LIVE: Johnny Depp V Amber Heard - Day 20 Real Lawyers React
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2022
- #AmberHeard #DeppVHeard #JohnnyDepp
Become a member -
ruclips.net/channel/UCxAH...
Amber Heard's witness list: www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit...
Johnny Depp's witness list: www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit...
🔴 Do you or someone you know need to speak to a real lawyer about a case? Or do you find yourself needing legal advice? Please reach out to our firm and we will make sure to answer your questions or find someone who can. Our consultations are always free and confidential. You can call our firm at (727)441-9030 or email us at lawyeryouknow@gmail.com.
✅ For business inquiries contact me at lawyeryouknow@gmail.com
✅ Let's connect: www.tragoslaw.com/
Twitter - @tragoslaw
Instagram - /tragoslaw
Facebook - /tragoslaw
TikTok - /tragoslaw
✅ Join our email list here - bit.ly/33lV3Mb
Get your Lawyer You Know merch here - bit.ly/LYKMerch
🔴 NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Intro & Outro Music: DOLYJJVS2W8MGNFM 
Развлечения
Dr. Spiegel ignored that JD had a diagnosis of ADHD, and adderall is used in the treatment of ADHD. ADHD is also associated with short term memory problems. How did that escape his "review"??????!
The movie agent "expert" admitted she currently has no clients.
A judge is the captain of their courtroom. This judge does not run a tight ship.
I like the part where that doctor guy referred to his patients as "my victims"
😵💫 I missed that. That's some Freudian slip lol.
😯😅🤦🏼♀️
I know, right?! I had to rewind because I thought I must have not heard him correctly!
Right, lol?! Freudian slip?
The reason Dennison doubled down is because it is highly unethical for psychiatrists and psychologists to give professional opinions or diagnoses of people they have not personally evaluated. That's what the Goldwater Rule is. And Dr. Spiegel was definitely attempting to diagnose JD - which is why he avoided answering Dennison's questions about whether or not he'd made a diagnosis. He wanted it to look like he had to the jury which is incredibly unethical.
Just a little insight for you, there. It was a line of questioning specifically tackling the ethics of his testimony.
I feel like Elaine is a dirty lawyer. From the beginning, she has been leading witnesses and purposely bringing in disallowed "evidence" so that the jury hears it. This is a terrible way for her to end her career and I don't feel sorry for her. And why is it that Camille and Benjamin seem like the only decent litigators on Depp's side? Congrats on the 102K ... looking forward to you impression of Jack Sparrow! Thank you for the service you are doing to us laypeople!
Agreed, they let Elaine and Amber get away with everything.
She may just be stupid.
And she goes over and over pointless questions (equivalent to waterboarding) wasting everyone's time and burning up their allotted time like the Mission Impossible fuse, which is actually great for Johnny's team, but nevertheless annoying.
Dirty or demented?
And the judge let's her get away with it.
Whether Johnny wins or loses the defamation case, this exposure of Amber will boost his career and destroy hers!
Everything that man said was utterly horrific and he needs his Dr practice papers taken away!!!
Amber-“in all my time with Johnny, I hadn’t LANDED a blow”. Meaning she swung at him other times!
The domestic violence expert said he viewed "pictures of Depp passed out drunk". I wish they asked him how he knew Depp was drunk. He would have answered by saying Amber's testimony. It would have been a quick way to illustrate he is taking her testimony at face value.
Absolutely right!! Another missed point by Dennison😞
Completely right the thing is according to statistics 60%of the jury has already made their decision halfway through a trial and honestly especially with the time Johnny's legal team has left amber and all of her witnesses have contradicted themselves
He also said he was told Johnny had vomited on himself in the picture where Amber had given him an ice cream after he fell asleep.
This guy gave so much voluntary and not asked info that I almost vomited listening to it. And he kept repeating and rephrasing the questions asked and giving extensive anwers to yes or no questions.
Exhausting!
But loved the expert crusher on Johnny's team.
Maybe Johny should call you next time!
Yea, as if you can hit someone or cause domestic abuse when you are asleep. Never understood how the passed out pics can claim that Depp was an abuser.
There was a 15 minute interval when amber and rocky were alone before amber showed up with bruises. My theory is that Amber coerced rocky to inflict the injuries, hence. Rocky’s emotional testimony.
