VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #2

[LaborDayRN]

absolutely… as for the ‘AH fight issues’, it seems obvious at least to me, that a problem with the scenario is because AH tells it to achieve an outcome. (I know, ‘duh’, but yet…) it sounds wrong, because it is wrong. She’s not telling it from experiential memory, which when you have it, you don’t need to remember what your stories are… the actual events are burned into your brain.

Amber in her deposition, ‘I don’t know what part of my body I put between the two of (my sister and Johnny)…’ in order to avoid admitting it was her closed fist… c’mon, Amber, what silly tortured locution. Are you envisioning a scenario where some listeners might go ‘oh, ok, I guess she thrust her shoulder between the two of them’… physical fights are not the Hokey Pokey, lol.

Well, unless you put your left foot in, you put your left foot out..........
ETA: Sorry, I'm a bit sleep deprived.

 

[LaborDayRN]

Yes, she did.
IMO (what I've watched) she came across as an entitled brat that couldn't keep her lies straight. She was eating on the stand and didn't mind continuing to chew while making everyone wait on her answers. I would gladly attach a video or two but I'm not sure they are allowed. If you get on YouTube and put in AH testimony UK trial, you will be able to see some of her testimony.

ETA .. I am wrong about the date .. that's the search I done but now I looked again and it says those were her depositions back in 2016 .. just as bad I'm sure.

Wait........What??? She was eating on the stand? That's a new one!

 

[ZoriahNZ]

Wait........What??? She was eating on the stand? That's a new one!

It was a deposition, which is usually a less formal setting than actually being in court, I think.

It's possible she asked for snacks in order to give herself an excuse to take more time to reply to some of the harder questions. Or, perhaps the law office itself offered snacks because it was a going to be a lengthy depo?

However, the general consensus/advice seems to be not to eat, drink or chew gum while giving a deposition if at all possible.

 

[LaborDayRN]

 

[squareandrabbet]

It was a deposition, which is usually a less formal setting than actually being in court, I think.

It's possible she asked for snacks in order to give herself an excuse to take more time to reply to some of the harder questions. Or, perhaps the law office itself offered snacks because it was a going to be a lengthy depo?

However, the general consensus/advice seems to be not to eat, drink or chew gum while giving a deposition if at all possible.

I thought obviously the snacks were a ‘buy time’ nonsense maneuver, if not designed to make her look like a little child, with the obvious ‘pretending to fish stuff out of her teeth/cheek with her tongue while she literally ruminates’ pauses… I mean, it’s certainly possible she had a full day of work running around on press or… something, and this was all she could snatch time for; personally I would not have stood for it as JD’s lawyer. She could have stopped at almost any newsstand, etc., shoved a Kind or Luna bar or similar down her maw while running down the street.

 

[BUF]

I thought obviously the snacks were a ‘buy time’ nonsense maneuver, if not designed to make her look like a little child, with the obvious ‘pretending to fish stuff out of her teeth/cheek with her tongue while she literally ruminates’ pauses… I mean, it’s certainly possible she had a full day of work running around on press or… something, and this was all she could snatch time for; personally I would not have stood for it as JD’s lawyer. She could have stopped at almost any newsstand, etc., shoved a Kind or Luna bar or similar down her maw while running down the street.

I found her whole demeanor in that deposition disturbing.

Maybe this happens when you are not being truthful…or maybe acting. If this is any indication of how she will testify in this trial when being pressed into a corner about things she wasn’t truthful about on cross, it will come out in a similar way. She won’t react this way on direct as she will be coddled by her attorney. I expect Bredhoft to do her direct, which we will see a much different demeanor in her as well.

These deposition clips will remain on the web as will videos of her testifying in this trial…that she cannot escape.


moo

 

[BUF]

Under the statutes of the Old Dominion, lawyers for the defense in civil cases essentially are “required,” as one legal source told us, to enter a motion to strike once the plaintiff has wrapped up their case and witnesses.
……
Pretty much assured to be unsuccessful in this high-profile matter, the motion’s primary point is to assure certain appeal rights to the defense if necessary.

