Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Why should any of his exes have any say at all? At least they did in the UK trial. How does that have any relevance to what he did when he was with Amber? He may have been in an entirely new level of addiction , abuse, and paranoia that make previous relationship behaviors worthless to reference.

[Anonymous]

It’s funny how you PPs talk about these two as if you met them in a bar. Depp is one of the most famous actors in the world. I don’t think his career is over.
But AH: hers might be. Maybe she tried some of her famous bullying on Jason M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should any of his exes have any say at all? At least they did in the UK trial. How does that have any relevance to what he did when he was with Amber? He may have been in an entirely new level of addiction , abuse, and paranoia that make previous relationship behaviors worthless to reference.

That's why they were originally not allowed to testify but then AH brought up Kate Moss incident and how JD pushed her down some stairs. That's why they were allowed to call Kate Moss and have her testify that JD never did what AH had accused him of doing to KM. AH was trying to establish a history of violence with the KM incident so JD's side was allowed to refute it and the best way to do it is to call the supposed victim to the stand herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 hrs left on the clock for Depp’s team and they put Heard back on the stand? There’s NO way her team advised that so she must have insisted on it. Her delusion is real!

She's batshit crazy. I hope the jury see's that. As a survivor of domestic abuse it's horrible she's trying to claim it.

Doesn’t actually matter if she’s crazy. I don’t think they proved the op-Ed caused a decline in his career. That’s what is on trial.

No it's not. The words in the Op Ed are what is referred to in the law as "defamatory per se." He only has to prove the elements of defamation, not damages. Damages are presumed if the jury finds that Depp proved the elements of defamation. Therefore, he doesn't have to prove that the Op Ed caused a decline in his career.

This is incorrect. If he proves defamation per se, damage to reputation is presumed but he still has to prove the extent of that harm to support his damages claim, and the presumption of harm can be rebutted. One way to rebut that presumed harm would be to show he already had a reputation as violent/abusive, so that her op-Ed did not actually affect his reputation. Moreover, even if the statements were false and did harm his reputation, he would not automatically get a judgment of $50 million unless he can support that as a reasonable measure of the extent of his damages. If his primary support for his damages claim is lost film roles and she can show that he actually lost those roles for other reasons that had nothing to do with her op-Ed, then he may not recover much of anything as damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 hrs left on the clock for Depp’s team and they put Heard back on the stand? There’s NO way her team advised that so she must have insisted on it. Her delusion is real!

She's batshit crazy. I hope the jury see's that. As a survivor of domestic abuse it's horrible she's trying to claim it.

Doesn’t actually matter if she’s crazy. I don’t think they proved the op-Ed caused a decline in his career. That’s what is on trial.

No it's not. The words in the Op Ed are what is referred to in the law as "defamatory per se." He only has to prove the elements of defamation, not damages. Damages are presumed if the jury finds that Depp proved the elements of defamation. Therefore, he doesn't have to prove that the Op Ed caused a decline in his career.

This is incorrect. If he proves defamation per se, damage to reputation is presumed but he still has to prove the extent of that harm to support his damages claim, and the presumption of harm can be rebutted. One way to rebut that presumed harm would be to show he already had a reputation as violent/abusive, so that her op-Ed did not actually affect his reputation. Moreover, even if the statements were false and did harm his reputation, he would not automatically get a judgment of $50 million unless he can support that as a reasonable measure of the extent of his damages. If his primary support for his damages claim is lost film roles and she can show that he actually lost those roles for other reasons that had nothing to do with her op-Ed, then he may not recover much of anything as damages.

I’m sure he doesn’t care about the damages. He just needs the judgment. She doesn’t have any money anyways!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 hrs left on the clock for Depp’s team and they put Heard back on the stand? There’s NO way her team advised that so she must have insisted on it. Her delusion is real!

She's batshit crazy. I hope the jury see's that. As a survivor of domestic abuse it's horrible she's trying to claim it.