Could be or Rocky edited the pics m, n Amber has that on her, so Rocky doesn’t say much (prob been threatened by AH?) n stays away!
Ive been saying since from the get go that she staged everything.every bit of detail.to the T
I agree and I don't think she hit her until four days after when they concocted the rest of Thier plan
Dennison has a subtle way to annoy the experts so much that finally they show their true colours. Dr. Spiegel only went so much over the line because he was tempted to do it by Dennison
I saw on Instagram that in the photo of Johnny “asleep” with the ice cream in his lap there is an actual bruise kit on the table. Looked like the one from the Ben NYE line of makeup. 😲
Yes, an actual theater bruise kit! I'm sure other photos she took to make him look bad have other tiny clues in them like the knife on the platform bed Raquel Pennington said she didn't notice or know anything about
There is I saw it and they talked about it on another channel, I wonder if his lawyers caught that
I heard that his other hand is in his pocket in that photo so how would he have been eating ice cream. It’s not in a cone, he would have used a spoon but not with his hand in his pocket.
@@Ceilinggurl It's evident she set him up multiple times to look like a sloppy abusive beast when it's clearly her. A few times on the stand she's done Narscistic smirk micro expressions.
The kit was blanked out the second time they showed the picture 📸
JD testified to the earpiece. He said, that he would rewrite scenes in pirates shortly before shooting rhe scene and that is why he needed an earpiece, because he couldn't memorize all "new" scenes he wrote.
I thought Dennison did great on Dr. Spiegel. Spiegel tried so hard to run the wagon around Dennison but the bottom line is Cluster B traits are diagnosed disorders which he was not ethically nor professionally qualified to answer based on the information he had. The cognitive deficiency thing was ridiculous. Spiegel's combative nature and the facial distortions really really did not help.
I was shocked a Doctor can diagnose someone, without meeting them, going on someones hearsay and watching his past movies.
Why has no one brought up Amber's drug use?
Johnny Depp admitted on the stand to wearing an ear piece on set - he rewrites a lot of lines during makeup before filming and they relay his new lines he just wrote back to him, they also play music through his ear piece. It’s been explained. He learnt that from Marlon Brando
I think the psychiatrist is a narcissist! 🤣Extremely full of himself.
lol i agree
The judge is too slow responding and Elaine takes advantage of that.
I am really shaking my head when the doctor has been warned by judge. He is like a male counterpart of AH.
I really like how you are not biased on what happened.
Inadmissible questions in order to put out ''evidence'' \information, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE DEALT WITH HER.
Even tho Dennison kept reminding him that the photograph showed ice cream and not vomit and that it was music, not lines in the earphones this wacko doc kept saying he didnt believe and plowed right through using “he vomited on himself” and “his cognitive disabilities were so bad he needed his lines read to him” as his facts. Dennison needed to reign him in on hay.
AH’s team has been trying to get in the punch for ever and up until now Johnny’s lawyers have been on top of it. They dropped the ball. Same with the UK trial. They just let it in.
The photo thing should have been dug deeper in my opinion. He was told that JD had vomit on him. It was the ice cream picture. Who told him that it was vomit not ice cream? Also they should have played the audio for both him and the agent chick and point out that is why AH has no movie roles.
Honestly that audio is so damning and they don't seem to be using it to their advantage at all.
Dr Spiegel obviously disliked Johnny Depp because of his problem with drug abuse and this happened in the UK - the judge in the UK judged Johnny on his substance abuse and thats why Johnny lost.
Elaine Bredehoft behaved unethically and improperly but today the judge helped her. Once the judge overruled a hearsay objection which was entirely justified (which the judge confirmed by sustaining an analogue hearsay objection (both were regarding to the character of the contents of an email)), another time she told Elaine how to ask a question ("ask her how she knows") and another time she coaches Elaine to go for "foundation" first. I realise how tiring it must be for everyone, including the judge, to endure Elaine's improper questioning, but still, the judge should not help Elaine out.
Think she was getting flustered.
I agree with you CoolCat.
I think the internet should send Elaine a GIANT shipment of "amica" cream and kitty litter.
Btw: so genious to call his Lawfirm "Bench Show" 😂
Why are they not getting a forensic expert to look at the photos of AH to testify whether they look like injuries caused by being punched in the face repeatedly wearing rings?
