I do not think they'll argue makeup a lot, they'll use the metadata expert for that to poke holes in the dates at which Heard alleges theses photos were taken.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Johnny Depp v Amber Heard's defamation trial is underway [UPDATE: Verdict reached. Johnny Depp won.]
- Thread starter WinFonda
- Start date
- Status
I do not think they'll argue makeup a lot, they'll use the metadata expert for that to poke holes in the dates at which Heard alleges theses photos were taken.
Yeah, that's probably safer. Especially if the stuff about using makeup and ice to cover such severe injuries is technically possible in theory (if you're like the greatest makeup artist of all time).
Considering Depp's team has 16 hours and Heard's team has 4, Dennison wasn't really wasting time. They're using the ton of time they have to make the cross examinations real messy and require a proper redirect, which Heard's team don't have the time to do if they want to cross examine on the rebuttal. So either Heard's witnesses are left as a messy argument that the jury can't remember the actual meaning of, or Depp's rebuttal witnesses are just left completely unchallenged (which then ends up giving Depp's team even MORE free time because they won't have to redirect).
Anecdotal of course, but ice is not some kind of magical aid here. Relatively minor swelling to the face can takes days to go down even if you do your best to reduce it. At least in my experience. I don't know how much that stuff would even be a reliable thing for Heard's people to lean on.
As others have stated, AH slipped in one of her testimonies and now JD's team is allowed to bring Kate Moss to the stand. This video explains it.
I also think they can attack the makeup claim during closing statement... get a female attorney to use a "bruise kit" during closing to create a fake bruise, cheeky af but it's effective since Heard herself slipped up.
Get the attorney to apply foundation then concealer then color correction (which is the order Heard said she used) and watch as this creates a fake bruise instead of hiding one... the possibilities during closing arguments are endless.
Perfection. It does feel amazingly close to watching the Electric Sun trial.
That is still a very, very long list of people to go through in ~16 hours... It's a fantastic list of people, I just don't want them to rush through them.
Elaine also has 4 hours left and I don't feel like they've made any sort of case for themselves, I just hope those ~16 hours are enough to go through each witness. That's... 16 witnesses in total, including Johnny? So 1 hour with each (and all of those hours won't be rebuttal-free... Again, Elaine still has 4 hours left).
They don't have to call all of them. That said, they do have a lot more time than Amber's team, so if they cannot cross, Depp's team would save time on redirect and call more witnesses.
Are those time limits something specific to Australian trials?
I've never heard of that in American ones.
I've never heard of that in American ones.
does cross-examination takes time from the clock too? If so, does this means amber's legal team won't be able to cross-examine any of the deep's witnesses considering the low amount of time remaining?
That's a pretty dumb system if that's the case imo... it should be a limited time per witness so that both teams can cross-examine all witness, it's not fair otherwise
obviously heard's team played this badly and it's a great advantage for depp, and that's good, i just find such a system to be quite weird
That's a pretty dumb system if that's the case imo... it should be a limited time per witness so that both teams can cross-examine all witness, it's not fair otherwise
obviously heard's team played this badly and it's a great advantage for depp, and that's good, i just find such a system to be quite weird
It's perfectly fair, both sides began with precisely the same amount of time. Some witnesses merit a longer cross than others as well. It's on Heards team that they've wasted an enormous amount of time crossing Johnny's witnesses and on some rather ineffective witnesseswhile depps team has been more concise. I mean heards team crossed johnny for like 2 days while Camille took only about 2 hours or so on amber. I agree that it is odd, but it's perfectly fair as long as the same rules apply to both. It would be unfair to extend heards time when depps team has been saving time they cpuld have spent crossing ambers witnesses longer. It does look likely thay Amber won't have much time to cross fepps rebuttal witnesses potentially, but that's their own fault. They can still raise objections.
I think Jennifer Howell will be a key one if her testimony is anything like the declaration floating around. She'll basically testify that Whitney lied under oath and told her that she was afraid amber would kill johnny, that amber cut off Johnny's finger, and that Amber has abused Whitney for years and that Amber chose her charities not because she was close to them but put of clout and publicity and that elon later sent her a checn on behalf of amber .This is whitneys former boss mentor and close friend. Ambers lawyers would probably try to make the case that she is bitter Amber didn't donate the divorce to the charity she runs. Of she comes off as credible it could blow a hole in Ambers and Whitney's story.
