This months Trial of the Century Depp v Heard

[Nicole44 22059]

34 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I've spent way to many words here to just say this. Fuck them both.

Thanks for clarifying that. Up until now, your feelings on the subject have been a mystery. 😉 

[Deej 76759]

I can't wait for wildcat09's trial for stalking Amber Heard. 

[JesusSweatDuck 17781]

7 minutes ago, Deej said:

I can't wait for wildcat09's trial for stalking Amber Heard. 

He's currently parked outside of her parents house in Westlake

[Sawbonz 27546]

8 minutes ago, Deej said:

I can't wait for wildcat09's trial for stalking Amber Heard. 

He’ll be fine. No one will believe her

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

@wildcat09 seems like the type to pay for OnlyFans.

[mchookem 16327]

6 hours ago, dcbc said:

I couldn't recall if she testified that it broke, but that was my surmise as well.  The other was about a "cavity search" for drugs while everyone was tripping balls in the desert.  Who the hell knows?

 

6 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Both I think are plots from movies. 

 

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I'd be curious to see a transcript of the part of the trial you're describing. Because the ACLU has also admitted to writing the article.

She definitely shouldn't have welched on the pledge.

[crash_davis 23107]

i only perused the last few pages but what i got is....wildcat is seriously objecting to the verdict and fervently defending Amber but he didn't watch the fucking trial? i've seen stupid but it's been pages of stupid. it's like debating about a book he's never read.

[immamac 42839]

9 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

i only perused the last few pages but what i got is....wildcat is seriously objecting to the verdict and fervently defending Amber but he didn't watch the fucking trial? i've seen stupid but it's been pages of stupid. it's like debating about a book he's never read.

it's such a fun trainwreck. 

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

8 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I've already made it clear that I think it's ridiculous to believe she secretly plotted it all out over years to ruin his career. A lot of posters seem to agree with me about that.  You obviously don't and are throwing one hell of a temper tantrum over that disagreement. That's fine, I guess. Knock yourself out.

 

7 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The only theory I've heard as to why she'd plot for years to frame him for domestic violence is to help promote her career. I'm not aware of any actress whose career has ever been boosted by accusing a man of physical or sexual assault.

You lucky man. It's obvious you've never stuck your dick and crazy and then hung around for months or years.

This kind of shit is not really plotted out by these psychos. It's just who they are. It's what they do. They improvise in real time like Miles Davis and then retroactively form narratives. 

Damaged, addicted dudes like Depp are catnip to them because they thrive on drama, and damaged, addicted dudes like Depp fall for them because they are damaged, addicted dudes..

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

[Goredho 17399]

This thread needs more Camille Vasquez in it.  

[dcbc 14471]

Rulings that preclude evidence are usually done before trial through motions in limine. If it happened during the trial, it would have been Depp's attorneys who objected, to which her lawyers would respond, and if the judge rules it inadmissible, it is appealable. 

Limine is different. You make an offer of proof outside the jury's presence of the exhibit or testimony in order to preserve error for appeal.

[cmontexas 3270]

Embarrassing for grown men to use terms like simp and beta cuck with 100% seriousness I didnt realize this board had turned into /r9k/

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 hour ago, Goredho said:

This thread needs more Camille Vasquez in it.  

Come give me a hug.

[dcbc 14471]

i only perused the last few pages but what i got is....wildcat is seriously objecting to the verdict and fervently defending Amber but he didn't watch the fucking trial? i've seen stupid but it's been pages of stupid. it's like debating about a book he's never read.

Strenuously objecting

[BabaYaga 15290]

11 hours ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

She definitely shouldn't have welched on the pledge.

lol

Quote

What is a Gold Digger?

A gold digger is someone who pursues and forms a relationship with someone else for the sole purpose of using or taking that person’s money and wealth. The gold digger doesn’t have an honest emotional or physical attraction to their partner; rather, their goal is to enter into a relationship in order to have access to the target’s wealth.

and....

Quote

They Never Pay

Having the ability to pay for things is a nice benefit of being wealthy. It is natural to want to spend money on people you are attracted to and love. As with all things in healthy relationships, however, this is also a two-way street. If your partner never offers to pay for anything, they might be setting the stage for what your future with them will be like if you get more serious.

(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down....

[crash_davis 23107]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

lol

and....

(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down
(I gotta leave) Get down girl, go 'head, get down....

before Kanye became a raging idiot.