Johnny Depp said in an interview that he doesn't memorize the script so line prompts wouldn't be odd, but he also listens to music in his earpiece.
Dennison ROCKED!!!!!! ❤
I do not think AH’s witnesses were effective today at all. The orthopedic surgeon had not seen the pictures nor listened to what Ben the butler had testified as to finding the finger where he did. Once he saw that and heard that he wavered.
The “Back To The Future” looking psychiatrist was a pompous lunatic. He was argumentative and defensive; strange being a psychiatrist and all…
The last one seemed very uninformed. She talked about all these movies but hadn’t seen any of them or was familiar with any of the subject matter.
Meh…..today was a wash for AH.
I followed this trial originally with Popcorned Planet. Following the trial, I worked backward to learn about the many aspects I was unfamiliar with, such as law as well as body language analysis. My eyes were opened to so many things from this trial.
I may not have followed during the trial, but I have learned and appreciated so much.
So thanks for sharing your insight and time!
If I’m on the jury I’ve forgotten what the Dr was trying to testify to. His answers were too long winded, self indulgent and I never want to live in a society where I can be diagnosed, without being assessed in person. That’s how the witch hunts start. I would strike his testimony from my mind. Cross didn’t sway me one way or the other. A bit of comedic relief. Elaine’s unprofessional behaviour was nails on a chalk board.
I feel comfortable that the jury knows that - no matter competences - no psychiatrist/psychologist can make diagnosis though the internet, film, and photos, etc. If (!) there still is something called 'individuality', any society must demand that these sciences are performed with direct observations and interviews of the client. Most people can produce video, photo, and even journals which contains snips revealing their unpleasant nature :-) - which is not a diagnosis.
I completely agree about cross of Spiegel, the judge allowed him to control narrative. He was argumentative.
From what I've seen with Dr Spiegel's testimony, my guess would be that Dennison very pointedly questioned his expertise to rile Spiegel up, and boy did that come into play in the cross.
I agree with you on Dennison's cross-exam of Dr. Speigel. He had so much information to attack and discredit that "Doctor". Also, I can not believe the amount of unethical behavior coming from Heard's team of lawyers! Why is the judge allowing this? Perhaps she is trying to be "extra fair" by giving them every opportunity to defend their client in case if an appeall? It seems that the defense has NO defense....they are desperate!
I agree. The judge is just super lenient or fair to Ambers team. JD has excellent lawyers because he is more truthful.
Dennison is frustrating, he constantly drops the ball, when of course he can put a complete sentence together. Its very disappointing, very.
I didn’t think he needed to do the discrediting, it was obvious and the more he allowed that dude to speak, the more he dug himself into a hole😳😳😳
Gm
@@pheeqzie True but he needs to step it up and crush him anyhow because well that's his job.
The part about chemistry test was ridiculous, because she said that they did the chemistry test and the director loved her. Then when he said there was reports about Amber not having chemistry with Jason, then she said she did have chemistry with Jason and that's why she was on the movie posters. okay but movie posters are made in promo before the movie comes out. A studio will see audience reactions and if the audience determines that two people have no chemistry after the movie comes out, the studio will determine they have no chemistry and can fire them.
Also, why is Elaine always making fun of Johnny? Today talking about his drawing and eating candy, then mocking him the other day?
Agree with all this. The poster doesn’t prove they actually had chemistry when acting opposite each other
What is wrong with eating candy and drawing? Great way to cope with the circus of Amber and her attorneys as well as her "experts". What about Ambers substance abuse??
Thank you for not being a one sided flapping head, you are able to articulate and challenge even my own views on things. I appreciate people like you more than you’ll ever know. There’s not many people that can cut out their own bias to try and make sense out of what they’re seeing.
Thats why I liked this channel very level headed, respectful, articulate, knowledgeable, non biased opinions.
When E said/asked that Ben & Camille both reached over & took candy from the container near JD
The Judge should have stopped Elaine then correct? Why didnt she?
After listening to the doc, one viewer said they hsd PTSD,Post Testimomy Stress Disorder.
WB is actually going to testify that Amber was not cut out of Aquaman 2 because of Waldman statements. WB already gave a declaration saying so.
