Board 8 > Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Trial

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10
paperwarior
04/25/22 12:54:05 PM
#152:


mnkboy907 posted...
Amber pooped on his bed or something.
Is this trial just that episode of Always Sunny

---
"God Hand is the ultimate expression of the joy of humanity, specifically the punching part of the joy of humanity."-Shigeru Miyamoto
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
04/25/22 1:52:11 PM
#153:


Wedge Antilles posted...
"Stop hitting me Johnny! Stop hitting me!"

That line there seems odd to me. What, are there two people hitting you and you need to specify which one you want to stop hitting you? Seems like a painfully obvious attempt to fake a recording of you getting hit to use against someone later.
I don't think it sounds weird. A lot of people use someone's first name to try and show seriousness of the situation or to demand attention to the statement. I think this case as almost all domestic abuse boils down to he said she said with an impossibility to separate the accounts from the facts. Unless we have actual video footage of the encounter, we are just left trying to piece it together and likely filling those blanks in most of the time with how we think or want those blanks to fill in.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik PSN User Name - Corrik7
Currently playing: Control (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri
04/25/22 3:23:22 PM
#154:


CoolCly posted...
Is that lawyer's name really Rottenborn?

Sounds like a character from a Tim Burton movie. Starring Johnny Depp.
My man stole his whole life from the main villain of Ace Attorney 7

My man named like he's a bad indie Souls game knockoff

My man got the name of an evil chef Captain Planet beats up

My man named like a Magic the Gathering card that costs 2BB and has Swampwalk

---
Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke
04/25/22 5:42:57 PM
#155:


Corrik7 posted...
I don't think it sounds weird. A lot of people use someone's first name to try and show seriousness of the situation or to demand attention to the statement.

yeah, agree with corrik on this one. i don't think that line sounds weird at all.

---
Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/25/22 6:01:53 PM
#156:


Quick summary for today is that cross continued with Johnny Depp and started off well and then slowly went into just complete disaster that convinced nobody, and came back a little bit before getting back to the article itself and did and okay job presenting their argument.

But then re-direct came in and just dismantled their argument dead, and they had a really effective re-direct that ended with the clip of Amber Heard saying the "Go ahead and tell the world you, a man, was abused and see who believes you!" With Depp saying after "I was."

The butler was the next witness and discussed the carnage of the finger severing incident with absurd detail and their cross was completely pathetic. They should have asked no less than 3 questions to this guy. Really solid witness.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777
04/25/22 6:11:24 PM
#157:


Lightning Strikes posted...
Im trying to not make comments as I think there are very bad people pushing both narratives for negative reasons but I will say this: this is not trying again from the UK trial. This is about a different claim. Also the UK trial was against The Sun, while this is against Heard directly. Now, I have no love for Depp and think its likely that he was at some point abusive as well as being abused. With that said The Sun is a poison on society and democracy and it winning anything is no victory regardless of what you think about Depp or whoever else.

For a bit of context the English (not UK as each country has different legal systems) libel laws were changed some years ago under the coalition government to make libel harder to prove so that the burden is on the claimant instead of the defendant in the case. This was intended to protect individuals and journalists from huge companies like in the McLibel case, but also lets the gutter press have an easier time. You win some you lose some I suppose.

I want to add that under current US law, any libel claim by a public figure against any media outlet is effectively impossible because you have to prove that the media outlet had actual malice toward the wronged person (actual knowledge that what they reported was false or reckless disregard for the truth). They can just say they relied on what a source told them.

---
September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!
... Copied to Clipboard!
UshiromiyaEva
04/25/22 6:52:38 PM
#158:


https://twitter.com/j0hnnycdpp/status/1518700396163833856

---
https://twitter.com/OocWTC/status/1348011667976699904?s=19
... Copied to Clipboard!
Waluigi1
04/25/22 7:10:25 PM
#159:


Lmaooo

---
PSN, and GT: Waluigi1
Switch FC: SW-6848-3841-9099
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 12:18:55 AM
#160:


DAY 7

This is the continuation of the cross-examination of Johnny Depp. I'm just going to put all of this out here at the front: this was miserable. There are a few shining gems of success from Rottenborn here between him taking play on words or clear jokes to make it seem like Johnny was seriously saying things about being abusive, and saying "drug man bad", while also playing some clips that ranged from effective to baffling why they even put them out there. It was today it became extremely apparent they just have no real defense.

Another reason this will be frustrating to summarize is because this was all over the place. There's no story, there's no cohesive timeline they're trying to follow. They are just going across all amount of years in an attempt to confuse the jurors of everything, and it probably worked to their detriment. So at best I can just pluck out important stuff from here. And, yes, Johnny was often throwing barbs at the attorney.

To put it in perspective, I'll explain the first line of questioning. The day prior, Johnny testified that it didn't make sense to him about how beating someone to make them do what he wanted didn't make sense to him. And then this day, he opens by having Johnny tell a story about how once his father hit him out of frustration as a kid and he did what he wanted. Thus, he actually WOULD think beating someone would make them do what they want. This is the sort of thing we're dealing with.

There's also a text where him and Paul Bettany are joking about Amber being a witch, based on a Monty Python sketch, about burning her, drowning her, and fuck her corpse to make sure she's dead. You might think "Wow! That's really bad!" And yes, it is. But this is the worst of what they had on things he said about her, which is why they opened with this. And it's SO STUPID because on re-direct, they're just going to have him explain this and make it reasonable (spoilers: he did).

They start pulling up texts about him drinking and doing pills and also about them slinging insults at each other. And for half of these, he gives a perfectly reasonable explanation to them. And they make a big deal out of his usage of the word "Monster" because Amber has said it was what he turned into when he drank or got high, and half the examples they have are of the "Monster" being his addiction.

Then they show the infamous picture of the coke and the entire glass of whiskey with a bunch of identifying information and oops Amber Heard's driver's license there, all carefully placed. If you heard about this originally, you probably saw it and may have thought "This seems fake." In fact, Johnny called it "Quite a composition." He continues to allude to it being fake. But this is where that exchange someone linked to Johnny having cocaine in a box. It was literally the only instance they found of any "lie" Johnny told, when he said he doesn't think he carried cocaine in his little box, and he said in the UK trial he did have cocaine in this box. It's such a non-issue though because they literally didn't catch him giving another single different answer from the UK trial. Johnny remarked things were "perfectly placed" in the image and just didn't let up on keeping it in their heads that this picture is fake because it's so absurd.

Rottenborn also lost numerous objections because they kept going to a sidebar to discuss them. Another frustrating thing is that he would play clips and not include a question with them, which is improper and they should have been objecting to these too.

