VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #12

[they'll get you]

Omg you’re right. I watched everything I could find about BB awhile back. Remember when she tried to drive her vehicle through her ex-husband’s front door? !

JD’s body guards will be standing a lot closer to him and his family.

 

[Brooke]

The judge made it clear that she wasn’t going to release their names for a year. It’s bizarre how that went right over Elaines head, so much so that within hours after the verdict she accuses them of demonizing.

IIRC, pretty sure I do, it was AH's legal team who requested that lock on the names!

 

[Herat]

How did I not know these existed? There are about 20 different ones on Amazon.

I may have a new hobby.

Johnny Depp Coloring Book: A Cool Coloring Book With Many Illustrations Of Johnny Depp For Fans of All Ages To Relax And Relieve Stress: Maurice, Virginie: 9798422811069: Amazon.com: Books

Johnny Depp Coloring Book: A Cool Coloring Book With Many Illustrations Of Johnny Depp For Fans of All Ages To Relax And Relieve Stress [Maurice, Virginie] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Johnny Depp Coloring Book: A Cool Coloring Book With Many Illustrations Of Johnny Depp...

www.amazon.com

 

[Luna20]

I'm confused, did EB name the jurors?

Not sure how they can come to any harm when no-one knows who they are.

No she didn’t name them, she said that they were demonizing. It won’t take long for word to get out simply because the jurors friends and colleagues will discuss it. Also there is already one juror that has revealed himself. Supposedly they have spoken but I haven’t verified it. It was posted upthread.

 

[neesaki]

Of all the lies and misrepresentations EB is spewing, she really goes way over the top with expecting us to believe that AH’s first reaction to the verdict was “ I’m so sorry for all the women I let down”. JMO
Don’t know how she can say it with a straight face. But that’s part of the campaign to portray AH as an “Ambassador “ I reckon.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1532542422466457601

I can’t believe EB is so out of touch she doesn’t realize everyone is sick of AH’s lies and BS. I think we all know that is NOT the first thing AH said to her, and I personally doubt she said it at all. Why does EB seem so desperate?

 

[Brooke]

She said that there is no way they could have avoided it.

She flat out accused the Jurors of not following the rules of the Court and breaking their oath.

She takes after her client: Accusing without solid evidence.

SHAME

 

[Luna20]

Yes, EB didn’t just imply that Jurors were influenced by Social Media, she came right out and said that they HAD to have seen things on SM because they went home every night, and they have families who would talk ro them about it, and she mentioned that they had a 10 day break in the trial.

She said that there is no way they could have avoided it.

She flat out accused the Jurors of not following the rules of the Court and breaking their oath.

Pretty damned bold of her.
Imo

Remember when Johnny asked Rottenborg “were you there”
Same applies here. How does she know what they did when they got home?! Was she there??

Jurors do go home or back to a hotel if sequestered. Why is this any different? Before SM there was Tv, newspaper’s and friends/family so there is no basis for what she is saying.

She really has crossed a line.

 

[katydid23]

Wouldn’t there be a limit in how much a homeowner’s policy covers for legal representation? I find it hard to believe they would pay 6 million dollars.
I’m thinking AH’s attorneys were hoping to get a percent of what they thought she would be awarded. They must have really thought she was going to win .

I looked at our homeowners policy. It only covers us legally if being sued for someone being injured on our property or because of something we did connected with our property.

It does not appear to cover us for defamation. I think she must have some kind of special insurance---more like the kind doctors get for malpractice, or actors get for lawsuits from their work projects.

She did get sued by the producers of one of her films---maybe she purchased legal insurance after that lawsuit?

 

[Brooke]

If the VP of AH's insurance company sometimes sat next to WH in court, she obviously heard testimony and saw evidence displayed. I don't know how often she attended court or who she saw testify, but it sounds like she was there more than just a couple of days.

The VP's job really is to look out for her employer's assets, ie., the money they're shelling out for lawyers for AH. Her first allegiance is to her employer, the insurance company, not AH.

The VP listened to AH's testimony, saw the theatrics, might have taken note that the solid evidence supporting AH's case was scant and sketchy. Do you suppose this executive feels good about spending money to defend AH? Is she with the "believe all women, no matter what" team?

