I just wanted to bring out that whatever negative speculation we have about AH’s lawyers: that they are the worst attorneys, that they must have this hate towards JD and his lawyers. We should remember that they are for the most part just doing their jobs. Yes they come off like they have a disdain towards the opposing side but they are trying to argue for their client. And a lot of lawyers have had times where they’ve done a bad job or took on a bad client or is just fighting a case where the evidence is not on their side. I’ve legit heard a lawyer who represented someone who is clearly guilty of murder, say on closing that “Just ignore the evidence; my client couldn’t have killed this person because he came from a good family”.
Yes to of this 100%. It’s actually being reported that after closing, Chew & Bredehoft was seen shaking hands and being very friendly with each other. As well as the same with Rottenborn.
It must be said, time and time again. While Elaine is terrible, and I do mean, terrible at trial, I have no doubt she’s worth every bit of that $600/h she’s getting paid. The realest MVP is Ben Rottenborn for them, and while the arguments are shit, he’s a damn good attorney. Honestly, if he was on Johnny’s team, we’ve would be saying he’s the best damn attorney in the world. Not only that, he’s getting paid peanuts compared to everyone else in this case. Literally, everyone else. He’s getting paid $325/h. He’s definitely worth more, at least $800/h honestly.
So again, don’t ever say that anyone on Amber’s team are bad “lawyers”. They are not, they are just working with bad “facts”.
And I still stand by my assertions that Rottenborn doesn’t like Amber one bit.
Here is specifically what the jury is concerned about: 
There is confusion about whether or not the title is a statement in question or the Op-Ed. The title is what in question, and Judge Azcarate clarified.
This is be a big deal. It could be that the jury only finds that the title statement (which is Johnny’s strongest argument) is only defamatory, and not the other two.
This is also the first finding instruction for the plaintiff. Which means that the jury is most likely getting ready to decide on which statements are defamatory, and soon to be verdict. Or at least voting on it.
The entire jury instruction is actually very confusing with the language being used. I don’t know if I should make another specific post as to why, but to boil it down, linguistic speaking, it depends on how the jury determines “and” v. “or”, and “any” v. “all”, also switching between taking things as a “whole” and then separating to specific statements.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another television court session.
A minor detail that always driving me fuckin’ nuts is how “Johnny wanted the trial televised”. No the fuck he didn’t, the court did. There’s an entire order on it:
It says it, right there, in plain fuckin’ English.
“THIS MATTER came before the Court on 2/25/2022, on its ownMotion…”
He didn’t ask for it, he only agreed to it. Amber did not want the trial to be televised. Geez, I wonder why? Maybe to show all your bullshit, perhaps?
Super random return to Tumblr after what I think must be years! But having fallen down the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard rabbit hole, I’m seeing some Amber apologists on here posting the ultra gaslighting bits of Rottenborn’s closing without allowing comments, so I just felt compelled to come on and make my own comment to say:
“If you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen. If you did take pictures, they’re fake. If you didn’t tell your friends, you weren’t injured. If you did tell your friends, they were part of the hoax.“
That is Not. TF. what we (or Camille) are saying. And it was unbelievably insulting and gross for him to frame it that way.
The reason what Amber’s done makes me so angry is because I DON’T assume anyone would lie about having suffered abuse, ever. I have argued vehemently against misogynists who DO treat women who come forward as lying until proven otherwise. So no, sir, I do not appreciate being lectured about how I’m harming women when it took the absolute mountain of evidence of her NOT being truthful to pull me away from that default. I don’t appreciate being gaslit for being upset that someone would take advantage of that default that the 99% of survivors who would never dream of lying about the abuse they’ve suffered fought, and continue to fight, so hard for.
This is not about “if it happened you should have pictures.” This is about there being a mountain of photos, videos, and recordings proving that the incredibly severe, specific allegations she sat there recounting in gruesome detail under oath never happened.
This is about her sitting there swearing up and down under oath that the video we all saw with our own two eyes of her completely uninjured, was her with two black eyes and a busted lip after having been brutally beaten in the face by a man who wears the equivalent of brass knuckles in rings. Not “the abuse wasn’t the type you would see in this video” - but specifically “yes, I had severe facial injuries in this video where my face looks flawless.” This is about her having carefully documented all manner of OTHER photos and videos exploiting Johnny’s struggles with addiction, and insisting that the harm he did to himself is somehow evidence of him having brutally, severely harmed her, while deliberately having avoided taken photos of herself after the alleged most severe attacks.
No one. is saying. that the abuse has to be severe in order for it to count. No one is expecting survivors to have documented everything. SHE made the allegations so severe that they don’t match up with the reality we see. SHE made it impossible to believe she wasn’t sitting there this whole time appropriating the very real suffering others have had to go through.
So to the survivors out there (especially women, for purposes of this discussion):
I can’t control what others do, but please know that Ibelieve you, and will NEVER expect any bar of proof to do so. It took a heaping mountain of proof I could see and hear with my own eyes and ears that Amber IS lying - Amber, one single woman out of the 99% who would never dream of doing so - to make me not believe her. And her lies will never make waver in standing by you. I will always believe women, and I’ll continue to call out anyone using this trial as an excuse to do otherwise.
I just don’t believe Amber. One specific privileged cis white woman who coopted a necessary, hard-fought feminist movement as a shield for her abusive behavior.
people who are still using the article from The Scum to justify their hatred for JD and his supporters, Dan Wooton, AH and Justice Nichol aren’t going to gang bang you
Also, it doesn’t make sense.
As much as her stans were to cry out, Nicol found “12 out of 14 incidents of abuse” in his final judicial ruling, he shouldn’t even say that. That phrase is digusting because while both trials are talking about abuse, it’s no the focal point. Johnny has not,cannot, and will not be subjected to a criminal trial of abuse. That “12 out of 14” is super inapporiate because it implies that Johnny should’ve been, despite our judicial system that’s in place. Such a gross damn phrase.
He also dismiss a shit load of evidence that was favorable to Johnny. He denied expert testimony for Johnny’s team. He barely allowed witness testimony for Johnny. Anything that went against Amber, was dismissed essentially.
And still, the funny thing about it, Amber committed perjury despite being favorable. Read Nick Wallis transcripts, she does it in seconds. 
Australian citizen comments about the crime of glassing (using glass as a weapon) something that can give you three years minimum of jail. AH severed JD’s finger in Australia and his team flew her away because if had Ben King reported it, she would have been in jail. This is way Johnny lied about his injury being done by a door.
The AH stans seem so keen to bring Johnny’s children into their arguments when he’s explicitly stated he wants them left out of any coverage or discourse about the trial. Baffling. If I have only one thing to say about AH’s child it is something that actually encourages the protectionof both AH and her child. Because even though I may disagree with AH supporters, I will never go low. No child should be at risk.