They also want to present that he would black out, and he used another picture you may have seen with him having ice cream all over his lap. He mentioned that Amber had given him the ice cream to hold and he fell asleep since he had worked 17 hours straight on a film. And "I was not partaking in the festival of ice cream, clearly, since my other hand was in my pocket." And Rottenborn says, "So you're saying it was her fault for this picture then?" And he said, "She snapped it." Throughout this day, he clarifies he hasn't blacked out at all and was just passing out or going to sleep.

They also opened Johnny up to explain that opiates didn't get him high because it's an extreme downer, and he took them to get his body regular when he was addicted. Later, he also tries to explain how that works and Rottenborn cuts him off eventually, because Johnny knows exactly what he's talking about, and he said "Sorry, I was just trying to school you."

Rottenborn also brought up a lawsuit in which Johnny is being sued for supposedly punching someone in the face on set and that should have gotten the Judge screaming at him, and after a sidebar they actually let him ask a little bit about it. I do not understand how this Judge decides her objections.

He got Johnny to tell a story about how he was out with Amber and a bunch of Amber's friends and one woman got extremely high and was hanging all over Amber and he took her hand off of Amber and told her that the girl needs to learn how to handle herself if she had drugs and that she was being rude and invasive. Rottenborn tried to hit him with a gotcha by claiming he actually screamed at her and told her "Keep your hands off of my girl" and he had said that wasn't how it went. So Rottenborn pulled the UK transcript and read it happening like I had explained it above. So when anyone points to the "cocaine box" stuff, this right here is how it went most of the rest of the time--Rottenborn trying to catch him on things when HE was the one who misremembered. He used this to try saying Johnny was jealous but Johnny explained that was a small part of the argument and was saying he was protecting her. Oh and he also punched something in the bathroom.

And the audacity of this one, where he tries to get Johnny to admit he was drunk on the plane incident and he re-reads the UK transcript where his answer was "Sure, for the purposes of getting through this, let's say yes. Everything that you said, I agree." Like you would need to be an idiot to think he actually meant he was admitting to it with that. He also plays an audio of Johnny making awful moaning noises of pain and Rottenborn says it was on the flight, and Johnny says it definitely was not.

Apparently Johnny was pretty pissed that the Pirates 5 screenplay sucked, and he thought it should be much better, and was rather depressed about it because he had done so much for the Jack Sparrow character and felt he was just being wasted.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 12:19:12 AM
#161:


Another example of this disaster of a cross is when Johnny texted something about picking up drugs and he responded "Yes, but there's nothing in there that says I took the drugs." And Rottenborn just lets out this frustrated sigh and reaffirms that he picked them up. It wasn't here, but he had stated a couple times that he picked up the drugs for Amber specifically the day that he had his finger cut off. Another disaster moment was Rottenborn said that he asked someone for cocaine and ecstasy the after he told his doctor that his finger was cut off. Johnny Depp points out that it wasn't then, he was asked to get it for Amber before because Rottenborn was mis-calculating the time zones very purposefully. He also said he doesn't do ecstasy because he can't get that high anymore because of his addiction.

Rottenborn just got so frazzled at this point and he couldn't recover. His questions just got sloppier.

They discuss the damage of Johnny painting the lies of Amber after his finger got blown off, and they asked if he drew a penis on one of the paintings. Johnny said he doesn't think so, but that Amber was adding to what he drew so it's very likely she had done so instead. So she was involved in the stuff being defiled and broken too while Johnny was having his nervous breakdown. He wrote on a lampshade "Good luck and be careful at top" and Johnny said "Yes, and I think it's good advice."

Rottenborn tries another pathetic gotcha where he says that Johnny told some people his finger was caught in the accordion door while he told the surgeon it was cut with a knife. Johnny said no, that it was a member of his team that said that, and he only ever said it was an accordion door, and they had all agreed to keep Amber's name out of it. Rottenborn pulls up the transcript again and points out someone told the surgeon that's what happened and Johnny is just confused and goes "Yeah, it wasn't me. There's nothing in that statement that says that I told him that."

And then he plays a two second clip of Johnny and Amber talking over each other and claims Johnny was saying "The day I chopped my finger off." And Johnny is just like "No, I think I said 'The day I got my finger chopped off'." They play it three times and it is impossible to hear. But Rottenborn keeps telling Johnny that he said "The day I chopped my finger off" and getting so mad he won't agree with him. Then Johnny also pointed out that he mis-quoted something in another audio clip earlier and Rottenborn got more aggressive before Depp's team objected on the basis of argumentative.

Rottenborn also gets a clip of Johnny saying "even if I did headbutt you, I hit you in the forehead not the nose" in that situation I mentioned before, but Johnny corrects him saying that he was using Amber's words and that if you want to have a peaceful conversation with Ms. Heard, you need to placate to her. Which makes sense given how fucking insane she is in every situation and audio recording.

Then we have the clip that Amber "totally didn't sell to TMZ" where he's cursing and knocking shit around while she tried to secretly record him, when he was angry that his accountants and agents had taken $700k+ that morning, and she was grinning and laughing at the end of it. And they acted like she was just terrified of him then. Johnny asked for a date for "this illegally recorded tape." "I thought the most interesting part of the video was that she was hiding it from me and she was laughing and smiling at the end, were she so afraid of me at the time." And "I assaulted a few cupboards, but not Ms. Heard." Also Rottenborn said he poured a "mega pint". Has anyone heard anyone say "mega pint" before?

The only thing that they have Johnny read is a comment well after Amber got the restraining order where he says something foul about Amber. He then offers to read the next message and Rottenborn is just arguing with him over who says it. I'm convinced now, in hindsight, they didn't have Johnny read them because he'd read the texts as they were meant to be read and not as they're presented.

Then Rottenborn reads a message about him saying "I have other uses for your throat that do not include injury..." He reads it twice, and Johnny says "Can you read it again?" And the court laughs because come on. Just come on. We're taking sexting and trying to attribute violence to it? They just show more texts and Johnny just starts correcting every single mistake that Rottenborn makes in reading it.

They end this disaster on a rather shitty note. They play an audio of Johnny feeling suicidal after Amber tricked him into coming to talk and break his restraining order, where she was saying "Don't cut yourself" and other stuff. (This was confirmed by the next day of trial.) And Johnny just gave Rottenborn a hell of a death glare after it. This was the last thing played, devoid of context, before the three days before trial resumed. I have no doubt Amber demanded this be played to hit Johnny hard in these three days between trials.