Doesn’t actually matter if she’s crazy. I don’t think they proved the op-Ed caused a decline in his career. That’s what is on trial.

No it's not. The words in the Op Ed are what is referred to in the law as "defamatory per se." He only has to prove the elements of defamation, not damages. Damages are presumed if the jury finds that Depp proved the elements of defamation. Therefore, he doesn't have to prove that the Op Ed caused a decline in his career.

This is incorrect. If he proves defamation per se, damage to reputation is presumed but he still has to prove the extent of that harm to support his damages claim, and the presumption of harm can be rebutted. One way to rebut that presumed harm would be to show he already had a reputation as violent/abusive, so that her op-Ed did not actually affect his reputation. Moreover, even if the statements were false and did harm his reputation, he would not automatically get a judgment of $50 million unless he can support that as a reasonable measure of the extent of his damages. If his primary support for his damages claim is lost film roles and she can show that he actually lost those roles for other reasons that had nothing to do with her op-Ed, then he may not recover much of anything as damages.

I don't know if he cares much about the monetary reward. The 50M was just a number. When you sue for monetary gains, you always go for a very high number then it's up to jury/judge to decrease it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 hrs left on the clock for Depp’s team and they put Heard back on the stand? There’s NO way her team advised that so she must have insisted on it. Her delusion is real!

She's batshit crazy. I hope the jury see's that. As a survivor of domestic abuse it's horrible she's trying to claim it.

Doesn’t actually matter if she’s crazy. I don’t think they proved the op-Ed caused a decline in his career. That’s what is on trial.

No it's not. The words in the Op Ed are what is referred to in the law as "defamatory per se." He only has to prove the elements of defamation, not damages. Damages are presumed if the jury finds that Depp proved the elements of defamation. Therefore, he doesn't have to prove that the Op Ed caused a decline in his career.

This is incorrect. If he proves defamation per se, damage to reputation is presumed but he still has to prove the extent of that harm to support his damages claim, and the presumption of harm can be rebutted. One way to rebut that presumed harm would be to show he already had a reputation as violent/abusive, so that her op-Ed did not actually affect his reputation. Moreover, even if the statements were false and did harm his reputation, he would not automatically get a judgment of $50 million unless he can support that as a reasonable measure of the extent of his damages. If his primary support for his damages claim is lost film roles and she can show that he actually lost those roles for other reasons that had nothing to do with her op-Ed, then he may not recover much of anything as damages.

I’m sure he doesn’t care about the damages. He just needs the judgment. She doesn’t have any money anyways!

A judgment in his favor with $1 in damages would be a huge slap to him because it would be a statement that, while the jury thinks it more likely than not that Heard lied in the op-Ed, they also think his reputation was such trash anyway that the op-Ed wasn’t really worse than what people already thought of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 hrs left on the clock for Depp’s team and they put Heard back on the stand? There’s NO way her team advised that so she must have insisted on it. Her delusion is real!

She's batshit crazy. I hope the jury see's that. As a survivor of domestic abuse it's horrible she's trying to claim it.

Doesn’t actually matter if she’s crazy. I don’t think they proved the op-Ed caused a decline in his career. That’s what is on trial.

No it's not. The words in the Op Ed are what is referred to in the law as "defamatory per se." He only has to prove the elements of defamation, not damages. Damages are presumed if the jury finds that Depp proved the elements of defamation. Therefore, he doesn't have to prove that the Op Ed caused a decline in his career.

This is incorrect. If he proves defamation per se, damage to reputation is presumed but he still has to prove the extent of that harm to support his damages claim, and the presumption of harm can be rebutted. One way to rebut that presumed harm would be to show he already had a reputation as violent/abusive, so that her op-Ed did not actually affect his reputation. Moreover, even if the statements were false and did harm his reputation, he would not automatically get a judgment of $50 million unless he can support that as a reasonable measure of the extent of his damages. If his primary support for his damages claim is lost film roles and she can show that he actually lost those roles for other reasons that had nothing to do with her op-Ed, then he may not recover much of anything as damages.

