Part 3 AIBU to wonder why so many people assume Johnny Depp is the good guy and Amber Heard is the villain

[StormzyinaTCup]

Following on from parts 1 and 2
Trial has gone 'dark' this week as the Judge is at a conference so it's going to be quiet on that front and I expect this thread will run slower than the previous two, however, there is still plenty of material and evidence from the last three weeks that we can 'cross examine'.

Any and all opinions welcome.

@ObjectionHearsay I threw a hairdryer at my abusive ex husband. He would follow me around the house continuing to press my buttons and would not allow me time to cool off and compose myself. Felt backed into a corner and threw it at him. It didn't hit him. Never done that again and not at all like that with current DH.

I'm not sure the timings include the closing statements. I think the judge gives them an additional set time for thier closing statements.

If it is AH team are really screwed.

Do you think JD team will file a motion to dismiss AH counterclaim?

Time left does not include closing statements. They will both the given the same amount of time for closing on Friday.

The counterclaim is running simultaneously. That is why some of Amber's witnesses related to her counterclaim about the use of abuse hoax and fake (Adam the lawyer, the computer tech guy). The jury will decide both suits.

This is how I feel. So much of what she says feels like a lie/exaggeration. Why didn’t she document her injuries when she’s photographed/recorded so much else?
As someone who has been punched in the face, I found her claim that make up and ice for swelling was how her face looked completely perfect the next day when she was on a TV show - it’s just not credible, particularly as he wears those horrible big chunky rings

Does anyone else find the involvement of Elon musk weird? What exactly is going on there

Closing statements according to court tv are separate, as long as amber hasn’t many more witnesses she should be fine. Depps team have been very good at cross. Key Question, try to discredit and leave it there. It depends on how much Elaine time wastes though.

I disagree. I guess it comes down to the jury. There are many different interpretations of the same thing.

Yes some parts of the testimonies contradict AHs. But many of them verify they saw bruises. Yes not to the extent of the bruises she would have given the attacks she is describing but bruises nevertheless. This is all she needs to prove. Some abuse.

I thought Rocky's testimony did coincide with AHs. She said she got between her and JD and told him to stop. She was at least present for a verbal argument and intimidation of AH and herself. Which again indicates the sort of behaviour JD showed and what kind of person he was. Again, it makes it not too much of a stretch that again these bruises were caused by him as she states multiple times in messages to other people and one member of JDs staff say he physically hurt AH in a text.

The make up artist was extremely damning. Who cares if she got the name of something wrong. She also clarified that she wore make up everyday as her routine and how effective she was at covering bruises. I could believe AH became good at covering bruises. This shows that the desk employees and the tenant in the apartments could have been wrong about AH wearing no makeup when they saw no bruises comes into question.

We will have to agree to disagree.

What AH told the acting coach doesn't have an influence on the credibility of the rest of her statement. It will not look good for AH though.

@mummyrocks1 are you not concerned that the photographs may not hold up to verification and the testimony doesn’t match the body cam, the police witnesses with no bias. Not sure if verbal abuse is DV in Virginia.

I didn't fight back by following him around or antagonising him, I wasn't that stupid.

Some women do though. They follow partner around, goading, winding them up, partner snaps and hammers them - that’s their self-destructive cycle. Just because it’s not yours doesn’t mean it’s not someone else’s.

There are many different kinds of toxic relationship dynamics and many different kinds of personalities types.

Thank you for replies about the mirror.
To me it[s clear she wrote the lipstick red bit. They are out to prove that, plus why she didnt photograph herself IN the mirror. They mdae a point of asking the security guard if it was a waxy substance (I think) ie lipstick.

I think there is something they are going to come up with there... maybe just another lie.

@ObjectionHearsay I actually threw a vodka bottle at a boyfriend in my 20[s, as he told me he had been unfaithful.

Terrible and I still feel horrendous about it.

Never done it before or since, I am 50 now.

Following on from @TheOriginalLadyFT second paragraph, I think if you have any one (or more) on the Jury who has ever had a facial injury of that nature be it from a bike accident, sports injury, work accident etc then the successful covering up of the injury a mere 24 hours later is going to be a really difficult one to square.

Many years ago I got whacked in the face (accidentally) with a hockey ball, there was no covering that up with concealer and foundation.

The comments from the lawyers who have been in the gallery about the jury are interesting. They comment on who the jury is paying attention to, when they write notes, when they seem bored, when they seem annoyed etc. Their impression is that overall the jury responds better to Depp's legal team and that they are bored by video depositions and don't even really write notes for the most part when watching the depositions.

Yes, when I was hit in the face with the plastic heel of a slipper (sibling) it was much worse the following day, you couldn[t possibly have hid it. Not a chance.

Most of the jury are men. While this is a stereotype - they likely know little about what make-up can or can't do.

@Midlifemusings that[s intersting. Did the mention the make up of the jury, men/women, ages etc?

Cross post.

That's interesting, I assumed it would be a more even ratio.

I've also watched the lawyers who have been attending the trial.

From memory. There are 6 men, 3 women. The ages range from 20s to 50s, but most are around the mid 30 range ish

They did say most of the jury is very poker face and some are wearing masks. But based on thier own experiences of doing trials, they are observing some behaviours that make it interesting.
I think 1 or 2 of the jury have made it quite clear what they think.

Part of me thinks this is why AH keeps looking at the jury, both when she was testifying and when she is sat on her side. I think she is trying to work out what the jury think.

She definitely looks at the jury alot. She was probably advised to do this.
Thanks @minou123

With regards to the jury I can’t understand why Amber Heards legal team have the witnesses stare at the jury. An occasional glance whilst answering the lawyers would be better. There was a report that some turned slightly to avoid full on eye contact whilst amber was on the stand. The one I saw was the same on video deposition and reported the jury were yawning during ambers. I really think that having so many was bad.

I agree Boulshired

But it kind of goes to why I think televising the trial is interesting.
We are all seeing what the jury are seeing

Whether you are "pro" Depp or "pro" Heard or on the fence, we all have a view on what's important evidence, how witnesses have behaved etc.
The jury are ordinary members of the public, like we are.
To me, reading the threads on this and reading everyone's view points is quite important, because I suspect the jury are thinking the same thing and probably will have the same arguments and discussions we are.

Whilst I feel the trial shouldn’t be televised, I’ve found the press and media response very different to SM. I can see why Depp wanted this way.

To me, reading the threads on this and reading everyone's view points is quite important, because I suspect the jury are thinking the same thing and probably will have the same arguments and discussions we are.

Yes, me too.
There have been times when I have felt uncomfortable watching it and then questioned whether the whole televising of it is a step too far. That said it covers important issues and discussion can only be a good thing. Having watched most of it to date it has also highlighted for me how main stream media misreport and misrepresent. On more than one occasion I have read an article and knew categorically that what was written was not what was said in court. That's really not good and could actually have serious ramifications.