YES!

YES!

Yes, please.

YES!!!

definitely

Objection! Hearsay to your hearsay.

Objection! That's a Mega Pint of hearsay!

@@chrisheretic7 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I am a bigger fan of speculative

Objection: lack of foundation

Sunlight is a hell of a drug.

it kinda sounds like something Chuck Norris would do

Yeah they gave him skin cancer, ofc he's going to sue

Could you elaborate on that? Or point me to a source that does?

@@Christopher-md7tf I can't remember everything but the judge said. They didn't allow testimonies on Depps character, citing his family and friends would be bias but ignored testimonies from law officials and staff members as well. He cited that the call from amber saying she hit him wasn't admissible as evidence that heard was an aggressor and hand waved away the fact that it was contrary to what she said in court. He didn't take into consideration the injuries that Depp had inflicted on him but accepted the alleged injuries that Heard brought forward. He stated that Heard was not doing it for personal gain as she had given the money to charity and that isn't the sort of thing an abuser would do, which is stupid anyway but later proved to be false. I vaguely remember one thing about what Heard had said that he admitted was bad but basically said that he had to as he couldn't think of a way to justify it. not in those words but he sounded very reluctant to do it. The Judges also had personal ties to the sun and Heard too, though I can't remember quite what they were.

​@@Edanurus There's an argument to be made in good will that LegalEagle was merely trying to keep the video short but my suspicion is that it was kept out to avoid taking a side on the cultural bias towards women in these kinds of cases.

@@Edanurus That's a whole steaming pile of cobblers. The judge has nothing that was recognisable as a legal tie to the parties in question, those are misinterpretations stated by people on twitter who seem to think they understand events and the law better than Depp's legal team. I think I know who I'd consider the more reliable thinkers on this issue. The character issue is essentially an ad hominem fallacy. If a mate of mine commits a bank robbery, there would be no legal value in my testimony that I had never seen them rob a bank or speak about robbery around me. It's the same reason the trial never considered the many incidents of Depp being verbally and physically abusive to people when drunk, trying to find a verdict based on the incidents themselves, not on other people's assessment of the character of either of them. It would seem to actually be a failing on the courts in Virginia that this meaningless nonsense has been allowed - you might as well ask plane spotters about the contents of an aircraft black box since they weren't on board at the time! The UK trial considered specific incidents. Nothing that wasn't relevant to those exact occasions was considered because it was about the paper demonstrating that they had enough evidence to show that Depp could be described as abusive. The wider picture of the relationship doesn't matter. Compare that to here were there is a concerted effort to extrapolate a few incidents of Heard being the aggressor as being true for every incident in the relationship, rather than looking at the incidents in isolation, probably because Depp's team loses their advantage when that is done. However contrary to the idea of staff members not being allowed to testify, testimony about the exact incidents were allowed to let the judge attempt to corroborate events with Depp's and Heard's testimony (and he found both people to be somewhat shifty on the stand, often relying more on supporting statements and evidence like text messages) The claims about Amber doing it for financial gain were meaningless in the UK trial beyond the general ad hominem strategy that Depp's legal team pursues. If a person tells a lie in situation A (not actually proven either, this is just a hypothetical), and tells the truth in situation B, A doesn't make B a lie, and B doesn't A the truth. You have to look at the incidents in isolation, and the whole argument gets very nebulous in terms of what peole have and haven't disclosed. The big thing though? Amber was only a witness in the UK trial, not a party, so it feeds in to that character assassination thing - attacking the person, not the incidents.

@@CaptLoquaLacon You have no concept of injuries inflicted in self-defense, do you?

tons of lawyer already covering this. There's a corner of the internet called Lawtuber, those are law practitioners lol.

@@giannabrown867 Yeah although this guy may be the most entertaining to watch

There`s been almost 50 lawyers following the trial and given their wisdom and opinions...

@@007GoldenLion I would love to watch him too but I don't think he would given the nature of this trial.

No one is coming out of this pretty let's be honest

@@cadebradbury9334 It does seem that Depp had managed to massively rehabilitate his image through the recent trial

@@cadebradbury9334 not to mention that Depp, through his over thirty year history in public life, has never been accused of anything that Amber accused him of. You look at someone like Cosby, as soon as the first victim spoke out, dozens followed. When Amber made her accusations, she stood alone

@@RillianGrant It's genuinely impressive, by the looks of things neither of them is an angel and yet everything is pro him, it's the value of a good pr team more than anything else

@@cadebradbury9334 get this, it's more important to be RIGHT than to look pretty.

I think he's won in the court of public opinion.

@@KR-bv5og he definitely won in court of public opinion, especially with the whole bed feces situation

Exactly.

@@KR-bv5og definitely, pretty much everyone is on his side. He's cleared his name with pretty much everyone because the case is so popular

@@KR-bv5og no he hasn’t. A lot of people like myself just don’t spend a lot of time online advocating for celebrities we don’t know.

It's because she is MissHeard~

@@twhereof2357 i-

Also “OBJECTION, COMPOUND”

@@songbird-wj4yj Thanks!!!

@@twhereof2357 I Ambery intrigued by your pun, good sir

The biggest problem with the treatment of this case is that JD's team had to insist on the trial be televised to make sure people actually believe how vicious and ruthless a beautiful young woman can be and how a man's life can be destroyed based on... hearsay. I'm quite sure he's a difficult, troubled person who needs to shower more, but... with a whiskey bottle??? Really???