Very disappointed in today. Another senseless day. Elaine and AH’s team absolutely unethical. So upsetting how she continually is Sneaking evidence in the back door, creepy. AH and her team is making a mockery of the Court and belittling our intelligence. I feel so bad for the Jurors. (I absolutely agree with you ! )
Man I wish I would have known about your channel when the trial was going on, I absolutely love your input.
Dennison's cross of Spiegel was so strained, BUT I agreed with bringing in the fact that the court denied the order for compulsory medical exam. This was a big question when Dr. Curry first testified; even Jonny supporters wanted to know why HE didnt have to be evaluated... The jury might have had the same questions, especially after they unfortunately got to open thar door on direct. I think they should have addressed it on cross, and I dont think it hurt him much at all, certainly not as much as not having that point to argue against later because we know her lawyers woild try to argue that he was hiding something.
Dennison gave that witness soooo much rope and he hung himself with it. Not my preferred strategy, but it worked here.
Musicians have devices feeding them lyrics to read of their own songs they've sung for yrs and teleprompters in a TV show
I too was surprised they didn’t flip the psych testimony to AH on cross.
Dennison has appeals to laypeople who aren’t lawyers. Lawyers can easily see what he left on the table as far as cross. But for non-lawyers, he’s extremely effective because he makes people on the jury feel like they’re not in a court room, but instead watching a friend tear down someone’s arguments in a bar. He gets people to laugh, he gets the witness to repeat points so the jury knows it’s important, etc. He is however terrible at objections, both giving them and fighting them off.
Um actually he's not effective, he is a complete mess on cross and he's doing his client a disservice, with every single cross, EVERY SINGLE ONE.
@@michelleadams474 He actually pulled out that the dr was a quack and a liar. Per some people in the courtroom, they said the jury liked Dennison AND didn't pay the expertise any attention. He showed the man just wanted to hear himself talk and was full of crap which they definitely (jury) dismissed.
I felt he did good and I also think that some things he could've moved in from rather than staying with it. Overall, he was very effective and the jury after it was said and done BOTH of the witnesses he cross-examined they dismissed them and didn't like them.
@@nakela2 Well I think anyone with a pulse could have seen the doctor, if we have to give him that title is a quack and a liar. Dennison could have done so much more but he just can't seem to get out of his own way.
I quite liked Mr Dennisons job today with 2 arrogant personalities as witnesses. He is very intelligent
People were saying Amber heard and the tissue shows she was doing coke on the stand, but I’m almost 100% sure that psychiatrist was on some upper. His mouth movements, his fast speech, etc…
Totally agree with you on cross -- could've been in and out quick -- I learned early on in my practice that you don't try to prove your case on cross exam -- You go in and show bias or mistakes and get your points in and then get out and bring your witnesses to testify to your story. By the way Dennison also crossed Dr. Hughes and did the same thing -- asked too many questions and gave them too much rehabilitation issues. And yes absolutely everything shrink said applied to AH and Dennison didn't pick that up. Dennison also needs to take lessons from Camille as to how to object. Just saying "objection" and not immediately giving cogent reason isn't effective. Camille is far and away the best on objections I can remember seeing.
I thought that guy was so unprofessional and ridiculous that no one would believe a thing he said anyway.
The biggest mistake that Dennison made (in my opinion) with the damages expert was not asking "Can you separate the bad press from the Tell them Johnny audio and Waldman's statements?" That audio dropped shortly before the Daily Mail statements. And some of her own support group backed away from her when they heard it.
Didn’t know this, wow if so and that would have been a great question!
Reason because audio was leaked by waldman .so they could co relate this with waldman
@@nisn8878 Yes. Waldman admitted to leaking the audio, but it isn't one of the statements in the counter claim. Also, truth is a defence to defamation, and there is no way that anyone can claim that the audio is false or fabricated (especially when it has been entered into evidence in this trial). I don't think that they have established a master/servant relationship between JD and AW. I hope there will be a jury instruction about vicarious liability and whether invoking attorney/client privilege can be seen as a negative inference that AW was acting on JDs instructions. It seems that Elaine was already setting up that improper connection during the depo questioning.
Yes, thought they were going to play the audio. Also Covid affecting careers/lack of work was never mentioned
I'm just watching that cross now, and it was so painful to watch waiting for him to ask that, I've jumped over to this page for a break and have seen your comment. I don't think I can go finish watching it knowing he doesn't ask that. That's really the only thing he had to establish. And that she said her task was to use the Waldman statement as the instigator. Just ask if something that happened 2 weeks earlier (I think) could have been the instigator
Who in their right mind would agree to be examined by a Psychiatrist paid by the other team?
