VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Recently, he tried to get a female Post reporter to link up with him at his hotel on the empty promise of a meeting with Heard, amid her testimony about allegedly being sexually abused by Depp.


Hmmmmm….

Holy crap!!!! That's worse than this morning's article. Yikes:eek::eek::eek:
 
Recently, he tried to get a female Post reporter to link up with him at his hotel on the empty promise of a meeting with Heard, amid her testimony about allegedly being sexually abused by Depp…
He then offered the reporter an exclusive sit-down with Heard — but told her to first meet him at his hotel, screenshots from their messages confirm.
After the reporter, who is in her early 30s, failed to agree to meet him there, the sit-down with Heard fell through.


JMO
Hmmmm…
Birds of a feather….
Good Lord. The new PR guy is "a serial sex pest". You just can't make this stuff up.
 
The one thing we suspect Depp's attorneys will avoid is the central issue of this trial: Does Amber or any woman have the First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech."

:) ;);):rolleyes:

Yeah, pretty sure that is not even close to the central issue of this trial. But nice try.

Was this from the same PR guy who has the unsavory charges of his own that were just published recently?
Yes, probably the same guy. I am impatiently waiting for that bad news about him to drop so he will be sidelined. I hope so anyway.
 
Let me state first of all that i think AH is a liar and I hope she loses. That said, I disagree with the above assessments of JDs attorney. I found her to be abrupt and rude and feel if she doesn't tone it down, it won't sit well with the jury.
Respectfully I feel JD team is giving as good as they got.
Ambers attorney on direct talked OVER the judge this morning acting like the court room was hers.

JMO
 
AH liked photographing JD asleep but didn't take pictures of her alleged physical injuries. :rolleyes:
Exactly, and how do we know he's not sleeping because he was tired?

Also, didn't they establish that AH came in with others and they'd just gotten ice cream and it was placed in JD's hand/lap?

If someone truly loves another, they may take pic's of something to demonstrate what they observe to be harmful behavior, but the pic is then deleted after being shared with alleged offender only. And it's very risky to take pics that can be misconstrued. You never keep an incriminating pic or send it to others. More harm can be done. She never loved him IMO.
 
CV was nowhere as abrupt or rude or unprofessional as AH's lawyers have been over the past few weeks. She was extremely competent and efficient. She had all of her papers and evidence ready to go and got through the questions at a methodical but driving pace. JMO but I think CV was awesome and had a career defining moment. She was firm when she needed to be, and didn't allow much wriggle room for AH, which is her job. The Lawtube are singing her praises and saying her cross should be studied in law school as to how to conduct an excellent cross examination. I trust their expertise on the matter.

That said, it's always possible jurors might disagree.
 
"I believe Elon made a payment in my honour" Hmmm, what honour would that be?
I know....:rolleyes:...that was such an arrogant way to put it. How is it in her 'honour?' She gave him a sob story and he has so much money that it wasn't that big of a favour to ask of him, especially since he was still trying to dAte her...
 
There was cause for alarm that he was sleeping with a cigarette burning his leg, but she had time to take a picture instead of immediately removing the cig.
I know I have a lot of catching up to do...but AH reminds me of my psychopathic sister.

Yep 1st take the picture, which you can use against later, then remove the cigerette....
Ugh!
 
Good analysis of the defamation claims in the Hollywood Reporter:

..."the allegedly defamatory statements in Heard’s Washington Post column are: 1. “I spoke up against sexual violence—and faced our culture’s wrath.”; 2. “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”; 3. “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”

Judge Penney S. Azcarate... ruled that the statements were enough to imply to readers that Depp abused Heard in light of the couple’s highly publicized divorce....

But the vagueness of the disputed statements, which don’t specify how or when she was abused, may make it difficult for Depp to vindicate himself.

“If I’m on the jury, all she’s implying is that at some point in the past, there was some form of physical or maybe emotional abuse by him to her,” Berlik says. “She doesn’t really get into it or say exactly what happened. If that’s the case, then all she really needs is any evidence that, at some point in the past, he hit her, pushed her, or screamed in her face or did something that can be regarded as abusive. I think Depp will have a tough time.”

 
Last edited:
I guess AH didn't need her reading glasses today. Yet another prop she has used and discarded. Note, also, that she had to make sure to insert the extremely relevant info that she has a baby now in order to influence the jury. "I'm a mommy now! Feel sorry for poor little me, Johnny is such a monster!" :rolleyes:
Well concerning her not donating because
Johnny was suing her …
A surrogate is about $100,000.
So there is that. I’m sure she resides in a lovely place with many lovely things.
I don’t think she ever planned on letting go of her 7 mil to where she “pledged “ it.
I do think lying is second nature to her.
This was a BIG (not fair) lie - that needed to be exposed. Thank you Camille.
MOO
 
The one thing we suspect Depp's attorneys will avoid is the central issue of this trial: Does Amber or any woman have the First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech."

:) ;);):rolleyes:

Yeah, pretty sure that is not even close to the central issue of this trial. But nice try.

Was this from the same PR guy who has the unsavory charges of his own that were just published recently?
I do think they've proven the defamation part though, in loss of income from being cut from roles which all happened just after the op-ed piece. AH never publicly announced that she wasn't talking about JD in her op-ed. I can't wait until tomorrow.
Also I noticed a distinct difference in AH's attitude after the last side bar. Someone on her team must have told her to adjust her attitude.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
136
Guests online
1,049
Total visitors
1,185

Forum statistics

Threads
589,929
Messages
17,927,795
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top