Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts

[Listar]

Can someone explain why Deppos team celebrated the mention of Moss, when realistically it didn't offer anything at all to the trial?
I'm confused why they were so happy about it?

You cannot think of it from our viewpoint. You have to think of it from the jury viewpoint. It is assumed that the jury knows nothing about the case. So when Amber casually drops Moss name in there implying Depp has previous cases of DV of course depps team is more than happy they can debunk and once again shows that Ambers words are not trustworthy. Not to mention to also allow Moss to drop in a few good personality mention of Depp in there.

Don’t forget the jury are human and they can judge however they want based on whatever stuff they heard. It’s not a black and white thing but more about who can woo the jury more wins the case. Or in this case maybe offend the jury less will win ‍

 

[Listar]

What happened yesterday with the photo expert was really nasty.

For people who don't know: Heard was meant to submit her electric devices for forensic analysis back in November. She ignored the court order.

It was agreed that they would be submitted to be cloned under the supervision of her expert and a neutral lawyer, who would determine which files were relevant to the case.

Since she failed to comply up until April she just sent what she felt was relevant, which was over 50,000 images, which were often repeats of each other which meta data changed.

Given the way that they sent it he was unable to go into anything other than that they had been through editing software and he was unable to validate the originals. Heard's team objected whenever he was trying to make wider points using his expertise.

They created the problem and then used the problem to mask the deception. Then tried to use that to discredit the expert.

It's actually disgusting. It also shows how terrible the judge was in the UK to accept this evidence uncritically.

The fact she blatantly lied to the jury saying the two pictures are not the same and are taken separately with different lighting is very bad for her. I heard some lawyer commentary that said sometimes jury will punish you for lying to them (treating them as idiots essentially) even though they think you have a case. I felt the moment those two photos merged together showing it’s the same photo basically kills all her credibility.

 

[NicolaSacco]

You cannot think of it from our viewpoint. You have to think of it from the jury viewpoint. It is assumed that the jury knows nothing about the case. So when Amber casually drops Moss name in there implying Depp has previous cases of DV of course depps team is more than happy they can debunk and once again shows that Ambers words are not trustworthy. Not to mention to also allow Moss to drop in a few good personality mention of Depp in there.

Don’t forget the jury are human and they can judge however they want based on whatever stuff they heard. It’s not a black and white thing but more about who can woo the jury more wins the case. Or in this case maybe offend the jury less will win ‍

My main thought on her inclusion is: this trial is long, it’s probably boring for the jury 99% of the time, once they’ve gotten over the excitement of seeing JD in the flesh. I’ll bet every one of those jurors was paying attention when Moss spoke. So although she didn’t say anything of huge importance, her words will carry a ton more weight than lots of these witnesses.

 

[Tarrou]

Yeah, because it's neither relevant to the case, and didn't really do much in favour of Deppo, other than refute some petty rumours.
When you think of what the actual case is about, it offered nothing.

it’s definitely very relevant

 

[Listar]

My main thought on her inclusion is: this trial is long, it’s probably boring for the jury 99% of the time, once they’ve gotten over the excitement of seeing JD in the flesh. I’ll bet every one of those jurors was paying attention when Moss spoke. So although she didn’t say anything of huge importance, her words will carry a ton more weight than lots of these witnesses.

Yeah I feel a lot of people don’t understand how a jury verdict court works. A bit different from judge ruling where a judge have to justify their ruling whereas the jury does not have to. They can basically even be a racist or sexist and judge you by that in their mind and there’s nothing you can do about it. I don’t like people with tattoos so regardless I will find him guilty, then it’s tough luck for you.

So when people say oh they can’t judge based on evidence like “hearsay” or “speculation” or “previous history in other areas are not indicative of this event, like Kate Moss no abuse history vs Ambers claim” are not factually correct. Once they heard it they can use it to form their opinion, that’s why those rulings are for the court to not bring them in in the first place. Therefore it is gamesmanship of the lawyer in how they can circumvent the rules to bring it in for the jury to hear it. Case in point all the hearsay used by Ambers “expert witness” presented as facts.

