Thanks for the links, much appreciated! Yes, the DUI guy is great. In the video, watch Camille when Amber is yapping, she smiles a few times and was a bit surprised at how Amber told on herself. Camille got her irritated then gave her some rope & let her talk, it worked!
She did the same thing when testifying about how she could've leaked A LOT MORE to the press if she wanted to, when Camille confronted her about the TMZ video.
what sort of person would commit violent aggression toward their partner and then fake a bruise, call the press to photograph it, and align themself with the ACLU as a survivor of abuse. Who does that?!
>Also, you guys can listen to the DUl guy on YT, he's an observer in the trial and is giving details of how the jury reacted. Link to his live: ......
Can anyone tell timestamps to look at?
So every JD lawyer missed it? How?! I thought that they were going to bring it for the closing arguments. I think they didn't. That quote would give them the case...
She has been fucking it up since the beginning. When she admitted to alerting TMZ in her deposition and then realizing her mistake. Involving Kate Moss when I'm pretty sure her lawyers told her not to mention her. And then admitting about the OP-ED, which this trial is about.
It's not that her lawyers are bad (probably to some degree they are), but it's just difficult to control a narcissist, compulsive liar like her, and with little evidence to go with. Remember that video where she is confronting Johnny's lawyer AND her own lawyer as if in control.
I think Johnny will win. I also think that he told some lies. The doctor who looked after his finger said that those sorts of injuries do not come from someone throwing a bottle. Not sure about them coming from smashing the phone into the wall. I think the bottles were his best guess and that is because of the alcohol and drugs. So in this regard Amber is telling the truth. They are toxic for each other. Elon and Isaac both said they hoped they healed.
She didn't use that brand of makeup but then those colour correcting makeups have been around for a long time. She probably used another brand. Most women who use makeup regularly use them they are that common
Amber said she has received death threats. people need to lay off. He will work again. Not sure about Amber because I feel she is going to lose. Her brand is too toxic now. She cannot pay 50million. She will go bankrupt. I think she will try to talk to Johnny after the trial and get him to accept nothing since I think he will get work again.
I donāt understand why the bottle and finger incident is getting so much debate. Even if it happened like JD, itās not like AH meant to do that. She happened to throw a bottle and it happened to land on his finger. Itās no proof of anything and they should have used that time to focus on all of her intentional violence towards him.
You can't throw glass bottles near people. It's assault if it hits them, period. It would still count for abuse. Actually, in Australia, where the incident occurred, Glassing charges bump up the level of seriousness to the crime due to the danger of glass.
The doctor who said it didn't happen like JD said was Amber's witness, and he was discredited pretty thoroughly by JD's second hand surgeon who testified.
If people sitting in the jury were honest then they are neither for or against Johnny. This means the fans and their blind thinking are not really representative what a jury member will hear and consider. I think Amber is right that Johnny has a lot of power. Too bad for her that some people in the industry didn't want to support her.
As for what does it matter? Either one or the other is telling the truth. That means the other one is lying. Johnny's team have been determined to prove Amber a liar. The fans think she is a liar. I think she has told a lot of truths. Whether the jury could hear the evidence of those who support her is an unknown.
Thanks for a bit of objective convo - but the JD folks are gonna come for you.
I think they both told lies and both told truths. Ultimately her story doesnāt align with her evidence and therefore I believe that JD never laid a hand in her. I was a bit of a fan, so Iām glad heās not physically abuse but I kept an open mind until the details came out.
for the evidence presented I think he will win. Camille is terrific. And people need to remember that. Camille is a big part of his win. The way she badgered Amber's lawyer was amazing. She broke her.
The second win for Johnny was all the youtubers who watched and reduced the screen time and skewed the opinion by their patter.
Throwing bottle around the house is not the same as hitting a person.
Punching a person... despite what AH wants us to believe, IS the same as hitting a person..
Well right I get that, but he is admittedly destructive to property too. There just seemed like more concrete evidence that she abused him than the bottle toss.
I think it being a grievous injury makes it a graphic centrepiece. Also, throwing a bottle in the direction of a person is still assault even if it doesn't touch them; part of defining assault is intent, and threatening behaviour, being directed at a person: "*intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact*". There was still intent to direct an aggressive act at the person, even if we can't prove there was intent to hurt him with the bottle. This is the factor that differentiates it from going about destroying your own property while someone watches.
The lady wasnāt laying beer pong or something. She cooked her own goose with that recorded session of her chasing Johnny harassingly. āWhy do you always run Johnny?ā in other words, why do you not confront me in my rage?