@@susivarga7303 hearsay on both sides, though I will say this, the man whose personal hygiene you're making a logical fallacy argument over hasn't committed perjury. The vicious young woman has. That isn't hearsay.

@@ceink1802 thank God you got stuck at the shower stuff, disregarding everything I said before and after.

@@susivarga7303 I thought I pointed out the last thing you said was ad hominem fallacy. The fact that Heard has perjured herself on the stand is exactly the reason why this should be in the public forum. Also your straw man argument about Amber's looks somehow being related to her personality and her behaviour is a bit of a stretch. At least JD admits his faults, she hasn't once acknowledged hers. Like every good abuser and narcissist it's always the other person's fault.

@@ceink1802 you are twisting my words. Again. The argument about her looks being related to her personality wasn't mine. If it was, I would have defended her like many did. I made my point clear. Just without any big words.

And Depp lost... nobody talking about it, because people likes much more scandal and gossiping and being judgemental... that's why Depp wanted this lawsuit to be on TV. Also, I don't believe in juries, but it could be beneficial in this case for Depp...

Correct.

"justice" Andrew Niccol also has some verrrry Sus connections, and has since retired...

Yep, he sued 'The Sun'

@@JulioLeonFandinho tell me you know nothing about UK law and how the UK trial went without actually saying it

The court of public opinion is quite the court indeed. It's a good example, in my view ,of the difference and importance even, between "what it is" and "what it looks like"

He's obviously not after the money, just the absolution of the stigma "domestic abuser" and his ability to do his crafts again. I think it's incredibly noble to put himself in the court's hands, bearing all in the name of public opinion.

@@jenerin905 he’s an abuser

@@Charmander009 That decision is according to a court that would sooner convict a man for trespassing in a house than the child predators said man was trying to protect his daughter from in said house, simply because of the risk of being accused of attacking a religion. In short, I would only take any judgement made by British courts with enough salt to crash the global salt market.

@@Charmander009 You really think? I don't doubt that he's done/said awful things, but I know personally how being abused by someone with BPD makes you literally crazy. I will admit that I am biased because I watched my mom do to my dad what JD is claiming AH did to him, and my mom claimed it was my dad. I appreciate other views on this though.

Other lawyers have speculated it was a ‘compromise verdict’, where (in this case) a larger number of people siding with Depp conceded the one charge to a smaller group supporting Heard in order to reach a decision. Not saying this is or isn’t the case, just what I’ve heard said.

Same, I hope Devin would comment on it

Yep! I'm excited to hear his breakdown of it all now that it's over.

Well the only reason she won on one of them was Waldman got the sequence of events wrong on the 2nd call to police. And there wasn’t evidence establishing that her friends in LA made the call to police.

I can relate to something like this, my family would settle for it to go away too, even if they were in the right. Im sorry that happened to you and your mom.

I’m so sorry you and your mother had to deal with that. I hope both of you are recovered and OK.

Appreciate that, it's got to be pushing 7 years now since it happened. It's kinda become a joke with us now. Fortunately my sister called down since then.

wow that's crazy. something similar happened to me but they released me the same day. 10 days in arrest is a lot over something like that, especially with little evidence and no corroborating witnesses.

My family is different we have issues with my sister who kinda did a 180 on us. Theres a part of us that thinks she would try to pull something, especially with her 2 new lovers coercing her but... mom and I are fighters. In all forms. I have a ton of things to bring up on her and have no problem putting her lovers down where they stand. If she goes for a fight, i fight to the death. And she takes flight over fight, so i dont think there will be problems

Her abusing him doesn't somehow magically make him not abusive. Both were abusive and toxic; people need to learn how to think and stop jumping on bandwagons and riding JD's D for no reason.

@@doxasticc But a court as already upheld claims that he was abusive. Herd still has her roles in movies and as the face of companies. If both are abusive both need to be punished.

@@doxasticc I'm just saying that it is not particularly fair if one side gets to pick and choose evidence whilst the other has to give everything.

@@doxasticc I mean where they both abusive? What did Depp do that you would you define as abuse?

@@shannibeth Idk what you mean by fair, the case was over whether it was a lie to say he was a 'wife-beater.' Evidence that AH was also abusive is irrelevant to that.

That wasn’t a framed shot, she was snorting coke off her finger. The whole trick with the tissues and “oh just allergies” that’s a trick older than bell bottom jeans.

I’m pretty sure he (and myself a bit) laughed because of how fake that “breakdown” looked. That’s not at all how an abuse victim normally behaves especially when they’re trying to give testimony in public view. It just felt like acting.

@@RyanBreaker very bad acting considering what her profession is.

Objection Hearsay

Nice try! My dad used to beat me and make fun of me when I cry. And yes, I do go from zero to 100 when I start remembering, much to my therapists' discomfort. They don't like it when I talk about it, it makes them uncomfortable. They're not good in that regard tbh. She's telling the truth, sorry that your hero is a sadist

I wish Devin would do a bit more in depth in the UK trial because imo, the case was a bit shady.

I commented the same

He sued The Sun not her

It was a bit confusing when he said, in the beginning of the video, that Depp sued Heard twice for the same thing is all.

I would sue the sun too. Son of a bitch made everything hot and is annoying in summer, to boot.