That psychologist should see one. Supercilious nutcase.
This psychiatrist was completely unethical, he also lied about there being a standard cognitive test used for substance abuse diagnosis. As a licensed substance use disorder clinician myself, I feel this man's license could even be in jeopardy with multiple things he testified to today.
I was appalled by the psychiatrist's logically flawed reversal of implication when he mentioned a "80%-90%" probability for people committing IPV to have a certain risk factor, when he was challenged about the other direction, i.e., what the likelihood of someone with the risk factor is to commit IPV. Either he does not know how implication works (it's not symmetric) or he was deliberately attempting to mislead the jury.
agreed, he is the shame on our profession
@@coolcat23 being a counselor, can you tell me how using the skillset of a mental health professional could he have defended her without lying or being unethical?
Breaking the biggest rule. Goldwater rule. cannot give a testimony of psychosis of a patient without seeing them testing them etc. Basically that doctor have to see Johnny speaking with him and going through his history before he can give a verdict for what he has if any
@@lisacurtis8162 Fair point. :) If he could have just stated that substance abuse can impair judgement and make otherwise reasonable people do unreasonable things, he might have done some damage to JD's case without coming across as biased.
Some of the lawyer that were in court stated, that the jury had tuned Dr. Speigal out and that they didn't like him at all.
The hubby and I have declared you the most succinct commentator of legal process in the Depp v. Heard case. Thank you!
Was sleeping. Yesterday def. Was a crazy day lol. Cant wait for Saturday night’s livestream. I’ll try to make it!!! 👊
I loved how Dennison had him saying o good point multi tasking is hard for a human to do two things at once
From a juror's layperson's perspective I feel like that attorney that crossed the experts did an excellent job! I would have been swayed against AH as a hypothetical juror based on the attorney's cross.
I thought Johnny's attorney could have done better, as usual. He really frustrates me with his stuttering and fumbling and then when he does make a good point with the witness he drops the ball, or when he's catching them in something and they get a bad attitude that makes him look bad he seems to lose his train of thought and just says "okay."... what, okay??? No its not okay, he does a poor job in my opinion.
I’m with your opinion.
The first surgeon basically said he hadn’t seen the photos of where this incident occurred and evidence other than those fed to him by AH’s team. And so he admits to have seen less evidence than the jurors. He didn’t treat JD, hasn’t seen JD’s finger, didn’t do any simulations, hell he couldn’t even get the hand position right. I wouldn’t even consider him to be an expert. If I were a juror, I would just think that the bottle may simply have hit the finger at off angle from the right.
I initially thought the lawyer cross examining the second doctor was awkward at first, but then I saw how Dr S became more emboldened because he saw the lawyer as being below him in intellect. He was eventually made to say that Cluster B people with substance abuse problems are more likely to perpetuate IPV. The jurors only know of one person who has been diagnosed of that inside that room. And we all heard how she sounds like she’s under influence in all those audios. All the behavior he attributed to JD applies directly to AH, and I think the jurors gradually realized that. The lawyer seems to have pulled a detective Columbo on him to fool him into inferring that Cluster B = Amber = abuser.
Mr. Dennison's stuttering and fumbling is a psychological trick to confuse the witness. Witnesses are always trying to calculate in their head how they should respond to a question even before the question has been laid out. If you observe closely, Mr.Dennison breaks his sentences 3 times in different parts. This is to not let the witness know whether they must reply in yes or no in order to help their client's case. So what I have been observing, when Mr. Dennison speaks the first break in the sentence is normally affirmative, second break hints towards a No answer. But till the third break comes, the witnesses forgets whether he must reply in yes or no and so, Mr.Dennison cracks up the witness and truth comes out of them.
But yeah, he may have forgotten few important questions 😄😀
Never mind I am biased 🤣🤣
I hear your gut is Johnny has hit her. One would think though, that in their fights she’d have yelled, “Johnny I hit you, not punch....you punch me when you hit?” She would have used it, imo....
