Thursday, Knox lawyers will argue to First ("Murders") Chamber of Supreme Court that Florence court's Calunnia II conviction of Knox was wrong. Uphill battle. Florence reasoning has been widely praised.

Thursday, June 16, 2022

ABC News Channels A Juror, Undercutting Heard’s Wildeyed Claims On Other US Networks

Posted by Peter Quennell

(1) Scroll down for viewer comments. (2) See at foot for UK lawyer analysis.

Additionally to the video analysis at bottom there is this newer longer one examining the whole of the pussyfooting NBC Dateline interview with Heard.

Context

The NBC network has aired an interview in several parts with Amber Heard.

This now looks like a disaster. Informed court-watchers have gone to town both on the timid and ill-prepared NBC interviewer and on Amber Heard over her multitude of unchallenged conspiracy theories (some excellent comments there).

And now, unsurprisingly, the jury starts to push back against Amber Heard’s incessant media trashing of them. The GMA website carries the video above and also this telling reporting.

By Mark Guarino & Doug Lantz

A juror in the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial said in an interview that aired Thursday on “Good Morning America” that when the actress cried during her testimony the jury saw only “crocodile tears.”

“It didn’t come across as believable,” he said. “It seemed like she was able to flip the switch on her emotions. She would answer one question and she would be crying and two seconds later she would turn ice cold. It didn’t seem natural.”

Depp, he said, “just seemed a little more real in terms of how he responded to questions.”

The juror, one of seven jurors during the six-week trial, spoke exclusively to “GMA” and is the only juror on record to speak publicly about the case. He asked to have his name not used for this report.

In early June, a jury in Fairfax, Virginia, awarded Depp more than $10 million in damages; Heard received $2 million in her countersuit.

The catalyst for defamation countersuits was a 2018 op-ed Heard wrote in The Washington Post in which she said she “became a public figure representing domestic abuse.”

Depp argued that suggested she was victimized by him, although she never identified him by name.

‘Why would you buy the other person a knife?’

Heard’s credibility was suspect throughout the duration of the trial, the juror said. Besides how she acted on the stand, several other factors led the jury to believe Heard was not credible, the juror said.

The jury concluded “they were both abusive to each other” but Heard’s team failed to prove Depp’s abuse was physical.

“They had their husband-wife arguments. They were both yelling at each other. I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong. That’s what you do when you get into an argument, I guess. But to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying,” he said.

Heard, the juror said, was considered the aggressor in the relationship by the majority of the jury. “If you have a battered wife or spouse situation, why would you buy the other person, the ‘aggressor,’ a knife? If you really wanted to help Johnny Depp get off drugs, why are you taking drugs around him?” he asked.

Heard testified she purchased Depp a large knife as a gift, which Depp’s legal team presented to jurors.

The juror said that photographs Heard took of her ex-husband also fell flat. Although the defense used them to show Depp’s decrepit state after a drug or alcohol binge, the juror said they failed to make an impact.

“If you mix alcohol and marijuana, that’s where you usually end up—passed out,” he said. “We discussed at length that a lot of the drugs she said he used, most of them were downers. And you usually don’t get violent on downers. You become a zombie, as those pictures show.”

In his testimony, Depp also admitted to cocaine use, a stimulant, and Heard testified he was frequently doing the drug in her presence.

No make-up: no credibility

The juror also said the jury essentially dismissed all witnesses on both sides who were employees, paid experts, friends or family from either side.

Also suspect were the photos that Heard’s team presented that purported to show bruising on the actress’ face. Two photos presented near the end of the trial were not credible to the jury, he said.

They believed the accusation by Depp’s team that one photo was edited to artificially redden Heard’s face to suggest bruising. Heard testified the photos looked different because of a “vanity light.”

“Those were two different pictures. We couldn’t really tell which picture was real and which one was not,” the juror told “GMA.”

The juror also said the defense failed Heard by telling them that the actress “never goes outside without make-up on,” he said. “Yet she goes to file the restraining order without make-up on. And it just so happens her publicist is with her. Those things add up and starts to become hard to believe,” he said.

$7 million donation that never happened was ‘a fiasco’ for Heard

The juror said the four-hour debate over the difference between a pledged donation and an actual donation ended up “a fiasco” for Heard.

On the stand, Heard testified she never finished donating all $7 million from her divorce settlement to two charities because she didn’t want Depp to reap the tax benefits by sending her settlements to the charities directly.

Heard testified that a pledge and a donation are “synonymous with one another” and “mean the same thing.” The jury was shown video of Heard on a Dutch talk show saying she gave her donation to the charities.

“The fact is, she didn’t give much of it away at all,” the juror said. “It was disingenuous.”

He blamed Heard’s legal team for giving her poor advice, such as looking directly at the jury when responding to questions. “All of us were very uncomfortable” at that, he said.

