The Lawsuits Thread

[AdeleAgain]

I agree with Lbock about Franco - I don't understand why people think he will be helpful to JD - although I may be wrong because JD's side seem so determined to speak to him. Interesting that the most recent media about it has been 'Franco testifying about affair with AH"- I wonder if the line of questioning will be about some of her habits rather than what he saw on her face on 22 May. Thing I find so interesting about him is how silent she has been - not stepped in to believe the women who accused Franco I notice.

[AdeleAgain]

Also I presume Franco will be subpoenaed for his texts between them? That may be interesting.

[Lbock]

I agree with Lbock about Franco - I don't understand why people think he will be helpful to JD - although I may be wrong because JD's side seem so determined to speak to him. Interesting that the most recent media about it has been 'Franco testifying about affair with AH"- I wonder if the line of questioning will be about some of her habits rather than what he saw on her face on 22 May. Thing I find so interesting about him is how silent she has been - not stepped in to believe the women who accused Franco I notice.

I had another thoughtl. If Franco is on his grovel tour - and IF he knew a woman was injured, why would he wait so long to come forward. That won't go over that well either

[Inquiring Minds]

AdeleAgain wrote:

I agree with Lbock about Franco - I don't understand why people think he will be helpful to JD - although I may be wrong because JD's side seem so determined to speak to him. Interesting that the most recent media about it has been 'Franco testifying about affair with AH"- I wonder if the line of questioning will be about some of her habits rather than what he saw on her face on 22 May. Thing I find so interesting about him is how silent she has been - not stepped in to believe the women who accused Franco I notice.

And

Also I presume Franco will be subpoenaed for his texts between them? That may be interesting.

I am in total agreement. Franco is already in deep with the sexual harassment allegations – but these make his tryst with AH look more obvious, not less.

And I agree, texts between the two could be most revealing. I also searched (unsuccessfully, through two search engines and the first 10 pages of each) to look for drug convictions/trials. I thought he had previously been on charges for supplying A-Listers with drugs (just a wannabe Owsley Stanley III). Maybe I got that wrong. Was I imagining this? All I could find were sex allegations and scandal.

And whilst I agree that his testimony re AH’s fictitious injuries would be important, TeamAH have been constantly pushing the “out of control drunken drug addict brutalising everyone around them” image of JD, but of course it is gaining no traction except amongst the already deceived. I think texts between the two should show AH in a very different light from what she projects. Probably less salacious than the witch trial texts between JD and PB, but hopefully far more damning in content (actions, plans etc). Maybe they even contain confessions of her assaults on JD?

The first fiction was that she was completely virtuous and JD was out of control (UK trial and lead up). Its one thing to say they were as bad as each other (AH stan defense), but a truer picture (imo) is with JD as the (mostly) sober one, mostly straight and well behaved, with Amber being the wine guzzling, pill popping one doing lines of coke in-between verbal and physical assaults on anyone-of-no-immediate-value that stumbles into her path.

The Franco deposition may help to dispel some of that myth and re-establish JD as the good guy (imo). TeamAH are constantly trying to make this about reputation and perception and constantly trying to vilify and denigrate JD to misdirect from the overwhelmingly damaging evidence against her.

Jury nullification seems to be more about “sure she did it, but he deserved it so the jury should (well really, must) exonerate her”. In Australia this is used frequently to allow murderers to walk away, generally as the perceived victim, not the actual perpetrator.

[AdeleAgain]

Well only time will tell of course - but my first thoughts on Franco were that if he says he saw nothing her stans/the press narrative will be "yeah well he is a sleazy guy and they all stick together". If he says he saw her damaged or she told him she had been - then agree Lbock - why didn't he say something. If not at the time why didn't he come out at the time of the TRO and say something - since they were just friends - or subsequently. It isn't as if there hasn't been an opportunity.

I believe there may have been rumours about drug supplies. Got a feeling AH will have been less candid in her texts than JD was but the UK trial was unbalanced in that sense - all of his texts were on display - the only ones of hers were ones that he had. And still out of all of that all you've got are the witch texts and another exchange with VP in which they are messing around.

There may have been something else between Franco and AH - again rumours of some very sleazy behaviour when they were on set together.

[Granna]

The rumored actions on the set, if true, would be devastating for her. I thought the incident with the third party has been resolved in Franco' s lawsuit? Does anyone know if Kevin Costner, is testifying on JD's behalf? That would also be damaging for her. The 3 videos do not put her on good graces at all.

[ForeverYoung]

Honestly, I would be really be surprised if this depo goes forward. I think his PR and legal team is going to stall this as much as possible. The two of them are clearly on video tape and he is going to have to answer to why he was there. He is not in a good situation right now and I don't think this depo is going to happen at this time but we shall see.

[Newt]

Highly doubt that someone like Costner would ever get mixed up in all this honestly.

[AdeleAgain]

I keep thinking about the Franco deposition if it happens, and why JD's team have persisted with it. JD of course knows an awful lot more about AH than has ever been revealed - and as we all know when people split up - various mutual friends/acquaintances cannot help themselves but come forward to spill the dirt on the other party. Can you imagine how many people - like Kate James and Kevin Murphy - who were very reluctant to say what they thought whilst the two were married but were willingly candid after the split. I don't find it difficult to imagine that people who hung out with them both or with them as a couple, have told some uncomfortable truths to JD since May 2016. I often think about that girl Britney Eustice/Eustis?? I think she was called - friend of AH's, when with them to Japan on the Lone Ranger tour, looked like a bit of an instagram party girl. Following the split, she liked posts about JD and was certainly nowhere to be seen around AH. She is exactly the kind of person I mean (not necessarily her, but that type of person) who may well have various insights into what AH was up to when JD was away.

