Why Didn't Johnny Depp's Lawyers Play Amber Heard's Testimony in Closing Arguments?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ค. 2022
- A Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial watcher asked why Johnny Depp's lawyers didn't play Amber Heard's testimony in closing arguments. Specially the part where she allegedly admitted to writing the op-ed because Depp is a
'powerful man.'
#JohnnyDepp #AmberHeard #LawAndCrime
Listen to Law&Crime's Sidebar Podcast on Apple & Spotify:
Apple: apple.co/3wMgRgB
Spotify: spoti.fi/3wITe7b
Written Coverage & Analysis of Johnny Depp & Amber Heard Trial:
lawandcrime.com/?s=Johnny+Depp
lawandcrime.com/?s=Amber+Heard
Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter! bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletter
Watch Law&Crime Network NOW on TH-camTV!
tv.th-cam.com/users/welcome?...
OTHER WAYS TO WATCH LAW&CRIME NETWORK IN YOUR AREA:
lawandcrime.com/where-to-watch/
READ MORE GREAT ARTICLES FROM LAW&CRIME NETWORK HERE:
lawandcrime.com
LAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: / lawandcrime
Twitter: / lawcrimenetwork
Facebook: / lawandcrime
Twitch: / lawandcrimenetwork
TikTok: / lawandcrime
LAW&CRIME NETWORK PODCASTS: lawandcrime.com/podcasts/
SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF LAW&CRIME NETWORK TH-cam CHANNELS:
Main Channel: / @lawandcrime
Channel B: / @lawandcrimeshorts
Channel C: / @lawandcrimetrials
Channel D / @lawandcrimebodycam - บันเทิง
I'm shocked after watching this whole trial. I never realised that people would actually commit such blatant perjury in a court of law under oath. It opened my eyes.
Don't Police do this everyday?
I was very shocked as well. I'm from Germany and here you are in trouble if someone just smell a chance for perjury.
I've been watching this mess for years. When they got married I thought "good luck Johnny you fell for it". She oozes narcissism and self entitlement
@The Stranger Hmm, an absolute response to a rhetorical question indicates a lack of critical thinking on this matter. Do you want to try again?
@@yegmeshjwp evidence?
After the case is closed, the other companies are gonna be begging and apologizing to Depp. Mad respect to Dior for sticking with him through the difficult times
Yeah, Dior really value their ambassadors like actual family.
I wish I have enough money to buy Dior man so much
That's because Dior is a French company. If it was located in the U.S, where cancel culture is most prevalent, they too would have dropped him in a hot second. I really hope this case shined a light on the issue with dropping someone over a mere allegation.
@Bzake oh u mean sausage 😂
@M B that is interesting
The judge ruled no testamony or depositions could be played in closing. If you watched your own stream after the parties went home on Thursday you would've seen them discussing jury instructions, and at the end they discussed what types of evidence they could play in closing. They could play anything entered into evidence, excluding testamony or deposition (as it's not technically evidence), the jury have to rely on their memory and notes for them.
👏👏👏
Yes I heard that to
But why?
"would of". What kind of English is this? Sorry I couldn't help but ask this silly question. I wonder if what we were taught in our grammar classes have been changed recently.
@@docjackal8511 Stop whining rat for all you know its not even his native language.
Amber staring at the jury is in fact, "authentic". It is authentically creepy and manipulative.
Very intimidating looks even when AH is being asked a question she would look at the jury as they’re the ones asking.
Quite right.
I’m sorry, what?! Were we watching the same closing arguments? Elaine misstated evidence and rambled all over the place. It was embarrassing to watch.
Exactly
Exactly… and Elaine had to back track on most if not all of the objections in closing…. This is more media BS!
Exactly. Ben won the objections ffs that’s why she had to backtrack.
@@kataggie1000 Right! I don’t know what they were watching but it was a mess!
We were watching a different trial - totally valid objections, none were overruled.
It’s true, objections during close is bad form - but misstating evidence and legal aspects is absolutely bad form! Yeah, they’re uncommon in close because they shouldn’t be necessary.
In fact, they only started objecting after the 4th or 5th misstatement…when it looked like Amber’s team was continuing this route. They should have spoken up sooner, unfortunately.
She admitted in her testimony to the court she wrote the op Ed piece to take power from the powerful person like JD. She openly committed perjury by lying on the previous occasion.
