Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Macy's didn't waste time putting up Johnny's commercial for Sauvage (cologne) back up. I saw it this morning, it was originally shot in 2016 (?), but was pulled for awhile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DIsney didn’t testify to ANY of that., The woman trotted out basically said she didn’t know anything about anything.

Get., Your. Facts. Straight.

Johnny Depp trial: Amber Heard op-ed had no impact on 'Pirates,' Disney says | LiveNOW from FOX

https://youtu.be/Sv6lwUF0skE

Amber Heard’s 2018 Washington Post op-ed was not among the factors that led to Disney firing Johnny Depp from the “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise.

As the defamation trial between Heard and Depp resumed on Thursday, Tina Newman, a production executive at the Walt Disney Studios, denied the piece was the reason the actor was left out of the sixth film.

https://www.ibtimes.com/amber-heards-op-ed-didnt-get-johnny-depp-fired-pirates-disney-executive-says-3514187

JD didn't have to prove that the Op Ed led to Disney "firing" him from the franchise in order to prove his claims, though.

No but that was his false narrative about why he brought the case … more self delusion lapped up by social media …

I don't remember him testifying that this is why he brought the case. I remember him testifying about other reasons, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DIsney didn’t testify to ANY of that., The woman trotted out basically said she didn’t know anything about anything.

Get., Your. Facts. Straight.

Johnny Depp trial: Amber Heard op-ed had no impact on 'Pirates,' Disney says | LiveNOW from FOX

https://youtu.be/Sv6lwUF0skE

Amber Heard’s 2018 Washington Post op-ed was not among the factors that led to Disney firing Johnny Depp from the “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise.

As the defamation trial between Heard and Depp resumed on Thursday, Tina Newman, a production executive at the Walt Disney Studios, denied the piece was the reason the actor was left out of the sixth film.

https://www.ibtimes.com/amber-heards-op-ed-didnt-get-johnny-depp-fired-pirates-disney-executive-says-3514187

JD didn't have to prove that the Op Ed led to Disney "firing" him from the franchise in order to prove his claims, though.

No but that was his false narrative about why he brought the case … more self delusion lapped up by social media …

I don't remember him testifying that this is why he brought the case. I remember him testifying about other reasons, though.

Depp filed a defamation lawsuit seeking $50 million from Heard over a 2018 op-ed she wrote in The Washington Post, in which she referred to herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse, but didn't name Depp. He claimed the piece damaged his career, and he has denied all allegations of abuse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Macy's didn't waste time putting up Johnny's commercial for Sauvage (cologne) back up. I saw it this morning, it was originally shot in 2016 (?), but was pulled for awhile.

That's hot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Macy's didn't waste time putting up Johnny's commercial for Sauvage (cologne) back up. I saw it this morning, it was originally shot in 2016 (?), but was pulled for awhile.

Not good advertising given that he is a known drunk and he looks like he reeks of urine, pot and alcohol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DIsney didn’t testify to ANY of that., The woman trotted out basically said she didn’t know anything about anything.

Get., Your. Facts. Straight.

Johnny Depp trial: Amber Heard op-ed had no impact on 'Pirates,' Disney says | LiveNOW from FOX

https://youtu.be/Sv6lwUF0skE

Amber Heard’s 2018 Washington Post op-ed was not among the factors that led to Disney firing Johnny Depp from the “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise.

As the defamation trial between Heard and Depp resumed on Thursday, Tina Newman, a production executive at the Walt Disney Studios, denied the piece was the reason the actor was left out of the sixth film.

https://www.ibtimes.com/amber-heards-op-ed-didnt-get-johnny-depp-fired-pirates-disney-executive-says-3514187

Again, you have zero nuance and clearly no legal background. That says the op-ed wasn’t the reason they fired him, or at least as far as she knows from combing through everyone else’s emails and documents. That is in no way an affirmative statement. It is merely a “I didn’t find anything, so I I guess it can’t be true.’ Also, It does NOT say he was fired for drunkenness and lateness, which is what was said above that Disney testified to. They did NOT testify to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Macy's didn't waste time putting up Johnny's commercial for Sauvage (cologne) back up. I saw it this morning, it was originally shot in 2016 (?), but was pulled for awhile.