Johnny Depp Trial Will See Amber Heard Make Dismissal Motion She Is Sure To Lose – Deadline

 

[squareandrabbet]

I found her whole demeanor in that deposition disturbing.

Maybe this happens when you are not being truthful…or maybe acting. If this is any indication of how she will testify in this trial when being pressed into a corner about things she wasn’t truthful about on cross, it will come out in a similar way. She won’t react this way on direct as she will be coddled by her attorney. I expect Bredhoft to do her direct, which we will see a much different demeanor in her as well.

These deposition clips will remain on the web as will videos of her testifying in this trial…that she cannot escape.


moo

IMO it’s all theatrical, designed to convey a special attempt. ‘Hmmmm, see how thoughtful and deliberate I am?’

it’s also super exaggerated in its precision/scope, as well as that of her head movements.

the body/facial language is crafted so that we think we’re getting oh so deep ruminations; but what winds up coming out of her mouth after the pseudo intelligent delay is, ironically, very shallow, emotional, and knee-jerk.

In short, I do not find her words and facial expressions to be congruent with each other.

 

[BUF]

https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetwork/status/1521203153642917892

A criminal defense attorney said on
@LawCrimeNetwork
that #AmberHeard's attorney is being "disrespectful" and "unnecessarily aggressive" towards a technical forensics analyst under cross-examination.

(video at link)

 

[Allabouttrial]

Wait........What??? She was eating on the stand? That's a new one!

I believe the OP is talking about her eating at her deposition, not the UK trial.

Depp has been chewing gum through most of this trial though.

 

[Allabouttrial]

Sky News

What happened at the UK trial?

Richard Marks and Doug Bania, two expert witnesses presented by Johnny Depp's team yesterday, were questioned about the impact of Amber Heard's domestic abuse first person column, published in December 2018, on the actor's reputation and career.

Heard's legal team pushed back on suggestions that this article sounded the death knell for Depp, arguing his reputation was damaged long before the column was published - due to Heard's allegations of domestic abuse being made public when she filed for a restraining order in 2016, other legal disuptes Depp was involved in, and the UK lawsuit against The Sun.

Remember that one?

Because if you think the libel case playing out now seems familiar, that's because it is - in the summer of 2020, Depp, 58, took the publishers of the British tabloid to court over an article describing the star as a "wife-beater", which was published in April 2018 - eight months before Heard's op-ed.

Lasting for three weeks, the UK trial took place at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, with Depp and Heard giving evidence and both attending court for the majority of the hearing - with crowds of the actor's fans and paparazzi turning up outside every day.

In November 2020, the judge handed down his ruling, finding that the newspaper's article was "substantially true" - Depp lost.

While libel is a civil case and not a criminal one - meaning Depp was not found guilty of a crime - the verdict was clearly damning for the actor.

Depp, who has always strenuously denied allegations of abuse, later asked the Court of Appeal to grant permission for him to challenge the ruling, with the aim of having its findings overturned and a retrial ordered, but the appeal was denied in March 2021.

Since then, the actor has been seen at film industry events and is also promoting his work as an artist.

However, film roles appear to have dried up for the former Pirates Of The Caribbean star, with his last movie, Minamata, in which he played war photographer Eugene Smith, released in 2020.

After playing Captain Jack Sparrow in five Pirates films, he will not be a part of the upcoming sixth. And after losing the UK case, he was immediately dropped from the Harry Potter spin-off Fantastic Beasts 3, with Mads Mikkelsen later replacing him as Gellert Grindelwald.

In July 2021, Heard, 36, announced she had welcomed a baby daughter earlier in the year, reportedly via surrogate. She starred in Zack Snyder's Justice League in 2021 and is set to appear in Aquaman 2 in 2023.

Now, Depp is suing Heard and seeking $50m (£38.4m) over a column she wrote in The Washington Post in 2018, in which she discussed her experiences of domestic abuse but did not mention her ex-husband by name.

Lawyers for the actor say the op-ed falsely implies Heard was physically and sexually abused by Depp when they were married and that the accusations have ruined his career in Hollywood.