This was a complete disaster. They have no defense. If they had anything more solid than what I typed here, they would have presented it. Spoilers: The rest of the cross examination is also very bad the following day. All of these recordings and texts and there is not a single admission from Johnny of actual abuse, or any evidence he had done so. If there was, it would have been presented here. If there was, Amber wouldn't have to make up a ton of lies about the situation. It should be simple.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
Team Rocket Elite
04/26/22 12:35:31 AM
#162:


Why are illegal recordings admissible as evidence?

---
My bracket looked like random picks compared to his.
Congrats to azuarc for winning the GotD 2020 Guru Contest!
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 12:42:34 AM
#163:


California, where most of them were taken, is a two-party state, which means that you can only record when both parties consent to it, and no other people are involved. I know Virginia is a one-party state, so you don't need consent to record. But my best guess for this is because they just decided they want all the recordings in because, as we found out today, there are a LOT that make Amber look awful as well, including ones of her admitting to hitting him, the infamous "Tell the world that you were abused and see if they believe you" clip, among other ones.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
Team Rocket Elite
04/26/22 12:50:26 AM
#164:


We're those illegally recorded as well? I think you mentioned earlier that Johnny asked for permission while Amber did not. But, I'm not sure if they applied across the board.

---
My bracket looked like random picks compared to his.
Congrats to azuarc for winning the GotD 2020 Guru Contest!
... Copied to Clipboard!
ExThaNemesis
04/26/22 1:21:41 AM
#165:


Can I just say that Biscuit is doing us a hell of a service by going through these cases and giving us the analysis.

---
"undertale hangs out with mido" - ZFS
Smash Ultimate Switch Code: SW-6933-1523-8505
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 1:25:06 AM
#166:


Team Rocket Elite posted...
We're those illegally recorded as well? I think you mentioned earlier that Johnny asked for permission while Amber did not. But, I'm not sure if they applied across the board.
Yes, Johnny explained he had always asked for permission before recording, and Amber had done most of her's in secret. There are some that are framed in a way that is kind of suspicious, where they're talking and Amber is screaming at Johnny not to talk about a certain thing right now, almost like it would add context to what they're talking about.

They started it initially because Amber would claim to not remember things she said or outright deny them, so Johnny and Amber would start recording things so they could play them back to one another. Which oh my god if you're at that point then fucking escape this hell.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroicCrono
04/26/22 1:29:43 AM
#167:


PrivateBiscuit1 posted...
Yes, Johnny explained he had always asked for permission before recording, and Amber had done most of her's in secret. There are some that are framed in a way that is kind of suspicious, where they're talking and Amber is screaming at Johnny not to talk about a certain thing right now, almost like it would add context to what they're talking about.

They started it initially because Amber would claim to not remember things she said or outright deny them, so Johnny and Amber would start recording things so they could play them back to one another. Which oh my god if you're at that point then fucking escape this hell.

If she secretly recorded him in California that is likely a felony in and of itself.

---
This is Red Sox 777 on a mobile phone.
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 1:42:14 AM
#168:


HeroicCrono posted...
If she secretly recorded him in California that is likely a felony in and of itself.
Statute of limitations means it's been too long to press charges against, and I'm not as familiar with this, but I believe you have to file a charge with the police before they can look into it too.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 3:36:38 AM
#169:


DAY 8

I lost a lot of this, so I'm going to try and hit the most important stuff. Sorry for the brevity with the rest of the cross exam.

Firstly, this was a disaster. But it started strong. They play a few clips of Johnny calling Amber a fat ass, See You Next Tuesday, and something else. They should have included this sooner.

They play another audio where Rottenborn claims that Amber was yelling "get off me!" and he said "No, but I did hear me in the distance saying 'See you later.'"

They use bad faith texts that say "hit" in them like they got their intern to search for anything with the word hit in them. Like stuff where "I hit a wall in my argument with Amber last night." When it's obvious to anyone he's referring to the argument getting nowhere, not literally hitting a wall. It was all so tiresome.

The most embarrassing part of all of this came, and I cannot believe the Judge let this in. Rottenborn pulled up a bunch of articles from before Amber wrote her op-ed from bullshit magazines and tabloids that were negative after questioning Johnny about whether or not he's had negative articles written about him before Amber, to which he was like yes because I've been in the industry for decades. So he reads off a bunch of shitty articles that are laughably bad. Everyone in the courtroom is trying not to laugh. Depp outright calls them hit pieces and says "These are all dreck, sir. This is a pathetic attempt." At the end he just asks how the author knows.

They show the paper article again and Johnny says he has never seen this and is suing for the one published prior, and they changed the title to avoid repercussions. It was stricken, obviously, but the jury heard it. What comes after this is a deluge of bad faith questions Rottenborn asks to try getting his narrative across, which was the right thing to do. But they successfully objected to 90% of the questions in. He asked about why he didn't fight the restraining order, why he's suing, the article, why he's not suing Washington Post, the Sun lawsuit, and other things. God, if you were the jury you see him get this many objections in a row, you just don't think he's acting in good faith at all. I feel this backfired. Amber Heard looked incensed during this, giving glares at the Judge and like she was holding back an explosion. It was wild.

So if you were the jury and bought any of that "You were suing over THIS article, right?" bullshit, the online article Johnny Depp keeps asking about? On re-direct, the first thing they do is put that online article up that has the headline "Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence -- I faced society's wrath. That has to change." So they proved that Heard's team is just acting in bad faith even more by peddling that newspaper article printed days later. Just brilliantly dismantled all of their work they put into that. They reiterate that Disney ejected him from the Pirates franchise days later.

If there's one drawback of Johnny Depp, I think I mentioned before he has ADHD and meanders away from the question a lot, and his memory is absolute shit and he doesn't know what films he did when. Just a side note since I'm shaking my head at some of the re-direct as they try to reign him in. She had to remind him he was a part of the Fantastic Beasts franchise ffs.

Then they talk about Amber Heard's absolute hatred of Paul Bettany, who is one of Johnny's closest friends. Depp says Amber felt he was a threat for his time with her. As it turns out, Paul Bettany's family visited Johnny and Amber on their island one day, Amber and Paul got into an argument and Amber got extremely heated, loud, and mean, and Paul's 18 year old boy spoke up since he had been studying the topic of conversation in school and was knowledgeable about it, and Amber screamed and berated this kid until he cried. Just unbelievable. And then Johnny had Amber flown OFF the island and told her she couldn't treat people that way. This tracks with the many times that he's said that throughout his testimony. "You can't always be right. You should try being wrong sometime. You might learn something."

He explains that awful witch set of texts he sent to Paul Bettany as a Monty Python joke and just dark humor. He also had to explain clear jokes in some texts like when he said he drank 1,000 red bulls and vodka, having to say "I mean I'd be dead if I did that."

