part of the trial, or if they just don't care.

Is there any evidence of him physically abusing her? I know there is evidence of her confessing to hitting him, and evidence of her verbal abuse of him, as well as mocking him when passed out with photos of him at his lowest, often staging the scene in embarrassing ways (ie: the ice cream).

Is there some reason why he needs to have physically abused her when there is ample evidence of emotional abuse?

There’s also ample evidence of her abusive behavior.

She’s not a victim.

At best they are both toxic, damaged people.

But I’m leaning towards her being on a mission to get married, get famous, then get out with millions. She was on a mission to come out on top. She couldn’t do that without taking him down.

She hasn’t tried to take him down. This is his lawsuit airing out the laundry

This isn’t the first lawsuit.

She clearly wanted leverage for a big payout when they divorced. She got it.

I think this was a plot.

The last lawsuit was also brought by him. She has taken no legal action that would have resulted in these details being public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can advise your client on how to respond to questions and give general advice about answering yes or no, not engaging with the examining attorney when feeling defensive, being respectful to the attorney, etc. you just can’t discuss the testimony but can certainly give reminders on general courtroom decorum and sticking with just answering the questions asked. That is not going to happen because the other side seems tone deaf and believes the dramatization of the facts are helping her and I don’t think they are.

Question from a non-lawyer: to what extent do lawyers ignore these rules and practice with their clients anyway? To what extent do the parties who are told not to read about the trial on social media actually adhere to this directive?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but here are the basic rules. Prior to testimony, you can and should prepare your witness thoroughly by going through mock questions and advising on demeanor and responses. You may not instruct or coach a witness to lie, or provide them with information that they don't already know in order to respond to a question. Once the witness is on the stand (sworn in), you may not discuss the testimony. You may give them general coaching like "You're doing great! Make sure you listen really well to the questions before you answer." or "You're doing great! Just don't let them get you aggravated -- stay cool and calm!" In general, most lawyers will not tell a witness that they are doing terribly because a witness that loses their confidence will typically do even worse. So generally, even if they aren't doing great, you tell them that they are doing fine, and then give them one or two pointed pieces of advice to "improve" their testimony. Most people wll forget things, or will have trouble really listening to the questions, or will get amped up due to the adenaline of being under oath. That's why you prep the crap out of them in advance so that they can do it even if the nerves are getting to them. The downside of that is that it can then look rehearsed, so you have to balance those two competing needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Media headlines are eviscerating him. I have to wonder if the reporters have watched a substantial part of the trial, or if they just don't care.

Is there any evidence of him physically abusing her? I know there is evidence of her confessing to hitting him, and evidence of her verbal abuse of him, as well as mocking him when passed out with photos of him at his lowest, often staging the scene in embarrassing ways (ie: the ice cream).

Is there some reason why he needs to have physically abused her when there is ample evidence of emotional abuse?

There’s also ample evidence of her abusive behavior.

She’s not a victim.

At best they are both toxic, damaged people.

But I’m leaning towards her being on a mission to get married, get famous, then get out with millions. She was on a mission to come out on top. She couldn’t do that without taking him down.

And we know exactly why!
But evidence collecting since they became a couple, hoping on a metoo vagon is an action

She hasn’t tried to take him down. This is his lawsuit airing out the laundry

This isn’t the first lawsuit.

She clearly wanted leverage for a big payout when they divorced. She got it.

I think this was a plot.

The last lawsuit was also brought by him. She has taken no legal action that would have resulted in these details being public

And now we know exactly why.
Still, the evidence collecting since they became a couple and her hopping on a metoo wagon make her a proactive player in this saga.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I blame the lawyers. I’m a trial attorney and I prep my clients over days. And, I make sure they answer the questions asked, not embellish and just state the facts, and, if she were my client, I would have told her on a break to stop being so over wrought and dramatic. And fricking admit fault every now and then. It makes her appear not credible when she allocates 100% of blame to him of this toxic relationship. She is going to be horrible on cross-you can tell. And again-I blame the lawyers. Which is a shame because I do believe the underlying bones of her narrative. But, I can see how others may not.

I'm a family law attorney and I think her attorneys are working with what they've got. There are some clients who are just uncoachable and will do and say the exact opposite of what you practiced. Assuming she has those personality disorders, I also bet she thinks she knows better what to do.

I am really looking forward to cross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Media headlines are eviscerating him. I have to wonder if the reporters have watched a substantial part of the trial, or if they just don't care.

