Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who thinks it’s possible that he loses and she wins?

It is not possible it is exceptionally LIKELY. Based on the actual merits of the actual legal case at hand here, and not the merits of the 'who does the general public side with' case.

Juries are extremely unpredictable but given how unbelievably convulted his case was from the beginning, I don't see him winning.

The fact that they're showing he paid to plant articles about her and paid for bots is very compelling. There's a chance she might win.

Source please. I have not seen that accusation beyond DCUM, but still without citation.

DP. Apparently there was expert testimony about it yesterday.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/social-media-expert-testifies-negative-tweets-amber-heard-20220519.amp.html

That article did not state what you claimed.

Huh? The article discusses the social media expert’s testimony. What did I misrepresent?

JD [/b]paid[b] bots to spread negative comments on SM.

Ah, you must be new to DCUM and don’t know what DP means. That figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who thinks it’s possible that he loses and she wins?

It is not possible it is exceptionally LIKELY. Based on the actual merits of the actual legal case at hand here, and not the merits of the 'who does the general public side with' case.

Juries are extremely unpredictable but given how unbelievably convulted his case was from the beginning, I don't see him winning.

The fact that they're showing he paid to plant articles about her and paid for bots is very compelling. There's a chance she might win.

Source please. I have not seen that accusation beyond DCUM, but still without citation.

DP. Apparently there was expert testimony about it yesterday.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/social-media-expert-testifies-negative-tweets-amber-heard-20220519.amp.html

That article did not state what you claimed.

Huh? The article discusses the social media expert’s testimony. What did I misrepresent?

JD [/b]paid[b] bots to spread negative comments on SM.

Ah, you must be new to DCUM and don’t know what DP means. That figures.

Unfortunately, I have been around DCUM for 14 years. Go figure. I wish I knew how to quit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who thinks it’s possible that he loses and she wins?

It is not possible it is exceptionally LIKELY. Based on the actual merits of the actual legal case at hand here, and not the merits of the 'who does the general public side with' case.

Juries are extremely unpredictable but given how unbelievably convulted his case was from the beginning, I don't see him winning.

The fact that they're showing he paid to plant articles about her and paid for bots is very compelling. There's a chance she might win.

Source please. I have not seen that accusation beyond DCUM, but still without citation.

DP. Apparently there was expert testimony about it yesterday.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/social-media-expert-testifies-negative-tweets-amber-heard-20220519.amp.html

That article did not state what you claimed.

Huh? The article discusses the social media expert’s testimony. What did I misrepresent?

JD [/b]paid[b] bots to spread negative comments on SM.

Ah, you must be new to DCUM and don’t know what DP means. That figures.

Unfortunately, I have been around DCUM for 14 years. Go figure. I wish I knew how to quit it.

And you still don’t know what DP stands for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who thinks it’s possible that he loses and she wins?

It is not possible it is exceptionally LIKELY. Based on the actual merits of the actual legal case at hand here, and not the merits of the 'who does the general public side with' case.

Juries are extremely unpredictable but given how unbelievably convulted his case was from the beginning, I don't see him winning.

The fact that they're showing he paid to plant articles about her and paid for bots is very compelling. There's a chance she might win.

Source please. I have not seen that accusation beyond DCUM, but still without citation.

DP. Apparently there was expert testimony about it yesterday.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/social-media-expert-testifies-negative-tweets-amber-heard-20220519.amp.html

That article did not state what you claimed.

Huh? The article discusses the social media expert’s testimony. What did I misrepresent?

JD [/b]paid[b] bots to spread negative comments on SM.

Ah, you must be new to DCUM and don’t know what DP means. That figures.

Unfortunately, I have been around DCUM for 14 years. Go figure. I wish I knew how to quit it.

And you still don’t know what DP stands for?

NP. What’s wrong with you? Clearly that was a typo, where “DP” was used by accident in lieu of “JD.” It’s not a BFD, just FYI. Maybe you need a nap.

I see the stans are back and lying about Saint Johnny again. Same shit, different day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who thinks it’s possible that he loses and she wins?

It is not possible it is exceptionally LIKELY. Based on the actual merits of the actual legal case at hand here, and not the merits of the 'who does the general public side with' case.

Juries are extremely unpredictable but given how unbelievably convulted his case was from the beginning, I don't see him winning.

