Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to step in and say that, while I grew up a JD fan, that's not why I believe him. Some AH supporters here are painting Johnny fans as people who side with the man always, upholders of the powerful patriarchy or whatever.

My bias is 100% about AH's Borderline Personality Disorder. I grew up with an abusive BPD mom, and once you know a BPD, you can't help it with the pattern recognition. BPDs will tell any lie to save their image (which to them feels like saving their very life), they absolutely will invent abuse to get back at someone (it is a favorite tactic), they will deny something that you just saw happen 5 minutes ago, they lie so much you start to wonder if they believe their own lies (no one knows for sure), they know that a big lie is better than a small "weak" lie, and they laugh at those they have deceived. They believe everyone else is just as corrupt as they are (like, "you would have done the same thing" and "the others are all liars"). Oh, and they LOVE to appear all charitable and selfless, like they are standing up for a cause ("I wrote an op-ed, now I'm just like Angelina Jolie!"), giving money to charity (or rather just lying about it), and sometimes legitimately doing good works (but for the wrong reasons).

This doesn't mean that a person with BPD can't also be a victim though. I think people with BPD are often victims, actually. But I don't believe it in this case, because Johnny does not fit any patterns that I know. He's been consistent. I relate to his need for truth. I don't agree that he went through all this just to abuse Amber. I believe he needed to do this for himself.

He had a good record before Amber. Yes, he admits to drug and alcohol abuse, but she was abusing drugs and alcohol too, so I don't buy the whole, "He probably can't remember what he did!" You know, she might not remember what happened either, in her drunken state, and anyway, it's her pattern to LIE.

So now it will be over. I look forward to reading about the closing arguments tomorrow.

As far as "which side is right," if it matters a lot to you, I believe it will become clear when you see how each of them live out the rest of their lives. I am feeling optimistic for Johnny, that he puts this behind him and goes on to better things.

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that:

1) JD didn't sufficiently prove defamation in court

2) JD did, however, prove defamation in court of public opinion

3) AH didn't sufficiently prove her case either?

Yes, I honestly think this is the most likely outcome. Jury concludes nobody defamed anyone because you’re both a mess; can we please go home already?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that:

1) JD didn't sufficiently prove defamation in court

2) JD did, however, prove defamation in court of public opinion

3) AH didn't sufficiently prove her case either?

Yes, I honestly think this is the most likely outcome. Jury concludes nobody defamed anyone because you’re both a mess; can we please go home already?

I don't know, if I had a 9-5 job that had jury duty as a benefit, I would have loved to sit in that jury. Hey getting paid and having first row seat in a soap opera is a pretty good deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that:

1) JD didn't sufficiently prove defamation in court

2) JD did, however, prove defamation in court of public opinion

3) AH didn't sufficiently prove her case either?

Yes, I honestly think this is the most likely outcome. Jury concludes nobody defamed anyone because you’re both a mess; can we please go home already?

I don't know, if I had a 9-5 job that had jury duty as a benefit, I would have loved to sit in that jury. Hey getting paid and having first row seat in a soap opera is a pretty good deal.

I don’t think you have any understanding of how disruptive it is to everything in your life to be on a multi-week jury, especially a high profile one. This people basically have to hide at home whoever they’re not in the courtroom to avoid harassment by the crazies living at that courthouse and stalking everyone associated with this trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to step in and say that, while I grew up a JD fan, that's not why I believe him. Some AH supporters here are painting Johnny fans as people who side with the man always, upholders of the powerful patriarchy or whatever.

My bias is 100% about AH's Borderline Personality Disorder. I grew up with an abusive BPD mom, and once you know a BPD, you can't help it with the pattern recognition. BPDs will tell any lie to save their image (which to them feels like saving their very life), they absolutely will invent abuse to get back at someone (it is a favorite tactic), they will deny something that you just saw happen 5 minutes ago, they lie so much you start to wonder if they believe their own lies (no one knows for sure), they know that a big lie is better than a small "weak" lie, and they laugh at those they have deceived. They believe everyone else is just as corrupt as they are (like, "you would have done the same thing" and "the others are all liars"). Oh, and they LOVE to appear all charitable and selfless, like they are standing up for a cause ("I wrote an op-ed, now I'm just like Angelina Jolie!"), giving money to charity (or rather just lying about it), and sometimes legitimately doing good works (but for the wrong reasons).

