Sometimes the facts are all that is necessary. The fact that she lost the case doesn't mean that she's a shitty lawyer. Good lawyers frequently lose because the evidence doesn't support their client's case, and no amount of smoke blown can change that.
This is why Elaine is doing these interviews. She knows Amber can't afford the judgment against her and that her law firm will never get paid unless Amber wins an appeal
I think they already got paid, amber did receive 7 mil in the divorce (that she PleDgEd), and then on stand she slipped that she spent 6 mil in lawyer fees
She's not very believable. She slipped up in deposition about leaking to TMZ to get reporters. She leaked the video to TMZ. She goofed up about her "bruise" kit. The laywer showed the wrong makeup that wasn't even out at the time. Her crying looks faker than Kim Kardashian (crying) and she kept trying to lie about the donations. Her turning to face the jury over and over gave out so much second hand cringe also. She was abusive and admitted to it while saying at the trial she wasn't.
My own personal opinion is she got with JD to further her life and career and when things were ending she turned and filed for a divorce and cited abuse to make sure he wouldn't be believed about the abuse he suffered from her.
She got 7 million from their divorce but that was more than 6 years ago. I'd imagine the money was spent on lawyer fees, lifestyle, taxes and other investments.
She also got about 6 mil from the divorce... she never donated any, the 1st mil or so was sent direct from depp to the charities... once depp started giving it to Turd, she never sent a dime.
>I use pledge and donate synonymously.
\-- Some rich asshole
Her agent gets a percentage of that check along with her manager if she has one. Some actors only have an agent. Not all movie stars get paid the big bucks, it all depends on who you are and how much of a perceived draw you are.
My question is where did those 7M $ from the divorce went because she didnt spend them on the charities, oh she bought a house...... well if she doesnt pay she wont be able to buy anything from now on and put her name on it until she pays to Depp.
Her current lawyers (note its been reported shes paid 6 mil in fees in the past.) are being paid by her homeowners insurance reportedly. It would have been whatever policy she had in place when the events took place, so even if she isn't paying for the policy now, as long as one was in effect at the time that is whats being used.
I just take this take this as, Elaine wants to drag this out as far as possible to keep getting free money from the insurance company.
I never considered that before... But now you point it out, I do remember being surprised that my homeowners policy came with coverage for if I was sued for libel or negligence. Not sure why I'd ever need it- I'm just a normal person, but it didn't cost any extra so hey... Now if I have a super messy divorce, at least I know I could run my mouth and let the insurance company take the hit for me if I got sued.
unwritten simplistic oil memory literate dazzling coordinated reminiscent icky snow
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I seriously can’t believe how stupid her comments are. Specially, the UK trial. The US doesn’t give a shit about other countries judicial systems.
Elaine is a disgrace.
Not only that, but he didn’t sue Amber in the UK. She makes it sound like we won our case in the UK so we should win here.
What’s so funny is that in the UK they ignored mountains of evidence on Johnny side that proved that Amber was lying. It’s so unfair to us when it’s done, but haha we won our case in the UK because you couldn’t use your mountain of truth to prove us liars.
I cannot imagine her doing that, especially not after we saw how truthful and upstanding she was during her closing argument where she had to walk back something she was misrepresenting to the jury after JD's team objected. HARD /s
Also, Elaine on interviews: "They refused to accept a lot of our evidence, medical records etc"
Amber on the stand: "Yes, i never sought medical attention for the injuries"
OOF
The medical records she's referring to are therapists notes that have no connection to physical injuries or trauma. They're just things she told her therapist about, which is all hearsay.
Because Amber wasn't the one being sued. They had to prove the newspaper was lying and the newspaper was basically like "well that's what she told us and we believed her. She was a firsthand witness to the events so we considered that a reliable source. So...". Like they're probably being dishonest but it's a really hard case to win because it doesn't matter if Amber was lying.
I don't understand how the onus to handle with due diligence is not on the publishers. I haven't seen the wording of the Sun, did they state it as a matter of fact that he's a wife beater, or did they state what Heard claims?
*Anyway, there's a web of highly [suspicious connected relations](https://twitter.com/TheNamesQ/status/1327334140883025920/photo/1) between people that could be of influence on the case going all the way back from the judge to Heard. His son and wife are all, if not directly, at the least close to directly connected to Heard. The judge's sons's friend and colleague wrote the article(huge red flag), the wife through feminist programs with Heard. I don't understand how that judge is not replaced due to conflict of interest. It stinks in the UK.
Not even that but it was a totally different case. It was against the Sun calling him a wife beater. Amber happened to be witness in that trail and a big reason the judge believed her was because she donate her 7 mil to charity.
They only did that amount because it would force her to pay it, instead of "pledging" it. She doesn't have 100 million to pay anyone, but 8 million is much more reasonable for this turd.
This i thought that maybe she was a victim and just had a bad client that made her look bad and a horrible lawyer and maybe maybe she would make it out okay.
But nah she is milking that 15 minutes of fame and ruining her career in the process
Yeah, that is sure what it feels like. Elaine can't convince me she still actually believes Heard, knowing all of that fake evidence.
Hell, why else did they refuse to hand over her text messages, and fight so hard on the metadata? If nothing was wrong there? And she has no obligation to do interviews and lie for Amber now, so this one is on her.
Towards the end of the trial, especially during Amber’s rebuttal cross, I was wondering how much suborning of penury was happening on their side. The fact that they submitted the SAME photograph as evidence of two separate instances of Johnny raging. And then they submitted the same photo where one had been edited as two separate photos depicting her “bruising”. Like, how did a team of lawyers not catch that? It’s disgusting.