The fact that they're showing he paid to plant articles about her and paid for bots is very compelling. There's a chance she might win.

Source please. I have not seen that accusation beyond DCUM, but still without citation.

DP. Apparently there was expert testimony about it yesterday.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/social-media-expert-testifies-negative-tweets-amber-heard-20220519.amp.html

That article did not state what you claimed.

Huh? The article discusses the social media expert’s testimony. What did I misrepresent?

JD [/b]paid[b] bots to spread negative comments on SM.

Ah, you must be new to DCUM and don’t know what DP means. That figures.

Unfortunately, I have been around DCUM for 14 years. Go figure. I wish I knew how to quit it.

And you still don’t know what DP stands for?

NP. What’s wrong with you? Clearly that was a typo, where “DP” was used by accident in lieu of “JD.” It’s not a BFD, just FYI. Maybe you need a nap.

I see the stans are back and lying about Saint Johnny again. Same shit, different day.

LOL, no, it stands for Different Poster, i.e., that I, the person who posted the link to the article discussing the expert witness testimony, am not the same person who said Depp paid the bots. You would know this if you were not new to DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who thinks it’s possible that he loses and she wins?

It is not possible it is exceptionally LIKELY. Based on the actual merits of the actual legal case at hand here, and not the merits of the 'who does the general public side with' case.

Juries are extremely unpredictable but given how unbelievably convulted his case was from the beginning, I don't see him winning.

The fact that they're showing he paid to plant articles about her and paid for bots is very compelling. There's a chance she might win.

Source please. I have not seen that accusation beyond DCUM, but still without citation.

DP. Apparently there was expert testimony about it yesterday.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/social-media-expert-testifies-negative-tweets-amber-heard-20220519.amp.html

That article did not state what you claimed.

Huh? The article discusses the social media expert’s testimony. What did I misrepresent?

JD [/b]paid[b] bots to spread negative comments on SM.

Ah, you must be new to DCUM and don’t know what DP means. That figures.

Unfortunately, I have been around DCUM for 14 years. Go figure. I wish I knew how to quit it.

And you still don’t know what DP stands for?

NP. What’s wrong with you? Clearly that was a typo, where “DP” was used by accident in lieu of “JD.” It’s not a BFD, just FYI. Maybe you need a nap.

I see the stans are back and lying about Saint Johnny again. Same shit, different day.

LOL, no, it stands for Different Poster, i.e., that I, the person who posted the link to the article discussing the expert witness testimony, am not the same person who said Depp paid the bots. You would know this if you were not new to DCUM.

Why are all of you so illiterate?

[Anonymous]

I, for example, have never thrown a bottle anywhere that could have been interpreted as aggressive. Not once in my entire life, and I think people who are capable of that are very possibly capable of violence.
+1 I can’t believe how many people are fine with slamming cabinets and throwing wine bottles!

+1 I am PP and also in my ENTIRE LIFE, I have never yelled and stomped around a kitchen slamming cabinets! And if I was around someone who was doing that I would consider them very volatile and I would be very nervous about what they were going to do next! I also do not understand this idea that it is all totally ok.

never thrown any bottles ever. might have slammed a door in my youth but not on anyone. bottles=glass= glass shards.... bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His ex Ellen Barkin testified, and I believe Smurf.

She said he tossed the bottle across the room, not at her. She didn't help AH's side.

she said that 20-30 yrs ago he was an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles
and look! in 2013 to present, he is an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His ex Ellen Barkin testified, and I believe Smurf.

She said he tossed the bottle across the room, not at her. She didn't help AH's side.

she said that 20-30 yrs ago he was an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles
and look! in 2013 to present, he is an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles

I don’t get how or why they contacted her considering they dates 30 years ago for a few weeks. Did they go through a list of old girlfriends asking for dirt or who’s still upset he got away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His ex Ellen Barkin testified, and I believe Smurf.

She said he tossed the bottle across the room, not at her. She didn't help AH's side.

she said that 20-30 yrs ago he was an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles
and look! in 2013 to present, he is an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles

I don’t get how or why they contacted her considering they dates 30 years ago for a few weeks. Did they go through a list of old girlfriends asking for dirt or who’s still upset he got away?

Yes. That’s what defense lawyers do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His ex Ellen Barkin testified, and I believe Smurf.

