What’s your basis for this claim? I’m sure Depp has PR people doing exactly this, but why wouldn’t Heard have PR people doing the opposite - if the content exists to made Depp look bad and Heard look good.
I was just providing clarity that there are two different lawsuits. However, I do agree with your post in full, but just wanted to point out the first lawsuit was in the UK. It does have a different libel/defamation law. You very well may know this, but the newspaper has to prove Depp committed abuse and the Judge did agree/make the finding that Depp committed abuse. With that said, I believe it’s a low standard and not “beyond a reasonable doubt” or anything like that so that’s why I said it doesn’t mean Depp did do those things, just that the newspaper wasn’t making it up.
With all that said, I don’t know much about the specifics of that case. Just the basic law and conclusions - but no details of the evidence or anything like that.
FWIW, LegalEagle did a quick (one minute) video on that and essentially said that as dumb as it sounds, it wasn’t that big of a deal and happens pretty regularly, just not in the national spotlight.
The attorney was not objecting to his own question, he was objecting that the answer to his question was hearsay and should not be allowed.
That said, a good lawyer is supposed to know the answers to the questions he is going to ask.
mmm
It’s not Johnny and Amber’s own hired PR people releasing the clips*, it’s random youtubers, light night hosts, 24 hour news anchors etc.
Even Milani Cosmetics put something out to let the world know the makeup Amber claims she used to cover her bruises wasn’t even on the market while they were married.
That one bugs me since it seems like Milani shouldn’t have said that out loud but maybe quietly gotten word to Johnny’s team. Now that the whole world knows that, Amber’s team is almost certainly going to say ‘not that exact makeup, the makeup shown in court was just a prop to give the attorney something to hold when she was talking about it’ as opposed to Johnny’s team being able to call her out in the courtroom for it.
*No doubt their legal/PR teams ARE doing this is well, but they can only release so much content.
Like the old story about how an attorney for an defendant facing maiming charges challenged a witness. “So, did you see my client bite the ear of the victim off?”
“No, sir, I did not.”
“Then what brought you to the conclusion he had?”
“I saw him spit it out.”
Sure, but that set of people is not dominated by assholes with an agenda to spread a misogynist agenda. So it brings us back to questioning @AlsoNamedBort’s claim that the clips that we are seeing are a biased narrative, misrepresenting the full content of the trial. I don’t see why there would be some conspiracy to make Depp look good and Heard look bad. If anything, I would have thought the opposite - Heard was little known, and tearing down the pretentious Depp would be a more tempting target. I see no reason to believe that the viral clips we are seeing are selected for anything other than entertainment value.
I’m not so sure, I think she’s clearly caught in a lie. Heard’s attorney was very specific that this was exactly what she used, and that Heard will testify in detail about exactly how she would use the various colors to cover the changing color of the bruises. Here is the relevant part:
To be clear, I’m not saying she doesn’t/didn’t have every intention of testifying that the makeup compact in the attorney’s hand is the exact one Amber used to cover her bruises. What I’m saying is that, now that Milani Cosmetics released that statement and Amber’s team is aware they fucked up, they’ve got plenty of time to figure out their defense when Johnny’s team raises the issue. The attorney, I don’t believe, ever said “she use this Milani Cosmetics Conceal + Perfect All-in-One Correcting Kit to cover her bruises…” so she does have some ability to, without entirely contradicting herself, say that the makeup she was holding was simply a prop, not the exact one Amber actually used.
Since I don’t understand how the minutia of these trials work, if Amber and her team were planning to suggest that makeup was the literal, exact one she was using to cover her bruises. Would they have had to enter it as evidence? If so, did they?
Also, come to think of it, I wonder of Milani released that statement to the public specifically to distance themselves from the case.
No doubt she will attempt to spin it like that, but I think it’s unlikely that anyone watching what I linked to above would believe that she was not talking about this specific product. She points to it, showing it to the jurors, saying that Heard will later testify exactly how she used the different colors for different phases of bruising. It’s an attempt to make the story credible by providing a lot of detail - an attempt that backfired spectacularly.
ETA: I should have said - I’m not disagreeing, of course, on your point that if Milani had said nothing at this stage, it might have allowed Heard to testify about her use of a nonexistent product and potentially dig herself into a much bigger hole. But I don’t think this allows her side to get away with the lie without substantial embarrassment.
It isn’t really the responsibility of the company in question to provide aid to Mr. Depp’s case; I’m sure they were just making an announcement to ostensibly dissociate themselves with the entire affair (while being able to get their brand name repeated in a bunch of articles about a sensational legal case, in other words, free advertising). Regardless of any backpedalling by Heard and her legal team it goes to credibility that her statement is provably false, which again doesn’t mean that she was not abused by Depp but opens up the question of how much credence a jury should otherwise apply to her statements in general.
Stranger
It’s also entirely possible no one would have even noticed the problem.
The funny thing is that she said that immediately after telling the jury that no one ever saw her (at least in public) without makeup because she always wore makeup. Depp’s team could use nearly that exact same sentence but follow it with ‘so why would the fact that she wore makeup on [dates she allegedly had bruises on her face] be remotely out of the ordinary or prove anything at all’.
The fact that she was wearing makeup and the fact that she plans to show the jury how it can be used to cover a bruise seems to me, at best, circumstantial, at worst, entirely irrelevant.
I bet Johnny could get into the box and give the exact same makeup tutorial that she’s planning to give, he’s also an actor. Hell, I bet he could do it backwards and in high heels.
Whether you realize it or not, you just made an elevator pitch for the next Tim Burton movie. Expect a call from his ‘people’ any moment now.
Stranger
Helena Bonham Carter doesn’t strike me as the Ginger Rogers type. But she is a good actress, so I suppose I should keep an open mind.
Wouldn’t she be Fred Astaire in this scenario? Wait…I’m losing track of what’s going on.
Didn’t she allegedly cut off his finger and shit in his bed? I’m not sure if this is a case of they’re both bad people and get what they deserve.
If a country song doesn’t come out of this trial, then … well … maybe the nation isn’t worth saving after all.
I’m pretty sure that was the elevator pitch for the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie.
I heard a clip today of Howard Stern talking about this, but when he said “Johnny Depp / Amber Heard trial” I wasn’t listening very closely and heard “Johnny Depp Hamburger trial” and I gotta tell ya, that’s the sort of celebrity scandal I’d be fascinated by.