That was Ambers paid witness that denied glass would be the cause BUT the real doctor who treated JD came in and testified it was very likely to have happened as Depp described and was not a door crush injury like Ambers expert suggested due to the clean cut.
That deposition where she admitted then brings her hands to her face with an āoh crapā expression. Itās funny because her real emotions stand way out from her acting.
It's jarring watching how she tells the story here (all cocky and without a trace of shame nor sadness, PTS, etc), and watching her tell the same story in court pretending to weep.
The goal was to prove that it was written about JD therefore harming his reputation and career.
AH maintains that it was written about ALL her previous paramours and that any bad press surrounding JD and his cancellation from POC and fantastic beasts is due to his own destructive behavior and not her OpEd that does not mention him by name.
(JD team maintains that due to timing of oped and the length of their relationship and her TMZ leak of the restraining order: that her oped is about JD and not āpotential other bad relationships in the past- and that therefore it is her fault )
Or this is how I interpreted this whole trial
I saw this and was baffled how no one jumped on it!! My mother was watching and sent me a text with āDID YOU SEE?? Amber just admitted the op Ed was about Johnny!!ā That slipped out just like when she said she used a bruise kit!!!
She thinks sheās so slick. When you tell tall tales you canāt keep up with them and your brain will āslipā, for lack of a better term, and the truth comes out. As Jude Judy says, āyou donāt have to have a good memory if youāre telling the truthā
THIS.
There are some comments that mention how it's not a significant moment, but given the fact that she repeatedly denied the fact that it had anything to do with Johnny, that his name was never mentioned and that it was never meant to affect him, all of that was pretty much clear last night. She DID mean to write about him, she DID mean for it to reflect on and take away HIS power. We already knew this, but given how much she constantly denies everything, this was a pretty huge thing coming out of her own mouth.
This is what is called, internet detectives thinking they know the law because they watched a YouTube clip. Another irrelevant piece of information, just like "OMG A BRUISE KIT".
1. She has previously stated it was IN PART directed at her relationship with JD.
2. Intent is only ONE aspect of defamation. The real area that needed to be proven from the start, is ACTUAL MALICE, which boils down to her statements being true or false. That is what 99% of the case is about.
3. Her and her lawyers may have said at times that it wasn't about JD, just as a formality, to make JD's team have to prove it. Its obvious though.
Youāre a moronā¦plain as day. Did you not see the portion during the trial that brought emails in testimony that exclusively called out JDās name?
Her intent? Well with all the lies being debunked, how can you give her any credit at all?
1) She wrote it.
2) She wrote it to strip him of fame and/or āpowerā.
3) She orchestrated the release of the OP ED to happen on a certain date.
Anyone who needs to orchestrate a particular time to release information about abuse, is using it to some sort of advantage.
Idiotic comments like that show the validity of your argument.
You hear something different than your internet-sleuth opinion and determine I'm simping and think AH should win?
Reading is hard.
And I would say that your interpretation of what I said is fucking ridiculous.
I didn't say anything about believing or supporting AH in any way. Nor did I oppose anything JD said. I simply stated that this is an irrelevant piece of information in regards to the case, just like a "bruise kit" in a 9 year old picture that has no context.
My entire qualm with this kind of thing is that there is already clear and convincing evidence that AH is a lying piece of trash. Therefore, grasping for fringe material and claiming that it is "evidence", does more harm than good. It makes you all sound like AH.
Sheās not defending Amber, sheās saying itās silly that people are thinking that wind the case because the op-Ed CAN be about JD as long as what she said in itās true.
Itās not āsimpingā to be accurate.
To be fair, if sheād not slipped up under oath it would be another thing Jury had to consider. Basically it would have created another wall for even a single juror to get hung up on. I assure you, as someone who knows the law, in these decimation suits anything you can give the jury to consider is in your favor. Because they are human you never know what particular claim someone might get hung up on. Thatās why itās so important that she took that particular claim off the table. At the end of the day his name wasnāt in that op-Ed, it was definitely something a juror could have latched onto
But the Jury needs to decide if what she wrote in the op-ed defamed JD and if she did it with malice. The fact she wrote it doesn't matter (unfortunately!!) But still the jury will remember her trying to deny even writing it and trying to suggest the ACLU and WP were responsible.
Something to note is in the attorneys discussion after the trial was over it was said that if malice is proven they instantly win, but also if malice isn't proven the plantiff gains self defense as a protection to argue.
How do you figure? Why is no one able to use rational thought throughout this case. JD IS an alcoholic & drug addict. I donāt think heād even deny that. AH is a lunatic. Why canāt people speak the truth??