 

[wildcat09 29349]

3 hours ago, cmontexas said:

Embarrassing for grown men to use terms like simp and beta cuck with 100% seriousness I didnt realize this board had turned into /r9k/

[SquishMitten 10403]

22 hours ago, Moby Ric said:

Heard's memaw lawyer said that they are going to appeal cause there is a ton of evidence they were not allowed to admit.  I already thought she was a bad lawyer but now I am sure of it, cause that is not how appeals work.

I didn't hear her statement, so maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, but if the argument is that the judge improperly ruled out evidence that had high probative value, that would be a valid reason to appeal. 

[Huckleberry 32851]

This thread has somehow even gotten weirder.

wildcat is pulling a bad_teammate Sabrina Erdely UVA Rolling Stone story defense in here.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

34 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

but if the argument is that the judge improperly ruled out evidence that had high probative value, that would be a valid reason to appeal. 

She didn't. They wanted to include the judgement in the EU case which had zero to do with this case. She's just waving her hands around on TV hoping that it will distract from her client taking a BIG L.

[TwiceHorn 31449]

36 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

She didn't. They wanted to include the judgement in the EU case which had zero to do with this case. She's just waving her hands around on TV hoping that it will distract from her client taking a BIG L.

It does seem that the judge was very liberal in admitting evidence, at least under relevance.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It does seem that the judge was very liberal in admitting evidence, at least under relevance.

True. And she didn't allow any of Heard's arrest records (showing that she abused her current wife) into the record. Rightfully so.

[Laxtonto 12080]

2 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

True. And she didn't allow any of Heard's arrest records (showing that she abused her current wife) into the record. Rightfully so.

 

And let AH get away dragging out production of her devices and other tech and really limited what the tech experts could say.

In my view she was pretty "even" or potentially shaded a bit towards AH, but that couldn't override a bad case and less than stellar attorneys.

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

On 6/3/2022 at 4:09 PM, Laxtonto said:

 

And let AH get away dragging out production of her devices and other tech and really limited what the tech experts could say.

In my view she was pretty "even" or potentially shaded a bit towards AH, but that couldn't override a bad case and less than stellar attorneys.

I’m not so sure the attorneys for Turd we’re so bad. I think Turd was a turd of a client. But idk

[Laxtonto 12080]

15 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I’m not so sure the attorneys for Turd we’re so bad. I think Turd was a turd of a client. But idk

Lead council consistently got drug for not being able to come up with a non-leading question and both her open and closing arguments were poorly done and more than anything poorly presented. She was not impressive, to say the least.

Bigger problem for me is that the approach of the trial in general lacked polish. For being as high profile as this was, I would have expected a much higher level of professionalism and precision. Their experts were disorganized and consistently unprepared for the simplest concepts for cross. They often wasted time (which is a major deal with this trial being on a clock) on direct and cross and had little real structure in their witness list (which is odd because most of their witnesses were on video depositions, so the order in which who is called isn’t tied to availability). 
 

On top of it all, they could not get AHs witnesses to actually be there in person. I get that many had depositions from the UK trial and so they were concerned about the narrative potentially changing over time and using the UK depositions against them, but it told a very concerning story to the jury that most of AHs witnesses were all video depositions while the vast majority of Depps were in person. In a case that hinged on credibility and AH consistently implying that everyone was lying for Depp, Depps witness were there in person to face a live cross and did not crumble on the stand. AH instead was all for the most part videos and it was fairly obvious based upon the cuts that there were massive objections and sections removed. It leaves the average person questioning what got cut and why did they not do this in person.
 

Then again, it was fairly obvious that AH was making many of the overarching decisions, so they were consistently hamstrung based upon her decisions. The being said, the technical aspects and functional presentation and flow is all on the attorneys. 

Probably easier to say bad client that selected council that would following her script and the spectacle made the trial something that was too big or too much for her attorneys to handle.

From a pure professional product standpoint, Depps side won hands down.  The difference in experts was staggering.

I do think that both fumbled on the social media analytics aspects, but that is probably the biggest issue I have with Depps side.

[Nicole44 22059]

I know AH’s crackerjack attorneys wanted the Judge to allow the jury to hear about the UK case (verdict) but I heard on one program that wouldn’t have been allowed bc Amber wasn’t the defendant in that case. A tabloid was in the UK. Not sure if that is correct but that’s what I “heard.”

