VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #11

[Luna20]

Her snarkiness knows no bounds. She is such a gaslighter too. And she chases HIM around when he is trying to get away from her. I really hope the jury saw all of the dynamics between them.

Oh, btw @Nuttmeg, love your BWagz avatar! Let's Goooo....

Her snark is colossal with an intense dictatorial overtone. Worse than Mommie Dearest, hers is bully-ish and condescending. I was going to follow the case anyway but when I saw her on the stand I didn’t want to miss any of it.

She set the tone for her own hostility and was consistent from beginning to end. I don’t see how anyone can miss it.

 

[Warwick7]

I

I thought the laptop had all exhibits loaded onto it from the trial . I think they need to rely on their memory and notes for the actual testimony. Someone please correct if that is wrong.

Think I heard this too.

 

[Cindizzi]

I thought the laptop had all exhibits loaded onto it from the trial . I think they need to rely on their memory and notes for the actual testimony. Someone please correct if that is wrong.

I remember hearing only audio and video exhibits that were entered as evidence would be on the laptop and depositions were not evidence.
JMO

 

[Kiranerys]

By the time the kid is old enough to use the bridge large parts of it will need replacing, sitting totally exposed in that relentless desert sun all year.

Her Mother probably would've burned it long before then anyway

 

[squareandrabbet]

Was thinking this as well, but then thought that the answers to some questions may flow quickly from the answer to the previous one....

Yes, this is a possibility since there is a deal of repetition in the questions.

Well, if it's like I think, they were asking if the verdict form for the statement "I spoke out against sexual violence...." is asking them to evaluate JUST the title or if the form is asking them to evaluate the WHOLE article. Am I making sense?

It's very confusing, but I think they wanted to know if they were being asked what they thought of the title versus what they thought of the article. Am I making sense?

The interesting part is, that to evaluate the statement within the title, they have to take it in the context of the article. confusing.

It’s all clear as mud to me now, lol…

i don't think we can assume they are NOT agreeing on anything...but rather methodically going over each instruction and now deciding a $$ amount. That part could bring a wide range of opinions...probably more discussion that even guilty or not.

yes, it’s standard practice to go count by count v. slowly.

I am wondering how many jurors, if any, saw or heard things about the trial, during their 3 day weekend. If they went to any BBQs or family events, I'm thinking they may have heard conversations by people, even if they never commented themselves.

That happened to me all weekend, everyplace I went. And it made me wonder if the jurors were experiencing the same.

I have to admit, I'd be so very tempted to look up some things if I was on a break as a juror.

when I was on a jury, I generally got around it by confessing to my host ahead of time and swearing host to secrecy.

The biggest problem they face is keeping it quiet at work, I should think, as they had to report to their jobs on Fridays… I always worked for a law firm so they knew better than to ask, lol.

my hunch says a verdict will come Thursday.

 

[Luna20]

I remember hearing only audio and video exhibits that were entered as evidence would be on the laptop and depositions were not evidence.
JMO

I remember that applying to closing/rebuttal. She said to both teams that they could use projectors and only audio that was entered. But I may have missed it.

 

[squareandrabbet]

I remember that applying to closing/rebuttal. She said to both teams that they could use projectors and only audio that was entered. But I may have missed it.

I’m pretty sure they get access to the entire online evidence site, which had audio, video (an entire day’s worth of security cam pics for 4-13 Depp testimony alone); and pdf copies of stuff (photos etc) that was on the projectors during trial.

I also agree that depositions are not evidence and they were not on the site, last I checked.

 

[Kavya01]

I thought the laptop had all exhibits loaded onto it from the trial . I think they need to rely on their memory and notes for the actual testimony. Someone please correct if that is wrong.

Am trying to go back over Judge with the lawyers about what would be on the laptop, I know exhibits would be there and are mentioned, but I remember CV asking about whether some video depositions would also be on it and the Judge saying " not unless they are in evidence" but cannot find that segment now. So you may absolutely be right that they just have pics and texts on the laptop, and have to rely on memory re: witnesses.

 

[Herat]

I found a different article about Paul McCartney apparently supporting JD during his recent concerts. It was even cooler than reported elsewhere. It wasn't just a photo projected up on the screen, but a dual music video of "My Valentine" with JD and Natalie Portman using deaf sign language. So it appears to be something which was made a few years back. People are commenting on it because Paul has decided to keep showing it during his concerts (including one in early May), which some interpret as him being supportive of JD during the trial.

Paul McCartney Shows Support for Johnny Depp in Viral Concert Footage

The article includes a full clip of the music video as well as concert footage.

Sir Paul went through a hellish divorce with the former Heather Mills.

He proffered ~$31.6 million, she wanted $250 million. They settled on $48.6 million and she poured a cup of water on the head of his attorney.

Of course, they were married for 4 years and had a child together.

AH had no basis for a claim of $50 million. She had settled for $7 million but evidently determined this wasn't enough from him.

Judge Says Heather Mills' $250M Divorce Claim From Paul McCartney Was `Exorbitant'

LONDON - Heather Mills was a less than candid court witness whose $250 million divorce claim was exorbitant, a judge said in his ruling on her divorce from Paul McCartney. The judgment by Hugh Bennett was released Tuesday, after a court rejected Mills' attempt to block publication. On Monday...

www.cleveland19.com

 

[squareandrabbet]

Am trying to go back over Judge with the lawyers about what would be on the laptop, I know exhibits would be there and are mentioned, but I remember CV asking about whether some video depositions would also be on it and the Judge saying " not unless they are in evidence" but cannot find that segment now. So you may absolutely be right that they just have pics and texts on the laptop, and have to rely on memory re: witnesses.

