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

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Don't news broadcasters and journalists have to offer the other side a right to reply in these type of interviews? I'm fairly sure here in the UK they do.

Maybe it's time Depp's team were rolled out to make a comment that they are very happy the court process was rigorous and professional and the right decision was reached?

 

[katydid23]

Washington Post adds editor’s note to Amber Heard’s 2018 op-ed after Johnny Depp verdict

Ms Heard testified that op-ed was not about ex-husband Johnny Depp, but jury says she defamed him

news.yahoo.com

WAPO should take the article offline not just add a line with the verdict. MOO

That is a LIE by WAPO to say she 'testified it was not about Depp.' She also said twice, in her testimony that she wrote it about Depp because he was too powerful.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

STILL trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. So disrespectful, how low-functioning does Elaine think the audience is? Or did she just truly drink the koolaid and has been thoroughly hoodwinked by Heard?
Irksome.

Just reminded me of an old advertising saying - 'never over-estimate the general public'. Sad but true the vast majority of people just absorb information from the environment and adopt it as truth.

 

[Luna20]

Ohhhhh here is the new one, I’ve been waiting for it.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7104676342045740294

 

[dmac55]

Did she back down from demonized to confused? I am shocked that she has crossed a line that no officer of the court would condone. It’s wrong and it puts the jury in the crosshairs of the public‘s wrath (those who support AH). We know there are erratic individuals who can do any number of things. She has offered them up for danger.

I think what she did, was she enhanced her disparaging remarks about the jury by adding confused to the demonized

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Ohhhhh here is the new one, I’ve been waiting for it.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7104676342045740294

I can't seem to get this to work, is it a clickable link?

 

[Herat]

I believe that JD's team went extremely light on AH. There's a lot of material they could have 'demonized' her with. Her past arrest record, her lies about her upbringing, her having been a stripper/escort, her own extreme drug abuse (especially cocaine), her serial infidelity and so on.

JD was the one demonized, in fact, they constantly referred to him as a literal monster!!! They used private venting texts to friends (not even AH) as proof of abuse. It was sickening.

I hope EB gets sanctioned or at least has some repercussions for her conduct today.

I was watching one of the lawtubes last night and they had some juicy stuff digging around some outstanding motions in the districts of NY and CA pertaining to this case. Needless to say, it did not look favorable to AH. She used the courts to harass JD in my opinion.

My guess is: she will not stop trying to victimize JD. Due to her personality orders, she just can't let it go. Luckily, I think most people will probably not give her the time of day, JD likely feels he can ignore her now that he has been vindicated in the public's eye.

"her having been a stripper/escort"

So if the acting gigs dry up, she does have work experience and OnlyFans is only a click away.

 

[Herat]

ANIMAL ALERT: Now we have to look for Badgers

Maybe an alternate JD spirit animal when the supply of alpacas is gone.

Jeff Beck is a patron of that animal charity. I did not have badgers or alpacas on my JD vs AH Bingo Card

Johnny Depp cradles a badger at wildlife rescue in Kent

The actor, 58, cradled an orphaned badger named Freddie as he stopped by Folly Wildlife Rescue where he toured the care and vet units.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Luna20]

That is a LIE by WAPO to say she 'testified it was not about Depp.' She also said twice, in her testimony that she wrote it about Depp because he was too powerful.

Long gone are the days of ‘No proof=No print‘
A lost art of humanity.

 

[ilovewings]

Wow, that has 18K likes! She either doesn’t know she is a snark (we know she does) or she thought displaying her snark in the courtroom was going to ensure her a big win.

I’ve given it a lot of thought and I can say that I’ve not seen anyone testifying like she did before. JA comes to mind but this is a different level.

In reality she didn’t give the jury any other choice to consider her credibility. She made that part easy.

Funny you should mention JA- in some ways this trial reminded me of Jodi Arias, but the difference is this judge did not let in a bunch of here say crap that was spewed by AH--- the judge in the Arias case let in all that stuff Arias told people including expert psychiatrists/psychologists. -- Arias told more than one of the experts a whole lot of stuff about Travis that could never be proven: it was just her word. I don't know why the judge let that in. I remember Martinez had to keep reminding the jury that those allegations were what Arias told the doctor and that did not make it true. The judge in this case was really good.

 

[Luna20]

I can't seem to get this to work, is it a clickable link?

It should look just like a video clip, hit the arrow

 

[Luna20]

Funny you should mention JA- in some ways this trial reminded me of Jodi Arias, but the difference is this judge did not let in a bunch of here say crap that was spewed by AH--- the judge in the Arias case let in all that stuff Arias told people including expert psychiatrists/psychologists. -- Arias told more than one of the experts a whole lot of stuff about Travis that could never be proven: it was just her word. I don't know why the judge let that in. I remember Martinez had to keep reminding the jury that those allegations were what Arias told the doctor and that did not make it true. The judge in this case was really good.

You refreshed my memory about the number JA did on those experts.

What JD team did was brilliant in regards to verifiable evidence. The Meta was significant! Her team most likely hasnt had any experience with it. They at times looked speechless during that expert’s testimony and they floundered on cross.

 

[Leve]

ANIMAL ALERT: Now we have to look for Badgers

Maybe an alternate JD spirit animal when the supply of alpacas is gone.

Jeff Beck is a patron of that animal charity. I did not have badgers or alpacas on my JD vs AH Bingo Card

Johnny Depp cradles a badger at wildlife rescue in Kent

The actor, 58, cradled an orphaned badger named Freddie as he stopped by Folly Wildlife Rescue where he toured the care and vet units.

www.dailymail.co.uk

How about bats? Lol

 

[CharlestonGal]

Benzo + alcohol is one of the most dangerous drug combinations and it results in blackout on quite low dose combination of both.

