Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe he was simply that repulsed. She clearly was not, asking for a last embrace - doesn't sound like what an abuse victim would say to their alleged abuser.

I haven't watched from the beginning but from the parts I have watched it seems that they BOTH exhibited negative behavior (drugs, alcohol in excess, fighting, baiting, etc.) and are clearly toxic together. Thank goodness they have no children together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol she stepped in it. Look at JD’s lawyer.

Can you explain what the significance of this is? (Asking as another person who's curious but not really following this trial.)

Plus 1000. What’s happening?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol she stepped in it. Look at JD’s lawyer.

Can you explain what the significance of this is? (Asking as another person who's curious but not really following this trial.)

What I heard is that since she brought up "prior bad acts" she opened the door that JD's lawyer can ask her questions about her past. She put something on the table that if she were more strategic, she would have avoided saying.

Later (today) she said that she "had heard rumors" that JD pushed Kate Moss and it was something that was on her mind when she struck him to protect her sister-allegedly.

Thanks for this explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Io testimony re how JD behaved on drugs is pretty damaging to JD.

I agree. IO seemed to be pretty credible about the drug use by JD.

Yeah, I thought he was damaging because he said really nice, wonderful things about Depp, and how he was super smart, kind, and generous when he was not using, but he also totally backed up AH's testimony about him being a monster when he was using. He said he never saw Depp hit anyone, but said he saw Depp smash and throw things, be paranoid about AH sleeping with people she wasn't sleeping with, agreed that AH was bruised on her temple after the penthouse fight, said Heard herself was concerned about Depp's substance use and wasn't much of a user herself.

I didn't see the cross so I don't know if JD's attys were able to roll this back any, but I thought this was bad for Depp, certainly worse than the female witness who testified about the campfire. To me, what he described was abuse, even if he didn't hit AH directly. I'd be interested in what the legal standard is, certainly that matters! If the legal standard doesn't require hitting, then if I were a juror, Io's testimony would have sealed it for me. If physical hitting is required, I'm not totally sure where I stand, but I don't think JD remembers every awful thing he did on drugs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you guys see the testimony regarding the photo of a glass table with lines of coke on it? I thought CV's cross examination of AH was really good. IME, that table looks too clean to have been used for what AH says it was - and, as CV noted, there were the cigarette in the ashtray was unsmoked and there were no ashes in it. But, what really got me was that she said the tampon applicator was used to snort the coke! Now, I'm post-menopausal but aren't those applicators larger than a McDonald's straw? Would a tampon applicator even fit in your nostril? I don't think it would fit in mine and you'd need a power snort to use it. What are your thoughts?

As someone who has never done drugs, I would assume that coke leaves a residue on the table. Am I right?

DP who admittedly has not watched the trial. Do you guys not know how to clean tables? I don't know what you're talking about generally, but coke is a powder, I imagine some windex would clean it right up

I asked the drug question. The picture and coke I am talking about shows 4 lines of coke on a table along with a box, tampon application (the smaller tube), and mugs. AH said or implied that JD had already done a line or two of coke but in the picture you just see 4 lines and no residue from any snorted lines. To me it looks like a staged photo with no 5th line residue. So I was asking if there had been other coke lines, that were already snorted, wouldn't there be left over residue from the snorted line?

I'm the first PP. Yes, if you're snorting lines of coke or imbibing, there's no way the table would be as clean as it was. It looks to have been staged. The floor is dirtier than the table.

Who takes a photo of the coke while doing coke?

Where is the baggie the coke came from???

Why a tampon applicator??

Finally, why does tampon applicator have resin stuck to it? If you use a $1 bill or a straw, it doesn't.

this is fishy.

[Anonymous]

I mean, if she took a picture of the table after the coke was snorted people would be saying that's not coke it could be baking powder or whatever.

I always tell myself that the next time my partner gets really angry, I'm going to tape it. And I never do because it's too crazy when it happens.