This doesn't mean that a person with BPD can't also be a victim though. I think people with BPD are often victims, actually. But I don't believe it in this case, because Johnny does not fit any patterns that I know. He's been consistent. I relate to his need for truth. I don't agree that he went through all this just to abuse Amber. I believe he needed to do this for himself.

He had a good record before Amber. Yes, he admits to drug and alcohol abuse, but she was abusing drugs and alcohol too, so I don't buy the whole, "He probably can't remember what he did!" You know, she might not remember what happened either, in her drunken state, and anyway, it's her pattern to LIE.

So now it will be over. I look forward to reading about the closing arguments tomorrow.

As far as "which side is right," if it matters a lot to you, I believe it will become clear when you see how each of them live out the rest of their lives. I am feeling optimistic for Johnny, that he puts this behind him and goes on to better things.

I grew up with a borderline parent too and what I can’t get pay is that despite that, and despite the bpd’s behavior, I never have come close to acting the way he has. Other people’s bad behavior isn’t an excuse for my own, and throwing bottles and texting about her dead corpse and calling her names and trashing apartments is just not ok, it is abusive, no matter what the other side did

[Anonymous]

The question is: when will the jury reach a verdict? How long will it take them? I would be shocked if they can’t close this out tomorrow.

Hung jury possible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question is: when will the jury reach a verdict? How long will it take them? I would be shocked if they can’t close this out tomorrow.

Hung jury possible?

Maybe it will be quick so that they can go home for the weekend and start next week fresh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that:

1) JD didn't sufficiently prove defamation in court

2) JD did, however, prove defamation in court of public opinion

3) AH didn't sufficiently prove her case either?

Yes, I honestly think this is the most likely outcome. Jury concludes nobody defamed anyone because you’re both a mess; can we please go home already?

I don't know, if I had a 9-5 job that had jury duty as a benefit, I would have loved to sit in that jury. Hey getting paid and having first row seat in a soap opera is a pretty good deal.

I don’t think you have any understanding of how disruptive it is to everything in your life to be on a multi-week jury, especially a high profile one. This people basically have to hide at home whoever they’re not in the courtroom to avoid harassment by the crazies living at that courthouse and stalking everyone associated with this trial.

You are right. I don't know anything about being a juror in a high profile case. Aren't juror supposed to be anonymous ie people (beside your family) are not supposed to know who jurors are? I thought after the trial, it was your choice whether you want to come out of anonymity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question is: when will the jury reach a verdict? How long will it take them? I would be shocked if they can’t close this out tomorrow.

Hung jury possible?

Hung jury will take much longer than just a day. Judge will probably make them go back and try to reach a decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that:

1) JD didn't sufficiently prove defamation in court

2) JD did, however, prove defamation in court of public opinion

3) AH didn't sufficiently prove her case either?

Yes, I honestly think this is the most likely outcome. Jury concludes nobody defamed anyone because you’re both a mess; can we please go home already?

I don't know, if I had a 9-5 job that had jury duty as a benefit, I would have loved to sit in that jury. Hey getting paid and having first row seat in a soap opera is a pretty good deal.

I don’t think you have any understanding of how disruptive it is to everything in your life to be on a multi-week jury, especially a high profile one. This people basically have to hide at home whoever they’re not in the courtroom to avoid harassment by the crazies living at that courthouse and stalking everyone associated with this trial.

You are right. I don't know anything about being a juror in a high profile case. Aren't juror supposed to be anonymous ie people (beside your family) are not supposed to know who jurors are? I thought after the trial, it was your choice whether you want to come out of anonymity?

You are wildly underestimating how easy it is to identify jurors.

But even beyond that, if they are taking jury duty seriously, they basically have to stay off the television, internet and anywhere else they might encounter commentary on the trial. And if they try to do something social, they face either lying about what they’ve been doing for a week or having people grill them about the trial and spouting off about their own views. Being on a jury is incredibly limiting and isolating.

