Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps this was already discussed - but how much weight has Heard gained? Her face has completely changed and she easily looks like she could be in her mid 40s. She was insanely hot just, like, five minutes ago.

She was never anything special. She’s a basic blonde.
It’s so funny when these “hot” women age a bit and then suddenly everyone is shocked at how ordinary they are, as if they weren’t always ordinary. See also: Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears and Kate Upton.
Plenty of famous women are considered beautiful into middle age. Those women were actually beautiful when they were young, as opposed to just young.

Very true.

[Anonymous]

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The judge in the Johnny Depp libel action concluded that “the great majority of alleged assaults” on Amber Heard by the Pirates of the Caribbean star had been “proved to the civil standard”.

Of the 14 alleged assaults heard in open court – all of which have been denied by Depp – he found that 12 of them were proved on the balance of probability.”

Guilty from previous trial. Why is this even in the courts?

You are referencing the UK trial which, like this one, is a civil trial. He lost his civil trial against Heard in the UK. No one was found guilty of anything. Also, the reason Depp's current lawsuit can proceed here is that it's a different country, different case, different causes of action, different standards of proof.

DP. Much easier to win defamation claims in the UK. The fact that he lost there does not bode well for him.

+1. Everything about the UK case should have been easier for him to win. Clearer statement, much friendlier legal system, and he lost.

The UK suit was not against Amber. It was against the Sun and Dan Wootton who wrote the article. I read that this Judge Penney Azcarate didn't dismiss this year because in the UK not all of the evidence was allowed. Amber didn't have a proper discovery. Amber went to a dinner party thrown by the UK Judge's wife. Dan Wootton was classmates or a colleague of the Judge's son. The UK judge believed that Amber made her $7 million charitable donations to the ACLU and LA children's hospital. She didn't donate most of the money. Johnny Depp's team is working to prove the lies that were allowed last time.

[Anonymous]

Have you spotted Johnny Depp or Amber Heard anywhere in the area? They gotta eat and sleep right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The judge in the Johnny Depp libel action concluded that “the great majority of alleged assaults” on Amber Heard by the Pirates of the Caribbean star had been “proved to the civil standard”.

Of the 14 alleged assaults heard in open court – all of which have been denied by Depp – he found that 12 of them were proved on the balance of probability.”

Guilty from previous trial. Why is this even in the courts?

You are referencing the UK trial which, like this one, is a civil trial. He lost his civil trial against Heard in the UK. No one was found guilty of anything. Also, the reason Depp's current lawsuit can proceed here is that it's a different country, different case, different causes of action, different standards of proof.

DP. Much easier to win defamation claims in the UK. The fact that he lost there does not bode well for him.

+1. Everything about the UK case should have been easier for him to win. Clearer statement, much friendlier legal system, and he lost.

The UK suit was not against Amber. It was against the Sun and Dan Wootton who wrote the article. I read that this Judge Penney Azcarate didn't dismiss this year because in the UK not all of the evidence was allowed. Amber didn't have a proper discovery. Amber went to a dinner party thrown by the UK Judge's wife. Dan Wootton was classmates or a colleague of the Judge's son. The UK judge believed that Amber made her $7 million charitable donations to the ACLU and LA children's hospital. She didn't donate most of the money. Johnny Depp's team is working to prove the lies that were allowed last time.

You have ingested spin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The judge in the Johnny Depp libel action concluded that “the great majority of alleged assaults” on Amber Heard by the Pirates of the Caribbean star had been “proved to the civil standard”.

Of the 14 alleged assaults heard in open court – all of which have been denied by Depp – he found that 12 of them were proved on the balance of probability.”

Guilty from previous trial. Why is this even in the courts?

You are referencing the UK trial which, like this one, is a civil trial. He lost his civil trial against Heard in the UK. No one was found guilty of anything. Also, the reason Depp's current lawsuit can proceed here is that it's a different country, different case, different causes of action, different standards of proof.

DP. Much easier to win defamation claims in the UK. The fact that he lost there does not bode well for him.

+1. Everything about the UK case should have been easier for him to win. Clearer statement, much friendlier legal system, and he lost.

The UK suit was not against Amber. It was against the Sun and Dan Wootton who wrote the article. I read that this Judge Penney Azcarate didn't dismiss this year because in the UK not all of the evidence was allowed. Amber didn't have a proper discovery. Amber went to a dinner party thrown by the UK Judge's wife. Dan Wootton was classmates or a colleague of the Judge's son. The UK judge believed that Amber made her $7 million charitable donations to the ACLU and LA children's hospital. She didn't donate most of the money. Johnny Depp's team is working to prove the lies that were allowed last time.

You have ingested spin

I don't really think it matters if he wins. The truth should all get out. I'm sure she has all the witnesses to back up her stories lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The judge in the Johnny Depp libel action concluded that “the great majority of alleged assaults” on Amber Heard by the Pirates of the Caribbean star had been “proved to the civil standard”.

Of the 14 alleged assaults heard in open court – all of which have been denied by Depp – he found that 12 of them were proved on the balance of probability.”

Guilty from previous trial. Why is this even in the courts?

You are referencing the UK trial which, like this one, is a civil trial. He lost his civil trial against Heard in the UK. No one was found guilty of anything. Also, the reason Depp's current lawsuit can proceed here is that it's a different country, different case, different causes of action, different standards of proof.

DP. Much easier to win defamation claims in the UK. The fact that he lost there does not bode well for him.

+1. Everything about the UK case should have been easier for him to win. Clearer statement, much friendlier legal system, and he lost.

The UK suit was not against Amber. It was against the Sun and Dan Wootton who wrote the article. I read that this Judge Penney Azcarate didn't dismiss this year because in the UK not all of the evidence was allowed. Amber didn't have a proper discovery. Amber went to a dinner party thrown by the UK Judge's wife. Dan Wootton was classmates or a colleague of the Judge's son. The UK judge believed that Amber made her $7 million charitable donations to the ACLU and LA children's hospital. She didn't donate most of the money. Johnny Depp's team is working to prove the lies that were allowed last time.

You have ingested spin

I don't really think it matters if he wins. The truth should all get out. I'm sure she has all the witnesses to back up her stories lol

I don't think either of them are better off with all this truth out there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The judge in the Johnny Depp libel action concluded that “the great majority of alleged assaults” on Amber Heard by the Pirates of the Caribbean star had been “proved to the civil standard”.

Of the 14 alleged assaults heard in open court – all of which have been denied by Depp – he found that 12 of them were proved on the balance of probability.”

Guilty from previous trial. Why is this even in the courts?

You are referencing the UK trial which, like this one, is a civil trial. He lost his civil trial against Heard in the UK. No one was found guilty of anything. Also, the reason Depp's current lawsuit can proceed here is that it's a different country, different case, different causes of action, different standards of proof.

I was suggesting he should have let it go. This case helps no one. They are both ugly people when together.

[Anonymous]

maybe, as a societal Q, we should ask, at what point do we not allow a person to have a career because that person hase (or may have) a character defect? thus, should these two still be able to act in movies even if their personal lives are not stellar? neither has been criminally charged unless you count AH's arrest and release..... in the rest of life, we spend a lot of time and resources trying to reform actual criminals so that they can get jobs and be "productive." Another Q might be do we pay actors and sports figures a lot of $ and then "punish" them when they are not "role models," even though they might never have been role model material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you spotted Johnny Depp or Amber Heard anywhere in the area? They gotta eat and sleep right?

How would you spot them if they were sleeping?!

Maybe they get room service for food. And maybe they fly somewhere each weekend. They don’t have court on Fridays it seems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:maybe, as a societal Q, we should ask, at what point do we not allow a person to have a career because that person hase (or may have) a character defect? thus, should these two still be able to act in movies even if their personal lives are not stellar? neither has been criminally charged unless you count AH's arrest and release..... in the rest of life, we spend a lot of time and resources trying to reform actual criminals so that they can get jobs and be "productive." Another Q might be do we pay actors and sports figures a lot of $ and then "punish" them when they are not "role models," even though they might never have been role model material.