Insurance people are trained to recognize scams. I wonder if this one did. JMO

 

[CharlestonGal]

"While we are obviously disappointed in the jury decision, we respect that decision. And thank them for their service. We will be appealing the decision, based on the merits of the case and potential errors in procedure that may ultimately have impacted the jury decision and the outcome of the trial. We look forward to raising these issues of law and procedure to the appeals court."

Then shut the fluck up. IMO

edit: IANAL but I do possess a fair amount of common sense and professional decorum.

 

[CharlestonGal]

I looked at our homeowners policy. It only covers us legally if being sued for someone being injured on our property or because of something we did connected with our property.

It does not appear to cover us for defamation. I think she must have some kind of special insurance---more like the kind doctors get for malpractice, or actors get for lawsuits from their work projects.

She did get sued by the producers of one of her films---maybe she purchased legal insurance after that lawsuit?

I looked at my policy, too. It covers suits brought by negligence or unsafe conditions/code violations in my house that led to injury. It certainly does not cover malice defamation committed in Virginia.

That's a very weird insurance policy, if true.

 

[neesaki]

"While we are obviously disappointed in the jury decision, we respect that decision. And thank them for their service. We will be appealing the decision, based on the merits of the case and potential errors in procedure that may ultimately have impacted the jury decision and the outcome of the trial. We look forward to raising these issues of law and procedure to the appeals court."

Then shut the fluck up. IMO

I just watched that CBS interview and I don’t think EB came across well at all. She might as well be selling snake oil. Jmo

 

[makayla]

WOW! Demonizing the jury? Really, Elaine? VERY poor form. I've watched and followed many trials in my long life and do not remember a case where the opposing counsel ripped the jury like Elaine did this morning.

There's an argument that could be made that Elaine is suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome. IMO

It was actually shocking in my opinion, and extremely unprofessional. Also, I question whether those words were really what AH said … I can’t see her being really sorry, except for herself. Just my opinion …

 

[Brooke]

Also, I question whether those words were really what AH said

Oh, I don't think you're alone in questioning that! Not by a loooong shot.

 

[Cindizzi]

Well there you have it.
The FOUNDER of the me too movement does not want the cause to be co-opted and manipulated by the Press in regards to this case.

The Depp-Heard defamation trial began April 11, and for several weeks prominent activists stayed largely silent about it. On May 28, #MeToo founder Tarana Burke issued a statement on Instagram saying that the cause was being co-opted and manipulated during the trial and calling press coverage “one of the biggest defamations of the movement we have ever seen.” In the caption, Burke said she and her organization “have been harassed nonstop about [the trial] — mostly by people wanting us to ‘pick a side’ in the case.” A longer statement posted on the organization’s website said that the Depp-Heard trial was “not about sexual violence at its core.”

Activists React to Hollywood’s Silence During Johnny Depp Trial: “Where Are You and Why Are You Not Supporting Amber Heard?”

At the height of the Time's Up movement, stars rallied in support of women during high-profile cases against the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. The absence of such solidarity today has some #MeToo proponents worried about the future of the movement.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Allabouttrial]

Lawtube were talking about her homeowners insurance. They made a valid point when they said it would be highly unlikely they would let Amber pick her own lawyer.

 

[katydid23]

Plenty of opinion pieces in today's Guardian. Here's another:

Was it really asking too much for Amber Heard to be listened to without prejudice? | Gaby Hinsliff

Johnny Depp’s legal team left the jury with a stark choice: believe it all, or believe nothing. Life’s not that simple, says Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff

www.theguardian.com

How, then, to stop this verdict reversing all the progress painstakingly made for female survivors of abuse? The answer doesn’t lie in chanting “believe all women”, a mantra implying that the only way of overcoming centuries of misogyny is to treat women alone as above suspicion. It’s a good campaign slogan but a bad fit for a justice system founded on the principle of believing the evidence, even where that sometimes leads in uncomfortable directions.

All women really ask of men – and, arguably, vice versa – is the chance to be heard without prejudice. Whatever did or didn’t happen between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, right now that modest goal seems ever more tantalisingly out of reach.

"Believe everything, or nothing. Either every single word this woman says must be true, or nothing is. Having raked for weeks through the bitter ashes of Johnny Depp’s brief and frequently ugly marriage to Amber Heard, his counsel, Camille Vasquez, offered the jury hearing the mutual defamation suits only that stark, binary choice: no picking and choosing, no room for ambiguity or complexity or imperfect victims. Either Heard had endured something “truly horrific”, or she was capable of saying absolutely anything."