People are mad she taped this but didn't tape that. She talked to people after the stuff happened and has witnesses to some of the behavior. It's too bad that people demand such a high standard of female victims of abuse to believe it really happened. It really makes her editorial, about powerful men being big solid ships with whole crews to keep them afloat and running, resonate with me. So many women out there don't have anywhere near the level of proof she has -- recordings of him shouting at her, texts of him saying terrible things about her, video of him smashing cabinets and breaking glasses and shouting at her and twisting a phone out of her hand, and witnesses that back up some of the incidents she is describing. This is why women don't want to come forward. This is exactly what the ACLU was writing about in the editorial.

I guess we're all just liars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol she stepped in it. Look at JD’s lawyer.

Can you explain what the significance of this is? (Asking as another person who's curious but not really following this trial.)

What I heard is that since she brought up "prior bad acts" she opened the door that JD's lawyer can ask her questions about her past. She put something on the table that if she were more strategic, she would have avoided saying.

Later (today) she said that she "had heard rumors" that JD pushed Kate Moss and it was something that was on her mind when she struck him to protect her sister-allegedly.

Thanks for this explanation.

I think it's even more significant. It opened the door for his team to be able to call Kate Moss to testify [in JD's favour].

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you guys see the testimony regarding the photo of a glass table with lines of coke on it? I thought CV's cross examination of AH was really good. IME, that table looks too clean to have been used for what AH says it was - and, as CV noted, there were the cigarette in the ashtray was unsmoked and there were no ashes in it. But, what really got me was that she said the tampon applicator was used to snort the coke! Now, I'm post-menopausal but aren't those applicators larger than a McDonald's straw? Would a tampon applicator even fit in your nostril? I don't think it would fit in mine and you'd need a power snort to use it. What are your thoughts?

As someone who has never done drugs, I would assume that coke leaves a residue on the table. Am I right?

DP who admittedly has not watched the trial. Do you guys not know how to clean tables? I don't know what you're talking about generally, but coke is a powder, I imagine some windex would clean it right up

I asked the drug question. The picture and coke I am talking about shows 4 lines of coke on a table along with a box, tampon application (the smaller tube), and mugs. AH said or implied that JD had already done a line or two of coke but in the picture you just see 4 lines and no residue from any snorted lines. To me it looks like a staged photo with no 5th line residue. So I was asking if there had been other coke lines, that were already snorted, wouldn't there be left over residue from the snorted line?

I'm the first PP. Yes, if you're snorting lines of coke or imbibing, there's no way the table would be as clean as it was. It looks to have been staged. The floor is dirtier than the table.

It looks like there is a line of powder reside between the top line and the drivers license.

[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.

Does he mean she's dead to him?
Why is not seeing his eyes going to bother Amber?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if she took a picture of the table after the coke was snorted people would be saying that's not coke it could be baking powder or whatever.

I always tell myself that the next time my partner gets really angry, I'm going to tape it. And I never do because it's too crazy when it happens.

People are mad she taped this but didn't tape that. She talked to people after the stuff happened and has witnesses to some of the behavior. It's too bad that people demand such a high standard of female victims of abuse to believe it really happened. It really makes her editorial, about powerful men being big solid ships with whole crews to keep them afloat and running, resonate with me. So many women out there don't have anywhere near the level of proof she has -- recordings of him shouting at her, texts of him saying terrible things about her, video of him smashing cabinets and breaking glasses and shouting at her and twisting a phone out of her hand, and witnesses that back up some of the incidents she is describing. This is why women don't want to come forward. This is exactly what the ACLU was writing about in the editorial.

I guess we're all just liars.

The only people responsible of this hight standard of female victim abuse here are AH and her team.
Instead of establishing that JD was a raging addict who acted in a threatening way, making her fear for her life, she decided to go with a whole collection of strategic and elaborate recordings, pictures and ridiculous makeup explanations. All of that, in combination with her own well illustrated problematic behavior, just set a canvas for JD's team to demonstrate that she keeps failing the credibility test.