[RumLover]

I am not confident that examples of what a terrible person Heard is will work in court. It might be that a juror will find the stories so extreme that they will reject all of them. I saw this when the poo in bed story became public and a few commenters could not believe that any adult would do such a thing and concluded Depp must be lying.

There is limited time for the court hearing so they have to choose the best evidence.

The video of Heard with Franco and with Musk show Heard's behaviour and seem unambiguous.

(Building staff Trinity Esparza & Cornelius Harrell asked in deposition if they recognised the man in elevator. They both said they could not see the man's face in the video and could not recognise him. My recollection is that the man was identified as James Franco by a twitter user after Brian McPherson posted the video.)

Even if Franco feels like confessing, I think he will take his lawyers advice. (I don't know what third-party story is referred to earlier. If it is cdan of 19 November 2018, then I could envisage public & jurors concluding that Hollywood people are twisted and that conclusion would not help anyone.)

[ForeverYoung]

I am not sure whether the ex had affairs or not is going to make a difference to the jury BUT those people who clearly cannot deny they were with her would be asked if they saw any injuries on her and if she said anything to them about being abused. I am still trying to understand why Franco brought a backpack in unless he was planning to stay the night or had a big bag of drugs in it. Either way, when (or if) he does do his deposition, he is either going to lie or tell the truth about what he saw.

As for Kevin Costner, during the promo for their film they asked what he thought about working with her and the only thing he said that was that she was ok, but just needed to "find her footing", meaning she stinks and needs to keep her feet out of other people's trailers and showing up there naked.

[justintime]

Two great, succinct paragraphs, ForeverYoung. Thanks!

The time for hoping somehow the jury will miraculously choose the right crayons to accurately fill in their picture of AH is long gone and slipping farther away with every Twitter/SM minute left before April. Relationships of the nature AH had with Franco and Costner are precisely the ones that are different but uncomplicated and obvious - and ones that leave an indelible impression.

I hope Johnny’s team have the opportunity to pointedly question both of these gentlemen.

[AdeleAgain]

One of the very good opinion pieces I read on the Ghislane Maxwell trial said that what the prosecution got right was keeping the case simple. While it was ongoing - some were asking why certain stories or pieces of evidence weren't being used - but the prosecution strategy was to present a clear and simple narrative. I think that when you are dealing with a jury that's probably the way it has to go. Ben Chew has to demonstrate that (1) the WAPO article is about JD (2) that when she wrote it AH knowingly lied (3) that her lies caused JD damage.

I think that's right yes?

(1) has been beautifully done by AH and ACLU with their helpful back and forth emails which clearly state she was talking about him. IF those hadn't been forced out, AH's strategy would likely still be that "any one with a grasp of the English language would understand it had nothing to do with him" or whatever Kaplan said.

(2) Ben Chew/team can (a) attack her evidence. Show she lied - bring in police, medical records, hopefully some of AH's own texts, witnesses to say she was unharmed. (b) demonstrate that she was the violent one - in this he has to be careful though because many people do shrug and say 'well maybe they were just violent to each other (c) demonstrate that she has provided fake evidence eg the photos (d) I wonder if he will also bring in an expert to explain what a narcissist does in terms of projection etc.

(3) on this one, AH's side will argue that the article itself was not damaging - that he had already harmed his own career. What I am not clear about is whether it goes on just this article or on her general narrative that she was abused culminating in the article.

At the end of the day - with a jury alot comes down to who they like/believe. Although on a personality test obviously we all think JD is alot more compelling than her - he needs to be much better prepped (to be fair you are not legally allowed to do practice questioning for UK courts) - because frankly adorable though he may be - many of his answers were simply confusing. And for some people they equate confusing with someone hiding something. He needs to give shorter, simpler answers. Barristers will tell you - only answer the question you are asked, do not offer up additional information and never joke. On the latter - some humour may well go down well with some on the jury but JD has a very strange sense of humour sometimes.

Anyway that's a long ramble apologies.

What I did mean to focus on is that I think the Ghislane Maxwell case may help. It demonstrates just how nasty and manipulative women can be in abusive relationships - not just men. In the UK we've had two horrific cases of children being killed in lock after lengthy abuse - in both cases they were killed by women. Abuse really does have no gender!

Happy new year everyone.

[Lbock]

Here is an intresting article on why abused children later in life choose toxic, abusive relationships:

11 Reasons Why Childhood Abuse Survivors Are Targets For Toxic People In Adulthood ~ Lilly Hope Lucario
July 24, 2019 by Healing From Complex Trauma & PTSD/CPTSD

https://healingfromcomplextraumaandptsd ... e-lucario/

[Inquiring Minds]

I think AdeleAgain has hit on the need to outline a clear picture of what has happened and AH's part in creating this.

The one point missed (imo) is the essential need to outline (and prove) the hoax. Without the premeditation it could be argued that JD brought the work problems on himself, rather than being set-up and undermined from the beginning. I see his rep as intact (and excellent) before she started seeding the press with pretexts for the false claims required for her to complete her plan.

I believe that until all allegations are viewed in the conspiracy context, TeamAH can build reasonable doubt regarding all her allegations and infer that JD's rep was destroyed by his own actions - not because he was being secretly white-anted and denigrated by AH as part of her bigger goal (what she thought was going to be a $500m payday). The pot of gold evaporated and she was left trying to scrabble for what crumbs were left and to punish him for not being the fatted calf she had thought.