Hmm, seems like something Legal Eagle should've known, yeah?

Nice comment, it take you awhile to steal it?

@@whatinyourworld are you gonna call heard’s team and sue for plagiarism?? 😂😂

I would call it a train wreck and a car crash and a plane crash all together at once.

I don’t watch. It’s all PR. I have had teenage lovers fights when I was 17. Lessons learned.

You defined the modern term : dumpster fire

Good point. And I agree.

Cool, then maybe Johnny's team should stop using a questionable diagnosis of BPD to smear people with mental illness as being prone to violence against others and a danger to society when most of them are more likely to hurt or kill themselves than anyone else. Ain't nobody smelling like roses here. Depp does have a *very* long history of being prone to violence whether he's dealing with substance abuse or not though. I'm not sure why everyone developed amnesia about that, because it was all I ever heard about him through much of the 90s.

Plus the judge in the UK trial has ties to both amber Heard's legal team, he worked for the same law firm that amber's lawyer works for, & the sun as his (the judges) son works for talkradio. The same company that employs Wootten who wrote the article...

UK is so backwards on drugs you gotta find a medieval village to get some weed

Whats interesting. Heard actually has a history of domestic violence. And one things for sure. Thats generally something the abuser doesnt change. They will do it to someone else. The UK trail was a sham whole heartedly

Yes, and there is at least one witness in this trial that claims that Amber stated that the fecal matter was "a bad practical joke gone wrong".

All I know is Depp’s team are throwing a shit ton of money on PR

@@benaffleckisanokayactor So does Amber Heards team, haven't you seen the recent articles they bought for her or how they are trying to use Twitter to attack Depp?

@@benaffleckisanokayactor SURE, with Nypost, reuter and the sun and various media trying to help AH.

Hi, just wanted to clarify on what was stated regarding the UK judge's decision. I have not studied the law on defamation yet but I do believe that the law of tort practiced there has an inbred focus on the objective test of a reasonable person (an average joe who you randomly pick from the streets). The key note here is that it will be based off on an objective test and circumstances of a person's character will likely not be put into consideration beyond the circumstances that they are in. As such, under the eyes of UK law, the trial judge's judgment would likely not have been considered erroneous in that sense as a reasonable person that you pick up from the streets is not very likely to assume that the fecal matter in the bed was from a person, especially if the house has a pet. Yeah just wanted to say that. Don't really know why or what purpose this message is meant to achieve. Eh.

He would still maybe loose the UK case, even if the judge wasn't bias. It was against The Sun and given that the only available information at that time was Miss Heard's article, that would probably be considered a sufficient ground for them to publish their article.

Duh. An employee is going to side with his boss. Are you new here?

@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942 that isn't enough imo to completely invalidate them as witnesses

@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942 Depends on how individually-minded the employee is, how the employee has been treated, numerous factors. There's no such thing as a black-and-white explanation to a group or kind of people. Anything could happen - in fact, this very court case has taught me that much.

And the appeal court that upheld the ruling? Also in the pocket of talkRADIO? Or are you going into this with the idea that the UK case was unjust and working backwards from there?

Yep

100% and it’s wild how the public refused to accept law unless it ruled in his favor after losing twice.

Just Rittenhouse trial 2.0, legal eagle letting his political beliefs get in the way of reality.

It did kinda sound like he's going to make at least one more video on this covering the actual case, this was just to establish the background.

@@Colopty still, that's not the same as live commenting as tge trial is taking place like several other LawTubers have. I will be glad just to see him make another video on the subject either way.

That sounds extremely interesting. I'd be interested to see him do that for other famous cases as well.

@@Colopty Objection! Leading, your honor!

I think this would be interesting, but there is a single reason why not doing it is the correct way, it would be impossible to keep the neutrality needed, this is an analysis about what surrounds the case, but not about giving an opinion about who is right, at this point personally, for what i have seen, because i am seeing the case for shit and giggles, there have been no evidence against him that is at all convincing, in fact, some of the evidence presented by Heard's team can be interpreted against her, plus the things she has said that he did but in fact there is video evidence uploaded by herself in the internet that she was the one that did those things, like endangering a dog.

i think you've hit the nail on the head.

Mmyeah. I'm not much for getting involved in celebrity gossip - but this case hits a little too close to home for me. Constantly being critical of anyone who comes forward with allegations of domestic abuse is harmful toward actual victims of abuse...but I know first-hand that it's an actual thing that real people will lie and scheme ahead of time to win court cases, especially when there's money in it. Or power.

Yes, it certainly applies, no matter who is the original perpetuator. Now, although this evidence may not be admitted due to both parties' stipulation, Amber Heard was in fact arrested for DV (although not prosecuted), while none of Johnny Depp's previous partners even accused him.

I have experienced this myself. Reactively abusing after so much emotional and mental abuse was given to me. It's not right, but it happens. I was wondering if thar ended up being the case with Johnny.

I've experienced this. She'd do something absurdly violent and when I held her down to stop her it would be that I'd somehow kicked her ass. It's nuts. At a certain point shut emotions down, don't take anything they do personally. Everything gets easier once you just do what is right and realize you are not dealing with a sane person. She went on to have failed after failed relationship. The three months of nice person act doesn't secure you a punching bag it turns out.

Exactly so. The two trials are very much different. So the argumentation that "he lost in UK so he will lose in US" is a bad reasoning.