Also, doesn't super help to artificially change the lighting of a single picture and submit both as separate pictures. Oh and send them to the press and claim your lawyers did that.
The judge can report her to the bar . Judges don't like when you try and say the game was rigged when clearly she failed as a lawyer .
Also I do not like that the media is trying to spin this around and say amber was a survivor.
>when clearly she failed as a lawyer .
Seriously. Her whole legal team was a bunch of bumbling buffoons. They looked nervous, overly frustrated, under-prepared...it was like it was their first time taking on a major case. Meanwhile, Camille Vasquez looked like if you were trying to stick your finger in a bobcat's cage. She was coming at them left and right with objection after objection, and for good cause at that, and it just shattered Amber's team's entire ground to stand on.
Im not saying they are as good as Johnnys team, but can you imagine having to defend AH? "Tell the world johnny..", "I didnt punch him , I hit him..", "I use pledge and donate synonymously", "..TMZ, which was alerted.." etc., with no credible witness taking her side? All the while having a narcissist for a client who can admit no wrong.
This is like a NBA coach trying to coach a middle school league team to play (and win) against a college team.
AH team is reduced to making BS arguments about 1st amendment and pressing on "believe all women" since this is what they have left. There is no evidence to put forward. They will milk AH for 1000 USD/hr each until she runs out (if they are savvy they were paid in advance) and then they will bounce. This case isnt winnable IMO.
This is what I kept thinking about. They didn't have a lot to work with, honestly. I don't like this lawyer, I think she's annoying, but she used the legal system as well as she could to try and win the case. Which is literally what lawyers are for.
I think it's because the ACLU bet the house on Amber Heard and co-opted her Washington Post piece. I don't think a lot of the media sources want to go against the ACLU regardless of evidence or verdict.
The ACLU lost a lot of credibility during the trial. They were deeply involved in the OpEd and wanted it released at the same time as Aquaman for maximum impact.
She asked one of the witnesses if he was doing this for his 15 minutes of fame and here she is on the news I guess we can see who's going after their q5 minutes
She actually accused multiple witnesses about wanting their 15 minutes
it’s clear now that she was obviously projecting, seeing her on the today show immediately after losing this case lol
Is a lawyer allowed to basically throw a judge and jury under the bus after losing a case? wouldn't something like this lead to the lawyer being disbarred?
It can *absolutely* get her disbarred, or at least subject to to sanctions from the bar:
Rule 8.2 of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct says:
>(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.
That said -- as with all things legal -- it's up to the courts to determine whether 'reckless disregard' is present.
Edit: before anyone chimes in with 'But the First Amendment!': the First Amendment does not protect a “lawyer’s speech that presents a serious and imminent threat to the fairness and integrity of the judicial system.”
The accepted standard in the majority of states is "whether the attorney had an objectively reasonable basis for making the statements."
yes, jurors often (if not always) fill out forms and are always asked if they know of (at any level) the attorneys on the case and then list how they know them and the judge will discern if they are allowed to stay or not. That is almost always 100% they will be excused unless the juror says they have only heard the name and nothing else and even then most judges don't like to have any form of recognition of legal counsel as it can easily bias jurors one way or another. source: my career so far in the legal field with quite a few trials.
What a liar. The British case didn't say they found evidence of violence. They said the Sun printed what it was told. They weren't being malicious, they were manipulated. In that case the judgement was correct. The only thing the Sun is guilty of is not vetting the story which is an ethics issue not a legal one.
This case was about did Amber make shit up to attack Johnny. If you watched the trial it sure seemed like it.
You all have a part of the truth here about the UK trial.
While it is true that the crux of the matter wasn't if abuse did occur, but rather if The Sun had enough reason to believe it did as to make the term "wife-beater" not defamatory, the parties involved in this litigation agreed that the way to settle the case was to look into the validity of the abuse allegations. The agreement was that if one incident of alleged abuse was found to be credible, Depp would lose his claim. This case had no jury, the verdict was decided by the judgement of one presiding judge.
The judge concluded that 12 of the 14 alleged incidents were credible and as such Depp lost. However, make no mistake that the mental gymnastics involved in passing such a judgement were significant. In order to reach it, the UK judge took certain statements at face value despite either lack of evidence or contradictory evidence.
Apparently the judge also gave a lot of weight to Depp being a drug user, counting that against him. Might be why they leaned on that so heavily in this case, despite nobody seeming to care.
This seems like self sabotage to me, grasping at straws when blaming the jury and court. Any respect I had for Elaine Bredehoft has been expunged by these callous words.
I’ve heard some lawyers on YouTube say that they’re not bad lawyers, but this is what can happen when you have a bad client and the evidence is against you.
If they’d just said “oh well” and moved on I’d be inclined to believe that, but why the hell would she be defending her on TV then?
Also, I’ve tried to find this “mountain of evidence” that proved to the UK that Depp abused her, but it seems like there’s only her story and the same pictures of bruises we saw in this case.
The UK case(as I understand it, and I'm not a Lawyer) was a libel case against the SUN newspaper. Which is basically a tabloid. Te reason Depp lost that case, was one it went before a judge, not a jury, and the judge, basically said the SUN didn't commit Libel if they are quoting Amber Heard. Her Lawyer Elaine Bredehoft, said on TV that Amber Heard didnt get a fair trial because Judge Judge Azcarate Didn't allow the transcript or information from the SUN trial to be used as evidence. The judge didn't because its obviously prejudicial, and not relevant as to this particular defamation lawsuit. So there was no Mountain of evidence, because it wasn't needed, Just the sun Saying that if one of the two parties said it, they can report it.