He also said her team “had sharp elbows versus being sharp.”

“They would cut people off in cross because they wanted one specific answer without context. They were forcing people to just answer a very narrow question ... which was obvious,” he said.

“She needs better advice,” he said of Heard.

Publishing the 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post that defamed Depp was a poor choice, he said. “If she didn’t do any of this stuff with the op-eds, Johnny Depp could have helped her out in her career. They didn’t leave things on a nasty turn,” when they divorced, he said. “It turned nasty after the op-ed.”

‘We only looked at the evidence’

The juror denied the jury was swayed by outside forces. He and “at least” three others did not have Twitter accounts.

“Some people said we were bribed. That’s not true. Social media did not impact us. We followed the evidence. We didn’t take into account anything outside [the courtroom]. We only looked at the evidence,” he said. “They were very serious accusations and a lot of money involved. So we weren’t taking it lightly.”

The juror also said that no one on the jury was starstruck and their individual celebrity never played a factor in their decision. While he admitted he knew of Depp more than Heard, he hadn’t seen many of his films. “None of us were really fans of either one of them,” he said.

Asked whether he would go see a future movie starring Depp or Heard, the juror said it would depend on the movie.

“What they do in their personal lives doesn’t affect me whatsoever. Going to movies is entertainment. I go for the quality of the movie or the storyline,” he said. “Not for the acting.”

Monday, June 13, 2022

Some Main Media Continuing “Farcical & Biased” Commentary On Why Heard Lost

Posted by Peter Quennell

Seven minutes. Comments by viewers who WATCHED THE TRIAL here (scroll down)

Ten minutes. Comments by viewers who WATCHED THE TRIAL here (scroll down)

Thirty minutes. Comments by viewers who WATCHED THE TRIAL here (scroll down)

Thursday, June 09, 2022

Main Media Again Behind The Curve, On What Camille Vasquez’s Promotion Means

Posted by Peter Quennell

Analysis Of New Partnership

Brown Rudnick, the law firm for Johnny Depp, has about 250 lawyers in all branches on its staff.

As of the other day before Camille Vasquez’s promotion to partner, there were 66 equity partners and 51 non-equity partners in the firm.

The concept of a non-equity partner is a bit weird. It gives more job security and higher pay but may see no bonuses at the end of the year.

Probably Camille was voted into the equity group. She has really helped to put that quite small firm on the map.

She had a sudden rush of job offers and really had them over a barrel.

The median pay of a lawyer in the US is $128,000 (the median for medical doctors is $260,000) and so (as in Italy) many or most don’t make very much.

Camille was possibly pulling in around that $128,000. As a partner, she should now be on over $200,000 a year.

If she is an equity partner, she could see double that at the end of each year.

So. From a possible $128,000 to a possible $400,000 a year…

But that is not all. If she registers as a paid speaker for conferences, she could now make $1 million and up.

“It couldn’t happen to a nicer person” seems to apply.

Wednesday, June 08, 2022

Beyond Denial: As Many Millions So Much Better Informed, Main Media Bends To The Wind

Posted by Peter Quennell

Less than 24 hours after broadcast, the NBC and ABC videos here are showing a combined 10 million views, and 22,000 comments. Also this is weird. And there may be a move to disbar Heard lawyer Elaine Bredehoft in Virginia for unethical claims about judge & jury soon after trial.

Context

Johnny Depp lawyers Camille Vasquez and Ben Chew were interviewed today on NBC and ABC.

At trial they did truly great work, helpfully aiding Amber Heard to repeatedly shoot herself in the foot.

Already, thousands of supporting comments can be read here and here (scroll down). 

One big winner: cameras in court.

Remember what happened in Italy? There were cameras in court. Most of the trial of AK and RS was broadcast live. Italian media did not “intermediate” on the biased lines of the New York Times and Associated Press and US TV.

So there is little doubt in Italy about AK’s and RS’s guilt.

Same thing here. Main media deniers have been trounced by live court feeds on the social media they love to despise.

The island shrinks for lazy journalists like Michele Goldberg (see previous post below) that are witting or unwitting captives to toxic PR. 

 

Thursday, June 02, 2022

Myriad WOMEN Are Seeing Amber Heard As The Dangerous Troublemaker

Posted by Peter Quennell

Jury verdict: Malice toward Johnny Depp by Amber Heard in misleading Washington Post op-ed was indeed proven, jury suggests damages of $15 million. Award hearing in front of same judge 24 June. Heard counter-claims all unproven except only one: a statement by a Depp lawyer (not Depp) that a home scene was rearranged to fool the police.

Context Of Video

Amazingly, some daffy men still break for Amber Heard.

But women for Heard? A tiny minority. Pretty well all those angered that Amber Heard tried to hijack and slant and weaponize what had been a quite useful movement are by their own accounts women.