Also, the Sun was making claims with the evidence they had, that should be enough to claim that there is no malignant intent from their part, since they werent directly lying, just wrong.

UK case was also down to something like a reasonable probability that JD could be considered abusive. At a judges discretion. All very vague and unfair, tbh.

What's also important to know about the UK case is who the judge was. He had previously worked for the same company that owns the company Depp was suing, his son was currently working for that company. He is a close friend and colleague of a IPV activist whose organisation Heard is a spokeswoman for. (Don't just take my word for any of this, look it up and fact check me, I encourage it) That's all the kind of thing that normally you would think "well maybe this guy shouldnt't be the judge on this case".

@@gabriel1205 yep, Judge was corrupt and biased.

Depp even rebuttled under redirect Examination that "I was trying to stop her, it's possible our foreheads collided as they do in an altercation, but it wasn't a headbutt." going on later to say "After she dispensed of the tissue, I inspected it very closely and found it was nail polish." Not to mention When Johnny tried to figure out what went wrong, she refused any sort of help or examination.

sounds just like my mother

You just described a shocking number of domestic violence claims

@Dominic Gallegos I agree with you.

Projecting onto a case isn’t a good idea if you want to form an unbiased opinion.

The jury is supposedly 7 male, 3 female-all very young. On the one hand, if those males recognize that men can be victims of DV, he might stand a chance of winning. If they’re more of the macho/men can’t be victims variety, he’s already lost even if all the evidence is on his side. Their age might be the biggest benefit to depps side, the younger generations have a more open mind to equality. The females…it’s a toss up. They may side with heard because of shared experiences (though that was most likely checked for before trial) OR they could be more empathetic to Depps side for, what I believe, is a more authentic/truthful testimony.

@@R.M.3.14 I agree to an extent with that, but I think there is a lot of emphasis on the gender of the jury. I personally think the jury will be less swayed by a stereotypical emotional association, but more so by the evidence and credibility of either's case. Judging by what I've seen so far I can't see how many of the jurors can side with Amber, but you never know.

as opposed to...?

@@muppet50yago36 yeah she literally admitted to assaulting him it shouldn’t take more than 5 min for them to come to a decision, she’ll be lucky if she’s able to avoid a criminal domestic violence case lol, they already have photo evidence and a confession under oath 😂

@@jowbabadook8530 As opposed to the UK trial that did not have jurors but only Justice Nicol as sitting judge.

This people thinks that homicides are just based on DNA testing and before that all homicides were unsolved

Inadmissible kinds, but they are kinds 😂

No, there was an objection for hearsay and another for conjecture What did the neughbour say they heard And If you had spoken to Mrs. herd first wouldn't you have worked for her instead Both objections sustained if I recall

@@GrifoStelle More than just one objection for each.

Mt. Hutz

It doesn't help Amber when her costars (see Jason Mamoa) come out and throw her under the bus for being an abusive dirtbag, and Depp's ex's (which one would think would have the most to emotionally gain by smearing thei ex) have been very positive about him. Even Depp's daughter has come out in defense of her father as not being abusive.

The issue is "far more likely" is how the UK court put it. They claim it's far more likely that Depp's accusations of libel are untrue. I like probability and all that, but I know that it's not good to depend on it, especially when that probability varies widely by perspective cuz it's subjective. Idk who's right/wrong, but I do know that the case was pretty amusing.

Also, its wild that theyre painting johnny as an addicted alcoholic druggy. Amber spent something like 10k a month on wine, admitted to using other drugs multiple times and even in an audio clip tried to use her being on drugs as an excuse for physically abusing johnny.

He literally brought a psychologist in to testify that she's got Borderline and Histrionic Personality Disorders, two very stigmatized mental illnesses. If that's not spinning mental health issues to look like proof that someone's abusive and exploiting negative stereotypes to do so, I don't know what is!

Guess you didn't watch the video. He was very skeptical about if he would win. he said it was more unlikely that he would win in the US. NOT he would FOR SURE lose the trial.

4 years??

@@ABoxIsMyHome Law school is usually a 4 or 5 year degree outside of the US.

@@hotpotato9149 all that for nothing?

@@ABoxIsMyHome Yea, I started a business while in law school and I'm making x10 the money that I would have made as a lawyer, but that applies to my country mostly (I'm from EU)

@@WalkinChristum You sound like my father. After graduating Loyola, he never even took the Bar anywhere.

Yeah, I hadn’t been following it closely at all and figured the UK ruling was likely the truth, but since then I’ve watched several dives into the details, especially including the video Matt Orchard did here on YT, and my opinion has done a 180.

It's the biggest win for sure. People outside of that courtroom would only see the photos where she posed holding a tissue to her nose, as opposed to actually watching the whole performance. It really makes a huge difference in the public's perception.

The UK courts are going to be embarrassed if Depp wins in the US. The judges in the UK case should be ashamed for not allowing evidence and just going along with AH.

Watching Amber going from full emotional breakdown face to a passive face and then return to the full emotional breakdown face exactly when an objection is raised and then emotions return when its her moment to testify again. Its almost like someone is saying "cut" and "action" and not "objection" and sustained"

It's so telling when actual abuse victims, FBI investigators, behavior specialists, victim advocates, and so many more that work for abuse survivors are saying something isn't right with her story. It's gut wrenching to realize the abuse victim was portrayed as the abuser, but I suspect that we will find it's happened way more than we expected. I grew up in a household where my mother is the aggressor and perpetrator of abuse and violence, and she has used the female victim facade to her benefit. JD doesn't realize how lucky he is to have gotten free of her.