They also linked Johnny being stuck with Amber's abuse to the abuse his mother gave him too, which was an exceptional thing to do. Overall, re-direct was outstanding and just blew up anything the cross tried to do because... it's just so easy to explain it all with a little bit of context, which they didn't allow.

He elaborated he said his finger was caught in the accordion door because he didn't want to put Amber in that position, himself, his children, or the movie in the position to have the domestic abuse stuff hanging over it.

I can detail a lot of these, but I think I've explained why a lot of them are bullshit and just common sense and context prevails.

They have an audio recording of Amber screaming for COUCH! Which I guess is their word to sit down and talk. And she sounded very, very drunk and said "And you just threw a fucking cigarette at me!" Johnny explained he just flicked ashes of a cigarette out, and would never, ever flick it at her and said she was certainly not yelling in pain or anything. This is a trend of Amber sounding hysterical or making up claims of abuse, especially when the audio is running.

There's another clip they play of Amber arguing with Johnny as he's trying to leave her, including taking off his ring. She sounds absolutely out of her mind here. Johnny seems calm for the most part. She basically begs and forces him to stay throughout it, while also being evasive while the recording is on when he remarks his ear is ringing still. Because apparently she slapped him hard on the side of the head.

Another clip is played where Amber is telling him that he can't walk away from an argument ever because it gives her so much stress and that she thinks she's going to die from stress if she keeps doing that to her because it hurts so bad and that she's killing him by walking away. She sounds very drunk here too.

Depp's attorney brings up the audio that they played the other day with the knife and Amber telling him not to cut himself. They didn't play it again for obvious reasons. He explained the situation was that Johnny was reached out to by Amber's one agent to talk under the pretenses they would discuss her retracting her statement and coming clean about the lies she told. He said he wasn't threatening to hurt himself. He said he held out a knife to her and told her to cut him, and take his blood, since she took everything else from him. And she said she refused to and that he would have to do it himself. And he said he was actually thinking about it because psychologically he was at his end and broken from it all. He re-iterated that at no point was there any threat against Amber with that knife. He also said that he knew it was Rottenborn's job, but he found it quite cruel... and then he was rightfully objected to and cut off.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 3:36:42 AM
#170:


Then they play a phone call after Amber got the restraining order and all the articles came out where Johnny is talking to Amber and she's saying her team forced her to pretend like she was abused, and that she can't go back on it now because it would ruin her credibility, and then kept trying to pass the buck but she was getting incoherent about it all about calling the cops, saying that her friend told her Johnny would call the cops on her or something? She's just out of her mind in this clip. Eventually he rightfully said "Come on Amber, I lost a fucking finger and you threw a bottle of mineral spirits at my nose." (He explained she also threw a bottle at his face and busted open the bridge of his nose.) And then Amber says the infamous, "Tell the world Johnny! Tell the world that I, Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence."

The last question they asked was "What did you say in response to that?" And Depp says, "I told her yes, I am." This was a master class of a conclusion, frankly. I don't think it could have ended better. Amber's face during this entire sequence was the most sour expression.

And we are finally done with Johnny Depp's testimony! Next up was Ben King, who was the "house manager" but he's basically the butler. He was obscenely British and a crazy good witness. He remembered god damn everything. He specifically testified the number of escape exits in the house in Australia where Amber claimed she was "held hostage for 3 days", to prove there were so many exits for her to leave. This will be important for later.

He mentioned seeing Johnny and Amber having arguments before this. He said he never saw anything physical though, like most people. He also said that he would have to replace two wine bottles every time Amber was there, and he knew Depp didn't drink that wine.

He was asked about the day Johnny's finger got blown off, where he was asked to come in late. He said Amber was hysterical there and Jerry Judge (the security guard of Johnny's that passed away) consoled her. Dr. Kippur told King to try finding the finger tip. Kippur, btw, has both King and Debbie confirming he "remembered" fuck all about that night somehow. King was the one who found the finger tip. He said it was inside a "kitchen napkin" (which the cross got really weird about him saying when we knew it was a paper towel). It was on the floor at the bar.

This man then described, in excruciating detail, the damage in the house in every room, because he spent 12 hours cleaning all of it. From my understanding a vast majority of it was from Amber that night. He was the one who took pictures of it all, which he said was standard for when there was damage.

He said after cleaning it, they all went to the airport to leave the island. He was sitting next to Amber which... holy shit I can't imagine having to sit next to her after that. King eventually asked what happened and Amber said in response, "Ben, have you ever been so angry with someone that you just lost it with them?" He said no, he's usually pretty calm. lol So she asked him a second time and looks completely shocked that he hadn't. And then he said "I mean, not unless you count when I was a kid and wasn't allowed out or something." This sweetheart. He dropped it there though. She gave him some crazy eyes in the courtroom during this.

He also said he noticed some marks on her arm. I'm not sure the significance of this yet, but I think they want to say Johnny scratched her, or she scratched herself? I dunno.

They asked this dude entirely too many questions on cross. Like hello, what do you possibly have to ask this man? Why, they tried to impeach him of course, and utterly failed in an embarrassing fashion. The questions they asked him were ridiculous and he never got caught in anything. He asked for his understanding of how Johnny lost his finger at one point and then immediately after asking went "OBJECTION HEARSAY" and the Judge said "You asked the question." Just... embarrassing lawyering there.

They tried to get him to say that Amber didn't also write on the walls and mirrors with lipstick and he was just like "Uh, it was more waxy, so yes it wasn't paint." He kept asking him and it was so dumb. And they also tried to imply he withheld some images, which was some legal fuckery (spoilers: Amber's team didn't ask for any because they don't want to know what is on the rest of the pictures because it hurts their clients). It wouldn't be so bad but he wasted like five minutes on this. He says he never saw a penis drawn on anything though. I don't know why this is significant. He also said he saw no writing in blood either though. All of these lines of questioning were so worthless and I don't understand them. Just ask this guy three questions and say see ya.

The re-direct wasn't too meaningful. Just hitting on a few important details and sending him on his way. That's it for this day! I'm all caught up now on summaries!

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
04/26/22 3:48:58 AM
#171:


Whether she abused him also is extraneous to the case though isn't it?

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik PSN User Name - Corrik7
Currently playing: Control (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
UshiromiyaEva
04/26/22 3:51:31 AM
#172:


PrivateBiscuit1 posted...
She had to remind him he was a part of the Fantastic Beasts franchise ffs.

To be fair, I would also want to forget if I was in those.

---
https://twitter.com/OocWTC/status/1348011667976699904?s=19
... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777
04/26/22 3:53:28 AM
#173:


Corrik7 posted...
Whether she abused him also is extraneous to the case though isn't it?

I think it's relevant as to their respective credibilities. As well as providing context.