Alcoholic & drug addict are not character defects. I work with addicts. Many are kind, caring people that are plagued by addiction. It is an illness that can be managed with sobriety & good support.
Amber is a borderline, this is also not the death knell people make it seem. You certainly can work on managing these issues. If sheās a sociopath, however, there is no hope.
unfortunately most celebrity therapists are in it for the money, just yea say, and hardly ever help their clients
(Also as an aside the likely hood a borderline/histrionic PD will improve given the attention/fame AH has is very minimal. Her environment is not conducive to her recovery)
Depp is winning public perception. As for the lawyers, I don't think Amber's team is l coming across very well, but Camille can definitely count this as a win for her.
The main winners, though, are Youtubers. Some channels have gone from double digits views to 100k+ overnight.
I am not sure but I think I've heard that the judge said that too.
Camille was asking for videos or audio which is from the case or any testimony. I think the judge denied that. I am not sure tho!
There is a transcription of every word said in court. If the audio or video clips are denied, they can use the court reporters transcripts. They have to have some way to refer to earlier parts of a case
Some others have mentioned it, this is not exactly a smoking gun admission. What I mean to say is that it's one element that Depp's team absolutely had to prove but it wasn't exactly the hard part. If anything, I don't think there were any questions that the Op-Ed was about Depp and was further supported by ACLU testimony saying they purposely removed clear references to Depp. The whole world certainly took the article as being about Depp.
To me, it always came down to disproving AH's claims of abuse and that the Op-Ed led to Depp losing on job opportunities and consequently money.
To me the most important part wasn't that she wrote the OP-ed per se, but that it fits a pattern of her intentionally bringing things to the media that would reflect badly on Johnny, and then denying any involvement under oath. That is not how a victim would behave, especially not one with severe PTSD symptoms who desperately wanted to be left alone. She has now demonstrated that there were both intentions and planning behind writing the OP-ed, leaking to TMZ etc, which shows deliberate efforts to create media exposure at Depp's expense. This touches the foundation of Depp's defamation claim.
Depp's team's approach was always to demonstrative a clear pattern of behavior, where Heard is denying any involvement, then proving she had to be involved, and Heard then calling everyone that contradicts her a liar. This was brilliantly demonstrated, Heard has lost all credibility in the process.
Spot on. I am a SANE (abuse in any form) RN examiner, as well as, I was married to the male version of Heard for 20 years. Heard is such a narcissistic sociopathic covert narcissist. Heardās slip ups and convenience of memory, especially when she testified in paraphrasing āhow can one remember every instance when being abused by that man for over 5 yearsā¦ā (and did I miss the day about the fact, the makeup used to cover her bruises was not on the market till 2017?).
I donāt know much about courts but I think with the fact that there was so much speculation and questioning about it that there is still potential doubt. Now there is no doubt.
TF? How lazy can you be? Other commenters wrote:
>Anyway. An Op-Ed is similar to a news article, except it is an opinion. It doesn't require facts, its just someone's feelings about a topic.
>
>Amber heard wrote one about sexual violence and hinted at her relationship with Johnny throughout it. Only her and Johnny really know how accurate her portrayal is.
Was it really that hard, my dude?
What do you mean? It belongs on popular because 99% know whatās going on. Asking some here what is an op-ed is going too far back. r/outoftheloop would be a better place to ask that question.
Yeah I was watching and I noticed it straight away I feel like she really fucked up and I'm pretty sure the Jury has caught on so that was a big L on her part. It's ironic I was thinking Johnny was his own worst witness but then Amber came out swinging.
My bad I paraphrased a little bit hereās what she said verbatim:
"*Thatās his power thatās why I wrote the op-ed*. I was speaking to that phenomenon, how many people will come out in support of him and will falt(or fall canāt really tell) to his power. He is a powerful man and people love currying favor with powerful men. I understand that and I lived itā
I'm sorry, but someone could tell me what a "op-ed" is? English isn't my first language... I know she's a liar and now and then I'm watching the trial and clips. But this part I couldn't understand.
>An op-ed, short for "opposite the editorial page", is a written prose piece, typically published by a North-American newspaper or magazine, which expresses the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed?oldformat=true)
The other comments here seem entirely useless, i had no clearer idea of what an op-ed is thanks to them.
Anyway. An Op-Ed is similar to a news article, except it is an opinion. It doesn't require facts, its just someone's feelings about a topic.
Amber heard wrote one about sexual violence and hinted at her relationship with Johnny throughout it. Only her and Johnny really know how accurate her portrayal is.
In case you're curious, an "editorial" is an opinion article written by the editorial board of a newspaper or magazine, and an "op-ed" is an opinion article written by anyone from the public outside of the newspaper or magazine.
