- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,203
- Reaction score
- 273,591
She worked on this case for 3 years, earned 60k, and the only 'comparables' she could find were admittedly by her, not very exact, because she says it is just a loose fitting process. So not definitive? But that is how she is estimating the monetary damages, with a not very exact process?Sky News
'I met Amber for the first time at lunch today'
Questioning expert witness Kathryn Arnold, Johnny Depp's lawyer asks if she thinks: "A portion of the reason that Mr Depp has received a variety of negative comments in Hollywood is that he engages in lawsuits."
She agrees.
He asks: "When was the last time you met Ms Heard?"
Ms Arnold says she met her for the first time at lunch today.
Depp's lawyer asks how much she has been paid for her involvement in the case and she says: "$650 per hour." She says she has been working on case for about three years, "and over that time has earned around $60,000."
That is the end of the cross examination.
And when questioned about those comparables, that she spent 3 years choosing and studying ----she had very little knowledge about their past resumes and current projects.
So what exactly did she do for the past 3 years? She called Disney and asked for info and they refused her call. She spoke with co-workers at her agency and asked for info about the contracts of one of the other actors. And what else?