Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He seems really charming to me. She seems like a scheming black widow succubus. Even her own sister and mom don't speak with her? I mean, come on.

It’s interesting because I was listening to a courtTV podcast on this case and the hosts had a very positive opinion on Depp and his hold on the courtroom at least during his direct examination when they said he was a “great storyteller” who was captivating at least one juror.

Others opinions online of course described him as confused and rambling and seemingly stoned.

It’s just interesting all the different opinions floating around out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He seems really charming to me. She seems like a scheming black widow succubus. Even her own sister and mom don't speak with her? I mean, come on.

Isn't her mother dead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He seems really charming to me. She seems like a scheming black widow succubus. Even her own sister and mom don't speak with her? I mean, come on.

Isn't her mother dead?

Yes. But you know, pesky facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Virginia tax payer, this is is a HUGE waste of my tax dollars. I can't believe this trial is supposed to last for SIX WEEKS. Gross.

If Depp was so concerned about what his children thought or their reputations, then why is he airing such disgusting information about how he lives for the entire world to see? The videos, the text messages, the photos, his testimony about the drug use, the awful language, the threats, the destruction of property, the alcohol. It blows my mind that somehow all this, on the record, isn't hurting his children or their reputation but the WaPo Op-Ed does.

I hope he has some proof that some company didn't hire him because of the article. Otherwise why not just have his exes speak out in support of him and make a statement on his own? It's not like she went after him so directly and criminally that he couldn't make an indirect address of his actions himself.

When cross examination began (not yesterday but the day before they managed to squeeze in about 20 minutes before calling it a day) his lawyers brought up an article published in October 2018 (two months before the op-ed was published) stating that Disney was looking to dump Depp. They haven’t come back to it yet but I’m certain they will.

that should have been excluded on hearsay. was it? i think it was from the daily mail? anyway, i wonder if either side has subpoenaed anyone to talk about the reason for the lost role(s).

It depends on why the article was introduced. If for the truth of the matter asserted, hearsay. If to argue that rumors about him getting fired existed before the article, not hearsay.

well that is a key part of their defense, right? that even if the jurors believe that the op ed was defamatory, it didn't cause him to lose the role in the next pirates. so it seems like it was offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He seems really charming to me. She seems like a scheming black widow succubus. Even her own sister and mom don't speak with her? I mean, come on.

Johnny Depp has a good sense of humor! You can tell he is also very patient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Virginia tax payer, this is is a HUGE waste of my tax dollars. I can't believe this trial is supposed to last for SIX WEEKS. Gross.

If Depp was so concerned about what his children thought or their reputations, then why is he airing such disgusting information about how he lives for the entire world to see? The videos, the text messages, the photos, his testimony about the drug use, the awful language, the threats, the destruction of property, the alcohol. It blows my mind that somehow all this, on the record, isn't hurting his children or their reputation but the WaPo Op-Ed does.

I hope he has some proof that some company didn't hire him because of the article. Otherwise why not just have his exes speak out in support of him and make a statement on his own? It's not like she went after him so directly and criminally that he couldn't make an indirect address of his actions himself.

When cross examination began (not yesterday but the day before they managed to squeeze in about 20 minutes before calling it a day) his lawyers brought up an article published in October 2018 (two months before the op-ed was published) stating that Disney was looking to dump Depp. They haven’t come back to it yet but I’m certain they will.

that should have been excluded on hearsay. was it? i think it was from the daily mail? anyway, i wonder if either side has subpoenaed anyone to talk about the reason for the lost role(s).

It depends on why the article was introduced. If for the truth of the matter asserted, hearsay. If to argue that rumors about him getting fired existed before the article, not hearsay.

well that is a key part of their defense, right? that even if the jurors believe that the op ed was defamatory, it didn't cause him to lose the role in the next pirates. so it seems like it was offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

There are a bunch of exceptions to the hearsay rule. They might say they’re offering it to show the general impression of Depp’s career trajectory at the time. I’m super rusty on hearsay and all its exceptions/exemptions. But there are a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's totally normal to be in a relationship where your partner walks around slamming cabinets and breaking glass (I'm pretty sure he tossed something glass in there and it broke) violently and yelling condescendingly at you as you ask him what happened, because a little while ago when you woe up he was in a good mood. That's totally normal.

