Most commentators I've seen said that Rottenborn should have made JD read his own texts.
I actually think the cross examination was overall bad. Yes he did rattle JD a bit today b
I want to know what this damn bottle looks like! We havenāt even been given a brand.
Saw this on twitter - someone has complied a list of all the lies Johnny has told in this trial. I havenāt watched all his testimony because, well, it went on for about 60 years so not sure if everything here is 100%. Some Depp fans said they will do the same when Amber takes the stand so if I see that Iāll link it when that happens.
I have watched the whole of JDs testimony and really don't agree with most of this twitter thread. I think it is a stretch to say that a text insulting AH sent to anyone but AH is abuse towards her when she was never supposed to see the message. I think there was one message where he called her a c**t but the message was actually one where they were joking around together and not fighting. I think that c**t is seen as an awful insult in the US but is much more commonly used by us in the UK both as a term.or endearment and an insult. I don't really think that the messages added anything to AHs defence.
The cross examination was terrible as most of the recordings and texts had no context whatsoever and were basically being used to highlight JD using swear words, drank and used drugs. The atrorney jumped between 2013, 2016, 2014 a lot so there was no timeline as to when messgaes were sent and at what point in the relationship. It was just to try and get in more evidence and make JD look bad but I ended up just thinking so, JD drinks, takes drugs and swears...so?
A lot of the recordings had no dates provided so the context was completely lost. For example no date was given for the moaning video the timing it was played seemed to suggest that it was around the plane incident but the attorney never actually said.
The problem that AH is going to have is that she never turned over her devices despite a court order meaning that the metadata couldn't be examined and the dates of recordings and the potential editing of any photos taken by AH could not be properly examined by JDs team. The judge could order the jury to disregard all of AHs evidence and to me makes it look like she is trying to hide something especially as we have all these texts from JD.
Inwas watching Emily D Baker and she mentioned that the lawyers might all be terrible at cross examination as civil cases rarely go to trial and mostly settle. The attorneys don't actually do much advocacy at all.
I thought that Ben King came accross as very credible. The only issue is whether he turned over all the photos that he took of the property in Australia. He wasn't and isn't employed by JD so has no financial interest in lying for him. I actually think that neither JDs lawyers or AHs lawyers asked him for all the photos he took in Australia so he just turned over exactly what was asked for (photos of the writing JD/AH had left around the property etc). As a house manager and the person who needs to sort out any damage it completely makes sense that he would take photos of damage possibly to get quotes for fixing it. Also his job for 30 years has been about discretion so only turning over what he has been asked for makes sense to me in that context.
First testimony tomorrow is a video deposition so probably pretty dry.
but nope, just the basic brand 
but surely when recording for the therapist both parties should know it's being recorded, comes across like only one knows and trying to feed the other what to say.
tenor.com
