The Lawsuits Thread
-
AdeleAgain
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Ok if you are missing the daily update I recommend on YouTub - Lost Beyond Pluto - a very engaging young lawyer who has done quite a lot on the case. I have found her a bit hit and miss up to now, quite good but perhaps without the historic knowledge of the case. But she is a lawyer and I think her summaries of the testimony so far has been good - she has explained what the opposing QCs are doing - and is able to make interesting observations about the law, although she is a US not a British lawyer. She says she has learned so much from David Sherborne in this. She has done four videos so far on JD and his witnesses - talking about strengths and weaknesses of their arguments. She has promised a video on AH as a witness on Monday although has already given the headline that she is not a 'good' witness.
-
Ruby Begonia
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Adele Again! Will watch.-
ForeverYoung
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Nobody at all from NGN testified. I think that tell a lot and I am wondering if the Judge will bring that up in his decision.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."
-
Judymac
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
ForeverYoung wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:59 pmNobody at all from NGN testified. I think that tell a lot and I am wondering if the Judge will bring that up in his decision.
It is interesting. It seems the Sun received the information about Johnny being a wife beater and did not bother to verify the accuracy of the information or write an accurate story. I think Johnny will win because of the way the story was written. It was written that Johnny was a wife beater. To me if Mr. Justice Nichol finds that Amber committed domestic violence against Johnny then NGN loses. Even if Mr. Justice Nichol thinks that there was mutual combat (which I don't) the story was not written that way. The story was only written to show Amber's side and they left out the information about Amber abusing Johnny. This has damaged Johnny's career. I am also not sure that he will believe anything that comes out of Amber Heard's mouth. I really don't know what Mr Justice Nichol is thinking. But what I have written is one way of viewing the case.
-
ForeverYoung
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Almost all of Amber's witness testimonies are not consistent with their statements or what they said in depositions, including herself. She refused to file any police reports, has no medical documents for treatments of any injuries (some of which would need medical assistance) and nobody outside her circle of friends said they saw any kind of injuries. Not the police, neighbor, hotel staff, etc. Elon Musk has been running from his deposition in the VA matter for over a year and last I heard was that James Franco wanted to keep his deposition private so I don't know whatever happened with that. I think it takes all of 30 minutes of that two hour recording to see the kind of person she really is but the judge has to decide if what The Sun published was valid and I don't think they have been able to prove that. Just my opinion, of course. I think the judge' will rule in his favor but what the media will report is gong to be very twisted. It may even be months before we get the decision.Judymac wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:51 pmForeverYoung wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:59 pmNobody at all from NGN testified. I think that tell a lot and I am wondering if the Judge will bring that up in his decision.
It is interesting. It seems the Sun received the information about Johnny being a wife beater and did not bother to verify the accuracy of the information or write an accurate story. I think Johnny will win because of the way the story was written. It was written that Johnny was a wife beater. To me if Mr. Justice Nichol finds that Amber committed domestic violence against Johnny then NGN loses. Even if Mr. Justice Nichol thinks that there was mutual combat (which I don't) the story was not written that way. The story was only written to show Amber's side and they left out the information about Amber abusing Johnny. This has damaged Johnny's career. I am also not sure that he will believe anything that comes out of Amber Heard's mouth. I really don't know what Mr Justice Nichol is thinking. But what I have written is one way of viewing the case.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."
-
thiefcat
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:57 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Thank you very much for posting this info here. I was looking foward to seeing some opinions from a legal perspective. It is very reassuring to learn a few things from this lawyer. She said it is very normal for lawyer to write witness statement and have witness goes through and signs accordingly. Unlike what Laura painted as though she was being force to sign on a statement writen by Adam. It is really great to learn all the positive things of Johnny, his witnesses and legal tea, from her legal perspective. Hope to see her review on AH's inconsistent statements tomorrow.AdeleAgain wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:08 pmOk if you are missing the daily update I recommend on YouTub - Lost Beyond Pluto - a very engaging young lawyer who has done quite a lot on the case. I have found her a bit hit and miss up to now, quite good but perhaps without the historic knowledge of the case. But she is a lawyer and I think her summaries of the testimony so far has been good - she has explained what the opposing QCs are doing - and is able to make interesting observations about the law, although she is a US not a British lawyer. She says she has learned so much from David Sherborne in this. She has done four videos so far on JD and his witnesses - talking about strengths and weaknesses of their arguments. She has promised a video on AH as a witness on Monday although has already given the headline that she is not a 'good' witness.
