Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, just because she did not write it does not mean she did not get on that bandwagon. Why else would she write an oped? It was perfect timing and opportunity.

Because she was finally divorced with a domestic violence restraining order against Depp. She also announced her ACLA ambassadorship or whatever it's called. She had an attorney proof the Op Ed for any/all legal issues. Lastly, she had every right to speak or write about her experience.

I don't have an issue with her writing an oped about her experience if she was really abused, the issue with her is that she is an instigator in a lot of their fights as evidenced by her own recordings. To say that she is abused without mentioning that she is an instigator in their fights is untruthful, and worse when she speaks as an ambassador for the abused women.

This reflects a really poor understanding of the cycle of violence. Setting aside this specific case, domestic violence tends not to be a linear sequence of constant abuse. After an abusive incident, the abuser tends to be remorseful at first, but then anger and other negative emotions build and build until it explodes in another episode of physical abuse. That period when the anger is building again can be torture for an abuse victim because they know another abusive outburst is coming but they don’t know when. The result is that abuse victims will sometimes do things during that period to provoke their abuser just to get the next episode of abuse over with. It’s a protective response, but the consequence is that it looks like the victim is an instigator themselves.

there is another whole bad dynamic between them where she becomes his "sobriety keeper" and then he rebels against her when he is having a drinking or drugging episode and blames her for being controlling. so when she says his "leaving" is counter productive, she has a point but he has presented that as him leaving to prevent a fight, not him leaving to go get drunk. it is all super toxic.

Say it’s established that they were both abusive. That’s what even his expert actually testified to. The problem is, AH did NOT convey that she was also abusive to him in her oped. She was dishonest, and led her readers to believe that she was a typical victim when she was NOT, and he was NOT a typical abuser, as she conveyed, by misleading omission, in her oped. Dishonest and defamatory.

DP. Your analysis of the law is completely wrong.

Enlighten me

The standard is whether she made an affirmative false statement. Omitting his allegations that she abused him is not an affirmative statement. If he abused her, then her statement is true, regardless of what he would say in his own defense.

Moreover, think about what you’re saying for a moment. Defamation isn’t just about making a false statement. No one would care if she falsely claimed he didn’t like cocaine. The key to defamation is that it’s a false statement that harmed the person’s reputation. Implicit in your comment is that you believe abuse is justified if the other person has ever hit back. You are saying you would think no less of a Depp for raping her with a bottle if you knew she threw a bottle at him.

Her statement in her oped is that she was a “victim of abuse.” My impression of her written statement, and purpose of that op-ed, is not consistent with the evidence produced in this trial. Maybe we are arguing over semantics of her word choice, but I think her written statements convey a different kind of abuse than what actually happened. And I that way her written words were dishonest, and harmful to his career.

So you think they should both win? She’s liable because she didn’t give his side of the story and she wins because he falsely claimed that nothing she said was true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Camille Vasquez forces the judge, Depp's witnesses, Depp himself, and the jurors to smile at her. Don't be fooled. In between looking like she was going to puke during Rottenborn's closing statement, she managed to keep looking at jurors to gauge their thoughts. Eventually they saw or felt her looking at them and she forces eye contact, fake smiles, and waits for them to smile back. Wonder if Curry who isn't a board certified psychiatrist can diagnose Camille Vasquez's affliction.

The only reason she’s on this trial team is because everyone else knew that she, as an attractive woman, could get away with saying things her male colleagues never could. From their mouths, it would be immediately recognizable for the misogynistic, abuse-promoting bullshit it is.

Plus one

She's only 38 years old and will bank millions of dollars this year after attending a third tier law school. On what planet do you nitwits think this woman is a loser? She's about to be richer than 99% of 38-40 year old Ivy League lawyers.

Why do you think she will bank millions off this? She’s an 11th year associate at a big law firm, which means her prospects for partnership were probably fairly dim before his. The real money from the case will go to the partners. I mean, she could quit practicing law and try to get a commentary deal with Fox News or something, but that doesn’t actually pay very well.

That alone is $500,000+ a year but "not well" so says some seething lady on the mommy board at 6pm on memorial weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Camille Vasquez forces the judge, Depp's witnesses, Depp himself, and the jurors to smile at her. Don't be fooled. In between looking like she was going to puke during Rottenborn's closing statement, she managed to keep looking at jurors to gauge their thoughts. Eventually they saw or felt her looking at them and she forces eye contact, fake smiles, and waits for them to smile back. Wonder if Curry who isn't a board certified psychiatrist can diagnose Camille Vasquez's affliction.

