Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

Like what, specifically? Also, that's not exactly what "the UK court found."

The judge excluded testimony from seven medical professionals that Heard reported the abuse to them contemporaneously. She also excluded texts from Stephen Deuters acknowledging that Depp abused Heard on the plane. And then Depp’s legal team used the lack of this evidence in the record to argue that Heard must be lying because she never reported the abuse or sought medical attention at the time, all while knowing evidence did exist that Heard did report it and did seek medical attention.

Where are you getting this? I heard AH state more than once on the witness stand that she did not seek medical attention at the time. If from the Wash Post article, there is a pay wall.

Motions in Limine and Orders on these issues (if true) should all be in the court records, if someone has access to those in VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so conflicted on this, and admittedly didn't watch much but read a lot about this trial. So I was essentially always seeing an interpretation and not for myself. I just don't think there are any good actors here. I don't disagree that men can be abuse victims, and I don't automatically side with women. But in this case, they are both toxic, abusive people. She's as bad as he is with the bad and humiliating behavior. She gave as good as she got, and he gave as good as he got. In the DV world, that's called mutual combat abuse, and while it's abusive in terms of its being violent, there's no "victim." It's both. They both had power over each other in that relationship; it's not (in my opinion) at all one sided that's the hallmark of domestic violence. I see no primary aggressor. At various times they were equal aggressors. And she seems to have objectively lied her a$$ off. If there's a disservice to domestic violence victims, it was done by her in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter. It's just my opinion.

PP again. I also don't think this trial will have any lingering effect on "mainstream" domestic violence allegations or the overall believability of survivors. This trial was oozing in financial privilege for them both to call out every expert to throw their ridiculously privileged lifestyles and efforts at manipulating each other into focus. The standard of proof for defamation is so much higher for public figures so they went for it and had to to meet that threshold. The average DV survivor won't have the WaPo at their disposal so it's not even applicable in terms of other DV survivors "coming out and speaking their truth." This level of coming out simply doesn't happen to 99.99% of the population, so it's apples and oranges.

This side show emboldened Depp’s buddy Marilyn Manson to file a similar lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood. The more this happens, the more it will seep into “mainstream” domestic violence cases. Don’t speak up about abuse, because you’ll get slapped with a ruinous lawsuit and no one will protect you from it.

OMG. I was thinking about Marilyn Manson in regard to this case. Evan Rachel Wood is not Amber Heard, and I believe her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so conflicted on this, and admittedly didn't watch much but read a lot about this trial. So I was essentially always seeing an interpretation and not for myself. I just don't think there are any good actors here. I don't disagree that men can be abuse victims, and I don't automatically side with women. But in this case, they are both toxic, abusive people. She's as bad as he is with the bad and humiliating behavior. She gave as good as she got, and he gave as good as he got. In the DV world, that's called mutual combat abuse, and while it's abusive in terms of its being violent, there's no "victim." It's both. They both had power over each other in that relationship; it's not (in my opinion) at all one sided that's the hallmark of domestic violence. I see no primary aggressor. At various times they were equal aggressors. And she seems to have objectively lied her a$$ off. If there's a disservice to domestic violence victims, it was done by her in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter. It's just my opinion.

PP again. I also don't think this trial will have any lingering effect on "mainstream" domestic violence allegations or the overall believability of survivors. This trial was oozing in financial privilege for them both to call out every expert to throw their ridiculously privileged lifestyles and efforts at manipulating each other into focus. The standard of proof for defamation is so much higher for public figures so they went for it and had to to meet that threshold. The average DV survivor won't have the WaPo at their disposal so it's not even applicable in terms of other DV survivors "coming out and speaking their truth." This level of coming out simply doesn't happen to 99.99% of the population, so it's apples and oranges.

This side show emboldened Depp’s buddy Marilyn Manson to file a similar lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood. The more this happens, the more it will seep into “mainstream” domestic violence cases. Don’t speak up about abuse, because you’ll get slapped with a ruinous lawsuit and no one will protect you from it.

OMG. I was thinking about Marilyn Manson in regard to this case. Evan Rachel Wood is not Amber Heard, and I believe her.