And can you imagine how badly work may be backed up for them after seven weeks? If I were on that jury, I’d basically have to work all of Friday-Sunday to try to keep things from becoming a total disaster, which is really stressful on its own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to step in and say that, while I grew up a JD fan, that's not why I believe him. Some AH supporters here are painting Johnny fans as people who side with the man always, upholders of the powerful patriarchy or whatever.

My bias is 100% about AH's Borderline Personality Disorder. I grew up with an abusive BPD mom, and once you know a BPD, you can't help it with the pattern recognition. BPDs will tell any lie to save their image (which to them feels like saving their very life), they absolutely will invent abuse to get back at someone (it is a favorite tactic), they will deny something that you just saw happen 5 minutes ago, they lie so much you start to wonder if they believe their own lies (no one knows for sure), they know that a big lie is better than a small "weak" lie, and they laugh at those they have deceived. They believe everyone else is just as corrupt as they are (like, "you would have done the same thing" and "the others are all liars"). Oh, and they LOVE to appear all charitable and selfless, like they are standing up for a cause ("I wrote an op-ed, now I'm just like Angelina Jolie!"), giving money to charity (or rather just lying about it), and sometimes legitimately doing good works (but for the wrong reasons).

This doesn't mean that a person with BPD can't also be a victim though. I think people with BPD are often victims, actually. But I don't believe it in this case, because Johnny does not fit any patterns that I know. He's been consistent. I relate to his need for truth. I don't agree that he went through all this just to abuse Amber. I believe he needed to do this for himself.

He had a good record before Amber. Yes, he admits to drug and alcohol abuse, but she was abusing drugs and alcohol too, so I don't buy the whole, "He probably can't remember what he did!" You know, she might not remember what happened either, in her drunken state, and anyway, it's her pattern to LIE.

So now it will be over. I look forward to reading about the closing arguments tomorrow.

As far as "which side is right," if it matters a lot to you, I believe it will become clear when you see how each of them live out the rest of their lives. I am feeling optimistic for Johnny, that he puts this behind him and goes on to better things.

I grew up with a borderline parent too and what I can’t get pay is that despite that, and despite the bpd’s behavior, I never have come close to acting the way he has. Other people’s bad behavior isn’t an excuse for my own, and throwing bottles and texting about her dead corpse and calling her names and trashing apartments is just not ok, it is abusive, no matter what the other side did

I am sorry. The thing is, it is normal to be angry when you are wronged! You can internalize the anger, and it will morph into depression or substance abuse. You can deal in a healthy way with anger, but most people probably aren't equipped to know how to do that.

I have definitely expressed anger to trusted confidantes in wriiten and verbal form that included expletives and dark thoughts. I think that's a pretty decent way to let off steam. His texts don't bother me much -- I think I might say worse about a friend's abusive partner in texts that I expect no one else to see. Doesn't mean that I would actually slice his balls in tiny pieces or whatever. It doesn't make me a monster to have thought it.

Trashing places isn't great but it is still not striking another person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please. She's a lawyer doing a job.

Then that's a nasty sadistic job. What if Amber is less "guilty" than people think. Nightmare to be her.

Elaine, whom I know - and she is a nice person, and the defense lawyers were also “nasty”. It’s part of cross examination. You’re asking a witness, who is there for The other party, ?s to poke holes in his or her story. You don’t do that by being sweet. You do that by being aggressive, well prepared, and asking good, non objectionable, leading questions.

I love how clueless she was about photo editing or chemistry on set. She wanted to appear aggressive, well prepared and asking good questions, but she sounded so clueless, it was laughable. She seems very old fashioned, and not in a good way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Camille Vasquez was paid to do one job. To make Heard crack. Depp and his paid oligarchs are controlling the social media narrative and this case. Camille is and forever will be the uglier “c**t” in Depp’s revolving door of “lackeys.” You realize that he hired this motley crew of attorneys to taunt and abuse Heard. Look at Ben Chew, that dopey mofo is is constantly chewing, I kid you not. Watch the end of Heard’s final testimony when she leaves the stand. Watch what Camille and Chewy closely. Chewy is in fact chewing gummy bears and practically walks right into her. And CV is stares her down. They were hired to antagonize Heard for 6 weeks and force her to lose her shït, lash out, and show anger. Too bad Heard is smarter than them. Read Depp's text that I posted on p.170 19:34. She practically begged the jury to read the text. He states that he will ruin her and hopes she dies. Read it. Heard’s closing testimony is astoundingly the truth. As I said earlier, I applaud her if she got a few punches in during those years. Then I’ll applaud her for winning this case. Don’t sleep on Elaine either. That woman is tireless and unshakable.