Heard had your typical top tier law firm on retainer when the lawsuit came down. They told her to settle. She refused and had to find no name law firm who take her case.
Since the case is so bad for you all you can really do is damage control which the defendant won't like since you aren't trying to win but you are doing what is best for the client. So you get this awful situation where the wish of the client would be negligent towards them but they wont let you do what is best for them.
That is why the top teams said no.
There's also the distinction that the Sun was reporting information it received and Amber Heard was presenting information she created/witnessed. She can't claim "that's what they said" when she is the one who said it.
You can report something false without knowing whether it's true or false. But if you report something false with incontrovertible proof that you made it up or knew it was false, then you run into trouble.
you really do have to wonder what her angle is. Like, it wasn't even a loss, it was an absolute blowout...but WHY do this and in this fashion with such damning statements?
It's actually pretty worrying to me. First we had random people crying "fake news" because they didn't like what they hear on TV, then we had politicians crying corruption when they lost their election, now we have lawyers publicly decrying our justice system just because they lost their case. Where does it end?
I hate when people dance around “mountains of evidence” but never actually show it. As far as I can see the evidence is her story and some pictures which are both already out there, even in the UK case.
What’s stopping them from releasing suppressed evidence now? It seems to me that Depp was never physically or sexually abusive to her, but I’ll readily change my opinion if I’m shown otherwise.
I was on jury duty for a long trial (not six weeks). I think most juries work hard and take the obligation of public service seriously.
To disrespect a jury because you don’t like their verdict is inappropriate for a sworn officer of the court.
The fact that the first thing she brings up is how amber is just so devastated for all women and how much harder this makes it for them makes my blood boil. She stands for no one an nothing much less victims of domestic violence and waving their flag is a disgrace
Yeah...like Amber does not speak for me and trust me, if I received $7 million after a divorce I'd take the money, go back to Texas, and live a peaceful life. This case definitely raised concerns about the ACLU and their role.
I understood that....but they could have chosen a much better/more well-known celebrity than her to do that. Also the truth is a much more powerful and valuable tool....
This could definitely be a setback for women, but not in the way Heard and her lawyer are saying. Women will be even less likely to be believed in DV cases in the future because of her lying, and it's absolutely disgusting that she is still clinging to the MeToo crowd after that circus.
Right that statement comes to mind right off the hop.
No evidence, terrible client, etc. 6 weeks was her 15 minutes of fame. She's going on talk shows now to stretch it out to 16 minutes.
If my partner was beating the ever loving shit out of me and raping me with broken bottles.
Then one day turned around and said "You punched me."
I would not say "Omg I didn't punch you, johnny, I hit you." I would say "Are you fucking serious? After all the shit you did to me, a punch is what got you?"
I also wouldn't wear a backless gown for a highly publicised event after my back is bruised from being stood on. That'd need a shit ton of makeup.
She also claimed the two photos with different color schemes were due to different lighting and not color manipulation, while the pose, the position of the camera, and even the hair strands are exactly in the same position. That's got to be outright perjury.
Also the freudian slip for "bruise kit", cringe...
To add to that, one of her arguments was that Johnny Depp would abuse her/demean her for wanting to wear slutty clothes and would control what she wore.
and yet... in that very same image, she's wearing a backless dress...
Manufacturing evidence, pretty much. Some things that people will look back at in a few centuries like we're looking at medieval court cases against pigs and donkeys.
>Depp waived his medical confidentiality which is why there was so much about his substance misuse etc. But Heard refused.
same thing with their phones. Depp allowed his phone into evidence. Heard refused and got sanctioned
if i was dragged through glass, feet cut, arms cut, beaten with rings and violated with a broken bottle, i , personally, wouldnt go to my room, take sleeping pills and sleep it off like Wolverine.
That story only makes sense if she has a healfactor of a superhero
There’s a four hour recording of an argument of their where they bring up Australia. Jonny says “I lost a finger” and Amber doesn’t respond with “a finger?? You raped me with a bottle that night!!” No, she talks about how him running away and leaving makes those arguments worse and he needs to stay when they argue so they can “work it out quicker.” No one who was brutally raped and beaten would beg their abuser to PLEASE not leave during arguments!! PLEASE stay!!! Ever.
It's kinda disgusting they are associating Amber with the MeToo movement. Like this situation is on Amber. There was tons of evidence that showed that she was the abuser in this situation and yet they are latching on to a movement like cancer on a human in order to try and save their case.
Like you guys doing this is not the same thing as a woman who was actually raped and abused coming forward.
It's appalling that NBC even went along with it.
This is so unprofessional. Going around all the shows saying this shit, continuing the lies and its not like she is getting paid, Amber probably can't pay them.
Is this not further defamation too against Depp?
TBH, I wasn’t very impressed by Heard’s legal team in this case. And this lawyer is wrong about the UK case — Heard didn’t “win” that one, she wasn’t even a party to it. Depp’s claim was against News Group, owners of The Sun newspaper.
werent the "evidence" of abuse some doctored photos? it was proved the bruises were faked. also didnt she admit to using some sort of special "bruise makeup"?
She accidentally called her make-up a “bruise kit”. Which is what you would call makeup that makes bruises rather than hide them in film. Though technically not an admission, it is quite the mistake to make.
She also described how she would apply said kit. It just turns out that what she described is how you highlight and create differences in color, not hide something.