Yeah the crux of the issue here is that Amber Heard has been proven to lie frivolously. I think she’s a compulsive, pathological liar at this point. It does not appear that Evan Rachel Wood is a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so conflicted on this, and admittedly didn't watch much but read a lot about this trial. So I was essentially always seeing an interpretation and not for myself. I just don't think there are any good actors here. I don't disagree that men can be abuse victims, and I don't automatically side with women. But in this case, they are both toxic, abusive people. She's as bad as he is with the bad and humiliating behavior. She gave as good as she got, and he gave as good as he got. In the DV world, that's called mutual combat abuse, and while it's abusive in terms of its being violent, there's no "victim." It's both. They both had power over each other in that relationship; it's not (in my opinion) at all one sided that's the hallmark of domestic violence. I see no primary aggressor. At various times they were equal aggressors. And she seems to have objectively lied her a$$ off. If there's a disservice to domestic violence victims, it was done by her in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter. It's just my opinion.

PP again. I also don't think this trial will have any lingering effect on "mainstream" domestic violence allegations or the overall believability of survivors. This trial was oozing in financial privilege for them both to call out every expert to throw their ridiculously privileged lifestyles and efforts at manipulating each other into focus. The standard of proof for defamation is so much higher for public figures so they went for it and had to to meet that threshold. The average DV survivor won't have the WaPo at their disposal so it's not even applicable in terms of other DV survivors "coming out and speaking their truth." This level of coming out simply doesn't happen to 99.99% of the population, so it's apples and oranges.

This side show emboldened Depp’s buddy Marilyn Manson to file a similar lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood. The more this happens, the more it will seep into “mainstream” domestic violence cases. Don’t speak up about abuse, because you’ll get slapped with a ruinous lawsuit and no one will protect you from it.

OMG. I was thinking about Marilyn Manson in regard to this case. Evan Rachel Wood is not Amber Heard, and I believe her.

Yeah the crux of the issue here is that Amber Heard has been proven to lie frivolously. I think she’s a compulsive, pathological liar at this point. It does not appear that Evan Rachel Wood is a liar.

Also, Johnny Depp is known to be a strange person but Marilyn Manson is known to be very different, and has been trying to rehabilitate his image but his reputation is much worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

Like what, specifically? Also, that's not exactly what "the UK court found."

The judge excluded testimony from seven medical professionals that Heard reported the abuse to them contemporaneously. She also excluded texts from Stephen Deuters acknowledging that Depp abused Heard on the plane. And then Depp’s legal team used the lack of this evidence in the record to argue that Heard must be lying because she never reported the abuse or sought medical attention at the time, all while knowing evidence did exist that Heard did report it and did seek medical attention.

This is correct. Lots of evidence not admitted. Plus the jury absolutely should have been sequestered! Jurors had a week off and only instructed to avoid social and all media. Do you really think this was even possible? They were exposed even if not intentionally. Judge A had never presided over a civil case. She allowed much more leniency to the Depp team. She also allowed the Depp team's unprofessional display on every level. Then there's VA:

"Virginia is acting as a haven for individuals looking to skirt the First Amendment, to punish and silence their critics. The problem is as serious as it is insidious, one that extends deeper than celebrities to questions of the possibility of activism, of freedom of speech and the press, and of the function of democracy. And even as lawmakers and activists try to change that fact, powerful interests in Virginia would like to keep things largely the way they are.

A Glitch in the Democratic System
The concept behind all the absurdity is called SLAPP tourism. That’s a term so strange, it merits a lot of breaking down.

SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” It’s a simple legal trick: Essentially, if someone says something that you don’t like, you sue them for libel. Your aim isn’t to win the lawsuit—that would be an added bonus, if anything. Depp’s possible motivations—a PR miscalculation, personal revenge, an indignant sense of justice, perhaps a combination of all three—are ultimately his own, secreted away as of yet beneath his slick center part. But the functions of SLAPPs are generally to punish (by making defendants pay expensive legal fees for years) and to stifle speech.

That’s where the “tourism” part comes in. In libel cases, plaintiffs are always choosing the playing field because certain states make it much easier to sue for libel than others. Plaintiffs seek out the states that give them the best shot at doing the most damage. And Virginia makes it really easy for SLAPP tourists to vacation here.