She said he tossed the bottle across the room, not at her. She didn't help AH's side.

she said that 20-30 yrs ago he was an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles
and look! in 2013 to present, he is an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles

I don’t get how or why they contacted her considering they dates 30 years ago for a few weeks. Did they go through a list of old girlfriends asking for dirt or who’s still upset he got away?

I think Johnny's a mess, and that his lawyers are doing a simply awful job here, but I don't think that Ellen Barkin was such a great witness. If was a juror, I'd think -- this guy is 60 years old and has dated a lot of woman. The only woman they could find to say something bad about him was someone he dated 20+ years ago for a couple of weeks, and even SHE says he didn't hit her? That, to me, would lead to an implication that the defense lawyers had talked to all the exes and they all supported Johnny. I would have thought it was better not to put her on at all, then to put on such a weak witness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His ex Ellen Barkin testified, and I believe Smurf.

I don’t get how or why they contacted her considering they dates 30 years ago for a few weeks. Did they go through a list of old girlfriends asking for dirt or who’s still upset he got away?

I do not know why people think she is upset or that he "got away." She had her own life- she said he was an alcoholic bad boy 30 yrs ago.
That he was jealous even if he did not like her that much. So, stasis.

I also do not understand why people think AH could not have been a DV victim because she is not pathetic or weak enough.
(I understand if people think that all of her complaints were fabrications- I do not think that - but if you do, you would find
her wholly unsympathetic and possibly criminal- I get that.) I just think a DV victim could be wealthier or smarter or stronger and
still be pulled into a destructive relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His ex Ellen Barkin testified, and I believe Smurf.

She said he tossed the bottle across the room, not at her. She didn't help AH's side.

she said that 20-30 yrs ago he was an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles
and look! in 2013 to present, he is an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles

I don’t get how or why they contacted her considering they dates 30 years ago for a few weeks. Did they go through a list of old girlfriends asking for dirt or who’s still upset he got away?

I think Johnny's a mess, and that his lawyers are doing a simply awful job here, but I don't think that Ellen Barkin was such a great witness. If was a juror, I'd think -- this guy is 60 years old and has dated a lot of woman. The only woman they could find to say something bad about him was someone he dated 20+ years ago for a couple of weeks, and even SHE says he didn't hit her? That, to me, would lead to an implication that the defense lawyers had talked to all the exes and they all supported Johnny. I would have thought it was better not to put her on at all, then to put on such a weak witness.

I’m not a fan of AH but after seeing these lawsuits, why do you suppose no exes are talking bad about him? He’s still holding the purse strings for Vanessa and the adult children despite Vanessa’s money. He’s also proven to be vindictive. I’m not surprised they are supporting him to keep the crazy at bay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His ex Ellen Barkin testified, and I believe Smurf.

She said he tossed the bottle across the room, not at her. She didn't help AH's side.

she said that 20-30 yrs ago he was an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles
and look! in 2013 to present, he is an unstable alcoholic, jealous and tossed bottles

I don’t get how or why they contacted her considering they dates 30 years ago for a few weeks. Did they go through a list of old girlfriends asking for dirt or who’s still upset he got away?

I think Johnny's a mess, and that his lawyers are doing a simply awful job here, but I don't think that Ellen Barkin was such a great witness. If was a juror, I'd think -- this guy is 60 years old and has dated a lot of woman. The only woman they could find to say something bad about him was someone he dated 20+ years ago for a couple of weeks, and even SHE says he didn't hit her? That, to me, would lead to an implication that the defense lawyers had talked to all the exes and they all supported Johnny. I would have thought it was better not to put her on at all, then to put on such a weak witness.

I’m not a fan of AH but after seeing these lawsuits, why do you suppose no exes are talking bad about him? He’s still holding the purse strings for Vanessa and the adult children despite Vanessa’s money. He’s also proven to be vindictive. I’m not surprised they are supporting him to keep the crazy at bay.

You also have to wonder how many of his exes were strong-armed into signing NDAs.

[Anonymous]

I’ve been seeing a bit of the turning of the tides online recently. Not necessarily in favor of AH but against the dv jokes and over the top support of JD.

I hope this is the case because, regardless of who is at fault here, the memes are gross and joking about dv isn’t funny.