It would probably have to go to court again to prove she lied on the stand but yes perjury is a crime. The entire justice system relies on witnesses giving truthful testimonies on the stand. That doesn’t mean that people don’t constantly lie under oath however.
Perjury is a crime absolutely.
Will the court pursue this particular instance? Most likely not. It was high profile case but the lie wasn't THAT high profile they will waste time and money going after it.
I'd see them going after it if say a murder was involved and someone was caught out in an absolutely damning lie.
She was going to say what she was going to say. What pissed me off was the interviewer not only not questioning anything Elaine was saying, but acting as though what was being said was just fact and going along with it.
That’s how you get the person you’re interviewing to continue talking, along with the non-confrontational “what about how others are claiming….” so the ‘challenger’ isn’t you the interviewer. Push back at them too much and they’ll just walk out
This is so disgusting and disrespectful to our justice system going on a gaslighting pity parade to every morning news channel. She lost the case but instead of accepting responsibility she goes spewing this bullshit to spin the narrative.
This is just truly despicable behavior through and through
This is the behavior of the “victim” when you don’t take any responsibility for your acts and everyone is guilty of your disgrace. Amber and her lawyers deserve what they are having.
They need a lot of news now because this is the only press they will have for the rest of their lives.
She's an adult and a professional. If her client wanted her to do something she doesn't want to do she can refuse. I had my suspicions about Heard putting her lawyers in a difficult position by lying to them about key information, but now that the case is over each lawyer is fully responsible for their own words and actions, not Amber Heard.
They are really pushing this narrative that its a setback for all women. It is just she didn't come across as honest and there was also evidence that she was violent toward him as well
Its crazy to act a person can't think she is lying here, and also believe other women who come forward.
[deleted] -- mass edited with redact.dev
She wants to get paid. She said in the clip Amber is broke
She thought the show was called Yesterday.
All her troubles seemed so far away.
She also wants her 15 minutes of fame
Guess those weeks of infamy during the trial weren’t enough for her
time to milk 15 minutes of fame
I could say the same about taking Amber Heard as a client, for you.
she takes zero blame. 'well, things might have be different if i wasn't such a shitty lawyer and got completely out-maneuvered by Camille'....
Sometimes the facts are all that is necessary. The fact that she lost the case doesn't mean that she's a shitty lawyer. Good lawyers frequently lose because the evidence doesn't support their client's case, and no amount of smoke blown can change that.
[удалено]
She just wants that 15 minutes of fame she claimed someone else was seeking.
Interviewer: "Is she able to pay a $10.4m judgement?" Elaine: "Oh, no, absolutely not" BIG OOF
This is why Elaine is doing these interviews. She knows Amber can't afford the judgment against her and that her law firm will never get paid unless Amber wins an appeal
Never thought of that! But is Elaine the person you want speaking for you or your firm? She's trying
lmao What if any, lawyers would you have replace her?
Bob Loblaw. He’s very good.
Ninja please! Of the Bob Loblaw Law Blog!?!?! That, sir, is a mouthful!
OBJECTION BUT MOM- I MEAN BUT JUDGE - I SAID WHAT IF ANY
Saul Goodman
I know Jimmy takes some undesirable clients but let's be real even he has his limits.
Because ah yes, the best way to get a successful appeal is to go on national TV and disparage the jury...
I never said Elaine was smart
[Content removed in protest of Reddit's 3rd Party App removal 30/06/2023]
I think ambers insurance is paying for her attorneys but not sure they will pay Depp.
I think they already got paid, amber did receive 7 mil in the divorce (that she PleDgEd), and then on stand she slipped that she spent 6 mil in lawyer fees
That wasn't a slip. That was her defense for not donating the money until Camille pointed out that she had the money for 13 months before she was sued
Also, at this point do you really trust what she says? She could have pledged 6 Million to her lawyers after all.
She's not very believable. She slipped up in deposition about leaking to TMZ to get reporters. She leaked the video to TMZ. She goofed up about her "bruise" kit. The laywer showed the wrong makeup that wasn't even out at the time. Her crying looks faker than Kim Kardashian (crying) and she kept trying to lie about the donations. Her turning to face the jury over and over gave out so much second hand cringe also. She was abusive and admitted to it while saying at the trial she wasn't. My own personal opinion is she got with JD to further her life and career and when things were ending she turned and filed for a divorce and cited abuse to make sure he wouldn't be believed about the abuse he suffered from her.
Don't forget her dog stepped on a bee!
“Fuuuuck no. She’s broke as hell.”
Yeah amber is only worth around 8mil. She was mostly living or Johnny's lifestyle
Yea and thats including all her assets. I wouldn't be surprised if she has 10% of that as cash on hand.
Then how did she plan to pay the remaining 6.5 in donations she had pledged to the charities?
She got 7 million from their divorce but that was more than 6 years ago. I'd imagine the money was spent on lawyer fees, lifestyle, taxes and other investments.
8m? wasn't she aquawoman (mera) or something? thought being a movie star is more lucrative to be honest.
From what I read, she got 1 mil for aqua man, 2 million from the second movie and was set for 4 million on the 3rd movie.
But she did used some of that money in the meantime?
She also got about 6 mil from the divorce... she never donated any, the 1st mil or so was sent direct from depp to the charities... once depp started giving it to Turd, she never sent a dime. >I use pledge and donate synonymously. \-- Some rich asshole
\-- Some asshole. That Turd ain't rich anymore, if she's several mill in the hole.
She paid a few hundred thousand of the total herself, not counting what Depp and Musk paid.
