Asked & Answered! | Depp V Heard Edition | Johnny Depp Vs. Amber Heard Frequently Asked Questions
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 06. 2024
- Welcome to Asked & Answered! In the first edition of what may well become a running series on the channel, we will be answering frequently asked questions that have arisen during the Johnny Depp Vs. Amber Heard defamation trial. All of the questions here frequently arise during streams in both SuperChat's and the normal chat. The idea is that when these questions come up, we can answer with 'Asked and Answered' and refer people to this video which will be linked in the stream description.
Can Amber going to jail? Is the judge biased? Why is the trial currently on a week long break? Answers to these questions and more are contained in the video.
Any questions you didn't find answered in the video? Drop them in the comments below and maybe we'll have some answers for you.
Thanks for watching!
00:00 Introduction
00:20 What is Asked & Answered?
00:54 Why Virginia?
03:04 Why is the trial currently on break?
04:14 When does Amber's Countersuit happen?
05:51 What's the deal with the metadata?
09:24 Is Judge Azcarate biased?
12:18 Is the jury sequestered?
14:18 Do Amber's attorneys believe her?
15:39 Can Amber go to jail?
18:02 What is impeachment?
21:48 Can Johnny Depp sue Amber for DV?
22:58 Can the UK case be retried if Johnny wins?
24:10 Will Amber's legal team get a bad rep for this case?
25:40 Can the Milani makeup stuff come in?
30:37 Did Amber snort something on the stand?
32:11 Can the clip of Amber posing for a photo op during testimony be used during closing arguments?
34:54 Why was Ben Chew excited about the Kate Moss testimony?
39:12 Wrapping up
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 15 Recap: • Day 15 RECAP | All Amb...
Johnny's Bodyguard Malcolm Connelly testifies about the Australia Incident: • The Australia Incident...
Two of the key incidents in play: What Do the Facts REALLY Say? | Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard: • What Do the Facts REAL...
EVERYTHING You Need to Know About The Case: • EVERYTHING You Need to...
Be sure to subscribe to @legalbytesclips4042 for highlights of all our live streams, including clips from the trial published live throughout the day! What do you think? Let us know your thoughts in the comments!
---------------------Follow me here!
Twitter: / legalbytesmedia
Instagram: / legalbytesmedia
Facebook: / legalbytesmedia
---------------------
Support content like this here! Locals: legalbytes.locals.com
Patreon: / legalbytes
---------------------
Buy some Merch: legal-bytes.creator-spring.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For some background- This is a defamation case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Johnny Depp is suing Amber Heard for defamation stemming from her OpEd published in The Washington Post in 2018. Amber Heard is counter suing for defamation claims based on statements made by Johnny Depp's former lawyer. The trial is taking place in Fairfax, Virginia, the proper venue as The Washington Post is headquartered in said location. Presiding is Judge Penny Azcarate, Johnny Depp is represented by Ben Chew, Camille Vasquez, and more. Amber Heard is represented by Elaine Bredehoft, Ben Rottenborn, and more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#JohnnyDepp #AmberHeard #DeppVsHeard - Zábava
What did you think of Asked & Answered? Do you like this format for frequently asked questions that come up on air?
Love lt! It’s impossible to have enough time to review all the daily streams and would take forever to look for a particular answer. Thanks Alyte!
InDEED! Fabulous content. 💋🏴☠️🦜
Is it true Amber opened to the door to have Kate Moss testify? People were spreading that online so not sure if it's accurate or not.
The A&A is a great addition to your channel. I really like your shirt by the way!
I like this format, especially the long form videos
And you linked all the questions with time stamps 😩👏🏼 Alyte, you’re amazing and hard work doesn’t go unnoticed! Thank you!!
“Chapters”* I’m new at this 😅😂
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
Just another day on the job for a good lawyer 💪🏻
Great work, thank you so much👍😊
Also very much appreciate the time stamps =)
Since Amber opened the door on JD's 'past bad acts' by mentioning Kate Moss, did she also open the door for them to ask about her own 'past bad acts' re: spending the night in jail because a police officer at Sea-Tac saw her hit her partner?
I hope that comes up but there is so much details and fucked up testimony to keep her attorneys in closing arguments for days
Heard opened the door to allow Johnny to bring in character witnesses to testify that he’s not an abuser.
She had in her previous testimony said that her sister jumped in between her and Johnny, now she is saying she jumped between her sister and Johnny. She also changed her story 😂
Yes.
@@sparks8087 she also said last time that Johnny was about to push her sister down the stairs now it is hitting? Omg🤦🏾♀️, she should give it up.She can't even keep track of her lies or back them up.
When Amber's Lawyer objected to his own question was hilarious!
That will go down in the Text Books from this point till eternity!
I know… right😆🤣😂😁😆
When Amber H was asked "...why are you here?" She replied: "Because my ex-husband is suing me for an article I WROTE." Her own response could be considered as self-accusation or self-acknowledgment of wrong doing?
You would think she would say “my ex husband is suing me over an interview.”
the statement she made isn't admission of guilt. johnny depp and his lawyers are trying to prove that she wrote the title. which has not been talked about much yet by amber and her team. thus her saying "an article i wrote" isn't enough.
How is it wrong doing to say that?
@@hughmungus431 wow dude, Suzy just made a distinction between the body of the article and the title. You need to calm down and engage your mind before flying off the handle because it didn't seem to go your way. You've completely missed the point.
@@NNuclearWinter It's not a wrong doing per sey. The point is that Depp has brought his case against Amber Heard. If she didn't write the offending statement at the heart of the case, then her lawyers can say Depp has sued the wrong person. The query raised here is whether she admitted authorship during her testimony.
All I could think about when watching AH's very weird testimony was Data's emotion chip from Star Trek Generations. The strange emoting, inability to cry, bizarre facial expressions and the seeming ability to just turn it on and off. She came across to me like a malfunctioning android.
Nice analogy.
what a spot-on description❤️❤️❤️
Agreed! Agreed!
Best description I’ve read 👏🏻
😂😂😂
Not me binge-ing all your videos after I told my husband "I will really enjoy taking this week off of the trial" 👀😬 🤣🤣👌 it's gunna be a longgg week. Keep em coming! 😘
😆 I relate! I’m feeling like a dang attorney - “I don’t have court this week.”
@@Pattybluehayes i literally said to him "courts dark this week so ill be able to get some other stuff done" 😶🤣 So glad its not just me
@@MissTiff84 🤣😆 I’m riveted by this case and praying he gets justice 🙏
If Johnny Depp was punching and hitting her face the way she's claiming she'd be consulting a plastic surgeon. To me it's completely UNBELIEVABLE that she, whose face is her fortune, would not have a plastic surgeon on speed dial. Why doesn't her nose look like a pugilist's if it's been broken. I'm not an actress or a model but I would absolutely see a plastic surgeon if my nose was broken.
YES!! When Chris Brown attacked Rihanna, in a way that Amturd described Johnny had done to her, Rihanna was visibly swollen and bruised.
well amber heard did get plastic surgery. but not because johnny assaulter her in any way shape or form.
she just didnt like her nose. and your plastic surgeon of trust has to break your nose depending how you want that schnoz corrected
@@BlackApricot It's cartilage as you probably now. Her nose plastic surgery was minor, looks like a refinement of the tip/nostril area to make it slimmer and more refined, done pre meeting Johnny.. The part of the nose from the bridge to almost the tip wasn't changed. She never had a bhump. If JD had pounched her in the nose, it would swell tremendously and likely have a bump if not reset and placed in a cast like they put on post nose job patients.
I'm in Australia and I believe the finger incident for JD in Australia has no statute of limitations. I believe that the police can press charges at any time.
Cool. If she pisses him off enough he may go for it.
She would have to be there though?
I really really hope charges are pressed in AU for his finger!
I wish he would press charges on her, she’s already in trouble out there for smuggling in her dogs
Plus the dog smuggling
What you’re doing is amazing. Besides helping us understand the process of this trial you are actually reshaping law as affect, by fostering access, curiosity, interest, understanding, participation, relationality, and engagement. Much respect for your unpretentiously smart, and fun, hard work! Sending thanks from Brazil 💐
Well said! Agreed!
why doesnt she tell about the recording in Australia czcams.com/video/_7uwvr0kANo/video.html
I couldn’t agree more!! This isn’t just an interest in Hollywood gossip. It is way more than that and it is this work that makes it so. Well Said and thank you for saying it!🌻🌻🌻 cheers from NY!🪴
Well said I agree here in Australia 🇦🇺…. Love Indi ? ( hope I heard name correctly ) your brown Lab Dog … & Absolutely adorable watch dog 😀
In Australia we don’t have a statue of limitations for violent crime so technically Australian authorities could charge amber for what she did to JD’s finger, just sayin 👀
Yes and no... A charges can happen and try to go to trial, however, a limitation can be determined by the judge if they feel to much time has passed for evidence or witnesses to still be reliable or exist. Every state and territory has its own Limitations Act so it gets a bit tricky in the dinner detail.