It blows my mind that a journalist would even write this out and sign their name to it. They are really saying this about a trial witness, under oath and complaining about it?:

"Believe everything, or nothing. Either every single word this woman says must be true, or nothing is."

YES, believe it or not, a trial witness, testifying under oath, must tell the truth---every single word must be the truth. Why are you complaining or questioning that? Isn't that the point of swearing on the bible and taking an oath to " tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?'

I guess we probably don't take that kind of oath anymore, unfortunately. Maybe that's how the Guardian prefers it. Let the witness tell some truth and mix it in with a little less truthful testimony, as needed.

They think the jury should just pick and choose which parts of Amber's testimony they believe and ignore the rest? Even though she was under oath and was swearing that all of it was the absolute truth. If some of it wasn't, then that's OK too.

 

[Allabouttrial]

Well there you have it.
The FOUNDER of the me too movement does not want the cause to be co-opted and manipulated by the Press in regards to this case.

The Depp-Heard defamation trial began April 11, and for several weeks prominent activists stayed largely silent about it. On May 28, #MeToo founder Tarana Burke issued a statement on Instagram saying that the cause was being co-opted and manipulated during the trial and calling press coverage “one of the biggest defamations of the movement we have ever seen.” In the caption, Burke said she and her organization “have been harassed nonstop about [the trial] — mostly by people wanting us to ‘pick a side’ in the case.” A longer statement posted on the organization’s website said that the Depp-Heard trial was “not about sexual violence at its core.”

Activists React to Hollywood’s Silence During Johnny Depp Trial: “Where Are You and Why Are You Not Supporting Amber Heard?”

At the height of the Time's Up movement, stars rallied in support of women during high-profile cases against the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. The absence of such solidarity today has some #MeToo proponents worried about the future of the movement.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

I've never understood their stance on telling everyone to 'believe all women', but this case has been a big concern for me regarding real victims of DV/SA.

I sincerely hope it doesn't deter victims/survivors from coming forward.

 

[Allabouttrial]

"Believe everything, or nothing. Either every single word this woman says must be true, or nothing is. Having raked for weeks through the bitter ashes of Johnny Depp’s brief and frequently ugly marriage to Amber Heard, his counsel, Camille Vasquez, offered the jury hearing the mutual defamation suits only that stark, binary choice: no picking and choosing, no room for ambiguity or complexity or imperfect victims. Either Heard had endured something “truly horrific”, or she was capable of saying absolutely anything."


It blows my mind that a journalist would even write this out and sign their name to it. They are really saying this about a trial witness, under oath and complaining about it?:

"Believe everything, or nothing. Either every single word this woman says must be true, or nothing is."

YES, believe it or not, a trial witness, testifying under oath, must tell the truth---every single word must be the truth. Why are you complaining or questioning that? Isn't that the point of swearing on the bible and taking an oath to " tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?'

I guess we probably don't take that kind of oath anymore, unfortunately. Maybe that's how the Guardian prefers it. Let the witness tell some truth and mix it in with a little less truthful testimony, as needed.

They think the jury should just pick and choose which parts of Amber's testimony they believe and ignore the rest? Even though she was under oath and was swearing that all of it was the absolute truth. If some of it wasn't, then that's OK too.

I haven't looked at any articles myself, but others were saying that UK's msm were coming out more in support of Amber, while US's msm were more team Depp.

Let's just hope she doesn't up sticks and move here!

 

[katydid23]

​

Fans rejoice at rumors that Depp will star in Beetlejuice 2

Rumor's are circulating online that Johnny Depp, 58, is set to star in Beetlejuice 2 after his image appeared alongside the film's leading cast members in Google searches.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Johnny's next role? Fans rejoice at rumors that Depp will star in Tim Burton's Beetlejuice 2 after he appears in cast lists for the long-awaited cult-classic sequel​

• Google searches for 'Beetlejuice 2' show a picture of Johnny Depp alongside Beetlejuice stars Michael Keaton and Winona Ryder under the heading 'Cast'
• The presence of Depp in the Google cast list comes amidst mounting speculation that a Beetlejuice sequel is in the works after more than 30 years
• If true, Depp's appearance in the film could be his first major role since he was booted from the Harry Potter adjacent Fantastic Beasts franchise in 2020