@@michelleadams474 I agree
Depps sound guy explained the ear feed - he stated Depp would make up lines last minute snd then would forget what he wrote - so the ear feed helped
With regards to Johnny Depp "always being late on set" - I'd be asking: "At what point in his career did showing up late on set, start becoming a regular habit?" Or even "Does his habit of late arrival to set correlate with his relationship with Amber?" I'm speculating that he was often late because of those horrible - hours long/all night long fights with Amber, whom never let up on him - even when he needed space.
If Johnny is late it may be his ADHD. I have severe ADHD and have no sense of time and struggle to be on time. I can't believe a thing that unethical psychiatrist said. He didn't even know the medication all the primary uses. He acted like he was pumped up on amphetamines himself!
You knew all along they wouldn't call Johnny back. Kudos!
I completely agree that the cross by Dennison was not as effective as he could have been, very lackluster. I was disappointed with it
I’m pretty sure they are objecting late because this judge has clearly been very lenient previously by stating “let’s see where it goes” and letting Elaine and the witness continue. The judge did the same thing with Camille. The judge let’s the inadmissible answer come in, then sustains the objection but rarely strikes it from the record. It’s SO frustrating! But I think that’s why depp’s team started objecting late.
also, it's almost sickening to know that Amber could have easily gotten away with making the world think Johnny was an abuser if she just wouldn't have embellished so extravagantly and if she just wasn't so damn nuts. the world was primed and ready to believe her... hell they already did. all she has to do was spoon feed us the abuse details and it woulda been over for Johnny. scary .
I caught my hand in a door once (the wind caught it slammed it shut), it broke the nail of the middle finger into three pieces, bled like hell, no damage or bruises on the other fingers, no broken bones, even in the middle finger. Classic crush injury. So, yeah, with a wooden DOOR smashing three fingers between it and frame, only one was damaged or even bruised.
Of course, a rounded bottle could smash only one finger and leave the other undamaged, the direction of the soft tissue injury is consistent with a sharp object slicing through at an angle, like a large piece of broken glass.
As an ex-EMT, I found the Ortho ignorant of the case, ignorant of the injury, and either very mistaken or intentionally misleading in his description of the injury. The description of the injury, as given by Depp, and the images of the injury are completely consistent and Camille was wonderful in pointing that out.
Disagree with your takes today. I think Wayne killed it. He had some tough witnesses who tried to skirt away from answering anything directly and by the end I didn’t find them credible at all. The first witness maintained credibility but his expert opinion was annihilated by Camille. In the end he wanted to be honest even if it didn’t go with his opinion and I didn’t get that from the second two. I would weigh his opinion higher than theirs, and yet the physical evidence and testimonies match with Johnny’s story more so than Amber’s. Rottenborn came off really bad today, worse than Elaine IMO.
And not that this is even important but I also don't agree that JD is a diva, I think he is far from it...
I agree as well, it was some areas that I felt that he could've moved on and not harped on but his way of cross-examination is different than others. He was definitely effective in getting their expertise to look like quack jobs and biased. Everyone wants Camille but she's assigned some things as well as the others. I believe Law Network correspondence said that he did an excellent job cross-examining the Dr. Quack....
Nah, Dennison stutter, stumble and hesitates all the time. His Ah and Uhm before every question drives me nuts. He gives the impression of being a bit confused and not sharp at all. He misses the opportunity to press the witness with improvised questions. He's the direct opposite of Vasquez in my opinion...
I agree I think dennison tactics is to make himself appear to stutter and stumble so the witness feels like they're more intelligent than him, he kind of does it in a slow burn, come the end of all the crosses all the witnesses had lost all their credibility, I think with dennison you can hate the process but get the results that's needed.
@@ztevie.j I believe he has a speech impediment, that doesn't mean he isn't a good lawyer, though.
Rate my cross:
Regarding damages expert:
1. Have any of the actors you used as benchmarks for Ms. Heard defecated in their marital bed?
2. Have any of the actors you used as benchmarks for Ms. Heard had audio tapes released where they mock their partner as a “Man who is a victim of DV”?
2.1: Have any of the actors you used as benchmarks for Ms. Heard had audio tapes released where they dare their partner to file a DV report because they will not be believed based on their sex or gender?
3. Have any of the actors you used as benchmarks for Ms. Heard had audio recordings released where they admit to abusing their partner?
4. Now. Do you, aside from Ms. Heard, know of any other actors who’s careers went on a downward trajectory after having been outed as a liar or domestic abuser?