I am really thankful to you as all these keep my mind at ease now. I look forward to Johnny's victory soon.
-
Stellastar
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:34 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Can someone post the link to IO's witness statement? I don't see it on Nick Wallis's site. Thank you
-
In-too-Depp
- Posts: 177616
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:20 pm
- Location: Walking my beat in deepest UK
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
The Guardian has posted an article in relation to this case today.
The fight to clear Johnny Depp’s name exposes an altogether nastier agenda
Article by Catherine Bennett
26th July 2020
Two weeks into the Johnny Depp libel hearing, a subset of supporters arrived with a giant mobile Fathers4Justice advert reading, over a picture of the actor and his ex-wife Amber Heard: “Ditch the Witch”.
That these US celebrities are long divorced and had no children together, and that the case concerns the accuracy of a newspaper report in the Sun, made it, in the eyes of Fathers4Justice, the perfect moment to express their disapproval of forthcoming reforms to UK divorce law. If Amber was, as they believe, mean to Johnny, then divorce should not get easier. Or something.
Although the Depp-divorce connection probably escapes virtually everyone outside the embittered Batman suit-wearing community, their confusion is understandable. If the men saw a perfect woman-persecuting opportunity, it was probably because Depp’s libel case had already, courtesy of the high court, developed into a little festival of misogyny. Although his lawyers would presumably want to take all the credit for the way the actor’s concern for his good name has been repurposed as a demolition of his ex-wife’s reputation, they must have depended on the judge, Mr Justice Nicol, to agree that protracted focus on Heard’s conduct was justified in a case relating to Depp’s alleged violence (which he denies) towards her.
What should surely have been an examination of one character’s conduct has been extended into a lurid two-hander
Did Heard tell the truth about Depp? Hang on: first of all, the court needs to know who defecated in the marital bed, about Heard’s friends and lovers, how much she drank, what she did if he wasn’t affectionate, whether she – or her sister? – threw up at Coachella and whether she was, as has been suggested, herself a violent person. While judgment has yet to be delivered, Depp’s defence team could hardly have made it clearer to those thinking of reporting domestic violence that they might first want to consider very carefully any of their own, unrelated, transgressions and missteps, any poor choices that might, to an expert lawyer, render the idea of their victimhood preposterous.
Admittedly, the vivid detail demanded by Depp’s team is also what provided a drama-starved nation with the compelling theatre of the past two weeks. Just as the end of Michaela Coel’s TV drama I May Destroy You coincided with an impending pantomime shortage, the Depp show opened, offering, among its many distractions, doomed-couple scenes that sounded like a mash-up of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Look Back in Anger and Amy Herzog’s more recent, and bloodier, Belleville. What should surely, given the origins of this legal action, have been an examination of one character’s conduct has been extended, presumably by some legally respectable process, into a lurid two-hander. Reports on this case should not, but repeatedly do, recall Kenneth Tynan’s ecstatic review of John Osborne’s Look Back in Anger: “He shows us two attractive young animals engaged in competitive martyrdom, each with its teeth sunk deep in the other’s neck and each reluctant to break the clinch for fear of bleeding to death.”
The contrast between the historic rows and taunts – “pumpkin head”, “Tasya van Pee”, “Amber T urd” – and the ex-couple’s refined manner in court has only added comedy to a drama with its origins in a restraining order and wider implications for victims of domestic violence. “When one’s aspiration is to be a great gentleman, to be a great southern gentleman,” Depp said, considering his behaviour, “that doesn’t exclude you from the family of humans who have moments of frustration.”