That's On Cinema at the Cinema. An Adult Swim parody of a movie review show.
Let's just say it goes places
Elaine won't be able to effectively cross-examine all 16. If, say for the sake of example, Depp's team allowed for 60 minutes for each witness (50 minute direct, 10 minutes for redirect), Heard's team would only have 15 minutes to cross examine each one. If they try to cross-examine all the witnesses then they're all going to be really weak cross-examinations that are going to need little in the way of redirect from Depp's team. If they decide not to cross-examine some of the rebuttal witnesses then Depp's team basically get a free witness that doesn't get criticised by the defendant team as well as 10 minutes extra on the clock.
All Depp's team has to do is make sure each witness they put in requires an in depth cross and leave something really strong to end on. I could see them using Walter Hamada to force a lengthy cross early on because he can completely shut down Amber's countersuit just by saying that they didn't reduce her screen time because of the lawsuits. That's assuming the judge doesn't dismiss the countersuit since they haven't yet been able to prove vicariousness between Depp and Waldman.
Yes it does, and both sides agreed to this ruling specifically at the beginning of the trial.
wow. I guess dont mention that you watch the trial outside dedicated places about it. I just mentioned to someone I know casually irl (I wouldnt say im friends with him) that I was watching it, and they blew up at me. Saying its a waste of time, and "trying to hide REAL trials by putting this fake one front and center."....sounded like some dumb right wing conspiracy theory. And turns out it actually is...wtf
www.reuters.com
Why video streaming is permitted in the Depp-Heard trial but was not in Ghislaine Maxwell’s
As the defamation case filed by actor Johnny Depp against his former wife and actress Amber Heard unraveled, some social media users online have questioned why this trial is being streamed but the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell in 2021 was not.
www.reuters.com
There has been conflicting information on this and the members of lawtube are split on how it could end up. Some say the Heard team may run out the clock and lose the right to cross so they can try to appeal the decision with another Judge using the timing rule as an excuse. Others say if AH's team had objections to the timing they should have said that at the beginning and only raising objections once you poorly managed your time isn't going to go far. One brought up something from other Virginia trials that if they run out of time they may get a mere 10 mins per witness to cross.
It is going to end up with how the Judge decides to run her court. They got their time allotted to them at the top, and they get reminded each day of their remaining time. AH's team burnt an extra day cross examining Johnny Depp. If they wanted to spend that time on Johnny then I think it is only fair they don't get to burn more everywhere else. I guess giving them 10 mins to get in what they can afterwards is fair but I don't think that is a hard rule.
Watching cross of Kathryn Arnold. Cross is bit of an dud, but at least it highlights some good(?) parts like her thinking that Pirates 6 can't be considered as damages for Depp because movie doesn't exist, but all hypothetical movies that may have existed in future that Heard may have gotten parts in are damages towards her.
Bit of an blatant double standard there.
Bit of an blatant double standard there.
User warned: Please avoid conspiracy
Sorry i linked the wrong reply
Official Staff Communication
Removed twitter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless there is better audio I would take it with a grain of salt as the mind is very suggestive with stuff like this. I cant hear anything at all but I just officially started vacation with some shots.
This is pretty damning if true, can they bring that up at all? This is insane.
I couldn't have told you what was said unless someone captioned that, so I'm going to go with it meaning nothing unless it's actually addressed.
Eh... I hear "Is there something...", rest is impossible to make out.
I couldn't hear that at all without the captions. We should be very careful with this sort of stuff.
"Is that all of their testimonies? Is there something I'm not allowed to talk about?"
"No".
Listen to it again while reading what I just wrote. Again, this isn't something we should be spreading, IMO. It's very dangerous if untrue.
If there's a better source/audio that confirms this? Fine. But I don't think we should share stuff like that unless we are certain it's true.
Otherwise it helps delegitimize the proof/evidence that we already have about Heard. It gives media the incentive to say "See! They are spreading conspiracies yet again!" and that shit just hurts Johnny's already credible evidence.
Dr Spiegel already admitted to being unethical according to the definition Dennison read for him. That's damning enough.
