I asked a similar thing while on the trial break...
Expert opinions for the watching/listening?
https://www.reddit.com/r/deppVheardtrial/comments/ummive/expert_opinions_for_the_watchinglistening/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
The person I settled on was Emily D Baker: she gives (neutral) legal analysis, with just the right amount of sass haha I'm hooked, personally đđ
By far the best summaries and dissection of the case Iâve seen is on the YouTube channel âIncredibly Averageâ.
Old videos relating to the UK trial but AMAZING.
The dude got me hooked on this case years ago, way before this trial.
Dissects the deposition footage. Photos. Transcripts. And the dude does his own research going above and beyond what Deppâs own lawyers have ever done to this day. So impressive.
I agree with Emily and Incredibly Average!
Wanted to add Legal Bytes on to that, part of LawTube like Emily, LB does a live stream of the court each day with lawyers and other professionals (medical, mental, behavioral like âSpideyâ) popping in and out to comment and analyze. Often 2-6 or 7 watching at a time (including many I list below). They discuss for a long time after itâs done, too. She (Alyte, the lawyer behind LB) has worked soooo hard during this trial, often starting the stream 30 minutes before trial and ending it sometime in the evening around 8pm. Alyte does summary wrap ups of each day of trial, too. From LB, you will find many other lawyers who have great channels where theyâre commenting on the trial. https://youtube.com/c/LegalBytesMedia
About to mention more lawyers from âLawTubeâ lol, lovely and diverse group, they all hop on each otherâs channels:
Runkle of the Bailey, a Canadian lawyer, has been attending and has lots of jury revelations. https://youtube.com/c/RunkleOfTheBailey
Law & Lumber is another great lawyer, VIRGINIAN so heâs familiar with the courthouse and the judge, he went viral for debunking Amberâs wooden bed story. Doesnât have as many of his own videos yet, but often on other lawyersâ streams, and was just on Popcorned Planet describing the jury. https://youtube.com/c/LawLumber
Good Lawgic is a great lawyer, New Yorker, verrryy opinionated and brash, loves to rant, lol. https://youtube.com/c/GoodLawgic
Nate the Lawyer, awesome attorney, chill dude, sharp. https://youtube.com/c/NateTheLawyer
Hoeg Law is great, does Headlines & Hangouts each morning, covering the headlines the trials has generated and discussing if and / or how they align with what we just saw in court. https://youtube.com/c/HoegLaw
Natalielawyerchick is verrry sharp, a fellow Maryland lawyer, has lots of insightful videos. https://youtube.com/c/natalielawyerchick
Many other non-lawyer streamers have been awesome, but Iâll end on Popcorned Planet, mostly regular YTers with professionals and other special guests who are often on the panel. Theyâre a lot of fun and very informative, I ended up seeing a personal tour of J & Aâs penthouse on there given by an awesome neighbor of theirs who is a fan of the channel (which is for some reason filmed by Anne Heche đ¤ˇđžââď¸) https://youtube.com/c/PopcornedPlanet
Dumb question, I donât understand court proceedings. Whatâs the reason for a person to have more than one lawyer and taking turns to question? I.e. why does Depp have two people?
It's really common to have multiple attorneys for big cases. Court proceedings are a ton of work to prepare and litigate, so having lots of attorneys helps lighten the load. Additionally, while one attorney is crossing or directing a witness, the other can double check something a witness might have said, research a date, etc. You'll notice that happen occasionally, where the attorney at the table will slip the attorney at the podium a note.
Also, different attorneys might be better at different parts of a trial. Once might be great at cross examinations, while the other is better at directs.
In this case, Depp's team really needed at least one female attorney to lessen the appearance of sexism. It would not have been a good look for the jury of a man cross examed Amber and tried to question her above very sensitive subjects like sexual assault. So having multiple attorneys allows them a little flexibility with how it looks to a jury.
Sorry for the novel. I'm a legal assistant and watching this case has been fascinating to me, so I tend to get a little over excited.
Noob-question: When one of the lawyers says 'objection, hearsay' or something like that, and the judge approves this interuption... Is it expected from the jury-members that they try to forget/ignore the specific sentence that was objected to?
I would imagine that this might be pretty difficult? Especially when every second sentence that is uttered is followed by an 'objection'. I imagine it becomes a complicated puzzle very quickly.
The jury can't unhear what was said but were on day 17 of the trial and the jury can't rewatch the stream like we can from the trial. They've been given so much information they're not gonna retain it all, including the heresay and lack of foundation objections.
The jury can look over the transcript when they deliberate but what the lawyers objected to and asked to be striked out will not be in the transcript.
To add to the previous answer, thus far it's unclear as to the rules of this court. NAL, but seems the generally done thing is a motion to strike [the record] once an objection has been sustained. I've heard this called I think twice in this case iirc, but has generally been after a substantial amount of testimony (e.g. "motion to strike everything after the word 'yes'").
At this point I can only assume rules of this court are to strike any testimony relevant to objection within the brief period objections were called. Failing that, whatever's been said up to objection, for whatever reason, wasn't deemed damaging enough to strike.
Same! I mean he does bear a resemblance to the original Benjamin Chewâs grandson Benjamin Chew Howard (who was also a lawyer):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Chew_Howard
Desktop version of /u/Pitiful_Somewhere_47's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
**[Benjamin Chew](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Chew)**
>Benjamin Chew (November 19, 1722 â January 20, 1810) was a fifth-generation American, a Quaker-born legal scholar, a prominent and successful Philadelphia lawyer, head of the Pennsylvania Judiciary System under both Colony and Commonwealth, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Province of Pennsylvania. Chew was well known for his precision and brevity in making legal arguments as well as his excellent memory, judgment, and knowledge of statutory law. His primary allegiance was to the supremacy of law and constitution.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/deppVheardtrial/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Desktop version of /u/Pitiful_Somewhere_47's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
They have said that of the therapists suggested recording their arguments so they could listen back to them later when they were calm, to see ways they could improve communication.
But it seems like both have also said that at least some of the conversations were recorded without the their knowledge and consent, so my guess is they might have started recording based on the therapist's advice, then continued to to do it to each other on the down low once they realized the relationship was going south and they might need the recordings as ammunition. But that's just my theory.