I think we're often led to believe that the primary aggressor is male, but it's also true that domestic abuse against men is severely underreported. And this idea that women are automatically disbelieved is just outrageous. I disbelieve Heard for good reasons, not because of her sex.

Amber Heard being the "primary aggressor" unfortunately has no bearing on this case. All her defense has to do is convince the jury of just one credible instance of verbal or physical abuse directed at Heard. Their former couples therapist testified that there was mutual abuse during their marriage, and whilst she stated that Heard instigated violence against Depp much more frequently, Depp still sometimes initiated physical confrontations.

@@stevesteves945 That's why I said it likely won't have much impact in the court case but it will have an impact in the court of public opinion. Anyone intimately familiar with domestic violence will recognize her as the primary aggressor in those recordings. That understanding will generate empathy towards Depp, even if there was abuse on his part as well.

@@TheCommonS3Nse Oh I think he won in the court of public opinion long ago when those recording were revealed to the public demonstrating just who the primary abuser was. I do hope this will rightfully tank Amber Heard's acting career though, regardless of the outcome of the case.

Well, in the case of public accusations of abuse, there are certain people who have a vested interest in reflexively taking the man's side, and due to the fact that Depp is a more popular actor than Heard, it's inevitable that some people aren't even going to consider that the allegations could be true. I, however, don't have such an emotional investment, not do I have any bias against Johnny Depp such that I wouldn't hear him out too. Given the evidence has been shown, I believe that both parties contributed to the general toxicity of their relationship, they both bare a degree of responsibility. But where it comes to physical aggression, I agree that it appears that Heard is the primary aggressor at least in that respect, and it seems as if Depp's role in physical confrontation is mainly reactionary, and while a person should never keep a fight going, one does have a right to defend themselves, even if the assailant is smaller or weaker. You shouldn't do anything more than what is necessary to fend off an assault, though. At this time, there's no evidence suggesting that his response was in excess of that. In her own words, his response to her hitting him was to push her. I think pushing someone away who is trying to hit you is acceptable, as long as it stops at some point.

@@marmar920 if he were to sue for the breach of NDA it would only apply to that article, suing for defamation allows for there to be a way larger scope in terms of evidence and testimony that can be given.

@@marmar920 criminal court requiers mutch more evidence then they have as ppl say reason why both have stick to civil court

because that would not solve the issue but make it worse. If shes sued for breach of the NDA we would all wonder wwhat he was trying to silence her on and would fuel speculation It's the right move from his team for sure

There was plenty of references to it when the ACLU representative, an attorney, was testifying. I don't know how AH doesn't have a malpractice case against her atty's for approving the op-ed. They're the same ones that drew up the NDA.

Because she didn’t mention his name, they believed they would get around the non-disclosure. However it doesn’t take a rocket scientist and defamation with proven damages has more serious implications than a breach of a non-disclosure.

Lol? There's a lot of prominent channels doing this. Not being so cynic like this one.

@@kasiazdrojewska3616 cynic? Do you mean critical and trying to be objective? Lol

@@kasiazdrojewska3616 I've yet to find objective commentary.

@@m.n152 No, there is a difference, and I know it. Critical and objective I value. Cynical... Not really.

@@kasiazdrojewska3616 what's the difference here? genuinely asking, trying to find out

Oh part of why he lost the sun case was because she claimed she donated the full 7 million, but in reality she has only ever donated 1 million under her name. only $300,000 of which being her and not JD or Elon Musk.

Exactly, i perfer to avoid and wait out the media and wait for the testimony.

nah social media had more accurate reporting than the MSM lol

You can also add: - lawyers aren't actually all smart

Edit: MEGAPINT! 🤣

OBJECTION!!!

And amber has a time machine she uses to buy make up

@@nicolereadstarot loreal had timemachine, selling future makeup product to amber in the pass. (speculation meme)

It feels like the weirdest version of law and order and judge Mathis.

I think trials are compelling because everyone watching is just as qualified to analyze it as the jury is. That's the whole point of a jury, they're regular people. I'm lost watching a Magnus Carlsen chess match. I don't understand the scoring system of tennis. But a trial is meant to be watched by anyone.

@@ramon3897 and yet here you are.

I couldn't agree more with the better things in the world to focusing on, and like thats not even a current thing that is an always thing. but @makerinmotion that response has really made me recontextualise things. you've explained it so perfectly and captured something important about its appeal.

@@ramon3897 Because regardless of whether Depp's or Heard's claims are true or false, anyone of any gender could be and have been sued and jailed even though the alleged attacker was telling the truth while others have been sued and released/exonerated because others havr lied about abuse/rape/etc. Men have lied about women, women have lied about men, men have lied about men and women have lied about women, and everybody has lied over money, ego, control, fame, spite, etc. It's interesting because it's real people, regardless of whether their testimonies are truthful or dishonest.

Amber's prior arrest for domestic violence was never prosecuted and convicted so "technically" its not admissible court evidence. But we all know she probably did it lol. Amber is taking the stand saying how the cops was called several times on Depp. If we apply the same logic Depp should be able to point out her prior arrests. Not saying she was guilty or anything....wink wink.