Why did Australia let her off the hook after she smuggled her dogs into your country? She totally lied about not knowing the quarantine laws for dogs. How can anyone trust her...EVER?
This fascinates me.
I'm baffled that any country would have a statue of limitation written into law. Surely not all victims are the same & or emotionally able to go through the court process within a certain timeframe according to a particular countries law (eg religious child assault/abuse cases). If there's documented evidence & witnesses willing to testify then imo, time shouldn't be a reason for anyone to escape justice.
@@steveswafen2528 at some point witnesses become unreliable since they may not remember what happened and can therefore be easily influenced or may become a problem to the case if they contradict other testimonies. In any case a witness talking about something which they weren’t actively a part of, for example JD would remain reliable because his finger was cut off and you don’t just forget that but some friend of his that saw it happening may at some point forget exact details or confuse the chronological order, will always be looked at with doubt so they may not even present any real advantage to the party, so they probably won’t be invited into the court even if they themselves would be willing to testify. Also evidence may have been tampered with over time so the evidence would also have be doubted by the judge if they were looking at it objectively.
While I agree it’s weird to form very short statue of limitations for violent cases bc, as you said, the victim may be afraid to sue and therefore the abuse gets away, but after some time the court system can’t guarantee and objective trial anymore and if this is no longer possible, maybe the jury has been heavily influenced, etc., allowing such a trial would be detrimental for the entire system since people basically have the easiest justification for abusing this idea even if it’s theoretically great to give victims time to recover and gain strength.
Hope this wasn’t too confusing :)
I frequently find myself frustrated because people often bring up the English case suggesting that Johny already lost this case there, and from my understanding, it is imperative to note that it wasn't against Amber Heard, it was against the publisher. This is criticul because I believe England has the same legal standard of "Malicious Intent" for defamation/libel/slander. Given that the publisher only has to establish that Amber Heard told them the story they published, and even if they met the legal standard of "grossly negligent," that does not legally constitute malice. To prove that standard, they would have to be able to "prove" that the publisher knew what they were printing was false, and published it to deliberately harm Johny Depp. There is zero evidence to suggest that happened. With this Amber Heard's case, there is clearly malicious behavior involved, and it is not a far stretch to think the Jury will find that what Amber did, was done with malicious intent. Counter arguments could be made such as, between her mental illness and her demonstrated propensity for personal/professional promotion, Johny was just a casualty to her, and that does not raise to malicious intent. There is a thin line between the lower standard of "Gross Negligence" and "Malicious Intent."
If I have gotten anything wrong here, please let me know. I just like to understand, not be right.
Well said! 👏🏻
All the audio is just so damning for Amber. That’s what I keep on coming back to. The marriage counseling session and the San Francisco audio it’s just very clear she was the abuser and was was scheming this whole thing. And side note all the Marilyn Manson references being just thrown in there are weird and getting rather silly!
He is being sued for 'allegations' of SA and the ilk. Bunch of Lies. That's why she keeps bringing MM up, even tho she's met him as Brian Warner. JD and Brian have been friends for over 30 years.
Very true!!! It’s just getting ridiculous lol and odds are if the jurors had no big prior knowledge of JD’s allegations I doubt they really knew much about Marilyns. And yes totally agree!
czcams.com/video/_7uwvr0kANo/video.html evidence enough that Amber is the abuser
It gets even worse for her when you consider how much more audio there is that isnt included in the trial. In public opinion, she is crushed.
Have you heard the Australian tapes that have come out the last week or two? They’re damning, and if they could be played in court, she would be done.
Contradicts everything, walking round in heels when she said the glass was covering the floors etc.. I wish that could be played. Her countersuit would be thrown the hell out.
So my thing is the bottle… As a woman, if anything like that has happened to me I would have went and gotten myself checked out. There is no documentation about that..
Is "what if any" a secret cheat code to bypass sustained objections? Amber's lawyer seems to get away with asking the same question that was already objected to by just putting "what if any" in the front of it.
SO frustrating! I roll my eyes every time she does it.
They have to ask open-ended questions and not lead the witness in direct examination. So adding the ‘if any’ is a common tactic used to keep the questions open-ended. Annoying but effective.
Right, also leads Amber’s answers & Amber suddenly remembers or start off what her lawyer had said, Johnny’s lawyer objects as leading & judge says sustained!
