this is the second day of JURY WATCH
(Day 25 overall)
After six weeks, some hilarious characters, one grumpy and countless megapints, we're finally at the end
Closing arguments have been given, cases have been rested and now the jury are making their deliberations
so now we have to wait until a verdict is given
it could be today, could be tomorrow
Livestream source:
youtube.com
Commentary stream with exhibits:
(Rekieta Law)
youtube.com
get comfy
OBLIGATORY:
>"She is begging for global humiliation," Depp's text said.
>"She is going to get it. I'm going to need your texts from San Francisco brother ... I'm sorry to even ask ... but she sucked Mollusk's crooked dick and he gave her some shitty lawyers."
>Wolanski told the court "Mollusk" was a reference to Elon Musk, the billionaire Tesla co-founder.
>"I have no mercy, no fear and not an ounce of emotion or what I thought was love for this gold-digging, low-level, dime-a-dozen, mushy, pointless, dangling, overused flappy fish market," Depp's message continued.
>"I'm so happy she wants to go to fight this out. She will hit the wall hard.
>"And I cannot wait to have this waste of a cum-guzzler out of my life. She will hit the wall hard.
>"I met a fucking sublime little Russian here ... which made me realise that time I blew on the 50-cent stripper ... I would not touch her with a goddamn glove.
>"I can only hope that karma kicks in and takes the gift of breath from her. Sorry man, but now I will stop at nothing."
BONUS ROUND:
>Depp’s original text read, “Hopefully that cunt’s rotting corpse is decomposing in the fucking trunk of a Honda Civic!!”
>“I will fuck her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she is dead.”
yids rape kids
jews are child rapists
kikes suck baby dick as part of their religion/culture
yids traffic kids to be raped by other yids
jews rape and murder children
WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO THE JURY QUESTION?!
not necessarily, the whole op-ed is a bunch of stuff, the headline is a single statement that can more easily be linked to depp
im gonna do it
Law and crime says it's good for Johnny Depp
I can't think for myself AAAAAA
why is there no site where i can bet on this
any other doodlers here?
>Law and crime says it's good for Johnny Depp
nice
The title specifically says "SEXUAL violence" and they wanted to know if they have to go by the title alone, or the entire op-ed. The judge said just the title, which is a good thing for JD.
>repost
New jiggy fuwafuwa-chan edi
jigex.com
also while we wait youtube.com
How do people think this is bad for JD lmfao.
The fact that they're deliberating so intensely on this pretty much means they really think JD is in the right which means they're at a consensus for the most part with probably one contrarian saying "i'm not sure man, let's go ask the judge".
I missed you frens
it's chocon
I honestly don't know
it really is down to the jury
this is a really contentious case and they have like five asians on the jury
who fucking knows
it's been hell of ride though
Jury had a question to ask, besides that, nothing.
Brah
That's excellent
Literally same guy but older and he did something with his hair
literally just commentary all day
jury just wanted clarification on the title of the oped
this is what it all boils down to
They had questions for both side?
Meth is one hell of a drug
doctor portraits are often years old, schizo
if the jury are asking about the headline then that indicates they aren't buying Amber Heard's story as the headline would be completely irrelevant otherwise
If you doodle, that means you're a serial killer. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Left pic is from 2018. Someone or... someTHING killed the real Spiegel and wears his skin.
>Amber accuses Johnny Depp's witnesses of being amogus imposters
>Meanwhile her witness looks and acts like an actual fucking skinwalker
Based faceblind autist
hey fren, welcome back
jury asked for clarification on a question, other than that we're just posting memes and reminiscing about the weeks of trial behind us
They had a question about one of the jury instructions. Basically what said.
No, they wanted to confirm if they can just base defamation on title alone or if they have to go by the whole article. Which is really good for JD because it shows, they must think the title alone is good evidence
Checked.
No, jury questions to the court are read into the record and responses are postulated so both sides have an opportunity to object.
So Rottenborn's claim that if just one one thing Amber claimed about Johnny was true then she wins was bullshit, apparently they just need to doubt the sexual violence and it's defamation.
"Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change."
They are likely looking to see if the "sexual abuse" claim is true or false.
Juror verdict form (so you can see what they're filling out):
fairfaxcounty.gov
>somebody should start up a strawpoll or something so we can all fill out the questions and see how results pan out, the questions aren't particularly black and white to me
Damn, someone better get me a straight jacket, because I am about to chew on some candy as well..
Does this mean that they're trying to take votes right now?
Because that's what I got from the question. Seems like we most likely will get a result today
Ambersisters...
Got it, thanks you.
Seems like it doesn't sound good for Depp if they are focusing mainly on title.
any ideas on what that jury question meant for jd?
any news?
Law bros is it looking good for Depp?
Hey British fag this entire time you could have worked out, talked with loved ones, and did anything with your life.
Yet
Just what I said this morning you don’t no free will, will never be a woman, and Johnny won’t fuck you
For free and rent free
they're still on question 1, see:
it means they are currently going through the jury instructions and not debating the case anymore. they are filling it out.
*any
I just want to see Amber's face when she loses
>I am about to chew on some candy
That makes you worse than a million Hitlers.
>Grumpy
Ha Ha
Basically means that they likely think the title is good evidence for defamation but were unclear if they had to peg the entire article to him, or if they can essentially cherry pick which parts they believe are defammatory against Depp.
Really good for JD imo
#metoo
Alternatively, it could also mean that they have only gotten to question 3 and there's like 12x questions on 3 different papers, so 36 questions in total, if I remember correctly.
Neither of them will be there
I don't have it in front of me, but someone post the tweet she made with the article.
The "headline" of the tweet she retweeted made a harder claim than the article, in my opinion.
In other words... even if the article she was retweeting was accurate; the headline (short lede text) used by the people publishing was a different statement, and is held independent of the article that is being retweeted.
That's my read, at least.
Example:
> article says "depp gave chocolate cake instead of banana on her birthday"
> retweet of "another example of the physical and sexual abuse I suffered"
> article doesn't defame, but the way the article is used does
>He said said after being here all day screaming and shidding his pants because he can't split threads anymore
So sad.
I only just got the king for a day pun.
PLEASE DEAR GOD I NEED RULE 34 OF HOT SWEATY STEAMY GAY HOMOSEXUAL SEX WITH MEN BETWEEN JOHNY AND BEN CHEW PLEASE DEAR GOD LET ME SEE THAT ASS BEING CHEWED AND COCK SUCKED PLEASE I MUST CUM I NEED TO I
haha wow i never even put that together