Last edited:
I gave it a listen and sorry, but this is the whole "salute the marines" drama all over again. It's mostly inaudible and people are going to hear in it what they want to hear.
I really wish we could stop posting nonsense like this in the thread. It's really not helpful and its dragging discourse down. Even the tiniest bit of common sense should tell you that that clip and its reading doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Yeah whatever to what that's actually supposed to be but this tweet chain re: Spiegel in the replies to that was illuminating, figured it was worth a share:
Whole thing is worth a read. Spiegel seems like a clown regardless of what's actually being said on that recording.
Whole thing is worth a read. Spiegel seems like a clown regardless of what's actually being said on that recording.
Spiegel's career could be toast because of his antics yesterday.
This is the part I didn't get yesterday and why I asked if he was a psychologist or psychiatrist, and then later why he said something about not being part of the "medical community" (or something like that) and thus not being familiar with the rules.
Psychiatrists are held to the same standards as other doctors, so it didn't make an awful lot of sense to me when he said it on the stand. I almost feel bad for Heard's legal team. There's no way they knew that he was going to screw it up so badly.
wow. I guess dont mention that you watch the trial outside dedicated places about it. I just mentioned to someone I know casually irl (I wouldnt say im friends with him) that I was watching it, and they blew up at me. Saying its a waste of time, and "trying to hide REAL trials by putting this fake one front and center."....sounded like some dumb right wing conspiracy theory. And turns out it actually is...wtf
Why video streaming is permitted in the Depp-Heard trial but was not in Ghislaine Maxwell’s
As the defamation case filed by actor Johnny Depp against his former wife and actress Amber Heard unraveled, some social media users online have questioned why this trial is being streamed but the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell in 2021 was not.
I talked to one of my colleagues about it and she kept saying she didn't follow the trial, but just thought it was unfair towards Heard. Described it as kicking someone that was already down. I tried to explain to her how terrible Heard has been shown to be in this relationship, but she just kept going "both sides" without proof basically. Some people are just not within reason.
Yep this is exactly how evps in ghost hunting shows work. Brains are good at making the sounds match the captions.
Amazing summary, thanks!I'm catching up, watched the first half through the lunch break and its been pretty devastating for Amber I'd say.
Witness 1: An expert on orthopedics from the AH team that tried to state that it was unlikely that Amber actually threw the bottle that severed Depp's finger for....reasons that seemed dubious. Cross exam by Camille on Depp's side basically got him to prove he 'misstated' on several facts about the incident and that he DID NOT consider many findings in evidence that fed into his dumb conclusion. Basically, it didn't look great for him, but at this point everyone likely forgot his testimony because next came a real highlight of the trial...
Witness 2: Ooh boy...
So this "Dr." or fellow or something made a LOT of statements born out of supposed scientific fact and "evidence-based" discovery that led to a loooong questioning phase. Seemingly devised to counter the claims made previously by more notable witnesses like Dr. Curry(Depp's court approved Dr. that provided testimony about Amber's Narcissistic tendencies and other resulting disorders from direct examination) and surprisingly even Dr. Hughes(Amber's prior expert that appeared to argue she's actually perfect directly following Curry a few weeks back.)
This guy just laid waste to it all and pretty much felt like a hit-job, a hail-mary for team Amber to give the jruy a shotgun blast of science words in the final days of trial to make it appear that Depp was an ego-driven monster that was the real narcissist....
It didn't go well for him in cross.
He huffed and he puffed and he called the court case a sham and threw expert testimony under the bus. He was petulant, he was clearly motivated with bias, he had no proof to forming conclusions on actual facts, he "misstated" a few times, he misconstrued evidence in front of a jury that is VERY familiar given how many weeks it has been discussed to death. It was one of the wilder testimonies of the last several weeks.
And I'm only up to lunch break so far.
That's my GF right now, she's slowly seeing what's happening but it's mind blowing how media can really seep into the mind. I was the same back in 2015 or when ever the original trail was, only heard wife beater and that was enough for me.
I hear: "I'll rely on her testimony... is there something I'm not allowed to talk about?"
Fuck off with this shit, please. If you don't understand why this is not the place for your TikTok memes, you're better off staying out of the thread.
