Depp v Heard
-
@Horace said in Depp v Heard:
There is a clear performative aspect with those two even while they're not on the stand. Depp was smirking and giggling and whispering the whole time his case was being presented. I think that is mostly for effect, for the jury. And of course for the viewing public, who he would like to win over maybe more than the jury, in support of his career.
I don't think so. At least not mostly. What he's been laughing at has been legitimately very funny.
I watched some videos of some hostage negotiators analyze both Depp and Heard. To their credit, they admitted to speculating, but basically, Heard is doing everything someone would do if they knew they were being watched and wanted to be seen in a favorable light. For Depp, it's merely most of the time. Some of his reactions really didn't do him any favors from a performative aspect, which suggests it's more likely those reactions were honest.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp v Heard:
I watched some videos of some hostage negotiators analyze both Depp and Heard. To their credit, they admitted to speculating, but basically, Heard is doing everything someone would do if they knew they were being watched and wanted to be seen in a favorable light. For Depp, it's merely most of the time. Some of his reactions really didn't do him any favors from a performative aspect, which suggests it's more likely those reactions were honest.
That would be interesting and fun to watch. Share a link, please!
-
The real tragedy for Depp in all this is that now that Heard has exposed him as an abuser, no woman will ever touch him again.
@Horace said in Depp v Heard:
The real tragedy for Depp in all this is that now that Heard has exposed him as an abuser, no woman will ever touch him again.
Except for Mrs. Phibes, apparently.
-
-
Psycho
@Doctor-Phibes said in Depp v Heard:
Psycho
I'll defer to the plaintiff's attorneys to find this (and there's a 10 day pause in the trial so the judge can attend a conference), and I'm sure they will.
So, who's the better makeup artist? The one on 12/15 or the one on 12/16?
-
I watched the cross-examination of Heard by Depp's team today.
Wow. This was stuff that, unlike what you see on TV, would play in primetime. Depp's lawyer was slow, focused, and methodical. She was able to point out all of Heard's inconsistencies, her errors, and her omissions.
I have no idea if the jury will buy it, but it was convincing to me.
-
I watched the cross-examination of Heard by Depp's team today.
Wow. This was stuff that, unlike what you see on TV, would play in primetime. Depp's lawyer was slow, focused, and methodical. She was able to point out all of Heard's inconsistencies, her errors, and her omissions.
I have no idea if the jury will buy it, but it was convincing to me.
@George-K said in Depp v Heard:
I watched the cross-examination of Heard by Depp's team today.
Wow. This was stuff that, unlike what you see on TV, would play in primetime. Depp's lawyer was slow, focused, and methodical. She was able to point out all of Heard's inconsistencies, her errors, and her omissions.
I have no idea if the jury will buy it, but it was convincing to me.
Pretty much everything I see online seems to be people supporting Depp.
I guess it's only the jury that matters.
I was only joking
-
@George-K said in Depp v Heard:
I watched the cross-examination of Heard by Depp's team today.
Wow. This was stuff that, unlike what you see on TV, would play in primetime. Depp's lawyer was slow, focused, and methodical. She was able to point out all of Heard's inconsistencies, her errors, and her omissions.
I have no idea if the jury will buy it, but it was convincing to me.
Pretty much everything I see online seems to be people supporting Depp.
I guess it's only the jury that matters.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Depp v Heard:
@George-K said in Depp v Heard:
I watched the cross-examination of Heard by Depp's team today.
Wow. This was stuff that, unlike what you see on TV, would play in primetime. Depp's lawyer was slow, focused, and methodical. She was able to point out all of Heard's inconsistencies, her errors, and her omissions.
I have no idea if the jury will buy it, but it was convincing to me.
Pretty much everything I see online seems to be people supporting Depp.
I guess it's only the jury that matters.
I suspect the unspoken backlash against the excesses of #MeToo looms large in the minds of many.
-
@George-K said in Depp v Heard:
I watched the cross-examination of Heard by Depp's team today.
Wow. This was stuff that, unlike what you see on TV, would play in primetime. Depp's lawyer was slow, focused, and methodical. She was able to point out all of Heard's inconsistencies, her errors, and her omissions.
I have no idea if the jury will buy it, but it was convincing to me.
Pretty much everything I see online seems to be people supporting Depp.