Johnny Depp is not getting work because he is a drug addict who is unreliable and costs the studios money when he doesn't show up to set. Amber still has work because she shows up on time and isn't dramatic. I'm not even saying that as pro AH/Anti JD, it is just the truth of hollywood that they care about the bottom line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:maybe, as a societal Q, we should ask, at what point do we not allow a person to have a career because that person hase (or may have) a character defect? thus, should these two still be able to act in movies even if their personal lives are not stellar? neither has been criminally charged unless you count AH's arrest and release..... in the rest of life, we spend a lot of time and resources trying to reform actual criminals so that they can get jobs and be "productive." Another Q might be do we pay actors and sports figures a lot of $ and then "punish" them when they are not "role models," even though they might never have been role model material.

Johnny Depp is not getting work because he is a drug addict who is unreliable and costs the studios money when he doesn't show up to set. Amber still has work because she shows up on time and isn't dramatic. I'm not even saying that as pro AH/Anti JD, it is just the truth of hollywood that they care about the bottom line.

Johnny Depp has a face made for the camera and attention holding expression. Amber while very pretty is super generic looking and an absolute bore to listen to and watch. That may be why they make him work 17 hour days.

[Anonymous]

Can somebody who knows Virginia law explain to me about the clock? The judge has been keeping track of how much time they’re spending on their case and put a deadline. Is that normal for cases or is it court specific?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:maybe, as a societal Q, we should ask, at what point do we not allow a person to have a career because that person hase (or may have) a character defect? thus, should these two still be able to act in movies even if their personal lives are not stellar? neither has been criminally charged unless you count AH's arrest and release..... in the rest of life, we spend a lot of time and resources trying to reform actual criminals so that they can get jobs and be "productive." Another Q might be do we pay actors and sports figures a lot of $ and then "punish" them when they are not "role models," even though they might never have been role model material.

Johnny Depp is not getting work because he is a drug addict who is unreliable and costs the studios money when he doesn't show up to set. Amber still has work because she shows up on time and isn't dramatic. I'm not even saying that as pro AH/Anti JD, it is just the truth of hollywood that they care about the bottom line.

But she seems to have a lot less work these days (<10 mins screen time in the Aquaman sequel?) because she is boring on-screen and not a good actress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The judge in the Johnny Depp libel action concluded that “the great majority of alleged assaults” on Amber Heard by the Pirates of the Caribbean star had been “proved to the civil standard”.

Of the 14 alleged assaults heard in open court – all of which have been denied by Depp – he found that 12 of them were proved on the balance of probability.”

Guilty from previous trial. Why is this even in the courts?

You are referencing the UK trial which, like this one, is a civil trial. He lost his civil trial against Heard in the UK. No one was found guilty of anything. Also, the reason Depp's current lawsuit can proceed here is that it's a different country, different case, different causes of action, different standards of proof.

DP. Much easier to win defamation claims in the UK. The fact that he lost there does not bode well for him.

+1. Everything about the UK case should have been easier for him to win. Clearer statement, much friendlier legal system, and he lost.

The UK suit was not against Amber. It was against the Sun and Dan Wootton who wrote the article. I read that this Judge Penney Azcarate didn't dismiss this year because in the UK not all of the evidence was allowed. Amber didn't have a proper discovery. Amber went to a dinner party thrown by the UK Judge's wife. Dan Wootton was classmates or a colleague of the Judge's son. The UK judge believed that Amber made her $7 million charitable donations to the ACLU and LA children's hospital. She didn't donate most of the money. Johnny Depp's team is working to prove the lies that were allowed last time.

You have ingested spin

I don't really think it matters if he wins. The truth should all get out. I'm sure she has all the witnesses to back up her stories lol

I don't think either of them are better off with all this truth out there

Just saw a headline by an expert stating neither wins this, and there are no lessons learned. Agree!