Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Because I have been around an abusive man, and he sounds JUST like him. She sounds like someone responding.
I agree that they both have huge problems. I can't see how they can possibly pick a "winner" - should just end this craziness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are people watching the same cross examination I am? This lawyer is flailing and Heard is staying composed.

Boy Depp derangement syndrome is strong. Ladies, he's not going to sleep with you.

Wow, every single lawyer I’m watching, every doctor is wrong. Well over half of these are male. Thanks for enlightening us. I guess everyone is wrong! Everyone but you and Amber!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are people watching the same cross examination I am? This lawyer is flailing and Heard is staying composed.

Boy Depp derangement syndrome is strong. Ladies, he's not going to sleep with you.

You clearly don’t know a thing about good litigating. This cross is effective. Whatever you are hearing is your own delusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because I have been around an abusive man, and he sounds JUST like him. She sounds like someone responding.
I agree that they both have huge problems. I can't see how they can possibly pick a "winner" - should just end this craziness.

He bears the burden here.

He should have to pay her legal fees, at a minimum, for this pathetic farce of a case

[Anonymous]

I don’t think he sounds abusive in the recordings. He sounds under the influence, but not abusive. She’s the one who is aggressive, gaslighting and manipulative. He calls her out on these behaviors too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think he sounds abusive in the recordings. He sounds under the influence, but not abusive. She’s the one who is aggressive, gaslighting and manipulative. He calls her out on these behaviors too.

I think he sounds abusive in the recordings. So there you go, two opinions that differ but do not matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the outcome of the trial will be, but listening to the cross-examination, her credibility has been impeached. Also, I haven't seen the physical evidence to establish the alleged injuries. If the jury doesn't find her believable and she doesn't have evidence, she certainly runs the risk of losing. Of course, we don't know what her next witnesses will say, but points have been scored on cross.

There are multiple photographs. There are contemporaneous statements - like the protective order affidavit. There are his apologies.

There are multiple photos showing no visible injuries when she said she had black eyes and a broken nose.

I haven't heard a recording of him apologizing for physically injuring her. She, on the other hand, is on the recording talking about hitting him, and he is on another recording talking about how she hit him at a different time. There's also the bottle thrown at him which severed his finger.

[Anonymous]

The whole "you will never see my eyes again" is so ridiculous. He's proud of acting like a 7 year old. He's so wildly impressed with himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole "you will never see my eyes again" is so ridiculous. He's proud of acting like a 7 year old. He's so wildly impressed with himself.

Who cares? It just explains his behavior at trial. Maybe he doesn’t want to ever look her in the eyes again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole "you will never see my eyes again" is so ridiculous. He's proud of acting like a 7 year old. He's so wildly impressed with himself.

Oh he's an overgrown man child for sure. They are both wholly unlikable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people watching the same cross examination I am? This lawyer is flailing and Heard is staying composed.

Boy Depp derangement syndrome is strong. Ladies, he's not going to sleep with you.

You clearly don’t know a thing about good litigating. This cross is effective. Whatever you are hearing is your own delusions.

DP. A substantial part of what makes something a good cross examination is how the jurors perceive it (as well as creating a record for directed verdict and appeal). From that standpoint, how an untrained observer responds to a cross-examination is as significant, if not more, to an evaluation of the effectiveness of a cross as the opinion of a lawyer who can tel you how it compares to Mauet’s Trial Techniques.

[Anonymous]

Is it normal for a lawyer to argue with the judge like AH's lawyers do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people watching the same cross examination I am? This lawyer is flailing and Heard is staying composed.

Boy Depp derangement syndrome is strong. Ladies, he's not going to sleep with you.

You clearly don’t know a thing about good litigating. This cross is effective. Whatever you are hearing is your own delusions.

DP. A substantial part of what makes something a good cross examination is how the jurors perceive it (as well as creating a record for directed verdict and appeal). From that standpoint, how an untrained observer responds to a cross-examination is as significant, if not more, to an evaluation of the effectiveness of a cross as the opinion of a lawyer who can tel you how it compares to Mauet’s Trial Techniques.

DP. This can be said of everything at trial. A good lawyer thinks about how an "untrained observer" will perceive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people watching the same cross examination I am? This lawyer is flailing and Heard is staying composed.

Boy Depp derangement syndrome is strong. Ladies, he's not going to sleep with you.

You clearly don’t know a thing about good litigating. This cross is effective. Whatever you are hearing is your own delusions.

DP. A substantial part of what makes something a good cross examination is how the jurors perceive it (as well as creating a record for directed verdict and appeal). From that standpoint, how an untrained observer responds to a cross-examination is as significant, if not more, to an evaluation of the effectiveness of a cross as the opinion of a lawyer who can tel you how it compares to Mauet’s Trial Techniques.

DP. This can be said of everything at trial. A good lawyer thinks about how an "untrained observer" will perceive.

Exactly, which is why it’s dumb for the previous poster to try to insult a lay person by saying they don’t know good litigating. If it’s not resonating with lay people, then there’s reason to question whether it is, in fact, good litigating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people watching the same cross examination I am? This lawyer is flailing and Heard is staying composed.

Boy Depp derangement syndrome is strong. Ladies, he's not going to sleep with you.

You clearly don’t know a thing about good litigating. This cross is effective. Whatever you are hearing is your own delusions.

DP. A substantial part of what makes something a good cross examination is how the jurors perceive it (as well as creating a record for directed verdict and appeal). From that standpoint, how an untrained observer responds to a cross-examination is as significant, if not more, to an evaluation of the effectiveness of a cross as the opinion of a lawyer who can tel you how it compares to Mauet’s Trial Techniques.

DP. This can be said of everything at trial. A good lawyer thinks about how an "untrained observer" will perceive.

Exactly, which is why it’s dumb for the previous poster to try to insult a lay person by saying they don’t know good litigating. If it’s not resonating with lay people, then there’s reason to question whether it is, in fact, good litigating.

Are you saying that it's not resounding with lay people, though? That's not what I've seen from people commenting on the trial stream.