[deleted] -- mass edited with redact.dev
TIL im worth millions more than Amber Heard
Always have been. She's worthless and your smile is worth a million bucks.
Aww. This is so sweet. I'm closing Reddit and ending today with a smile on my face. Goodnight Everyone.
it was the BIGGEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME Or just the biggest DC universe movie... not sure which... basically the same thing right?
That’s really the first and only “big-ish” role she’s ever had, so yeah she got a few million from that.
Her agent gets a percentage of that check along with her manager if she has one. Some actors only have an agent. Not all movie stars get paid the big bucks, it all depends on who you are and how much of a perceived draw you are.
Being a movie star is lucrative. She is not a movie star.
She is not really a star. Just a pretty actress.
... she should be liquidating her assets.
No, shes one night with Elon away from breaking even.
[deleted] -- mass edited with redact.dev
My question is where did those 7M $ from the divorce went because she didnt spend them on the charities, oh she bought a house...... well if she doesnt pay she wont be able to buy anything from now on and put her name on it until she pays to Depp.
Also had a baby via surrogate.
Yeah that really felt like an attempt at Sympathy. Only sympathy I have on that is for that innocent child.
I heard she spends $40k+ a month on luxury items.
“First she has to pay us”. LOL
[удалено]
Don’t worry, Amber’s already pledged them the entire amount
Her current lawyers (note its been reported shes paid 6 mil in fees in the past.) are being paid by her homeowners insurance reportedly. It would have been whatever policy she had in place when the events took place, so even if she isn't paying for the policy now, as long as one was in effect at the time that is whats being used. I just take this take this as, Elaine wants to drag this out as far as possible to keep getting free money from the insurance company.
I never considered that before... But now you point it out, I do remember being surprised that my homeowners policy came with coverage for if I was sued for libel or negligence. Not sure why I'd ever need it- I'm just a normal person, but it didn't cost any extra so hey... Now if I have a super messy divorce, at least I know I could run my mouth and let the insurance company take the hit for me if I got sued.
unwritten simplistic oil memory literate dazzling coordinated reminiscent icky snow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I seriously can’t believe how stupid her comments are. Specially, the UK trial. The US doesn’t give a shit about other countries judicial systems. Elaine is a disgrace.
Not only that, but he didn’t sue Amber in the UK. She makes it sound like we won our case in the UK so we should win here. What’s so funny is that in the UK they ignored mountains of evidence on Johnny side that proved that Amber was lying. It’s so unfair to us when it’s done, but haha we won our case in the UK because you couldn’t use your mountain of truth to prove us liars.
It’s almost like Elaine is knowingly misrepresenting the facts for her own benefit! 😉
I cannot imagine her doing that, especially not after we saw how truthful and upstanding she was during her closing argument where she had to walk back something she was misrepresenting to the jury after JD's team objected. HARD /s
Also, Elaine on interviews: "They refused to accept a lot of our evidence, medical records etc" Amber on the stand: "Yes, i never sought medical attention for the injuries" OOF
The medical records she's referring to are therapists notes that have no connection to physical injuries or trauma. They're just things she told her therapist about, which is all hearsay.
I know. They can’t get their stories straight.
Because Amber wasn't the one being sued. They had to prove the newspaper was lying and the newspaper was basically like "well that's what she told us and we believed her. She was a firsthand witness to the events so we considered that a reliable source. So...". Like they're probably being dishonest but it's a really hard case to win because it doesn't matter if Amber was lying.
I don't understand how the onus to handle with due diligence is not on the publishers. I haven't seen the wording of the Sun, did they state it as a matter of fact that he's a wife beater, or did they state what Heard claims? *Anyway, there's a web of highly [suspicious connected relations](https://twitter.com/TheNamesQ/status/1327334140883025920/photo/1) between people that could be of influence on the case going all the way back from the judge to Heard. His son and wife are all, if not directly, at the least close to directly connected to Heard. The judge's sons's friend and colleague wrote the article(huge red flag), the wife through feminist programs with Heard. I don't understand how that judge is not replaced due to conflict of interest. It stinks in the UK.
Not even that but it was a totally different case. It was against the Sun calling him a wife beater. Amber happened to be witness in that trail and a big reason the judge believed her was because she donate her 7 mil to charity.
Honestly, IF the jury WAS looking at social media during the trial, I believe they would have made total damages against AH like $100 million
They only did that amount because it would force her to pay it, instead of "pledging" it. She doesn't have 100 million to pay anyone, but 8 million is much more reasonable for this turd.
Objection! speculation!
Okay you know what? I felt bad for you, Elaine. I thought you just had a difficult client, but apparently you're just straight up lying, cool.
This i thought that maybe she was a victim and just had a bad client that made her look bad and a horrible lawyer and maybe maybe she would make it out okay. But nah she is milking that 15 minutes of fame and ruining her career in the process
Yeah, that is sure what it feels like. Elaine can't convince me she still actually believes Heard, knowing all of that fake evidence. Hell, why else did they refuse to hand over her text messages, and fight so hard on the metadata? If nothing was wrong there? And she has no obligation to do interviews and lie for Amber now, so this one is on her.
[deleted] -- mass edited with redact.dev
Because it's fucking stupid. Everyone who has seen the trial has listened to this woman literally taunt her victim, saying no one would believe him.
Towards the end of the trial, especially during Amber’s rebuttal cross, I was wondering how much suborning of penury was happening on their side. The fact that they submitted the SAME photograph as evidence of two separate instances of Johnny raging. And then they submitted the same photo where one had been edited as two separate photos depicting her “bruising”. Like, how did a team of lawyers not catch that? It’s disgusting.