I’m sure he doesn’t care about the damages. He just needs the judgment. She doesn’t have any money anyways!

A judgment in his favor with $1 in damages would be a huge slap to him because it would be a statement that, while the jury thinks it more likely than not that Heard lied in the op-Ed, they also think his reputation was such trash anyway that the op-Ed wasn’t really worse than what people already thought of him.

Yes but such judgment would also show the world what kind of person AH is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 hrs left on the clock for Depp’s team and they put Heard back on the stand? There’s NO way her team advised that so she must have insisted on it. Her delusion is real!

She's batshit crazy. I hope the jury see's that. As a survivor of domestic abuse it's horrible she's trying to claim it.

Doesn’t actually matter if she’s crazy. I don’t think they proved the op-Ed caused a decline in his career. That’s what is on trial.

No it's not. The words in the Op Ed are what is referred to in the law as "defamatory per se." He only has to prove the elements of defamation, not damages. Damages are presumed if the jury finds that Depp proved the elements of defamation. Therefore, he doesn't have to prove that the Op Ed caused a decline in his career.

This is incorrect. If he proves defamation per se, damage to reputation is presumed but he still has to prove the extent of that harm to support his damages claim, and the presumption of harm can be rebutted. One way to rebut that presumed harm would be to show he already had a reputation as violent/abusive, so that her op-Ed did not actually affect his reputation. Moreover, even if the statements were false and did harm his reputation, he would not automatically get a judgment of $50 million unless he can support that as a reasonable measure of the extent of his damages. If his primary support for his damages claim is lost film roles and she can show that he actually lost those roles for other reasons that had nothing to do with her op-Ed, then he may not recover much of anything as damages.

I’m sure he doesn’t care about the damages. He just needs the judgment. She doesn’t have any money anyways!

A judgment in his favor with $1 in damages would be a huge slap to him because it would be a statement that, while the jury thinks it more likely than not that Heard lied in the op-Ed, they also think his reputation was such trash anyway that the op-Ed wasn’t really worse than what people already thought of him.

Yes but such judgment would also show the world what kind of person AH is.

First you have to see what the judgment on her counterclaim is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 hrs left on the clock for Depp’s team and they put Heard back on the stand? There’s NO way her team advised that so she must have insisted on it. Her delusion is real!

She's batshit crazy. I hope the jury see's that. As a survivor of domestic abuse it's horrible she's trying to claim it.

Doesn’t actually matter if she’s crazy. I don’t think they proved the op-Ed caused a decline in his career. That’s what is on trial.

No it's not. The words in the Op Ed are what is referred to in the law as "defamatory per se." He only has to prove the elements of defamation, not damages. Damages are presumed if the jury finds that Depp proved the elements of defamation. Therefore, he doesn't have to prove that the Op Ed caused a decline in his career.

This is incorrect. If he proves defamation per se, damage to reputation is presumed but he still has to prove the extent of that harm to support his damages claim, and the presumption of harm can be rebutted. One way to rebut that presumed harm would be to show he already had a reputation as violent/abusive, so that her op-Ed did not actually affect his reputation. Moreover, even if the statements were false and did harm his reputation, he would not automatically get a judgment of $50 million unless he can support that as a reasonable measure of the extent of his damages. If his primary support for his damages claim is lost film roles and she can show that he actually lost those roles for other reasons that had nothing to do with her op-Ed, then he may not recover much of anything as damages.

I’m sure he doesn’t care about the damages. He just needs the judgment. She doesn’t have any money anyways!

A judgment in his favor with $1 in damages would be a huge slap to him because it would be a statement that, while the jury thinks it more likely than not that Heard lied in the op-Ed, they also think his reputation was such trash anyway that the op-Ed wasn’t really worse than what people already thought of him.

Yes but such judgment would also show the world what kind of person AH is.

First you have to see what the judgment on her counterclaim is.