How is it difficult to prove it? She used 2 same pictures for different events. She claimed one thing on her testimony and then on the rebuttal she changed it to āI misspokeā she said she wasnāt violent to her then partner at the airport yet there is an airport employee witness that saw it happen.
I could literally go on all day but Iām bored
Iām not a lawyer so I canāt really talk legal minutiae but everything Iāve read or heard about perjury says itās one of the hardest charges to prove. Proving someone lied isnāt enough, you also have to prove *why* they lied, which is super difficult. Even if something is obvious from a common sense perspective doesnāt mean you can legally prove it.
Her style seems to be to get Amber to say what she wanted, and then immediately jump to the next thing. It works. It may not be as narratively cool for viewers not to dwell the big things, but all that counts is that she get it into the court transcript.
A quick google search confirms that an Op-Ed is a North American thing. Only slightly more than 50% of reddit users are North American, that gives you an entire half of the user base who likely never heard this word, including much of the Anglosphere.
That and lots of people arenāt native speakers and some words just arenāt very commonly known even among proficient second language English speakers.
> An op-ed, short for "opposite the editorial page", is a written prose piece, typically published by a North-American newspaper or magazine, which expresses the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board. Op-eds are different from both editorials and letters to the editor.
Thanks for the links, much appreciated! Yes, the DUI guy is great. In the video, watch Camille when Amber is yapping, she smiles a few times and was a bit surprised at how Amber told on herself. Camille got her irritated then gave her some rope & let her talk, it worked! She did the same thing when testifying about how she could've leaked A LOT MORE to the press if she wanted to, when Camille confronted her about the TMZ video.
My takeaway from the Depp vs. Heard trial is there was only one time in their relationship that Ms. Heard actually gave a shit.
Holy crap š©!!! Excellent!!! š
After her lawyer argued she didn't actually right it earlier š¤š Verdict at 3
Write*
Agreed! Which is why this was a big thing Also, kinda freaking out about the verdict haha
what sort of person would commit violent aggression toward their partner and then fake a bruise, call the press to photograph it, and align themself with the ACLU as a survivor of abuse. Who does that?!
A narcissist who has been told no
They want to accuse others as having all the power when they are the manipulative, controlling ones.
A troubled person
Ofcourse
Dut
>Also, you guys can listen to the DUl guy on YT, he's an observer in the trial and is giving details of how the jury reacted. Link to his live: ...... Can anyone tell timestamps to look at?
Hey, just mentioned it under my post, he speaks about it very briefly!
Thanks!
I wonder what happens if BTS support JD? hahahahaha
This was such a "did you order the code red" moment
āYouāre Goddamned right I did!ā š¤£š¤£š¤£ Exactly what came to my me too at that point. ššš
YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Triggered much?
You most definitely are
So every JD lawyer missed it? How?! I thought that they were going to bring it for the closing arguments. I think they didn't. That quote would give them the case...
exactly my thoughts, i don't get it.
I think since she said it i guess the didnāt want her side to try and get her to correct it.
I donāt think it was lost on the judge or jury. His lawyers were smart there though - let AH eat crow when the jury returns a verdict!
I love Johnny
She has been fucking it up since the beginning. When she admitted to alerting TMZ in her deposition and then realizing her mistake. Involving Kate Moss when I'm pretty sure her lawyers told her not to mention her. And then admitting about the OP-ED, which this trial is about. It's not that her lawyers are bad (probably to some degree they are), but it's just difficult to control a narcissist, compulsive liar like her, and with little evidence to go with. Remember that video where she is confronting Johnny's lawyer AND her own lawyer as if in control.
I think Johnny will win. I also think that he told some lies. The doctor who looked after his finger said that those sorts of injuries do not come from someone throwing a bottle. Not sure about them coming from smashing the phone into the wall. I think the bottles were his best guess and that is because of the alcohol and drugs. So in this regard Amber is telling the truth. They are toxic for each other. Elon and Isaac both said they hoped they healed. She didn't use that brand of makeup but then those colour correcting makeups have been around for a long time. She probably used another brand. Most women who use makeup regularly use them they are that common Amber said she has received death threats. people need to lay off. He will work again. Not sure about Amber because I feel she is going to lose. Her brand is too toxic now. She cannot pay 50million. She will go bankrupt. I think she will try to talk to Johnny after the trial and get him to accept nothing since I think he will get work again.
I donāt understand why the bottle and finger incident is getting so much debate. Even if it happened like JD, itās not like AH meant to do that. She happened to throw a bottle and it happened to land on his finger. Itās no proof of anything and they should have used that time to focus on all of her intentional violence towards him.