Not good advertising given that he is a known drunk and he looks like he reeks of urine, pot and alcohol.

Someone does not get the appeal of “rockers”. They’re supposed to wild and untamed. Messy, screwed up and problematic and women fantasize about fixing them because they’re also talented. But they can never be fixed -they’re too wild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shambolic jury decision
1. Male dominated jury obviously biased
2. They find both were abusive and defamatory and yet award him more than five times as much in damages
3. The jury did not consider all the evidence carefully as reached decision way too quickly
4. JD said he brought trial because AH ruined his career - Disney testified he did that all by himself through beinf late, drunk, high, unprofessional and ill
Prepared for lines.
5. Tons of evidence he was also an abuser, drunk and drug addict and his texts contained violent vulgar and creepy threats against her and yet social media exclusively focussed on her bad behavior.

Did we watch the same trial?
1. While there were more women and men, I don't know about "obviously biased."
2. The jury didn't find "both were abusive." While each prevailed on defamation claims, Heard's defamation claims against Depp were for statements made by Depp's attorney, not Depp. AH prevailed on 1/3 defamation claims. JD prevailed on 3/3.
3. How do you know this? How is "way too quickly" defined? Couldn't they have been viewing the evidence during trial, as it was introduced?
4. Did JD say the sole reason for bringing the claim was because AH "ruined his career"? He actually did not have to prove damages as the statements were considered defamatory "per se."
5. There was evidence that he drank and did drugs, and he admitted this. A causal connection between that and the alleged abuse was not established. The texts containing outlandish statements also didn't establish this. Neither one can control social media, though I guess they can attempt to. There is no evidence of which I am aware that the jury was influenced by social media, only an opinion based on speculation from AH's attorney.

1. Majority of men in civil jury: panel of five men and two women found that Heard defamed Depp in an op-ed for the Post, in December, 2018.

The jurors were selected after being questioned about their views on topics including the MeToo movement, domestic abuse and sexual assault, alcohol and drug use, victim shaming, celebrity social media postings, police believability, the use of foul language and angry destruction of property.

The bias was obvious because JD got a cart Blanche for his many counts of bad behavior that touched on all these topics.

2. During the trial, users of TikTok and Twitter vilified Heard in memes and videos, some using court footage. The social media content, viewed billions of times, blasted her as a liar, an abuser, and a "fake" crier. #AmberIsALiar and other hashtags became popular search terms.

TikTok has tallied nearly 20 billion views for the hashtag #JusticeForJohnnyDepp, compared with some 78 million for #JusticeForAmberHeard. That amounts to more than 250 posts supporting Depp for each one supporting Heard.

3. The seven-person civil jury heard closing arguments Friday before last and deliberated for about two hours before leaving for the long Memorial Day weekend. Jurors then deliberated another seven hours last Tuesday.they took 15 Minutes to decide lop sided awards.

4. Agree with MNBC - The Depp-Heard trial devolved into a spectacle with real-world consequences for survivors This trial was supposed to be about the law, but it has devolved into a tawdry reliving of a couple’s dysfunctional relationship via memes.

5. Will Be watching the Marilyn Manson case. The rocker is a friend of Depp and brought a defamation lawsuit against his former girlfriend, actor Evan Rachel Wood. Wood has alleged that Manson raped and abused her during the course of their contentious relationship. Let’s hope she is treated much better than AH.

I would bet my life savings the outcome will be different. MM isn't as loved as JD. Most people see him as a devil worshipping creepy perverted man. He's never been charming or loved by the general public. It's easier to believe he would rape and abuse because isn't that what his music is all about? I know a little more about ERW than I did AH, but not much, so I can't comment on how well liked either woman was to begin with. But the little I know, I think ERW was a little younger than AH, which makes me think she'd be more easily influenced and willing to suffer abuse.

The difference is MM has a history of domestic violence, JD does not.

Now he does. I guess you need to be the second, third, and tenth victim before someone takes you seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Macy's didn't waste time putting up Johnny's commercial for Sauvage (cologne) back up. I saw it this morning, it was originally shot in 2016 (?), but was pulled for awhile.

Not good advertising given that he is a known drunk and he looks like he reeks of urine, pot and alcohol.