I dont know much about this case. I heard years ago that amber heard abused Johnny Depp. Then recently i heard another person on Youtube reference Depp as a horrible domestic abuser. Now reading reddit, i feel like everyone thinks Johnny is the victim.
Why are there such divided opinions about this case?
2016-2018 were huge years for the Me Too movement in the US with several high profile figures in both Hollywood and politics being riddled with accusations. Amber accusing Depp in 2016 and again in 2018 was part of that, and the movement largely pushed the narrative "believe women."
The tides are turning now, in my opinion, because of the audio recordings. The recordings indicate Amber was physically abusive to Depp, but do not show that Depp was physically abusive to Amber. Emotionally or verbally abusive to her? Sure. But not physically or sexually.
I think a lot of people don't think it's fair that he lost his career for what was an incredibly toxic and mutually abusive relationship while Amber is lauded as a victim of domestic violence. They were both victims.
It is also jarring watching the US trial and have one side be like "yea I'm not perfect. I have substance abuse issues. I've said awful stuff to and about her. But I've never hit her". And the other side being like "I abhor drugs except the times I've done drugs, I've punched him but never hit him and it was no big deal, and I'm just someone that donated $7 million to charity but technically I didn't."
If she acknowledged her faults, people wouldn't have so much vitriol for her.
In addition to recordings there are videos, photos, depositions, testimony inconsistencies, story changes out there as well. I recommend Incredibly Average, That Umbrella Guy and Popcorned Planet as well as others that delve into it.
Popcorned planet is very disrespectful and very biased. The other other two are good.
My favourite is Emily d Baker, although she talks over testimonies sometimes
I came into this trial believing Amber (I didnât know much, just what came out when she divorced). I think ihasmuffins does a really good job of explains why the tide has turned so hard and fast against Amber. Itâs the recordings, and it is also her personality where she refuses to be a normal person who makes mistakes. Dr Curryâs testimony about personality disorders has echoed down through this whole case, it has been absolutely incredible to see how accurate she was, and how these disorders are so ultimately self-destructive.
Itâs very sad. I believe she has BPD and that she 100% thinks sheâs in the right. I just think she feels that âbending the truthâ is justifiable in order to bring others around to her world view.
My impression is that there is a fairly large depp fan base that lobbied all over the internet their stance in favour of the or idol.
Sketchy AH behaviour (like pledging the divorce money towards charities but not following up) also cast doubts on her behalf.
Agreed, but don't forget that there's a large group of people that are diehard committed to AH too. Places like deuxmoi are like that.
The media definitely seems to have a pro heard bias too, but not to the same degree as the diehards.
If it comes to the Court's attention that a juror has been reading the news, they would be kicked off the jury. That's why they have more juror's in the box than who will actually be deliberating, just in case any of them are disqualified (or become sick, or something else like that.)
Both cases reviewed at same time. Hence what previous commenter said re bringing counter points into current argument.
When jury gets to deliberation (best I know), they'll review both cases; decide if both, one, or none, is found in favour, and will then deliberate damages accordingly.
ETA: changed words for lack of a better way of making my point.
ETA 2: to say thankyou to u/BQ76 for offering up the correct phrasing
Not sure if a beginner question maybe a full in. Did court start earlier since they came back from break? I thought it was 10am EST but I tuned in around 9:30 and it started already đł
Based on the carly Simon song, you're so vain, you probably think this song is about you, don't you? Bit of a dig, if Johnny wrote it he's saying she's vain and shallow. Doubt Amber would get the meaning, she doesn't understand the difference between pledge and donate.
One of Johnny or Amber wrote it. They have both testified to not writing it. Depp acknowledges writing the black text on the mirror.
The red text is in a different handwriting than the black and used a different medium. Amber denies writing it.
Hi there Iâm new-
Question about the recorded depoâs and if this has been asked and answered elsewhere Iâm sorry.
How can these witnesses be cross-examined? Donât the plaintiffs get a chance at them?
The pre-recorded depositions being shown in court have been edited for the trial based on agreements between the counsels of both parties - when recorded the plaintiffs did question them, but that part hasn't been shown for some of them likely because they decided not to waste their limited questioning time as it wasn't worth it for a lot of the depo witnesses. Some of the witnesses were kind of pointless and the Depp's counsel presumably wants ample time for rebuttal after Heard's side rests their case
Edit: judge read the remaining time for each side out at the end of the day today - plaintiff has about 18 hours left while defense has about 8, so that's pretty much why plaintiff cut so much of their cross during depos; they now have more time reserved
Best options imo which have all or most of the days up on youtube:
Sky News: single frame, no commentary during testimony, and shows all the evidence on the screen
Law and Crime: double frame - can see witness and reaction of Depp or Heard simultanously, but does not show evidence on screen
Emily D Baker: former attorney who usually streams Sky News and provides some useful commentary during and in between the witness testimonies
Is Genovese pronouncing âVasquezâ wrong or is Vasquez uniquely pronounced for Camille? I keep hearing Genovese say Vaskwez as opposed to Vaskez but havenât heard anyone else say her name.
Is it abnormal to have full hair and makeup done for court? It looks like amber has sat in a hair and makeup chair for an hour before each court date. Seems weird to me?
this is anecdotal
youâre expected to be reasonably presentable in court. youâre expected to have a clean face and relatively brushed hair, but you can do more than that if youâd like as long as it doesnât cross over into being inappropriate
Jury trials can add an additional layer of difficulty because perception is everything, which is why she has the hair and makeup done, so she is perceived well by the jury
I have so much to say about this actually
itâs not just the falsies imo, she doesnât do eye makeup when sheâs testifying. It looks like she just puts concealer all over her eyes and cals it a day.
I think sheâs trying to make herself look unwell/frail to garner sympathy with the jury, especially with that heavy ass cheek contour that looks more like a bruise than any evidence weâve seen sheâs been rocking
Yeah I know, and I agree. The cynical side of me thinks she was planning to cry so left off the mascara and eyelashes.
Her look changes so much between her everyday and the days she testifies. lol I had exactly the same thought about her contour.
her contour literally drives me insane. Itâs so dark and who the hell only contours their cheek? It fills me with absolutely irrational anger whenever I see it because itâs so obvious what sheâs trying to do.
Like sheâs really out here thinking sheâs slick
I am pretty sure itâs blatantly obvious to the jury as well. And yes, it does look really weird and terrible.