Virginia has become somewhere that public figures and public officials think that they still might be able to intimidate their would-be critics, as opposed to other jurisdictions with stronger anti-SLAPP laws,”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so conflicted on this, and admittedly didn't watch much but read a lot about this trial. So I was essentially always seeing an interpretation and not for myself. I just don't think there are any good actors here. I don't disagree that men can be abuse victims, and I don't automatically side with women. But in this case, they are both toxic, abusive people. She's as bad as he is with the bad and humiliating behavior. She gave as good as she got, and he gave as good as he got. In the DV world, that's called mutual combat abuse, and while it's abusive in terms of its being violent, there's no "victim." It's both. They both had power over each other in that relationship; it's not (in my opinion) at all one sided that's the hallmark of domestic violence. I see no primary aggressor. At various times they were equal aggressors. And she seems to have objectively lied her a$$ off. If there's a disservice to domestic violence victims, it was done by her in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter. It's just my opinion.

PP again. I also don't think this trial will have any lingering effect on "mainstream" domestic violence allegations or the overall believability of survivors. This trial was oozing in financial privilege for them both to call out every expert to throw their ridiculously privileged lifestyles and efforts at manipulating each other into focus. The standard of proof for defamation is so much higher for public figures so they went for it and had to to meet that threshold. The average DV survivor won't have the WaPo at their disposal so it's not even applicable in terms of other DV survivors "coming out and speaking their truth." This level of coming out simply doesn't happen to 99.99% of the population, so it's apples and oranges.

This side show emboldened Depp’s buddy Marilyn Manson to file a similar lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood. The more this happens, the more it will seep into “mainstream” domestic violence cases. Don’t speak up about abuse, because you’ll get slapped with a ruinous lawsuit and no one will protect you from it.

No, the message is “don’t lie about abuse.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so conflicted on this, and admittedly didn't watch much but read a lot about this trial. So I was essentially always seeing an interpretation and not for myself. I just don't think there are any good actors here. I don't disagree that men can be abuse victims, and I don't automatically side with women. But in this case, they are both toxic, abusive people. She's as bad as he is with the bad and humiliating behavior. She gave as good as she got, and he gave as good as he got. In the DV world, that's called mutual combat abuse, and while it's abusive in terms of its being violent, there's no "victim." It's both. They both had power over each other in that relationship; it's not (in my opinion) at all one sided that's the hallmark of domestic violence. I see no primary aggressor. At various times they were equal aggressors. And she seems to have objectively lied her a$$ off. If there's a disservice to domestic violence victims, it was done by her in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter. It's just my opinion.

PP again. I also don't think this trial will have any lingering effect on "mainstream" domestic violence allegations or the overall believability of survivors. This trial was oozing in financial privilege for them both to call out every expert to throw their ridiculously privileged lifestyles and efforts at manipulating each other into focus. The standard of proof for defamation is so much higher for public figures so they went for it and had to to meet that threshold. The average DV survivor won't have the WaPo at their disposal so it's not even applicable in terms of other DV survivors "coming out and speaking their truth." This level of coming out simply doesn't happen to 99.99% of the population, so it's apples and oranges.

This side show emboldened Depp’s buddy Marilyn Manson to file a similar lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood. The more this happens, the more it will seep into “mainstream” domestic violence cases. Don’t speak up about abuse, because you’ll get slapped with a ruinous lawsuit and no one will protect you from it.

OMG. I was thinking about Marilyn Manson in regard to this case. Evan Rachel Wood is not Amber Heard, and I believe her.

Yeah the crux of the issue here is that Amber Heard has been proven to lie frivolously. I think she’s a compulsive, pathological liar at this point. It does not appear that Evan Rachel Wood is a liar.

Also, Johnny Depp is known to be a strange person but Marilyn Manson is known to be very different, and has been trying to rehabilitate his image but his reputation is much worse.