I couldn’t believe when she was asked if she was not afraid of “the monster” if he found out she was taking photos of him sleeping.. her response was “why would I be”?…. I mean wtf in her next breath she said she barely survived the 5 years…… surely the jury will see through this BS..
If he was such an abuser, Amber sure didn’t act afraid of him when he was slamming the kitchen cabinet doors. She calmly asks him “What’s a matter, Johnny?” A women being hit by a man would run away and hide or be very apologetic. She did neither!
Exactly!
And especially wouldn't risk being caught recording him, that would further provoke the "monster" no
If he hit her for laughing at a tattoo, he would have definitely hit her for filming him slamming cabinet doors!!
If she losers, wonder what she’ll do for revenge?
I bet he regrets marrying that psycho b***h!
She clearly said "that's his power and THAT'S why I wrote the op ed". She's devious and takes absolutely no responsibility for being toxic. Her lies are vile and vulgar!! She harms true DV survivors.
So she just wanted to take down a powerful man. Sounds like a gender battle.
@@dellchica2373 I honestly think she is power hungry and doesn't like men but sees them as something convenient to climb the power ladder. The way she spoke to and about him just signals hatred for men. She showed absolute disgust and repulsion towards him. If she did indeed lure him due to him having leverage in the industry having intercourse with him would've been very revolting to her.
Good point, another thing that shows it was directed at him
That is correct
true i agree spot on mate
Exactly! She, AH turned to face the jurors and told them right in their faces that "yes, I wrote the op-ed and yes it was about Johnny "
She Adolf Hitler?
People keep saying this, but she didn't say that it was about him. And also, has any of you read the article? It's really short, i recomend you to do that so we all know what the jurors actually have to decide
@@punpunim actually she did say she wrote it about him. She said "that's his power and THAT'S why I wrote the op ed".
@@punpunim As your YT name suggests, you need a good sleep or you have no choice but to wake up!
And that she did it to destroy his support system.
This trial has been the most amazing insightful expose into the mind of a sociopath narcissist broadcasted Live on TV ever. She is absolutely done for and looks like JD will get the justice.
I love your summary 👍🏽🙌🙌🙌
Also you are absolutelyright by her conduct I would definitely assume she is a sociopath narcissist, how come none of the psychologists have picked up on it yet but we all see?? She acts like she has no soul and is a delusional -pathological lier…
@@caliden3785 "old washed up actor" Ambers PR team working overtime i see...
@@caliden3785 You're going to just conveniently ignore that he actually got clean during their relationship and the fact that Heard is STILL on drugs today, with doing cocaine and drinking about two whole bottles' worth of wine a day.
Also: can you give any definitive proof that Depp actually did anything abusive?
@@caliden3785 one word. Ratio.
I remember the judge saying they were not allowed to play videos of any testimonies on closing.
They could have just quoted her for admitting it.
Maybe not necessary but it would have been good to remind the jury of it
AH admitted at court she doesn't consider herself a victim and that she wrote the op ed about johnny Depp. That's enough for me to understand her evil nature and her desire to harm, hurt and destroy JD. The metafore of the Titanic - Johnny Depp - clashing agaist her - the iceberg -, and therefore sinking portrays her actual intentions. I hope the jury is able to see that!
Ah yes that wonderful night when men and children went swimmimg in the North Atlantic so most women can hop on life rafts /s
Me to!!!!! I don’t see how the jury could come to any other conclusion. But I’ve seen it with OJ and Casey Anthony so I am praying they get it right
As I see it, the jury should be able to see that since both her testimony and op-ed mention "powerful man". I think this is the reason the lawyers changed the jury instruction as for them to be able to consider the op-ed as a whole if I remember correctly. The testimony and the highlighted paragraph in the closing arguments (which I believe was intentional for the jury to make the connection), taken together, should show the actual malice and the fact that she actually did something for his own "total global humiliation" if you consider the subject matter of the op-ed.
Testimony - "I know how many people will come out and say whatever for him. That's his power. That's why I wrote the op-ed. I was speaking to that phenomenon, (about) how many people will come out in support of him and will fall to his power. He is a very powerful man and people love currying favor with powerful men."
Op-ed - “Imagine a powerful man as a ship, like the Titanic. That ship is a huge enterprise. When it strikes an iceberg, there are a lot of people on board desperate to patch up holes - not because they believe in or even care about the ship, but because their own fates depend on the enterprise.”