Obviously there were key differences in this trial vs UK…the result is still baffling a lot of legal experts because the US is thought to have greater freedom of speech protections. UK trial was solely in front of a judge (lots of rumors about that judge being tight with Heard’s team or possibly knew Heard.) the Judge in the UK wouldn’t allow a lot of the evidence Depp’s side wanted to present. The DARVO (Deny Attack Reverse Victim and Offender) which showed Amber as the abuser and liar. The defendant was a Tabloid. And it wasn’t televised…

Its clear that here Amber lost a lot of credibility in front of a jury…they heard the audio of her saying she punched him and that she dared him to say he was a victim. There is a lot more backlash now than there was then for the #MeToo stuff…

I do try to remain impartial and objective in these types of cases. Just because I am a woman I don’t feel I should side with a female just bc she makes an allegation. I’ve already said I wasn’t a huge fan of Depp even going back to the 21 Jump Street time when he was a huge sex symbol (lol). Amber lacked credibility and after Dr. Curry’s testimony, it was clear, to me, that she was BPD with narcissist tendencies as that came across daily in the trial. She just wasn’t believable. While I’m sure Depp’s massive popularity (he also came across as personable and charming on the stand) played a role in this…the jury didn’t see him as the physical abuser she claimed that he was. Despite all the drugs and drinking and toxicity and the fact they are both really fucked people who shouldn’t pursue a relationship with a cardboard box they still didn’t believe that he physically harmed her. I didn’t either. My two cents.

O/T but what a fucking time for my AC to go out during a week in Austin where we are in the triple digits all fucking week.

[chainsaw 9865]

2 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I do try to remain impartial and objective in these types of cases. Just because I am a woman I don’t feel I should side with a female just bc she makes an allegation.

I see this a lot. Almost to the point where I wonder if women judge these things more harshly than men.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

13 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I know AH’s crackerjack attorneys wanted the Judge to allow the jury to hear about the UK case (verdict) but I heard on one program that wouldn’t have been allowed bc Amber wasn’t the defendant in that case. A tabloid was in the UK. Not sure if that is correct but that’s what I “heard.”

No, that's correct. Completely different suit with different law. It would be insane to allow anything from that trial to enter into the US case.

[Nicole44 22059]

34 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I see this a lot. Almost to the point where I wonder if women judge these things more harshly than men.

Precisely…bc those of us who do judge harshly do know real victims personally and it’s a gut punch every time you see a UVA Rolling Stone deal or a Duke Lacrosse deal or women doing this in divorce or child custody hearings. We lose huge every time. So fuck Amber Heard. Fuck her. The damage that gets done every damn time to legit cases when fucking assholes like her do this is profound. It’s taken forever and a day for the world at large to see rape and domestic violence as being insidious and it’s still not even where it needs to be. Damn. Her supporters are doing more harm than good by trying to prop her and her case up. Jump ship and find a legit one to support. Stop championing her. She used the movement and she used it for self gain. Jmo…

[Brisketexan 105095]

7 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

Precisely…bc those of us who do judge harshly do know real victims personally and it’s a gut punch every time you see a UVA Rolling Stone deal or a Duke Lacrosse deal or women doing this in divorce or child custody hearings. We lose huge every time. So fuck Amber Heard. Fuck her. The damage that gets done every damn time to legit cases when fucking assholes like her do this is profound. It’s taken forever and a day for the world at large to see rape and domestic violence as being insidious and it’s still not even where it needs to be. Damn. Her supporters are doing more harm than good by trying to prop her and her case up. Jump ship and find a legit one to support. Stop championing her. She used the movement and she used it for self gain. Jmo…

The bolded is important.  Setting aside the foolish obsession with celebs and tabloid culture, a big reason for a lot of the satisfaction with the outcome isn't because people adore Johnny Depp and think he's a great guy, or think that domestic abuse is a joke.  It's the opposite -- domestic abuse is serious as shit, and when someone makes false allegations (or at the very least, was engaged in mutual combat between two utterly damaged and shitty human beings who were toxic to each other), THAT risks harming "the movement."

I have a problem with a blanket "I believe women" approach.  That said, it's incredibly important to have an "I believe women should have their allegations taken seriously, have them duly investigated, and be provided with all due process to protect them" approach. Just because the system has historically downplayed women's complaints of domestic abuse does not change the fact that anyone can accuse another person of anything, whether or not it actually happened.  Truth and the burden of proof and due process still exist.  My wife commented on it, from the perspective of someone with both a daughter and a son -- "if my daughter makes an accusation of domestic abuse, I want the authorities to take it seriously, and act to protect her as needed.  Likewise, if someone makes an accusation of domestic abuse against my son, I want the authorities to take it seriously and investigate it fairly, and provide due process to the accused."  Both things can -- and MUST -- be true.