Which is why you need cologne.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Macy's didn't waste time putting up Johnny's commercial for Sauvage (cologne) back up. I saw it this morning, it was originally shot in 2016 (?), but was pulled for awhile.

Not good advertising given that he is a known drunk and he looks like he reeks of urine, pot and alcohol.

Which is why you need cologne.

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DIsney didn’t testify to ANY of that., The woman trotted out basically said she didn’t know anything about anything.

Get., Your. Facts. Straight.

Johnny Depp trial: Amber Heard op-ed had no impact on 'Pirates,' Disney says | LiveNOW from FOX

https://youtu.be/Sv6lwUF0skE

Amber Heard’s 2018 Washington Post op-ed was not among the factors that led to Disney firing Johnny Depp from the “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise.

As the defamation trial between Heard and Depp resumed on Thursday, Tina Newman, a production executive at the Walt Disney Studios, denied the piece was the reason the actor was left out of the sixth film.

https://www.ibtimes.com/amber-heards-op-ed-didnt-get-johnny-depp-fired-pirates-disney-executive-says-3514187

JD didn't have to prove that the Op Ed led to Disney "firing" him from the franchise in order to prove his claims, though.

No but that was his false narrative about why he brought the case … more self delusion lapped up by social media …

I don't remember him testifying that this is why he brought the case. I remember him testifying about other reasons, though.

Depp filed a defamation lawsuit seeking $50 million from Heard over a 2018 op-ed she wrote in The Washington Post, in which she referred to herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse, but didn't name Depp. He claimed the piece damaged his career, and he has denied all allegations of abuse

Umm, thanks? I haven't been living under a rock and watched his trial testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shambolic jury decision
1. Male dominated jury obviously biased
2. They find both were abusive and defamatory and yet award him more than five times as much in damages
3. The jury did not consider all the evidence carefully as reached decision way too quickly
4. JD said he brought trial because AH ruined his career - Disney testified he did that all by himself through beinf late, drunk, high, unprofessional and ill
Prepared for lines.
5. Tons of evidence he was also an abuser, drunk and drug addict and his texts contained violent vulgar and creepy threats against her and yet social media exclusively focussed on her bad behavior.

Did we watch the same trial?
1. While there were more women and men, I don't know about "obviously biased."
2. The jury didn't find "both were abusive." While each prevailed on defamation claims, Heard's defamation claims against Depp were for statements made by Depp's attorney, not Depp. AH prevailed on 1/3 defamation claims. JD prevailed on 3/3.
3. How do you know this? How is "way too quickly" defined? Couldn't they have been viewing the evidence during trial, as it was introduced?
4. Did JD say the sole reason for bringing the claim was because AH "ruined his career"? He actually did not have to prove damages as the statements were considered defamatory "per se."
5. There was evidence that he drank and did drugs, and he admitted this. A causal connection between that and the alleged abuse was not established. The texts containing outlandish statements also didn't establish this. Neither one can control social media, though I guess they can attempt to. There is no evidence of which I am aware that the jury was influenced by social media, only an opinion based on speculation from AH's attorney.

1. Majority of men in civil jury: panel of five men and two women found that Heard defamed Depp in an op-ed for the Post, in December, 2018.

The jurors were selected after being questioned about their views on topics including the MeToo movement, domestic abuse and sexual assault, alcohol and drug use, victim shaming, celebrity social media postings, police believability, the use of foul language and angry destruction of property.

The bias was obvious because JD got a cart Blanche for his many counts of bad behavior that touched on all these topics.

2. During the trial, users of TikTok and Twitter vilified Heard in memes and videos, some using court footage. The social media content, viewed billions of times, blasted her as a liar, an abuser, and a "fake" crier. #AmberIsALiar and other hashtags became popular search terms.

TikTok has tallied nearly 20 billion views for the hashtag #JusticeForJohnnyDepp, compared with some 78 million for #JusticeForAmberHeard. That amounts to more than 250 posts supporting Depp for each one supporting Heard.

3. The seven-person civil jury heard closing arguments Friday before last and deliberated for about two hours before leaving for the long Memorial Day weekend. Jurors then deliberated another seven hours last Tuesday.they took 15 Minutes to decide lop sided awards.