---
September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!
... Copied to Clipboard!
scarletspeed7
04/26/22 10:39:15 AM
#174:


Biscuit, you're amazing. Thanks for keeping this thread up to date! I also appreciate your own impressions on each day as well.

---
"It is too easy being monsters. Let us try to be human." ~Victor Frankenstein, Penny Dreadful
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 10:40:51 AM
#175:


Corrik7 posted...
Whether she abused him also is extraneous to the case though isn't it?
Sort of.

One part is if the jury agrees "Yeah, she was talking about him." Then they need to decide "Okay, so was she telling the truth about being abused by him?"

They also have evidence of the ACLU writing the article and talking about "Look at how well we're evading your NDA!" in this in emails, and that Amber wanted Johnny originally named in it. That will likely be presented by Depp's team during cross examination. Intent is important too.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
Aecioo
04/26/22 10:42:11 AM
#176:


amber heard hair update

incredible braids today


---
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcb35gGx0t1qailr4o1_500.gif
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=57N0YAEJ
... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroDelTiempo17
04/26/22 10:46:07 AM
#177:


So assuming the jury believes the article is about Depp, what is the standard of belief for it not to be libel? Does Heard need to definitively prove abuse or just need to show a credible enough claim?

---
I definitely did not forget to put the 2020 GOTD Guru winner, azuarc in my sig!
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 10:54:33 AM
#178:


HeroDelTiempo17 posted...
So assuming the jury believes the article is about Depp, what is the standard of belief for it not to be libel? Does Heard need to definitively prove abuse or just need to show a credible enough claim?
By a matter of law, they need to prove that she did not knowingly lie. Which is easy, because she knows whether or not she had been a victim of domestic abuse or not because she lived it. It's up to the jury to decide whether or not she was.

I just don't think there's enough here to prove Johnny Depp ever laid a hand on her though, just judging by the UK information.

Also, today starts with tech issues with a Zoom testimony. lol

Additionally, thanks everyone for the kind words as I detail this mess.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
ExThaNemesis
04/26/22 11:28:56 AM
#179:


seeing a lot of mentally deranged women on facebook defending amber heard and getting the same vibes from them I got from people who thought george zimmerman did nothing wrong

---
"undertale hangs out with mido" - ZFS
Smash Ultimate Switch Code: SW-6933-1523-8505
... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroDelTiempo17
04/26/22 11:40:50 AM
#180:


PrivateBiscuit1 posted...
By a matter of law, they need to prove that she did not knowingly lie. Which is easy, because she knows whether or not she had been a victim of domestic abuse or not because she lived it. It's up to the jury to decide whether or not she was.

I just don't think there's enough here to prove Johnny Depp ever laid a hand on her though, just judging by the UK information.

That's exactly the point of my question. These are separate issues with separate legal standards, right? It's even separate from the issue of if Heard attacked Depp, which there seems to be plenty of evidence for and she even admits to.

If this was a criminal trial, with the goal to convict Depp of domestic violence, I would agree the evidence seems too flimsy to do so. But that's not the point. The point is to determine if Heard is lying. So far I would not be able to definitively say Depp did not abuse Heard just because the physical evidence is flimsy. What's the legal standard?

---
I definitely did not forget to put the 2020 GOTD Guru winner, azuarc in my sig!
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 11:46:32 AM
#181:


Are you asking the legal standard for domestic abuse? I'm not sure what you're asking. Because that's also irrelevant here. The court would need to decide if they believe it or not, only because the question is "Did she lie about saying Johnny Depp physically abused her?" I don't even know if a definition of domestic abuse will even factor into the jury instructions.

It's really as simple as "Do you think she lied?" after overcoming the threshold of whether or not she was talking about Johnny in the first place.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777
04/26/22 11:48:36 AM
#182:


I think it might be clear and convincing evidence rather than preponderance of the evidence because Johnny Depp is a public figure.

---
September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
04/26/22 12:22:01 PM
#183:


PrivateBiscuit1 posted...
Are you asking the legal standard for domestic abuse? I'm not sure what you're asking. Because that's also irrelevant here. The court would need to decide if they believe it or not, only because the question is "Did she lie about saying Johnny Depp physically abused her?" I don't even know if a definition of domestic abuse will even factor into the jury instructions.

It's really as simple as "Do you think she lied?" after overcoming the threshold of whether or not she was talking about Johnny in the first place.

I think what he's asking is if it really matters if Johnny can prove that Amber abused him if the trial is about did she lie about Johnny abusing her. Like "yup Amber beat the shit out of Johnny, but Heard's lawyers prove that, however infrequently, Heard was struck and/or sexually abused a few times."

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroDelTiempo17
04/26/22 12:23:29 PM
#184:


PrivateBiscuit1 posted...
The court would need to decide if they believe it or not, only because the question is "Did she lie about saying Johnny Depp physically abused her?" I don't even know if a definition of domestic abuse will even factor into the jury instructions.

I mean it probably should given that the term given in the article is "domestic abuse" which encompasses more than just the physical violence the trial has been focused on.

If I have a point it's that this is nebulous enough to me that I have no idea how Depp expects to win. Not to mention the net result of people saying "not naming any names or details but I experienced domestic abuse" being considered a legally actionable claim of libel is uh. Probably not good.

TheRock1525 posted...

I think what he's asking is if it really matters if Johnny can prove that Amber abused him if the trial is about did she lie about Johnny abusing her. Like "yup Amber beat the shit out of Johnny, but Heard's lawyers prove that, however infrequently, Heard was struck and/or sexually abused a few times."

Yeah that's a good summary, people are coming at Heard as if everything she's saying is made up but all she needs is ONE credible instance of abuse to not be lying and that's not totally out of the picture imo.

---
I definitely did not forget to put the 2020 GOTD Guru winner, azuarc in my sig!
... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777
04/26/22 12:31:23 PM
#185:


HeroDelTiempo17 posted...
I mean it probably should given that the term given in the article is "domestic abuse" which encompasses more than just the physical violence the trial has been focused on.

If I have a point it's that this is nebulous enough to me that I have no idea how Depp expects to win. Not to mention the net result of people saying "not naming any names or details but I experienced domestic abuse" being considered a legally actionable claim of libel is uh. Probably not good.

Yeah that's a good summary, people are coming at Heard as if everything she's saying is made up but all she needs is ONE credible instance of abuse to not be lying and that's not totally out of the picture imo.

Don't think it works that way. Her article wasn't about one instance, it was about a pattern of conduct. And as far as the defense being that she didn't refer to him by name - it's hard for her to make this argument while also making a defense based on truth. And she hasn't to my knowledge indicated who the article was talking about if not the plaintiff.

