The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
FlowerBySea
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 8:20 pm
Location: Germany
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by FlowerBySea » Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:31 pm

Lbock wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:11 pm
If Overhaulin is complete in 8 days that's very odd. Not sure when it was recorded, but it aired In Nov 2015. On April 22, 2016 she drove it to Coachella. That's not 3.5 years.
Oh wow... Are you sure about it being the exact same car for her trip to Coachella? I mean, the Overhaulin' production company would definitely be able to give the dates of filming - but in any case, I highly doubt that it was 3 years before airing.

Something else that stuck in my mind is she said he agreed to do the show (it wasn't actually a surprise according to her) because they would pay for the work on the car, so Johnny wouldn't have to foot the bill: "Actually, it was only agreed to be on that show when I found out that it would save him the money in having to actually pay for the restoration." (page 16 from yesterday's transcript).

Right, because Johnny is known for volunteering to be on tv shows and being a cheapskate. I'm at a loss for words, and this is such a minor, unimportant detail compared to everything else.
Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, it's at the end of your arm. As you get older, remember you have another hand: The first is to help yourself, the second is to help others.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:43 pm

Sky news was reporting it all day. She produced a photo of what she says were cuts on her arm from the incident in Australia but the lawyer called her out on them being straight cuts and old self inflicted scars. She denied to ever cutting herself but, of course, had to say that Johnny did that and not her.

https://news.sky.com/story/Johnny-depp- ... s-12032989
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

justintime
Posts: 1799
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:12 pm

And now, here come the tears while describing her broken-glass-bloodied, painful feet . . . ugh, the lies, the lies, the lies.

Even waiting ‘till the day is over and reading the transcripts, as I have since day one, l find the truth becoming so muddled with repeated, twisted blatant lies, the only thing that sets it all straight in my head is what I know I’ve read and followed for years now. Mr. Justice Nicol has no such truth-board upon which to place all these fabrications with which he’s being inundated. I don’t see how there could ever be enough time for Ms. Laws or Mr. Sherborne to undo NGN’s tangled “fourteen claims” list. I’m truly beginning to worry whether Johnny can, indeed, get justice from this process/“trial”.

The only truth: the word “credibility” shrivels into dried, disease-ridden leaf fragments when associated with the desperate AH.
"Stay low." ~ JD
"I don't like it in here . . . it's terribly crowded." ~ Hatter
"There's something about Johnny that breaks your heart." ~ John Logan, ST
"Tear deeper, Mother." ~ Wilmot

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:37 pm

I don't think that they have to unravel each allegation. Amber has proven that she has no credibility. Her credibility is a huge issue. If she lied about one thing then she is not to be believed about anything else. That is how the judges in the U.S. look at it, I don't know about the U.K justice system. But it makes sense that if she lied about one issue then how do they know when she is lying and when she is telling the truth. I think that the Sun's (and Amber Heard's) strategy is to muddle everything up in order to try to confuse Mr Justice Nichol. I do not think that it will work.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Judges have to deal with cases a great deal more complicated than this - white collar, financial crimes for instance.

To me it is fairly simple. The Sun has to prove the case - in some of the incidents there is evidence to judge. In some it is just her word of honour, so she has to be credible.

More than that- I have banged this drum for as long as we on here have known about it - a court takes certain things very seriously such as (1) lying/perjury in another court (2) the word of officials eg police officers.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:59 pm

And it is not for me to be insulted but I'd be less incensed if she wasn't so appalling about other people - I am particularly furious today (as you'll see as it is the second time I've come on here to vent, apologies) but the claim he doesn't like strong, independent women. Winona Ryder, Kate Moss, Vanessa Paradis I would say are all a great deal more strong and independent than she has been and more successful. He seemed fine with their careers.

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:00 pm

FlowerBySea wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:31 pm
Lbock wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:11 pm
If Overhaulin is complete in 8 days that's very odd. Not sure when it was recorded, but it aired In Nov 2015. On April 22, 2016 she drove it to Coachella. That's not 3.5 years.
Oh wow... Are you sure about it being the exact same car for her trip to Coachella? I mean, the Overhaulin' production company would definitely be able to give the dates of filming - but in any case, I highly doubt that it was 3 years before airing.

Something else that stuck in my mind is she said he agreed to do the show (it wasn't actually a surprise according to her) because they would pay for the work on the car, so Johnny wouldn't have to foot the bill: "Actually, it was only agreed to be on that show when I found out that it would save him the money in having to actually pay for the restoration." (page 16 from yesterday's transcript).

Right, because Johnny is known for volunteering to be on tv shows and being a cheapskate. I'm at a loss for words, and this is such a minor, unimportant detail compared to everything else.
Everybody, including the PI Amber hired, say that Johnny is generous to a fault! So I very much doubt that he agreed to the Overhauling show to save money. I think it more likely that the sweetie wanted Amber to be on the show so more people would get to know her.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:02 pm


User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1065
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:30 pm

I don't fully understand the defamaiton law in the UK. So both sides are asking the Judge to rule on a difference in how the law is applied also. Since calling some a "wife-beater" suggests a criminal offence, it is different than the basic level of libel. But what I got from the skeleton argument is this:

NGN:
They are basically saying if the judge finds it is more probably than not that Johnny committed abuse for even one incidence, then they have met their burden of proof
It is to be noted that (contrary to the suggestion advanced by C’s counsel at the PTR2), it is not case that the article alleged that he was violent towards Ms Heard on a large number of occasions. If Ds can prove C committed just one such act of violence, this would be sufficient for the purpose of proving substantialtruth
Depp:
Because the Defendants are seeking to prove true an allegation of guilt of criminal conduct, thestandardof proofand the evidence capable of proving the allegation take on particular importance. This is because they are seeking to prove true a very serious allegation and a finding to that effect is one with potentially serious consequences. The evidence requiredtherefore to prove their case needs tobe compelling