Is there any evidence of him physically abusing her? I know there is evidence of her confessing to hitting him, and evidence of her verbal abuse of him, as well as mocking him when passed out with photos of him at his lowest, often staging the scene in embarrassing ways (ie: the ice cream).

Is there some reason why he needs to have physically abused her when there is ample evidence of emotional abuse?

There’s also ample evidence of her abusive behavior.

She’s not a victim.

At best they are both toxic, damaged people.

But I’m leaning towards her being on a mission to get married, get famous, then get out with millions. She was on a mission to come out on top. She couldn’t do that without taking him down.

She hasn’t tried to take him down. This is his lawsuit airing out the laundry

This isn’t the first lawsuit.

She clearly wanted leverage for a big payout when they divorced. She got it.

I think this was a plot.

The last lawsuit was also brought by him. She has taken no legal action that would have resulted in these details being public[/quote]

She made it public by going to TMZ and the tabloids, making speehes about suffering from abuse in her marriage, showing photos of bruises that are likely from botox, etc. etc. She got a restraining order against him because her lawyers said it would look good. I'm surprised at the posts believing AH on this forum. Maybe people haven't followed the audio and video evidence. Where are all her witnesses and medical records to back up her stories?? She was the one recording from the start of their relationship.

[Anonymous]

When AH mentioned Kate Moss on Thursday, JD's lawyer seemed happy. Does that mean they can bring her exes into the cross, bring up her arrest in 2009? Or maybe get testimony from Kate Moss?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When AH mentioned Kate Moss on Thursday, JD's lawyer seemed happy. Does that mean they can bring her exes into the cross, bring up her arrest in 2009? Or maybe get testimony from Kate Moss?

Is Kate Moss on either of their witness lists, I wonder? Their reaction made me feel like they think it "opened the door" to some line of questioning they want.

[Anonymous]

this is a picture from earlier in the Depp trial:

https://news.sky.com/story/depp-v-heard-trial-finally-delves-into-article-that-sparked-the-entire-case-as-more-severed-finger-details-come-out-in-court-12600787

and I think she looks "fine" - like her former pictures.

the last two days or so I thought her face looked tired...
she could be not sleeping or have PMS or something

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can advise your client on how to respond to questions and give general advice about answering yes or no, not engaging with the examining attorney when feeling defensive, being respectful to the attorney, etc. you just can’t discuss the testimony but can certainly give reminders on general courtroom decorum and sticking with just answering the questions asked. That is not going to happen because the other side seems tone deaf and believes the dramatization of the facts are helping her and I don’t think they are.

Question from a non-lawyer: to what extent do lawyers ignore these rules and practice with their clients anyway? To what extent do the parties who are told not to read about the trial on social media actually adhere to this directive?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but here are the basic rules. Prior to testimony, you can and should prepare your witness thoroughly by going through mock questions and advising on demeanor and responses. You may not instruct or coach a witness to lie, or provide them with information that they don't already know in order to respond to a question. Once the witness is on the stand (sworn in), you may not discuss the testimony. You may give them general coaching like "You're doing great! Make sure you listen really well to the questions before you answer." or "You're doing great! Just don't let them get you aggravated -- stay cool and calm!" In general, most lawyers will not tell a witness that they are doing terribly because a witness that loses their confidence will typically do even worse. So generally, even if they aren't doing great, you tell them that they are doing fine, and then give them one or two pointed pieces of advice to "improve" their testimony. Most people wll forget things, or will have trouble really listening to the questions, or will get amped up due to the adenaline of being under oath. That's why you prep the crap out of them in advance so that they can do it even if the nerves are getting to them. The downside of that is that it can then look rehearsed, so you have to balance those two competing needs.

opposing counsel can also ask your witness what s/he did to prepare for trial- what s/he reviewed if anything- if s/he talked to anyone- more pointed Qs if
they thought the witness was "over-prepared" or "over coached"... sometimes you see that occur. So, if you try to mold your witnesses' testimony in an unethical way,
you run the risk of them blurting out that they were told what to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think her face looks exactly the same as always, she’s just gained weight.

It looks the same in a sense that we know it's her. But a couple of millimeters here and there make a huge difference in face features and overall beauty.

exactly. part of her stunning beauty is her chiseled face that is now covered with fat.

This is a pretty mean thing to say about a person. I hope you are nice to the people in your life.

[Anonymous]

Ms Heard displaying a different demeanor during her deposition when questioned about DV charges:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=avkddR81cGI