But I also believe that she failed to understand that his power is not necessarily about the people around him who support him but about the strangers who love him and admire him, not only his hardcore fans.
Yup that's what she said
@@laracroft801 Very well said.
Well...she said it loud and clear and no one has forgotten it. She also said she was not a victim and never claimed to be. I remember all of it. I'm sure the jury does too.
Is Dina for real? Has she been following the trial? Elaine was grossly mistaking the facts in evidence. She was also mistating the law. She would not have changed her tune if the judge had found in her favor. Very disappointed in this expert's reviews.
Agree
Experts?! I doubt
Elaine has been rude and hasn’t done a good job, I think because it must be hard defending the guilty party
Because the judge specifically stated that testimony either in person or by deposition could not be played in closing arguments and instead stated only audio & video that could be played was those items entered into evidence… this was stated when Camille asked the judge about closing arguments (see video) …. why doesn’t these “professionals” know this??????
The judge instructed them not to 'quote' or 'directly show' the transcript of testimonies to the jury, however, they were allowed to refer to testimonies, which they did. But in this particular issue, they did not.
That’s not what the title of this video asked nor the question of the reporter; instead it specifically states why didn’t they PLAY AH’s testimony during closing arguments…. That is what my response was to
They must have missed thohse instructions so they were unaware.
Because they don't stay in there to watch the whole thing. Cameras set up, they watch a little here and there then proceed to answer questions that they don't fully know the answers to
Agreed
After the trial, they said they can only play what is already in evidence. Testimony doesn't count as evidence. I'm not sure if they can go into specifics on what someone said in testimony during closing remarks
This is true. Simple as that.
This was my understanding too, although I never understood why it was that way.
@@Mathemoto teeth se. dtfcc
Ye your right I see and heard the judge say they couldn’t play recording of what she said only what was in evidence, butt they could of mentioned it! Just not play the recording, I was surprised they didn’t mention this!
Yes they can go into specifics of testimony given during the trial. They can refer to the court transcripts. They have done it many times.
Anyone else thinks it's ridiculous how AH can just openly commit perjuries one by one without any consequences?? Why even have rules if no one's gonna uphold them...
She's above the law. Perjury smerjury. Technicality
It’s still early and she may even face jail time. Fabricating evidence, lying under oath… she’s finished.
Because she’s Not poor nor a minority
@@jimmyjones3884 She did lie. She lied so many times, I am not going to waste my own time listing all of them. You can go rewatch trial videos. She lied that she wasn't the source for the video given to TMZ and letting TMZ know which side of her face to take pictures of when she filed for divorce and that she would even be there filing. By law TMZ would have had to wait more than 15 minutes to post it if it were not from the source. She's the source, because she filmed him...her video shows she was the one filming him. She lied that Johnny hit her, clearly the things she taped showed a man using restraint and fleeing from her instead of hitting her. She lied that the a trailer was trashed when only one light fixture was broken. Maybe she broke it, was there a witness? She turned in doctored photographs to her lawyers (that was proven). Remember the TMZ photos, photos the next day showed no bruises on her face. She filed for divorce because he told her he was going to, got to beat him to the punch (no pun intended). Her O-Ped that she admitted she wrote and admitted that she wrote it because Johnny was a powerful man show "malice and fore thought". If you want to believe her, go marry her, maybe she can hit and punch you too, but you better have lots of money or she won't be going after you, ask Elon Musk. I once knew someone just like her. It took time for me to realize she was narcissistic. Amber Heard exhibited all the qualities Dr. Curry attributed to her.
@@jimmyjones3884 "she never lied" really??? How about taking donate and pledge as synonyms? It's ridiculous, people will talk about it for years.
OBVIOUSLY I watched a DIFFERENT TRIAL than these experts‼️‼️ to say that Elaine did a good closing argument is laughable!
Camille did a brilliant job in closing arguments.
Agreed. Camille is a total class act. AH belongs in prison.
@@joannadechenne6368 SHE IS A PURE LIER 😡
Men are Victims, too, and they need to be believed! JOHNNY is giving Men Strength to come forward, and get their Justice, too.
Yes, she clearly stated she wrote it because of Johnny's POWER not because of her surviving SA or DV. She slipped for sure.
Even if he doesn't win, he wins. We the public have seen Amber for who she is. A complete sociopath. How dare she play on the emotions of all those who have legitimately been victimized. So sad.