Most people misunderstand what 'blackout' means, they assume it means passing out, this is incorrect - blackout is when someone is on the rampage, highly active, often aggressive or violent actions, but has literally no idea of what they're doing and no recall afterwards.

Agree that benzo + alcohol is a very bad mix indeed.

I do however disagree with this characterization of the state of "blackout". People are no more prone to rampaging, aggressive behavior or violence when in a state of blackout than they are any other time. And they do know what they are doing in the moment. I mean, as well as one can while under the influence anyway.

A "blackout" is the result of an incomplete or absent memory transfer from short term memory to long term memory. A person in a blackout state has perfectly functioning short term memory - you can, for instance, watch a movie and follow along just fine or participate in a conversation. You are present in the moment, likely behaving much as you normally do. The problem that arises in a drug or alcohol impaired state is that the substance can interrupt the transmission of data (memory) from short term memory to long term memory. The following day you may not remember watching the movie or having a conversation but you were perfectly aware during the event itself.

Benzodiazepines are notorious for this. In fact, it's the reason Versed is deliberately used during outpatient medical procedures. The patient medicated with Versed can cooperate with the procedure and the doctors because they are awake and reasonably alert in the moment, but don't remember a thing about it afterwards (blackout). The formal term is anterograde amnesia.

Anterograde amnesia linked to benzodiazepines - PubMed

Benzodiazepines, shown to affect memory, can produce anterograde amnesia (i.e., a loss of memory for events occurring forward in time). Following the ingestion of a benzodiazepine, short-term memory is not affected, but long-term memory is impaired. The memory loss may occur because events are...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[shotgun09]

This claim of the jury 'demonizing' AH is not only a slap( ABUSE?) against the justice system itself, but I personally take offense. The public at large watched the trial, which was televised with the court's approval. We all had many many choices on where to watch the trial. I chose MSM sites that had no commentary...for the most part. However, sometimes I went to Social Media's "Lawtube", and listened to the salt and pepper commentary added. I learned much about our legal system. I also learned that many on those sites had the same ghastly opinion as I did. That AH was an extremely troubled woman, who lied...and SHE was the abuser!

I didn't reach this (my) opinion from the Twitter fandom sites, or TikTok and Instagram sites....which EB and company brought forward themselves during the trial. And, either did the jury...I have faith in the seven. They all watched and listened to the same trial we did. But, I do worry where and how far this claim of social media tampering will go. Just sayin

Watch where this leads.

 

[Kiranerys]

Indeed. Also openly stating (with no proof) that she has proof of at least 12 incidents where JD was violent to AH but they weren't allowed to be submitted - wow - if this is not COMPLETELY TRUE then she's looking at JD taking action against her personally for saying such things surely?

If this was true I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that this "proof" would have found its way out into the public domain by now. The Heard team has waxed plenty lyrical about how social media has it out for her, there is no way her new PR team wouldn't have "anonymously" leaked this so called evidence. They would blame it squarely on someone from the UK trial without naming names and pretend to be shocked and appalled at its leak.
They haven't done that though because it doesn't exist. IMO

 

[CharlestonGal]

I think we can hear what ALL of the suppressed evidence was by listening to the 'proffer' which was in the video of the trial. It was all read into evidence, to be put on record, at the tail end of the trial, by Rottenborn I believe.

Mostly it seemed to be the notes from AH's therapist, who said AH 'told' her about some abuse by JD. But that is HEARSAY evidence so it should not be admitted into the trial. Anyone can tell their therapist/marriage counsellor anything they want---it doesn't make it true.

Also there were pictures AH wanted admitted but were not originals so they were not verifiable.

EB also mentioned the text from JD's friend, to AH, saying 'JD is sorry for kicking you.' Again, that is not proper evidence because it was not someone witnessing the event and testifying to it. It was hearsay as we don't know where the info really came from.

This reminds me of the Sheri Papini case - her therapist has 5 years of "evidence" of Sheri's kidnapping and torture that we now know never happened. The therapist's notes may prove that the client SAID those things, but they are not evidence that those things actually occurred. That's why hearsay is not admissible. It contains no actual evidence of an event or a crime. The therapist did not "witness" anything and both parties that were present during the events were present at the trial to give their first hand account themselves. IMO

 

[scapa]

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.

 

[Kiranerys]

Johnny's statement after verdict as compared to Amber's was very telling about each of their personalities IMO. He spoke of the experience and his peace and relief at it being at an end. He never once, either directly, or indirectly mentioned his ex wife.

Amber on the other hand, well she skirted dangerously close if not INTO yet more defamation. Her statement was grandiose (like her), overly dramatic (like her) with suggestions of her civil rights being taken from her, this being message to all women not to come forward, blah blah. Most importantly - her statement ONCE again defamed her ex husbands by name in basically the same ways she just lost this case over.

I took JD's as closure and thanks for the support, I can't wait to move forward. I took Amber's as more defamation (because it is) AND a threat. She is not going to shut up, she will continue to defame him and make his life miserable in any way she can. Hers is just another example of how hard she is still suckered onto him. Hers indicates the opposite of moving on. What happened to "I just want to move on"?

The jury took the final word away from her........

 

[Kiranerys]

The sad thing is, how many millions of people watch main stream media (like the Today show, NBC, CNN, etc) but didn't watch the trial. So they are going to believe her!

That's exactly what they are banking on.