The Lawsuits Thread

[ForeverYoung]

This connection between judge nicol and amber's attorney is screwed up on so many levels. I can't believe he took this case and I think JD's team should definately appeal.

[AdeleAgain]

Sorry back again. Couldn’t sleep so I read the judgement so I could rail in an informed manner.

Going through the 14 incidents it starts with just accepting what AH says with no evidence but becomes more egregious as you go on.

The way the judge writes up you would think Johnny is totally unreliable because he accepts and concedes certain changes but there is nothing around Amber flip flopping or if there is he just accepts that she’s changed dates or details (same for her sister). No explanation why he accepts. You get the strongest impression he dislikes JD but came under the sway of AH but from the transcripts he often seemed impatient with her.

The most egregious is May 2016. Police officers and neighbours and building staff all totally dismissed. He accepts she wouldn’t have gone out without makeup despite her own acting teacher and a stylist and house keeper who say she was makeup free. It’s utter . He literally dismissed them all. And makes no account of why even her friends see contradictory bruises.

It is so sickening

I’ve been thinking non stop and I guess we won’t hear much more from team Depp who have to tread a careful line over criticising the judge and definitely must be careful what they say outside court. The system has to be deal with carefully.

The headlines are sickening but social media still with him. I just pray JK Rowling stands firm having seen the evidence first and then with time and more details and processes maybe still justice will prevail.

[Someareborn]

Thank you for welcoming me and answering my question, AdeleAgain. Anger prevented me from sleeping much as well.

Since I believe in an independent justice system I will not go so far to question the motifs of judge Nichols - yet. I will try to follow his thoughts and conclusions which led him to his verdict.

Do you know why Dr.Kipper and Debbie Lloyd were not called to make testimonies? And, at least for the James Cordon Show there was another hairstylist who never gave testimony as far as I know.
I don't know what a successful legal strategy should focus on now, since
a) Independent testimony (Police officers) are being outweighed by her friends while
b) his friends testimony do not count (Isaac)
c) employees are biased (Malcolm, Sean, Stephen, Jerry) and
d) character reference seems to be irrelevant

I don't know if JD has to prove even more, or of they need to discredit her+her motifs even more. Its a grey and shallow morning...

[AdeleAgain]

Yes it's awful - and COVID and horrible worries Trump will win again ......

So I have always guessed this about Dr Kipper and Nurse Debbie - that they wouldn't be allowed to give testimony about Amber without her say-so and she wouldn't allow it. So if Johnny called them, it risks just more focus on his drugs and alcohol consumption.

But I am guessing that - I don't know.

No idea why neither side called the hair stylist - could be a simple explanation like - visa ran out and he's no longer in US or something like that.

On the other questions - again my view:

a) a core part of JD's defence now surely has to be an attack on why third party independent evidence was dismissed so summarily.
because/d) again - JD's side need to argue unfairness and cited examples eg it blows my mind that iO who was on the phone for the May 2016 incident is given weight (he couldn't see anything) but the body guards not?

My guess is that in the US case now they will really hammer. Medical records are going to be submitted (she still hadn't allowed hers to be), there are additional witnesses including the ones who say Whitney has lied. I cannot believe the way Kate James' testimony or Kevin Murphy were dismissed by the judge - a jury is going to see these - what appear to be very nice, honest people WHO NO LONGER WORK FOR HIM.

I also think that a jury is going to be less technical and more emotional so the tapes will be a bit factor I am sure. For example the semantics he goes through on how she didn't lie over the Australia dog incident is quite priceless.

(And as an aside - I have been internally screaming - surely if the tapes prove nothing else - she was not terrified of him. You don't shout and interrupt someone you are terrified of.)

I am hoping someone goes through the judge's summing up of each incident and dissects his bias or illogical conclusions - I meant that's what Schillings will be doing right at this moment - but I meant I hope one of our clever legal eagles does - otherwise I may have to!

[reindeermoon]

Somebody told me, that Dr. Kipper has passed away. RIP.

[AdeleAgain]

No I think he's still with us. http://www.davidkippermd.com

And I am sure way back when he gave some testimony or evidence for the Virginia case.

After a night of depression and anger which stopped me from sleeping I am starting to get my fight back!

This is horrible but will not always feel this bad.

What we need now is the filing of some new evidence in Virginia - wouldn't a new tape be fantastic - that's what has really landed with the public.

[Newt]

Greef has been dissecting the whole thing on Twitter Adele but I imagine you've already looked at it

[AdeleAgain]

Yes he's becoming a go-to person. Thank you - I saw a thread by someone else on his Twitter - she was going through the judgement piece by piece - when I saw it she was just getting into it.

[ForeverYoung]

Sorry, but the Justice Nocol made his decisions like a moron. He chose to believe her based on her word alone and was clearly ignoring Johnny's evidence such as the audio recordings and pictures. What he basically did was ignore that she was an abuser and it was ok for her to punch him in the face, throw objects at him, hit him in the head with a door, the mental abuse, etc. Also, about the dogs, the judge knew she put "no" on the papers when she was asked if she brought in any dogs BUT he went and agreed that she believed the assistants had taken care of everything and he gave her a free pass on that too. If she believed the assistants took care of the papers then why would she put "no" on the papers??? He sided with her when she had no proof of things and said that since Johnny admitted to drugs and alcohol and had blackouts and so there was no reason for him to believe she was lying. He never once took into consideration the amount of alcohol and drugs she did as well and all the hissy fits she took on Johnny.