It must sadden many fans of the southern gentleman to find it doesn’t exclude him, either, from the family of humans who obsessively blame women for their misfortunes. And even those who agree with his legal team’s insinuation, that regrettable character traits might put a person beyond domestic abuse, have reason to worry that, regardless of the verdict, this trial has been more harmful to Depp’s reputation than a transitory Sun article. Does it help his prospects for him to have supporters like the Ditch the Witch ensemble and a lawyer, Adam Waldman, who tweets “in memoriam” beside the names of witnesses who displease him? After Cherie Blair was named as a supporter of Heard, Waldman tweeted , with a logic worthy of Fathers4Justice: “As Iraq could tell you, if the Blairs are involved there couldn’t possibly be a hoax at the center of it.”
You do wonder if Waldman, with this sparky approach to a case about alleged domestic abuse, is aware that it is widely recognised as a serious crime, all the more so since new violence figures testify to horrifying experiences in lockdown. As Heard was giving evidence, Refuge reported that in June calls and contacts were almost 80% higher than usual.
It could of course be that by advertising his side’s unpopularity with some prominent women, focusing attention on Heard and thereby, inevitably, converting a libel case into a #MeToo sequel, the fiendishly brilliant Waldman will indeed help Depp to recover his southern gentleman identity and overlay images of his client sleeping on a floor, or losing it in a kitchen, which this very action has helped to disseminate. If nothing else, he and Depp (of the unforgettable tray of tampon-accessorised stimulants) may ultimately prove more effective as health educators than Nancy Reagan’s “Just say no” anti-drug campaign. Rarely has decadence looked such hard work or so unrewarding.
There’s a Muriel Spark short story, You Should Have Seen the Mess, in which a woman’s revulsion from disorder and dirt signals her pathological detachment. The Depp trial is like the opposite: a trail of waste, breakages and blood-, crap- or food-smeared rooms signals complete detachment from reality, principally from their unfortunate staff. Heard’s sister says of one trashing: “By the afternoon it was cleaned up, as if nothing had happened.” At this point in the case of Depp v News Group Newspapers, I’m on the side of the cleaners.
Article by Catherine Bennett
26th July 2020
Two weeks into the Johnny Depp libel hearing, a subset of supporters arrived with a giant mobile Fathers4Justice advert reading, over a picture of the actor and his ex-wife Amber Heard: “Ditch the Witch”.
That these US celebrities are long divorced and had no children together, and that the case concerns the accuracy of a newspaper report in the Sun, made it, in the eyes of Fathers4Justice, the perfect moment to express their disapproval of forthcoming reforms to UK divorce law. If Amber was, as they believe, mean to Johnny, then divorce should not get easier. Or something.
Although the Depp-divorce connection probably escapes virtually everyone outside the embittered Batman suit-wearing community, their confusion is understandable. If the men saw a perfect woman-persecuting opportunity, it was probably because Depp’s libel case had already, courtesy of the high court, developed into a little festival of misogyny. Although his lawyers would presumably want to take all the credit for the way the actor’s concern for his good name has been repurposed as a demolition of his ex-wife’s reputation, they must have depended on the judge, Mr Justice Nicol, to agree that protracted focus on Heard’s conduct was justified in a case relating to Depp’s alleged violence (which he denies) towards her.
What should surely have been an examination of one character’s conduct has been extended into a lurid two-hander
Did Heard tell the truth about Depp? Hang on: first of all, the court needs to know who defecated in the marital bed, about Heard’s friends and lovers, how much she drank, what she did if he wasn’t affectionate, whether she – or her sister? – threw up at Coachella and whether she was, as has been suggested, herself a violent person. While judgment has yet to be delivered, Depp’s defence team could hardly have made it clearer to those thinking of reporting domestic violence that they might first want to consider very carefully any of their own, unrelated, transgressions and missteps, any poor choices that might, to an expert lawyer, render the idea of their victimhood preposterous.
