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:

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?

That was about CV not AH. Next time get the context before you go off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then I can say without a doubt that Elaine was an awful trial attorney

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only partially true. Direct is not easy if you’re receiving objections and are unable to cure them quickly. You have to be able to pivot quickly. Some lawyers can’t do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I disagree. I didn’t know much or care about Amber before this trial. I don’t care if she’s a liar or not. She’s irrelevant to me. Like all Gen-Xers, I’ve known of JD since childhood and his image is forever tarnished beyond repair. Whether or not he’s an abuser, he’s a disgusting alcoholic/druggie. His vile texts are a clear indication of his misogyny. Regardless of how his finger was cut, anyone who would write in blood all over the walls is a major sicko. He’s gross. I hope he never works again, I certainly won’t watch any movie he’s in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only partially true. Direct is not easy if you’re receiving objections and are unable to cure them quickly. You have to be able to pivot quickly. Some lawyers can’t do it.

I’m an expert witness. For me, cross exam is often easier than direct. It’s odd.

[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.

They’ll have their 15 minutes soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only partially true. Direct is not easy if you’re receiving objections and are unable to cure them quickly. You have to be able to pivot quickly. Some lawyers can’t do it.

I’m an expert witness. For me, cross exam is often easier than direct. It’s odd.

Not odd at all. As a witness, direct is harder because you have to come up with the answer:
“What happened on 1/15/21?”

Versus having the answer fed to you: “And 1/15/21 was the day Mr. Smith’s car struck yours?”

[Anonymous]

Camille is not attractive. She is very pudgy. She appears to have huge fake veneer teeth, which is very odd for someone in their 30s. In a room full of old boomers she sticks out is all. She wouldn’t look out of place and you wouldn’t give her a second look if she was making you a chicken club at Subway. She’s just a sassy Latina so her snarky clips are perfect for dimwit masses to share on Twitter and TikTok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only partially true. Direct is not easy if you’re receiving objections and are unable to cure them quickly. You have to be able to pivot quickly. Some lawyers can’t do it.

I’m an expert witness. For me, cross exam is often easier than direct. It’s odd.

We’re talking about for the attorney, not the witness. Completely different experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only partially true. Direct is not easy if you’re receiving objections and are unable to cure them quickly. You have to be able to pivot quickly. Some lawyers can’t do it.

It's easier to be able to ask leading questions on cross than it is to ask non-leading questions on direct. If the witness is not giving the needed testimony on direct, you have to be able to figure out how to get the witness to answer without leading the witness.

[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.

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”

Are either of you trial attorneys? Her courtroom performance was better than average. Her objections were accurate. Her questions on direct were not leading. She knew the evidence well -- not easy to do when there are thousands of exhibits -- and she thought quickly on her feet. All of this really is not easy to put together.

[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.

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”

Are either of you trial attorneys? Her courtroom performance was better than average. Her objections were accurate. Her questions on direct were not leading. She knew the evidence well -- not easy to do when there are thousands of exhibits -- and she thought quickly on her feet. All of this really is not easy to put together.

+1. They're obviously not attorneys. It's probably one or two AH orbiters who were kicked out of the courthouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Camille is not attractive. She is very pudgy. She appears to have huge fake veneer teeth, which is very odd for someone in their 30s. In a room full of old boomers she sticks out is all. She wouldn’t look out of place and you wouldn’t give her a second look if she was making you a chicken club at Subway. She’s just a sassy Latina so her snarky clips are perfect for dimwit masses to share on Twitter and TikTok.

Pot meet kettle. So is Heard. It's called entering your late 30s, you no longer have the thin face you had 15 years ago.

[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.

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”

Are either of you trial attorneys? Her courtroom performance was better than average. Her objections were accurate. Her questions on direct were not leading. She knew the evidence well -- not easy to do when there are thousands of exhibits -- and she thought quickly on her feet. All of this really is not easy to put together.

This. She did great. Her closing was good. Her objections were good. Direct examination was good. Knowledge of all the facts, exhibits and time line were good. She wasn’t looking at the jury to force them to smile back at her. She was evaluating their reaction to certain things. If one caught her eye, I assume that’s when she smiled.

-an attorney

[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

Maybe if by
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”

Are either of you trial attorneys? Her courtroom performance was better than average. Her objections were accurate. Her questions on direct were not leading. She knew the evidence well -- not easy to do when there are thousands of exhibits -- and she thought quickly on her feet. All of this really is not easy to put together.

Are you talking about Cv? Maybe savage if you define savage as aggressive and uncultured. She was nasty and unnecessarily hostile. If she was more sophisticated she would have understood she was making it look like a high school parking lot fight on cross . i thought Amber Heard handled it fairly well.

May I also say, for the reputation Johnny Depp has, there was too much “interpersonal” play between him and CV in the courtroom. That was for show and it was also gross on his part. If I was CV I would not have allowed that. Between the doodling and the snacks and the costume and the texts and the disrespect to Rottenborn, he looked like a posterBoy for a case of 58 year old arrested development. Heard’s team should have included a brain mri of him into evidence.