To this point they haven't been able to discuss that in court, for some unknown reason

I really hope during the cross examination for Heard, they'll bring this up to show that she has a history of abuse (also, she used to beat up her sister and her mother was scared of her)

@@iankmak yeah i know it 100% something they can’t bring in court. Whenever I see these videos referencing one sides previous relationship I wish they at least mention both parties relationship.

@@lvnar_27 Just checking is there a source for that info? That should really be brought up as it would show she has a history of violence.

Agree

Is this what we want our courts to be used for? Knowing you're going to lose yet doing so anyway?

Regardless of the financial outcome, I think JD has certainly done quite a lot of reputation revitalization here. There's a groundswell of folks who believe him over Heard now, which wasn't the case before (at least not to this degree).

Johnny is looking great in all this. She looks insane and her experts and lawyers look terrible. People are supporting Johnny and raging against her and mocking her. Saw video the other day she holds a tissue to her face for a few seconds to pose for a photo.

Keep an eye on the US trial.... she's testified to such crazy crazy things without any proof of most of them other than a few pictures of bruises but none of her bloody footprints, no swelling of the nose from the broken nose, no medical examination from the alleged bottle being shoved into her vagina and a few days later she's sitting fine on a flight with the house manager on a flight back to the US from AUS while Johnny's at the hospital getting his finger re-attached??? If she kept things more believable I think she might def win but originally I thought Johnny would only win in the court of public opinion and now I'm thinking he's got a real shot to really win this since she's saying such crazy crazy things with no medical records to prove it. Even her forensic psychiatrist who sounded SO biased against men was saying she sought medical care after a fight and then they played the nurse testifying to her notes from that exam and there was no bruising, nothing! So so so crazy.

The sad part is that there's also a cultural bias in general, (which might well be why the UK judge decided against Depp), in that people are a lot more willing to believe and get upset about a woman being abused, than they are a man getting abused. That makes these sort of cases significantly harder to win for men both in the court of public opinion, and in actual court. It doesn't help either that she made the accusations first, and especially in today's culture, where there are indeed a lot of assholes out there, people are quick to jump in defense of female "victims" without actually looking at the evidence and the character of the people involved to see if they are indeed victims or if they have ulterior motives. In many cases they are telling the truth, but there's also plenty of people who play the role of victim in order to garner sympathy or attention, knowing that even if evidence proves them to be lying, the public will already have sided with them.

I think the UK judge made the right call from a free speech perspective. After all, new evidence has since come out-evidence that The Sun's editors didn't have, but evidence that Heard, as the author of the WaPo op-ed, absolutely would know about, being the first party. So in terms of malicious intent, it's way different.

@@Gamer3427 yeah, many people straight up don't believe men can be abused by a women. It's quite sad, because it hurts those men. Seeing people support your abuser and hate you bc they think you abused her is upsetting to say the least. I think this is a trait of "toxic masculinity", the idea that men can't be abused (by men or women) bc they HAVE to be "stronger then them" and "you're weak if you can't defend yourself." Which can be said to a women too, but it's mostly said to men. What a shame. :(

Johnny ended up in the hospital because he cut his own finger. You would know that if you actually read the UK ruling or listen to tape and doctors that have conformed to that. Just because Johnny didn't hit his past partners doesn't mean he can never hit a partner now. I think you're the biased one.

Yes, fans of Mr. Depp have certainly taken heavily to his side of the story and are very defensive of him. As you have demostrated.

People seems to only have read the headline to her article. It's not just that part that matters and all the claims in that article is under trial.

shshhshshshs facts.

Who recorded them?

Why would she shit in the bed if he was so violent?

@@reaceness Amber Heard herself.

to be fair the US trial also disallowed the reference to past acts such as heard abusing her past partners but as heard made a reference breaking this rule saying depp did abuse an old partner and Depp's lawyers didnt object they are able to bring up these past matters due to amber heard bringing them up first and potentially be able to delve into more past issues such as her abusing her own partner

Were those witnesses actually untrustworthy? What was the reasoning for the judge to not use the evidence? For some strange reason i dont think they threw it out because they felt like it. The entirety of britian isnt a corrupt state helping Amber Heard so i think theres a little more at play than you are saying here.

@@stevenwier1783 the reason they threw alot out was it being a case against the sun and not heard, leading them to deem the evidence and witnesses as irrelevant as amber heard is not the sun

@@taylorlan3377 Heard's expartner has said publicly that there was no abuse on Heards part. But being a Johnny Depp fan you don't want to talk about that part. How about the suits (at least 2) against Depp from former body guards and the man from the movie set stating violence from Depp and buying drugs for him? Don't want to talk about the history of violence from Depp destroying property and assaulting paparazzi? Depp fans don't want to talk about that.

@@tinamariamoore6786 so firstly let's cut the crap, just because her partner said there was no abuse doesnt make it true. People hide abuse all the time including Whitney heard who appears to at least had some violence from amber as shown by a reality show from ages ago where the contestants repeatedly ask about how amber beat her good and she refuses to comment. Secondly Depp isn't perfect and has had drug abuse issues i agree, but I researched the bodyguard lawsuit references poor working conditions and drug abuse but nothing about depp being violent towards them, they even reference that the bodyguards had to go outside of their role as bodyguards such as "monitor unstable individuals in Depp's life and entourage", a quote like that references problems with people around him which could be AH or not we don't know, but no where does it say he was violent towards them so get your facts straight

Department of Justice officially rebrands to "Department of Legality." Everyone is upset but not surprised.

very true, it's proven so many times in the past court result is not equal justice throughout the history of humankind. Justice is a concept that carries through time, culture, social norms.