4. Agree with MNBC - The Depp-Heard trial devolved into a spectacle with real-world consequences for survivors This trial was supposed to be about the law, but it has devolved into a tawdry reliving of a couple’s dysfunctional relationship via memes.

5. Will Be watching the Marilyn Manson case. The rocker is a friend of Depp and brought a defamation lawsuit against his former girlfriend, actor Evan Rachel Wood. Wood has alleged that Manson raped and abused her during the course of their contentious relationship. Let’s hope she is treated much better than AH.

I would bet my life savings the outcome will be different. MM isn't as loved as JD. Most people see him as a devil worshipping creepy perverted man. He's never been charming or loved by the general public. It's easier to believe he would rape and abuse because isn't that what his music is all about? I know a little more about ERW than I did AH, but not much, so I can't comment on how well liked either woman was to begin with. But the little I know, I think ERW was a little younger than AH, which makes me think she'd be more easily influenced and willing to suffer abuse.

The difference is MM has a history of domestic violence, JD does not.

And lots more accusers now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DIsney didn’t testify to ANY of that., The woman trotted out basically said she didn’t know anything about anything.

Get., Your. Facts. Straight.

Johnny Depp trial: Amber Heard op-ed had no impact on 'Pirates,' Disney says | LiveNOW from FOX

https://youtu.be/Sv6lwUF0skE

Amber Heard’s 2018 Washington Post op-ed was not among the factors that led to Disney firing Johnny Depp from the “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise.

As the defamation trial between Heard and Depp resumed on Thursday, Tina Newman, a production executive at the Walt Disney Studios, denied the piece was the reason the actor was left out of the sixth film.

https://www.ibtimes.com/amber-heards-op-ed-didnt-get-johnny-depp-fired-pirates-disney-executive-says-3514187

Again, you have zero nuance and clearly no legal background. That says the op-ed wasn’t the reason they fired him, or at least as far as she knows from combing through everyone else’s emails and documents. That is in no way an affirmative statement. It is merely a “I didn’t find anything, so I I guess it can’t be true.’ Also, It does NOT say he was fired for drunkenness and lateness, which is what was said above that Disney testified to. They did NOT testify to that.

JD claimed AH’s op Ed derailed his career. Rubbish. News stories five years ago that Disney was pulling plug on him as he always late and drunk.

Disney rep testified the op Ed had no bearing on him being fired by Disney for Pirates franchise.

He did lose fantastic beasts deal after he lost libel suit in London. That was a self inflicted wound since he brought the case and lost the case.

jD blames everyone but himself for his foolish behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DIsney didn’t testify to ANY of that., The woman trotted out basically said she didn’t know anything about anything.

Get., Your. Facts. Straight.

Johnny Depp trial: Amber Heard op-ed had no impact on 'Pirates,' Disney says | LiveNOW from FOX

https://youtu.be/Sv6lwUF0skE

Amber Heard’s 2018 Washington Post op-ed was not among the factors that led to Disney firing Johnny Depp from the “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise.

As the defamation trial between Heard and Depp resumed on Thursday, Tina Newman, a production executive at the Walt Disney Studios, denied the piece was the reason the actor was left out of the sixth film.

https://www.ibtimes.com/amber-heards-op-ed-didnt-get-johnny-depp-fired-pirates-disney-executive-says-3514187

JD didn't have to prove that the Op Ed led to Disney "firing" him from the franchise in order to prove his claims, though.

No but that was his false narrative about why he brought the case … more self delusion lapped up by social media …

I don't remember him testifying that this is why he brought the case. I remember him testifying about other reasons, though.

Depp filed a defamation lawsuit seeking $50 million from Heard over a 2018 op-ed she wrote in The Washington Post, in which she referred to herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse, but didn't name Depp. He claimed the piece damaged his career, and he has denied all allegations of abuse

Umm, thanks? I haven't been living under a rock and watched his trial testimony.

Yah supposed to sledge hammer obvious - pp claimed JD did not claim he was bringing the case because the op Ed damaged his career - when that was front and center ….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Macy's didn't waste time putting up Johnny's commercial for Sauvage (cologne) back up. I saw it this morning, it was originally shot in 2016 (?), but was pulled for awhile.

Not good advertising given that he is a known drunk and he looks like he reeks of urine, pot and alcohol.

Hi Elaine!