The Lawsuits Thread

[FlowerBySea]

Winona Ryder's full witness statement:

Vanessa Paradis' full witness statement:

[Lbock]

I think we need to rethink abit about Amber Heard. She is not the same person who gave that deposition in 2016. She has been taught and groomed to be a powerful public speaker now (take that with a grain of salt) but she has been doing it for a long time now. She will be very practiced when she takes the stand on Monday. She has been in attendance every day make notes on what she needs to defend. NGN has hired PR for her and spared no other expense to prep her. Hopefully Sherborn can wind her up and the narcasist comes out!

[Larkwoodgirl]

I think we need to rethink abit about Amber Heard...

You may be right, but I don't think Leopards, even a well-groomed one, can change their spots.

[FlowerBySea]

I'm sure she will be well prepared, but let's see how it goes over the whole three days... Also, it's not just about appearing sympathetic. Her evidence has to line up, and so far there are just a lot of holes in her accusations and no convincing facts.

[hollyberry]

More and more evidence is coming out against her, including pictures of Johnny's injuries.

Let's hope justice will be done.

[justintime]

I think we need to rethink abit about Amber Heard. She is not the same person who gave that deposition in 2016. She has been taught and groomed to be a powerful public speaker now (take that with a grain of salt) but she has been doing it for a long time now. She will be very practiced when she takes the stand on Monday. She has been in attendance every day make notes on what she needs to defend. NGN has hired PR for her and spared no other expense to prep her. Hopefully Sherborn can wind her up and the narcasist comes out!

I know none of us want to even go in that direction, Lbock, but your comments are realistic, cautionary, and well-considered. AH doesn’t have to reinvent herself. The Court quietly did that for her by allowing her to sit in on Johnny’s testimony, essentially wearing two hats - defendant and witness - the entire time. But there is no undoing that now.

I hope Mr. Justice Nicol has a better handle on just what AH truly “is” at this point, and if there are any lingering doubts about there being a void in her credibility department, Mr. Sherborne will dig deep to expose her. Let’s see the Schilling “attack dog” reputation rise to the occasion: it is needed and justified. Johnny must be vindicated beyond the shadow of any doubt - I know, I know, or as close to it as humanly possible - if he and those he loves are to have even a scintilla of peace going forward.

[stroch]

I hope DS does better than he did in the Markel vs The Mail trial. The QC seems much more aggressive.

[AdeleAgain]

David Sherborne has an excellent reputation as a barrister - I wouldn't put too much store by Meghan vs the Mail. I don't know the details but I don't know that she has a strong case.

Lbock is right about AH and she's been preparing for this for a long time. In JD's favour it is a judge not a jury so likely less influenced by personality. She has got to demonstrate evidence. She's got to account for multiple times she has betrayed herself. This is not one ill considered phrase (which is what I believe happened with the 'head butt') or one time when the appeasers used her word ('kick'). We all use the wrong words in written and spoken communication on occasions. Those are explainable in context.

AH has repeated and doubled down on talking about abuse. The appalling first tape to come out has so many admissions - no one in their right mind, much less one who has experience of criminal behaviour, could possibly listen to that and come away believing she was appeasing him. That's not what appeasement sounds like. He is not haranguing her.

Then the second tape which came out where she mocks him and says the judge and jury won't believe it - on top of other admissions.

Then there is the separate tape played at the deposition - where again, no one who has heard it (apart from her 8 or 9 stans - I can never gather if some of them have multiple accounts) believes she was "escaping ...... from a room......."

And then we get onto the rest of the sham. What is Adam alluding to? The meta data isn't right. She has committed perjury. She has lied in official documentation. She was arrested for domestic violence.

So I agree she is not the unruly witness she was in 2016 but that's a lot to deal with. She doesn't have reserves of calm like Johnny.

I think it is going to be tough for us - horrible headlines repeating her lurid details. If we think this has been an emotional strain wait until next week - it will be awful. The Sun will throw everything at it.