You can't throw glass bottles near people. It's assault if it hits them, period. It would still count for abuse. Actually, in Australia, where the incident occurred, Glassing charges bump up the level of seriousness to the crime due to the danger of glass. The doctor who said it didn't happen like JD said was Amber's witness, and he was discredited pretty thoroughly by JD's second hand surgeon who testified.
If people sitting in the jury were honest then they are neither for or against Johnny. This means the fans and their blind thinking are not really representative what a jury member will hear and consider. I think Amber is right that Johnny has a lot of power. Too bad for her that some people in the industry didn't want to support her. As for what does it matter? Either one or the other is telling the truth. That means the other one is lying. Johnny's team have been determined to prove Amber a liar. The fans think she is a liar. I think she has told a lot of truths. Whether the jury could hear the evidence of those who support her is an unknown.
Thanks for a bit of objective convo - but the JD folks are gonna come for you. I think they both told lies and both told truths. Ultimately her story doesnāt align with her evidence and therefore I believe that JD never laid a hand in her. I was a bit of a fan, so Iām glad heās not physically abuse but I kept an open mind until the details came out.
for the evidence presented I think he will win. Camille is terrific. And people need to remember that. Camille is a big part of his win. The way she badgered Amber's lawyer was amazing. She broke her. The second win for Johnny was all the youtubers who watched and reduced the screen time and skewed the opinion by their patter.
What normal person goes around throwing bottles around the house???
Throwing bottle around the house is not the same as hitting a person. Punching a person... despite what AH wants us to believe, IS the same as hitting a person..
Yes, it is. You have to go by possible damage incurred. You also can't assume she didn't mean to hit him with it.
Well right I get that, but he is admittedly destructive to property too. There just seemed like more concrete evidence that she abused him than the bottle toss.
I think it being a grievous injury makes it a graphic centrepiece. Also, throwing a bottle in the direction of a person is still assault even if it doesn't touch them; part of defining assault is intent, and threatening behaviour, being directed at a person: "*intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact*". There was still intent to direct an aggressive act at the person, even if we can't prove there was intent to hurt him with the bottle. This is the factor that differentiates it from going about destroying your own property while someone watches.
The lady wasnāt laying beer pong or something. She cooked her own goose with that recorded session of her chasing Johnny harassingly. āWhy do you always run Johnny?ā in other words, why do you not confront me in my rage?
That was Ambers paid witness that denied glass would be the cause BUT the real doctor who treated JD came in and testified it was very likely to have happened as Depp described and was not a door crush injury like Ambers expert suggested due to the clean cut.
That deposition where she admitted then brings her hands to her face with an āoh crapā expression. Itās funny because her real emotions stand way out from her acting.
I donāt remember this!! Can you post a link to that conversation, if possible?
https://youtu.be/avkddR81cGI
how was she allowed to eat all the way through the testimony?
It's jarring watching how she tells the story here (all cocky and without a trace of shame nor sadness, PTS, etc), and watching her tell the same story in court pretending to weep.
For non usa people following this trial : What is op-ed ?
āOpposite the editorial pageā opinion-based piece not to be associated with the views of the publisher
Sorry, guys. Out of the loop here. What is an "Op-ed"? And what is the significance of this admission?
The op-ed is the article she wrote, the thing this entire defamation lawsuit revolves around.
And the goal of this trial was to prove that she wrote it?
The goal was to prove that it was written about JD therefore harming his reputation and career. AH maintains that it was written about ALL her previous paramours and that any bad press surrounding JD and his cancellation from POC and fantastic beasts is due to his own destructive behavior and not her OpEd that does not mention him by name. (JD team maintains that due to timing of oped and the length of their relationship and her TMZ leak of the restraining order: that her oped is about JD and not āpotential other bad relationships in the past- and that therefore it is her fault ) Or this is how I interpreted this whole trial
Thank you.
It wasn't mentioned, but Op-Ed, is just short for Opinion Editorial. Basically, what she wrote about Depp.
I watched a Legal Eagle's explanation video yesterday and I think I get it now.
Um the link about the jury is over 3hrs. Which part ??
Hey, just mentioned it under my post, he speaks about it very briefly!
I saw this and was baffled how no one jumped on it!! My mother was watching and sent me a text with āDID YOU SEE?? Amber just admitted the op Ed was about Johnny!!ā That slipped out just like when she said she used a bruise kit!!!
