Depp v Heard
-
@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.
wrote on 24 May 2022, 17:17 last edited by@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 $$ to get recognized. Watching these people "donate" anywhere from $1 to $50 for the privilege is amazing. That shit adds up quickly.
But. from an entertainment standpoint, it's kind of fun watching these guys get into the legal weeds of the case. There's a lot of inside baseball.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Depp v Heard:
Profiteering from spectacle.
No shit. THere's a whole gang of lawyers who are live-streaming the trial and offering commentary during the testimony.
But if YOU want to ask a question, you need a "superchat" which means you pay some $$ 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.
wrote on 24 May 2022, 17:22 last edited by Horace@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.
-
wrote on 26 May 2022, 16:30 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 26 May 2022, 16:39 last edited by
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.
-
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.
wrote on 26 May 2022, 16:44 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 26 May 2022, 17:33 last edited by
She likes girls?
-
wrote on 26 May 2022, 19:05 last edited by George K
@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.
-
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.
wrote on 27 May 2022, 10:39 last edited byI 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.
-
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.
wrote on 27 May 2022, 11:38 last edited by@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:
Link to video"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.
-
wrote on 27 May 2022, 12:19 last edited by
if I ever get in trouble I want Camille.
-
wrote on 27 May 2022, 12:22 last edited by
@Mik said in Depp v Heard:
if I ever get in trouble I want Camille.
@jon-nyc would hit that.
He'd probably hit Amber as well. Though she might hit back and take off a finger.
-
@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:
Link to videowrote on 27 May 2022, 15:21 last edited by@George-K The attorney is asking her to call other people liars, which she is right to not do. She doesn't have to agree with their testimony.
-
2 months later
-
wrote on 18 Jul 2022, 13:29 last edited by
I listened to this interview, but could not see the video. It was blocked for me.
Anyway, it is an interview with Amber Heard trying to defend herself.
https://www.nbc.com/dateline/video/amber-heard-after-the-verdict/9000190931
-
I listened to this interview, but could not see the video. It was blocked for me.
Anyway, it is an interview with Amber Heard trying to defend herself.
https://www.nbc.com/dateline/video/amber-heard-after-the-verdict/9000190931
wrote on 18 Jul 2022, 13:40 last edited by@taiwan_girl watch a lawyer talk about the interview:
Link to video
