LogFAQs > #965170175

Next up is a "Production Executive" for Disney. And before anyone gets excited, it's a fancy title to give them some agency to answer questions while also placing them far enough from anything important to be able to answer honestly.

Basically, Elaine asked a bunch of questions to her that she said she wasn't involved with, had no talks with, and saw no paperwork involving anything. Very cool witness. Elaine wanted to say since she had nothing to say about why Johnny was booted from Pirates 6 and she couldn't say if it was the op-ed or not, that meant that he wasn't booted for that reason. That's all. Utterly pointless because she just kept saying she didn't know anything and that she wasn't involved in any of those conversations.

"Are you aware that Johnny Depp testified under oath that he wouldn't return to a Pirates of the Carribean role for $30 million and a million alpacas?" "Snrk. No."

She then asked if she is aware if Disney would be willing to give Johnny Depp $30 million and a million alpacas to be in the next Pirates movie and Johnny Depp is just cracking up. This was pointless.

Speaking of pointless, actress Ellen Barkin gives her deposition about her time being Johnny Depp's booty call decades ago. She has been extremely bitter about Johnny for the longest time and it absolutely showed here. Imagine holding this grudge for decades because a dude didn't want to have a serious relationship with you.

They said she was in a romantic relationship and she said "Actually could you change that to sexual?" Everyone laughed, including people in the jury, because it was just weird and funny.

Her big claim was that before she claimed Johnny Depp once threw a bottle at her in a fit of rage. Upon being questioned about it, it was clarified by Barkin that Johnny Depp once at a party "tossed", not "thrown", a bottle harmlessly, not at her or anyone else, while Barkin was across the room from him, but about something she couldn't remember. Damning stuff.

Johnny and his attorneys were just laughing about this testimony because it was so stupid and so pointless and it proved nothing. WHY did this happen? Why did they bring on Ellen Barkin for 11 minutes to talk about her times with Johnny decades ago?

Next is Johnny's therapist. This was also pointless because all he did was talk about how sad and depressed Johnny was, and how he didn't want to marry Amber but it happened too fast, and he also affirmed that Johnny has told him about how he didn't want to leave because he didn't want to be like his father. So this confirms it wasn't just some made up thing Johnny said, and that he has expressed that as his reason for staying well before this.

From what people there have said, this just made the jury look like they felt really bad for Johnny, and they were looking over at his table a lot more during this one. So that's another banger witness for Amber.

I think they brought this therapist in because Johnny told him that he was self-destructive? I honestly don't get the point of this one.

Next is Eric George, Amber's attorney that edited down Amber's op-ed to make sure it wasn't defamatory. If you remember me talking about the qualifications of attorneys. He said he is a "Top 100 Attorney in California" for many years and a "Super Lawyer". I had previously stated that these are just qualifications that are paid for and purely for marketing purposes. Like, I don't knock anyone for it at all. Everyone has to market themselves. But a Super Lawyer and Top 100 Attorney in California was tasked to ensure an article wasn't defamatory, and now he is testifying in a trial about how he didn't do a good enough job making sure an article isn't defamatory. Truly, these titles don't mean quality. I think all they used him for was to try saying she made the effort to try making sure it wasn't defamatory? I don't know. This was extremely short and he spent more time failing to explain what being a Super Lawyer means than actually testifying anything meaningful.

This seems like a good time to point out that according to people there, multiple members of the jury are making faces of annoyance and disgust any time they hear Elaine start talking on these video depositions. Specifically, it's not when Elaine is asking dumb questions or anything, it's when she is just going "Hello please state your name and occupation." The jury actually seems like they just hate this woman, and frankly I just don't blame them? She's the source of a lot of absurdity and annoyance in the court room, to the point that even the Judge can't hide how tired she is of Elaine. Even if it's not entirely her fault like with Amber's testimony and re-direct, she's just become repellant to the jury it seems. Which, you know, is really bad for them.