I don't think that Amber Heard did any larger scope damage to the cause of abused women here; I think the facts of her case were unique enough that they don't create a strong cultural precedent one way or the other.  I mean, I guess my advice to a female client would be "if you are both super-shitty and abusive to each other, and there's ample evidence of it being mutually toxic, your allegations of 'I was abused' probably aren't going to gain much traction."  But that would have been my advice before this trial as well.  Shitty people who do shitty things directly involved in the shittiness at issue in a case are going to have a hard time painting themselves as the victim.  That has always been true.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

I believe people until the facts state otherwise.

[Brisketexan 105095]

6 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I believe people until the facts state otherwise.

I'm a "trust, but verify" guy.  I don't believe or disbelieve you -- accept the allegation, and then look at the evidence to determine the facts.  It seems that it should go without saying, but 1) sometimes people make allegations that turn out not to be true, 2) sometimes, there are so few objective facts that you just have two competing stories, and it's functionally impossible to tell what actually happened, and 3) sometimes the facts support the allegation.  In a world where all three of those outcomes can happen, it seems wildly irresponsible to either simply "always believe the accuser," or to set a burden of proof that's impossibly high (e.g., "well, we asked him, and he says he didn't hit you, so without a confession, we just won't proceed.")

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

There is a large difference between "I believe you" and "You can prove your accusation in a court of law". The Twitters don't understand the difference.

[Nicole44 22059]

45 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The bolded is important.  Setting aside the foolish obsession with celebs and tabloid culture, a big reason for a lot of the satisfaction with the outcome isn't because people adore Johnny Depp and think he's a great guy, or think that domestic abuse is a joke.  It's the opposite -- domestic abuse is serious as shit, and when someone makes false allegations (or at the very least, was engaged in mutual combat between two utterly damaged and shitty human beings who were toxic to each other), THAT risks harming "the movement."

I have a problem with a blanket "I believe women" approach.  That said, it's incredibly important to have an "I believe women should have their allegations taken seriously, have them duly investigated, and be provided with all due process to protect them" approach. Just because the system has historically downplayed women's complaints of domestic abuse does not change the fact that anyone can accuse another person of anything, whether or not it actually happened.  Truth and the burden of proof and due process still exist.  My wife commented on it, from the perspective of someone with both a daughter and a son -- "if my daughter makes an accusation of domestic abuse, I want the authorities to take it seriously, and act to protect her as needed.  Likewise, if someone makes an accusation of domestic abuse against my son, I want the authorities to take it seriously and investigate it fairly, and provide due process to the accused."  Both things can -- and MUST -- be true.

I don't think that Amber Heard did any larger scope damage to the cause of abused women here; I think the facts of her case were unique enough that they don't create a strong cultural precedent one way or the other.  I mean, I guess my advice to a female client would be "if you are both super-shitty and abusive to each other, and there's ample evidence of it being mutually toxic, your allegations of 'I was abused' probably aren't going to gain much traction."  But that would have been my advice before this trial as well.  Shitty people who do shitty things directly involved in the shittiness at issue in a case are going to have a hard time painting themselves as the victim.  That has always been true.

Yes to all of this. I have a problem period with the blanket “I believe women” approach. I have female friends saying some of the following shit about this (forget it’s celebrities…it touched on a serious issue and created a lot of discussion):

1. So what if he didn’t do it…he’s a fucked up guy anyway. (Nicole: so it’s ok if someone is possibly innocent that their fucked-upness makes it ok to have their livelihood and reputation damaged? No.)

2. The movement is what is important. Sometimes there is a collateral damage and Depp has money and power and he can take care of himself. Women have been treated poorly for centuries. Sometimes there is collateral damage and it’s not like he’s a great guy. (Nicole: WTF? See response number one + yes the movement is important but I don’t think I want to be a part of something where collateral damage is an acceptable outcome for advancing the movement…which it, by the way harms more than helps.)

