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 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.

I don't think she needs to win the case. Many viewers were smitten with her and if she's smart enough will bank on her popularity. On another note, I heard from one of the channel televising the trial that there is plans to make a movie and Heather Locklear will play Dr Shannon Curry, another stand out from the trial.

I really don’t think she’s that popular especially with the age group who would see the kind of movies she made in the past. It was reported there were only 2 fans/supporters for her while everyone else was there to see Depp outside the courthouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think she needs to win the case. Many viewers were smitten with her and if she's smart enough will bank on her popularity. On another note, I heard from one of the channel televising the trial that there is plans to make a movie and Heather Locklear will play Dr Shannon Curry, another stand out from the trial.

I really don’t think she’s that popular especially with the age group who would see the kind of movies she made in the past. It was reported there were only 2 fans/supporters for her while everyone else was there to see Depp outside the courthouse.

Reading is fundamental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone feel really sorry for the jurors who had to give up a lot of their life to sit through this mess. It's one thing to be a juror on a criminal trial where you are hopefully giving justice to either a victim or a defendant. It's one's "civic duty" to render a decision in a case where someone is injured by another driver or someone's bad product. But, in this case, they both seem pretty awful. I've always wanted to be a juror, but this case makes me think twice about that.... it would suck to waste my time on two terrible people.

My heart goes out to the two alternates who were released. Yes, there is a chance they will be called to return if something were to happen to another juror, but to sit there for 6 weeks of this back and forth and then be released and still not be allowed to discuss it with anyone. That has to be tough.

[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.

How was she nailing it??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone feel really sorry for the jurors who had to give up a lot of their life to sit through this mess. It's one thing to be a juror on a criminal trial where you are hopefully giving justice to either a victim or a defendant. It's one's "civic duty" to render a decision in a case where someone is injured by another driver or someone's bad product. But, in this case, they both seem pretty awful. I've always wanted to be a juror, but this case makes me think twice about that.... it would suck to waste my time on two terrible people.

Definitely. It frankly seems like abuse of the system, especially for 6 week trial. Airing their own person disgusting dirty laundry and the jurors are forced to watch and care about 2 equally despicable degenerates. No one wins here, no matter the outcome.

[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.

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

+1. Her courtroom performance was average. Maybe she will improve with a few more trials under her belt, but if it were for her physical appearance no one would have been particularly impressed by her.

I agree with all of this. I only saw the viral clips of her, but she reminded me of my high school mock trial team. Was bewildering that people were calling her “savage”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think she needs to win the case. Many viewers were smitten with her and if she's smart enough will bank on her popularity. On another note, I heard from one of the channel televising the trial that there is plans to make a movie and Heather Locklear will play Dr Shannon Curry, another stand out from the trial.

How was she a standout? I would like to hear your reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think she needs to win the case. Many viewers were smitten with her and if she's smart enough will bank on her popularity. On another note, I heard from one of the channel televising the trial that there is plans to make a movie and Heather Locklear will play Dr Shannon Curry, another stand out from the trial.

How was she a standout? I would like to hear your reasoning.

She was on Team JD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think she needs to win the case. Many viewers were smitten with her and if she's smart enough will bank on her popularity. On another note, I heard from one of the channel televising the trial that there is plans to make a movie and Heather Locklear will play Dr Shannon Curry, another stand out from the trial.

How was she a standout? I would like to hear your reasoning.

She was on Team JD.

What now? I saw her. I would like to hear why you thought she was a “standout”.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes to both PP’s. If you have never been in a cycle like this with a spouse etc, you don’t know what it is like.

The only problem with this interpretation is that she was/is a druggie herself. She organized her whole life around parties and taking drugs.

No, I’m not just talking about the drug taking. More the whole toxic cycle of disrespect and verbal and mental abuse. And, even if she did do drugs, that would not nullify the other behavior I’m referencing. They can both co exist simultaneously

+1

[Anonymous]

Camille was very good at objecting. Clear, concise and generally accurate. She was also far better on direct - in that most of her questions were survived objections. Elaine was often unable to cure objectionable questions and typically she would abandon the questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think she needs to win the case. Many viewers were smitten with her and if she's smart enough will bank on her popularity. On another note, I heard from one of the channel televising the trial that there is plans to make a movie and Heather Locklear will play Dr Shannon Curry, another stand out from the trial.

How was she a standout? I would like to hear your reasoning.

She was horrible, there was zero chemistry between her and Momoa. She is definitely pretty, but unfortunately her ugly inside shows even in her acting. Johnny Depp doesn’t need to win the case. People love him, this trial was to show the world who Amber really is - a big time liar. She will only star in a few indie movies or soaps, that’s it. Maybe will try to write a book and cash on the story. Typical move of “stars” with no money. What I wonder is where in the world was her baby this entire trial? Here or left with a nanny?

[Anonymous]

Even if AH wins, I think JD is walking away the winner. I think this trial really brought to the forefront what an awful person AH is. He had a very effective team of attorneys. It was thrilling and very triggering to watch as someone who has been in a very contentious custody battle and had my words and evidence twisted in many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think she needs to win the case. Many viewers were smitten with her and if she's smart enough will bank on her popularity. On another note, I heard from one of the channel televising the trial that there is plans to make a movie and Heather Locklear will play Dr Shannon Curry, another stand out from the trial.

How was she a standout? I would like to hear your reasoning.

She was horrible, there was zero chemistry between her and Momoa. She is definitely pretty, but unfortunately her ugly inside shows even in her acting. Johnny Depp doesn’t need to win the case. People love him, this trial was to show the world who Amber really is - a big time liar. She will only star in a few indie movies or soaps, that’s it. Maybe will try to write a book and cash on the story. Typical move of “stars” with no money. What I wonder is where in the world was her baby this entire trial? Here or left with a nanny?

Dude, learn to read. We’re not talking about Amber Heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Camille was very good at objecting. Clear, concise and generally accurate. She was also far better on direct - in that most of her questions were survived objections. Elaine was often unable to cure objectionable questions and typically she would abandon the questions.

Direct is east, you’re just following a pre-set formula. Cross is where you really see how skilled a trial attorney is.