I guess it's only the jury that matters.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Depp v Heard:
I guess it's only the jury that matters.
There was an attorney in the gallery. He and other attorneys have been paying attention to the jurors, and he made some interesting observations.
-
When the cross started, "everyone in the jury woke up." The defense's attorney had a rambling, incoherent exposition of unconnected facts. When cross started, everyone started taking notes.
-
During one of the sidebars, Heard kept looking at the jury, and no one would make eye contact with her.
-
When the cross examination started, a thunderstorm had just begun outside, and there was a loud thunderclap. Several jurors smiled.
-
There was an audible gasp from the gallery when it became apparent that Heard never donated the money to charity that she got from Depp. This is evidence that she perjured herself during the trial in Great Britain.
-
The lawyer said that when court was done for the day, Heard's departure from the witness box was faster than a deer that just heard a gunshot. "If I could draw a cartoon, it would be an outline of her, with streaks behind."
It's gonna be a fun morning.
-
-
I'm binging a lot of the lawyers' streams during and after the day's testimony. Kinda fun, and with time on my hands, why not?
I learned a new term this morning when describing Amber Heard's sister.
RBF
-
I'm binging a lot of the lawyers' streams during and after the day's testimony. Kinda fun, and with time on my hands, why not?
I learned a new term this morning when describing Amber Heard's sister.
RBF
@George-K said in Depp v Heard:
I'm binging a lot of the lawyers' streams during and after the day's testimony. Kinda fun, and with time on my hands, why not?
I learned a new term this morning when describing Amber Heard's sister.
RBF
And? Definition please?
-
@George-K said in Depp v Heard:
I'm binging a lot of the lawyers' streams during and after the day's testimony. Kinda fun, and with time on my hands, why not?
I learned a new term this morning when describing Amber Heard's sister.
RBF
And? Definition please?
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp v Heard:
And? Definition please?
Resting bitch face, also known as RBF, or bitchy resting face (BRF), is a facial expression that unintentionally appears like a person is angry, annoyed, irritated, or contemptuous, particularly when the individual is relaxed, resting, or not expressing any particular emotion.[1][2] The concept has been studied by psychologists and may have psychological implications related to facial biases, gender stereotypes, human judgement and decision-making.[3][4][5] The concept has also been studied by scientists with information technology.[clarification needed] Using a type of facial recognition system, they found that the phenomenon is real and the condition is as common in males as in females, despite the gendered word bitch that is used to name the concept.[6]
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Depp v Heard:
And? Definition please?
Resting bitch face, also known as RBF, or bitchy resting face (BRF), is a facial expression that unintentionally appears like a person is angry, annoyed, irritated, or contemptuous, particularly when the individual is relaxed, resting, or not expressing any particular emotion.[1][2] The concept has been studied by psychologists and may have psychological implications related to facial biases, gender stereotypes, human judgement and decision-making.[3][4][5] The concept has also been studied by scientists with information technology.[clarification needed] Using a type of facial recognition system, they found that the phenomenon is real and the condition is as common in males as in females, despite the gendered word bitch that is used to name the concept.[6]
-
The strategy of this has been absolutely fascinating. The judge, who looks like a real hard-ass, has allowed each side 61 hours of testimony. She has said that, using a chess clock, she will cut a witness off mid-sentence once that time expires. As of Friday, the defense has about 8 hours left, and plaintiff (Depp) has....eighteen hours of time. What that means is that, once the 8 hours is done for Heard, Depp's team has more than 10 hours of unopposed testimony during rebuttal which plaintiff cannot cross-examine, etc.
Defense (Heard) has not rested, afaik. They plan to call at least one hostile witness tomorrow, and reportedly, that's going to be Depp. From what I've read they're going to try to show that Depp instructed his attorney to slander Heard.
It's remarkable how, in this day of #metoo, the tide has turned against Heard and pro-Depp. His team has done a good job of showing that it's possible for men to be abused (Heard has said, under oath, that she never struck Depp, but there's audio of her admitting it). In fact, a domestic violence support NGO has come out in support of Depp.
Remarkable case, and the total incompetence of Heard's team has been astonishing. The lead attorney, actually said, during redirect examination of Heard was interrupted by objections, "I'm trying here, your honor."
FFS.
It's been a circus, to be sure, but I've had fun.