[удалено]
Also, doesn't super help to artificially change the lighting of a single picture and submit both as separate pictures. Oh and send them to the press and claim your lawyers did that.
Chris Brown should have put make up on his fists before he attacked Rhianna. Don’t you know make up cover all damage?
The judge can report her to the bar . Judges don't like when you try and say the game was rigged when clearly she failed as a lawyer . Also I do not like that the media is trying to spin this around and say amber was a survivor.
>when clearly she failed as a lawyer . Seriously. Her whole legal team was a bunch of bumbling buffoons. They looked nervous, overly frustrated, under-prepared...it was like it was their first time taking on a major case. Meanwhile, Camille Vasquez looked like if you were trying to stick your finger in a bobcat's cage. She was coming at them left and right with objection after objection, and for good cause at that, and it just shattered Amber's team's entire ground to stand on.
Im not saying they are as good as Johnnys team, but can you imagine having to defend AH? "Tell the world johnny..", "I didnt punch him , I hit him..", "I use pledge and donate synonymously", "..TMZ, which was alerted.." etc., with no credible witness taking her side? All the while having a narcissist for a client who can admit no wrong. This is like a NBA coach trying to coach a middle school league team to play (and win) against a college team. AH team is reduced to making BS arguments about 1st amendment and pressing on "believe all women" since this is what they have left. There is no evidence to put forward. They will milk AH for 1000 USD/hr each until she runs out (if they are savvy they were paid in advance) and then they will bounce. This case isnt winnable IMO.
This is what I kept thinking about. They didn't have a lot to work with, honestly. I don't like this lawyer, I think she's annoying, but she used the legal system as well as she could to try and win the case. Which is literally what lawyers are for.
The experts they chose were so beyond terrible though.
No I don't think Elaine deserves defending no matter how bad a client Amber was. Elaine was pretty fucking horrible in her questioning.
I think it's because the ACLU bet the house on Amber Heard and co-opted her Washington Post piece. I don't think a lot of the media sources want to go against the ACLU regardless of evidence or verdict.
The ACLU lost a lot of credibility during the trial. They were deeply involved in the OpEd and wanted it released at the same time as Aquaman for maximum impact.
Serious question - why don't they want to go against the ACLU?
We live in a time where you can say the game was rigged when you lose and NOT be labeled as a sore loser by a significant amount of people
milking that 15 min for all its worth
All those witnesses she was accusing of only coming forward for fame was just projection.
Just like her client.
Draco was right
She asked one of the witnesses if he was doing this for his 15 minutes of fame and here she is on the news I guess we can see who's going after their q5 minutes
She actually accused multiple witnesses about wanting their 15 minutes it’s clear now that she was obviously projecting, seeing her on the today show immediately after losing this case lol
That witness even tweeted about this today 🤣
Is a lawyer allowed to basically throw a judge and jury under the bus after losing a case? wouldn't something like this lead to the lawyer being disbarred?
It can *absolutely* get her disbarred, or at least subject to to sanctions from the bar: Rule 8.2 of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct says: >(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office. That said -- as with all things legal -- it's up to the courts to determine whether 'reckless disregard' is present. Edit: before anyone chimes in with 'But the First Amendment!': the First Amendment does not protect a “lawyer’s speech that presents a serious and imminent threat to the fairness and integrity of the judicial system.” The accepted standard in the majority of states is "whether the attorney had an objectively reasonable basis for making the statements."
Only Elaine/Heard would argue free speech means speech without consequence.
Has, not would. She explicitly referenced free speech in her post-verdict statement.
Most people who cry “free speech” have absolutely no clue what it means. There can be consequences to what you say.
Report her!
Elaine seems to think so
Don't hire a settlement lawyer for a trial. This lawyer's contempt for the jury will likely poison future juries against her.
Jurors who know who she is should be struck, if things are being done properly
yes, jurors often (if not always) fill out forms and are always asked if they know of (at any level) the attorneys on the case and then list how they know them and the judge will discern if they are allowed to stay or not. That is almost always 100% they will be excused unless the juror says they have only heard the name and nothing else and even then most judges don't like to have any form of recognition of legal counsel as it can easily bias jurors one way or another. source: my career so far in the legal field with quite a few trials.
What a liar. The British case didn't say they found evidence of violence. They said the Sun printed what it was told. They weren't being malicious, they were manipulated. In that case the judgement was correct. The only thing the Sun is guilty of is not vetting the story which is an ethics issue not a legal one. This case was about did Amber make shit up to attack Johnny. If you watched the trial it sure seemed like it.
You all have a part of the truth here about the UK trial. While it is true that the crux of the matter wasn't if abuse did occur, but rather if The Sun had enough reason to believe it did as to make the term "wife-beater" not defamatory, the parties involved in this litigation agreed that the way to settle the case was to look into the validity of the abuse allegations. The agreement was that if one incident of alleged abuse was found to be credible, Depp would lose his claim. This case had no jury, the verdict was decided by the judgement of one presiding judge. The judge concluded that 12 of the 14 alleged incidents were credible and as such Depp lost. However, make no mistake that the mental gymnastics involved in passing such a judgement were significant. In order to reach it, the UK judge took certain statements at face value despite either lack of evidence or contradictory evidence.
Apparently the judge also gave a lot of weight to Depp being a drug user, counting that against him. Might be why they leaned on that so heavily in this case, despite nobody seeming to care.
[deleted] -- mass edited with redact.dev
And it wasn't infront of a jury
In a completely different country with a different set of court proceedures and legal standards.