---
September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 12:47:34 PM
#186:


HeroDelTiempo17 posted...
I mean it probably should given that the term given in the article is "domestic abuse" which encompasses more than just the physical violence the trial has been focused on.

If I have a point it's that this is nebulous enough to me that I have no idea how Depp expects to win. Not to mention the net result of people saying "not naming any names or details but I experienced domestic abuse" being considered a legally actionable claim of libel is uh. Probably not good.

Yeah that's a good summary, people are coming at Heard as if everything she's saying is made up but all she needs is ONE credible instance of abuse to not be lying and that's not totally out of the picture imo.
Okay! I understand what you're trying to say better.

The difference between saying "Not saying any names but I was a victim of abuse" is different than this case. She specifically talked about stories of things she did to Johnny Depp and put a time on it. This is a major reason this wasn't thrown out, while they would probably be thrown out in the latter situation. It also helps that there is overwhelming evidence of Johnny being the one being abused and plenty of evidence in his favor that the stories she was telling were false.

The thing is though, it does seem like she made literally everything up. I have the bonus of knowing what she said at the UK trial and an understanding of how trials work. If she had any tangible evidence in all of these recordings, in all of these stories that aren't contradicted by the facts or eye witnesses, among other things, it would have come out on the cross of Johnny Depp. Her stories are contradicted by herself. She says she was so frequently beaten but there's never been an image or photo of a single bruise or swelling (aside from the proven false one for when she got the restraining order). And she hasn't had a story that isn't debunked somehow, despite her supposedly having been beaten on a constant basis.

Like, it's possible but I just don't see it at this point. But at the worst we have a 3 instances of name-calling and no other proof of any kind of abuse whatsoever. So then it's a question of, if someone is abusive 99% of the time towards you, and you are abusive back 1% of the time, are you still an abuser? That's probably going to be up to the jury to decide.

Also they have a forensic psychologist on the stand now who is grossly overqualified and had Amber do 13 hours of testing who basically amounted to "Amber lied, she lied about situations, pretended to have PTSD, but our testing is sophisticated enough to know when someone is pretending to have PTSD for this test meant to be presented in court as proof that she had PTSD."

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 3:10:29 PM
#187:


Today in Elaine tries to lawyer: Do you know the Muffin Man?

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
most_games_r_ok
04/26/22 3:16:53 PM
#188:


Just watched the live stream of that. Thr whole thing was so fucking dumb. Was that actually Heard's team? How did they get careers in law?

---
"I do because I can."
http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/Micer101.png
... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777
04/26/22 3:18:31 PM
#189:


Often when an attorney is sounding dumb what it means is that their client is being unreasonable and is insisting on them taking unreasonable positions.

---
September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 3:23:00 PM
#190:


most_games_r_ok posted...
Just watched the live stream of that. Thr whole thing was so fucking dumb. Was that actually Heard's team? How did they get careers in law?
They have horrible facts. I think Rottenborn is actually a good lawyer otherwise. But Elaine here is actually completely awful. They asked two questions on re-direct and made her entire questioning look ridiculous.

When Elaine was describing what people who are gaslit by false accusations of domestic abuse and just named off everything that Johnny Depp was going through, I actually could not believe it. She was actively making the argument for Depp's team.

Also, Amber Heard being told that a highly sophisticated test determined that she had histrionic personality disorder and bipolar disorder and she was rolling her eyes exaggeratedly and checking her nails. That was quality stuff.

red sox 777 posted...
Often when an attorney is sounding dumb what it means is that their client is being unreasonable and is insisting on them taking unreasonable positions.
This is also true. That's why I can't talk too much shit about Rottenborn. Elaine, however, is terrible and even if she's told to do a lot of what she's doing, she presents herself horribly and comes across as so bumbling and impossible to take seriously. I can elaborate later on that.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
04/26/22 3:25:12 PM
#191:


PrivateBiscuit1 posted...
also helps that there is overwhelming evidence of Johnny being the one being abused
Just wanna nitpick your wording choice.

There is no evidence really that can be shown to say that he was the only one abused. And it's basically impossible to prove this beyond hearsay and circumstantial evidence. It's important that both are considered innocent if they weren't proven to be guilty. And, yes, neither Heard or Depp are guilty of a crime (right now). But, this case isn't really centered around guilt, since it is civil. The onus would be on Depp to be able to prove he never abused Heard, which he can't, if he can even proven Heard directly even was naming him (which maybe he can).

One thing I noticed in the Rittenhouse case and this one, not to attack you but just muse, is that I think you decide what is the correct side and kind of tailor what you say sometimes to that result.

Your wording you use sometimes is the issue. I think many took you that way in the Rittenhouse case with your wording you used there also.


---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik PSN User Name - Corrik7
Currently playing: Control (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
CoolCly
04/26/22 3:35:26 PM
#192:


I find it irritating when the lawyers are condescending and rude, like if that psychologist lady asks for clarification on what page or line she should be reading from, Elaine talks to her like she's a dumbass child.

I wonder how that plays with the judge and the jury - if it's standard or ignored or if they dislike it too

---
The batman villians all seem to be one big joke that batman refuses to laugh at - SantaRPG
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 3:43:38 PM
#193:


Corrik7 posted...
Just wanna nitpick your wording choice.

There is no evidence really that can be shown to say that he was the only one abused. And it's basically impossible to prove this beyond hearsay and circumstantial evidence. It's important that both are considered innocent if they weren't proven to be guilty. And, yes, neither Heard or Depp are guilty of a crime (right now). But, this case isn't really centered around guilt, since it is civil. The onus would be on Depp to be able to prove he never abused Heard, which he can't, if he can even proven Heard directly even was naming him (which maybe he can).

One thing I noticed in the Rittenhouse case and this one, not to attack you but just muse, is that I think you decide what is the correct side and kind of tailor what you say sometimes to that result.

Your wording you use sometimes is the issue. I think many took you that way in the Rittenhouse case with your wording you used there also.
What you're asking for, Corrik, is an impossibility. What exactly can he do to prove he never, ever, ever hit her? It's pretty obvious all he can do is use the mountains of facts and eye witness testimony to prove that Amber is absolutely dishonest and that the situations she said she was hit by him, he never did so. It's up to the jury to decide if it's more likely Amber lied entirely and he never hit her, or if she was telling the truth and that maybe Johnny hit her once. I've never said he needs to definitively prove he never did so, because that's just impossible. A lot of civil cases aren't open and shut like that.

The jury will deliberate on whether or not they made a good enough of a job proving it's likely he never did so. It's unlikely that everyone will collectively will consider it to the degree you're speaking, and there will be debate on whether or not they did a good enough job proving their case.

