Johnny Depp and Amber Heard #23

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
What happened to Amber Heard's doctor?

You remember the one....

She got back from Austrailia and went to see a doctor in Beverly Hills....

I can't remember the name.... (it being at least 15 years since she testified after the break in the trial).... was it Hughes?
No....
It was something like that....
But he was definitely in Beverly Hills.....

Hmmmm.....
 
wibble said:
What happened to Amber Heard's doctor?

You remember the one....

She got back from Austrailia and went to see a doctor in Beverly Hills....

I can't remember the name.... (it being at least 15 years since she testified after the break in the trial).... was it Hughes?
No....
It was something like that....
But he was definitely in Beverly Hills.....

Hmmmm.....
Click to expand...

Hugh, Pugh, Barleymcchew? Gimme more to go on than that for I am very quietly watching traction occur
for the baldrick meme, I was naughty, it's slow but sure, say no more, say no more. how quick do you think the turdle bots take to pick up hashtagfartlow elsewhere? I'm on an hour since posting with 1.9k views and a few shares 😇 edit: 2.1k!

download.jpg
 
Last edited:
mollyann said:
He’s a bit of a prick loved they wouldn’t let him in court that day 😊
Click to expand...

DUI Guy is creepy. That Runkle guy from law tube said there was a lot more to DUI being refused entry to court, meaning DUI had been getting up to some shady tit and I don’t mean pulling faces in court. He also tried to cut into the line outside the courthouse. There’s a lot more to why those law tube people dropped him than just pulling faces in court. Runkle didn’t wanna go into detail on a live stream when asked, but you could tell he was really angry at DUI for something he’d done, that he witnessed.

 
Last edited:
Tea&Toast said:
DUI Guy is creepy. That Runkle guy from law tube said there was a lot more to DUI being refused entry to court, meaning DUI had been getting up to some shady tit and I don’t mean pulling faces in court. He also tried to cut into the line outside the courthouse. There’s a lot more to why those law tube people dropped him than just pulling faces in court. Runkle didn’t wanna go into detail on a live stream when asked, but you could tell he was really angry at DUI for something he’d done, that he witnessed.

Click to expand...

But Runkle is just making more drama, telling people not to have opinions is just rude.
 
Dotty Merton said:
Hugh, Pugh, Barleymcchew?
Click to expand...
I can't find it.....
I've been back through threads 6.7 and 8....
I remember typing it....
Maybe I googled it....
I'm not ringing up GCHQ to find out....
They'll only throw my Harry Styles obsession in my face....
Again....

btw...

The Podesta emails are released in March 2016.
Pizzagate gets underway shortly after that when Assange hints at the FBI codes for child sex offences - pizza, chicken, etc.
The Comet Ping-Ping shooting happens in Dec 2016 - when Edgar Maddison fires three shoots, and hits nothing, but supposedly destroys a laptop in another room through a locked door.

I only mention it because when Johnnie explains the finger incident in the rebuttal he has a caution and a confusion that he doesn't have in the direct or the deposition.... obviously we don't have video of the London trial.
 
wibble said:
I can't find it.....
I've been back through threads 6.7 and 8....
I remember typing it....
Maybe I googled it....
I'm not ringing up GCHQ to find out....
They'll only throw my Harry Styles obsession in my face....
Again....

btw...

The Podesta emails are released in March 2016.
Pizzagate gets underway shortly after that when Assange hints at the FBI codes for child sex offences - pizza, chicken, etc.
The Comet Ping-Ping shooting happens in Dec 2016 - when Edgar Maddison fires three shoots, and hits nothing, but supposedly destroys a laptop in another room through a locked door.

I only mention it because when Johnnie explains the finger incident in the rebuttal he has a caution and a confusion that he doesn't have in the direct or the deposition.... obviously we don't have video of the London trial.
Click to expand...

Not Harry again Wibs? How many posters on your bedroom wall this time? :ROFLMAO:

Marina emailed podesta, what was she up to?!