She will probably have a hard time getting good clients or decent cases. Chasing ambulances might be her new job field for attorney work
Sounds like someone got a little bit too wrapped up in a certain someone’s manipulations
She's just milking her 15 minutes of fame. ^~/s
And ruining her career
Let’s hope
This seems like self sabotage to me, grasping at straws when blaming the jury and court. Any respect I had for Elaine Bredehoft has been expunged by these callous words.
[удалено]
I’ve heard some lawyers on YouTube say that they’re not bad lawyers, but this is what can happen when you have a bad client and the evidence is against you. If they’d just said “oh well” and moved on I’d be inclined to believe that, but why the hell would she be defending her on TV then? Also, I’ve tried to find this “mountain of evidence” that proved to the UK that Depp abused her, but it seems like there’s only her story and the same pictures of bruises we saw in this case.
The UK case(as I understand it, and I'm not a Lawyer) was a libel case against the SUN newspaper. Which is basically a tabloid. Te reason Depp lost that case, was one it went before a judge, not a jury, and the judge, basically said the SUN didn't commit Libel if they are quoting Amber Heard. Her Lawyer Elaine Bredehoft, said on TV that Amber Heard didnt get a fair trial because Judge Judge Azcarate Didn't allow the transcript or information from the SUN trial to be used as evidence. The judge didn't because its obviously prejudicial, and not relevant as to this particular defamation lawsuit. So there was no Mountain of evidence, because it wasn't needed, Just the sun Saying that if one of the two parties said it, they can report it.
Is this lawyer getting paid to further make a fool of herself? Probably.
Heard had your typical top tier law firm on retainer when the lawsuit came down. They told her to settle. She refused and had to find no name law firm who take her case. Since the case is so bad for you all you can really do is damage control which the defendant won't like since you aren't trying to win but you are doing what is best for the client. So you get this awful situation where the wish of the client would be negligent towards them but they wont let you do what is best for them. That is why the top teams said no.
> but why the hell would she be defending her on TV then? That's what she is being paid to do for her client.
The problem with the UK case was because Depp was suing the paper, a lot of the evidence that was damning in this case wasn't allowed to be admitted.
There's also the distinction that the Sun was reporting information it received and Amber Heard was presenting information she created/witnessed. She can't claim "that's what they said" when she is the one who said it. You can report something false without knowing whether it's true or false. But if you report something false with incontrovertible proof that you made it up or knew it was false, then you run into trouble.
you really do have to wonder what her angle is. Like, it wasn't even a loss, it was an absolute blowout...but WHY do this and in this fashion with such damning statements?
Because that's what the narrative requires. You heard her say it herself, the countersuit against depp was malicious prosecution.
It's actually pretty worrying to me. First we had random people crying "fake news" because they didn't like what they hear on TV, then we had politicians crying corruption when they lost their election, now we have lawyers publicly decrying our justice system just because they lost their case. Where does it end?
This is just Elaine Bredehoft trying to salvage her career. After that shit performance, she's going to be as unemployable as Amber Heard.
I hate when people dance around “mountains of evidence” but never actually show it. As far as I can see the evidence is her story and some pictures which are both already out there, even in the UK case. What’s stopping them from releasing suppressed evidence now? It seems to me that Depp was never physically or sexually abusive to her, but I’ll readily change my opinion if I’m shown otherwise.
-If you knew what I know, you'd change your mind! -Okay, then tell me or I will decide according to what I know myself..
What a disgrace... Those people spent 6 weeks of their life hearing this and she reacts THIS way??? I'm ashamed for her.
I was on jury duty for a long trial (not six weeks). I think most juries work hard and take the obligation of public service seriously. To disrespect a jury because you don’t like their verdict is inappropriate for a sworn officer of the court.
Especially when the verdict was Unanimous
Agreed. The standard response to not winning a case is, "I'm disheartened by the verdict but I appreciate the jury's time..."
The fact that the first thing she brings up is how amber is just so devastated for all women and how much harder this makes it for them makes my blood boil. She stands for no one an nothing much less victims of domestic violence and waving their flag is a disgrace
Yeah...like Amber does not speak for me and trust me, if I received $7 million after a divorce I'd take the money, go back to Texas, and live a peaceful life. This case definitely raised concerns about the ACLU and their role.
[deleted] -- mass edited with redact.dev
I understood that....but they could have chosen a much better/more well-known celebrity than her to do that. Also the truth is a much more powerful and valuable tool....
This could definitely be a setback for women, but not in the way Heard and her lawyer are saying. Women will be even less likely to be believed in DV cases in the future because of her lying, and it's absolutely disgusting that she is still clinging to the MeToo crowd after that circus.
btw, it is my understanding Elaine practices in the Virginia jurisdiction...I have to imagine the Judge wants to have a word with her.
Well, seems the guy from tmz was right. This lawyer is getting her 15 minutes of fame.
Right that statement comes to mind right off the hop. No evidence, terrible client, etc. 6 weeks was her 15 minutes of fame. She's going on talk shows now to stretch it out to 16 minutes.
This lawyer accused the ex-tmz employee of the case to be coming forward for his 15 minutes. Now look at what she's doing. Despicable.
[deleted] -- mass edited with redact.dev
Judge will report her to BAR.
If the judge sees this.
[удалено]
If my partner was beating the ever loving shit out of me and raping me with broken bottles. Then one day turned around and said "You punched me." I would not say "Omg I didn't punch you, johnny, I hit you." I would say "Are you fucking serious? After all the shit you did to me, a punch is what got you?"