I found it funny that he used US court stock footage for the UK court. They wear funny little wigs & stuff over there, so the footage in this just didn't fit at all. Cool you got to see yourself though :)

@@mehere8038 wait they really wear funny wigs there?

Lol.

Cool

Unfortunately, they already objected to their own motion.

😅

You are exaggerating your statement to make you appear excessively fast. 😆

Objection: no one can possibly be that fast!

@@warlordofbritannia Objection, speculation.

Yea I had told people that my ex was beating me, literally showing people the bruises and cuts, and they'd say "Whaaat? From tiny little her? Against you? It couldn't have been that bad." Like, what? You know how much effort it took her to bruise someone my size and build? If you see a big burly man with a bunch of bruises on their shoulders, just imagine how hard that dude had to be hit to get that mark.

if it's true (and the evidence seems to point to the fact Amber was the one absuing Johnny) then this case could have much more impact than few milions for johnny

Depp himself said he already lost everything. He has nothing left. So yeah, I agree this is to redeem himself. Success.

This; however, is not a domestic violence case. This is a Defamation case.

@@TheRibottoStudios "Depp says he has nothing left..." with a current net worth of about 150 million dollars. 🤣😂🤣 Their joint statement after her initial claims of being abused by Depp, he stated "neither side has made false allegations to secure a financial judgement"... but if that weren't enough to substantiate her words... this has already been litigated in the UK. A court of law has already weighed the testimony and evidence, and found that at 12 of her 14 accounts of violence were credible. That is why Depp lost that libel suit against The Sun UK

He's already won the public opinion.

I was thinking the same thing. He's not looking to be compensated for any loss made by the op-ed. He's looking to cause equal or greater damage to her in the public's eyes - and it's working. In the end, the court of public opinion won't have the power to sway the legal system - hopefully - but one can assume that Amber's career is as good as dead.

What public opinion? That he's a violent drunken maniac who has done horrific things? If that's the public perception he wants to cement then he's done a great job!

@@brody5409 Experts have proven that Amber is the one who's lying. Plus there's no evidence of Johnny abusing her. But there is evidence of her abusing him.

@@eeveequeen15 So is it loose birdseed in your skull or? What's like the situation up there?

No, what she stated was that it wasn't fair to deny Depp a trial since Heard was not a party in the UK decision. She actually goes out of her way to make it clear she is not expressing an opinion about the UK system in her 14 page ruling which can be found online. Have to ask the question why a case involving a couple who lived in California arguing over an argument published in DC is being held in Virginia, a state notoriously friendly to SLAPP suits if you're really interested in trial fairness...

@@CaptLoquaLacon other legal channels like Legal Bytes determined that Virginia is where the publisher of the article AH wrote is headquartered

@@CaptLoquaLacon because the Washington Post is headquartered there and that is where the article was published.

@@br2k Why does that matter? He's suing Heard for defamation, not the Washington Post. Who cares where they are headquartered? Also, online it says they are headquartered in DC and publish all of their stuff in DC. They have some operations in Virginia but are clearly mostly in DC.

@@frizzzx86 The HQ of the Washington post is 1301 K Street NW Washington. They have a bureau in Virginia, but that is tenuous given all editorial decisions will occur in DC

Why what did you do 🤔

👍😂 Chance would be a fine thing! Handy when you run out of 🚽 paper though. ( Pity Amber was unaware of it’s other uses 😏)

Murdoch Rag

One of the fist bumps (I don't know if there were multiple) was because Amber contradict her statements and lied in court. Originally she said she heard rumours JD threw one of her ex girlfriends off the stairs, but now she said it like it was true even tough the ex girlfriend said "JD was the first man she felt secure with" and denied this event from happening

They're happy cause it means they can bring more Depp friendly witnesses to the stand

Part of it is because the 3rd parties involved were her mother, who has since passed away thus can not be called upon to testify

They also fist bumped when she mentioned Kate Moss. They were waiting for that apparently. I wonder how that will play out.

great pun m8

There are also issues with the judge, too. That judge should not have been anywhere near the case.

"oy fink she's more than loykley tewing the troof!" *smacks gavel*

She was. Depp's team hired a QC to do it

@@CaptLoquaLacon i just discovered what a QC is, why have i never heard about such a sick thing, by how it's described they look like superheroes, do we have some films or series with protagonist a QC? If we don't, whhyyyy?

Because she's a WoMaN

People who has already taken a clear side, has no respect for the law or justice. For there is not much evidence of either side being a victim of abuse here, and plenty of evidence that they have both behaved bad.

Exactly. A ton of ppl have already taken Depp's side after Day 1 and not even willing to hear her side. The hivemind out there is crazy.

@@slickspidey Nuance requires effort.

@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution I am pretty sure an audio recording of AH telling Johnny she was hitting him and that no one would "believe Johnny, a man, of being abused," as well as photo of him with black eyes, photo of him in the hospital, and numerous witnesses testifying he had visible injuries, would count as "evidence" of domestic violence. Regardless of outcome, there is evidence violence took place.