Of course a lawyer, any lawyer, is hired to win the case.

I believe Ms. Vasquez was used in cross a) because she's good at thinking on her feet and b) yes, Ms. Heard did not seem to react well to her. If someone gets under your skin they can use that to their advantage. It's done often in a court of law.

Both teams are trying to win the case for their clients. That's what they were hired to do. I don't understand judging them for trying to do their jobs.

I'm not sure how counsel using their strengths is seen as inappropriate or how anyone is expected to get a fair trial if the first rule is to "play nice." Spend time sitting in a courtroom. It's often ugly and very sad.

The last cross examination of Amber Heard by Camille was antagonistic. It's the manner in which she treated Amber. It was aggressive and unnecessary. Who says you can't say the same things, or trap her in a lie, etc, in a more civil tone. It seems incongruous to be so fakey obsequious to the judge and say Your Honor and stand up when the jury leaves, and then be allowed to lash out on a witness.

I'm curious, how do you feel about Amber Heard rolling her eyes, talking over Camille Vasquez and ignoring the judge's instructions to just answer the questions?

You can't have it both ways--if lawyers are supposed to be civil, does the same rule apply to their clients?

Absolutely not, Camille was the agressor, didn't let her finish, told her to shut up and not address the jury box, and then claimed she didn't ask her anything after aggressively asking her cross-exam questions. Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to step in and say that, while I grew up a JD fan, that's not why I believe him. Some AH supporters here are painting Johnny fans as people who side with the man always, upholders of the powerful patriarchy or whatever.

My bias is 100% about AH's Borderline Personality Disorder. I grew up with an abusive BPD mom, and once you know a BPD, you can't help it with the pattern recognition. BPDs will tell any lie to save their image (which to them feels like saving their very life), they absolutely will invent abuse to get back at someone (it is a favorite tactic), they will deny something that you just saw happen 5 minutes ago, they lie so much you start to wonder if they believe their own lies (no one knows for sure), they know that a big lie is better than a small "weak" lie, and they laugh at those they have deceived. They believe everyone else is just as corrupt as they are (like, "you would have done the same thing" and "the others are all liars"). Oh, and they LOVE to appear all charitable and selfless, like they are standing up for a cause ("I wrote an op-ed, now I'm just like Angelina Jolie!"), giving money to charity (or rather just lying about it), and sometimes legitimately doing good works (but for the wrong reasons).

This doesn't mean that a person with BPD can't also be a victim though. I think people with BPD are often victims, actually. But I don't believe it in this case, because Johnny does not fit any patterns that I know. He's been consistent. I relate to his need for truth. I don't agree that he went through all this just to abuse Amber. I believe he needed to do this for himself.

He had a good record before Amber. Yes, he admits to drug and alcohol abuse, but she was abusing drugs and alcohol too, so I don't buy the whole, "He probably can't remember what he did!" You know, she might not remember what happened either, in her drunken state, and anyway, it's her pattern to LIE.

So now it will be over. I look forward to reading about the closing arguments tomorrow.

As far as "which side is right," if it matters a lot to you, I believe it will become clear when you see how each of them live out the rest of their lives. I am feeling optimistic for Johnny, that he puts this behind him and goes on to better things.

Thank you!

Well stated, best read of this thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When does this go to the jury?

Closing arguments tomorrow I believe, then to the Jury.

I feel so sorry for those people who had to sacrifice so many weeks of their lives for Johnny Depp’s ego trip. He doesn’t give a shit about anyone but himself.

This is 100% clear.