Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple question - Why on earth did Elaine forget to press her mic button all the time?? The judge had to tell her about 100 times, Amber started pressing it for her.

Maybe she was too flustered? In over her head? In all seriousness, I thought Rottenborn was much more effective than she was. It seemed like when she ran out of arguments, she resorted to name calling, like with that TMZ guy and his 15 min of fame.

Elaine: Blah blah
JD lawyers: Objection!
Elaine: "What if any"
Judge: What if any can't get you out of everything

Every time they objected to Elaine, she began with, “he’s just…” or “she’s just…”

A couple times after repeat objections, the Judge had to tell her how to ask her question:

Judge A: If u wanna ask the foundation, go ahead.

Elaine: I’m sorry, that’s what I thought I was asking? Do u know whether that plays any role to the degree of success?

JD lawyer: Objection, foundation

Judge A: Ask her HOW she knows…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple question - Why on earth did Elaine forget to press her mic button all the time?? The judge had to tell her about 100 times, Amber started pressing it for her.

Maybe she was too flustered? In over her head? In all seriousness, I thought Rottenborn was much more effective than she was. It seemed like when she ran out of arguments, she resorted to name calling, like with that TMZ guy and his 15 min of fame.

Elaine: Blah blah
JD lawyers: Objection!
Elaine: "What if any"
Judge: What if any can't get you out of everything

Every time they objected to Elaine, she began with, “he’s just…” or “she’s just…”

A couple times after repeat objections, the Judge had to tell her how to ask her question:

Judge A: If u wanna ask the foundation, go ahead.

Elaine: I’m sorry, that’s what I thought I was asking? Do u know whether that plays any role to the degree of success?

JD lawyer: Objection, foundation

Judge A: Ask her HOW she knows…

Lol, was that the time JD's lawyer objected numerous times within a few minutes? I can't remember what was said but thought it was funny then because after having her question objected several times, Elaine really couldn't think of a way to reword her question and just gave up and moved on to something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple question - Why on earth did Elaine forget to press her mic button all the time?? The judge had to tell her about 100 times, Amber started pressing it for her.

Maybe she was too flustered? In over her head? In all seriousness, I thought Rottenborn was much more effective than she was. It seemed like when she ran out of arguments, she resorted to name calling, like with that TMZ guy and his 15 min of fame.

Elaine: Blah blah
JD lawyers: Objection!
Elaine: "What if any"
Judge: What if any can't get you out of everything

Every time they objected to Elaine, she began with, “he’s just…” or “she’s just…”

A couple times after repeat objections, the Judge had to tell her how to ask her question:

Judge A: If u wanna ask the foundation, go ahead.

Elaine: I’m sorry, that’s what I thought I was asking? Do u know whether that plays any role to the degree of success?

JD lawyer: Objection, foundation

Judge A: Ask her HOW she knows…

Lol, was that the time JD's lawyer objected numerous times within a few minutes? I can't remember what was said but thought it was funny then because after having her question objected several times, Elaine really couldn't think of a way to reword her question and just gave up and moved on to something else.

Thay happened several times. I must say though I thought the judge was too lenient on overruling CV’s objections.

[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.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

I was not trying to discount others abuse, but it is interesting that so many people on DCUM think they are qualified to opine on the matter when they have no experience beyond television. BTW, fighting back is not the same as provoking and instigating a provocation. That is not fighting back.

DP. I am the one who posted the original explanation of provocation by abuse victims. I spent over a decade working as a pro bono attorney for victims of domestic violence. In addition to learning the legal landscape, I had to develop a very strong foundational knowledge of domestic abuse itself, particularly the psychological aspect, to properly understand my clients’ situations and how to effectively explain them to a court. And in doing that work, I spent over a decade being threatened, stalked and harassed by abusers. Do not dare to tell me I don’t know anything about domestic violence.

It would seem that the abuse would be repeated much more often with frequent intentional provoking?

[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:

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.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

I was not trying to discount others abuse, but it is interesting that so many people on DCUM think they are qualified to opine on the matter when they have no experience beyond television. BTW, fighting back is not the same as provoking and instigating a provocation. That is not fighting back.

DP. I am the one who posted the original explanation of provocation by abuse victims. I spent over a decade working as a pro bono attorney for victims of domestic violence. In addition to learning the legal landscape, I had to develop a very strong foundational knowledge of domestic abuse itself, particularly the psychological aspect, to properly understand my clients’ situations and how to effectively explain them to a court. And in doing that work, I spent over a decade being threatened, stalked and harassed by abusers. Do not dare to tell me I don’t know anything about domestic violence.

Different poster here- curious what your opinion is here compared to the two main psychologists they used at trial- what percentage of the abusers were men?

I didn’t watch the trial testimony from the experts in this case (not did I comment on the specific of this case, in case you are trying to play some kind of gotcha - I was speaking generally about patterns of domestic abuse), so I am not sure what exactly you are asking.

Not playing a game of gotcha. AH's psychologist woman expert (Not the guy) was in a big back and forth with JD's lawyers about how many woman on man interpersonal violence cases she had been involved with. Like how often is the man the victim.

