LogFAQs > #964749943

The cross was Not-Rottenborn, who was just an absolute putz and Marx just rolled on this man. He started naming news headlines to him, over, and over, and over, and over. He just kept saying these articles don't mean anything and nobody in Hollywood cares about them. "If that's what it says, that's what it says. Are you going to keep reading articles at me?" "I didn't catch this article, I have a wife, kids, and a job."

"Are you aware that Pirates 5 made the least amount of Pirates films?" "Oh, yeah. That's true. I believe it made only $800 million."

"Oh yes, this article came from the UK Sun, which came to prominence by posting topless photos on page 3."

"Is this op-ed about Amber Heard?" "Well I don't know, did she have another husband who abused her two years prior?"

"Where is this article from? Some rogue website?" "InsidetheMagic.com. <reads headline> Is that correct?" "Assuming that this is a correct copy of this random website, yeah. It's not quoting Disney at all, but that's what this random woman says. ... What's this from? Moviemagic.com?"

Marx just shredded this dude. They could have done a lot better with him. He reiterates on cross that the only articles that matter are ones from reputable sources, like say the Washington Post. Simple re-direct.

The next guy was probably the worst witness for Johnny Depp. He's some nerd who analyzes internet trends and stuff and oh my god he was so boring. And not only was he boring, he barely proved anything, and his internet research actively seemed like it proved AGAINST Johnny Depp as his numbers of positive/negative trends began going up later. And his sample size he looked into was so small. Like I don't know why this man was put here on the stand. The point is that Johnny's career was negatively affected with the people who matter most, Hollywood execs, and not with public opinion.

On cross, they could have done so much better torching this guy, but they're just so bad. They were kind of a dick, they didn't clearly make the point that "Your trends suck and don't prove he was hurt by the op ed." They brought up their expert's info and the guy was like "I didn't make this. I don't know what articles you're talking about because I didn't plot them and wasn't asked to." They just muddied this up again so while this should have been a slam dunk, this came across as a slight loss for Depp as a witness. Re-direct was weak too.

This guy is never going to be called as an expert witness again. lol He held his own well enough, but he barely came across as selling his point well enough.

Don't worry though, they made a good pallet cleanser from that awful witness with... a video deposition! Just kidding, this sucked. It was part one of Amber Heard's nurse, Erin. So she had salacious notes. She was slightly less tight lipped than the other nurse, fortunately.

Not much notable yet, as Depp's team will get to her tomorrow. But notable things were that Amber Heard had an alcohol addiction and a cocaine addiction. She says that Amber has significant rage issues. Dr. Kippur had Johnny on a ridiculous number of medications. Like, 12 of them. This dude is ridiculous. lol Apparently Amber was doing drugs with a "high profile male visitor" who is James Franco.

My favorite part was Amber showing her 4 pictures of different styles of marks on her face in the dead of night. She looked like she wanted to laugh at one point when they were asking her if she had reported them.

In theory, Johnny should close his case in chief tomorrow. I'd be stunned if it goes into Wednesday.