Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL why is Amber so concerned with Johnny’s tax write off if its not about money? As long as the charities get the 7 million, what does it matter.

I feel sorrier for you. You don’t read rooms well.

Assuming you're replying to 18:53 and if so, you're wrong. That pp is spot on. I've been watching from the start in binge spurts. Reading the room requires being in the room (watching the trial). Depp is a very bad manchild. His team is inappropriate and unprofessional. Whispering in eachothers ears holding hand to mouth/ear like kindergartners. Giggling, staring Heard down with nasty smirks. And the final cross exam was not at all what you think. Heard held her own. For a young gun female attorney trying too hard, she's burying her reputation. She was attempting to trap her with gotcha unsubstantiated claims and failed. Start listening to women who've been abused. Heard hasn't slipped once. Her attorney refuted Depp's young gun when she accused Heard of not providing pics of very single punch, kick, non consensual penetration with a BOTTLE. Pretty hard to record or snap a pic when your being raped by your husband.

You're forgetting she also asked Heard if she sought medical attention or received medical reports from these incidents and she had none to produce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JD's lawyer killing it on cross.

Can you summarize for those of us who can't watch?

Depp's lawyer basically tries to prove Heard is a liar and she does a pretty good job at it.
She goes over dates in which Heard claims she was abused and then shows images or video of Heard from a red carpet event or late night show usually the same day or day later in which no physical abuse is evident in the photos.
She asks Heard is there are any medical records to corroborate her abuse claims of rape or a broken nose in which she either has none, retracts her statement about her nose being broken to she really thought it was broken. She is also asked why there are no pictures submitted into evidence to prove her abuse claims in which she says it's not her job but the job of her lawyers to produce but she continues to claim they exist.
She asks Heard to clarify her donation of 7 million to 2 charities in which Heard basically says she considers donating and pledging to be the same thing and plays a clip from a Danish talk show in which Heard says she has donated all the money from her divorce but she in fact did not and says she can't because she is being sued.

[Anonymous]

Heard says she has donated all the money from her divorce but she in fact did not and says she can't because she is being sued.

Yes, and the timeframe between receiving the money and getting sued is 15 months.

[Anonymous]

I think they are both nuts. I definitely think less of Depp and I think he is a huge liability not just because it's obvious he (and she) are abusive, but he also clearly has a substance issue. He's a drunk a druggie. He probably doesn't recall any time he abused her because he was wasted out of his mind. I felt for him too because my mom is a little like he was and I know what it's like to walk on eggshells and try to please a volatile mom who lashes out. I don't even find her likeable, but I absolutely think she was abused by him while he was high or drunk.

[Anonymous]

So even though they were both recording each other throughout their relationship her evidence of his abuse boils down to a few photos of bruises that could possibly have been (likely were) created with makeup and his evidence of her abuse is her verbal admittance on tape and police reports (severed finger)? Do I have this right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they are both nuts. I definitely think less of Depp and I think he is a huge liability not just because it's obvious he (and she) are abusive, but he also clearly has a substance issue. He's a drunk a druggie. He probably doesn't recall any time he abused her because he was wasted out of his mind. I felt for him too because my mom is a little like he was and I know what it's like to walk on eggshells and try to please a volatile mom who lashes out. I don't even find her likeable, but I absolutely think she was abused by him while he was high or drunk.

I agree with all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So even though they were both recording each other throughout their relationship her evidence of his abuse boils down to a few photos of bruises that could possibly have been (likely were) created with makeup and his evidence of her abuse is her verbal admittance on tape and police reports (severed finger)? Do I have this right?

Appears to be accurate...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JD's lawyer killing it on cross.

Can you summarize for those of us who can't watch?

Depp's lawyer basically tries to prove Heard is a liar and she does a pretty good job at it.
She goes over dates in which Heard claims she was abused and then shows images or video of Heard from a red carpet event or late night show usually the same day or day later in which no physical abuse is evident in the photos.
She asks Heard is there are any medical records to corroborate her abuse claims of rape or a broken nose in which she either has none, retracts her statement about her nose being broken to she really thought it was broken. She is also asked why there are no pictures submitted into evidence to prove her abuse claims in which she says it's not her job but the job of her lawyers to produce but she continues to claim they exist.
She asks Heard to clarify her donation of 7 million to 2 charities in which Heard basically says she considers donating and pledging to be the same thing and plays a clip from a Danish talk show in which Heard says she has donated all the money from her divorce but she in fact did not and says she can't because she is being sued.