And I think it's pretty clear I'm biased in this case. I'm not presenting otherwise, because I have watched this entire thing happen and have a strong idea of what's coming ahead. I think I've done a pretty decent job articulating how this works though and why I feel like Depp is currently proving his case exceptionally well.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
04/26/22 3:44:31 PM
#194:


PrivateBiscuit1 posted...
What you're asking for, Corrik, is an impossibility. What exactly can he do to prove he never, ever, ever hit her? It's pretty obvious all he can do is use the mountains of facts and eye witness testimony to prove that Amber is absolutely dishonest and that the situations she said she was hit by him, he never did so. It's up to the jury to decide if it's more likely Amber lied entirely and he never hit her, or if she was telling the truth and that maybe Johnny hit her once. I've never said he needs to definitively prove he never did so, because that's just impossible. A lot of civil cases aren't open and shut like that.

The jury will deliberate on whether or not they made a good enough of a job proving it's likely he never did so. It's unlikely that everyone will collectively will consider it to the degree you're speaking, and there will be debate on whether or not they did a good enough job proving their case.

And I think it's pretty clear I'm biased in this case. I'm not presenting otherwise, because I have watched this entire thing happen and have a strong idea of what's coming ahead. I think I've done a pretty decent job articulating how this works though and why I feel like Depp is currently proving his case exceptionally well.
I actually think the case is unwinnable by Depp, yes.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik PSN User Name - Corrik7
Currently playing: Control (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 3:46:47 PM
#195:


CoolCly posted...
I find it irritating when the lawyers are condescending and rude, like if that psychologist lady asks for clarification on what page or line she should be reading from, Elaine talks to her like she's a dumbass child.

I wonder how that plays with the judge and the jury - if it's standard or ignored or if they dislike it too
Oh, no. That's another reason Elaine is awful. You are performing in front of the jury and you want to come across as professional and like you're being genuine. The jury has already formulated their opinion on Elaine and the rest of the attorneys, likely.

Like if someone is rude to you, how much more likely are you to listen to what they have to say? TRE mentioned meta when I was talking about how the parties looked, and it extends here too. Every little bit matters.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
04/26/22 3:55:16 PM
#196:


Sometimes being condescending is a tactic to paint the person being treated that way as incompetent. Thus, could be a tactic used against someone not helpful to your case.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik PSN User Name - Corrik7
Currently playing: Control (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 4:02:16 PM
#197:


Corrik7 posted...
Sometimes being condescending is a tactic to paint the person being treated that way as incompetent. Thus, could be a tactic used against someone not helpful to your case.
It does, but you kine of have to know that they are incompetent or untruthful. Or you have good evidence to support that.

Typically, you don't want to use that tactic on someone who is actually a grossly overqualified forensic scientist who comes across as likable and is very articulate on all of her findings that she's explaining, when you have no tangible evidence that she's being dishonest or incompetent. Like you need to read the jury here too to see if you can get away with treating someone like that as well.

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4
04/26/22 6:47:10 PM
#198:


Yeah I have been avoiding saying it because I dont want Biscuit to think I am attacking him or dislike him as a person, but just like before I dont find the recaps as useful as some because every sentence has an embellishment or flare that shows you who hes rooting for.

I think the evidence that Heard abused Depp is stronger than the opposite, but I dont think Johnny is innocent and needs to be babied the way some people are treating him.

They were a toxic couple, its a classic Hollywood trope, it doesnt need to be a conspiracy lol.

---
Phantom Dust.
"I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado
... Copied to Clipboard!
Colegreen_c12
04/26/22 7:06:07 PM
#199:


I personally like the bias because if I wanted to read a regurgitation of facts i would go find one somewhere but that's not interesting tbh.

---
DPOblivion beat us all.
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 10:41:54 PM
#201:


DAY 9

This is Elaine Day for all her fans.

We start off with a member of the staff that worked on Johnny's island in the Bahamas, Tori Roberts. They had tech issues, because it was a Zoom deposition. They put up their baby associate up there for an easy witness for easy testimony. Roberts recorded a video of the place Johnny and Amber stayed in, I guess. The poor baby associate got pummeled with outrageous objections and I swear this Judge is just doing a coin flip because they never make sense, on both sides.

Baby: What was your opinion on Miss Heard when you first met her?
Tori: Well I thought she was nice--
Elaine: OBJECTION, RELEVANCE! Oh wait, nevermind.

She is another person who says Amber never had a single bruise or mark on her ever any time she saw her where she had either no make up or natural make up. They discussed a lot about the wedding ceremony there, which she helped with. She said it was kind of a rush and a mess.

The main story she told was about how one night she found Johnny in an office on the island and Amber eventually came after and kept asking Johnny to come back to the house, and Johnny didn't want to but did anyway. She said she was sorry, she didn't mean any of it, and they eventually left. Tori and someone else followed to make sure they were okay, and she said Amber was yelling and Johnny was answering back (very particular language), and that Amber was saying that he was washed up and will die a fat, lonely, old man. And Johnny said she hit him with a can. They then noticed Tori and the other person there and were shocked.

They took Johnny to the John Deere tractor which they use for transport, and Johnny sat there as Amber began screaming at him to leave and was pulling on his hair and hitting him and scratching at him. She described it as "vicious." Johnny didn't react at all and kept his arms at his side during this whole time. Tori said that when they got them apart, she saw her had a big cut on the bridge of his nose. The next morning, she said Amber looked completely fine with no bruises or injuries on her. She also said she saw a bit of a mess from the broken mineral can that was cited that Amber smashed him in the nose with prior in Johnny's testimony.

And then Elaine comes out and is just so insufferable to listen to as she tries to impeach her. It's not much. She just so obviously plays dirty, and then when she gets objected to she's so unreasonably mad. lol Baby attorney did pretty solid at it, actually, and it seemed like she threw BS ones that got sustained still. Elaine is just browbeating this poor, kind lady and coming across as so unlikeable. "Do you think that Amber would cover up her bruises to hide them from Johnny's kids?" Like excuse me? How do you ask these questions? She would get angry if they were heard. She also did a lot of "Is it true that you weren't around them 24/7 and that in one moment that you weren't around them, that Johnny could have maliciously beaten Amber?" questions most witnesses seem to get.

Probably the only big thing Elaine said was about how Jack (Johnny's son) got her to check on Johnny because he was passed out, face down in the sand once. On re-direct she said, "Yeah, he was sleeping in the hammock and fell out and I just helped him up no problem." Striking stuff Elaine.

I harp on the time spent by the Defense a lot, and it's not JUST because I feel like time is wasted and boring, but because the Judge is giving each side and equal amount of time to make their case. So the more time they spend asking Tori the Island Housekeeper about how much money she's making and a bunch of questions and these dopey leading questions nobody buys, they're taking away from time that they can be making actual tangible points elsewhere.