Admittedly, the vivid detail demanded by Depp’s team is also what provided a drama-starved nation with the compelling theatre of the past two weeks. Just as the end of Michaela Coel’s TV drama I May Destroy You coincided with an impending pantomime shortage, the Depp show opened, offering, among its many distractions, doomed-couple scenes that sounded like a mash-up of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Look Back in Anger and Amy Herzog’s more recent, and bloodier, Belleville. What should surely, given the origins of this legal action, have been an examination of one character’s conduct has been extended, presumably by some legally respectable process, into a lurid two-hander. Reports on this case should not, but repeatedly do, recall Kenneth Tynan’s ecstatic review of John Osborne’s Look Back in Anger: “He shows us two attractive young animals engaged in competitive martyrdom, each with its teeth sunk deep in the other’s neck and each reluctant to break the clinch for fear of bleeding to death.”
The contrast between the historic rows and taunts – “pumpkin head”, “Tasya van Pee”, “Amber T urd” – and the ex-couple’s refined manner in court has only added comedy to a drama with its origins in a restraining order and wider implications for victims of domestic violence. “When one’s aspiration is to be a great gentleman, to be a great southern gentleman,” Depp said, considering his behaviour, “that doesn’t exclude you from the family of humans who have moments of frustration.”
It must sadden many fans of the southern gentleman to find it doesn’t exclude him, either, from the family of humans who obsessively blame women for their misfortunes. And even those who agree with his legal team’s insinuation, that regrettable character traits might put a person beyond domestic abuse, have reason to worry that, regardless of the verdict, this trial has been more harmful to Depp’s reputation than a transitory Sun article. Does it help his prospects for him to have supporters like the Ditch the Witch ensemble and a lawyer, Adam Waldman, who tweets “in memoriam” beside the names of witnesses who displease him? After Cherie Blair was named as a supporter of Heard, Waldman tweeted , with a logic worthy of Fathers4Justice: “As Iraq could tell you, if the Blairs are involved there couldn’t possibly be a hoax at the center of it.”
You do wonder if Waldman, with this sparky approach to a case about alleged domestic abuse, is aware that it is widely recognised as a serious crime, all the more so since new violence figures testify to horrifying experiences in lockdown. As Heard was giving evidence, Refuge reported that in June calls and contacts were almost 80% higher than usual.
It could of course be that by advertising his side’s unpopularity with some prominent women, focusing attention on Heard and thereby, inevitably, converting a libel case into a #MeToo sequel, the fiendishly brilliant Waldman will indeed help Depp to recover his southern gentleman identity and overlay images of his client sleeping on a floor, or losing it in a kitchen, which this very action has helped to disseminate. If nothing else, he and Depp (of the unforgettable tray of tampon-accessorised stimulants) may ultimately prove more effective as health educators than Nancy Reagan’s “Just say no” anti-drug campaign. Rarely has decadence looked such hard work or so unrewarding.
There’s a Muriel Spark short story, You Should Have Seen the Mess, in which a woman’s revulsion from disorder and dirt signals her pathological detachment. The Depp trial is like the opposite: a trail of waste, breakages and blood-, crap- or food-smeared rooms signals complete detachment from reality, principally from their unfortunate staff. Heard’s sister says of one trashing: “By the afternoon it was cleaned up, as if nothing had happened.” At this point in the case of Depp v News Group Newspapers, I’m on the side of the cleaners.
And Wit, was his vain frivolous pretence
Of pleasing others, at his own expense
Rochester ,"Satyr" on Man
Of pleasing others, at his own expense
Rochester ,"Satyr" on Man
-
In-too-Depp
- Posts: 177616
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:20 pm
- Location: Walking my beat in deepest UK
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Adam Waldman's reaction to the Guardian article.
And Wit, was his vain frivolous pretence
Of pleasing others, at his own expense
Rochester ,"Satyr" on Man
Of pleasing others, at his own expense
Rochester ,"Satyr" on Man
-
AdeleAgain
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
That article - and the views in it - are the respectable/intellectual end of the AH stans who BelieveWomen no matter what.
