Depp v Heard

George K · 22 May 2022, 22:30

@Catseye3 if you're interested in seeing some attorneys' reactions, check out these YouTube channels:

I especially enjoyed the last of these three. Apparently Heard testified that Depp was so violent when he assaulted her that he broke (chipped) the bed upon which he attacked her. This lawyer explains, using simple understanding of wood and how it works, how that's patently impossible. She lied.

Link to video

Catseye3 · wrote on 22 May 2022, 22:30

@George-K said in Depp v Heard:

"if you're interested in seeing some attorneys' reactions . . . "

I'd have to review the whole trial, since I didn't watch it the first time around. So, no.

Aqua Letifer · 24 May 2022, 16:49

We are truly a hypercapitalist, decadent and depraved society.

There's an extremely nasty, highly personal defamation hearing going on between two celebrities.
This case is being live-streamed to the public.
The public is treating it as entertainment.
The entertainment is interactive. You can make live commentary about the case through YouTube features.
But it's also monetary. You can also pay to create text ads about Steam releases, crypto and other silly shit in the public chat of the livestream of a court case that the entire nation is using as entertainment.
You can also buy merch that people have made that depict publicly defined catch phrases that were defined as the case is still active.

Holy fuck what is wrong with us.

That being said, it's funny as shit this woman burned $400 because she doesn't know how to use the interface.

And doubly funny some other asshole spent just as much money just to call her out on it.

Horace · wrote on 24 May 2022, 16:49

@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp v Heard:

We are truly a hypercapitalist, decadent and depraved society.

There's an extremely nasty, highly personal defamation hearing going on between two celebrities.

This case is being live-streamed to the public.

The public is treating it as entertainment.

The entertainment is interactive. You can make live commentary about the case through YouTube features.

But it's also monetary. You can also pay to create text ads about Steam releases, crypto and other silly shit in the public chat of the livestream of a court case that the entire nation is using as entertainment.

You can also buy merch that people have made that depict publicly defined catch phrases that were defined as the case is still active.

Holy fuck what is wrong with us.

That being said, it's funny as shit this woman burned $400 because she doesn't know how to use the interface.

And doubly funny some other asshole spent just as much money just to call her out on it.

Yeah, but 420.

Aqua Letifer · 24 May 2022, 17:03

I can't tell if that's due to currency conversions or being a fan of sticky icky. Either way what the fuck is wrong with us.

Horace · 24 May 2022, 17:07

@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp v Heard:

I can't tell if that's due to currency conversions or being a fan of sticky icky. Either way what the fuck is wrong with us.

it's an interesting spectacle. Undeniably, lots of people are learning lots of stuff about the practice of civil law in the courtroom. The two parties are both willing participants. What's not to like?

Aqua Letifer · 24 May 2022, 17:17

@Horace said in Depp v Heard:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp v Heard:

I can't tell if that's due to currency conversions or being a fan of sticky icky. Either way what the fuck is wrong with us.

it's an interesting spectacle. Undeniably, lots of people are learning lots of stuff about the practice of civil law in the courtroom. The two parties are both willing participants. What's not to like?

Profiteering from spectacle.

George K · 24 May 2022, 17:22

@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp v Heard:

Profiteering from spectacle.

No shit. THere's a whole gang of lawyers who are live-streaming the trial and offering commentary during the testimony.

But if YOU want to ask a question, you need a "superchat" which means you pay some $$ to get recognized. Watching these people "donate" anywhere from $1 to $50 for the privilege is amazing. That shit adds up quickly.

But. from an entertainment standpoint, it's kind of fun watching these guys get into the legal weeds of the case. There's a lot of inside baseball.

Horace · wrote on 24 May 2022, 17:22

@George-K said in Depp v Heard:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp v Heard:

Profiteering from spectacle.

No shit. THere's a whole gang of lawyers who are live-streaming the trial and offering commentary during the testimony.

But if YOU want to ask a question, you need a "superchat" which means you pay some $$ to get recognized. Watching these people "donate" anywhere from $1 to $50 for the privilege is amazing. That shit adds up quickly.

But. from an entertainment standpoint, it's kind of fun watching these guys get into the legal weeds of the case. There's a lot of inside baseball.

I assume the demo of the people paying $50 to have their question heard and answered in the glorious span of 10 seconds, are the people who wouldn't be able to afford an emergency $1000 expense, i.e. the majority of americans.

George K · 27 May 2022, 10:39

Both sides rested today. Closing testimony was from Amber Heard talking about the abuse she suffered.

Her cross-examination by Depp's attorney was the stuff you see in movies. It was brutal and devastating.

For example, in 2016 she got a restraining order against Depp because he beat her up.

TMZ was there at the courthouse ("I wonder how that happened?" the attorney asked). Here is the photo of her at the courthouse.

Here's Amber the next day.

Horace · 26 May 2022, 16:44

Her sobby performance was cringey. I guess she really wanted to give that performance, because it opened her up to the cross, which didn't go well for her.

George K · H Horace 26 May 2022, 16:39

@Horace said in Depp v Heard:

Her sobby performance was cringey.

Interestingly, the tears stopped during side-bars and resumed during direct examination.

Master thespian.

Mik · 26 May 2022, 19:05

She likes girls?

George K · M Mik 26 May 2022, 17:33

@Mik said in Depp v Heard:

She likes girls?

As a matter of fact...

Heard publicly came out in 2010,[94] but has stated, "I don't label myself one way or another – I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters".[95]

Heard was in a relationship with photographer Tasya van Ree from 2008 to 2012.[94][96] Heard had her last name legally changed to van Ree during the relationship and reverted to her birth name in 2014.[2] In 2009, Heard was arrested in Washington state for misdemeanor domestic violence, after allegedly grabbing van Ree and hitting her arm, but was never charged. The arrest was made public during Heard's divorce proceedings from actor Johnny Depp in 2016, after which a statement was issued by Heard's publicist in which van Ree said that Heard had been "wrongfully" accused, that the incident had been "misinterpreted and over-sensationalized" and that she recalled "hints of misogynistic attitudes toward us which later appeared to be homophobic when they found out we were domestic partners and not just 'friends'."The female officer that conducted the arrest is openly a lesbian herself.

The female cop testified yesterday.

Friday · 27 May 2022, 11:38

@George-K

I caught the last hour of today's testimony. That cross examination reminded me of a Columbo episode, where Peter Falk gets the bad guy so worked up that they unwittingly admit to the crime.

I could not eat enough popcorn.

George K · 27 May 2022, 15:21

@Friday I've been following some legal livestreams during the trial. It's a bunch of geeky lawyers commenting during the case. The commentary during the cross examination is damning.

Here's one: