The Lawsuits Thread

[Jackslady]

This is so boring today, when are they going to start cross examination. She has basically said Johnny threw her against the wall, hit her with telephones and swore at her for what feels like about 500 times. Usual saintly presentation, lies and excuses and pathetic facial expression.

Cross examination will start as soon as direct is over. Each side has a limited of time. AH"s side seems to be spending a lot of time letting her embellish her stories.

Thanks Judymac, they’ve gone on afternoon break now so am hoping it will be cross when they return. She is riled up now, and hopefully Camille will show no mercy. I cannot find any sympathy for AH at all, maybe I should feel bad about that but she just comes across as so false to me, and the sheer volume of accusations against Johnny and their extremity makes me disbelieve everything she says.

[myfave]

She was paid $1 million for Aquaman and $2 million for A2. Tell me how we are arriving at $100 million even if there was a shed of truth?

Also her fans will be crying at these 'small' fees - they claimed she was getting $14 million.

I think she actually had something in her eye.

[Someareborn]

Inquiring minds

Hm, do you mean ridicule her as a person or her lies? I thought its an agreed concept in a democracy to prove that somebody is lying with evidence. That should stop the lies. Otherwise its a small step into bullying.

[Someareborn]

Wow, Mrs. Vasquez is on fire in the cross! Seems to be a little nervous, a good level of "aggression" and pace!
And AH is throwing her lawyers under the bus, saying she provided pictures, but they were not shown to the jury. OK, then.

[Judymac]

Wow, Mrs. Vasquez is on fire in the cross! Seems to be a little nervous, a good level of "aggression" and pace!
And AH is throwing her lawyers under the bus, saying she provided pictures, but they were not shown to the jury. OK, then.

I think it is hilarious that she is throwing her lawyers under the bus. Ms. Vasquez is doing an excellent job.

[HesterPrynne1328]

I don't know; as much as I don't "want" to, I'm finding Ms. Vasquez to be a bit accusatory and condescending. She doesn't need to be; the facts she presents work against AH on their own. Ms. Vasquez comes off (sometimes) as a bit desperate and aggressive. (Then again, this "isn't about" how Ms. Vasquez comes across.) She shouldn't continue to speak over objections.

[Someareborn]

I think she gets aggressive, who wouldn't when someone on the stand tries to tell you the sky is green when it has been blue forever....
I like, that she asks the same question again and again. Unlike in the UK, where the QC was also accusatory but also asked these "isn't it right-questions" a lot trying to testify.

I noticed she laughed about AHs testimony that her lawyers leaked the pictures to people magazine and also some other confidental info. Well, its not unusual I guess, wasn't it Adam who leaked the tapes to the dailymail? Just saying.

So far, great cross which exposed AHs aggressive behaviour and Elaines lack of skill. Or I am to stupid to notice their strategy.

[Judymac]

I don't know; as much as I don't "want" to, I'm finding Ms. Vasquez to be a bit accusatory and condescending. She doesn't need to be; the facts she presents work against AH on their own. Ms. Vasquez comes off (sometimes) as a bit desperate and aggressive. (Then again, this "isn't about" how Ms. Vasquez comes across.) She shouldn't continue to speak over objections.

I disagree with you. Ms. Heard is at times combative, so Ms. Vasquez needs to be somewhat aggressive to force her to answer the questions. The purpose of cross examination is disprove what AH has said under direct examination. Did you watch when Rottenborn was cross examining Johnny? Did you notice that Rottenborn was accusatory and condescending?

[DannyPlaysPoker]

So AH made these promises, these pledges of money, but she has reneged, yet says that in her parlance she 'donated' the money in that the actual deed of turning over the money isn't the point, the point is that she said she turned over the money. And besides, it was conditional on her not being sued, and is not enforceable, and no Johnny can't just turn over the money for her because he'd get the IRS deduction. Quite a legal treatise. So what is the interest on this wad? I guess six percent on seven million dollars is $42,000/year, and I lose count of how many years it has been..

[Judymac]

I think she gets aggressive, who wouldn't when someone on the stand tries to tell you the sky is green when it has been blue forever....
I like, that she asks the same question again and again. Unlike in the UK, where the QC was also accusatory but also asked these "isn't it right-questions" a lot trying to testify.

I noticed she laughed about AHs testimony that her lawyers leaked the pictures to people magazine and also some other confidental info. Well, its not unusual I guess, wasn't it Adam who leaked the tapes to the dailymail? Just saying.

So far, great cross which exposed AHs aggressive behaviour and Elaines lack of skill. Or I am to stupid to notice their strategy.

You are getting their strategy.

AH is not answering some of the questions so Ms. Vasquez is repeating the questions. Every time AH tries to avoid answering a question she is killing any shred of credibility she might have. My favorite repetitious question was 'did you donate the entire amount to charity" Ms. Heard "I pledged" the entire amount to charity." Evidently the arrogant Ms. heard thinks that the jurors are too stupid to know the difference between pledging money and actually donating money. That will not sit well with the jurors.

[Judymac]

So AH made these promises, these pledges of money, but she has reneged, yet says that in her parlance she 'donated' the money in that the actual deed of turning over the money isn't the point, the point is that she said she turned over the money. And besides, it was conditional on her not being sued, and is not enforceable, and no Johnny can't just turn over the money for her because he'd get the IRS deduction. Quite a legal treatise. So what is the interest on this wad? I guess six percent on seven million dollars is $42,000/year, and I lose count of how many years it has been..

Today she kept saying that she pledged the money. She was backing off of saying that she had already donated the money. It was also pointed out that she had all of the money long before Johnny sued her.

[HesterPrynne1328]

I don't know; as much as I don't "want" to, I'm finding Ms. Vasquez to be a bit accusatory and condescending. She doesn't need to be; the facts she presents work against AH on their own. Ms. Vasquez comes off (sometimes) as a bit desperate and aggressive. (Then again, this "isn't about" how Ms. Vasquez comes across.) She shouldn't continue to speak over objections.

I disagree with you. Ms. Heard is at times combative, so Ms. Vasquez needs to be somewhat aggressive to force her to answer the questions. The purpose of cross examination is disprove what AH has said under direct examination. Did you watch when Rottenborn was cross examining Johnny? Did you notice that Rottenborn was accusatory and condescending?

Okay. I mean, it's your right to "disagree with [me]," as with anyone - is it not?

And I 𝗱𝗶𝗱 notice Rottenborn (oh, that name is just 𝙨𝙤𝙤𝙤 fitting!) was (extremely) accusatory and condescending - 𝗻𝗼 question. Yet, my point is that Vasquez need not stoop to AH's attorneys' same level; AH's misdeeds speak - quite 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆 - on their own. Her lawyers probably had to "amp up" - if you will - their condescending and accusatory tones, because JD 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 and they 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 it. They (desperately) tried to rile up JD on the stand in place of any proof of abuse; proof they knew they didn't have and wouldn't be receiving, as it simply doesn't exist.

[myfave]

I don't know; as much as I don't "want" to, I'm finding Ms. Vasquez to be a bit accusatory and condescending. She doesn't need to be; the facts she presents work against AH on their own. Ms. Vasquez comes off (sometimes) as a bit desperate and aggressive. (Then again, this "isn't about" how Ms. Vasquez comes across.) She shouldn't continue to speak over objections.

I disagree with you. Ms. Heard is at times combative, so Ms. Vasquez needs to be somewhat aggressive to force her to answer the questions. The purpose of cross examination is disprove what AH has said under direct examination. Did you watch when Rottenborn was cross examining Johnny? Did you notice that Rottenborn was accusatory and condescending?

Okay. I mean, it's your right to "disagree with [me]," as with anyone - is it not?

And I 𝗱𝗶𝗱 notice Rottenborn (oh, that name is just 𝙨𝙤𝙤𝙤 fitting!) was (extremely) accusatory and condescending - 𝗻𝗼 question. Yet, my point is that Vasquez need not stoop to AH's attorneys' same level; AH's misdeeds speak - quite 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆 - on their own. Her lawyers probably had to "amp up" - if you will - their condescending and accusatory tones, because JD 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 and they 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 it. They (desperately) tried to rile up JD on the stand in place of any proof of abuse; proof they knew they didn't have and wouldn't be receiving, as it simply doesn't exist.

I 100% agree with Judymac. His lawyer is doing exactly what she needs to do in reply to the arrogant Amber Heard.
She’s not stooping to their level , she is doing what is necessary.

[HesterPrynne1328]

I disagree with you. Ms. Heard is at times combative, so Ms. Vasquez needs to be somewhat aggressive to force her to answer the questions. The purpose of cross examination is disprove what AH has said under direct examination. Did you watch when Rottenborn was cross examining Johnny? Did you notice that Rottenborn was accusatory and condescending?

Okay. I mean, it's your right to "disagree with [me]," as with anyone - is it not?

And I 𝗱𝗶𝗱 notice Rottenborn (oh, that name is just 𝙨𝙤𝙤𝙤 fitting!) was (extremely) accusatory and condescending - 𝗻𝗼 question. Yet, my point is that Vasquez need not stoop to AH's attorneys' same level; AH's misdeeds speak - quite 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆 - on their own. Her lawyers probably had to "amp up" - if you will - their condescending and accusatory tones, because JD 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 and they 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 it. They (desperately) tried to rile up JD on the stand in place of any proof of abuse; proof they knew they didn't have and wouldn't be receiving, as it simply doesn't exist.

I 100% agree with Judymac. His lawyer is doing exactly what she needs to do in reply to the arrogant Amber Heard.
She’s not stooping to their level , she is doing what is necessary.

Cool. I don't think it's necessary. Johnny's a class act. (But, what do I know? I was a pretty cruddy lawyer, truth be told.) ♡︎

[fireflydances]

I also believe Camille did a wonderful job. She cross examined AH, and I think she did it fairly, without emotion, and was able to demonstrate where AH's previous testimony fell short. That is the nature of cross examination.