And Manson has allegations against him from several women, and they all have similar, believable stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so conflicted on this, and admittedly didn't watch much but read a lot about this trial. So I was essentially always seeing an interpretation and not for myself. I just don't think there are any good actors here. I don't disagree that men can be abuse victims, and I don't automatically side with women. But in this case, they are both toxic, abusive people. She's as bad as he is with the bad and humiliating behavior. She gave as good as she got, and he gave as good as he got. In the DV world, that's called mutual combat abuse, and while it's abusive in terms of its being violent, there's no "victim." It's both. They both had power over each other in that relationship; it's not (in my opinion) at all one sided that's the hallmark of domestic violence. I see no primary aggressor. At various times they were equal aggressors. And she seems to have objectively lied her a$$ off. If there's a disservice to domestic violence victims, it was done by her in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter. It's just my opinion.

PP again. I also don't think this trial will have any lingering effect on "mainstream" domestic violence allegations or the overall believability of survivors. This trial was oozing in financial privilege for them both to call out every expert to throw their ridiculously privileged lifestyles and efforts at manipulating each other into focus. The standard of proof for defamation is so much higher for public figures so they went for it and had to to meet that threshold. The average DV survivor won't have the WaPo at their disposal so it's not even applicable in terms of other DV survivors "coming out and speaking their truth." This level of coming out simply doesn't happen to 99.99% of the population, so it's apples and oranges.

This side show emboldened Depp’s buddy Marilyn Manson to file a similar lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood. The more this happens, the more it will seep into “mainstream” domestic violence cases. Don’t speak up about abuse, because you’ll get slapped with a ruinous lawsuit and no one will protect you from it.

No, the message is “don’t lie about abuse.”

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have to love the casual misogyny of people referring to Ben Rottenborn as “Rottenborn” and Elaine Charlson Bredehoft as “Elaine.”

Truthfully no. I used Rottenborn because it's obviously easy to remember the spelling and using Ben might get confused with the other Ben from JD's team. I used Elaine because it's easier to spell and type than Bredehoft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched most of the trial. All I can say is that the jury saw Amber caught in a couple of rather large lies (sending photo to TMZ, not having her Kate Miss story right, strangely date stamped photos, among others). When a jury sees a person lie, they have no idea what is true and what is not. So they disbelieved all of it. I think they both enagaged in abuse. How much? How often? What kind? Hard to tell. But the jury found Amber to be not credible and that did her in. I did not expect her to lose all three statements, but she did it to herself.

As for the statement Johnny lost, evidence of the second call was blocked from them.

Why do you think the Kate Moss story was a lie? She could easily heard a rumor that Kate Moss was pushed down the stairs and believed it. You probably have rumors in your head now that you believe, that are actually incorrect.

The rumor that Johnny Depp pushed Kate Moss down the stairs dates back to the mid-90s - I remember hearing it in high school. It was ridiculous for Depp to claim Heard invented the rumor to smear him.

That statement wasn’t why AH was being sued. Kate Moss coming in played an entirely different purpose: to show an ex-girlfriend, who definitely didn’t need her “15 minutes of fame” coming to JD’s defense to say he didn’t abuse her. That itself is powerful.

Why on earth do people put any weight on behavior of an individual long long ago? People and their behaviors change significantly, especially that long ago! Clearly there were reasons he has not been married for 35 years to someone!

All of JD’s former partners stand by him (and Erin Baskins testimony was just that he threw something, not that he hit her). That’s the point. Someone doesn’t just change in a new relationship

Not true. As drug and alcohol problems get worse and addicts get older, they can become violent. Depp looks like he’s hitting the later stages of his disease. He’s really bloated.

Just about everyone gets "bloated" in middle age. Other terms are "spread" or just old-fashioned weight gain.

Thank you! I'm in my 50's and felt defensive about that comment lol!! Stress doesn't help the bloating.

[Anonymous]

A running of list of celebs who liked one of their post-verdict posts:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kelseyweekman/johnny-depps-instagram-statement-liked-by-celebrities?d_id=3757244&ref=bffbbuzzfeed&utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbbuzzfeed&fbclid=IwAR1BXE-yjF0ny4mME9lDnA8fOSxOzN94mZct_ARdL9hn4KtjYOPFOZndTeI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

