Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Spiegel speaks: https://www.newsweek.com/i-testified-heard-vs-depp-backlash-horrific-1711386

I never noticed any hate towards him. People treated him more like a joke; not sure if that's worse.
Even his article reads somewhat naif (my dog! :cry

I feel very bad for him and agree with what he says in the article. JD should put forth a statement to his fans that says don’t attack AH or any of the people in the trial. Why would he not, unless he was encouraging it?

JD owe them nothing.

DP. You are correct that he doesn’t owe them anything. But a decent person with the kind of platform that he has would make a statement, if for no other reason than to make clear that he doesn’t approve of this behavior and to distance himself from it. If he really cared about cleaning up his reputation, that’s what he would do. Instead, he is implicitly condoning his fans playing out this vindictiveness on his behalf.

[/b]He is the one who demanded cameras.[b] He is the one who wanted a media circus. He cannot claim that the foreseeable consequences of that have nothing to do with him. This is exactly what he wanted, for everyone to turn not just on Amber Heard but on everyone associated with her so she would become even more isolated. It’s a continuation of the abuse.

I think you are conveniently forgetting that she brought the cameras into their circus of a marriage. She initiated that abuse. She called TMZ not once but twice. Mighty fitting if you to now say that cameras should have been off limits. Don’t start nothing wasn’t be nothing.

This is completely off topic and deflecting from Dr. Spiegel’s piece about the harassment he personally has experienced since testifying at the trial.

It is not completely off topic. Follow the conversation before jumping in. The PPP said that Johnny Depp was the one who wanted cameras. The response was to that poster, so it was definitely on topic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Spiegel speaks: https://www.newsweek.com/i-testified-heard-vs-depp-backlash-horrific-1711386

I never noticed any hate towards him. People treated him more like a joke; not sure if that's worse.
Even his article reads somewhat naif (my dog! :cry

Is this the same person who diagnosed Depp based on his characters on film? If so, he is indeed a joke and he still seeking his 15-minutes of fame by writing that article.

Yes and called JD an idiot in his deposition. Interesting he had lunch with Amber. Elaine made such a big deal in court about Dr. Curry bringing muffins when she met with Amber, and having a meal with Johnny and his lawyers.

What is the source for this lunch? I can’t find anything about anywhere. The muffin thing was a confidentiality issue.

It is in the Spiegel's Newsweek article: "Before the trial, I had one 50 minute Zoom meeting with Amber Heard and I had lunch with her between sessions on May 23. She was very nice, very cordial and very polite."

Is that all? That’s different from the concerns about Curry.

Why?

With Curry there were two issues. First, the muffins incident raised questions about whether Curry violated confidentiality by telling her husband she was going to be evaluating Amber Hears. Second, the meal Curry had with Depp was questionable because she had drinks and dinner with Depp in his home before being hired as an expert, which is not typically done in this context because it can create an appearance that the expert lacks objectivity. Overall, the incidents gave an appearance that Curry may have been star struck and raised questions about whether it affected her ability to evaluate the evidence objectively.

And how do you ascertain that Dr Spiegel having lunch with Amber won't affect his ability to review the case objectively? As for the muffins, why is it so hard to believe that Dr Curry often brings muffins to the office and that day she just asked her husband to pick up the muffins because she was running late? I mean it's a very plausible explanation, much more plausible than some of Amber's claims (for example, the ones about not leaking her video to TMZ or using donating and pledging synonymously)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elaine said on cbs news show that Judge Penny left out a mountain of evidence that might have led to a very different outcome. Why did she leave it out? Also do people here think that Judge Penny was easily influenced by one side or the other at different times objecting

The judge is a woman of a certain age. That's all I have to say about whether she is or is not biased.

Jeez here we go again!

I personally thought she was very fair.

Are you a trial attorney?

DP. I am and she was fair. That PP who made that scurrilous remark is ridiculous. PP can either die or live to be a certain age, but ageism combined with sexism is beyond disgusting, especially on a board full of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently Amber Heard’s homeowners insurance policy is footing her legal bills.

That’s not surprising, I figured she had some kind of umbrella policy that would at least provide defense coverage.