Quite often themselves genuine domestic-violence victims. Scroll down and read the comments. Pretty well all are by women angered at this ridiculous shoot-from-the-hip woman commentator who clearly did NOT watch the full arc of the trial.

As of posting, these were the dozen most “liked” comments. 

[By a woman] There was no ‘mountain of evidence’. Amber Heard did indeed make her accusations up out of whole cloth, and she had NO evidence, none whatsoever. It was proven she was lying about multiple things, and the majority of her witnesses weren’t credible. It was proven she lied about Warner Brothers, she lied about donating the divorce money, she lied about fights, she lied about damage to property, she lied about injuries…  This was not a ‘he said, she said’, it was a ‘she said, everyone else said’. Either Johnny was right and all his witnesses, who were credible, or Amber was right, and everyone else was lying, including multiple police officers.

[By a woman] The setback for women is that this woman used the #MeToo movement to further her career.  Amber lost her cash cow and the person with whom she attached herself that made her more well known and she punished him for leaving her.  This is unacceptable behavior no matter what your gender.

[By a woman] This is a terrible perspective, and this is what’s holding us back. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that Depp was the abused. Too many of us have suffered the same tactics and manipulations that AH dished out. I do have some empathy for her, her past trauma etc… but she needs to deal with her past, instead of projecting it on to others.

[By a woman] I’m all for victims coming forward and I am so happy to see a man stand up for himself because in this case Amber audio recordings greatly contradict her testimony.  I believe justice was served.  Unfortunately there are women who make false claims of sexual assault.  Men lose their freedom and name forever tarnished when falsehoods are told and there should be repercussions when you defame someone in this way.  She planted seeds of doubt.  Some will believe her and some won’t.  You need to follow the evidence.  Male or female abuse victims deserve justice and I think this time the jury got it right.

[By a woman] This lady is on another planet. Yes she made allegations but she lied they were false allegations, they were to her own benefit, and it’s a lesson to both men and women that domestic violence is not something that’s OK to lie about. It doesn’t matter if you’re a man or a woman, domestic violence is domestic violence. Also the judge in the UK case discredited everything Johnny said because of his substance-abuse. He didn’t listen to any of Johnny’s evidence, and it was one person, a single judge in the UK, where standards are different, laws are different, versions of proof or different. Here in our country seven people found Amber to be a liar. Justice for Johnny has been done today!

[By a woman] She manipulated evidence. That’s a big no-no. She couldn’t keep her story straight and she said on the stand that everyone else is lying except for her, she’s the only one that’s telling the truth. I’m sorry but the jury got it 100% right. This is a big win for men who are victims of domestic violence. More women come forward than men do, and maybe this is an opportunity to show that men can come forward and they are victims too. She said in her own words on a voice recording “Tell them you’re a victim and see who believes you”...

[By a woman] So evidence that we all saw with our own eyes and testimonies listened to with our ears are not the reason she lost, but its because an actor is a powerful man. Was the judge also in on this? I love this victimhood spin the media are putting on this. Yes, let’s forget a woman lied about physical violence to destroy a man’s life, all the while being the one committing domestic violence against that man.

[By a woman] I am a woman from Istanbul and I’m on the side of “human” rights. I’ve watched the trial for 6 weeks and I truly believe that justice is served. That’s what matters.

[By a woman] Less than ten percent [of women lie]? Then Amber is in that ten percent. I wanted to believe her, but I watched the trial, and as an abused woman in the past, I could not buy a single word out of her mouth. She does more harm to abused woman with her false accusations. Justice prevailed!

[By a woman] What an untruthful statement. This analyst obviously didn’t watch the trial. This is a win for an abused person by a manipulative person with borderline personality disorder.

[By a woman] Men can be abused too. I personally watched my mother abuse my father for years. When police showed up they believed her every time because she was the woman. This happens and men are not believed or are shamed as if they are not man enough if abused. Men and women can both be victims. Did you guys actually watch the trial? It was very clear and I agree with the jury.

[By a woman] A colossal loss for women??? Since when are women in favour of injustice??? Couldn’t you have found a less biased legal analyst? Shame.

Wednesday, June 01, 2022

Amber Heard Claims Of Abuse In Op-Ed Were Malicious, Jury Finds

Posted by Peter Quennell

State Of Play

This verdict could be appealed, but don’t be holding your breath… *

Johnny Depp now has the upper hand in deciding between now and 24 June the size of the damages payment he will settle for.

In light of this, Court TV commentators were almost struck dumb by the stupidity of Amber Heard’s post-verdict statement, basically repeating the defamations all over again.