To some technical questions. Does David Sherborne ask about all 14 incidents I wonder? If he doesn't then Wass can't and AH can't double down on them. If there are some incidents where it is he said/she said and JD has rebutted in his private WS - might those be left alone? Might others just be matched up against refuting evidence? All things for brilliant legal minds to consider.

Wass has been aggressive but as I think we discussed earlier, it has not got anyone to change their mind except early on when JD stumbled a bit over recollections of the flight from Boston. Other than that she's banged on about drugs and aggressively questioned everyone but not really moved the dial.

[meeps]

I think we need to rethink abit about Amber Heard. She is not the same person who gave that deposition in 2016. She has been taught and groomed to be a powerful public speaker now (take that with a grain of salt) but she has been doing it for a long time now. She will be very practiced when she takes the stand on Monday. She has been in attendance every day make notes on what she needs to defend. NGN has hired PR for her and spared no other expense to prep her. Hopefully Sherborn can wind her up and the narcasist comes out!

You might very well be right, but - in my eyes, though I have tried neither, there's a huge difference between holding a speech before perhaps answering some questions from a friendly audience, and answering difficult, and in a sense hostile questions having to do with one's own lies.

[belis]

[Moonbeam]

Ok. I have been reading Nick Wallis twitter feed since the trial started. He says that he will only be there Friday, Monday, and possibly part of Tuesday.
Does anyone know if anyone else in London is tweeting this trial? I would really hate to miss AH on the stand.

[stroch]

The appalling first tape to come out has so many admissions - no one in their right mind, much less one who has experience of criminal behaviour, could possibly listen to that and come away believing she was appeasing him. That's not what appeasement sounds like. He is not haranguing her.

Then the second tape which came out where she mocks him and says the judge and jury won't believe it - on top of other admissions.

Then there is the separate tape played at the deposition - where again, no one who has heard it (apart from her 8 or 9 stans - I can never gather if some of them have multiple accounts) believes she was "escaping ...... from a room......."

Are the tapes in evidence? I remember from the first day the judge told DS he had not listened to/viewed/read the materials he was sent yet. And it sounds like he will limit his examination after the trial to just the things alluded to in court. At least that is what I got out of these exchanges in today's transcript:

MR. JUSTICE NICOL: But from the claimant's point of view, do I then record that you will ask me to look at the documents that
have been referred to, either in witness statements or in the course of evidence?
MR. SHERBORNE: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE NICOL: But not beyond that?
MR. SHERBORNE: My Lord, I would like to reflect on that, but that would be my ---
MR. JUSTICE NICOL: Yes, of course, by all means reflect on that. ...

MS. WASS: What I was going to say to my Lord, because my Lord has the claimant's position in mind in terms of what documents
to read, is that we would invite my Lord to limit yourself to the documents that are referred to in the closing submissions...

It sounds like he will not read the "12, but it may be 13, lever arch files of paper" submitted.

[FlowerBySea]

Ok. I have been reading Nick Wallis twitter feed since the trial started. He says that he will only be there Friday, Monday, and possibly part of Tuesday.
Does anyone know if anyone else in London is tweeting this trial? I would really hate to miss AH on the stand.

I'm also hoping for someone else live Tweeting! But he said he will upload the official transcripts to his website, which he's usually done every night so far, so I will be sticking mostly to those.

[AdeleAgain]

On the tapes yes they are in evidence - they have already been referred to, JD was certainly asked to comment at one point for sure (the secret fight club bit) - and I imagine they are going to form a central part of AH's questioning. Just as Ms Wass repeatedly showed video of JD abusing the kitchen doors (really, he is a dangerous criminal!) to various witnesses asking whether that changed their minds (no, it didn't), I assume we will have David Sherborne playing choice bits (too many to choose from) not only to AH but to the other witnesses.

Then the transcripts and possibly the tapes themselves will be put into the evidence files. I wouldn't worry they have def been referred to and the judge will review.

I don't think there will be a ruling/verdict for quite a while.

[Moonbeam]

I am finding this article helpful. It is helping me get the order of things set in my mind.