Where does she own a home? One of Johnny’s former penthouses that she got in the divorce?

yucca valley- look it up
I would be really surprised if these poor stars have not off shored some $$$

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elaine said on cbs news show that Judge Penny left out a mountain of evidence that might have led to a very different outcome. Why did she leave it out? Also do people here think that Judge Penny was easily influenced by one side or the other at different times objecting

The judge is a woman of a certain age. That's all I have to say about whether she is or is not biased.

Jeez here we go again!

I personally thought she was very fair.

Are you a trial attorney?

And you wanna tell me you are?

I am not a trial attorney, but I am an attorney who oversees many trials so I am very familiar with how they work (particularly in Virginia state court). To clarify, though, while I am the poster who asked if you are a trial attorney, I am not the one who commented on the judge being of a certain age. I do think she made a number of highly questionable decisions in this case, so lots of potential grounds for appeal. That’s to be expected after a trial of this length, however, regardless of the skill of the judge.

don't they already have a list of disputed proffers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Spiegel speaks: https://www.newsweek.com/i-testified-heard-vs-depp-backlash-horrific-1711386

I never noticed any hate towards him. People treated him more like a joke; not sure if that's worse.
Even his article reads somewhat naif (my dog! :cry

Is this the same person who diagnosed Depp based on his characters on film? If so, he is indeed a joke and he still seeking his 15-minutes of fame by writing that article.

Yes and called JD an idiot in his deposition. Interesting he had lunch with Amber. Elaine made such a big deal in court about Dr. Curry bringing muffins when she met with Amber, and having a meal with Johnny and his lawyers.

What is the source for this lunch? I can’t find anything about anywhere. The muffin thing was a confidentiality issue.

It is in the Spiegel's Newsweek article: "Before the trial, I had one 50 minute Zoom meeting with Amber Heard and I had lunch with her between sessions on May 23. She was very nice, very cordial and very polite."

Is that all? That’s different from the concerns about Curry.

Why?

With Curry there were two issues. First, the muffins incident raised questions about whether Curry violated confidentiality by telling her husband she was going to be evaluating Amber Hears. Second, the meal Curry had with Depp was questionable because she had drinks and dinner with Depp in his home before being hired as an expert, which is not typically done in this context because it can create an appearance that the expert lacks objectivity. Overall, the incidents gave an appearance that Curry may have been star struck and raised questions about whether it affected her ability to evaluate the evidence objectively.

Dr. Curry met with JD's lawyers at his home and he was there. Pretty hard to discreetly discuss such a high profile client case just anywhere. It was long enough that food was served and drinks were available. Quite possibly Amber had a drink with her lunch, maybe Dr. Spiegel too. He didn't mention where the lunch was. Sounds like he only met with her which can create appearances you're so concerned about.

Dr. Curry said her husband often picks up muffins for her to bring to clients. This is all ridiculous and that's why only Elaine brought up the muffins, dinner and drinks. When Elaine was going on about it, I knew that Amber's side likely met similarly. Suggesting Dr. Curry was star struck is like Elaine asking questions about people only testifying for the cameras and 15 minutes of fame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Spiegel speaks: https://www.newsweek.com/i-testified-heard-vs-depp-backlash-horrific-1711386

I never noticed any hate towards him. People treated him more like a joke; not sure if that's worse.
Even his article reads somewhat naif (my dog! :cry

And you know he’s not worried about his dog, right? He’s saying he’s glad there is a pitbull in the house to protect his daughter while she is staying in his home while he is away.

1. hope he is not telling any truthful details about his house/daughter or dog
2. that is why experts ask for > money
3. good news: many people have short memories

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elaine said on cbs news show that Judge Penny left out a mountain of evidence that might have led to a very different outcome. Why did she leave it out? Also do people here think that Judge Penny was easily influenced by one side or the other at different times objecting

The judge is a woman of a certain age. That's all I have to say about whether she is or is not biased.

And we have to say you are misogynistic twat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really amazed that people assume Johnny was the first one who laid a hand and therefore Amber must have lived the relationship in self-defense instead of the other way around—especially when she has the proven history of DV and was recorded many times admitting to instigating fights. Mind boggling, really.

Only women can be believed.

Yup. Too many still think men can't be victims. Such as the PP with the "abuse" post. Jerk.

Men can be abuse victims, but JD isn’t. He’s a washed-up junkie desperate to blame anyone but himself for ruining his life.

Women can be abuse victims, but AH isn’t. She’s a compulsive liar who committed perjury.