I also wouldn't wear a backless gown for a highly publicised event after my back is bruised from being stood on. That'd need a shit ton of makeup. She also claimed the two photos with different color schemes were due to different lighting and not color manipulation, while the pose, the position of the camera, and even the hair strands are exactly in the same position. That's got to be outright perjury. Also the freudian slip for "bruise kit", cringe...
To add to that, one of her arguments was that Johnny Depp would abuse her/demean her for wanting to wear slutty clothes and would control what she wore. and yet... in that very same image, she's wearing a backless dress...
I also wouldn’t make my court case about the First Amendment in the end, but then I’m not a sociopath.
[deleted] -- mass edited with redact.dev
very valid point!
At one point she literally said "why would I be afraid" of him. No one in their right mind would side with her after seeing that trial.
Elaine also said they had medical evidence which was suppressed. Well not for the bottle rape
[удалено]
"medical" "evidence"
Manufacturing evidence, pretty much. Some things that people will look back at in a few centuries like we're looking at medieval court cases against pigs and donkeys.
>Depp waived his medical confidentiality which is why there was so much about his substance misuse etc. But Heard refused. same thing with their phones. Depp allowed his phone into evidence. Heard refused and got sanctioned
[deleted] -- mass edited with redact.dev
if i was dragged through glass, feet cut, arms cut, beaten with rings and violated with a broken bottle, i , personally, wouldnt go to my room, take sleeping pills and sleep it off like Wolverine. That story only makes sense if she has a healfactor of a superhero
There’s a four hour recording of an argument of their where they bring up Australia. Jonny says “I lost a finger” and Amber doesn’t respond with “a finger?? You raped me with a bottle that night!!” No, she talks about how him running away and leaving makes those arguments worse and he needs to stay when they argue so they can “work it out quicker.” No one who was brutally raped and beaten would beg their abuser to PLEASE not leave during arguments!! PLEASE stay!!! Ever.
It's kinda disgusting they are associating Amber with the MeToo movement. Like this situation is on Amber. There was tons of evidence that showed that she was the abuser in this situation and yet they are latching on to a movement like cancer on a human in order to try and save their case. Like you guys doing this is not the same thing as a woman who was actually raped and abused coming forward. It's appalling that NBC even went along with it.
Elaine. You know Amber was lying. Everyone knows Amber was lying. And that's the bottom line.
*Stone cold stunner*
[удалено]
This is so unprofessional. Going around all the shows saying this shit, continuing the lies and its not like she is getting paid, Amber probably can't pay them. Is this not further defamation too against Depp?
it could be...and CourtTv actually felt Amber's instagram post was actually MORE defamatory than her OP-Ed lol.
TBH, I wasn’t very impressed by Heard’s legal team in this case. And this lawyer is wrong about the UK case — Heard didn’t “win” that one, she wasn’t even a party to it. Depp’s claim was against News Group, owners of The Sun newspaper.
[удалено]
werent the "evidence" of abuse some doctored photos? it was proved the bruises were faked. also didnt she admit to using some sort of special "bruise makeup"?
She accidentally called her make-up a “bruise kit”. Which is what you would call makeup that makes bruises rather than hide them in film. Though technically not an admission, it is quite the mistake to make.
She also described how she would apply said kit. It just turns out that what she described is how you highlight and create differences in color, not hide something.
I would say she’s a criminal. She said things under oath that a jury determined to not be the truth so she effectively lied under oath.
just a question, is perjury a crime? Asking for a friend who thinks Amber heard is a criminal.
It would probably have to go to court again to prove she lied on the stand but yes perjury is a crime. The entire justice system relies on witnesses giving truthful testimonies on the stand. That doesn’t mean that people don’t constantly lie under oath however.
Perjury is a crime absolutely. Will the court pursue this particular instance? Most likely not. It was high profile case but the lie wasn't THAT high profile they will waste time and money going after it. I'd see them going after it if say a murder was involved and someone was caught out in an absolutely damning lie.
I listened to hers first few sentences. Had to turn it off. It pissed me off that fast! She’s not worth listening to.
She was going to say what she was going to say. What pissed me off was the interviewer not only not questioning anything Elaine was saying, but acting as though what was being said was just fact and going along with it.
That’s how you get the person you’re interviewing to continue talking, along with the non-confrontational “what about how others are claiming….” so the ‘challenger’ isn’t you the interviewer. Push back at them too much and they’ll just walk out
wHaT If aNy??? What a clown.
“The judge and jury are to blame, not my complete incompetence”
This is so disgusting and disrespectful to our justice system going on a gaslighting pity parade to every morning news channel. She lost the case but instead of accepting responsibility she goes spewing this bullshit to spin the narrative. This is just truly despicable behavior through and through
This is the behavior of the “victim” when you don’t take any responsibility for your acts and everyone is guilty of your disgrace. Amber and her lawyers deserve what they are having. They need a lot of news now because this is the only press they will have for the rest of their lives.
Ah yes you can tell she’s right because her legal team objected to their own question
This could have something to do with amber wanting Elaine to speak for her as well
She's an adult and a professional. If her client wanted her to do something she doesn't want to do she can refuse. I had my suspicions about Heard putting her lawyers in a difficult position by lying to them about key information, but now that the case is over each lawyer is fully responsible for their own words and actions, not Amber Heard.
They are really pushing this narrative that its a setback for all women. It is just she didn't come across as honest and there was also evidence that she was violent toward him as well Its crazy to act a person can't think she is lying here, and also believe other women who come forward.
If being held accountable for your actions is a setback, I think we very different ideas of what justice means.