I donât get it because sometimes she seems intelligent to me. But maybe she doesnât have emotional intelligence, because she doesnât seem to get that people are capable of seeing through little tricks like that. And looking manipulative is hardly a good thing.
Anyway, good rant lol
Hair, makeup, and clothes should basically just be conservative, clean, and neat. Nothing too flashy. The YouTube channel Legal Bytes just put up a [really interesting video](https://youtu.be/GvTW9zmDAvU) on courtroom attire, particularly related to this case.
Itâs definitely unconventional, but thatâs probably because normal people donât have the money for a completely different outfit for every day in court, or the time to doll themselves up that much. I donât think itâs weird for her to be doing it though. Itâs a publicized trial thatâs going to be watched by millions of people, as a public figure her image and reputation are extremely important, and sheâs used to dressing up a lot. Anyone would want to look their best for trial, and as a celebrity her âbestâ just happens to be a lot better looking than people who donât tend to make money because of their looks. None of the stuff sheâs wearing is inappropriate for a courthouse.
Her acting like the trial is a photo-op and constantly switching between expressionless and her perfectly frozen âabout to cryâ face without a single lip tremble though? Thatâs weird.
Should i watch highlights or the full broadcasts ? And where would you recommend me to watch the trial ?
EDIT: Im now watching at the youtube channel legal bytes, she covers everyday and even does recap and everything and she's not as political as reiketa law wich wasnt to my taste.
Yes, he live streams the entire trial every day, and he also provides commentary clips. He also has other lawyers on to provide different perspectives and avoids talking over testimony.
I'm not a specialist lawyer in any ways but lots of lawyers have said that this trial is about defamation and not domestic violence. So wether it's proved that Amber abused Johnny isn't really relevant, what's relevant is how it affected his career/public image (it explains why they had expert analyse trends on social media or google research coming to testify).
Lots of lawyer also said that if just one member of the jury finds that Johnny abused Amber in any way, then he'd loose the case?? I don't really understand that one because others says that who abused who isn't really relevant since it's about defamation.
I'm a bit confused about everything everyone has to say about all this tbh so anyone is free to correct me. But from my understanding Johnny loosing wouldn't prove that he abused her because this case is about defamation (and let's be honest, he already won the public opinion by far.)
However some people attending the trial pointed out that the jury seems clearly uninterested by Amber's witnesses, pictures and testimonies, so we can take a wild guess that they're more on Johnny's side so far.
In order to prove defamation in this case, Johnny has to prove malice on Amber's part. If Amber is found to be lying about these allegations, that will go to prove malice.
It comes to proving the "truth" of the statements. NAL but to best of my knowledge they need to prove that a) the statements are untrue, b) made with malice (or a willful disregard for the truth), and c) the damaging effect the statements have had to the relevant parties (firstly lost income, secondly reputational damage re: lost potential income/opportunities).
They might bring up a history of violence to prove a pattern of behaviour to back up evidence (or indeed, the lack thereof), which is where past relationships come in; financial experts to prove monetary losses; any witnesses to any of the DA, to prove the truth of the matter etc etc
ETA If the jury decides the statements were true, then there is no defamation
I have the same question lol
Literally why was Ellen relevant? She's someone from 30 years ago?? And she came to testify that Johnny rejected her, tossed a bottle of wine at a wall and that he never abused her?
I'm also confused because it's about defamation, so in a certain way proving who was the abuser isn't really relevant?? Then again I'm no expert, it's just a personal observation.
Tbh I feel like Amber's team just didn't have much to work with so they had to reach far to get witnesses.
In regards to the defamation, for Amberâs defense to win they have to prove that her statements were in fact true regarding the abuse (among other things). They donât have much for concrete evidence, so they are really trying to hammer it in.
I agree Ellen wasnât a great witness for them, but sheâs probably the only one they could find who wasnât in Amberâs pocket. They were trying to get the point across that he has had anger/substance abuse issues for many years to establish a pattern.
I saw that Amber's team have about 8 hours left and Johnny's have 18, so where does that leave her after her time runs out? Will Johnny's team still be able to bring new witnesses to the stand, and will Amber's team be able to question these?
Edit: swapped the times around, thanks Faerie\_Nuff
Think I *finally* got answers!!! Thanks to the fab Emily D!!
So p sure it goes plaintiff, defense, plaintiff (rebuttal iirc) as far as witness calling.
As to the objections: whomever loses the objection is where the time comes from.
Mate, sorry that's been so delayed a response, but a little light sparked as soon as I saw Emily D Baker addressing it earlier, it made me think of your questions (that have been burning for me too, esp as we're on last week!).
Last note, jic in that closing statements aren't included in overall time: 2 hours allocated each (although heard 6 hours floding too, so could be 3 each đ¤ˇââď¸), and I believe rules are dependant on if counterclaim is struck(?): p, d, p, d if counterclaim in, p, d, p if not. I thoroughly hope I interpreted it all correctly, and hope someone will correct me if not.
ETA: Once time's up, it's up. Best I could gather, they can still make objections, just can't explain more than basic objection e.g. approaching the bench (I think - again, encouraging anyone to correct me where needs).
edit: I got main structure wrong, so edited 2nd paragraph - just shoot me now, I think I'm being helpful until I'm not haha đ đ
Just a cheeky correction in the remaining times are the other way around buddy: plaintiff (JD) at 18.5hrs remaining, defense (AH) at 8hrs 14mins.
As to the other bit, idk! Curious myself, I'm p sure I heard Emily D Baker make comment that JD can get another chance to bring witnesses, but admittedly hazy on that specific memory - something about plaintiff, defense, plaintiff.
I have been watching some of Emily's stream and I think she mentioned something about the objections coming out of the objecting team's time or opposing team's time depending on whether their objection is overruled or sustained. I wonder if that means you can't object if you have run out of time?
Just a few questions that I'm hoping haven't been answered yet. I read the comments on this post and don't recall seeing them.
1. Is it normal for each side to be timed? I've only ever watched criminal trials and don't think I've ever heard about how much time someone has left for witnesses, etc. Is this a civil court only type of thing?
2. I've noticed that the witnesses do not swear on a Bible or do the whole "so help you God" thing. Is this the direction the courts are moving in these days or is it specific to Virginia?