Yes and the reason was partly because the judge believed that her allegations of DV was not fueled by money since she claimed she had donated all her $7MM to charities. In the US case, JD's lawyers were able to reveal that she lied and has yet to make the donations, and we all learned that AH uses pledge and donate synonymously. I also believed in the UK case, JD was never really allowed to tell his story since he was only questioned by the Sun's lawyers, so he was basically under a cross-examination the whole time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so conflicted on this, and admittedly didn't watch much but read a lot about this trial. So I was essentially always seeing an interpretation and not for myself. I just don't think there are any good actors here. I don't disagree that men can be abuse victims, and I don't automatically side with women. But in this case, they are both toxic, abusive people. She's as bad as he is with the bad and humiliating behavior. She gave as good as she got, and he gave as good as he got. In the DV world, that's called mutual combat abuse, and while it's abusive in terms of its being violent, there's no "victim." It's both. They both had power over each other in that relationship; it's not (in my opinion) at all one sided that's the hallmark of domestic violence. I see no primary aggressor. At various times they were equal aggressors. And she seems to have objectively lied her a$$ off. If there's a disservice to domestic violence victims, it was done by her in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter. It's just my opinion.

PP again. I also don't think this trial will have any lingering effect on "mainstream" domestic violence allegations or the overall believability of survivors. This trial was oozing in financial privilege for them both to call out every expert to throw their ridiculously privileged lifestyles and efforts at manipulating each other into focus. The standard of proof for defamation is so much higher for public figures so they went for it and had to to meet that threshold. The average DV survivor won't have the WaPo at their disposal so it's not even applicable in terms of other DV survivors "coming out and speaking their truth." This level of coming out simply doesn't happen to 99.99% of the population, so it's apples and oranges.

This side show emboldened Depp’s buddy Marilyn Manson to file a similar lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood. The more this happens, the more it will seep into “mainstream” domestic violence cases. Don’t speak up about abuse, because you’ll get slapped with a ruinous lawsuit and no one will protect you from it.

No, the message is “don’t lie about abuse.”

This. AND that when someone makes a claim, you (we/me/us all) need to judge the source of the claim.

Not all claims are true and sometimes, usually, you can judge the veracity of the claim just by knowing the person. In this case, if I had had any pre-knowledge of Amber Heard, it would have been fairly evident to me that she was making stuff up. That doesn't mean I think Johnny Depp is a stand-up guy, it just means that I don't think he did even one iota of the stuff Amber Heard claims.

I (and apparently a lot of other people) also think now that Amber Heard is as crazy as a loon. It is going to be hard for her to get that cow back in the barn for a lot of us, quite frankly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you who think the verdict was "wrong," do you not agree that the Jury was perhaps in the best position to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the parties? Do you not agree that the jurors were free to disbelieve AH after her credibility was impeached multiple times? Or do you think all of the jurors are biased, misogynistic Depp fans who are unable to recognize domestic violence or understand the law?

I disagree with how the jury evaluated the evidence. I also think there was a lot of evidence exclude (some on questionable grounds) that might had changed the outcome. There is a reason the UK court found that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions.

Like what, specifically? Also, that's not exactly what "the UK court found."

The judge excluded testimony from seven medical professionals that Heard reported the abuse to them contemporaneously. She also excluded texts from Stephen Deuters acknowledging that Depp abused Heard on the plane. And then Depp’s legal team used the lack of this evidence in the record to argue that Heard must be lying because she never reported the abuse or sought medical attention at the time, all while knowing evidence did exist that Heard did report it and did seek medical attention.

Where are you getting this? I heard AH state more than once on the witness stand that she did not seek medical attention at the time. If from the Wash Post article, there is a pay wall.

Curious as well if you can share the source. I would like to read it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A running of list of celebs who liked one of their post-verdict posts:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kelseyweekman/johnny-depps-instagram-statement-liked-by-celebrities?d_id=3757244&ref=bffbbuzzfeed&utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbbuzzfeed&fbclid=IwAR1BXE-yjF0ny4mME9lDnA8fOSxOzN94mZct_ARdL9hn4KtjYOPFOZndTeI

Laughing at Naomi Campbell— didn’t she throw a cell phone at someone? She was entangled in some type of abuse case.
Other than Aniston and Halle Berry, the list is a bunch of B listers or those I’m not familiar with. Jason Mamoa is neutral since he also liked Heard post verdict post. In other news, Kevin Spacey charged with 4 counts of sexual assault (men)