Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

I don’t think it was right for her to write that oped or that it was published when her hands are unclean in the relationship. It does not seem honest at all. And I believe it did affect his star power at the time. I also think that the Waldman statements shed light on her dishonesty. For me, it’s her dishonesty that drives the outcome of this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law & Crime has a monopoly on this trial. They're the Fox news of law & crime. I need another live site, anyone?

Why not CourtTV?

On iPad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it was right for her to write that oped or that it was published when her hands are unclean in the relationship. It does not seem honest at all. And I believe it did affect his star power at the time. I also think that the Waldman statements shed light on her dishonesty. For me, it’s her dishonesty that drives the outcome of this case.

I respectfully disagree. She had every right under the 1st amendment to write or speak about it. Try to watch Rottenborn's closing statement. He put most of what you mention in perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it was right for her to write that oped or that it was published when her hands are unclean in the relationship. It does not seem honest at all. And I believe it did affect his star power at the time. I also think that the Waldman statements shed light on her dishonesty. For me, it’s her dishonesty that drives the outcome of this case.

I respectfully disagree. She had every right under the 1st amendment to write or speak about it. Try to watch Rottenborn's closing statement. He put most of what you mention in perspective.

Then she should have also included the fact that she had unclean hands in the relationship, too. Otherwise, it’s dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amber alert in the courtroom, heh!

Amazing that even after it went off the first time, some assholes didn’t turn off their phones.

There is a tornado warning--as in tornado spotted.

The point is that cell phones are supposed to be off in the courtroom. Alerts went off once, disrupting the trial, and people still couldn’t be bothered silencing their phones so they wouldn’t continue to disrupt the trial.

The point is a tornado warning means “seek shelter.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it was right for her to write that oped or that it was published when her hands are unclean in the relationship. It does not seem honest at all. And I believe it did affect his star power at the time. I also think that the Waldman statements shed light on her dishonesty. For me, it’s her dishonesty that drives the outcome of this case.

I respectfully disagree. She had every right under the 1st amendment to write or speak about it. Try to watch Rottenborn's closing statement. He put most of what you mention in perspective.

Then she should have also included the fact that she had unclean hands in the relationship, too. Otherwise, it’s dishonest.

Lying about herself is not the same as lying about him. And no one can sue her for lying about herself, unless she’s lying about being an FBI agent.

His career is trashed more by this trial than anything else

[Anonymous]

As attorney, I think it’s offensive the way she is conflating criminal and civil proceedings to try to manipulate the jury’s understand of the standard.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand Depp's attys keep bringing up the people who testified on their side. Just because they didn't see the abuse doesn't mean the abuse didn't happen. And what about all the people who testified for Heard?

I hope AH wins, but I am also worried about something one of the commentators said, that the jurors smiled at Vasquez at the beginning of the day today, and didn't show any other particular reaction to any of the other attys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it was right for her to write that oped or that it was published when her hands are unclean in the relationship. It does not seem honest at all. And I believe it did affect his star power at the time. I also think that the Waldman statements shed light on her dishonesty. For me, it’s her dishonesty that drives the outcome of this case.

I respectfully disagree. She had every right under the 1st amendment to write or speak about it. Try to watch Rottenborn's closing statement. He put most of what you mention in perspective.

Then she should have also included the fact that she had unclean hands in the relationship, too. Otherwise, it’s dishonest.

Lying about herself is not the same as lying about him. And no one can sue her for lying about herself, unless she’s lying about being an FBI agent.

His career is trashed more by this trial than anything else

Lying by omission of her unclean hands within the relationship conveyed to the reader that he was a “wife beater” in the typical sense and that she was a typical abuse victim. But their relationship was not like that. He was not the way she conveyed in op-ed because of what she wrote. Dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Wait, Heard can’t have PTSD because she just had a baby?

[Anonymous]

There really is a difference between a text and a severed finger. Making them equal is just nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it was right for her to write that oped or that it was published when her hands are unclean in the relationship. It does not seem honest at all. And I believe it did affect his star power at the time. I also think that the Waldman statements shed light on her dishonesty. For me, it’s her dishonesty that drives the outcome of this case.

I respectfully disagree. She had every right under the 1st amendment to write or speak about it. Try to watch Rottenborn's closing statement. He put most of what you mention in perspective.

Then she should have also included the fact that she had unclean hands in the relationship, too. Otherwise, it’s dishonest.

Lying about herself is not the same as lying about him. And no one can sue her for lying about herself, unless she’s lying about being an FBI agent.

His career is trashed more by this trial than anything else

I think he'll be fine without a career

[Anonymous]

JD’s are worried about abuse encompassing the emotional kind.

[Anonymous]

Is this Camille? I really loath her.

[Anonymous]

I don't think you have to believe AH on all or nothing as Vasquez is saying. I understand why she wants to convince the jury of that, but I don't think that's how most people think.