I really feel like its the below stuff and only the below stuff, since I find it hard to imagine the clerks had done up a special website just for the jury - I suppose anything is possible though:

Home Page

ffxtrail.azurewebsites.net

 

[rebelchild]

I’m pretty sure they get access to the entire online evidence site, which had audio, video (an entire day’s worth of security cam pics for 4-13 Depp testimony alone); and pdf copies of stuff (photos etc) that was on the projectors during trial.

I also agree that depositions are not evidence and they were not on the site, last I checked.

do you happen to know if the 5 hour audio from the Australia incident was put into evidence? I know they played one little snippet (IIRC) of JD from that audio .. but I've seen some say it's all in evidence and some say that it was not put in evidence.

 

[squareandrabbet]

do you happen to know if the 5 hour audio from the Australia incident was put into evidence? I know they played one little snippet (IIRC) of JD from that audio .. but I've seen some say it's all in evidence and some say that it was not put in evidence.

Sorry, not that I have seen… I may have missed something though. Sometimes it’s easy to get lost in scrolling down these super blandly named files, lol.

 

[rebelchild]

Am trying to go back over Judge with the lawyers about what would be on the laptop, I know exhibits would be there and are mentioned, but I remember CV asking about whether some video depositions would also be on it and the Judge saying " not unless they are in evidence" but cannot find that segment now. So you may absolutely be right that they just have pics and texts on the laptop, and have to rely on memory re: witnesses.

what you are thinking about is when CV asked about what could be used during her closing argument .. so it was at the end of the day Thursday I believe.

 

[rebelchild]

Sorry, not that I have seen… I may have missed something though. Sometimes it’s easy to get lost in scrolling down these super blandly named files, lol.

Thank you! I know I listened to almost the entire audio .. but not sure if it was on the court website or somewhere else.. I will go try and find it to see if it's part of the evidence!

 

[Kavya01]

what you are thinking about is when CV asked about what could be used during her closing argument .. so it was at the end of the day Thursday I believe.

Yes, just arrived there and it was indeed about closing arguments and the powerpoint etc. Could have sworn there was another day that they had discussed that laptop, was it earlier last week when the Judge was stressing with council she wanted both sides jury instructions agreed on before friday etc... Really am not sure anymore now. @squareandrabbet 's link above makes most sense now to me!

Home Page

ffxtrail.azurewebsites.net

 

[Kiranerys]

I really feel like its the below stuff and only the below stuff, since I find it hard to imagine the clerks had done up a special website just for the jury - I suppose anything is possible though:

Home Page

ffxtrail.azurewebsites.net

I think she said there would be a laptop with 2 files on it,one for the plaintiff and one for the defence and no Internet access (obviously I know). Which I assume will be everything that was entered into evidence.
Being honest,I'm far too lazy to click your link right now but I'm sure that's what it has too.

 

[deugirtni]

My apologies for not knowing the answer to this.. I have only been watching bits and parts as much as possible, and 'listening' in on here as much as I could... can someone tell me HOW all these various recordings (audio and/or video) were even in existence (aside from the JD slammig cupboards video)? Who was recording? Which/whose device? Why? On purpose? Thanks for any insight on this!

 

[Cindizzi]

Sir Paul went through a hellish divorce with the former Heather Mills.

He proffered ~$31.6 million, she wanted $250 million. They settled on $48.6 million and she poured a cup of water on the head of his attorney.

Of course, they were married for 4 years and had a child together.

AH had no basis for a claim of $50 million. She had settled for $7 million but evidently determined this wasn't enough from him.

Judge Says Heather Mills' $250M Divorce Claim From Paul McCartney Was `Exorbitant'

LONDON - Heather Mills was a less than candid court witness whose $250 million divorce claim was exorbitant, a judge said in his ruling on her divorce from Paul McCartney. The judgment by Hugh Bennett was released Tuesday, after a court rejected Mills' attempt to block publication. On Monday...

www.cleveland19.com

They should award JD no less than $7 Million
Plus $350,000 for Punitive ( the maximum allowed in Virginia)
Plus $ 62 for that trailer wall sconce she destroyed

JMO

 

[Cindizzi]

My apologies for not knowing the answer to this.. I have only been watching bits and parts as much as possible, and 'listening' in on here as much as I could... can someone tell me HOW all these various recordings (audio and/or video) were even in existence (aside from the JD slammig cupboards video)? Who was recording? Which/whose device? Why? On purpose? Thanks for any insight on this!

Some of them were done in mutual agreement and with both of their knowledge because it was supposed to be a tool as part of couples therapy, suggested by a therapist.
A lot of the others were done by AH without JD knowledge.

 

[ZoriahNZ]

My apologies for not knowing the answer to this.. I have only been watching bits and parts as much as possible, and 'listening' in on here as much as I could... can someone tell me HOW all these various recordings (audio and/or video) were even in existence (aside from the JD slammig cupboards video)? Who was recording? Which/whose device? Why? On purpose? Thanks for any insight on this!

My understanding is that the marriage counselor encouraged them to make recordings when there were disputes about what each other had said or done between sessions.

JD testified he recorded their conversations to back himself up when they argued over what she'd said or done. Because obviously she gaslit him regularly and denied things to his face and to other people. Apparently he always told AH when he was recording her.

AH claims she recorded him to show him he was having black outs and not remembering the bad things he did. Surprisingly, she never managed to catch him having a violent rampage and blacking out during them. Also, allegedly some of the recordings were done without JD's knowledge or consent.