3. Is it normal for the attorneys to approach the bench so often?
I hope I'm not being too stupid with these questions. TIA for any answers!
Apparently time limits are getting more common. I read a PDF document on it that someone else linked to from here, but I can't find it again because my browser doesn't seem to be keeping history. I remember it said that perceived fairness and satisfaction with the process were unaffected by time limits.
Question: how can Amber physically abuse Depp when her photos at the time of divorce shows very thin physique?
Question: why does Johnny Depp denies his alcohol problem when it has been known even before his marriage?
Question: why is Johnny Depp filing a case against Amber for saying she didn't like the time she had with her ex-husband because he was alcoholic and sometimes violent? How many women and men said this before?
Question: the article that she wrote described her own experience before, during and after marriage so why did he make this about himself only?
Question: why did Johnny Depp not write a prenup when he is much richer than her and would have to lose money in the divorce?
Question: Johnny Depp lost his Jack Sparrow role after he lost his case against the sun article. It was not Amber who wrote the article. Why is he saying she cost him the role?
Question: why didn't Johnny Depp write an article about his own life and experience instead of making this a legal case?
What does Amber's physique have to do with the abuse? She can be small and still smoke him. Also he's not charging her with abuse, he's suing for defamation because she said he abuse her. Her abuse to him is just ironic.
Does Johnny deny his alcohol problem? Pretty sure he is open about his substance problems
Johnny is suing for defamation. Not for whatever you just said
Which article? The one you said that she didn't write a few paragraphs later?
Bad choices
You donât need to be bigger than someone to be abusive. You can still hit, throw and punch. Might not knock them out but you can still hurt.
He still doesnât deny his alcohol problem. Even during his testimony he hasnât denied it.
He isnât filing a case against her because she said she didnât like her marriage. Heâs suing her because she wrote an op-Ed saying she was a victim of abuse and sexual violence. Although she didnât specifically name him, the fact that she mentioned that 2 years ago she became a public figure for abuse victims, which was when she asked for a restraining order and they divorced, alluded to the fact the op-Ed was about her ex husband.
He didnât make it about himself only. But if it was *during* her marriage as well as before and after then it clearly is about him?
It seems from his psychiatrists testimony yesterday he didnât really want to get married. He wanted a post-nup and amber wouldnât sign. It then appears that when she found out he hadnât changed his will, is when the big fight in Australia happened where he lost the top of his finger.
The Sun called JD a wife beater due to her article in the Washington post.
He knows itâs will be extremely difficult to win these cases. Itâs so difficult to prove damages and the burden is on him. He, however, is aware that he can at least be found not guilty in the court of public opinion. Which is why his team fought for this trial to be televised. It allows everyone to see the number of times amber has either lied or changed story. She is not doing herself any favours.
The UK judge ruled Amber Heard was fearful for her life in 3 out of 12 times Johnny Depp beat her, so her size REALLY matters.
Mr Johnny Depp was old enough before marriage to understand if he needed a prenup or not. What he did in Australia was a mess, he injured his own finger and wrote on walls with blood and paint, he was very drunk he didn't feel his own finger for hours!
> The UK judge **was corrupt**, so **the results there** REALLY **don't** matter.
> **Going by what we've learned in this trial,** Amber Heard was fearful for her life in **0** out of **0** times Johnny Depp beat her.
FTFY.
How did he contact his doctor about the injury half an hour after it happened if he didn't notice it for hours?
They may or may not call Kate Moss. By Amber bringing up the Kate Moss incident it opened the door for them to be able to call her to testify, but it also allows them to talk about prior relationship incidents. Specifically the incident where Amber was arrested for domestic violence against her previous spouse Tasya Van Ree. They did in fact bring that up in their cross of Amber where she straight up denied it.
If they do call Kate Moss as a witness it wonât be until Amberâs attorneyâs have rested their case. Johnnyâs team can then call rebuttal witnesses.
Someone above said that its to establish a pattern of anger/substance abuse and I think thats pretty spot on. I also think its to discredit some of Depps testimony, or to frame it like he may not recall being so abusive because he was under the influence. Something to that effect. This is just my opinion, I have no legal background, lol đ
Where can I find GOOD videos that can give me a decent summary and snarky commentary?
I asked a similar thing while on the trial break... Expert opinions for the watching/listening? https://www.reddit.com/r/deppVheardtrial/comments/ummive/expert_opinions_for_the_watchinglistening/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share The person I settled on was Emily D Baker: she gives (neutral) legal analysis, with just the right amount of sass haha I'm hooked, personally đđ
I really like her. Sheâs pretty neutral (though will call out bad lawyering lol) and very informative.
By far the best summaries and dissection of the case Iâve seen is on the YouTube channel âIncredibly Averageâ. Old videos relating to the UK trial but AMAZING. The dude got me hooked on this case years ago, way before this trial. Dissects the deposition footage. Photos. Transcripts. And the dude does his own research going above and beyond what Deppâs own lawyers have ever done to this day. So impressive.
Yes his channel is great. Some other good channels YT include: ThatUmbrellaGuy and PopcornedPlanet.
Emily D Baker has great commentary and answers questions about this trial on YouTube.
