Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your statement says a lot, about you.

[Anonymous]

The email below is included in video. I shortened the video to include only Heard attorney rebuttal for those who prefer to judge for themselves. It’s worth watching the 37 minutes.

[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.

You should do some research "substantially true" is a legal standard.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_truth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Reasonable doubt isn’t the standard for a civil trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Reasonable doubt isn’t the standard for a civil trial.

And this is why when the verdict comes out people will cry foul bc they don’t understand nuances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Reasonable doubt isn’t the standard for a civil trial.

Substantial truth, under libel law, means minor inaccuracies do not make a statement libelous if the essence or gist of the statement is true.

So for instance, if I said you punched me 12 times and it turns out you only punched me 8 times, the gist (that you punched me) is still true and my statement is substantially true.

[Anonymous]

Is there anything Amber Heard has said at this point that hasn’t been proven to be a lie during this trial? Doctoring the photos? That was the crux of her hard evidence, wasn’t it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there anything Amber Heard has said at this point that hasn’t been proven to be a lie during this trial? Doctoring the photos? That was the crux of her hard evidence, wasn’t it?

+1 her giggling at the end of the infamous kitchen cabinet video was conveniently cropped off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The email below is included in video. I shortened the video to include only Heard attorney rebuttal for those who prefer to judge for themselves. It’s worth watching the 37 minutes.

Oh please, let's all start sharing videos we found on you tube

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The email below is included in video. I shortened the video to include only Heard attorney rebuttal for those who prefer to judge for themselves. It’s worth watching the 37 minutes.

That's a really disgusting email.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your statement says a lot, about you.

Heard is a high school drop out. Very few "classy" millennials who dropped out of high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Reasonable doubt isn’t the standard for a civil trial.

Substantial truth, under libel law, means minor inaccuracies do not make a statement libelous if the essence or gist of the statement is true.

So for instance, if I said you punched me 12 times and it turns out you only punched me 8 times, the gist (that you punched me) is still true and my statement is substantially true.

Okay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your statement says a lot, about you.

Heard is a high school drop out. Very few "classy" millennials who dropped out of high school.

DP. My, you are quite the bigot.

[Anonymous]

I thought the TMZ guy was really strong for Depp when he said that somebody tipped them off that Amber was going to file the TRO and was supposed to "turn to the camera" to show an alleged bruise on her face.

Was there evidence that he even came to the penthouse within days of her filing for the TRO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Reasonable doubt isn’t the standard for a civil trial.

Substantial truth, under libel law, means minor inaccuracies do not make a statement libelous if the essence or gist of the statement is true.

So for instance, if I said you punched me 12 times and it turns out you only punched me 8 times, the gist (that you punched me) is still true and my statement is substantially true.

Okay?

People were acting like the judge in the UK case was somehow pro Hears because that's the ohrase he was using. And nope, he was just reciting the legal standard.