Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the vileness of his emails. It’s the combination of him saying phone at the bar, oh there’s a phone at the bar. Vodka bottles with handles, no handles with the shards, never told anyone to fire amber, oh yeah, I told wb and my sister I wanted her fired, never had the hubris to write that I take women when I want, oh that’s a doctored email to my assistant.

He came off as not credible or reliable.

She had a bad day, too. But his cross was Effectively done today.

+1 Clear he was lying, and the vile language and threats of violence in his emails hardly suggest he's some innocent victim of a malicious shrew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the vileness of his emails. It’s the combination of him saying phone at the bar, oh there’s a phone at the bar. Vodka bottles with handles, no handles with the shards, never told anyone to fire amber, oh yeah, I told wb and my sister I wanted her fired, never had the hubris to write that I take women when I want, oh that’s a doctored email to my assistant.

He came off as not credible or reliable.

She had a bad day, too. But his cross was Effectively done today.

Over on twitter it's noted that the texts he didn't recognize were actually incoming, meaning he received them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the vileness of his emails. It’s the combination of him saying phone at the bar, oh there’s a phone at the bar. Vodka bottles with handles, no handles with the shards, never told anyone to fire amber, oh yeah, I told wb and my sister I wanted her fired, never had the hubris to write that I take women when I want, oh that’s a doctored email to my assistant.

He came off as not credible or reliable.

She had a bad day, too. But his cross was Effectively done today.

Over on twitter it's noted that the texts he didn't recognize were actually incoming, meaning he received them.

Is Twitter evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the vileness of his emails. It’s the combination of him saying phone at the bar, oh there’s a phone at the bar. Vodka bottles with handles, no handles with the shards, never told anyone to fire amber, oh yeah, I told wb and my sister I wanted her fired, never had the hubris to write that I take women when I want, oh that’s a doctored email to my assistant.

He came off as not credible or reliable.

She had a bad day, too. But his cross was Effectively done today.

Over on twitter it's noted that the texts he didn't recognize were actually incoming, meaning he received them.

Won’t matter. He said enough things today that made him appear unreliable that cherry picking one that may not apply won’t negate the overall damage from today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the vileness of his emails. It’s the combination of him saying phone at the bar, oh there’s a phone at the bar. Vodka bottles with handles, no handles with the shards, never told anyone to fire amber, oh yeah, I told wb and my sister I wanted her fired, never had the hubris to write that I take women when I want, oh that’s a doctored email to my assistant.

He came off as not credible or reliable.

She had a bad day, too. But his cross was Effectively done today.

Over on twitter it's noted that the texts he didn't recognize were actually incoming, meaning he received them.

I think it is hard to believe anything she says. Photos doctored. Texts incoming not out going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the vileness of his emails. It’s the combination of him saying phone at the bar, oh there’s a phone at the bar. Vodka bottles with handles, no handles with the shards, never told anyone to fire amber, oh yeah, I told wb and my sister I wanted her fired, never had the hubris to write that I take women when I want, oh that’s a doctored email to my assistant.

He came off as not credible or reliable.

She had a bad day, too. But his cross was Effectively done today.

Over on twitter it's noted that the texts he didn't recognize were actually incoming, meaning he received them.

Won’t matter. He said enough things today that made him appear unreliable that cherry picking one that may not apply won’t negate the overall damage from today.

I feel like supporters of both sides cherry pick testimony. The question is will the jury believe AH has lied and fabricated enough that it is hard to believe anything she has said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the vileness of his emails. It’s the combination of him saying phone at the bar, oh there’s a phone at the bar. Vodka bottles with handles, no handles with the shards, never told anyone to fire amber, oh yeah, I told wb and my sister I wanted her fired, never had the hubris to write that I take women when I want, oh that’s a doctored email to my assistant.

He came off as not credible or reliable.

She had a bad day, too. But his cross was Effectively done today.

Over on twitter it's noted that the texts he didn't recognize were actually incoming, meaning he received them.

Won’t matter. He said enough things today that made him appear unreliable that cherry picking one that may not apply won’t negate the overall damage from today.

I feel like supporters of both sides cherry pick testimony. The question is will the jury believe AH has lied and fabricated enough that it is hard to believe anything she has said.

I’m not on either side. I think they both have credibility problems. The main question is did he or did he not assault her. She wins if he did. I think she has proven that he did BUT her credibility problems may get in her way as far as not getting the majority of the jury on her side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the vileness of his emails. It’s the combination of him saying phone at the bar, oh there’s a phone at the bar. Vodka bottles with handles, no handles with the shards, never told anyone to fire amber, oh yeah, I told wb and my sister I wanted her fired, never had the hubris to write that I take women when I want, oh that’s a doctored email to my assistant.

He came off as not credible or reliable.

She had a bad day, too. But his cross was Effectively done today.

Over on twitter it's noted that the texts he didn't recognize were actually incoming, meaning he received them.

Won’t matter. He said enough things today that made him appear unreliable that cherry picking one that may not apply won’t negate the overall damage from today.

I feel like supporters of both sides cherry pick testimony. The question is will the jury believe AH has lied and fabricated enough that it is hard to believe anything she has said.

I’m not on either side. I think they both have credibility problems. The main question is did he or did he not assault her. She wins if he did. I think she has proven that he did BUT her credibility problems may get in her way as far as not getting the majority of the jury on her side.