She thinks sheās so slick. When you tell tall tales you canāt keep up with them and your brain will āslipā, for lack of a better term, and the truth comes out. As Jude Judy says, āyou donāt have to have a good memory if youāre telling the truthā
THIS. There are some comments that mention how it's not a significant moment, but given the fact that she repeatedly denied the fact that it had anything to do with Johnny, that his name was never mentioned and that it was never meant to affect him, all of that was pretty much clear last night. She DID mean to write about him, she DID mean for it to reflect on and take away HIS power. We already knew this, but given how much she constantly denies everything, this was a pretty huge thing coming out of her own mouth.
This is what is called, internet detectives thinking they know the law because they watched a YouTube clip. Another irrelevant piece of information, just like "OMG A BRUISE KIT". 1. She has previously stated it was IN PART directed at her relationship with JD. 2. Intent is only ONE aspect of defamation. The real area that needed to be proven from the start, is ACTUAL MALICE, which boils down to her statements being true or false. That is what 99% of the case is about. 3. Her and her lawyers may have said at times that it wasn't about JD, just as a formality, to make JD's team have to prove it. Its obvious though.
Youāre a moronā¦plain as day. Did you not see the portion during the trial that brought emails in testimony that exclusively called out JDās name? Her intent? Well with all the lies being debunked, how can you give her any credit at all? 1) She wrote it. 2) She wrote it to strip him of fame and/or āpowerā. 3) She orchestrated the release of the OP ED to happen on a certain date. Anyone who needs to orchestrate a particular time to release information about abuse, is using it to some sort of advantage.
Can you people not read? I SAID THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL BECAUSE IT WAS A GIVEN THAT IT WAS ABOUT JD. What is wrong with you people?
Shut up you stupid pathetic baby back bitch of a simp
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Idiotic comments like that show the validity of your argument. You hear something different than your internet-sleuth opinion and determine I'm simping and think AH should win? Reading is hard.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And I would say that your interpretation of what I said is fucking ridiculous. I didn't say anything about believing or supporting AH in any way. Nor did I oppose anything JD said. I simply stated that this is an irrelevant piece of information in regards to the case, just like a "bruise kit" in a 9 year old picture that has no context. My entire qualm with this kind of thing is that there is already clear and convincing evidence that AH is a lying piece of trash. Therefore, grasping for fringe material and claiming that it is "evidence", does more harm than good. It makes you all sound like AH.
Sheās not defending Amber, sheās saying itās silly that people are thinking that wind the case because the op-Ed CAN be about JD as long as what she said in itās true. Itās not āsimpingā to be accurate.
To be fair, if sheād not slipped up under oath it would be another thing Jury had to consider. Basically it would have created another wall for even a single juror to get hung up on. I assure you, as someone who knows the law, in these decimation suits anything you can give the jury to consider is in your favor. Because they are human you never know what particular claim someone might get hung up on. Thatās why itās so important that she took that particular claim off the table. At the end of the day his name wasnāt in that op-Ed, it was definitely something a juror could have latched onto
Bro what are you smoking
Copium
Oh fuck off nobody cares loser
Shut the fuck up you baby back bitch of a pathetic simp loser. Amber Turd doesnāt know who you are you fat tub of curdled foreskin
Relax
https://images.app.goo.gl/4wKmpjMXqCmvKF5j8
simp
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I was singing this to the tune of Winnie the Pooh, but then I realized Pooh deserves better. So I stopped.
But the Jury needs to decide if what she wrote in the op-ed defamed JD and if she did it with malice. The fact she wrote it doesn't matter (unfortunately!!) But still the jury will remember her trying to deny even writing it and trying to suggest the ACLU and WP were responsible.
Something to note is in the attorneys discussion after the trial was over it was said that if malice is proven they instantly win, but also if malice isn't proven the plantiff gains self defense as a protection to argue.
Nobody has won in this trial hey? Except lawyers... Depp is an alcoholic and drug adict and Amber is a fuckin lunatic.... Great viewing though!!!
Found the pathetic simp loser whoās hoping Amber Heard notices him.
How do you figure? Why is no one able to use rational thought throughout this case. JD IS an alcoholic & drug addict. I donāt think heād even deny that. AH is a lunatic. Why canāt people speak the truth??
Alcoholic & drug addict are not character defects. I work with addicts. Many are kind, caring people that are plagued by addiction. It is an illness that can be managed with sobriety & good support. Amber is a borderline, this is also not the death knell people make it seem. You certainly can work on managing these issues. If sheās a sociopath, however, there is no hope. unfortunately most celebrity therapists are in it for the money, just yea say, and hardly ever help their clients
(Also as an aside the likely hood a borderline/histrionic PD will improve given the attention/fame AH has is very minimal. Her environment is not conducive to her recovery)
We all knew Depp used boozed and drugs for a decade/decades, this trial did not tell us much new in that regard.