The only reason she’s on this trial team is because everyone else knew that she, as an attractive woman, could get away with saying things her male colleagues never could. From their mouths, it would be immediately recognizable for the misogynistic, abuse-promoting bullshit it is.

Plus one

She's only 38 years old and will bank millions of dollars this year after attending a third tier law school. On what planet do you nitwits think this woman is a loser? She's about to be richer than 99% of 38-40 year old Ivy League lawyers.

Why do you think she will bank millions off this? She’s an 11th year associate at a big law firm, which means her prospects for partnership were probably fairly dim before his. The real money from the case will go to the partners. I mean, she could quit practicing law and try to get a commentary deal with Fox News or something, but that doesn’t actually pay very well.

That alone is $500,000+ a year but "not well" so says some seething lady on the mommy board at 6pm on memorial weekend.

DP. You know you’re posting here at 5:45 on memorial weekend, right?

That aside, most part-time Fox contributors don’t get paid nearly that much money. I mean, you’re not think she would get her own show, do you? 😆

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Camille Vasquez forces the judge, Depp's witnesses, Depp himself, and the jurors to smile at her. Don't be fooled. In between looking like she was going to puke during Rottenborn's closing statement, she managed to keep looking at jurors to gauge their thoughts. Eventually they saw or felt her looking at them and she forces eye contact, fake smiles, and waits for them to smile back. Wonder if Curry who isn't a board certified psychiatrist can diagnose Camille Vasquez's affliction.

The only reason she’s on this trial team is because everyone else knew that she, as an attractive woman, could get away with saying things her male colleagues never could. From their mouths, it would be immediately recognizable for the misogynistic, abuse-promoting bullshit it is.

Plus one

She's only 38 years old and will bank millions of dollars this year after attending a third tier law school. On what planet do you nitwits think this woman is a loser? She's about to be richer than 99% of 38-40 year old Ivy League lawyers.

Why do you think she will bank millions off this? She’s an 11th year associate at a big law firm, which means her prospects for partnership were probably fairly dim before his. The real money from the case will go to the partners. I mean, she could quit practicing law and try to get a commentary deal with Fox News or something, but that doesn’t actually pay very well.

That alone is $500,000+ a year but "not well" so says some seething lady on the mommy board at 6pm on memorial weekend.

DP. You know you’re posting here at 5:45 on memorial weekend, right?

That aside, most part-time Fox contributors don’t get paid nearly that much money. I mean, you’re not think she would get her own show, do you? 😆

I'm not the one claiming an attractive young ace barister and CLEAR charismatic star is some worthless unprofessional dumb bimbo. This is one of those once in a lifetime career moments and she's NAILING IT. She's going to get a Brink's truck of money when this ends from a variety of sources ex. firm, tv, book, speaking circuit, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Camille Vasquez forces the judge, Depp's witnesses, Depp himself, and the jurors to smile at her. Don't be fooled. In between looking like she was going to puke during Rottenborn's closing statement, she managed to keep looking at jurors to gauge their thoughts. Eventually they saw or felt her looking at them and she forces eye contact, fake smiles, and waits for them to smile back. Wonder if Curry who isn't a board certified psychiatrist can diagnose Camille Vasquez's affliction.

The only reason she’s on this trial team is because everyone else knew that she, as an attractive woman, could get away with saying things her male colleagues never could. From their mouths, it would be immediately recognizable for the misogynistic, abuse-promoting bullshit it is.

Plus one

She's only 38 years old and will bank millions of dollars this year after attending a third tier law school. On what planet do you nitwits think this woman is a loser? She's about to be richer than 99% of 38-40 year old Ivy League lawyers.

Why do you think she will bank millions off this? She’s an 11th year associate at a big law firm, which means her prospects for partnership were probably fairly dim before his. The real money from the case will go to the partners. I mean, she could quit practicing law and try to get a commentary deal with Fox News or something, but that doesn’t actually pay very well.

That alone is $500,000+ a year but "not well" so says some seething lady on the mommy board at 6pm on memorial weekend.