And “washed up junkie” is entirely immaterial to someone being abused. Try harder next time.

At least you don’t deny he’s a washed-up junkie.

It. Doesn’t. Matter.

[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: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

What stood out for me is Gabby Douglas liking JD's post. She was part of the Me too wave against Larry Nassar. As a true victim of abuse, maybe she doesn't see the verdict as setting the clock back for women and doesn't want AH as their spokesperson?

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why does Amber heard have to be a "spokesperson" for all domestic abuse victims? I don't understand some of you who think it has to be all or nothing. There WAS abuse. Clearly. It may not have been cut and dry man abuses the woman, but he did threaten her, he did get into physical altercations with her (and yes, so did she against him). Why are you in so much denial? She didn't make it ALL up, you psycho.

Calling someone you disagree with a psycho doesn't really help your case. lol. Her allegations may very well have some truth but she was caught lying under oath many times. That fact alone should disqualify her from being a representative for any cause.

I disagree. And what cause? Loreal? Speaking out against powerful famous men who are dysfunctional and vengeful?

Abuse victims? Speaking out against powerful men who are dysfunctional and vengeful is a fine and dandy cause. The problem is her credibility has been shot for lying on the stand. I don't think any cause would want a liar as their representative.

What about all of *his* lies, which you and many others seem to conveniently overlook? Your double standard is ridiculous.

Well, he has never claimed to be a spokesperson for abuse victims, hasn't he?

He is now the de facto celebrity spokesperson for male “abuse” victims, or something to that effect.

You can remove your childish quotation marks around abuse, as it was clearly delineated in this trial that she abused him.

Or it was a whole lot of DARVO.

Can you say that again in English? I don’t speak Online Adolescent.

DP Deny Attack Reverse into the Victim into an Offender.

Ah, pop psych BS. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ACLU gets a black eye here, too. If your lawyers are ghost writing an op-Ed that results in a multi-million dollar judgment, that is less than ideal legal work.

I hope JD goes after them next. The ACLU has lost its way.

ACLU is suing him for 86k claiming it’s what it cost them to prepare paperwork evidence for the trial. Hope they never get it.

86 K is a high cost for this. For a cost that high, I assume they fought the production extensively with pricey outside counsel. We're not talking about copying costs.

and tax accountants.... $$$

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Spiegel speaks: https://www.newsweek.com/i-testified-heard-vs-depp-backlash-horrific-1711386

I never noticed any hate towards him. People treated him more like a joke; not sure if that's worse.
Even his article reads somewhat naif (my dog! :cry

I feel very bad for him and agree with what he says in the article. JD should put forth a statement to his fans that says don’t attack AH or any of the people in the trial. Why would he not, unless he was encouraging it?

JD owe them nothing.

DP. You are correct that he doesn’t owe them anything. But a decent person with the kind of platform that he has would make a statement, if for no other reason than to make clear that he doesn’t approve of this behavior and to distance himself from it. If he really cared about cleaning up his reputation, that’s what he would do. Instead, he is implicitly condoning his fans playing out this vindictiveness on his behalf.

He is the one who demanded cameras. He is the one who wanted a media circus. He cannot claim that the foreseeable consequences of that have nothing to do with him. This is exactly what he wanted, for everyone to turn not just on Amber Heard but on everyone associated with her so she would become even more isolated. It’s a continuation of the abuse.

Yep, he promised her global annihilation for daring to leave him, and he gleefully delivered.

Wouldn't of been possible is she didn't lie.

He lied just as much as she did, maybe more. What about that?

The case wasn’t brought against him. If you went to law school, please pursue a refund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really amazed that people assume Johnny was the first one who laid a hand and therefore Amber must have lived the relationship in self-defense instead of the other way around—especially when she has the proven history of DV and was recorded many times admitting to instigating fights. Mind boggling, really.

Only women can be believed.

Yup. Too many still think men can't be victims. Such as the PP with the "abuse" post. Jerk.

Men can be abuse victims, but JD isn’t. He’s a washed-up junkie desperate to blame anyone but himself for ruining his life.

Women can be abuse victims, but AH isn’t. She’s a compulsive liar who committed perjury.