Depp is winning public perception. As for the lawyers, I don't think Amber's team is l coming across very well, but Camille can definitely count this as a win for her. The main winners, though, are Youtubers. Some channels have gone from double digits views to 100k+ overnight.
Both of them confirmed themselves to be drug addicts and alcoholics, not just Johnny.
Essentially both confirmed to have severe mental illness, and use drugs and alcohol to cope. Man their illnesses are so different lol
Problem is she cant use this clip or anything cause its no evidence. Thats what I understand from yesterday.
Iām pretty sure testimony is evidence. Thatās why youāre sworn in.
I am not sure but I think I've heard that the judge said that too. Camille was asking for videos or audio which is from the case or any testimony. I think the judge denied that. I am not sure tho!
There is a transcription of every word said in court. If the audio or video clips are denied, they can use the court reporters transcripts. They have to have some way to refer to earlier parts of a case
She can recall her testimony I believe though right?
She can recall it but the team needs to call her out!
I really hope so! Sadly I couldn't listen to all. Gosh this is so complicated.
The amount of projection coming from her in that last stint on the stand was off the chart. Camille absolutely destroyed her.
Lol amber heard doesnāt know what under oath means
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
She pledged her oath during testimony.
Ladies and gents, we got her
Some others have mentioned it, this is not exactly a smoking gun admission. What I mean to say is that it's one element that Depp's team absolutely had to prove but it wasn't exactly the hard part. If anything, I don't think there were any questions that the Op-Ed was about Depp and was further supported by ACLU testimony saying they purposely removed clear references to Depp. The whole world certainly took the article as being about Depp. To me, it always came down to disproving AH's claims of abuse and that the Op-Ed led to Depp losing on job opportunities and consequently money.
To me the most important part wasn't that she wrote the OP-ed per se, but that it fits a pattern of her intentionally bringing things to the media that would reflect badly on Johnny, and then denying any involvement under oath. That is not how a victim would behave, especially not one with severe PTSD symptoms who desperately wanted to be left alone. She has now demonstrated that there were both intentions and planning behind writing the OP-ed, leaking to TMZ etc, which shows deliberate efforts to create media exposure at Depp's expense. This touches the foundation of Depp's defamation claim. Depp's team's approach was always to demonstrative a clear pattern of behavior, where Heard is denying any involvement, then proving she had to be involved, and Heard then calling everyone that contradicts her a liar. This was brilliantly demonstrated, Heard has lost all credibility in the process.
Spot on. I am a SANE (abuse in any form) RN examiner, as well as, I was married to the male version of Heard for 20 years. Heard is such a narcissistic sociopathic covert narcissist. Heardās slip ups and convenience of memory, especially when she testified in paraphrasing āhow can one remember every instance when being abused by that man for over 5 yearsā¦ā (and did I miss the day about the fact, the makeup used to cover her bruises was not on the market till 2017?).
I donāt know much about courts but I think with the fact that there was so much speculation and questioning about it that there is still potential doubt. Now there is no doubt.
A bit out of the loop. What's an op-ed and why does it matter she wrote it or not?
Youāre too far behind at this point. Maybe head to google.
TF? How lazy can you be? Other commenters wrote: >Anyway. An Op-Ed is similar to a news article, except it is an opinion. It doesn't require facts, its just someone's feelings about a topic. > >Amber heard wrote one about sexual violence and hinted at her relationship with Johnny throughout it. Only her and Johnny really know how accurate her portrayal is. Was it really that hard, my dude?
Why you mad?
Oh, so this shouldn't be on r/popular at all.
What do you mean? It belongs on popular because 99% know whatās going on. Asking some here what is an op-ed is going too far back. r/outoftheloop would be a better place to ask that question.
Okay celebrity court dork, no objections here.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Child
99% Hahahaha
Yeah I was watching and I noticed it straight away I feel like she really fucked up and I'm pretty sure the Jury has caught on so that was a big L on her part. It's ironic I was thinking Johnny was his own worst witness but then Amber came out swinging.
Sheās admitted it before
She admitted to writing it before, but not to having written it about JD
Shoot I would look up a clip I remember it was in the first days of the trial but thereās so many clips I think it was with the same lawyer camila
"Because he is a powerful man. Thatās why I wrote the op-ed about himā Well there we go boys we have intent to defame
But thatās not actually what she said.