Is AH's behaviour relevant regarding her drinking, who she sleeps with etc? Yes and no - it has the same level of relevance as JD's drinking and drug taking. The point is that it goes to character - not whether she drank two bottles of wine a night or had sex with other men or whether JD took cocaine - but whether in the face of evidence - they owned up to it. Because so much of the evidence around domestic violence is he-said-she-said, you have to establish the credibility of who is saying it. That is the relevance and nothing more. Is the witness willing to lie about their drinking? Because that makes them more likely to lie about other things.
Once again the article doesn't say anything about her record of violence - either her arrest or what appears to have been an incident against her sister - much less mention the tapes where she admits to it.
As a proper feminist it just frustrates me so much to see these arguments being deployed because they have no credibility, and it is only a niche of angry women (and some men claiming to be very woke) who support them.
Nowhere does it acknowledge that he has the right to defend himself from a slanderous claim. Nowhere does it acknowledge that JD's side have fought fire with fire. He is not the one who took their marital woes public, much less with nasty lies. His instinct to ignore it and say nothing allowed her the air space to double down on her claims. When he did fight back it has been very aggressive (sometimes I am a bit uncomfortable with Adam's stance) but that is only because he has had so much ground to cover.
It is not JD or Adam Waldman's fault or problem that NGN has chosen to absent itself from this fight. I believe AH has been very badly advised in this - she should have simply refused to allow herself to be the sole defence of the Sun article. It is irrelevant whether or not she benefitted or even helped the article. The Virginia case is different - there she chose to put herself front and centre to a claim - they can legally speaking knock the hell out of each other in that case. But her lawyers - on learning that Wootten and NGN were not even coming to court - should have forced the issue. Please don't misunderstand me, I don't feel sorry for her, but I do think the Sun has behaved so appallingly. She would have been far wiser to refuse to testify unless NGN were there backing her - it is not enough that they are funding her luxurious stay. And it isn't even much of a quid-pro-quo that she gets to see the strength of his case before Virginia - because he has seen hers as well.
So if angry femininazis want to complain about something this is what it should be about - that the Sun, which has never been a bastion of women's rights - took a position and the left the woman, who they claim was a victim, to fight the case which they generated.
It is all largely irrelevant anyway what the Guardian says - and to be fair to them - they have put in a few articles which reflected evidence. I take great comfort from the fact that last night my kids had a bunch of friends around and of course we got onto talking about the case (everyone in UK is talking about it). They had some interesting views. Firstly, no one under the age of early thirties takes any notice of the mainstream media except interestingly the BBC which despite being kind of state run is "alright" (they've had some ok articles on the case); secondly they pointed to how many young people have turned up throwing flowers at his car; thirdly - having far more of a grasp of social media than me - they said he definitely has public opinion on his side. Literally no one cares what drugs he has taken, he's never said anything else. But their main thing was the main stream media. It has slightly worried me that Adam has been so aggressive against the MSM but anyway, after last night I feel less worried.
And of course, what matters at the end of the day, is what the judge say.
Is AH's behaviour relevant regarding her drinking, who she sleeps with etc? Yes and no - it has the same level of relevance as JD's drinking and drug taking. The point is that it goes to character - not whether she drank two bottles of wine a night or had sex with other men or whether JD took cocaine - but whether in the face of evidence - they owned up to it. Because so much of the evidence around domestic violence is he-said-she-said, you have to establish the credibility of who is saying it. That is the relevance and nothing more. Is the witness willing to lie about their drinking? Because that makes them more likely to lie about other things.
Once again the article doesn't say anything about her record of violence - either her arrest or what appears to have been an incident against her sister - much less mention the tapes where she admits to it.
As a proper feminist it just frustrates me so much to see these arguments being deployed because they have no credibility, and it is only a niche of angry women (and some men claiming to be very woke) who support them.
Nowhere does it acknowledge that he has the right to defend himself from a slanderous claim. Nowhere does it acknowledge that JD's side have fought fire with fire. He is not the one who took their marital woes public, much less with nasty lies. His instinct to ignore it and say nothing allowed her the air space to double down on her claims. When he did fight back it has been very aggressive (sometimes I am a bit uncomfortable with Adam's stance) but that is only because he has had so much ground to cover.