Agree with this, but the witnesses that saw bruises on her face (including the marriage counselor who alleged mutual abuse) support her story being "substantially true" (the London case language). I also think his unbelievably immature comportment and snickering, plus the vicious texts, give a lot of insight into who he really is and severely undermine his claiming victim status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate Moss looked like a million bucks! Amber Heard was squirming and looking very upset before her testimony.

Kate Moss is boss!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the vileness of his emails. It’s the combination of him saying phone at the bar, oh there’s a phone at the bar. Vodka bottles with handles, no handles with the shards, never told anyone to fire amber, oh yeah, I told wb and my sister I wanted her fired, never had the hubris to write that I take women when I want, oh that’s a doctored email to my assistant.

He came off as not credible or reliable.

She had a bad day, too. But his cross was Effectively done today.

Over on twitter it's noted that the texts he didn't recognize were actually incoming, meaning he received them.

Won’t matter. He said enough things today that made him appear unreliable that cherry picking one that may not apply won’t negate the overall damage from today.

I feel like supporters of both sides cherry pick testimony. The question is will the jury believe AH has lied and fabricated enough that it is hard to believe anything she has said.

I’m not on either side. I think they both have credibility problems. The main question is did he or did he not assault her. She wins if he did. I think she has proven that he did BUT her credibility problems may get in her way as far as not getting the majority of the jury on her side.

Agree with this, but the witnesses that saw bruises on her face (including the marriage counselor who alleged mutual abuse) support her story being "substantially true" (the London case language). I also think his unbelievably immature comportment and snickering, plus the vicious texts, give a lot of insight into who he really is and severely undermine his claiming victim status.

Honestly they are both so unlikable and unreliable I really don't know what to think about this case anymore.

[Anonymous]

He is extremely unlikeable on the stand now. Before he had a charming edge as he toyed with the defense attorneys. Not anymore…He looks like an idiot when he denies he has too much hubris today…and acts exactly like someone who has too much hubris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the vileness of his emails. It’s the combination of him saying phone at the bar, oh there’s a phone at the bar. Vodka bottles with handles, no handles with the shards, never told anyone to fire amber, oh yeah, I told wb and my sister I wanted her fired, never had the hubris to write that I take women when I want, oh that’s a doctored email to my assistant.

He came off as not credible or reliable.

She had a bad day, too. But his cross was Effectively done today.

Over on twitter it's noted that the texts he didn't recognize were actually incoming, meaning he received them.

Won’t matter. He said enough things today that made him appear unreliable that cherry picking one that may not apply won’t negate the overall damage from today.

I feel like supporters of both sides cherry pick testimony. The question is will the jury believe AH has lied and fabricated enough that it is hard to believe anything she has said.

I’m not on either side. I think they both have credibility problems. The main question is did he or did he not assault her. She wins if he did. I think she has proven that he did BUT her credibility problems may get in her way as far as not getting the majority of the jury on her side.

Agree with this, but the witnesses that saw bruises on her face (including the marriage counselor who alleged mutual abuse) support her story being "substantially true" (the London case language). I also think his unbelievably immature comportment and snickering, plus the vicious texts, give a lot of insight into who he really is and severely undermine his claiming victim status.

This is part of my problem. This sounds like someone who wants to side with AH for whatever reason. It circles back to her lies. "Substantially true" means that what she said isn't entirely true. She exaggerates, she lies. And I don't like either one of them. Basically, they both feel like train wrecks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the vileness of his emails. It’s the combination of him saying phone at the bar, oh there’s a phone at the bar. Vodka bottles with handles, no handles with the shards, never told anyone to fire amber, oh yeah, I told wb and my sister I wanted her fired, never had the hubris to write that I take women when I want, oh that’s a doctored email to my assistant.

He came off as not credible or reliable.

She had a bad day, too. But his cross was Effectively done today.

Over on twitter it's noted that the texts he didn't recognize were actually incoming, meaning he received them.

Won’t matter. He said enough things today that made him appear unreliable that cherry picking one that may not apply won’t negate the overall damage from today.

I feel like supporters of both sides cherry pick testimony. The question is will the jury believe AH has lied and fabricated enough that it is hard to believe anything she has said.

I’m not on either side. I think they both have credibility problems. The main question is did he or did he not assault her. She wins if he did. I think she has proven that he did BUT her credibility problems may get in her way as far as not getting the majority of the jury on her side.

Agree with this, but the witnesses that saw bruises on her face (including the marriage counselor who alleged mutual abuse) support her story being "substantially true" (the London case language). I also think his unbelievably immature comportment and snickering, plus the vicious texts, give a lot of insight into who he really is and severely undermine his claiming victim status.

This is part of my problem. This sounds like someone who wants to side with AH for whatever reason. It circles back to her lies. "Substantially true" means that what she said isn't entirely true. She exaggerates, she lies. And I don't like either one of them. Basically, they both feel like train wrecks.

Substantially true sounds to be that there is some wiggle room for jurors to believe there is an element of reasonable doubt.

[Anonymous]

Lawyer here:

Reasonable doubt isn’t the standard. Preponderance of the evidence is. Essentially, if you believe one over the other by 50.001%, that side wins. Then it comes down to proof of actual damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate Moss looked like a million bucks! Amber Heard was squirming and looking very upset before her testimony.

Kate is all class and a genuine beauty, Amber is the homecoming queen in some trailer trash town. The latter rarely shake who they truly are. It's genetic.