This was most interesting. She claims she has pics of bruised nose and face and turned the pics over to her lawyers. When Depp's lawyer comments that she hasn't shown these pics to the jury, though, Heard states that she would love to show the pics to the jury, but that's "not her job." So, either: (1) she is lying about giving the pics to her lawyers, or (2) she gave the pics to the lawyers, but her lawyers didn't turn them over to Depp's lawyers, or, I guess, (3) the pics were turned over, but there's some reason why they're inadmissible. But Heard seems to be trying to throw her lawyers here under the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So even though they were both recording each other throughout their relationship her evidence of his abuse boils down to a few photos of bruises that could possibly have been (likely were) created with makeup and his evidence of her abuse is her verbal admittance on tape and police reports (severed finger)? Do I have this right?

Oh, fangirl. Don’t ever change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even though they were both recording each other throughout their relationship her evidence of his abuse boils down to a few photos of bruises that could possibly have been (likely were) created with makeup and his evidence of her abuse is her verbal admittance on tape and police reports (severed finger)? Do I have this right?

Oh, fangirl. Don’t ever change.

Not PP, but what is inaccurate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought she was faking at first, but her testimony now is pretty convincing.

There are text messages from 2014 where his assistant apologized for him kicking her.

She's not lying.

Neither is he. They both have the goods on each other. But proving how awful she is won't help him win this case.

He doesn't care about "winning" the case. This lawsuit was never about winning. Why do you think Johnny insisted that cameras be allowed in the court room, while Amber was opposed to that?

He just wants to get employed again, and he does that by showing the she's just as much at fault. It shifts the narrative from "Johnny is an abuser" to "Johnny and Amber had a volatile and unhealthy relationship." Your career in Hollywood can recover from the latter, but not the former.

I bet he's back in a blockbuster movie within 2 years.

NP. I have only lightly followed the trial, but if anything this farce makes me even less interested in seeing another Johnny Depp movie.

I've read a decent amount about the trial and it had definitely lowered my opinion of Depp. This weak case is clearly designed to punish and hurt her and must have cost millions in legal fees for both of them.

I'm never watching a Depp movie again, past or future. He's disgusting.

+1. I think he abused her and there were times she abused him. But I’ll never forget the vile text he sent to Paul Bettany or the photos of him passed out. He’s disgusting. I don’t know what he thought he would prove by suing Heard. The one thing he’s done is demonstrate how dysfunctional he is. I hope he never works again. And I’m not sure I can respect her either after the pooping incident or her audio admission that she was hitting him. I hope Hollywood abandons both of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought she was faking at first, but her testimony now is pretty convincing.

There are text messages from 2014 where his assistant apologized for him kicking her.

She's not lying.

Neither is he. They both have the goods on each other. But proving how awful she is won't help him win this case.

He doesn't care about "winning" the case. This lawsuit was never about winning. Why do you think Johnny insisted that cameras be allowed in the court room, while Amber was opposed to that?

He just wants to get employed again, and he does that by showing the she's just as much at fault. It shifts the narrative from "Johnny is an abuser" to "Johnny and Amber had a volatile and unhealthy relationship." Your career in Hollywood can recover from the latter, but not the former.

I bet he's back in a blockbuster movie within 2 years.

NP. I have only lightly followed the trial, but if anything this farce makes me even less interested in seeing another Johnny Depp movie.

I've read a decent amount about the trial and it had definitely lowered my opinion of Depp. This weak case is clearly designed to punish and hurt her and must have cost millions in legal fees for both of them.

I'm never watching a Depp movie again, past or future. He's disgusting.

+1. I think he abused her and there were times she abused him. But I’ll never forget the vile text he sent to Paul Bettany or the photos of him passed out. He’s disgusting. I don’t know what he thought he would prove by suing Heard. The one thing he’s done is demonstrate how dysfunctional he is. I hope he never works again. And I’m not sure I can respect her either after the pooping incident or her audio admission that she was hitting him. I hope Hollywood abandons both of them.

+2 Both are vile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought she was faking at first, but her testimony now is pretty convincing.

There are text messages from 2014 where his assistant apologized for him kicking her.

She's not lying.

Neither is he. They both have the goods on each other. But proving how awful she is won't help him win this case.

He doesn't care about "winning" the case. This lawsuit was never about winning. Why do you think Johnny insisted that cameras be allowed in the court room, while Amber was opposed to that?

He just wants to get employed again, and he does that by showing the she's just as much at fault. It shifts the narrative from "Johnny is an abuser" to "Johnny and Amber had a volatile and unhealthy relationship." Your career in Hollywood can recover from the latter, but not the former.

I bet he's back in a blockbuster movie within 2 years.

NP. I have only lightly followed the trial, but if anything this farce makes me even less interested in seeing another Johnny Depp movie.

I've read a decent amount about the trial and it had definitely lowered my opinion of Depp. This weak case is clearly designed to punish and hurt her and must have cost millions in legal fees for both of them.

I'm never watching a Depp movie again, past or future. He's disgusting.