Next up is Dr. Shannon Curry, the IME (Independent Medical Exam) Expert who is a grossly overqualified Forensic Psychologist, who explained in depth all of the tests they use to judge someone. Basically, what happened was that Amber was bringing up psychological disorders to help make her case, including PTSD. Thus, they brought in an Expert to properly identify if she has the disorders she claimed. Confidentiality goes out the window when you start to use it in your case. Dr. Curry explained the many, many, many tests and how they work in great detail, that also has fail safes to tell if anyone is lying on them to get a different result. I won't describe it--look it up yourself if you want. She had to be reigned in a few times by the attorney because she got too excited with her shop talk and spiraled into technical babble, which is common for experts. But as far as experts like these go, she did a pretty outstanding job with it. But she had Amber do 13 hours worth of testing and pulls together any and all information from depositions, trials, etc. to help make her diagnoses.

She says that Amber has borderline personality disorder (BPD) and histrionic personality disorder (HPB). Go back and look at the moment she says this, and Amber is rolling her eyes, shaking her head, checking her nails. It was pretty amusing, especially since the camera stayed locked on her. I won't bother trying to explain what those mean, but as she described them, they were identical to how we've seen Amber acting in situations so far. Feel free to go back and listen! It's pretty interesting!

Dr. Curry also mentioned that Amber told her that she would cut her arms, and it was common with these disorders, which is likely what explains those cuts on her arms the night Johnny's finger was blown off.

She also tells a story about one of Amber's friends, Rocky Pennington. You may have seen me mention her a few times. I mentioned she was not going to be testifying, and that's because they're now former friends, and Dr. Curry told a story about how Amber was frustrated and hit her once out of anger, according to a deposition from Rocky.

She also tested Amber for PTSD, since she claims what Johnny did to her gave her PTSD. Dr. Curry states Amber did not have PTSD and said that she was grossly exaggerating symptoms of PTSD. She politely talked about how Amber tried cheating on the test without saying she cheated on it, remarking that Amber said she had 19/20 of the symptoms of PTSD on her test when even the most extreme cases of PTSD don't have more than 3-4 at most. She described Amber's nightmares she claimed to have as incredibly vague and lacking in detail most people recounting them have, but remarked she talked about having nightmares before dating Johnny Depp that were determined to be a result of childhood trauma. She also said she feigned a lot of PTSD symptoms.

I'll note that this is not the only IME Expert here, and I'm sure that the Defense is going to present their own. That should be interesting because the way Dr. Curry spoke, she came across as very credible. I'm curious to say what their Expert would say.

(1/2)

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
PrivateBiscuit1
04/26/22 10:42:38 PM
#202:


Ya gurl, Elaine, is the cross examiner and sheeeee sucked. Johnny and his team would be laughing occasionally at some of the absurdity, and even the people in the court were. They spent so much time on this and it was crazy. The more inane parts are her saying "You got dinner and drinks with Johnny, right?" And she said "No, that's incorrect. I was interviewed by Johnny's legal team at Johnny's home and dinner and drinks were served." She said it was unusual, but this was a high profile case that would have a lot of eyes on it, and they were specifically interviewing people to take on this case as a result. She spent a total of like 10 minutes on this and it was absurd.

She also tried to use the words in an Expert Designation from Depp's team and prescribed them as her own words. This is scummy as fuck because these are lawyer predictions of what will be found by the expert. This is extremely common.

"It's a coincidence that your opinions lined up with what Mr. Depp claimed she was like!" "You know that you wouldn't be here testifying if your thoughts didn't line up with the Defendant, right!?" Just scummy.

Some of it wasn't terrible, and was... moderately effective? But Elaine's attitude is so abhorrent I don't think it comes across well.

Like she claimed that Dr. Curry was breaking confidentiality by telling her husband he was working with Amber Heard. This is gross because this is a serious accusation, and she based it on the fact that her husband dropped muffins off for the office and she and Amber ate muffins and Dr. Curry mentioned that her husband dropped them off for them. This is what they based it off of.

Then Elaine used the depositions and information she collected from her various psychiatrists and therapists to testify her own story. I have no idea how the Judge allowed this since a lot of these people will be testifying for the Defense later. This Judge is the shits. But Dr. Curry did mention that they said "As a therapist/psychiatrist, you are bound to take the word of your patient."

To Elaine's credit, one effective thing they did was try to inch domestic abuse back from just physical to include verbal, meaning they're probably seeing how bad their case looks for the physical part and they're shifting gears to this, which is frankly smart for them.

A confusing part was where she asked about gaslighting victims and literally described everything Johnny said about being gaslit including "feel frightened," "falsely accused," "fear of losing your reputation." Like why do you think everyone is there right now?

On re-direct he only asked two questions. One to remind them about the diagnoses, and the other to clarify that any treating physician is to assume the patient is telling the truth, and then individually asks if each Doctor mentioned was a treating physician. Boom, that's all. Dr. Curry held up extremely well here and didn't break or falter at all on the cross.

Next up is a recorded deposition from one of the officers that went to check on Amber after she called the police when Johnny left the night Amber claimed that he punched her and got the restraining order the day after. You might recall I mentioned they showed the video of her going in and out in 15 minutes in the security footage after seeing absolutely nothing and no sign of any actual abuse.

Elaine was in charge and spoke first (the opposing party asks their questions first in video depos) and the story is that the officer and her partner showed up, Amber and all of her friends refused to say a single word to them and they looked over the entire place for any damage or if there was anyone hiding, and there wasn't, so they gave her a business card to call if she feels like cooperating, and they left.

This turned into almost an hour and a half of the most circular discussion you can imagine. She told her damn story and Elaine kept asking questions repeatedly hoping that the officer would change her mind and she wouldn't. She kept saying "She had red puffy cheeks and red eyes, and you didn't think she was assaulted!?" And she just said they were red and puffy because she was crying and not because of any injuries and that she knows what it's like when someone is hurt. Just so many bad questions. She mentioned "All I remember thinking is that this place was really nice."

I thought it seemed like Elaine did the entire Plaintiff's deposition for them... and then Depp's team asked pretty much all the same questions. What the hell. Why. No additional information at all. I have no idea how they let all this in and how they didn't trim it down. What's even worse is that these have time stamps on them because they're chopped up and edited to remove objections and stuff. And this poor officer was sitting there for 7 hours total over a call they looked into for 15 minutes where NOTHING HAPPENED. This was agony.

But we're done for the day at least. (2/2)

---
I stream sometimes. Check it out!
www.twitch.tv/heroicbiz/
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10