The one she claims she has had 100M damages from his defamation? And she based her assessment of damages on Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa's trajectories?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 hrs left on the clock for Depp’s team and they put Heard back on the stand? There’s NO way her team advised that so she must have insisted on it. Her delusion is real!

She's batshit crazy. I hope the jury see's that. As a survivor of domestic abuse it's horrible she's trying to claim it.

Doesn’t actually matter if she’s crazy. I don’t think they proved the op-Ed caused a decline in his career. That’s what is on trial.

No it's not. The words in the Op Ed are what is referred to in the law as "defamatory per se." He only has to prove the elements of defamation, not damages. Damages are presumed if the jury finds that Depp proved the elements of defamation. Therefore, he doesn't have to prove that the Op Ed caused a decline in his career.

This is incorrect. If he proves defamation per se, damage to reputation is presumed but he still has to prove the extent of that harm to support his damages claim, and the presumption of harm can be rebutted. One way to rebut that presumed harm would be to show he already had a reputation as violent/abusive, so that her op-Ed did not actually affect his reputation. Moreover, even if the statements were false and did harm his reputation, he would not automatically get a judgment of $50 million unless he can support that as a reasonable measure of the extent of his damages. If his primary support for his damages claim is lost film roles and she can show that he actually lost those roles for other reasons that had nothing to do with her op-Ed, then he may not recover much of anything as damages.

I’m sure he doesn’t care about the damages. He just needs the judgment. She doesn’t have any money anyways!

I don't see how he could possibly get the judgement with what has been shown at trial. Her actions are not relevant, the question on trial is not whether she is abusive, it is whether he was abusive. They were clearly BOTH abusive. Which makes her a bad person, but it does not make him a non abusive person. The op-ed in question was not even about litigating their relationship, it was about the overall topic of DV in society and recovering from it. If I was on a jury the video alone would make it a done deal. He clearly acted abusively. They were clearly both in an abusive relationship and therefore, if they started or did recover, would both be candidates to write legitimate articles on how to survive DV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 hrs left on the clock for Depp’s team and they put Heard back on the stand? There’s NO way her team advised that so she must have insisted on it. Her delusion is real!

She's batshit crazy. I hope the jury see's that. As a survivor of domestic abuse it's horrible she's trying to claim it.

Doesn’t actually matter if she’s crazy. I don’t think they proved the op-Ed caused a decline in his career. That’s what is on trial.

No it's not. The words in the Op Ed are what is referred to in the law as "defamatory per se." He only has to prove the elements of defamation, not damages. Damages are presumed if the jury finds that Depp proved the elements of defamation. Therefore, he doesn't have to prove that the Op Ed caused a decline in his career.

This is incorrect. If he proves defamation per se, damage to reputation is presumed but he still has to prove the extent of that harm to support his damages claim, and the presumption of harm can be rebutted. One way to rebut that presumed harm would be to show he already had a reputation as violent/abusive, so that her op-Ed did not actually affect his reputation. Moreover, even if the statements were false and did harm his reputation, he would not automatically get a judgment of $50 million unless he can support that as a reasonable measure of the extent of his damages. If his primary support for his damages claim is lost film roles and she can show that he actually lost those roles for other reasons that had nothing to do with her op-Ed, then he may not recover much of anything as damages.

I’m sure he doesn’t care about the damages. He just needs the judgment. She doesn’t have any money anyways!

A judgment in his favor with $1 in damages would be a huge slap to him because it would be a statement that, while the jury thinks it more likely than not that Heard lied in the op-Ed, they also think his reputation was such trash anyway that the op-Ed wasn’t really worse than what people already thought of him.

Yes but such judgment would also show the world what kind of person AH is.

First you have to see what the judgment on her counterclaim is.

I think for many people that pooping in the bed says all they need to know about her...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope both of them lose. Vasquez was more obnoxious than effective today. She would have alienated me had I been on the jury.

Vasquez is an angry harpie who looks like she gets away with a lot of sh$& because she’s young and female and semi-attractive. Sorry. I would not be happy if I was her client. Why are people saying she is a goddess? And a queen. Today I read “legend”. It is disturbing.