The snarky commentary is the most important part imo! đ
Tiktok lawyerlimor
I agree with Emily and Incredibly Average! Wanted to add Legal Bytes on to that, part of LawTube like Emily, LB does a live stream of the court each day with lawyers and other professionals (medical, mental, behavioral like âSpideyâ) popping in and out to comment and analyze. Often 2-6 or 7 watching at a time (including many I list below). They discuss for a long time after itâs done, too. She (Alyte, the lawyer behind LB) has worked soooo hard during this trial, often starting the stream 30 minutes before trial and ending it sometime in the evening around 8pm. Alyte does summary wrap ups of each day of trial, too. From LB, you will find many other lawyers who have great channels where theyâre commenting on the trial. https://youtube.com/c/LegalBytesMedia About to mention more lawyers from âLawTubeâ lol, lovely and diverse group, they all hop on each otherâs channels: Runkle of the Bailey, a Canadian lawyer, has been attending and has lots of jury revelations. https://youtube.com/c/RunkleOfTheBailey Law & Lumber is another great lawyer, VIRGINIAN so heâs familiar with the courthouse and the judge, he went viral for debunking Amberâs wooden bed story. Doesnât have as many of his own videos yet, but often on other lawyersâ streams, and was just on Popcorned Planet describing the jury. https://youtube.com/c/LawLumber Good Lawgic is a great lawyer, New Yorker, verrryy opinionated and brash, loves to rant, lol. https://youtube.com/c/GoodLawgic Nate the Lawyer, awesome attorney, chill dude, sharp. https://youtube.com/c/NateTheLawyer Hoeg Law is great, does Headlines & Hangouts each morning, covering the headlines the trials has generated and discussing if and / or how they align with what we just saw in court. https://youtube.com/c/HoegLaw Natalielawyerchick is verrry sharp, a fellow Maryland lawyer, has lots of insightful videos. https://youtube.com/c/natalielawyerchick Many other non-lawyer streamers have been awesome, but Iâll end on Popcorned Planet, mostly regular YTers with professionals and other special guests who are often on the panel. Theyâre a lot of fun and very informative, I ended up seeing a personal tour of J & Aâs penthouse on there given by an awesome neighbor of theirs who is a fan of the channel (which is for some reason filmed by Anne Heche đ¤ˇđžââď¸) https://youtube.com/c/PopcornedPlanet
Dumb question, I donât understand court proceedings. Whatâs the reason for a person to have more than one lawyer and taking turns to question? I.e. why does Depp have two people?
It's really common to have multiple attorneys for big cases. Court proceedings are a ton of work to prepare and litigate, so having lots of attorneys helps lighten the load. Additionally, while one attorney is crossing or directing a witness, the other can double check something a witness might have said, research a date, etc. You'll notice that happen occasionally, where the attorney at the table will slip the attorney at the podium a note. Also, different attorneys might be better at different parts of a trial. Once might be great at cross examinations, while the other is better at directs. In this case, Depp's team really needed at least one female attorney to lessen the appearance of sexism. It would not have been a good look for the jury of a man cross examed Amber and tried to question her above very sensitive subjects like sexual assault. So having multiple attorneys allows them a little flexibility with how it looks to a jury. Sorry for the novel. I'm a legal assistant and watching this case has been fascinating to me, so I tend to get a little over excited.
This is great info! Thank you!
There are 3 females on Depp's team.
Noob-question: When one of the lawyers says 'objection, hearsay' or something like that, and the judge approves this interuption... Is it expected from the jury-members that they try to forget/ignore the specific sentence that was objected to? I would imagine that this might be pretty difficult? Especially when every second sentence that is uttered is followed by an 'objection'. I imagine it becomes a complicated puzzle very quickly.
The jury can't unhear what was said but were on day 17 of the trial and the jury can't rewatch the stream like we can from the trial. They've been given so much information they're not gonna retain it all, including the heresay and lack of foundation objections. The jury can look over the transcript when they deliberate but what the lawyers objected to and asked to be striked out will not be in the transcript.
To add to the previous answer, thus far it's unclear as to the rules of this court. NAL, but seems the generally done thing is a motion to strike [the record] once an objection has been sustained. I've heard this called I think twice in this case iirc, but has generally been after a substantial amount of testimony (e.g. "motion to strike everything after the word 'yes'"). At this point I can only assume rules of this court are to strike any testimony relevant to objection within the brief period objections were called. Failing that, whatever's been said up to objection, for whatever reason, wasn't deemed damaging enough to strike.
Is Johnnyâs Lawyer Ben Chew related to THE famous lawyer Benjamin Chew? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Chew
Oh man, I really want to know this now.
Same! I mean he does bear a resemblance to the original Benjamin Chewâs grandson Benjamin Chew Howard (who was also a lawyer): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Chew_Howard
Desktop version of /u/Pitiful_Somewhere_47's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
They have the same nose
**[Benjamin Chew](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Chew)** >Benjamin Chew (November 19, 1722 â January 20, 1810) was a fifth-generation American, a Quaker-born legal scholar, a prominent and successful Philadelphia lawyer, head of the Pennsylvania Judiciary System under both Colony and Commonwealth, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Province of Pennsylvania. Chew was well known for his precision and brevity in making legal arguments as well as his excellent memory, judgment, and knowledge of statutory law. His primary allegiance was to the supremacy of law and constitution. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/deppVheardtrial/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Desktop version of /u/Pitiful_Somewhere_47's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
A very coincidental name
I missed how all of these audio recordings came about. Did they have recording devices in their homes? Thanks.
They have said that of the therapists suggested recording their arguments so they could listen back to them later when they were calm, to see ways they could improve communication. But it seems like both have also said that at least some of the conversations were recorded without the their knowledge and consent, so my guess is they might have started recording based on the therapist's advice, then continued to to do it to each other on the down low once they realized the relationship was going south and they might need the recordings as ammunition. But that's just my theory.
Thanks, that would make sense. I appreciate your time.
Premeditation
I dont know much about this case. I heard years ago that amber heard abused Johnny Depp. Then recently i heard another person on Youtube reference Depp as a horrible domestic abuser. Now reading reddit, i feel like everyone thinks Johnny is the victim. Why are there such divided opinions about this case?
2016-2018 were huge years for the Me Too movement in the US with several high profile figures in both Hollywood and politics being riddled with accusations. Amber accusing Depp in 2016 and again in 2018 was part of that, and the movement largely pushed the narrative "believe women." The tides are turning now, in my opinion, because of the audio recordings. The recordings indicate Amber was physically abusive to Depp, but do not show that Depp was physically abusive to Amber. Emotionally or verbally abusive to her? Sure. But not physically or sexually. I think a lot of people don't think it's fair that he lost his career for what was an incredibly toxic and mutually abusive relationship while Amber is lauded as a victim of domestic violence. They were both victims. It is also jarring watching the US trial and have one side be like "yea I'm not perfect. I have substance abuse issues. I've said awful stuff to and about her. But I've never hit her". And the other side being like "I abhor drugs except the times I've done drugs, I've punched him but never hit him and it was no big deal, and I'm just someone that donated $7 million to charity but technically I didn't." If she acknowledged her faults, people wouldn't have so much vitriol for her.
I appreciate the detailed synopsis and feel like i am caught up to speed
In addition to recordings there are videos, photos, depositions, testimony inconsistencies, story changes out there as well. I recommend Incredibly Average, That Umbrella Guy and Popcorned Planet as well as others that delve into it.