It is not JD or Adam Waldman's fault or problem that NGN has chosen to absent itself from this fight. I believe AH has been very badly advised in this - she should have simply refused to allow herself to be the sole defence of the Sun article. It is irrelevant whether or not she benefitted or even helped the article. The Virginia case is different - there she chose to put herself front and centre to a claim - they can legally speaking knock the hell out of each other in that case. But her lawyers - on learning that Wootten and NGN were not even coming to court - should have forced the issue. Please don't misunderstand me, I don't feel sorry for her, but I do think the Sun has behaved so appallingly. She would have been far wiser to refuse to testify unless NGN were there backing her - it is not enough that they are funding her luxurious stay. And it isn't even much of a quid-pro-quo that she gets to see the strength of his case before Virginia - because he has seen hers as well.
So if angry femininazis want to complain about something this is what it should be about - that the Sun, which has never been a bastion of women's rights - took a position and the left the woman, who they claim was a victim, to fight the case which they generated.
It is all largely irrelevant anyway what the Guardian says - and to be fair to them - they have put in a few articles which reflected evidence. I take great comfort from the fact that last night my kids had a bunch of friends around and of course we got onto talking about the case (everyone in UK is talking about it). They had some interesting views. Firstly, no one under the age of early thirties takes any notice of the mainstream media except interestingly the BBC which despite being kind of state run is "alright" (they've had some ok articles on the case); secondly they pointed to how many young people have turned up throwing flowers at his car; thirdly - having far more of a grasp of social media than me - they said he definitely has public opinion on his side. Literally no one cares what drugs he has taken, he's never said anything else. But their main thing was the main stream media. It has slightly worried me that Adam has been so aggressive against the MSM but anyway, after last night I feel less worried.
And of course, what matters at the end of the day, is what the judge say.
-
AdeleAgain
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Stellerstar does this work?
https://80b08171-ce73-4488-b369-fe3934b ... 103f7f.pdf
iO's statement, it's actually rather well written and would be very compelling if it weren't for that pesky evidence.
https://80b08171-ce73-4488-b369-fe3934b ... 103f7f.pdf
iO's statement, it's actually rather well written and would be very compelling if it weren't for that pesky evidence.
-
Miss_A
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:16 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Hi everyone, I've just registered. I wasn't sure where to post this but I've been trying to find out if Johnny Depp will be attending court tomorrow and what's the best time to go? I'd love to go and show my support.
-
ForeverYoung
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Tomorrow and Tuesday are closing arguments which begin at 10:00 AM but I would imagine that people go way before that time. I don't think anyone knows if Johnny will attend. He has been every day for the testimony but sometimes shows up late due to film commitments.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."
-
AdeleAgain
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Hello Miss_A 
Court starts at 10am, JD's been in mid morning on several occasions having had meetings before hand. Not sure if he'll be there tomorrow as who on earth would want to sit through a day of the NGN barristers banging on about shock! horror! Johnny Depp takes drugs! Johnny Depp tried to stop his wife making awful movie choices! It may well be the first day where I don't read the testimony. On balance he probably will go - and I would think he would be there on Tuesday for his barrister's summing up, if nothing else to walk outside with the legal team at the end and thank everyone.
Court starts at 10am, JD's been in mid morning on several occasions having had meetings before hand. Not sure if he'll be there tomorrow as who on earth would want to sit through a day of the NGN barristers banging on about shock! horror! Johnny Depp takes drugs! Johnny Depp tried to stop his wife making awful movie choices! It may well be the first day where I don't read the testimony. On balance he probably will go - and I would think he would be there on Tuesday for his barrister's summing up, if nothing else to walk outside with the legal team at the end and thank everyone.
-
AdeleAgain
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Vere back to my favourite subject of the finger - this is quite neat sum up - and this is just the different positions in the actual hearings - never mind how many changes there were in her written documents.