And “washed up junkie” is entirely immaterial to someone being abused. Try harder next time.

not to break up your fight here but I think substance dependency is a great path to victimhood..... any sociologists in the house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Spiegel speaks: https://www.newsweek.com/i-testified-heard-vs-depp-backlash-horrific-1711386

I never noticed any hate towards him. People treated him more like a joke; not sure if that's worse.
Even his article reads somewhat naif (my dog! :cry

Is this the same person who diagnosed Depp based on his characters on film? If so, he is indeed a joke and he still seeking his 15-minutes of fame by writing that article.

Yes and called JD an idiot in his deposition. Interesting he had lunch with Amber. Elaine made such a big deal in court about Dr. Curry bringing muffins when she met with Amber, and having a meal with Johnny and his lawyers.

What is the source for this lunch? I can’t find anything about anywhere. The muffin thing was a confidentiality issue.

It is in the Spiegel's Newsweek article: "Before the trial, I had one 50 minute Zoom meeting with Amber Heard and I had lunch with her between sessions on May 23. She was very nice, very cordial and very polite."

Is that all? That’s different from the concerns about Curry.

Why?

With Curry there were two issues. First, the muffins incident raised questions about whether Curry violated confidentiality by telling her husband she was going to be evaluating Amber Hears. Second, the meal Curry had with Depp was questionable because she had drinks and dinner with Depp in his home before being hired as an expert, which is not typically done in this context because it can create an appearance that the expert lacks objectivity. Overall, the incidents gave an appearance that Curry may have been star struck and raised questions about whether it affected her ability to evaluate the evidence objectively.

And how do you ascertain that Dr Spiegel having lunch with Amber won't affect his ability to review the case objectively? As for the muffins, why is it so hard to believe that Dr Curry often brings muffins to the office and that day she just asked her husband to pick up the muffins because she was running late? I mean it's a very plausible explanation, much more plausible than some of Amber's claims (for example, the ones about not leaking her video to TMZ or using donating and pledging synonymously)

Go look at the date of the lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Spiegel speaks: https://www.newsweek.com/i-testified-heard-vs-depp-backlash-horrific-1711386

I never noticed any hate towards him. People treated him more like a joke; not sure if that's worse.
Even his article reads somewhat naif (my dog! :cry

Is this the same person who diagnosed Depp based on his characters on film? If so, he is indeed a joke and he still seeking his 15-minutes of fame by writing that article.

Yes and called JD an idiot in his deposition. Interesting he had lunch with Amber. Elaine made such a big deal in court about Dr. Curry bringing muffins when she met with Amber, and having a meal with Johnny and his lawyers.

What is the source for this lunch? I can’t find anything about anywhere. The muffin thing was a confidentiality issue.

It is in the Spiegel's Newsweek article: "Before the trial, I had one 50 minute Zoom meeting with Amber Heard and I had lunch with her between sessions on May 23. She was very nice, very cordial and very polite."

Is that all? That’s different from the concerns about Curry.

Why?

With Curry there were two issues. First, the muffins incident raised questions about whether Curry violated confidentiality by telling her husband she was going to be evaluating Amber Hears. Second, the meal Curry had with Depp was questionable because she had drinks and dinner with Depp in his home before being hired as an expert, which is not typically done in this context because it can create an appearance that the expert lacks objectivity. Overall, the incidents gave an appearance that Curry may have been star struck and raised questions about whether it affected her ability to evaluate the evidence objectively.

And how do you ascertain that Dr Spiegel having lunch with Amber won't affect his ability to review the case objectively? As for the muffins, why is it so hard to believe that Dr Curry often brings muffins to the office and that day she just asked her husband to pick up the muffins because she was running late? I mean it's a very plausible explanation, much more plausible than some of Amber's claims (for example, the ones about not leaking her video to TMZ or using donating and pledging synonymously)

Go look at the date of the lunch.

Sorry but that still doesn't mean he was objective in his evaluation. That 50 minute zoom would be enough to ensure that he's on her side before she retained him. None of these experts are objective. As Elaine astutely remarked Dr Curry would not be testifying if she didn't agree with JD's side, the same can be said for AH's experts. All of these experts were paid to make the side that gave them a paycheck look better to the jury. At the end of the day, it all comes down to whose experts seemed more credible. Dr, Spiegel unfortunately didn't perform well. He was very argumentative and failed to display the quiet authority that would have made him more credible.