 

[Drainy]

Yeah I feel a lot of people don’t understand how a jury verdict court works. A bit different from judge ruling where a judge have to justify their ruling whereas the jury does not have to. They can basically even be a racist or sexist and judge you by that in their mind and there’s nothing you can do about it. I don’t like people with tattoos so regardless I will find him guilty, then it’s tough luck for you.

So when people say oh they can’t judge based on evidence like “hearsay” or “speculation” or “previous history in other areas are not indicative of this event, like Kate Moss no abuse history vs Ambers claim” are not factually correct. Once they heard it they can use it to form their opinion, that’s why those rulings are for the court to not bring them in in the first place. Therefore it is gamesmanship of the lawyer in how they can circumvent the rules to bring it in for the jury to hear it. Case in point all the hearsay used by Ambers “expert witness” presented as facts.

Experts are allowed to use hearsay to form their opinions.

They are supposed to have sufficient expertise and scruples to weigh it up and form a professional opinion which they can testify under oath is the truth.

Just look at what happens when you bring in the kind of experts who will just side with you though!

 

[Himannv]

Heard didn't say it actually happened though as far as I am aware, merely that she heard rumours about it and was worried the same would happen to her sister during an altercation.

Which was why I found it all a bit overblown, all this about rumours.

I think if you look at it in isolation, it's nothing special and only lasted 3 minutes. However, Depp also added that he had already talked to Heard about that very incident and you'd think that as his wife, she'd know about it. So, it is ultimately a testimony that proves that Heard was lying about something when she was on the stand. So if she was lying about that, she could have been lying about a lot of other things, which is how these sort of arguments work in the courtroom.

Another angle is that Moss was probably not allowed to testify since the defence probably argued that her testimony was not relevant. By referring to that incident, it allowed Depp's team to bring that additional testimony in where her account of that event shows that Depp was actually a good guy in that scenario. Once again, taken in isolation, that's not much, but if you consider there was another witness testifying regarding a violent incident between Heard and her ex-wife, it kind of shows how Heard had a past relationship where she was the abuser, while Depp did not.

I reckon Depp's lawyer will tie it all together in the closing statement and present it to the jury.

 

[Listar]

Experts are allowed to use hearsay to form their opinions.

They are supposed to have sufficient expertise and scruples to weigh it up and form a professional opinion which they can testify under oath is the truth.

Just look at what happens when you bring in the kind of experts who will just side with you though!

Yup that’s my point. Basically she just sat there and just repeating everything Amber said as gospel without actually forming much of an opinion other than it’s a victim that say it so it much have truth in it. And that’s allowed because she’s an expert witness whereas other witnesses are not allowed to mention it. Therefore now they have brought into the minds of the jury of what Amber “said”, and can use that to form their opinion.

 

[Drainy]

Yup that’s my point. Basically she just sat there and just repeating everything Amber said as gospel without actually forming much of an opinion other than it’s a victim that say it so it much have truth in it. And that’s allowed because she’s an expert witness whereas other witnesses are not allowed to mention it. Therefore now they have brought into the minds of the jury of what Amber “said”, and can use that to form their opinion.

Hughes was the worst. She was like a launderer for Heard's outlandish and unsubstantiated claims

 

[Champ]

it’s definitely very relevant

Interesting reading BBCs story about Moss's testimony,
An admittedly possibly biased source said the following: source close to Ms Heard told the BBC that they believe Ms Moss's testimony will have little impact on the case when it comes to the "central issue" of "whether Amber Heard can exercise her right of freedom of speech".

Now I'm not going to get into semantics regarding the source and the biased nature of it, but the word 'central issue' are what gets me thinking, and the reason why it doesn't appear to have any relevance to this case at all.
Deppo and Heard are not there to argue or prove that Deppo was violent in a past relationship based on rumours.
All in all, Moss just appears like a character witness, one which both teams could legitimately call.

I have had some good answers regarding why it may be relevant, but if I was a member of the jury, that story wouldn't be relevant to the case and so I would disregard it entirely.

 

[ArjenIsM3]

What happened yesterday with the photo expert was really nasty.

For people who don't know: Heard was meant to submit her electric devices for forensic analysis back in November. She ignored the court order.

It was agreed that they would be submitted to be cloned under the supervision of her expert and a neutral lawyer, who would determine which files were relevant to the case.