Also for your partner to write degrading messages to you in blood all over the house you're staying in together. That also sounds totally normal.

I can understand not liking her. There is a more loving and loyal path to take here as the spouse I guess. But I also don't think you necessarily owe loyalty and love to a an addicted person who can't control their behavior around you and is petulant to you all the time. Like, when he apologized to her by text for something terrible he did and she didn't immediately forgive him, his immediate response was "well I see forgiveness and understanding are off the menu." or something like that. He is such a petulant child expecting everything to be easy for him even though his behavior is appalling.

It is abuse to write degrading comments about your partner on the walls. THE END. That's abusive.

The things you name here are at least as normal as…purposely defecating on your spouse’s side of the bed. She even took care to place the poo so that he would lay on it when he put up the sheet and got in bed. To me this was detail was as shocking as anything I heard Depp has done. She’s grotesquely immature and a little crazy. He’s an alcoholic opiate addict, clearly damaged from his own abusive childhood. I don’t think it is possible to say one is worse or more abusive than the other.

I didn't actually see that part. But if she did that, yeah that's totally gross. And probably abusive, too, if that was her dynamic with him and not some weird thing wtf.

BUT I still think it's abusive to write degrading comments about your partner in blood etc. all over the walls. Everybody here seems to be saying you have to hit your partner for it to be abuse, but that's not the standard. And he seems awful. Maybe she should have left. Why didn't HE leave, btw, if she was so awful?

At the time, he credited her with getting him through his detox, and told her parents he owed it all to her and she was an angel. But now that he hates her he complains that actually she didn't give him his drugs fast enough. (He conveniently leaves out the part that she was told not to give him the drugs too early, and that she did actually summon doctors to the place to help him so they could make the call about giving him drugs early -- no, she was a demon!)

I haven't watched the whole thing so maybe I've gotten a skewed view, but I did hear a lot of his testimony yesterday (which was supposed to be positive for him) and I did not like him. I have known abusers and he has that "this is somebody else's fault not my fault -- it's your fault for making me angry!" demeanor.

He went to Australia three weeks after they got married. When she tried to pick fights, he’d leave and go go another property. He was also asked this very question today and said he didn’t leave because he didn’t want go break her heart and because when his father left his mother, she became suicidal…and AH threatened suicide if he left. So there’s that.

This is a very classic borderline personality move. They have a fear of abandonment, a need for control and a desire for drama. I have a family member that used to do that, and when it eventually no longer had the same effect, moved onto breaking things, physical harm to others, and false accusations.
Johnny's no angel, though, obviously. He just seems less strategic in his messed-upedness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Johnny depp has been a has been for years. Other than Pirates, whats the last hit movie he had. he is bloated and drug addled. I think they both abused each other and addicts always find each other and love the domapnine hit that fighting and chaos brings.

He played Grindewald in two of the Fantastic Beasts movies which were pretty big blockbusters.
He also played in the remake of Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" with a pretty starstudded cast. And it was pretty successful.

Other than that, he has worked regularly (4 films in 2016, 3 in 2017, 5 in 2018, 1 in 2019 and 1 in 2020), even if most of the films were not A-list films.

That's the thing, even if he clears the defamation hurdle, proving damages seems pretty impossible. Pirates got canned because the 5th movie flopped and was panned by critics. Depp was fired from Grindewald after his litigation with the Sun and not this article.

Litigation with the Sun? So much litigation.

[Anonymous]

I feel so naive reading about this case. I truly had no idea drug use is so prevalent in "normal" people. (By normal, I mean functioning in society.) I am so disappointed in Vision now, too.

[Anonymous]

I was wondering why they weren't focused more on the Fantastic Beasts/Grindlewald role rather than the Disney/Pirates stuff --- the Pirate franchise was pretty well played out, but there were 2 of those FB movies left and they are bigger earners than Pirates at this point, I think. I guess the FB folks are saying that it was all the embarrassing stuff that he voluntarily released through the Sun litigation that made them cut him? It's really sad. I don't know why his lawyers aren't advising him better.