5. Is it safe to assume that IF such news came out about an actor, that it would have a negative effect?
6. Is it safe to assume that hashtags supporting their victims would be more likely to trend as a result of such materials being released?
7. Is it your position that it’s the victims fault if their abuser is called out by hundreds of thousands of people who have considered the evidence for themselves?
8. So… you can’t tell me that you’ve used comparable actors. Neither can you tell me that Ms. Heard didn’t shit the bed of her career by lying about Mr. Depp, defecating on her husbands side of the bed, or having committed gender based coercion and intimidation. CAN YOU?!
Nothing further your honor.
Clear,concise, to the point and impactful!
Dennison should have asked the defamation lady just 1 question - Is Johnny Depp not allowed to defend himself, by denying & refuting allegations made against him by Amber Heard?
59:23 "Doc Brown's" statement was atrociously misleading. The fact that 80%-90% of people committing IPV have a certain risk factor says nothing about how likely it is for a person with that risk factor to commit IPV. It could be that only 1% of people with that risk factor commit IPV which would indicate a very small likelihood. The worst thing was that "Doc Brown" was challenged about the likelihood of someone with the risk factor to commit IPV and that *he* flipped the direction (into IPV -> risk factor), which is 100% inadequate and misleading. Either "Doc Brown" does not know how implication works or he was actively misleading the jury. Unbelievable.
Dr. Spiegel is wrong. DV is not a diagnosis. Histrionic Personality Disorder IS diagnosable (it is F60.4). Substance use IS diagnosable and their are several separate diagnosis codes for it including but not limited to ( F10.129, F10.229, F10.929, F10.10, F11.10, F11.122, F11.222, F11.922, F11.20, and F10.20). Narcississtic Personality Disorder IS diagnoseable (it is F60.8). Also, it against the rules of the Board of Psychiatry to diagnose someone without examining and preforming an official examination which must be documented and can be supported and the client must be present. He is also not acting in a way that is not congruent with a professional in the mental health field. I would report this behavior if I was there. I hope that someone reports this.
Absolutely agree, as another mental health professional
I worked for State Farm for 13 years in fatality/bodily injury and always was in court. You wouldn’t believe the amount of money I paid my Ortho/neuro experts back in the 90’s…… it was 250.00. Our world is crazy because they do nothing more today then they did the last several decades
I wanted to join a live so badly, but my eyes fell shut. Regards from South Africa. ❤️
AH’s ”Hollywood expert” was a effin embarrasment.
How about when he said “l don’t expect my victims to be perfect”
Peter, love your analysis. One matter. The speaker (or writer) implies this or that and the listener ( or reader) infers this or that. The speaker does not infer. Hope that was not being pedantic but I try to get my law students to use the right term.
Nate rhe lawyer made similiar points that the experts could have been crushed so many times in a concise way.
How could Amber say that she could never hurt Johnny when she was caught on tape saying that she hit him? Why didn't Camille bring that up? I know that part didn't happen today but I was thinking about it.
I disagree, he overall exposed that “doctor’s” lack of credibility because it was clear he came across like he had an agenda rather than testify impartially.
Btw, the standards in the UK is very different to what I am observing in your courts so, I wouldn’t make that comparison with the UK case.
Expert evidences are largely on a strictly necessary basis not to mention the fact that government policies find their way into court decisions so, being a nation of puritans, wouldn’t be surprised that most of these details we now know never made it into the UK case.
Yes
Honestly I'm shocked they can just legally pay someone to come tell bullshit in their favor. They are guns for hire
well said
Whatever the outcome, Johnny Depp has won the hearts of people who believe in Truth Over Lies- Worldwide.#JusticeForJohnnyDepp
WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT AMBERS ACTING COACH SAID AMBER TOLD HER JOHNNY CUT HIS OWN FINGER OFF WITH A BOTTLE….🤦🏼♀️
At one point Elaine showed the pictures of JD sleeping and he said those pictures were a risk factor for IPV...yea, no lol. Basically JD as a person is a walking risk factor for IPV, from the way he talks, to walks, to sings, to blinks, to skips ...
JD's team never mentions Johnny losing the 3rd Fantastic Beasts film, because he got paid for it anyway, so it can't be included in the monetary damages. But, it still damages his career.