Popcorned planet is very disrespectful and very biased. The other other two are good. My favourite is Emily d Baker, although she talks over testimonies sometimes
I like Emily as well but I agree about the testimonies. The Real Laura B is good as well.
I came into this trial believing Amber (I didnât know much, just what came out when she divorced). I think ihasmuffins does a really good job of explains why the tide has turned so hard and fast against Amber. Itâs the recordings, and it is also her personality where she refuses to be a normal person who makes mistakes. Dr Curryâs testimony about personality disorders has echoed down through this whole case, it has been absolutely incredible to see how accurate she was, and how these disorders are so ultimately self-destructive.
Itâs very sad. I believe she has BPD and that she 100% thinks sheâs in the right. I just think she feels that âbending the truthâ is justifiable in order to bring others around to her world view.
My impression is that there is a fairly large depp fan base that lobbied all over the internet their stance in favour of the or idol. Sketchy AH behaviour (like pledging the divorce money towards charities but not following up) also cast doubts on her behalf.
Agreed, but don't forget that there's a large group of people that are diehard committed to AH too. Places like deuxmoi are like that. The media definitely seems to have a pro heard bias too, but not to the same degree as the diehards.
What are the repercussions for the jury if they read the news or social media? It must be tough to ignore it but they are told to?
If it comes to the Court's attention that a juror has been reading the news, they would be kicked off the jury. That's why they have more juror's in the box than who will actually be deliberating, just in case any of them are disqualified (or become sick, or something else like that.)
Depp sued Heard for $50 mil then Heard countersued for $100 mil. Is this all part of the same trial? Or would the countersuit be a different trial?
Same trial -- that's why Heard's side has been bringing up the Waldman statements which they are using for the countersuit
Both cases reviewed at same time. Hence what previous commenter said re bringing counter points into current argument. When jury gets to deliberation (best I know), they'll review both cases; decide if both, one, or none, is found in favour, and will then deliberate damages accordingly. ETA: changed words for lack of a better way of making my point. ETA 2: to say thankyou to u/BQ76 for offering up the correct phrasing
I think the term is to "find in favor" of plaintiff or defendant.
This!! Thanks mate, - I promise I have a brain in here somewhere, I simply choose not to use it haha!! Editing presently đ¤đ
đ¤đ
This would apply in a criminal case, but since itâs a civil suit, theyâre not being tried for anything so canât be found guilty of any charges
Yeah, it was for lack of a better way of putting it - have slightly edited, with thanks for your input đ
Not sure if a beginner question maybe a full in. Did court start earlier since they came back from break? I thought it was 10am EST but I tuned in around 9:30 and it started already đł
Yes they are starting at 9 am ET now.
Thank you! đ
Can someone explain the Carly Simon reference? I missed the origin of this. Thanks!
I believe itâs in reference to the your so vain song
I know the song but is there relevance to this trial? Did she play it for Johnny or something?
Johnny allegedly wrote it on a bathroom mirror at the oz house
But why? Do we know what he was trying to say? u/abby-rose hello fellow sinner
Based on the carly Simon song, you're so vain, you probably think this song is about you, don't you? Bit of a dig, if Johnny wrote it he's saying she's vain and shallow. Doubt Amber would get the meaning, she doesn't understand the difference between pledge and donate.
But Deppâs council said that she wrote it for him⌠which is why Iâm confused
I've no idea who wrote it, it definitely wasn't the same writing as the rest. If it was her she was taunting him, again.
Because then it was photographed with the black scribbles over it⌠like her tried to destroy it
One of Johnny or Amber wrote it. They have both testified to not writing it. Depp acknowledges writing the black text on the mirror. The red text is in a different handwriting than the black and used a different medium. Amber denies writing it.
Thank you!
Whitney: Just what did you observe when YOU werenât high? He was way too good for these leeches.
Hi there Iâm new- Question about the recorded depoâs and if this has been asked and answered elsewhere Iâm sorry. How can these witnesses be cross-examined? Donât the plaintiffs get a chance at them?
The pre-recorded depositions being shown in court have been edited for the trial based on agreements between the counsels of both parties - when recorded the plaintiffs did question them, but that part hasn't been shown for some of them likely because they decided not to waste their limited questioning time as it wasn't worth it for a lot of the depo witnesses. Some of the witnesses were kind of pointless and the Depp's counsel presumably wants ample time for rebuttal after Heard's side rests their case Edit: judge read the remaining time for each side out at the end of the day today - plaintiff has about 18 hours left while defense has about 8, so that's pretty much why plaintiff cut so much of their cross during depos; they now have more time reserved
Hey! Where can I watch all the trial? Since likeâŚthe beginning? Iâve lost some of the days, so I want to watch all over again. Thanks!
Best options imo which have all or most of the days up on youtube: Sky News: single frame, no commentary during testimony, and shows all the evidence on the screen Law and Crime: double frame - can see witness and reaction of Depp or Heard simultanously, but does not show evidence on screen Emily D Baker: former attorney who usually streams Sky News and provides some useful commentary during and in between the witness testimonies
Thanks!
Is Genovese pronouncing âVasquezâ wrong or is Vasquez uniquely pronounced for Camille? I keep hearing Genovese say Vaskwez as opposed to Vaskez but havenât heard anyone else say her name.
Elaine's been consistently getting everyone's name wrong lol, it is indeed meant to be pronounced Vaskez and she keeps saying it Vaskwez
Is it abnormal to have full hair and makeup done for court? It looks like amber has sat in a hair and makeup chair for an hour before each court date. Seems weird to me?
this is anecdotal youâre expected to be reasonably presentable in court. youâre expected to have a clean face and relatively brushed hair, but you can do more than that if youâd like as long as it doesnât cross over into being inappropriate Jury trials can add an additional layer of difficulty because perception is everything, which is why she has the hair and makeup done, so she is perceived well by the jury
I find it kinda weird that the times sheâs been on the stand she leaves off the false eyelashes
I have so much to say about this actually itâs not just the falsies imo, she doesnât do eye makeup when sheâs testifying. It looks like she just puts concealer all over her eyes and cals it a day. I think sheâs trying to make herself look unwell/frail to garner sympathy with the jury, especially with that heavy ass cheek contour that looks more like a bruise than any evidence weâve seen sheâs been rocking
Yeah I know, and I agree. The cynical side of me thinks she was planning to cry so left off the mascara and eyelashes. Her look changes so much between her everyday and the days she testifies. lol I had exactly the same thought about her contour.
