Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being a credible witness is a proof itself. And she's clearly not.

Their friend who testified yesterday was credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI expert ls are saying all the nemesis and anti Heard trolling absolutely is hurting domestic violence victims.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-memes-videos-b2080102.html

Amber's new PR working overtime
What's really hurting domestic violence victims is entitled, dishonest, unscrupulous Hollywood stars like Amber Heard presenting them in the media.

[Anonymous]

They were both violent. The difference is that she was violent (especially verbally, emotionally, and psychologically) to control him. He was violent to escape her attempts to control him. She’s abusive. He’s defensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They were both violent. The difference is that she was violent (especially verbally, emotionally, and psychologically) to control him. He was violent to escape her attempts to control him. She’s abusive. He’s defensive.

+1

And she fueled his rate to provoke a response precisely to take him down and garner support for a big payout. She knew this would be a short-lived marriage aimed at improving her stature and career. She had to take him down in order to have continued support in Hollywood. It’s obvious.

[Anonymous]

I don't think Johnny Depp is going to win this case in the court of law, but he seems to be winning it in the court of public opinion, which I think is really what matters to him.

These two are toxic together. I think it is interesting that Depp's side claims all the drug and alcohol use is nbd. Why does he try to rehab multiple times if drug use is nbd. Why did he have a "no drugs" clause written into his Pirates 5 contract if drug use is nbd.

[Anonymous]

The drugs and alcohol are irrelevant. She wants it to be relevant because he got violent when he was using. But she was violent too. If we accept that they were both violent, then we go to step two: who was trying to gain control of the other? She was. He was trying to escape or lash out in response to her. He was not trying to control her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI expert ls are saying all the nemesis and anti Heard trolling absolutely is hurting domestic violence victims.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-memes-videos-b2080102.html

Obsessive fangirls don’t care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The drugs and alcohol are irrelevant. She wants it to be relevant because he got violent when he was using. But she was violent too. If we accept that they were both violent, then we go to step two: who was trying to gain control of the other? She was. He was trying to escape or lash out in response to her. He was not trying to control her.

The drugs and alcohol are relevant. If she can show he passes out and that he admits and others have seen him using drugs, the jury could infer that means his recollection of events is not as credible as hers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being a credible witness is a proof itself. And she's clearly not.

That's the thing about jury trials. The jury alone weighs the credibility. If they don't believe her, they don't believe her. Depp's legal team has done a decent job of impeaching her and attacking her credibility. I personally feel that Depp across as more honest on the stand. Up to the jury, though.

One thing that very much hurts her credibility was her inability to acknowledge that she lied about the donations. She knows well that pledging and donating are not the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The drugs and alcohol are irrelevant. She wants it to be relevant because he got violent when he was using. But she was violent too. If we accept that they were both violent, then we go to step two: who was trying to gain control of the other? She was. He was trying to escape or lash out in response to her. He was not trying to control her.

The drugs and alcohol are relevant. If she can show he passes out and that he admits and others have seen him using drugs, the jury could infer that means his recollection of events is not as credible as hers.

Vasquez did a great job of pointing out the same to be true for "Miss Heard's" recollections since Amber admitted to doing drugs prior to (or during) moments she was recalling JD's past behavior.

If JD's memory of events is not credible due to drug use then it's the same for AH's memory of events. You can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Oh come on. It's clear that Depp is a much more serious drug user than Heard. You guys are equating apples and oranges because in your head he has to be an okay guy.

Look at the way he talked about her. Look at the way he tried to control her. Did you hear how he behaved about her doing sex scenes? Seeing a sex scene of her in a movie where it was actually a body double and going completely nuts? wtf?

But somehow you look at that as all right and she is the villain?

She could have gotten $32 million in the divorce settlement and she took just $7 and pledged it to charity, and you guys are still mad because she has only herself paid about $1M of that so far? Even though it's a greater tax write off if she pays it over time, and now she herself is getting sued for $50 mil?

Oh but he played a funny pirate in a movie series though. And he's funny and sort of handsome. And she is not an angel, so your sympathies are with him. You guys are the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The drugs and alcohol are irrelevant. She wants it to be relevant because he got violent when he was using. But she was violent too. If we accept that they were both violent, then we go to step two: who was trying to gain control of the other? She was. He was trying to escape or lash out in response to her. He was not trying to control her.

The drugs and alcohol are relevant. If she can show he passes out and that he admits and others have seen him using drugs, the jury could infer that means his recollection of events is not as credible as hers.

Vasquez did a great job of pointing out the same to be true for "Miss Heard's" recollections since Amber admitted to doing drugs prior to (or during) moments she was recalling JD's past behavior.

If JD's memory of events is not credible due to drug use then it's the same for AH's memory of events. You can't have it both ways.

Of course, but he is the one he needs to prove his case. Yes, she has a counter claim, but his is the big one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The drugs and alcohol are irrelevant. She wants it to be relevant because he got violent when he was using. But she was violent too. If we accept that they were both violent, then we go to step two: who was trying to gain control of the other? She was. He was trying to escape or lash out in response to her. He was not trying to control her.

The drugs and alcohol are relevant. If she can show he passes out and that he admits and others have seen him using drugs, the jury could infer that means his recollection of events is not as credible as hers.

Vasquez did a great job of pointing out the same to be true for "Miss Heard's" recollections since Amber admitted to doing drugs prior to (or during) moments she was recalling JD's past behavior.

If JD's memory of events is not credible due to drug use then it's the same for AH's memory of events. You can't have it both ways.

Of course, but he is the one he needs to prove his case. Yes, she has a counter claim, but his is the big one.

I'm not convinced he cares about winning the case as much as he cares about winning in the court of public opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, what is the definition of an abuse victim? I also think it’s important what she said in her article: that she was a public figure “representing” domestic abuse. She is not that. To me, the trial shows this couple represents a volatile relationship, full of drugs. She does not represent domestic abuse to me.

Me either. She is a perpetrator of abuse as much as a victim. They abused the hell out of each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh come on. It's clear that Depp is a much more serious drug user than Heard. You guys are equating apples and oranges because in your head he has to be an okay guy.

Look at the way he talked about her. Look at the way he tried to control her. Did you hear how he behaved about her doing sex scenes? Seeing a sex scene of her in a movie where it was actually a body double and going completely nuts? wtf?

But somehow you look at that as all right and she is the villain?

She could have gotten $32 million in the divorce settlement and she took just $7 and pledged it to charity, and you guys are still mad because she has only herself paid about $1M of that so far? Even though it's a greater tax write off if she pays it over time, and now she herself is getting sued for $50 mil?

Oh but he played a funny pirate in a movie series though. And he's funny and sort of handsome. And she is not an angel, so your sympathies are with him. You guys are the worst.

I don't have any opinion about what kind of "guy" Depp is but as far as the court goes, being an unreliable witness during drug use will cut both ways.