Not if he has to pay $100 million.
Amber Never-to-be-Heard from again😂😂😂
Psychopath
@Bobbi Cat not to mention JD career will be over regardless because then that would mean he couldn't prove his innocence against AH/the allegations. It would be twice now that he had lost and been claimed to be a "wife beater". No company, no matter how much the fans/people see the truth won't want to work with him again after that.
He needs to win because the world needs to understand that men are victims of domestic violence as well.
If he loses this stifles men all over the world! Men would be walking on egg shells, not getting angry when they are insulted, assaulted, harassed or provoked because her win would send a clear signal that men that get angry are abusers even when it's the woman doing the abusimg
The judge said they cant play anything from the trial to the jury so thats probably why they didnt play any of the testimony
Elaine was testifying and misrepresenting the facts, grossly, so it was important for them to object. I thought they even did it respectfully by requesting a sidebar.
Exactly! After one of the sidebars, Elaine had to come back and clarify to the jury that she gave her opinion in the previous statement after she stated them as facts.
Wholly concur. Not sure what closing L&C was actually watching, but mis-statements of the legal standard and misrepresentations of testimony can and should be objected to on the spot.
At this point I don't see how AH could get away with this, having all facts and evidences against her, all neutral witnesses testifying pro JD, her selfcontradicting testimonies, ridiculous witnesses from AH part, and falsified documents proven that her team ( or herself ) provided. But unfortunately she was right on one thing when she said : tell the world that JD, a man is a victim of dv and see who will believe you and side with you. And that is the point of this whole trial. As JD defense said just try to switch the genders.
Because she a woman 😂
Why do you think only 7% of prison inmates are women? Hint: men get 63% longer sentences for the same crimes and have a 2 or 3 times higher incarcaration rate to begin with
ALL her OWN RECORDINGS are POINTING at her.
Until you see theraonos chick who also is a lying crazy ...she got away with her crap....At this point in the world what should happen is not what is happening...
@@leanneporter2661 Holmes is an snakeoil sellswoman, a thief. AH is a proven abuser. She is the female Henry.
Yes she slipped up and confessed that Johnny is a powerful man, that’s why she wrote it. She confirmed what we knew all along. It was obviously directly about him.
And about taking him down. But why???
Indirectly?? She wrote it with malice and forethought, wanting more money!!!
it was directly about him, just without naming him.
@@sduramom yes
@@stummkind thank you for your correction
More shocking to me is learning the FACT that, while witnesses are not allowed to lie under penalty of perjury, Lawyers are allowed to LIE even in closing & rebuttal. Lawyers can make statements that they know are false!
Well said and so true
Its not considered evidence what they say… especially if it is something about an evidence. They make their arguments and its up to the jury to decide
You're right, that is amazing, and scary!
@@herintontomasirodrigues2346 Do juries realise that Lawyers' statements have no evidentiary value?
Why ARE Lawyers allowed to state what is only an opinion on evidence as if it was flat fact?
In some jury cases in England, the Judge when summing up the main points of evidence can direct the jury's attention to the weight of evidence and suggest which decision is appropriate. The jury need not follow the suggestion. In some cases the Judge can direct the jury WHICH decision to return, the jury usually follows the judge's direction.
Is that a thing in American Courts, a judge's hopefully less biased summing up of evidence &/or directing the jury?
@@judewarner1536 idk man, it goes out of my field of expertise, but the jury is oriented to not face the closing arguments as an evidence by the judge, Camille even tried to get testimonies into closing arguments but the judge overruled
Everyone loves the luxury life the problems most people have about buying luxuries are having enough money to buy one, but that won't matter if you have a stable financial life.
In few years to come people will be kicking themselves in regrets if they miss this opportunity of buying and Investing in cryptocurrencies.
Success depends on the actions or steps you take to achieve it. Show me a man without investment and I’ll tell you how long it takes to go bankrupt. Investing creates a safe heaven for the future.
I agree with you, I had a senior colleague at work who lived well but never had an investment, unfortunately his job ended so he went from living well to surviving with his family.
Investing is a primary decision to be made for the future. If you see this and you don’t have an investment, plan to have one, so you don’t end up like my main colleague at work.
It made perfect sense, as he said for an investment, the person has to consider the rate of profit versus the rate of loss at least 2% minimum risk and also experience for you to guide and help them.