Also, can we say for a minute that Paul Bettany must be really bummed about all this? He looks like a d-ck in those text messages, and doesn't have the excuse of being a middle-aged long-term addict who grew up in an abusive household married to a crazy woman. What's Paul's excuse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Virginia tax payer, this is is a HUGE waste of my tax dollars. I can't believe this trial is supposed to last for SIX WEEKS. Gross.

If Depp was so concerned about what his children thought or their reputations, then why is he airing such disgusting information about how he lives for the entire world to see? The videos, the text messages, the photos, his testimony about the drug use, the awful language, the threats, the destruction of property, the alcohol. It blows my mind that somehow all this, on the record, isn't hurting his children or their reputation but the WaPo Op-Ed does.

I hope he has some proof that some company didn't hire him because of the article. Otherwise why not just have his exes speak out in support of him and make a statement on his own? It's not like she went after him so directly and criminally that he couldn't make an indirect address of his actions himself.

When cross examination began (not yesterday but the day before they managed to squeeze in about 20 minutes before calling it a day) his lawyers brought up an article published in October 2018 (two months before the op-ed was published) stating that Disney was looking to dump Depp. They haven’t come back to it yet but I’m certain they will.

that should have been excluded on hearsay. was it? i think it was from the daily mail? anyway, i wonder if either side has subpoenaed anyone to talk about the reason for the lost role(s).

It depends on why the article was introduced. If for the truth of the matter asserted, hearsay. If to argue that rumors about him getting fired existed before the article, not hearsay.

well that is a key part of their defense, right? that even if the jurors believe that the op ed was defamatory, it didn't cause him to lose the role in the next pirates. so it seems like it was offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

There are a bunch of exceptions to the hearsay rule. They might say they’re offering it to show the general impression of Depp’s career trajectory at the time. I’m super rusty on hearsay and all its exceptions/exemptions. But there are a lot.

whose "general impression"? if it's offered as a present sense impression, i'm not sure whose it would be. going to take more than a daily mirror article to defend on damages, on the flip side, he is going to need some proof on damages. doubt he really cares about a damages award, though; he'd be satisfied with liability. he said he wanted to do the trial to get to the truth, but i agree with a pp that perhaps it would have been better to write his own op eds instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Virginia tax payer, this is is a HUGE waste of my tax dollars. I can't believe this trial is supposed to last for SIX WEEKS. Gross.

If Depp was so concerned about what his children thought or their reputations, then why is he airing such disgusting information about how he lives for the entire world to see? The videos, the text messages, the photos, his testimony about the drug use, the awful language, the threats, the destruction of property, the alcohol. It blows my mind that somehow all this, on the record, isn't hurting his children or their reputation but the WaPo Op-Ed does.

I hope he has some proof that some company didn't hire him because of the article. Otherwise why not just have his exes speak out in support of him and make a statement on his own? It's not like she went after him so directly and criminally that he couldn't make an indirect address of his actions himself.

When cross examination began (not yesterday but the day before they managed to squeeze in about 20 minutes before calling it a day) his lawyers brought up an article published in October 2018 (two months before the op-ed was published) stating that Disney was looking to dump Depp. They haven’t come back to it yet but I’m certain they will.

that should have been excluded on hearsay. was it? i think it was from the daily mail? anyway, i wonder if either side has subpoenaed anyone to talk about the reason for the lost role(s).

It depends on why the article was introduced. If for the truth of the matter asserted, hearsay. If to argue that rumors about him getting fired existed before the article, not hearsay.

well that is a key part of their defense, right? that even if the jurors believe that the op ed was defamatory, it didn't cause him to lose the role in the next pirates. so it seems like it was offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

There are a bunch of exceptions to the hearsay rule. They might say they’re offering it to show the general impression of Depp’s career trajectory at the time. I’m super rusty on hearsay and all its exceptions/exemptions. But there are a lot.

whose "general impression"? if it's offered as a present sense impression, i'm not sure whose it would be. going to take more than a daily mirror article to defend on damages, on the flip side, he is going to need some proof on damages. doubt he really cares about a damages award, though; he'd be satisfied with liability. he said he wanted to do the trial to get to the truth, but i agree with a pp that perhaps it would have been better to write his own op eds instead.