74141514.jpg
 
Tea&Toast said:
DUI Guy is creepy. That Runkle guy from law tube said there was a lot more to DUI being refused entry to court, meaning DUI had been getting up to some shady tit and I don’t mean pulling faces in court. He also tried to cut into the line outside the courthouse. There’s a lot more to why those law tube people dropped him than just pulling faces in court. Runkle didn’t wanna go into detail on a live stream when asked, but you could tell he was really angry at DUI for something he’d done, that he witnessed.

Click to expand...

It's no secret.

DUI Guy gave details of an invoice from Gordon Rees Scully and Mansukhani, that he has overseen on a laptop in court, on his podcast.
That's it....
That's the story.
 
wibble said:
It's no secret.

DUI Guy gave details of an invoice from Gordon Rees Scully and Mansukhani, that he has overseen on a laptop in court, on his podcast.
That's it....
That's the story.
Click to expand...
I can see why he thinks he's found a USP for his 'brand' - but creepy guy watchng jurors incessantly, and spying on and spreading private correspondence really shouldn't be it.
 
LasVegas702 said:
Thanks

Also Kurt (Uncivil Law) stirred the pot by mentioning dui guy’s when tmz guy was giving his testimony even though they all had the same reaction too.
Click to expand...
True,
But then Kurt doesn't practice in that court,

Rob from LawandLumber does, and in one of the more sensitive areas, family law.
And he's no doubt on thin ice due to his bed video.

Courts are notoriously prickly places.
And the Democrats are notoriously litigious.
 
wibble said:
True,
But then Kurt doesn't practice in that court,

Rob from LawandLumber does, and in one of the more sensitive areas, family law.
And he's no doubt on thin ice due to his bed video.

Courts are notoriously prickly places.
And the Democrats are notoriously litigious.
Click to expand...
oh why, I've never thought about Rob with the bed video and I heard that sometimes, he is front of that same judge, too Judge Penny.

wibble said:
True,
But then Kurt doesn't practice in that court,

Rob from LawandLumber does, and in one of the more sensitive areas, family law.
And he's no doubt on thin ice due to his bed video.

Courts are notoriously prickly places.
And the Democrats are notoriously litigious.
Click to expand...


have you seen this video?
 
Last edited:
Tryger88 said:
But Runkle is just making more drama, telling people not to have opinions is just rude.
Click to expand...
Such a pity to see infighting within the lawtube/Depp case broadcaster community. But I suppose everyone is different and it's kind of inevitable. Runkle and Legal Bytes seem reasonable. DUI Guy seems a bit arrogant although his tweets were very handy for updates on court / jury yesterday I must admit.

Ray_of_Sunshine said:
I feel like I can put this trial on my CV 😅
Click to expand...
I liked the memes I saw about people watching the trial ringing and saying "I can't come into work - I'm on jury duty" 😂
 
Last edited:
The 1st amendment is not a liars charter.
Mags44 said:
Yes of course that is why there is a defamation/ slander lawsuit.
I think what I was trying to ascertain is how successful it will be to the jury. He was trying to convey that as an American that she has a right to the protection of the first amendment. Again I am not sure how successful that will be.

Rottenborn asked the jury to stand up for the 1st Amendment. I am not convinced that will fly with the jury. But I am conscious I am not American so I don't know how that will be received or whether it is an effective strategy.

Apologies for needless repetition
Click to expand...

He is right though, His job is to defend Amber, he has to assume that what she wrote in that article is true and that Johnny is an abuser, if Johnny abused Amber then she was telling the truth and therefore is protected by the 1st amendment. Not sure what line you think he should've taken during the trial.
The 1st amendment is not a liars charter, if you are telling the truth then you have protection, if you're lying, you don't. If the Jury decide Amber is lying, then the 1st amendment argument is dead in the water.

wibble said:
It may work, or it may not.... I don't blame him for using, in his position I would.

But by then he had already wasted the best opportunity they had by not making use of the knife on the bed.... and when he brought it up in the closing it was too late.
Click to expand...
There is almost certainly a very good reason he didn't mention the knife earlier. I don't believe for a second it was an oversight. Choosing to bring it up in closing means there can't be any testimony about it.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top