Day 9 and Heard gets ripped apart by the testimonies of a long term associate worker of Depp's, a court ordered year long Psychologist's analysis of her personality and a reporting officer who debunked signs of abuse against Heard
-
Day 9 and Heard gets ripped apart by the testimonies of a long term associate worker of Depp's, a court ordered year long Psychologist's analysis of her personality and a reporting officer who debunked signs of abuse against Heard
-
Well, Depps lawyer brought in an expert witness in the shape of Amber Heards actual psychologist. She says Heard does not have PTSD and was faking it, but also that the symptoms she has existed prior to the relationship with Depp. She also believes she has borderline personality disorder.
I'd consider this to be an absolute nail in her coffin.
Comment
-
It's Heard's witnesses today and perhaps at this point unsurprisingly it hasn't gone well... for her. One witness, a prior agent, largely confirming her accusations lost him the role in Pirates of the Caribbean VI which is one of the corrnerstone claims of his case.
Another was that Heard threatened to report Depp for violating her restraining order against him if he refused to meet up with herComment
-
A second attending officer today went on the record to say that they saw no evidence of criminal or violent assault against HeardComment
-
According to the couples former agent, Heard was dating Elon Musk during the time the accusatory article was published by her and she was simultaneously trying to woo Depp back.Comment
-
The Depp v Heard case enters its final Week 3 day and things continue to just get worse and worse and worse for Heard's team
Turns out the cop that Heard claimed was homophobic against her is a gay woman
Also:
"The goal is to get this out this week to capitalize on the tremendous campaign for 'Aquaman,'" Weitz wrote.
"Aquaman" — in which Heard starred as Mera — was due to be released on Dec. 21, 2018. Dougherty explained that the publicity campaign for the film would help get more attention for the op-ed. Heard also agreed that the timing was important, he said.
"From the ACLU's perspective, Amber is about to receive a tremendous amount of press and be in the public eye," Dougherty said. "So what better a time would it be than now to put out this op-ed, so that it generates significant readership about our issues."
Depp alleges that Heard fabricated her abuse allegations and used them to advance her own career at his expense. Heard denies that, and her attorneys have argued that #MeToo accusations have generally not helped the accusers' careers.
Depp and Heard had issued a joint statement upon resolving their divorce in 2016, in which each denied making false allegations for financial gain. They also agreed to issue no further public statements. Depp has testified that he wanted to fight Heard's claims at the time, but reluctantly took the advice of his lawyers to settle the case and move on.
Dougherty's testimony included internal ACLU emails about the drafting of the op-ed. Earlier drafts included explicit references to Heard's restraining order — in which she alleged domestic violence — but those references were taken out on the advice of her lawyers. In the final draft, Heard described herself as having been "a public figure representing domestic abuse," but did not go into any further detail about her relationship with Depp.
That drafting news not helping the case that it wasn't about DeppComment
-
I was laughing at a little thing I saw were Heards lawyer asks Depp if he signed this piece of paper... 4 times she asks him. In the end he says 'is this the same thing I signed 3 times already?'Comment
-
It's funny, but it's also a tactic and the lawyer should've been rapped on the knuckles for it - they're badgering him and trying to get him to raise his voice or show a hint of anger.Originally posted by Cassius_Smoke View PostComment
-
Heards lawyers have done it to everyone so far, you can see the frustration as the same question is asked a dozen times in a row
Elon Musk and James Franco will not testify at Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial (msn.com)
Apparently now both Musk and Franco won't testify for Heard in the trial
An expansion on the clear collusion between ACLU and Heard:
Worse yet, ACLU staffers actually ghost-wrote The Washington Post op-ed at the center of the trial, in which Heard claimed to be a survivor of domestic violence, and they pitched on her behalf, timed to the release of Heard's then-upcoming film, Aquaman.
Email correspondence shows that Robin Shulman, a communications strategist with the ACLU, wrote the first draft of the op-ed in November 2018, a month before the article was published, while Heard's legal team made edits to avoid obvious incrimination of Depp. Terence Dougherty, general counsel and COO of the ACLU, said the ACLU was charged with pitching the op-ed to a number of outlets and had considered the New York Times, Teen Vogue and USA Todaybefore eventually placing it in the the Post. Another ACLU communications associate, Gerry Johnson, emailed other team members about timing the op-ed so it would be released near the premiere of Aquaman.
Johnson wrote: "Since draft turned out pretty strong and Aquaman slated to do large numbers I'm wondering what you think about it?"
Another staffer wrote that the goal was to ensure the piece was published as quickly as possible to "to capitalize on the tremendous campaign for Aquaman."
It's unclear exactly whether there was a quid pro quo between Heard and the ACLU, with them helping her in exchange for the sizable donation she promised them from the divorce settlement—but it's clear Heard hasn't paid them in full.