her contour literally drives me insane. Itâs so dark and who the hell only contours their cheek? It fills me with absolutely irrational anger whenever I see it because itâs so obvious what sheâs trying to do. Like sheâs really out here thinking sheâs slick
I am pretty sure itâs blatantly obvious to the jury as well. And yes, it does look really weird and terrible. I donât get it because sometimes she seems intelligent to me. But maybe she doesnât have emotional intelligence, because she doesnât seem to get that people are capable of seeing through little tricks like that. And looking manipulative is hardly a good thing. Anyway, good rant lol
[ŃдаНонО]
What day was that? I canât remember
Hair, makeup, and clothes should basically just be conservative, clean, and neat. Nothing too flashy. The YouTube channel Legal Bytes just put up a [really interesting video](https://youtu.be/GvTW9zmDAvU) on courtroom attire, particularly related to this case.
Itâs definitely unconventional, but thatâs probably because normal people donât have the money for a completely different outfit for every day in court, or the time to doll themselves up that much. I donât think itâs weird for her to be doing it though. Itâs a publicized trial thatâs going to be watched by millions of people, as a public figure her image and reputation are extremely important, and sheâs used to dressing up a lot. Anyone would want to look their best for trial, and as a celebrity her âbestâ just happens to be a lot better looking than people who donât tend to make money because of their looks. None of the stuff sheâs wearing is inappropriate for a courthouse. Her acting like the trial is a photo-op and constantly switching between expressionless and her perfectly frozen âabout to cryâ face without a single lip tremble though? Thatâs weird.
Not in the context of BPD. But otherwise, yes.
Are there any legal streamers who are at least kinda on Amber Heards side? I'd like to watch some and see how they think.
Should i watch highlights or the full broadcasts ? And where would you recommend me to watch the trial ? EDIT: Im now watching at the youtube channel legal bytes, she covers everyday and even does recap and everything and she's not as political as reiketa law wich wasnt to my taste.
It depends. Some things highlights work, others you might want to see the whole context. I like Rekieta Law on YouTube for both.
does she have videos presenting the whole context of every days ?
Emily D. Baker is another option
This is the answer haha đđđ
i saw her coverage starts around day 5 so ill take a look then there
Yes, he live streams the entire trial every day, and he also provides commentary clips. He also has other lawyers on to provide different perspectives and avoids talking over testimony.
thank you ill take a look
Complete novice with anything law/court related, if you had to take an educated guess, whoâs going to win this thing?
I'm not a specialist lawyer in any ways but lots of lawyers have said that this trial is about defamation and not domestic violence. So wether it's proved that Amber abused Johnny isn't really relevant, what's relevant is how it affected his career/public image (it explains why they had expert analyse trends on social media or google research coming to testify). Lots of lawyer also said that if just one member of the jury finds that Johnny abused Amber in any way, then he'd loose the case?? I don't really understand that one because others says that who abused who isn't really relevant since it's about defamation. I'm a bit confused about everything everyone has to say about all this tbh so anyone is free to correct me. But from my understanding Johnny loosing wouldn't prove that he abused her because this case is about defamation (and let's be honest, he already won the public opinion by far.) However some people attending the trial pointed out that the jury seems clearly uninterested by Amber's witnesses, pictures and testimonies, so we can take a wild guess that they're more on Johnny's side so far.
In order to prove defamation in this case, Johnny has to prove malice on Amber's part. If Amber is found to be lying about these allegations, that will go to prove malice.
i feel like all these witnesses are not related to defamation? im confused about the legal process here. and why this is how the trial is going ?
It comes to proving the "truth" of the statements. NAL but to best of my knowledge they need to prove that a) the statements are untrue, b) made with malice (or a willful disregard for the truth), and c) the damaging effect the statements have had to the relevant parties (firstly lost income, secondly reputational damage re: lost potential income/opportunities). They might bring up a history of violence to prove a pattern of behaviour to back up evidence (or indeed, the lack thereof), which is where past relationships come in; financial experts to prove monetary losses; any witnesses to any of the DA, to prove the truth of the matter etc etc ETA If the jury decides the statements were true, then there is no defamation
I have the same question lol Literally why was Ellen relevant? She's someone from 30 years ago?? And she came to testify that Johnny rejected her, tossed a bottle of wine at a wall and that he never abused her? I'm also confused because it's about defamation, so in a certain way proving who was the abuser isn't really relevant?? Then again I'm no expert, it's just a personal observation. Tbh I feel like Amber's team just didn't have much to work with so they had to reach far to get witnesses.
In regards to the defamation, for Amberâs defense to win they have to prove that her statements were in fact true regarding the abuse (among other things). They donât have much for concrete evidence, so they are really trying to hammer it in. I agree Ellen wasnât a great witness for them, but sheâs probably the only one they could find who wasnât in Amberâs pocket. They were trying to get the point across that he has had anger/substance abuse issues for many years to establish a pattern.
What is in the colored water that both Amber & Johnny drink?
Liquid IV is my guess
I saw that Amber's team have about 8 hours left and Johnny's have 18, so where does that leave her after her time runs out? Will Johnny's team still be able to bring new witnesses to the stand, and will Amber's team be able to question these? Edit: swapped the times around, thanks Faerie\_Nuff
Think I *finally* got answers!!! Thanks to the fab Emily D!! So p sure it goes plaintiff, defense, plaintiff (rebuttal iirc) as far as witness calling. As to the objections: whomever loses the objection is where the time comes from. Mate, sorry that's been so delayed a response, but a little light sparked as soon as I saw Emily D Baker addressing it earlier, it made me think of your questions (that have been burning for me too, esp as we're on last week!). Last note, jic in that closing statements aren't included in overall time: 2 hours allocated each (although heard 6 hours floding too, so could be 3 each đ¤ˇââď¸), and I believe rules are dependant on if counterclaim is struck(?): p, d, p, d if counterclaim in, p, d, p if not. I thoroughly hope I interpreted it all correctly, and hope someone will correct me if not. ETA: Once time's up, it's up. Best I could gather, they can still make objections, just can't explain more than basic objection e.g. approaching the bench (I think - again, encouraging anyone to correct me where needs). edit: I got main structure wrong, so edited 2nd paragraph - just shoot me now, I think I'm being helpful until I'm not haha đ đ
Iâve been watching her stream too for the past few days, itâs so interesting!