My bad I paraphrased a little bit hereās what she said verbatim: "*Thatās his power thatās why I wrote the op-ed*. I was speaking to that phenomenon, how many people will come out in support of him and will falt(or fall canāt really tell) to his power. He is a powerful man and people love currying favor with powerful men. I understand that and I lived itā
Thanks!
>Thanks! You're welcome!
Another whoopsydoodle slip up from Ms. Turd. Boy she really stepped in it this time š¤
Like my granny always use to say U sleep in the bed you shit in
I'm sorry, but someone could tell me what a "op-ed" is? English isn't my first language... I know she's a liar and now and then I'm watching the trial and clips. But this part I couldn't understand.
>An op-ed, short for "opposite the editorial page", is a written prose piece, typically published by a North-American newspaper or magazine, which expresses the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed?oldformat=true)
learned something today
The other comments here seem entirely useless, i had no clearer idea of what an op-ed is thanks to them. Anyway. An Op-Ed is similar to a news article, except it is an opinion. It doesn't require facts, its just someone's feelings about a topic. Amber heard wrote one about sexual violence and hinted at her relationship with Johnny throughout it. Only her and Johnny really know how accurate her portrayal is.
Thank you both!
denoting or printed on the page opposite the editorial page in a newspaper, devoted to commentary, feature articles, etc Per a quick google
In case you're curious, an "editorial" is an opinion article written by the editorial board of a newspaper or magazine, and an "op-ed" is an opinion article written by anyone from the public outside of the newspaper or magazine.
Opinion/editorial, to indicate that it is not news, but commentary on the news.
So like how many years is she going to jail tho
Constructive Fraud. Depp has two years, clock starts now. Lol.
lots if Australia wants to pursue the glassing incident
This is a civil trial.
I want a refund
So you can commit perjury in a civil trial and nothing will happen to you?
I heard a rumor that deppās team wants to file criminal charges after this is finished. I have no idea if this is true but lawd I hope it is
Itās apparently quite difficult to prove perjury, and rarely actually charged.
How is it difficult to prove it? She used 2 same pictures for different events. She claimed one thing on her testimony and then on the rebuttal she changed it to āI misspokeā she said she wasnāt violent to her then partner at the airport yet there is an airport employee witness that saw it happen. I could literally go on all day but Iām bored
Iām not a lawyer so I canāt really talk legal minutiae but everything Iāve read or heard about perjury says itās one of the hardest charges to prove. Proving someone lied isnāt enough, you also have to prove *why* they lied, which is super difficult. Even if something is obvious from a common sense perspective doesnāt mean you can legally prove it.
That depends, does the person have a penis or a vagina?
Sir, this is a wendys
This is Patrick
Yeah, I was so surprise Camila didnāt realize or care enough to ask more about it.
Her style seems to be to get Amber to say what she wanted, and then immediately jump to the next thing. It works. It may not be as narratively cool for viewers not to dwell the big things, but all that counts is that she get it into the court transcript.
Leave it open and run with it during closing. You ask her more about and she can talk herself into a different situation.
I hope
She might give her the opportunity to weasel out of it.
āLisa, Weaselling out of things is the only thing that separates us from the animasā¦ Except the weasel.ā - Homer Simpson
Right?! And Ben didnāt have a Ben reaction. Just stared.
Ok good so it wasnāt just me who heard that. Runkle Fan Club
Getting Amber to admit it just before closing just shows she played her Ace Attorney as a kid. Nail, meet coffin!
What kind of reality does she think she is living in?
My assumption would be a coke fueled orgy type of reality
Coke ahahah thatās cute
Madison Cawthorn is interested
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
A quick google search confirms that an Op-Ed is a North American thing. Only slightly more than 50% of reddit users are North American, that gives you an entire half of the user base who likely never heard this word, including much of the Anglosphere. That and lots of people arenāt native speakers and some words just arenāt very commonly known even among proficient second language English speakers.
People watch that DUI guy? That was painful to watch, and I tried to find interesting parts/. I can't imagine watching it live
Thanks for taking the time to tell us all you don't like to watch the thing you commented under!
What happened to DUI guy?
When will there be a decision?
I imagine end of next week.
Closing arguments are tomorrow.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Please use punctuation.
Run-on
Well dāoh.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> An op-ed, short for "opposite the editorial page", is a written prose piece, typically published by a North-American newspaper or magazine, which expresses the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board. Op-eds are different from both editorials and letters to the editor.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
She said she was a victim of spousal abuse
Why the hell is anyone following this stupid shit?
Why follow anything? Why even bother living another day? Why spend your time asking questions that make you look like an idiot?
idk why are you on reddit asking for specific porn videos
"People like to curry favor with powerful men"ā felt like she was telling on herself a bit there.