I still can't get over the people on Twitter and the media trying to both sides this thing. Like people legit believe they were both awful? Like from the evidence and testimonies, Heard is on an entire different level of abuse that Depp hasn't even began to approach. Like I feel genuinely sick seeing progressives that I've followed and liked for so long go on about their support for her.
Like aren't we the ones who pride ourselves on fact checking? Yet the reaction I've seen reminds me so much of the Right and their reaction whenever faced with facts that don't reflect their worldview. Stick your fingers in your ears and double down because God forbid you be wrong about anything. Also don't forget to constantly point out extremist behavior from some people and go "Oh look see, the right doesn't believe her so she MUST be the victim!"
Like, have we seriously become so infected with hashtag culture that we simply block out anything that doesn't fall under the #believewomen mantra. Even though there is overwhelming evidence that this woman in particular is an abuser and a liar who very likely used the #metoo movement to gain more fame for herself and kill her ex's career and reputation.
To all the male victims of abuse, I can't even begin to imagine what seeing these takes has done to your mental well-being.
I'm always gonna stand with leftists beliefs. I'll always be pro BLM, pro reproductive rights, pro unionizing, pro healthcare for all, pro women's rights, pro diversity, pro LGBTQIA+ etc. But I can't lie when I say that these reactions have damaged my faith in the left to not be susceptible to falling into right wing style trappings of never being able to admit error if it doesnt fall into their belief system. Like this shit has legitimately truly fucked me up
Like aren't we the ones who pride ourselves on fact checking? Yet the reaction I've seen reminds me so much of the Right and their reaction whenever faced with facts that don't reflect their worldview. Stick your fingers in your ears and double down because God forbid you be wrong about anything. Also don't forget to constantly point out extremist behavior from some people and go "Oh look see, the right doesn't believe her so she MUST be the victim!"
Like, have we seriously become so infected with hashtag culture that we simply block out anything that doesn't fall under the #believewomen mantra. Even though there is overwhelming evidence that this woman in particular is an abuser and a liar who very likely used the #metoo movement to gain more fame for herself and kill her ex's career and reputation.
To all the male victims of abuse, I can't even begin to imagine what seeing these takes has done to your mental well-being.
I'm always gonna stand with leftists beliefs. I'll always be pro BLM, pro reproductive rights, pro unionizing, pro healthcare for all, pro women's rights, pro diversity, pro LGBTQIA+ etc. But I can't lie when I say that these reactions have damaged my faith in the left to not be susceptible to falling into right wing style trappings of never being able to admit error if it doesnt fall into their belief system. Like this shit has legitimately truly fucked me up
The thing that boggles my mind the most is the notion that AH being a liar is somehow detrimental to the MeToo movement.
I mean, how? Why? If a liar makes false accusations, riding that wave, what has the MeToo movement do with it? If a vegan eats a burger, it somehow discredits all vegans? Crappy analogy, I know, but that's basically how that sounds to me.
BTW, I saw everything this trial has to offer and there's absolutely nothing that swayed me from thinking she's lying. Not about everything, maybe, but she's definitely lying on the things that actually matter.
One factor is that in practise, when most people 'do their research', they seek summaries, rather than going through what is an increasingly large volume of information directly. It's pretty stock and is how information gathering is generally approached. But in this instance, simple summaries - and those most commonly floated about - shave off a lot of key information and nuances, or lack clear citation. Things that are very important in understanding this case, as a general abstract misses a lot of the particulars, and will indeed read much like many other cases which will cause misleading conclusions based on comparison
It's why the references to a certain previous ruling are particularly difficult to dissuade people of, because the typical person isn't going to dig into the documentation or legal framework of that case. They have the ruling itself and assume it must be based in something - without looking up what that basis even was - and so work off of that level of information
It's why the references to a certain previous ruling are particularly difficult to dissuade people of, because the typical person isn't going to dig into the documentation or legal framework of that case. They have the ruling itself and assume it must be based in something - without looking up what that basis even was - and so work off of that level of information
It genuinely sucks, I agree. I know i used to believe all the Amber Heard stuff until this trial, but it def set the evidence straight and i feel awful for Johnny now. It really does suck when people can't admit they were wrong but i still think the left overall is better at it, but i think it's a human fault in general.
- Status