I believe the jury picked up on her slip, I think at this point they’ve already proved the op-ed was about the Johnny
But this is the whole Crux of the defamation trial by Johnny Depp. And his lawyers are not using that confession that she wrote the op-ed and targeted Johnny in their closing statement?
Jonny and his team were focused on clearing his name not getting money
Yeah but it would be so great to find her guilty. I will literally have to chill some champagne
I have so much respect for Dior, they stood by him, I wish my friends support me this way
The gross misrepresentation of what malice in this context means by the defence team was just so wrong and should have been picked up on big time
I remember the jury instructions included the words by implication. I think anyone who bothered to read it would infer she was talking about JD. Yss, she was a working actress, but largely unknown outside the industry, except for her connection to Depp. She would not have been sought out if it wasn't for her accusation against a her famous ex. She's delusional.
Elaine’s trivialising of the definition of malice was clearly detracting from the legal definition of malice. The evidence overwhelmingly points to malice in Amber Heard’s publication of the op-ed in the Washington Post.
So many of her lies mismatched ..If the jury can't see through that!!everyone will lose hope in justice system
The difference between her smirking and smiling and him smirking and smiling is that she said she wasn’t and it was another obvious attempt at manipulating and gaslighting the jury. It goes to her credibility and character and at that point, her credibility had pretty much disintegrated and she had shown herself to be not just of very menacing character but duplicitous and sociopathic.
Also, Depps attorneys were very emotional at the end. Who tf was that person watching? Both of them choked up and were visibly attempting to hold back emotion. 😑 Some people are so dense.
Lol well said!
Perfect description of both her and her lawyers.
game over Amber
She said it right at the end and it was very clear what she said. Had his team bought it up it would have given Elaine or Rottenborn a chance to say something like she didn't mean it that way. Whereas if Camille hadn't mentioned it they can't randomly justify why she said what she said.
That's the answer! Thank you...
Exactly so! It was a tactic by Johnny's team to not mention it again to not give Heard's lawyers the opportunity to argue it but to allow the truth of it in its clearest form, stated by Heard herself to be remembered by the jury.
I think that's exactly right. I can't remember who said it, but there's a famous saying: "don't correct an enemy when they've made a mistake"
Also they trying to prove she lies about everything so they can’t randomly say but believe this one thing
If the jurors we're paying close attention to her testimony, then they know. The lawyers didn't need to reiterate. Justice for Johnny Depp ❤️
The judge had said they couldn't use any testimony but they could use evidence that was submitted during the trial. Which was strange to me but probably thats how they do it in Virginia.
The fact that she can appeal this case is horrifying! She's the crazy psycho ex that will stalk Johnny forever! Like a scary movie!!!!!!
It’s clarified after the rebuttal. The judge said a witness’s testimony is not evidence, they can only present evidences such as audio/ pics/ videos during the closing.
Camille asked the judge if she could play clips from the testimonies. The judge refused and said only videos and photos in evidence could be used in the closing statements.
I thought this confession by Ms Heard was what Ms Vasquez was asking the judge if she could use on Thursday after the jury left.
She certainly has the right name....misheard....it fits her testimony very aptly
Elaine made so many blunders and this woman thinks she did a good job 🤦🏻♀️. Honestly, their whole team was a continuous train of blunders. Saying “amica” cream 50 times, entering a duplicate picture into evidence for different “incidents”, forgetting their own questions, objecting to their own questions, asking questions they don’t already know answers to, playing depositions that directly contradicted their client’s stories, threatening the police officers with disciplinary action over their testimony, being overly aggressive making them unlikable and bringing that cast whacky “experts”. Shall I go on? Oh and I forgot, she kept repeatedly asking about the one million alpacas 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
Amber said during her rebuttal that people were mocking her testimony. Has she been on social media? I thought she's not allowed to do so.
She or her legal team were definititely on social media, anything that was negatively commented on was corrected the next day
Only the jury are not allowed on social medial or to read/research anything about the trial before the trial is over.
Exactly. Probably was getting updates from her friend that was banned from the Court room in week 1. Why didn't anyone else point it out? However, I'm glad that CV did bring in up in her redirect!