The ACLU testimony also made it explicitly clear that Heard's article was about Depp and prolonged measures were made to tiptoe around an existing NDA she had in place with him.
The Business Manager who helped process their divorce testified that Heard wanted her $7m settlement splitting between ACLU and a Childrens charity but after the agreement was made she instructed a change for all of the money to be paid directly to herself. Depp instructed the Business Manager to draft and submit a cheque of $100,000 to each charity which was done and Heard then chastised the manager for giving the money to them. She also demanded Depp pay the tax on her money, her legal fees and community charges from their 15 months of marriage meaning she banked the raw cash and he lost $14m
I don't know if it's true but I've seen mention in comments that Heard may be up on the stand next weekComment
-
Hmmm, this actually concerns me, because the ACLU does good work and the American right-wing media hates them.Originally posted by Neon Ignition View Post
If this will negatively impact them, then it doesn't surprise me this case is getting so much media attention.Comment
-
It's the dodgy door that opens when millionaire donors start to become a focus. It comes across like there was a lot of courting Heard and planning into self promotion which at the time, when MeToo was kicking off, likely meant too much face value was attributed to her story and in efforts to attract attention to their work they hand waved too much through. The way the article was planned, to put her central, damage Depp and push her profile higher when it would already be at her peak ties in with the arrogance and psychology that would appeal to her based on all the testimony so far. They slept walked into this due to disregarding the possibility of false claims and buying into the whole 'believe victims' drive which has been critically flawed from the outset with even a seconds thought put into it. The focus is so heavily on Depp and Heard that I imagine ACLU will be able to move on from this but it'll be one hell of a warning lesson learnt.Comment
-
I get what you're going for here, I think - but I think the "believe victims" thing is important.Originally posted by Neon Ignition View Post
It's often misinterpreted as that "you should believe a victim and assume what they're telling you is true until the accused can prove themselves innocent", but really it just means you should always take the accusation seriously. Like "in the moment" you should believe them while you formulate your response.
Like if someone says to someone else, "someone stole my watch" and shows their bare wrist, that person will generally believe them, and they'd only immediately doubt them in extenuating circumstances (like you know them and they're a serial liar, you see the watch sticking out of one of their pockets, etc.)
But often when women go to the police and say they've been assaulted, all too often the immediate response is people don't believe them and ask for proof before they even accept the accusation.Comment
-
Absolutely, but that's why it's flawed. It's intended to be a clear soundbite like MeToo or Black Lives Matter but instead of conveying a simple clear message the thing you highlight is exactly what happesn, it's taken literally. It flew by because the level of common instances where the accuser is truthful when coming forward is quite high but this kind of false flag story was inevitable to some degree because these drives are largely social media led where guilty until proven innocent is very much how things are handled, sometimes even guilty regardless of proven innocent. Take All Accusers Claims Seriously is exactly the right message but it isn't catchy so got pushed aside, in many ways it's not even what's been shown in the trial that has been the most important element rather than Depp held his ground against Heard's wishes and insisted the trial be broadcast publicly as allowing the scale of access to this is the only way he's been able to flag things up, even that has taken him 6 years of hit pieces to accomplish. It's why this has been doubly toxic as it's going to have ramifications that cause a lot of hurt unrelated to this case.
That being said, there's also the fact Heard specifically manipulated and took advantage of the movement and its groups too. It's a really bad look that some of them are still batting for her rather than admit they were duped. We're well past the point now where regardless of someones take of Depp, Heard can escape culpability in this mess.
The career moves are interesting and it's still a curious thing that it's only been partially covered in the trial. I can see and agree with Disney removing Depp from Pirates VI and I think he'd agree with it too, it's a family franchise after all. But there's really no reason why Disney didn't keep in contact with him in light of this being on the horizon and no film having actually moved on into production. They must have some ties with him given how the character is still utilised and his likeness.
Warners though, I would love to know the rationale behind the decision to stand firmly behind Heard and drop Depp when even the head of WB wanted her gone but was overruled.Comment
-
Originally posted by Asura View PostThey fabricated what was supposed to be a very personal look into someones experience with domestic violence, this is absolutely sickening and massively damages their credibility and the credibility of everything else they published, if they have done it here to further their cause whats to stop them doing it elsewhere?.Worse yet, ACLU staffers actually ghost-wrote The Washington Post op-ed at the center of the trial
I can understand helping victims get their story's across but once you start making stuff up and posting things that are clearly untrue to further your cause you start to loose credibility super fast. Add in that Musk donated half a million in Heards name and it gets even messier.Comment
-
This whole case is lose-lose.
If either side wins, it'll be used as an example of people making abuse up which will devalue genuine cases.
Also, we all have to sit through this inane he said/she said BS.
I really think this should be going on behind closed court doors.Comment
Comment