3. Why would she lie? (Nicole: Seriously???)

I know that I am naive and I do realize (no CR) that there are very serious issues confronting us. Very important issues and movements. But I’d prefer not to relish in or make it seem ok that potentially innocent people get caught up in the crossfire and become collateral damage . It’s not ok. It doesn’t have to be necessary. And for the life of me, I cannot understand my female friends who feel different. But they do. In their minds it is ok because there are so many more female victims than men so who cares? And I just can’t get in board with that shit. 
 

And yea I do realize that sometimes to win or get somewhere you can’t always play by the rules but I hear a lot of the above talk lately (last couple of years) and it really fucking bothers me.

Off soapbox! Go see Top Gun Maverick!!!!!

[gyroprotagonist 2592]

On 6/1/2022 at 2:50 PM, Viper said:

have her get eaten by a shark in the first scene ala Hicks and Newt

sorry if it's been posted i am 4 pages behind

[ztejas 43418]

The insistence in here that Depp is a terrible person is strange. You can just say that AH is a supremely shitty person and more than a little crazy without making it about Depp. Being an asshole in a relationship isn't illegal. I think he has some serious substance issues but that doesn't make him a bad person, and he's never had that reputation. He seems like he's a little crazy, an alcoholic, and not good at picking women (although he was with the mother of his two kids for 13-14 years). It seems pretty clear to me which of these two is a bigger piece of shit. 

[Deej 76759]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

a little crazy, an alcoholic, and not good at picking women

New Surly motto?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

He's crazy, but he's not "I'm going to shit in your bed" crazy.

[Nicole44 22059]

4 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

He's crazy, but he's not "I'm going to shit in your bed" crazy.

I’m not even sure she’s from earth. It’s like she lightly skimmed a CliffNotes version of how to behave like a quasi-normal human with gestures and expressions…I feel like…

her facial expressions, reactions, body gestures are so exaggerated and off and don’t fit the situation. She’ll do great on Only Scat Fans…

[Deej 76759]

[Deej 76759]

1 hour ago, Nicole44 said:

She’ll do great on Only Scat Fans…

If only TOS was still operational.

[Armybrat 40832]

[chainsaw 9865]

8 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

He's crazy, but he's not "I'm going to shit in your bed" crazy.

I've known drunks that become incontinent. I'd wager a fair bit Johnny's shat the bed, couch, or car a few times. But never on purpose as part of some sort of retribution.

[BigDHornfan 6546]

[Born to Run 6569]

I’m not even sure she’s from earth. It’s like she lightly skimmed a CliffNotes version of how to behave like a quasi-normal human with gestures and expressions…I feel like…
her facial expressions, reactions, body gestures are so exaggerated and off and don’t fit the situation. She’ll do great on Only Scat Fans…

I find it weird and sad that some many people just keep dunking on a mentally ill woman. I get it, she's a horrible person, but like so many other horrible persons, she's likely had some awful shit happen in her past that partly made her that way.

We would all recoil at a "retard joke", but let's just clown on the mentally unstable lady religitating a divorce ending a messy, unstable, unhealthy partnership for the lulz. Over and over. Yeah she's mentally ill and acts like it. But she's weird, an addict and just crazy enough to be funny without it being clearly so fucked up to be sad. What if she shit the bed then cut her self? Or was so crazy she saved 40 turds and dropped them all at once. Or covered her self in shit in the courtroom? (Settle down scat fans) Her down fall is she isn't quite crazy enough to generate any empathy. Why is that?

(Nicole you post like you have unresolved anger towards a similarly ill past partner. I hope you find healing and compassion. Or simply letting things go.)

Hyperbole Horns in full effect.

[ATexanAbroad 627]

14 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

I find it weird and sad that some many people just keep dunking on a mentally ill woman. I get it, she's a horrible person, but like so many other horrible persons, she's likely had some awful shit happen in her past that partly made her that way.

We would all recoil at a "retard joke", but let's just clown on the mentally unstable lady religitating a divorce ending a messy, unstable, unhealthy partnership for the lulz. Over and over. Yeah she's mentally ill and acts like it. But she's weird, an addict and just crazy enough to be funny without it being clearly so fucked up to be sad. What if she shit the bed then cut her self? Or was so crazy she saved 40 turds and dropped them all at once. Or covered her self in shit in the courtroom? (Settle down scat fans) Her down fall is she isn't quite crazy enough to generate any empathy. Why is that?

(Nicole you post like you have unresolved anger towards a similarly ill past partner. I hope you find healing and compassion. Or simply letting things go.)

Hyperbole Horns in full effect.

youre on the wrong fucking website