DP. You know you’re posting here at 5:45 on memorial weekend, right?

That aside, most part-time Fox contributors don’t get paid nearly that much money. I mean, you’re not think she would get her own show, do you? 😆

I'm not the one claiming an attractive young ace barister and CLEAR charismatic star is some worthless unprofessional dumb bimbo. This is one of those once in a lifetime career moments and she's NAILING IT. She's going to get a Brink's truck of money when this ends from a variety of sources ex. firm, tv, book, speaking circuit, etc.

LOL, so posting on DCUM on the Friday evening of a holiday weekend is pathetic is you don’t like Camille but winning if you do?

[Anonymous]

Yes, seething with anger about the talented and gorgeous Ms. Vasquez on Memorial Weekend suggests you're a pretty miserable person.

[Anonymous]

She is a bonafide star, added bonus she's a Latina. If she goes to Fox News or CNN, which she could very easily, it'll be for a multi-million dollar contract. She is certainly prettier, more charming, and a more effective communicator than any of the dimwitted overdone bimbos currently employed on those channels. Plus the diversity she brings. The View could also be a dark horse candidate for her services; again, their offer would be millions of dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Camille Vasquez forces the judge, Depp's witnesses, Depp himself, and the jurors to smile at her. Don't be fooled. In between looking like she was going to puke during Rottenborn's closing statement, she managed to keep looking at jurors to gauge their thoughts. Eventually they saw or felt her looking at them and she forces eye contact, fake smiles, and waits for them to smile back. Wonder if Curry who isn't a board certified psychiatrist can diagnose Camille Vasquez's affliction.

The only reason she’s on this trial team is because everyone else knew that she, as an attractive woman, could get away with saying things her male colleagues never could. From their mouths, it would be immediately recognizable for the misogynistic, abuse-promoting bullshit it is.

Plus one

She's only 38 years old and will bank millions of dollars this year after attending a third tier law school. On what planet do you nitwits think this woman is a loser? She's about to be richer than 99% of 38-40 year old Ivy League lawyers.

Why do you think she will bank millions off this? She’s an 11th year associate at a big law firm, which means her prospects for partnership were probably fairly dim before his. The real money from the case will go to the partners. I mean, she could quit practicing law and try to get a commentary deal with Fox News or something, but that doesn’t actually pay very well.

That alone is $500,000+ a year but "not well" so says some seething lady on the mommy board at 6pm on memorial weekend.

DP. You know you’re posting here at 5:45 on memorial weekend, right?

That aside, most part-time Fox contributors don’t get paid nearly that much money. I mean, you’re not think she would get her own show, do you? 😆

I'm not the one claiming an attractive young ace barister and CLEAR charismatic star is some worthless unprofessional dumb bimbo. This is one of those once in a lifetime career moments and she's NAILING IT. She's going to get a Brink's truck of money when this ends from a variety of sources ex. firm, tv, book, speaking circuit, etc.

She hasn’t won yet. And there are only so many cases where it’s helpful to create a fantasy with the public that you’re having sex with your client.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is a bonafide star, added bonus she's a Latina. If she goes to Fox News or CNN, which she could very easily, it'll be for a multi-million dollar contract. She is certainly prettier, more charming, and a more effective communicator than any of the dimwitted overdone bimbos currently employed on those channels. Plus the diversity she brings. The View could also be a dark horse candidate for her services; again, their offer would be millions of dollars.

DP. I guess we will all see what happens to her after the trial, since no one here has a crystal ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, seething with anger about the talented and gorgeous Ms. Vasquez on Memorial Weekend suggests you're a pretty miserable person.

You are here seething with anger over the idea that anonymous people on the internet have different opinions from you. I don’t see anyone else seething and making ad hominem personal attacks on other posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is a bonafide star, added bonus she's a Latina. If she goes to Fox News or CNN, which she could very easily, it'll be for a multi-million dollar contract. She is certainly prettier, more charming, and a more effective communicator than any of the dimwitted overdone bimbos currently employed on those channels. Plus the diversity she brings. The View could also be a dark horse candidate for her services; again, their offer would be millions of dollars.