Since she failed to comply up until April she just sent what she felt was relevant, which was over 50,000 images, which were often repeats of each other which meta data changed.

Given the way that they sent it he was unable to go into anything other than that they had been through editing software and he was unable to validate the originals. Heard's team objected whenever he was trying to make wider points using his expertise.

They created the problem and then used the problem to mask the deception. Then tried to use that to discredit the expert.

It's actually disgusting. It also shows how terrible the judge was in the UK to accept this evidence uncritically.

Did Depp's team bring all this up? And if not, could they still do that today?

 

[Champ]

I think if you look at it in isolation, it's nothing special and only lasted 3 minutes. However, Depp also added that he had already talked to Heard about that very incident and you'd think that as his wife, she'd know about it. So, it is ultimately a testimony that proves that Heard was lying about something when she was on the stand. So if she was lying about that, she could have been lying about a lot of other things, which is how these sort of arguments work in the courtroom.

Another angle is that Moss was probably not allowed to testify since the defence probably argued that her testimony was not relevant. By referring to that incident, it allowed Depp's team to bring that additional testimony in where her account of that event shows that Depp was actually a good guy in that scenario. Once again, taken in isolation, that's not much, but if you consider there was another witness testifying regarding a violent incident between Heard and her ex-wife, it kind of shows how Heard had a past relationship where she was the abuser, while Depp did not.

I reckon Depp's lawyer will tie it all together in the closing statement and present it to the jury.

Good points, certainly the second one is.

The first point, not sure it proves Heard was lying, if anything it could prove she was guilty of believing rumours over her own husband, which makes it appear Heard was properly afraid of Deppo maybe?

 

[Drainy]

Did Depp's team bring all this up? And if not, could they still do that today?

They can't go into it in front of the jury.

Even though Heard claimed she complied on the stand it would be too prejudicial to disclose that she hadn't . Same with Heard's arrest for DV.

 

[Tarrou]

Interesting reading BBCs story about Moss's testimony,
An admittedly possibly biased source said the following: source close to Ms Heard told the BBC that they believe Ms Moss's testimony will have little impact on the case when it comes to the "central issue" of "whether Amber Heard can exercise her right of freedom of speech".

Now I'm not going to get into semantics regarding the source and the biased nature of it, but the word 'central issue' are what gets me thinking, and the reason why it doesn't appear to have any relevance to this case at all.
Deppo and Heard are not there to argue or prove that Deppo was violent in a past relationship based on rumours.
All in all, Moss just appears like a character witness, one which both teams could legitimately call.

I have had some good answers regarding why it may be relevant, but if I was a member of the jury, that story wouldn't be relevant to the case and so I would disregard it entirely.

why are you calling him Deppo?

 

[RedRonaldo]

Good points, certainly the second one is.

The first point, not sure it proves Heard was lying, if anything it could prove she was guilty of believing rumours over her own husband, which makes it appear Heard was properly afraid of Deppo maybe?

From all the damning tapes we’ve listened to, it doesn’t appear Heard was afraid of Depp in any sense. It’s rather often the other way round. Hence I think no one would have drawn such conclusion.

 

[Denis79]

Good points, certainly the second one is.

The first point, not sure it proves Heard was lying, if anything it could prove she was guilty of believing rumours over her own husband, which makes it appear Heard was properly afraid of Deppo maybe?

If this statement was an isolated incident I could believe that but she has been caught in several intentional lies during this trial. There are even few that are so bad that they would be considered perjury.

 

[Mercurial]

How is this trial even going at this point? Who will win it? Does she even have $50m if she loose?

 

[ArjenIsM3]

Interesting reading BBCs story about Moss's testimony,
An admittedly possibly biased source said the following: source close to Ms Heard told the BBC that they believe Ms Moss's testimony will have little impact on the case when it comes to the "central issue" of "whether Amber Heard can exercise her right of freedom of speech".

Now I'm not going to get into semantics regarding the source and the biased nature of it, but the word 'central issue' are what gets me thinking, and the reason why it doesn't appear to have any relevance to this case at all.
Deppo and Heard are not there to argue or prove that Deppo was violent in a past relationship based on rumours.
All in all, Moss just appears like a character witness, one which both teams could legitimately call.