Check out Legal Bytes, another KZfaq lawyer, she's uploaded both a full live stream of the trial every day (with commentary) as well as a 15-20 minute video at the end of each day summarising what happened and who said/did what. Definitely a good analysis of the trial thus far :) Nick Rikeita is another good option for KZfaq lawyers, though he doesn't have summary videos of each day's events, which is why I recommend Legal Bytes.

This jury is not sequestered.

@@sl3966 Then a follow-up question/topic for him: How do you prevent spoiling of a jury because of a headline passing their eyeballs? How do you prove it? :)

@@Genesis8934 You really can't. It's an honor system thing. Just like the juror on the Floyd trial that later came out and said he knew all about the case and had been to protests about Floyd. He also said that "we need to start getting on these juries to effect change" in direct opposition to what he wrote on his jury questionnaire. We just have to trust that they take jury duty seriously I guess.

@@sl3966 Personally, I think that jury nullification is not a mark of unseriousness. I'd certainly consider it if abortion became outlawed, if Roe falls, for example.

@@sl3966 That's actually something that feels like a huge gap in the legal system. You can't appeal a jury getting something wrong, even though it's never established how well they understand the laws and nuances, or how they've interpreted the testimony and evidence. In a case with a judge, they have to validate their reasoning (so the verdict in the London case here ran to 600 paragraphs). Meanwhile the jury deliberations are never evaluated, they're not even recorded. The sequestering thing here is interesting, especially in light of there being a weeks break while Heard has barely starting presented evidence and testimony. It feels like the jury will get extra time to ruminate on Depp's team's evidence, while also being exposed to the social media which (as is typically the case) is biased toward the bigger star. I know that there are arguments that part of the issue with the OJ trial is the jury just wanted to get it over with, but there should be some kind of half way house.

It was said in the video

Tell me you didn't watch the whole video, without telling me you didn't watch it.

@@Chiny_w_Pigulce Yes but he also says in the video, "How can Johnny Depp Sue Amber Heard Twice?" He could have just missed that part of the video where he said otherwise.

@@Verskil1412 I figured he would address it eventually, but a large portion of people are not going to listen to the whole thing and won't get the real information when the video begins that way.

@@Chiny_w_Pigulce I figured he would address it eventually, but a large portion of people are not going to listen to the whole thing and won't get the real information when the video begins that way.

Lol was just talking about this today with coworkers

@@MichaelSmith-lm6xl Yeah, it really showed up this week with Depp v Heard. Heard's lawyer tried about 15 ways to ask the same question.

Well if the witness starts to answer the question in a leading way it can be objected and requested to be striked from the record

@@donnieparris4684 Elaine: "Did Mr. Depp horribly violate you with this bottle pictured here?" Camille: "Objection: leading" Elaine: "What if any time did Mr. Depp horribly---" Camille: "Objection: leading" Elaine: "Your honor, what if any..."

It is an issue. The justice system just can't be bothered to treat it like one.

Says Depp, and his legal team, and definitely through their online smear campaign against Heard which he probably paid a ton of money for. "Reality can be whatever I want". He purchased people's support for him through an online misinformation campaign, that's so low! You'd have to be a very disturbing person to resort to it. And I'm quoting an Avengers movie because this online campaign has been as extensive as the online marketing for an Avengers movie... Cost millions of dollars..

Yeah, like anyone who's made their evaluation outside of the courts have not done that very thing

@@ltlbuddha But he's the Judge hes suppose to be impartial. The fact that he wasn't shows bias. Its one thing for us, as outsiders to do so, its another for someone in legislation to do so.

@@Chareddragon People claim he was partial without significant evidence. I don't have an opinion on it, precisely because I know I don't know.

Two independent judges looked at his ruling as part of the appeals process. There is no evidence that he took one person more at face value than the other given that he highlights bits where both of them lied. No informed opinion claims he is biased

You are quite with the "usual" part. That is the sad stereotype. However basically all studies suggest that over 40% of domestic abuse victims are male.

Don't worry. It's taken out of context. Johnny was claiming it was a "fair fight" (putting equal responsibility is something abusers do btw), while Amber told him to go tell a judge and jury that and see what people think.

@@NaNa-ou1sg It's really not taken out of context, tho

@@bestbeloved2704 Yes it is. His lawyer got kicked off the Sun case for leaking it and why would he need to do that 🤔

@@NaNa-ou1sg okay but why does she constantly lie then? why has no one ever seen any of the things she mentioned, and why are they not in the trial as witnesses? no medical records, a bunch of contradictions, he is this cunning monster who always does things so nobody can find out, and somehow he is also always drunk on drugs, blacking out and shitting his pants yet somehow avoids getting found out, also all her pictures does not match her story at all.

THANK YOU! I don't understand randos, and celebs who don't know either party personally, express support for one party or the other so confidently, and speculate as to who is right and who is wrong. I doubt either party is beyond reproach.

@@Mic-Mak Tbh, this trial should be a giant case study on confirmation bias.

I don't watch the celebrities like you do, there are some body language experts out there that work on cases, you need to seperate facts from fiction. There's also a lot of amber supporters still...surprisingly

@@GuardianAngleReads FACTS

It is insanity, and it has brought out the vileness in a lot of people.