+ GMA, Today Show, and CBS This Morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is a bonafide star, added bonus she's a Latina. If she goes to Fox News or CNN, which she could very easily, it'll be for a multi-million dollar contract. She is certainly prettier, more charming, and a more effective communicator than any of the dimwitted overdone bimbos currently employed on those channels. Plus the diversity she brings. The View could also be a dark horse candidate for her services; again, their offer would be millions of dollars.

+ GMA, Today Show, and CBS This Morning.

Ah, the Boomer brigade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Camille Vasquez forces the judge, Depp's witnesses, Depp himself, and the jurors to smile at her. Don't be fooled. In between looking like she was going to puke during Rottenborn's closing statement, she managed to keep looking at jurors to gauge their thoughts. Eventually they saw or felt her looking at them and she forces eye contact, fake smiles, and waits for them to smile back. Wonder if Curry who isn't a board certified psychiatrist can diagnose Camille Vasquez's affliction.

The only reason she’s on this trial team is because everyone else knew that she, as an attractive woman, could get away with saying things her male colleagues never could. From their mouths, it would be immediately recognizable for the misogynistic, abuse-promoting bullshit it is.

Plus one

She's only 38 years old and will bank millions of dollars this year after attending a third tier law school. On what planet do you nitwits think this woman is a loser? She's about to be richer than 99% of 38-40 year old Ivy League lawyers.

That was not the bone of contention - it was that she was selected for superficial optics rather than legal talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, just because she did not write it does not mean she did not get on that bandwagon. Why else would she write an oped? It was perfect timing and opportunity.

Because she was finally divorced with a domestic violence restraining order against Depp. She also announced her ACLA ambassadorship or whatever it's called. She had an attorney proof the Op Ed for any/all legal issues. Lastly, she had every right to speak or write about her experience.

I don't have an issue with her writing an oped about her experience if she was really abused, the issue with her is that she is an instigator in a lot of their fights as evidenced by her own recordings. To say that she is abused without mentioning that she is an instigator in their fights is untruthful, and worse when she speaks as an ambassador for the abused women.

This reflects a really poor understanding of the cycle of violence. Setting aside this specific case, domestic violence tends not to be a linear sequence of constant abuse. After an abusive incident, the abuser tends to be remorseful at first, but then anger and other negative emotions build and build until it explodes in another episode of physical abuse. That period when the anger is building again can be torture for an abuse victim because they know another abusive outburst is coming but they don’t know when. The result is that abuse victims will sometimes do things during that period to provoke their abuser just to get the next episode of abuse over with. It’s a protective response, but the consequence is that it looks like the victim is an instigator themselves.

there is another whole bad dynamic between them where she becomes his "sobriety keeper" and then he rebels against her when he is having a drinking or drugging episode and blames her for being controlling. so when she says his "leaving" is counter productive, she has a point but he has presented that as him leaving to prevent a fight, not him leaving to go get drunk. it is all super toxic.

Say it’s established that they were both abusive. That’s what even his expert actually testified to. The problem is, AH did NOT convey that she was also abusive to him in her oped. She was dishonest, and led her readers to believe that she was a typical victim when she was NOT, and he was NOT a typical abuser, as she conveyed, by misleading omission, in her oped. Dishonest and defamatory.

DP. Your analysis of the law is completely wrong.

Enlighten me

The standard is whether she made an affirmative false statement. Omitting his allegations that she abused him is not an affirmative statement. If he abused her, then her statement is true, regardless of what he would say in his own defense.

Moreover, think about what you’re saying for a moment. Defamation isn’t just about making a false statement. No one would care if she falsely claimed he didn’t like cocaine. The key to defamation is that it’s a false statement that harmed the person’s reputation. Implicit in your comment is that you believe abuse is justified if the other person has ever hit back. You are saying you would think no less of a Depp for raping her with a bottle if you knew she threw a bottle at him.

Her statement in her oped is that she was a “victim of abuse.” My impression of her written statement, and purpose of that op-ed, is not consistent with the evidence produced in this trial. Maybe we are arguing over semantics of her word choice, but I think her written statements convey a different kind of abuse than what actually happened. And I that way her written words were dishonest, and harmful to his career.

So you think they should both win? She’s liable because she didn’t give his side of the story and she wins because he falsely claimed that nothing she said was true?

Not PP, but I think neither should win. She didn’t defame him because he did abuse her. He didn’t defame her because he’s not wrong that a bunch of her evidence is so much BS.

[Anonymous]

Gorgeous