How the hell should I know? I took evidence like 20 years ago! I’m sure her lawyers will come up with something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Virginia tax payer, this is is a HUGE waste of my tax dollars. I can't believe this trial is supposed to last for SIX WEEKS. Gross.

If Depp was so concerned about what his children thought or their reputations, then why is he airing such disgusting information about how he lives for the entire world to see? The videos, the text messages, the photos, his testimony about the drug use, the awful language, the threats, the destruction of property, the alcohol. It blows my mind that somehow all this, on the record, isn't hurting his children or their reputation but the WaPo Op-Ed does.

I hope he has some proof that some company didn't hire him because of the article. Otherwise why not just have his exes speak out in support of him and make a statement on his own? It's not like she went after him so directly and criminally that he couldn't make an indirect address of his actions himself.

When cross examination began (not yesterday but the day before they managed to squeeze in about 20 minutes before calling it a day) his lawyers brought up an article published in October 2018 (two months before the op-ed was published) stating that Disney was looking to dump Depp. They haven’t come back to it yet but I’m certain they will.

that should have been excluded on hearsay. was it? i think it was from the daily mail? anyway, i wonder if either side has subpoenaed anyone to talk about the reason for the lost role(s).

It depends on why the article was introduced. If for the truth of the matter asserted, hearsay. If to argue that rumors about him getting fired existed before the article, not hearsay.

well that is a key part of their defense, right? that even if the jurors believe that the op ed was defamatory, it didn't cause him to lose the role in the next pirates. so it seems like it was offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

There are a bunch of exceptions to the hearsay rule. They might say they’re offering it to show the general impression of Depp’s career trajectory at the time. I’m super rusty on hearsay and all its exceptions/exemptions. But there are a lot.

Depp got fired by Disney because he cost the an ****ton of money and time during the filming of Pirates 4 by showing up late AF and high to set all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Virginia tax payer, this is is a HUGE waste of my tax dollars. I can't believe this trial is supposed to last for SIX WEEKS. Gross.

If Depp was so concerned about what his children thought or their reputations, then why is he airing such disgusting information about how he lives for the entire world to see? The videos, the text messages, the photos, his testimony about the drug use, the awful language, the threats, the destruction of property, the alcohol. It blows my mind that somehow all this, on the record, isn't hurting his children or their reputation but the WaPo Op-Ed does.

I hope he has some proof that some company didn't hire him because of the article. Otherwise why not just have his exes speak out in support of him and make a statement on his own? It's not like she went after him so directly and criminally that he couldn't make an indirect address of his actions himself.

When cross examination began (not yesterday but the day before they managed to squeeze in about 20 minutes before calling it a day) his lawyers brought up an article published in October 2018 (two months before the op-ed was published) stating that Disney was looking to dump Depp. They haven’t come back to it yet but I’m certain they will.

that should have been excluded on hearsay. was it? i think it was from the daily mail? anyway, i wonder if either side has subpoenaed anyone to talk about the reason for the lost role(s).

It depends on why the article was introduced. If for the truth of the matter asserted, hearsay. If to argue that rumors about him getting fired existed before the article, not hearsay.

well that is a key part of their defense, right? that even if the jurors believe that the op ed was defamatory, it didn't cause him to lose the role in the next pirates. so it seems like it was offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

There are a bunch of exceptions to the hearsay rule. They might say they’re offering it to show the general impression of Depp’s career trajectory at the time. I’m super rusty on hearsay and all its exceptions/exemptions. But there are a lot.

whose "general impression"? if it's offered as a present sense impression, i'm not sure whose it would be. going to take more than a daily mirror article to defend on damages, on the flip side, he is going to need some proof on damages. doubt he really cares about a damages award, though; he'd be satisfied with liability. he said he wanted to do the trial to get to the truth, but i agree with a pp that perhaps it would have been better to write his own op eds instead.

That's what I don't understand. Why not just do this? I guess it doesn't matter. All this stuff came out with the Sun case already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel so naive reading about this case. I truly had no idea drug use is so prevalent in "normal" people. (By normal, I mean functioning in society.) I am so disappointed in Vision now, too.

It's one of the biggest issues plaguing the US right now. Why don't know you know this?