They didnt play it because the judge only allowed already submitted evidence to be presented in closing🤦♀️
They're not allowed to play testimonies during closing. They can only show the jury anything that is in evidence.
it's in the transcript, the jury has that. At least one of them will remember this testimony and point it out in the transcript
@@sduramom I believe they mentioned her lies briefly
@@darknight264441that sucks, if they only mentioned it briefly, but if they dig into the transcript they'll see all of her contradictory statements and also see all of her BFFs are no longer friends.🤞🤞🤞🤞
For sure they missed the fact that Amber Heard said: " That is the reason I wrote the OpEd" Am sure the Jury "heard" those words ! I, a mere spectator sure did.
my jaw dropped when she said that
Yeah she said it. Hope the jury remember it.
Just ... Team Johnny for ever 💪💪💪❤️❤️❤️
Because they couldn't bring in any depositions or testimony Camille Vasquez tried they could only use audio or what was evidence
Correct. I believe they could have read the testimony though which would have been less effective, although still powerful.
Justice Johnny Depp💖
No, they objected to her because she misrepresented the evidence and misstated the facts. Period. She wasn’t doing great at all. She sucked.
I felt sorry for Elaine; she looked burnt out. She may have felt the burden of her obligations as a lead lawyer to the scheming and manipulative client and lost her focus somewhat. With no evidence to corroborate AH's claims, what else was she expected to do. She took on a very tough and challenging task defending someone with a BPD and HPD. May she recover from this experience and pick up her practice to do better in future.
@@cathflorence761 I felt sorry for her at first but now that she’s running around doing interviews repeating Amber’s lies on mainstream media channels, I don’t feel sorry for her anymore. She is making excuses and blaming everyone else but Amber for their loss. She is lying and making stuff up to create those excuses. Also, she reinforced Ambers perjury by committing perjury herself during closing arguments regarding how Amber was paying for her legal fees when she knew the source of that payment. I don’t feel sorry at all for her. She is a scam artist just as much as Amber is and she shouldn’t be given any concessions.
I don't think Johnny's team objecting a lot made them look desperate or unprofessional at all. In fact, it made them look fierce, defending their client with teeth and nails. The ones who looked like items on sale from the Dollar Store were Amber's lawyers
That first question, I have been wondering the same thing!
Good afternoon everyone
Five years from now, nobody will remember Amber Heard. Ten years from now, everyone will still know Johnny Depp.
That's all
10 years from now Depp will still be rich while Heard will ask poeple for money at the gas station,aint that awesome?
You copied this 😂😂😂😂😂
@@tomdavies6502 😂😂😂ya bro you are a bad boy 😏😏😏😏you noticed it aaah BUT MY LAST COMMENT I GOT 5.6K LIKE ❤️❤️❤️❤️
@@alpe6228 😂😂😂😂😂YA SHE WILL BE BEGGING AT GAS STATION
@@masameer1177 don't try kid a kidder bro hahaha. I've done the same hahahaha hahahah
Because they can't play testimony! They can however repeat it. Idk why they didn't do that! I still think Johnny will win 🙂
I was wondering the very same thing!!
"Defication & Defimation! " !!!?
Good thing she admitted it in front on the jury! The tactic worked !
She can do nothing but deny everything, what else can she do other than admit the obvious which will result in her admitting she is a liar.
It’s up to the jury to decide
Thank. You JD. Jay went home today
Go Johnny Go Go, Go Johnny Go Go!!!!! 🙏👊
Justice for Johnny 💪
Wow who will wind...
How could two Media professionals ask this Q. about replaying testimony and one of them not know the answer.
I really love the watching and following this trial. I hope Johnny Depp wins.
I don't think they watch the trial at all. saying Ben lost his objections is incorrect. Elaine had to change what she was saying each time. Starting from the first one where she had to admit she is the one that thought Waldman had planted things in the witnesses minds. Amber's team had their objection over ruled. we know because he shouted it out instead of approaching the bench like Ben did.
Justice prevail!
♥️💙♥️🙏🏼
I was wondering this myself.
You don't have to do that if you're asking the question so is the jury
Sometimes pushing a point that already been made can overwhelm a Jury
Why didn’t they play the section when AH stated that she has NEVER hit JD followed by the section where she admits to hitting him and the audio’s where she also admits it.
Love hearing this guy read people’s usernames lol. “Stressed Potato asked..” 😂
So is jury going to ever hear that AH did not turn over requested emails and all txts
Man. If they covered the G. Maxwell case like this, we'd be afew steps closer to stopping human trafficking.
Unfortunately the Maxwell case is federal, so won’t be televised to analyse in the first place.