Okay, Camille Vasquez: now take down serial defamer Amanda Knox…
_____

* As you may have seen elsewhere, a possible appeal has been announced. But it will be hard for Heard now to deny malice when she exhibited it to the jury throughout her several sessions on the stand. Her constant addressing of the jury may have rubbed this in, it was as if she was remembering all their faces for future stalking.

She should perhaps spend any remaining money on treatment; other borderline personality order cases have been online saying treatment largely worked for them; this applies to Knox too.

 

Monday, May 30, 2022

A Sound Lawyer’s Take On Final State Of Play, And A Satire Of Amber Heard’s Non-Answers

Posted by Peter Quennell

Added: This newly uploaded video above explains why Harvard lawyer Ms Lee has come down for Team Depp. Bruce Rivers’ commentary is down below now.

Overview

Up to the present, most main-media commentary remains deeply superficial.

Reporting has been skipping over numerous hard facts in favor of extensive waffles about #MeToo, social media, and who is waiting to enter the courtroom.

Main media did give some belated attention last week to Depp lawyer Camille Vasquez, who they have actually noticed is a woman.

On Facebook and YouTube threads it is rather obvious that half or more of the scathing comments also are from women. Many of them are DV survivors, explaining why they are quite sure Amber Heard is faking it.

This fact-influenced changing center of gravity in the huge audience is still not being noticed mainstream. 

Above and below: two lawyers’ commentaries. Further below: a sardonic take on Amber Heard’s cross-examination, with real reactions from her own team increasingly dumbfounded.

After the jury met briefly last Friday, a rumor was floated that they were “divided”. At a guess, this was Heard PR hard at work. There was little time to do other than take a straw vote. Such straw votes are notorious for differing from final outcomes.

 

 

Friday, May 27, 2022

Out-Of-Nowhere Depp Lawyer Camille Vasquez Delivers Implacable Closing Argument

Posted by Peter Quennell

Context

Camille Vasquez is one of eight lawyers on Johnny Depp’s team.

For most of the trial she was held back and to many remained invisible. But when she was finally unleashed it sure was worth the wait.

Loaded for bear in witness examinations, including of Heard, and from her first few words really searing in her final argument, she ended powerfully with the names of all who testified why the Washington Post article and a post-separation restraining order against Depp were both hoaxes.

Looks like this closing argument might be one for the law schools. And for TV interviews: she would not be interviewed during the trial.

Total viewership today already exceeds 25 million. Surely one for the Guinness Book of Records?

Monday, May 23, 2022

Good Lawyer’s Take On Tipping Points Depp-Heard Jury Might Soon Face

Posted by Peter Quennell

The Context

There are TWENTY live feeds of the trial running on YouTube as of Monday AM. Wow. 

And maybe several million watching live on cable TV. Why so?

Well, as explained in previous posts, the number of American defamation trials in any one year fell off a cliff several decades ago.

Law-changes in many states made them much more difficult to win - though one plus is that a media outfit that has no malicious intent in its reporting does not risk being totally wiped out.

This does mean that defamation law is somewhat of a financially risky area for lawyers to specialize in, and so proportionally there are not that many defamation lawyers all-told.

Johnny Depp has hired what are clearly some of the best defamation lawyers in the US, and you can see them keeping their cool, building the case against the Op-Ed in the Washington Post brick by brick, and having an enormous effect on the crowd (such as us).

In sharp contrast, it seems that not even one of Amber Heard’s team specializes in defamation, and several aparently don’t even normally appear in any court. They have taken the jury on various irrelevant trips, which noticeably bored the jury and did nothing for Heard.

This video above is another by Bruce Rivers, who really does know his defamation law, and there is a lot of respect for him in Comments.

It is really good to see how focused on the law and hard facts - and against dishonest Amanda-Knox-type tirades - a large majority is right now. Very promising for us in our end-run.

Friday, May 13, 2022

Abuser “Triangulation” Seems Blatant In Amber Heard, Jada Smith,  Amanda Knox Cases

Posted by Peter Quennell

The Context

The two video analyses are of Will Smith, of Oscars notoriety, and his wife Jada.

They seem highly relevant also to our own case, and to the Heard-Depp case, with the repeated new airings of a 2019 Smith-Smith video talked about here.

Jada Pinkett Smith’s Resurfaced IG Live With Will Smith

Video Shows Tension Between Will Smith and Wife Jada

See Will Smith pleads with wife Jada

Details about Will and Jada Smith relationship revealed

The video is being suggested as a classic instance of triangulation. This is where the abuser (think Heard and Knox too) incessantly builds third-party support (from “flying monkeys” to use the technical term!) for their pattern of abuse.

In the 2019 video, Jada keeps filming Will, and taunting him, very obviously against his wish.

Jada keeps referring to an Esther Perel, a Belgian shrink and avid open-marriage promoter, who Jada intends to bring back in to “analyze” their marriage in front of the whole world.

And there is this indicting Amber Heard.