I have had some good answers regarding why it may be relevant, but if I was a member of the jury, that story wouldn't be relevant to the case and so I would disregard it entirely.

I wouldn't disregard it if I was a witness. Amber Heard exercised her right of freedom of speech, sure, but if what she said damaged Depp (it did) and she can't prove that what she said was true (she can't so far IMHO) then Depp definitely has a case. All the evidence she has is her word. Surely then it is relevant whether or not Depp has a history of domestic violence which is basically what she claimed. So Moss saying Depp never abused her surely is relevant to the case. It's not a smoking gun, no, but then there isn't one. Which is another reason why I'm leaning towards Depp being right in the case although obviously he's no angel.

 

[RedRonaldo]

How is this trial even going at this point? Who will win it? Does she even have $50m if she loose?

She only has around 8m, so even if she loss, I don’t think she really need to pay 50m. It could be 8m and she could declare bankruptcy, or it could be any other amount decided by court.

 

[Himannv]

Good points, certainly the second one is.

The first point, not sure it proves Heard was lying, if anything it could prove she was guilty of believing rumours over her own husband, which makes it appear Heard was properly afraid of Deppo maybe?

I don't know how the jury will see it. Depp's lawyer will certainly mention the incorrect aspect of it in her testimony in the closing statement along with other possibly incorrect claims. Basically the idea will be to cast as much doubt on her credibility and that of her witnesses. The opposition will do the same really - it's the word of one set of people against the other with small pieces of evidence thrown in here and there to support either claim.

 

[Smores]

From all the damning tapes we’ve listened to, it doesn’t appear Heard was afraid of Depp in any sense. It’s rather often the other way round. Hence I think no one would have drawn such conclusion.

I don't think anyone could possibly believe she was terrified as she claims. There's an obvious power imbalance even if it was mutual domestic violence and yet there's evidence of her goading him repeatedly.

A destructive relationship where she's part of that dynamic seems far more likely. It's still damning of Depp if it were true but to me that points to something very different than what Heard told the world so damages on that basis seem reasonable.

 

[Listar]

How is this trial even going at this point? Who will win it? Does she even have $50m if she loose?

I don’t think it will be 50m. Rumour has it it may be 7m which is the figure of their divorce settlement and maybe a middle finger to her for the ACLU debacle. I mean that was pretty bad. It got me in stitches that pledge vs donation arguement.

 

[shamans]

Only you could look at a clearly detailed breakdown & call it a conspiracy theory.

That's not a breakdown but a ridiculous conspiracy theory that involves taking a leap of faith in asserting that

1) Molly has grown female genitalia

2) Amber Heard stole Johnny Depps phone in 2017 after the messy divorce

3) Depps team just completely ignored saying anything about it. They've all been through this evidence.

Sorry but it seems like the southern gentleman has charmed you too much.

 

[shamans]

Umm, she refuted Amber's gross lie on the stand that Johnny pushed Moss down the stairs. I think that's pretty fecking relevant, especially given that this whole case, more or less, relies on Amber's word.

I think it may help to show Amber testimony isn’t really trustworthy.

She never even testified to that.

 

[shamans]

My main @Drainy still on about the "incoming" texts mass conspiracy

 

[Drainy]

My main @Drainy still on about the "incoming" texts mass conspiracy

It does look like it was an incoming text but regardless, do you understand what a metaphor is?

 

[Drainy]

Apparently Amber Heard is testifying today.. What the feck

 

[NicolaSacco]

That's not a breakdown but a ridiculous conspiracy theory that involves taking a leap of faith in asserting that

1) Molly has grown female genitalia

2) Amber Heard stole Johnny Depps phone in 2017 after the messy divorce

3) Depps team just completely ignored saying anything about it. They've all been through this evidence.

Sorry but it seems like the southern gentleman has charmed you too much.

It’s bizarre isn’t it? On balance it seems they are both people who have acted awfully, and criminally, at points in their lives and in that relationship. But the absolute unwillingness of some on here to take anything other than a unilateral pro-Depp stance is still astonishing.

 

[Mercurial]

She only has around 8m, so even if she loss, I don’t think she really need to pay 50m. It could be 8m and she could declare bankruptcy, or it could be any other amount decided by court.