It's absurd - on a basic level she's not lying, and yet she is a liar. And everyone is just learning about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if she took a picture of the table after the coke was snorted people would be saying that's not coke it could be baking powder or whatever.

I always tell myself that the next time my partner gets really angry, I'm going to tape it. And I never do because it's too crazy when it happens.

People are mad she taped this but didn't tape that. She talked to people after the stuff happened and has witnesses to some of the behavior. It's too bad that people demand such a high standard of female victims of abuse to believe it really happened. It really makes her editorial, about powerful men being big solid ships with whole crews to keep them afloat and running, resonate with me. So many women out there don't have anywhere near the level of proof she has -- recordings of him shouting at her, texts of him saying terrible things about her, video of him smashing cabinets and breaking glasses and shouting at her and twisting a phone out of her hand, and witnesses that back up some of the incidents she is describing. This is why women don't want to come forward. This is exactly what the ACLU was writing about in the editorial.

I guess we're all just liars.

The only people responsible of this hight standard of female victim abuse here are AH and her team.
Instead of establishing that JD was a raging addict who acted in a threatening way, making her fear for her life, she decided to go with a whole collection of strategic and elaborate recordings, pictures and ridiculous makeup explanations. All of that, in combination with her own well illustrated problematic behavior, just set a canvas for JD's team to demonstrate that she keeps failing the credibility test.

It's absurd - on a basic level she's not lying, and yet she is a liar. And everyone is just learning about it.

What are you talking about? She had the recordings and the pictures and the testimony to show exactly that he was a raging addict — that he was a monster when he was using. You think if she just testified without any of that, anyone would believe her? People like you would ask, where is your proof.

It’s such a catch 22. You have proof and people question your motives and call you a liar. You have no proof and people just call you a liar. 🤷‍♀️ it’s an impossible standard women have to meet while men just keep sailing through. Louis ck won a Grammy for best comedy album. Give Depp a year and he’ll be dating a 25 year old and promoting his new movie with Robert Downey Jr.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Does he mean she's dead to him?
Why is not seeing his eyes going to bother Amber?

He’s acting like a toddler. I wouldn’t try to make it into anything more than it is, which is an ongoing, multi-year temper tantrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also the testimony from the police officers, front desk clerk, and security guards stating that they saw no visible injury.

Apples and oranges. The poster said: “Also, I haven't seen the physical evidence to establish the alleged injuries.”

She has - which are the things I listed. That’s different from what you’re listing, which are things that refute her testimony, his apology notes, and the photographs. That doesn’t mean that there is zero physical evidence of her injuries.

[Anonymous]

Louis ck won a Grammy for best comedy album. Give Depp a year and he’ll be dating a 25 year old and promoting his new movie with Robert Downey Jr.

Let's just sent them to Siberia work camp; rewarding artists for their art is outrageous and corrupts the youth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if she took a picture of the table after the coke was snorted people would be saying that's not coke it could be baking powder or whatever.

I always tell myself that the next time my partner gets really angry, I'm going to tape it. And I never do because it's too crazy when it happens.

People are mad she taped this but didn't tape that. She talked to people after the stuff happened and has witnesses to some of the behavior. It's too bad that people demand such a high standard of female victims of abuse to believe it really happened. It really makes her editorial, about powerful men being big solid ships with whole crews to keep them afloat and running, resonate with me. So many women out there don't have anywhere near the level of proof she has -- recordings of him shouting at her, texts of him saying terrible things about her, video of him smashing cabinets and breaking glasses and shouting at her and twisting a phone out of her hand, and witnesses that back up some of the incidents she is describing. This is why women don't want to come forward. This is exactly what the ACLU was writing about in the editorial.

I guess we're all just liars.

people doubt her, but they find Io completely credible.... I guess she potentially had more of a possible $ interest,
but I think they just find a male witness more credible and more damaging