The comments in the live chats are equally disturbing. Well over 95% pro depp no matter any of the evidence given to them about his “monster” drug and alcohol addiction behavior.

AH was correct in her assessment of the public’s vitriol towards her. She is marked for life in a way JD will not be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 hrs left on the clock for Depp’s team and they put Heard back on the stand? There’s NO way her team advised that so she must have insisted on it. Her delusion is real!

She's batshit crazy. I hope the jury see's that. As a survivor of domestic abuse it's horrible she's trying to claim it.

Doesn’t actually matter if she’s crazy. I don’t think they proved the op-Ed caused a decline in his career. That’s what is on trial.

No it's not. The words in the Op Ed are what is referred to in the law as "defamatory per se." He only has to prove the elements of defamation, not damages. Damages are presumed if the jury finds that Depp proved the elements of defamation. Therefore, he doesn't have to prove that the Op Ed caused a decline in his career.

This is incorrect. If he proves defamation per se, damage to reputation is presumed but he still has to prove the extent of that harm to support his damages claim, and the presumption of harm can be rebutted. One way to rebut that presumed harm would be to show he already had a reputation as violent/abusive, so that her op-Ed did not actually affect his reputation. Moreover, even if the statements were false and did harm his reputation, he would not automatically get a judgment of $50 million unless he can support that as a reasonable measure of the extent of his damages. If his primary support for his damages claim is lost film roles and she can show that he actually lost those roles for other reasons that had nothing to do with her op-Ed, then he may not recover much of anything as damages.

I’m sure he doesn’t care about the damages. He just needs the judgment. She doesn’t have any money anyways!

A judgment in his favor with $1 in damages would be a huge slap to him because it would be a statement that, while the jury thinks it more likely than not that Heard lied in the op-Ed, they also think his reputation was such trash anyway that the op-Ed wasn’t really worse than what people already thought of him.

Yes but such judgment would also show the world what kind of person AH is.

First you have to see what the judgment on her counterclaim is.

I think for many people that pooping in the bed says all they need to know about her...

Why didn’t they save a sample to have it dna tested? Then they would know 100% if she is perjuring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 hrs left on the clock for Depp’s team and they put Heard back on the stand? There’s NO way her team advised that so she must have insisted on it. Her delusion is real!

She's batshit crazy. I hope the jury see's that. As a survivor of domestic abuse it's horrible she's trying to claim it.

Doesn’t actually matter if she’s crazy. I don’t think they proved the op-Ed caused a decline in his career. That’s what is on trial.

No it's not. The words in the Op Ed are what is referred to in the law as "defamatory per se." He only has to prove the elements of defamation, not damages. Damages are presumed if the jury finds that Depp proved the elements of defamation. Therefore, he doesn't have to prove that the Op Ed caused a decline in his career.

This is incorrect. If he proves defamation per se, damage to reputation is presumed but he still has to prove the extent of that harm to support his damages claim, and the presumption of harm can be rebutted. One way to rebut that presumed harm would be to show he already had a reputation as violent/abusive, so that her op-Ed did not actually affect his reputation. Moreover, even if the statements were false and did harm his reputation, he would not automatically get a judgment of $50 million unless he can support that as a reasonable measure of the extent of his damages. If his primary support for his damages claim is lost film roles and she can show that he actually lost those roles for other reasons that had nothing to do with her op-Ed, then he may not recover much of anything as damages.

I’m sure he doesn’t care about the damages. He just needs the judgment. She doesn’t have any money anyways!

A judgment in his favor with $1 in damages would be a huge slap to him because it would be a statement that, while the jury thinks it more likely than not that Heard lied in the op-Ed, they also think his reputation was such trash anyway that the op-Ed wasn’t really worse than what people already thought of him.

Yes but such judgment would also show the world what kind of person AH is.

First you have to see what the judgment on her counterclaim is.

I think for many people that pooping in the bed says all they need to know about her...

Not everyone believes Depp on that one.