I don’t think it will be 50m. Rumour has it it may be 7m which is the figure of their divorce settlement and maybe a middle finger to her for the ACLU debacle. I mean that was pretty bad. It got me in stitches that pledge vs donation arguement.

Makes more sense given she is an Indie actor / commercials type of celebrity. $50m would crush her.

 

[lefty_jakobz]

The misogynist in me really wants domestic abuser Amber Heard, to see jail time.

Seems like all you have to do to convince some are flutter your eyes, shed some fake tears and blatantly lie your way through a trial.

 

[VP89]

Question, what irrefutable evidence had been put out to show the Depp abuse on Amber?

 

[kouroux]

The misogynist in me really wants domestic abuser Amber Heard, to see jail time.

Seems like all you have to do to convince some are flutter your eyes, shed some fake tears and blatantly lie your way through a trial.

"Mysogynist" ??

 

[Drainy]

Question, what irrefutable evidence had been put out to show the Depp abuse on Amber?

For physical abuse.

Nothing irrefutable. The biggest evidence is a recording where he says 'I headbutted you? It was your forehead, that doesn't break your nose' which he explains as accepting her wording of 'headbutt' to describe them clashing heads to make the point that she couldn't have broken her nose.

Thats as good a case as they have really.

Emotional abuse. The cabinet thing that she was giggling at, oh and after she accused him, him asking if she wast to cut him to take his blood because she's taken everything else

 

[VP89]

For physical abuse.

Nothing irrefutable. The biggest evidence is a recording where he says 'I headbutted you? It was your forehead, that doesn't break your nose' which he explains as accepting her wording of 'headbutt' to describe them clashing heads to make the point that she couldn't have broken her nose.

Thats as good a case as they have really.

Emotional abuse. The cabinet thing that she was giggling at.

Thanks.

So the evidence on Heard is actually way more substantial.

 

[Mercurial]

Question, what irrefutable evidence had been put out to show the Depp abuse on Amber?

It's a shartshower, doctored images, bunch of he said she said mostly she said, tons of drugs and sub tier testimony from leech tier homeless addicted minion hangarounds. It's class A entertainment however. What major movie studio want to even be associated with this once it's done? Her career is over after this and he will probably only get buddy roles from Guy Ritchie and similar in edgy movies going forward. Or he goes into rehab and emerges as a 'changed' man Hollywood style for some more pirates 6-10. Damage done to the Believe Women movement already done and seemingly only admission from Depp was that headbutting from him and repeat physical restraining and bilateral verbal abuse. ClusterFark Deluxe trial...

 

[Dargonk]

Thanks.

So the evidence on Heard is actually way more substantial.

Yep, no really undisputed evidence of abuse to Heard, but clear evidence of a number against Depp

 

[VP89]

It's a shartshower, doctored images, bunch of he said she said mostly she said, tons of drugs and sub tier testimony from leech tier homeless addicted minion hangarounds. It's class A entertainment however. What major movie studio want to even be associated with this once it's done? Her career is over after this and he will probably only get buddy roles from Guy Ritchie and similar in edgy movies going forward. Or he goes into rehab and emerges as a 'changed' man Hollywood style for some more pirates 6-10. Damage done to the Believe Women movement already done and seemingly only admission from Depp was that headbutting from him and repeat physical restraining and bilateral verbal abuse. ClusterFark Deluxe trial...

Her case really is a joke isnt it.

"you punched Johnny Depp"
"no, i hit him"

 

[Drainy]

Thanks.

So the evidence on Heard is actually way more substantial.

I'd say so. Though I formed a conclusion during Heard's testimony that she's full of shit and lying about things people shouldn't be able to lie about so dislike her accordingly..

 

[lefty_jakobz]

"Mysogynist" ??

I must be

Unless blatantly telling lies are a reason not to believe someones version of the truth?

 

[Drainy]

So annoying. Decided to work from the office today expecting a short unspectacular day of the flight attendant saying nothing happened and then a couple of Heard's experts coming back to rebut / defend themselves.

Never thought they might bring Heard back when Depp still has all the time in the world to cross examine her again with little time to rehabilitate. Guess she really needs the last word.