Further imbeded quote: “Although there is a single civilstandardof proof on the balance of probabilities, it is flexible in itsapplication. In particular, the more serious the allegation or the more serious the consequences if the allegation is proved, the stronger must be the evidence before a court will find the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities. Thus the flexibility of the standard lies not in any adjustment to the degree of probability required for an allegation to be proved (such that a more serious allegation has to be proved to a high degree of probability), but in the strength or quality of the
20evidence that will in practice be required for an allegation to be proved on the balance of probabilities.”

The ‘antecedent improbability of guilt’ is, as the Judge recognised (at [360]), the operation of the principle of the presumption of innocence: “I must, therefore,startwith the usual presumption of innocence (which applies in defamation as it does in crime). I must consider each of the children and the evidence that is specific to him or her. Because of the gravity of the allegations, I should look for cogent evidence to overcome that presumption.”
Last edited by Lbock on Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:34 pm

Good grief - hard to follow in parts (is there not a better way to get everyone to the correct document) but oh dear Amber and Whitney. Wrong incidents, details, dates ......

I think my favourite comment - in a similar vein to lovely Nick Wallis' ["I'm confused"] is Ms Law's "I am not sure what you said there".

User avatar
Cesar'sSusie
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Gypsy Camp, in a Chair-with Cesar
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Cesar'sSusie » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:41 pm

AdeleAgain wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:02 pm
Transcript is up

https://wixlabs-pdf-dev.appspot.com/ass ... nting=true
Thanks, AdeleAgain for the transcript link. I'm not ready mentally to go through the absolute falsehoods AH keeps spewing forth. Oh my, she is pitiable with her constant, 'they lied, I didnt, he lied, I didn't' stories which flow into new allegations every time she opens her mouth. It's really sad, I ALMOST feel sorry for her. :yuck: Also thanks to all for their insight into this crazy court case. My worry is only for Johnny and his strength to follow through on this no matter what happens. I no longer trust the media for non biased reporting, they all seem slanted in AH's direction, but hopefully the truth will be picked up by the public and JD will find justice! That's my prayer anyway! :angel:
"He's that and a whole lot more," said his driver. "He's a wonderful guy. I'll tell
you firsthand, he's a great man."
. . .and the Golden Globe goes to . . .
Johnny DEPP, for Sweeney Todd-The Demon Barber of Fleet Street!

AdeleAgain
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:53 pm

If you can't bear to read it, I do encourage you to go into the afternoon part with the Keith Richards incident, because it is just so classic - she basically changes her story on the stand as she is confronted with pictures. Ms Law is amazing at just sticking at it - I can totally see how the 'kick' text happened now, I imagine a lot of people just shake their heads and decide they are too confused, tired or worn down to disagree with her.

One thing I would say on the press side of things - it maybe because I am in London so this is what people are really talking about - everyone I speak to (and I am not overly talking about it, although intently interested when others bring it up) think she is just crazy. Most people do not go into the details but the poo in the bed has really done for her. That and a very deep feeling that JD is weird but a good guy. I am amazed at people who have zero interest in show biz stories and when it's been mentioned before the trial didn't even know who AH was - now people have made up their minds based on the poo in the bed.

It blows my mind because to me that's one of the least crucial things in the entire episode but it is what has resonated. I think it is one of the reasons she mentioned Kate Moss - she was determined to get something like that in there to focus the headlines.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1065
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:39 pm

When you get some time, relisten to the recorded phone call.

According to the transcript, it was recorded on May 26, 2016. So Johnny/legal team have been notified she is filing for the TRO the next day.

His is in Lisbon on tour with Hollywood Vampires.

He is pleading with her to try to work this out privately and not go to court. She is furious shehas been labeled a gold digger and, essentially, blaming him because he refused to accept her "blackmail" letter and not counterfile.

This makes so much sense now why Johnny didn't specifically deny at least one of her detailed allegations, he may not have known what her declaration claimed yet.

Last edited by Lbock on Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:45 pm

Barnaby Joyce is suggesting an investigation into her. I wonder if he will get one.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/enter ... 30978be45b
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:43 pm

AdeleAgain wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:53 pm
If you can't bear to read it, I do encourage you to go into the afternoon part with the Keith Richards incident, because it is just so classic - she basically changes her story on the stand as she is confronted with pictures. Ms Law is amazing at just sticking at it - I can totally see how the 'kick' text happened now, I imagine a lot of people just shake their heads and decide they are too confused, tired or worn down to disagree with her.

One thing I would say on the press side of things - it maybe because I am in London so this is what people are really talking about - everyone I speak to (and I am not overly talking about it, although intently interested when others bring it up) think she is just crazy. Most people do not go into the details but the poo in the bed has really done for her. That and a very deep feeling that JD is weird but a good guy. I am amazed at people who have zero interest in show biz stories and when it's been mentioned before the trial didn't even know who AH was - now people have made up their minds based on the poo in the bed.

It blows my mind because to me that's one of the least crucial things in the entire episode but it is what has resonated. I think it is one of the reasons she mentioned Kate Moss - she was determined to get something like that in there to focus the headlines.
I was wondering if people in London were following the trial. It is good to know that they think she is crazy.