The fact that the judge is connected to Jennifer Robinson is disgusting and very telling on why he made these awful decisions. He shouldn't even be allowed to be on a bench after this gross injustice.

I am so glad Johnny is away from this no good gold digging liar.

[Chocolat]

A big thank you to all of you smart ladies for dissecting and explaining this outrageous verdict. I share with all of your feelings of disbelief and disappointment over how Johnny was treated and where he and his legal team go from here. It's all so overwhelming that it has cause many, including myself, to experience anxiety and lack of sleep. We're so invested in Johnny's case, it's likened to being right there with him every step of the way. We've traveled over many hard bumps on this rocky road with this surprising final cliff fall. No one expected the unfair outcome but I trust that however dire things seem to be right now it's not set in stone and we still have hope with an appeal. As I understand it, the good news with an appeal is there will be a different judge overseeing the case under consideration. In between, there's the Virginia trial with a full jury. I'm banking on twelve intelligent jurors to be unbiased and more sympathetic in their ultimate decision. Whatever the outcome in Virginia may be, Amber Heard will once again be exposed as a liar, manipulator, hoaxing con-artist and money hungry gold digger. There won't be just twelve individuals deciding her fate, but the entire world because as she well knows, it's not the votes but public opinion that has the final word.

[meeps]

A ray of sunshine in a dark hour - Johnny has some lovely loyal friends

Concerning the verdict - I want to rant and rave, but will spare you that since much of it, if not all, has already been said.
I'll just say (though that might also have been asked already) that I wish I could asked the judge "If Johnny really turns into a monster every time he's drunk or under the influence of drugs, as Amber and you say, without being able to control himself and know what he is doing, then why does friends like Helena the other day, and Shane and Victoria here still love him?"
But AH and judge Nicol would probably answer - without much logic in my opinion - "Johnny only did that to Amber, and only when they were alone. Plus any friend he still has is only there because there's something in it for them"
So much for uncontrollable, though ...

[Someareborn]

Okay, I understand why JD's side probably did not want Dr. Kipper+ Debbie Lloyd as witnesses, but I don't know if that is wise. Their testimony would clear up things for me. Same goes for nurse Erin.

I know the tapes turned the public opinion around, but they play no role for me in the UK case. Because, the "aim" was (on JD's side), to prove that JD did not hit her as alleged. Tapes would have been regarded as valuable evidence when AH would have said that JD had only screamed at her.

Key, in my view, would have been to define "Blackout". What does that mean? Was it likely that JD could have pushed+kicked AH in the Bahamas (...Dr.Kipper might know)

Altough Sherborne tried to explain that JD takes out his anger on furniture (tmz vid, Australia, Kate Moss hotel room, Hicksville) I can see why the judge found it in general likely that someone who does that could also hit their partner. Its hard to argue against this narrative. Has to be done per charakter reference. Because, poking holes in her narrative wasn't successful. Besides furniture, JD seems to express anger and pain in writing (the way I see it) (Tasya van Pee, golden sharpie, Australia, his texts with a lot of exclamation marks and capital letters)

[AdeleAgain]

Those are good points Someareborn - but in UK libel the defendant has to prove it happened. It seems to general to me that he has made his assumptions.

I disagree on the tape there were crucial things in there:

1. he explains (and she doesn't argue back) that he 'splits' because if he stayed he might become angry and hurt her back.

2. if he really had these rages would he be able to on multiple occasions just do nothing when she punched him - wouldn't he hit back - presumably some of these arguments happened when they'd been drinking/taking drugs.

3. she was not terrified of him. No way. I like the idea of getting a DV expert to analyse the tapes and other evidence.

4. she claimed to have only hit him once but they discuss multiple incidents of her hitting him. She's been challenged on this and stuck to her story - surely that is perjury? Her own mouth betrays her lies.

It also frustrates me greatly that there was the third recording of her admitting to punching him and kicking the door in his face. I don't feel it has been properly exploited. For me this showed:

1. she gave a totally different explanation in London to the one she gave in 2016 - not slightly - totally.

2. she said she had only hit him once (as above).

Is anyone else just so sickened that this has come at the end of a fabulous run - Barbarians, awards for Crock of Gold, high praise and release for Minamata. Just praying that the legal and PR strategy allows a rebound (supported by the overwhelming majority of people if social media is an indication) in time for Minamata.

[Someareborn]

Sorry to bother you with another post.

But, why is Melanie Inglessis a credible witness? Isn't she a paid professional, per "Nichol-Definition" loyal to AH, which would mean "ready to lie"? Doesn't she get the same treatment JD's employees? Spare me the answer, its two measurements...

Also, mindblowing how the judge accepts the "Savannah McMillan" incident.
Sure, you can go with AH's version of it, how unlikely it may sound. How can JD destroy this narrative? Would regular paychecks around a certain date indicate that she is indeed working for AH? A billable hoursheet? Savannahs tax reports? My point is, JDs lawyers have to go lenghts to tear up this crap.

[AdeleAgain]

On Melanie - you are absolutely right moreover her description of AH's injuries are totally difference to AH's.

I believe that they cannot introduce new evidence - they have to argue that the judgement drew the wrong conclusions or find a point of law or something.

A small ray of light on this dreadful day: someone in our office had not heard the tapes so we all just had the absolute joy of this person who said "I don't have a strong view on Johnny and Amber" - getting onto the right side of the roaring rapids.

Small victories but it's one more who in good conscience can watch his films.