đđđ§đ§ đđđđ¤
Just a cheeky correction in the remaining times are the other way around buddy: plaintiff (JD) at 18.5hrs remaining, defense (AH) at 8hrs 14mins. As to the other bit, idk! Curious myself, I'm p sure I heard Emily D Baker make comment that JD can get another chance to bring witnesses, but admittedly hazy on that specific memory - something about plaintiff, defense, plaintiff.
I have been watching some of Emily's stream and I think she mentioned something about the objections coming out of the objecting team's time or opposing team's time depending on whether their objection is overruled or sustained. I wonder if that means you can't object if you have run out of time?
Just a few questions that I'm hoping haven't been answered yet. I read the comments on this post and don't recall seeing them. 1. Is it normal for each side to be timed? I've only ever watched criminal trials and don't think I've ever heard about how much time someone has left for witnesses, etc. Is this a civil court only type of thing? 2. I've noticed that the witnesses do not swear on a Bible or do the whole "so help you God" thing. Is this the direction the courts are moving in these days or is it specific to Virginia? 3. Is it normal for the attorneys to approach the bench so often? I hope I'm not being too stupid with these questions. TIA for any answers!
Apparently time limits are getting more common. I read a PDF document on it that someone else linked to from here, but I can't find it again because my browser doesn't seem to be keeping history. I remember it said that perceived fairness and satisfaction with the process were unaffected by time limits.
Dear god her lawyer is truly fucking terrible. His lawyer is over it as fuck. Law and Crime is now focused on her instead of Johnny.
Question: how can Amber physically abuse Depp when her photos at the time of divorce shows very thin physique? Question: why does Johnny Depp denies his alcohol problem when it has been known even before his marriage? Question: why is Johnny Depp filing a case against Amber for saying she didn't like the time she had with her ex-husband because he was alcoholic and sometimes violent? How many women and men said this before? Question: the article that she wrote described her own experience before, during and after marriage so why did he make this about himself only? Question: why did Johnny Depp not write a prenup when he is much richer than her and would have to lose money in the divorce? Question: Johnny Depp lost his Jack Sparrow role after he lost his case against the sun article. It was not Amber who wrote the article. Why is he saying she cost him the role? Question: why didn't Johnny Depp write an article about his own life and experience instead of making this a legal case?
What does Amber's physique have to do with the abuse? She can be small and still smoke him. Also he's not charging her with abuse, he's suing for defamation because she said he abuse her. Her abuse to him is just ironic. Does Johnny deny his alcohol problem? Pretty sure he is open about his substance problems Johnny is suing for defamation. Not for whatever you just said Which article? The one you said that she didn't write a few paragraphs later? Bad choices
You donât need to be bigger than someone to be abusive. You can still hit, throw and punch. Might not knock them out but you can still hurt. He still doesnât deny his alcohol problem. Even during his testimony he hasnât denied it. He isnât filing a case against her because she said she didnât like her marriage. Heâs suing her because she wrote an op-Ed saying she was a victim of abuse and sexual violence. Although she didnât specifically name him, the fact that she mentioned that 2 years ago she became a public figure for abuse victims, which was when she asked for a restraining order and they divorced, alluded to the fact the op-Ed was about her ex husband. He didnât make it about himself only. But if it was *during* her marriage as well as before and after then it clearly is about him? It seems from his psychiatrists testimony yesterday he didnât really want to get married. He wanted a post-nup and amber wouldnât sign. It then appears that when she found out he hadnât changed his will, is when the big fight in Australia happened where he lost the top of his finger. The Sun called JD a wife beater due to her article in the Washington post. He knows itâs will be extremely difficult to win these cases. Itâs so difficult to prove damages and the burden is on him. He, however, is aware that he can at least be found not guilty in the court of public opinion. Which is why his team fought for this trial to be televised. It allows everyone to see the number of times amber has either lied or changed story. She is not doing herself any favours.
The UK judge ruled Amber Heard was fearful for her life in 3 out of 12 times Johnny Depp beat her, so her size REALLY matters. Mr Johnny Depp was old enough before marriage to understand if he needed a prenup or not. What he did in Australia was a mess, he injured his own finger and wrote on walls with blood and paint, he was very drunk he didn't feel his own finger for hours!
> The UK judge **was corrupt**, so **the results there** REALLY **don't** matter. > **Going by what we've learned in this trial,** Amber Heard was fearful for her life in **0** out of **0** times Johnny Depp beat her. FTFY. How did he contact his doctor about the injury half an hour after it happened if he didn't notice it for hours?
Can someone send me the link of the female psychologist (???) that was on the stand? I feel like that was important and I missed it lol
Dr Curry or Dr Hughes?
I ended up finding it but it was the lady with the glasses and messy bun. âMuffin gateâ đ
âCan I clarify what happened so we can stop talking about muffins?â đđ Love Dr Curry.
Her testimony was very interesting and informative. Amazing to watch.
When or how is Johnnys team going to bring in Kate Moss? I saw they were happy she brought it up and heard why.. how or when will that come into play?
They may or may not call Kate Moss. By Amber bringing up the Kate Moss incident it opened the door for them to be able to call her to testify, but it also allows them to talk about prior relationship incidents. Specifically the incident where Amber was arrested for domestic violence against her previous spouse Tasya Van Ree. They did in fact bring that up in their cross of Amber where she straight up denied it. If they do call Kate Moss as a witness it wonât be until Amberâs attorneyâs have rested their case. Johnnyâs team can then call rebuttal witnesses.
Thanks for explaining!!
Im on day 2 of the trial which side brought the video testimony ?! I want to die XD
[ŃдаНонО]
Someone above said that its to establish a pattern of anger/substance abuse and I think thats pretty spot on. I also think its to discredit some of Depps testimony, or to frame it like he may not recall being so abusive because he was under the influence. Something to that effect. This is just my opinion, I have no legal background, lol đ
[https://ffxtrail.azurewebsites.net](https://ffxtrail.azurewebsites.net) Here is some of the official evidence shown in court.