AFTER the court day (05/24) a tv camera (Law & Crime) was still streaming. Rottenborn read to the judge for 15 minutes a TON of evidence (medical records, documentation of psychologists) - evidence to which JD's team had objected before. I don't know what happened then. JD's team was asked, if they object and the didn't and Rottenborn handed the box over to the judge.
Mr Chew n aty’s have to talk to the judge and discuss Elaine’s inappropriate, leading questions, it’s not ok, and if she knows she can do it, she does it repeatedly, wouta conscience! Camille has a grasp on how to object n why w confidence. sooo frustrating, hoping someone tells Chew, take charge and address this?
Agree with the disrespect to the court by Spiegel.
Can either team have the judge removed from the case if they found that she was properly representing the court properly. For instance: The judge giving Elaine instructions and help with how to ask a question. Allowing the jury to hear and witness things that were inappropriate?
Could Depp's team still use the narcissism traits Heard's expert mentioned today in their closing arguments even though it wasn't mentioned on cross? He testified that needing admiration and manipulation are narcissistic traits and Camille already likely convinced the jury that Heard lied about donating to charity. Can they still argue in closing that if one of them has narcissistic traits it's Amber?
I didn’t watch this last night, just now watching, but today the ‘squash,’ was beautiful to behold.
WB PREZ shut down the nonsense; JM was a straight hire; AH was hired on options. For 2-aaahhhqqquuuaaammaannnnn, no chemistry was reported by JM to WB, they had to repair in editing.
The hours for AH were obliterated yesterday.
The domestic violence/expert should've been called to testify how a domestic violence "victim" usually acts and how abuser acts, pointing out Johnny's behavior vs Amber...
What custom who's terrified of abuser taunts and chases, calls vile names, curses at and poops on the abusers side of bed???
Not someone deathly afraid of being beat up ..
Exactly she wasn't scared of Johnny Depp she demeaned him and bullied him follow him around and wouldn't give him his own space... and if your in a DV and SA relationship You don't forget what they put you through. Her testimony doesn't add up. I just hope the jury sees right through her Lies.. what really sad is amber brought guys over to Johnny's Depp home while he was out of state filming movie's.. and didn't support her husband when his mother passed away... one of her co worker's said she would rather be addicted to coke then smoke cigarettes.. and a guy that testified said amber was With 20 to 30 guys over at Johnny penthouse... again while Johnny was filming movie's in another country
.
@@nicolettemahaljevic3164 Her testimony actually has a lot of witnesses that support it. His does not.
In 2016 she was 100 lbs and 5 foot 7 and afraid of being beat up or accidentally killed when he was on one of his benders. Today in 2022 she's angry that her abusive ex won't leave her alone and has forced her into this public ritual of humiliation. I would be angry too. Being abused doesn't mean you give up your right to be angry at the way you're treated by your abuser.
2:03:20 in trial -Psychiatrist says "is there anything I can't lie about" elaine "no" this was whispered over hot microphone yesterday day 20!
BOOST
the flight attendant that amber said did mdma on plane and suposedly saw johnny being violent ...debunk amber
A heavy bottle impact to the hand/finger on a table/surface can be the same as a hand/finger slammed in a door. no one said that. it made me so upset.
She got in that longevity in movie making is temporary unless you have a contract. She also got out that Pirates has no intention of making a 6 and that they want to change directions Johnnys out!! I just read Pirates is making a 6 and going to use a female for the Pirate!
I noticed Elaine too and I a just a lay person. She solicicits the answer by leading. Will she be reprimanded?
At one point she asked...Judge was just starting to say 'sust...as the witness blurted out the ans. The whole thing just got by.
I agree with you that cross could and should have direct, short, and poignant.
Brides too. Appropriately late.
At a seminar the speaker said " practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent".
i jsut want to say there are many abusers that dont drink a lot or do drugs and there are people who do drugs and drink a lot and DONT abuse . but yes the percentage is higher with addicts
In my opinion unless the jury only has a 2nd grade education they can sus out that the psychologist is full of grumpy and kind of a piece of grumpy
Hi. I'm in UK so I watch the trial live but get your reaction to it the following day due to time but I just wanted to add, I have watched Aquaman but it wasn't until this trial that I realised AH was in it!
Great recap. When I miss the whole day due to work, your hour long recap is PERFECT to catch up and understand the key points.
Great job. 👍