I just hope one or more of the jurors remember her admitting it and bring it up to the others!
when is this going to be over
Huge slip up.
You have a great point.
They objected so much during Heards sides closing because of misstatements. And they were won which is why Elaine had to backtrack and fix what she said. It was done several times. And they were right to do it.
Thsi whole trial seems more like a game within the court system as opposed to revealing the truth and showing evidence. For instance, the audio that has Amber ADMITTING to chopping his finger off is conveniently left out. I am really discouraged in the court system. I already was before - but this just solidifies my feelings that court is a game within the legal system.
I agree that it should have been allowed into evidence. However, the reason is that there were other people on the recording. Also, I believe his body guard who has passed away was one of those people.
@@vickidouglas5736 I guess I don’t understand why the other voices matter - they could have isolated it and even played only her part - but truly it shouldn’t matter how many voices are on there. They played videos with multiple people and voices
@@lorae7 the audio/videos I heard, the only voices were JD and amber. (And if two ppl are talking at the same time, I imagine that they can't "edit out" one or more voices without inauthenticating the audio)
@@sp3lly the audio where she admits to chopping his finger off is pretty clear - I don’t think there are others talking over her. There are videos of multiple people and audio from the body cams of the cops that were shown - regardless - the evidence is clear evidence that shows she did it and seems just a game to keep it out
Lying under oath again and again and getting caught isn't a slip-up. It's inevitable.
It was hilarious when Amber tried telling Camille about missing Metadata on the identical spilt wine pics,
What? Elaine did a good job? Omg. 🤦♀️ Sure, if an erratic rant qualifies as a good job, then Elaine was awesome. 🤔🙄 Also, Rottenborn objected during Ben Chew's time. So it's okay for Rottenborn to object (and lose that objection), but not okay for Camille and Ben to object (and win their objections)? Um...okay. 😳😒
Camille killed it. Ben did pretty good as well. Rottenborn did well until you fact check him. Elaine needs to stick to settlements, behind the scenes law, no more public trials.
Camille actually asked the judge about it but the judge didn’t allow any video of testimonies to be played. They can read their testimonies but not play it.
But she didn't quote the testimony either
@@SetASpark yeah I think they could have made that point a lot stronger in the closing arguments. The only alternative, I guess, is that they want the jury themselves to interpret Amber's words. To me they were like the smoking gun of all the testimony.
It is very obvious why they didn't play that.
They want the jury to remember it without all the lawyering.
You see Amber has an excuse for EVERYTHING and she is unashamed to reverse her answers with PHD level double speak.
Rottenborne has no scruples and would explain it away.
By not addressing it they leave it to the jury to decide the importance of her slip up and her clear admission (twice) in that emotional utterance. It was quite damning and it wasn't necessary for Johnny's team to highlight it,rather it was more important for Amber's lawyers to clean it up,but they didn't.
Why are they inside using a green screen of some random brick building for the background edit? Lol
I was wondering the same thing. Heard's slip up on the last day of her rebuttal testimony where she said that's why she wrote the article, basically to challenge & attempt to bring down the great ship that is johnny's power & influence. She said it so clearly. They really should have replayed it in closing arguements.
I see nothing for Amber lawyers to prove wrong in Jonny Depp Testimony.
Ben Chew did mention about AH’s acceptance of OpEd being partly about JD in his closing statement
I was thinking the same too!
Camille asked if she could play testimony on Friday. Judge Azcarate told her it is not considered evidence. Trust, Camille thought about it.
I've noticed a few analysts often miss details like this lol.
But they could have quoted it…like verbally
Camille should have just challenged her there on the spot after AH said that she herself wrote the Op Ed. Even MORE than that was the tone and angry manner AH was speaking about writing it could have been used to show she is angered by Depp and indeed wrote it with malicious intent.
Because the only videos that could be played during closing were those admitted into evidence, as discussed with the judge on Thursday afternoon
They could have just quoted her for admitting it.
Maybe not necessary but it would have been good to remind the jury of it
The Jury heard it!
I was thinking the same.
Johnny Depp has won in the court of public opinion. That’s all that matters. The truth is finally out.
I wish Camille had repeated Ambers verbal confession in her closing statement for good measure, it's been bugging me that she didn't! Johnnys team did a fantastic job representing him 👍
she mentiomed it at the end
@@AL-PAKA Thank you, I must have missed it 👍
I had the same thought!
They weren’t able to replay any testimony