The very vast majority of my clients were women, but I would not assume that my clients were necessarily representative of domestic abuse statistics generally (in fact, I know they are not). There are many reasons for that, but I think the two most significant are probably (1) that men may be more reluctant to come forward as victims due to social stereotypes and stigmas (so even if they decide to divorce, they won’t seek legal representation from an organization focused on victims of abuse); and (2) because it was a pro bono organization, we were serving people who did not have the financial resources to hire an attorney on their own. Women are far more likely than men to not have their own incomes or to have incomes that would fall below the poverty line (which was not our specific threshold, but it’s a reasonable proxy), and thus to qualify for pro bono services. Since men tend to have more financial resources (especially once a couple separates and before a support order is entered), they are less likely to need or qualify for pro bono services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vasquez gonna pass out lol

Me again. The whole team looking faint.

Elaine is looking pretty faint and tired…

She's next up, nervous. Did you see when she reached over to hold Amber's hand? It was during Rottenborn's descriptive abuse. Amber was breaking down. REAL TEARS,

You’re too old to be so gullible.

[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.

No one said she didn’t “have the right to write it.” Actions have consequences.

[Anonymous]

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.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they have a vagina.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who cares? She won’t, as she’s rolling in $$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gorgeous

She is. Especially for 38. The average 35-45 year old in the DMV is "woof" compared to her.

Speak for yourself

Sure, Jan. You’re an anonymous internet mommy bombshell. We’re TOTALLY convinced.

[Anonymous]

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.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they have a vagina.

I would suggest you read the rest of the discussion before you make assumptions.

[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.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

I was not trying to discount others abuse, but it is interesting that so many people on DCUM think they are qualified to opine on the matter when they have no experience beyond television. BTW, fighting back is not the same as provoking and instigating a provocation. That is not fighting back.

DP. I am the one who posted the original explanation of provocation by abuse victims. I spent over a decade working as a pro bono attorney for victims of domestic violence. In addition to learning the legal landscape, I had to develop a very strong foundational knowledge of domestic abuse itself, particularly the psychological aspect, to properly understand my clients’ situations and how to effectively explain them to a court. And in doing that work, I spent over a decade being threatened, stalked and harassed by abusers. Do not dare to tell me I don’t know anything about domestic violence.

It would seem that the abuse would be repeated much more often with frequent intentional provoking?

Wow. And that girl in the short skirt was asking for it huh pp?

[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'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.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

I was not trying to discount others abuse, but it is interesting that so many people on DCUM think they are qualified to opine on the matter when they have no experience beyond television. BTW, fighting back is not the same as provoking and instigating a provocation. That is not fighting back.

DP. I am the one who posted the original explanation of provocation by abuse victims. I spent over a decade working as a pro bono attorney for victims of domestic violence. In addition to learning the legal landscape, I had to develop a very strong foundational knowledge of domestic abuse itself, particularly the psychological aspect, to properly understand my clients’ situations and how to effectively explain them to a court. And in doing that work, I spent over a decade being threatened, stalked and harassed by abusers. Do not dare to tell me I don’t know anything about domestic violence.

It would seem that the abuse would be repeated much more often with frequent intentional provoking?

Wow. And that girl in the short skirt was asking for it huh pp?

DP, I don't think PP was talking about victim blaming but more about the chance of more frequent abuse with intentional provoking, which makes sense. So why would an abused person seek to provoke?

[Anonymous]

The ignorance of domestic violence in this thread is staggering. If you want to learn about the cycle of violence and the ways people may shorten aspects of the cycle google it. There are thousands of pieces of education available.

[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:

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.

This type of rationale is hurtful to those who are abused. Then it comes down to proving who started it. Chicken or the egg cycle

You are denying that the cycle of violence exists? I don’t know what to tell you, because it is all very well-established as an element of domestic abuse.

I guess you don’t believe victims unless they look the way you think a victim should look.

NP, I was abused and I never provoked nor initiated abuse against my aggressor just to prepare myself for a beating. If anything, I was on tip toes barely breathing trying not to provoke. Just stop. You're harming real abuse victims with this logic.

There isn't one way to be an abuse victim. Plenty of victims fight back.

I'm sorry you experienced abuse but it in no way qualifies you to discount the experiences of others.

I was not trying to discount others abuse, but it is interesting that so many people on DCUM think they are qualified to opine on the matter when they have no experience beyond television. BTW, fighting back is not the same as provoking and instigating a provocation. That is not fighting back.

DP. I am the one who posted the original explanation of provocation by abuse victims. I spent over a decade working as a pro bono attorney for victims of domestic violence. In addition to learning the legal landscape, I had to develop a very strong foundational knowledge of domestic abuse itself, particularly the psychological aspect, to properly understand my clients’ situations and how to effectively explain them to a court. And in doing that work, I spent over a decade being threatened, stalked and harassed by abusers. Do not dare to tell me I don’t know anything about domestic violence.

It would seem that the abuse would be repeated much more often with frequent intentional provoking?

Wow. And that girl in the short skirt was asking for it huh pp?

DP, I don't think PP was talking about victim blaming but more about the chance of more frequent abuse with intentional provoking, which makes sense. So why would an abused person seek to provoke?

Fight or flight. Everyone knows there are two reflexive human reactions to danger. Why would you be surprised that some flee (or hide, or shrink) and some fight back hard. Some get killed for it.