Heard is counter-suing Depp for $100m (£76.8m).

 

[Allabouttrial]

Sky News

How is this case different to the UK case?

Although the UK libel trial might have seemed like it was a case of Depp v Heard, it wasn't – Depp was suing the publisher of The Sun newspaper, and Heard gave evidence as a witness.

This time round, it is Depp v Heard – specifically John C Depp II v Amber Laura Heard, as it is listed.

While the UK trial took place in front of a judge, the US case is being heard by a jury.

The judge overseeing the trial, Penney Azcarate, has imposed a series of rules to try to make sure things run smoothly in court, given the high-profile nature of the case and the fact Depp fans are in attendance.

Most significantly, neither Depp nor Heard are permitted to pose for photos or sign autographs in the courthouse or on the courthouse grounds – which is perhaps why you've not seen as much footage of the pair waving from the court steps, like we saw during the UK trial.

During the UK case, journalists were able to work from computers in an overflow courtroom – meaning we were able to cover proceedings live through written updates.

This isn't the case in the US – no computers allowed and phones must not be visible – so reporters inside the court are noting what happens during proceedings and then writing their reports or broadcast scripts afterwards.

However, the big difference in terms of reporting the case is that this time it's on camera, which means we can see and hear what is happening inside the courtroom even back here, some 3,600 milles away at Sky News HQ in the UK – as can you.

 

[BUF]

Today is day 13 of the trial. Wonder if anyone is superstitious?

 

[turaj]

Just don’t know how that would go over with this young jury that probably has no prior courtroom experience.

Has anyone had access to a detailed list of jurors and general demographics ? I have not seen much except maybe more males. Now mention of "young" ?

 

[turaj]

Yes, she did.
IMO (what I've watched) she came across as an entitled brat that couldn't keep her lies straight. She was eating on the stand and didn't mind continuing to chew while making everyone wait on her answers. I would gladly attach a video or two but I'm not sure they are allowed. If you get on YouTube and put in AH testimony UK trial, you will be able to see some of her testimony.

ETA .. I am wrong about the date .. that's the search I done but now I looked again and it says those were her depositions back in 2016 .. just as bad I'm sure.

I think the eating was in depositions...not good but not as bad as doing it in full court. I doubt if she was eating before the UK court.

 

[turaj]

I believe the OP is talking about her eating at her deposition, not the UK trial.

Depp has been chewing gum through most of this trial though.

and passing out candy.

 

[rebelchild]

I believe the OP is talking about her eating at her deposition, not the UK trial.

Depp has been chewing gum through most of this trial though.

Yes, I had that wrong and it was only the deposition. I didn't read the description on the video. Still annoying to watch but not as bad as if it had been on the stand at trial. Did JD actually chew gum on the stand? I must have missed that part! lol

 

[tlcya]

Under the statutes of the Old Dominion, lawyers for the defense in civil cases essentially are “required,” as one legal source told us, to enter a motion to strike once the plaintiff has wrapped up their case and witnesses.
……
Pretty much assured to be unsuccessful in this high-profile matter, the motion’s primary point is to assure certain appeal rights to the defense if necessary.

Johnny Depp Trial Will See Amber Heard Make Dismissal Motion She Is Sure To Lose – Deadline

Yeah, my firm does elder law and civil suits, zero criminal law. A Motion to Dismiss is pretty much a given in civil suits. We don't often see cases where the respondents do not file one. It's a matter of course.

 

[Allabouttrial]

Sky News

Court is in session

The testimony of nurse Erin Falati (maiden name Boerum, as she was called when she worked with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard) is continuing today.

Ms Falati's questioning was pre-recorded and is being shown to the court on screen.

Today starts with questioning from Depp's legal team.

 

[Allabouttrial]

Yes, I had that wrong and it was only the deposition. I didn't read the description on the video. Still annoying to watch but not as bad as if it had been on the stand at trial. Did JD actually chew gum on the stand? I must have missed that part! lol

No not on the stand, AFAIK.