I didn’t watch Depp’s testimony or cross but with Heard it wasn’t just the lies or rationalizations. It was the extreme intransigence in the face of an obvious contradiction. Like, Depp is probably telling the truth that his rant is loosely inspired by that Monty Python sketch. If Heard’s attorney had been a little more competent he probably would have said but that bit about raping Heard’s corpse…doesn’t seem like that’s in the Monty Python sketch. Would Depp have said no that’s in there, it’s in the sketch? Probably not, he’d say yeah you’re right, I added that bit in myself. Whereas Heard seemed to take the former approach from the little of the trial I saw.
1 Like
I don’t disagree. Heard was a bad witness while Depp was a great witness. Probably part of that was prep, but Depp just seems more charismatic. I think though if you believe Heard, it makes sense she’d be a worse witness - she’s being forced to defend calling her abuser an abuser. She’d be mad as hell. She would have been better off recognizing her only faults and being less combative, but that’s hard to do (for instance she should have just apologized about the one time she said “donated” instead of “pledged” rather than fight that point).
It’s hard to say exactly what Depp would have done, since IMO Heard’s lawyers did a bad job on cross attacking him on stuff like that. I also think Depp’s team did a better job prepping him so he had less of these inconsistencies in his testimony.
I guess what I’m surprised by is that you haven’t really topped out on ability once you get to the Heard level. I’d have thought that after a certain level, they’re pretty much all the same. But I guess not. If Depp was going up against Bezos, is there an even higher caliber of attorney that Bezos could afford that would make Depp’s look pretty ordinary.
Agreed. I also think theres an element of normalising toxic “locker room talk” and OTT crass jokes, ignoring the fact that they are the gross tip of a misogyny iceberg that goes fairly deep.
1 Like
Beat up seems to be an exaggeration
i mean there are NBA players and then there are Lebron, Steph, Durant…
but mostly its about MORE… more money=more lawyers, paralegals, experts… like jonnyA said the more associates you can throw at the situation the more prepared and on top of all the evidence you can be. Also more attorneys means more paper thrown at the other side during the lead up. If you can bury the other side in paper by having 5 associates on billables simultaneously writing motions, requests, interrogatory requests, discovery requests, you can keep the otherside responding rather than preparing.
1 Like
OK, so same question. If Depp’s team went up against a Bezos’ team. Does the Bezos’ team beat the shit out of them because of their bigger war chest. Or was Depp’s team and expenditures high enough that going beyond that is of no significant benefit.
It’s not just ability, Jonny is right, it’s a numbers and resources game. There’s a big difference between a huge team of lawyers that does nothing but eat and drink a single case for months versus a smaller team that has other cases, even if they have the same amount of raw talent individually.
during the actual trial there is only so much that can be done, but pre-trial, im pretty sure the sky is the limit as long as you are putting forth tenable requests and motions and the like.
Thanks. That makes sense.
You and slighted have clarified the resource issue for me, but it sounds like Jonny was saying that Heard’s lawyers were kind of shit and made some newb mistakes.
If that is the case, it still seems weird to me that you can get to the Heard level and still have mediocre talent (independent of the resource issue).
I think the “unforced errors” comment was more accurately descriptive than referring to them as newbie mistakes. A lack of enough preparation over every single detail of minutia can cause these mistakes, not a lack of talent. (Of course part of talent is taking the time to do that level of preparation). But often it is also a resource time/management issue. There are plenty of public defenders who are otherwise phenomenal trial attorneys who do a shitty job because they have 5,000 other cases to prepare for.
So from the outside looking in you can’t really be sure if they are incompetent or just outspent/overextended?
True to some extent, yeah. I didn’t really see enough of this trial to come to a firm opinion, so I’m speaking generally, but from what I saw, nothing struck me as terrible lawyering from either side. I’d contrast that with, for example, the Chauvin trial where the defense attorney in that case made lots of terrible strategic errors that had nothing to do with preparation.
Jesus Christ. Next time I feel bad about my life I’m going to think about the motherfucker who’s job is non-stop drown the other side in paperwork for however many hours a week. Gotta be the most miserable person in the world even if they make bank.
The only thing that struck me as truly incompetent was the lack of time management on the closing. That’s also partially lack of prep as you can rehearse and time it, but to not be watching a clock just seems very incompetent.
Heard’s lawyers are clearly good, they just seemed worse and much less prepped than Depp’s team.
Who you got for Youtube lawyers on this? I’ve yet to see a single one who watched the entire trial and thought she was telling the truth. Do you have any that livestreamed the case and came to a different conclusion? I’m willing to entertain the idea that the algorithm just isn’t showing me those, but I haven’t seen it yet.
There’s this guy who I’m pretty sure watched the entire thing and gives a pretty neutral take in my view. Not sure he has a youtube.
https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/1532396377526915075
For youtube, I have not searched, but agree it’s pretty universal against Heard. I think this is because of two reasons - 1) the RWNJ legal analysts were more likely to be following it because it pushed their narrative and 2) other legal analysts who joined in, did so because they saw how many views the others were getting. I think they also saw how pro-Depp stuff got more views, so tailored their takes accordingly (also, if anyone posted pro-Heard or even neutral stuff, they got tons of hate). There were a few that started semi-neutral, but quickly switched to pro-Depp, even before Heard started testifying and was “exposed” as a liar.
The few youtube legal analysts I followed before this, didn’t really offer takes on it - like Legal Eagle just explained the verdict but offered no opinion on it.
LegalEagle
(Then she received a cease-and-desist)
Some women view such cases [ie Depp/Heard] as cautionary tales for how men may seek to quash women’s speech about the nature of intimate encounters that they believe is untrue and damaging. Women who spoke to CNN Business about sharing about bad dates online, whose last names are being withheld to protect the privacy of parties involved, recalled anonymous comments in response to their posts threatening legal action. There has also been at least one lawsuit, in the case of a journalist who started a now-infamous list of allegedly bad men in the media industry.
While Crystal hasn’t used her ex’s full name, legal experts say there could still be risks to this kind of posting, as underscored by the Depp-Heard defamation trial.
“Even when you speak literally true statements, the fact that a man can say, ‘People are going to draw inferences about this …,’ it’s incredibly chilling,” said Mary Anne Franks, a professor at the University of Miami’s School of Law.
The Depp-Heard verdict, Franks said, “really seems to be sending a message to women that they’re just not allowed to speak about abuse anywhere, in any form — whether they name them or don’t name them, whether they’re specific or not specific, it doesn’t matter.”
Jesus that is insane.