+1. I think he abused her and there were times she abused him. But I’ll never forget the vile text he sent to Paul Bettany or the photos of him passed out. He’s disgusting. I don’t know what he thought he would prove by suing Heard. The one thing he’s done is demonstrate how dysfunctional he is. I hope he never works again. And I’m not sure I can respect her either after the pooping incident or her audio admission that she was hitting him. I hope Hollywood abandons both of them.

I missed the texts to Paul Bettany when hey first came out. Ugh, he is so foul. Even if the original inspiration was Monty Python, Monty Python did not go nearly so far as his texts did in the graphic description of what Depp wanted to do to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JD's lawyer killing it on cross.

Can you summarize for those of us who can't watch?

Depp's lawyer basically tries to prove Heard is a liar and she does a pretty good job at it.
She goes over dates in which Heard claims she was abused and then shows images or video of Heard from a red carpet event or late night show usually the same day or day later in which no physical abuse is evident in the photos.
She asks Heard is there are any medical records to corroborate her abuse claims of rape or a broken nose in which she either has none, retracts her statement about her nose being broken to she really thought it was broken. She is also asked why there are no pictures submitted into evidence to prove her abuse claims in which she says it's not her job but the job of her lawyers to produce but she continues to claim they exist.
She asks Heard to clarify her donation of 7 million to 2 charities in which Heard basically says she considers donating and pledging to be the same thing and plays a clip from a Danish talk show in which Heard says she has donated all the money from her divorce but she in fact did not and says she can't because she is being sued.

This was most interesting. She claims she has pics of bruised nose and face and turned the pics over to her lawyers. When Depp's lawyer comments that she hasn't shown these pics to the jury, though, Heard states that she would love to show the pics to the jury, but that's "not her job." So, either: (1) she is lying about giving the pics to her lawyers, or (2) she gave the pics to the lawyers, but her lawyers didn't turn them over to Depp's lawyers, or, I guess, (3) the pics were turned over, but there's some reason why they're inadmissible. But Heard seems to be trying to throw her lawyers here under the bus.

This was very interesting to me as well. Either they don’t exist or they don’t really show anything.

The way she described the abuse was so violent and graphic that he broke her nose. No amount of ice would reduce the swelling in a beat down like she describes. So that’s why I do not believe her. The picture show her looking perfect and beautiful with literally not a scratch on her face.

I’ll never forget the time when I walked into my toddler‘s hand as he lifted it. It wasn’t a hard collision at all but the next day my face was swollen and it took a few days for it to come down and I had a nice purple bruise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JD's lawyer killing it on cross.

Can you summarize for those of us who can't watch?

Depp's lawyer basically tries to prove Heard is a liar and she does a pretty good job at it.
She goes over dates in which Heard claims she was abused and then shows images or video of Heard from a red carpet event or late night show usually the same day or day later in which no physical abuse is evident in the photos.
She asks Heard is there are any medical records to corroborate her abuse claims of rape or a broken nose in which she either has none, retracts her statement about her nose being broken to she really thought it was broken. She is also asked why there are no pictures submitted into evidence to prove her abuse claims in which she says it's not her job but the job of her lawyers to produce but she continues to claim they exist.
She asks Heard to clarify her donation of 7 million to 2 charities in which Heard basically says she considers donating and pledging to be the same thing and plays a clip from a Danish talk show in which Heard says she has donated all the money from her divorce but she in fact did not and says she can't because she is being sued.

This was most interesting. She claims she has pics of bruised nose and face and turned the pics over to her lawyers. When Depp's lawyer comments that she hasn't shown these pics to the jury, though, Heard states that she would love to show the pics to the jury, but that's "not her job." So, either: (1) she is lying about giving the pics to her lawyers, or (2) she gave the pics to the lawyers, but her lawyers didn't turn them over to Depp's lawyers, or, I guess, (3) the pics were turned over, but there's some reason why they're inadmissible. But Heard seems to be trying to throw her lawyers here under the bus.

This was very interesting to me as well. Either they don’t exist or they don’t really show anything.

The way she described the abuse was so violent and graphic that he broke her nose. No amount of ice would reduce the swelling in a beat down like she describes. So that’s why I do not believe her. The picture show her looking perfect and beautiful with literally not a scratch on her face.

I’ll never forget the time when I walked into my toddler‘s hand as he lifted it. It wasn’t a hard collision at all but the next day my face was swollen and it took a few days for it to come down and I had a nice purple bruise.

True. I wonder if Depp's lawyers have a MD medical witness for rebuttal, like an ER doc or ENT or maybe a plastic surgeon or orthopedic MD to talk about what one would expect to see the day after without these alleged injuries. Also a makeup artist to talk about covering wounds/bruises/ minimizing swelling and what is possible or not possible.

Also would like to know what the questions on voir dire were and if the potential jurors were asked about their experiences were with broken noses, bruises, swelling, cuts, etc .