@@Latinagirllv If JD's team objects to AH's testimony and the judge responds with "sustained", that means the objection is sustained and that part of the testimony is invalid.
It wasn't just the "What if any" that was annoying, but the fact that objecting seems pointless because the witness has already been led to where the lawyer wants them. Multiple times Amber missed some things and the lawyer would proceed to backtrack to get her to include them but objecting to these leading questions meant nothing because Amber now knows what she missed and what her lawyer wants her to say.
One more question: In her deposition and UK trial she stated that on the Boston plane trip he kicked over a chair and kicked her in the back - but that was left out this time? (because chairs can't be kicked over in planes...) Also, she said previously that he chopped off his finger by smashing a phone on the wall while holding her down- but in this testimony she says she had taken sleeping pills and wasn't aware he had severed his finger? Please tell me this can and more than likely will be brought up in "cross you next Tuesday"
I heard that LAPD is investigating her perjury in the claims that involved the police responding.
Do you have a link? Sounds interesting!
It's about the dogs in Australia incident. She lied and said she was tired and it slipped her mind but her assistant has come out and said they were told by amber to lie about the dogs. Has nothing to do with this case.
@@mandibarrett9401 no its about the times she called the police and they came out and found no evidence of domestic violence.
@@GrandmaKeith sounds incredible to me. 1. That isn't perjury and 2. She has never claimed she made the call and all evidence points to her friends.
I’m still a little confused about the meta data. How can Depps lawyers request the meta data for the photos and then Heard just refuses to give them the info only to give them broken data. This screams tampering to me and I don’t understand how the judge would allow that type of evidence into the case. This type of data on a phone doesn’t just disappear by itself. It essentially allows heard to put these photos into evidence and claim where and when they were taken with 0 evidence. All those photos could have been taken 2 years after their divorce for all they know. Seems very unjust
the metadata would also be available in Ambers iCloud backups / any macs she owns.
Canadian,
First off, there is a chasm between legal and just. The black letter of the law is a poor tool to achieve justice or morality, but is it often the best one we have.
At some point, Judge A. ruled on the admissablity of the photos and ruled on JD's request for sanctions based on the failure to submit the photos in the original format for confirmation of the photos through analysis of the data and the metadata, although to my knowledge, that ruling was never made public. JD's request for sanctions offered three remedies for AH's failure to meet the deadlines for submission, including:
* Preventing the photos from being offered into evidence as their authentication can not be confirmed.
* If the photos are to be admitted, allowing their authentication to be discussed, questioned and challenged as unconfirmed.
* Other stipulations, that included monetary penalties, but are not important to this discussion.
As the photos have been admitted into evidence to date, it suggests Judge A. allowed the photos to be admitted and either will be allowed to be challenged in open court or not, depending on her rulling that we don't appear to have access to at this time. If JD's cross of AH's witnesses includes any comments about the authenticity of the photos, we will have our answer.
@@Bear-cm1vl yes I understand this explanation its the same thing that was mentioned in the video.
My question remains that why would the judge allow those photos into evidence in the first place regardless or the sanctions also permitted. even if you have issue with me saying it seems unjust it also seems illegal. For all the judge and jury know those pictures could have been taken 20 minutes before they were presented to the court. Surely for something to be used as evidence there has to be some sort of corroborating information that said evidence is relevant to the case. All these so called pictures of Amber with bruises on her face or arms could have been taken at any time yet they are being testified as evidence of very specific alleged assault events/arguments with only Amber Heards testimony as proof of their authenticity. As I said this screams tampering to me.
At the very least one of the sanctions that should have been placed on these photos was that Heards lawyers would have had to draft and read a statement to the court (to be approved by Depps team) for the jury to hear on why this meta data was missing, why they missed the deadline to submit this data to the plaintiff and an acknowledgement that all of these photos could be fabricated as the data that could be used to authenticate them is magically and mysteriously missing.
Seems to me that allowing evidence like this is opening up other cases to evidence that is completely irrelevant to the case. For example if someone is on trial for murder the prosecution could introduce a photo of the defendant holding a gun and with no data could claim this was the defendant 2 minutes before shooting the victim. Seems like a very slippery slope to allow evidence that can’t be verified.
@@doggy6768 agreed in full, however the reasons for Judge A's decision is not something anyone is likely privy to and if you ever figure out how any judge (or human in general) makes their decisions, write it in a book and, if it works, I will get a million lawyers to pay $1000 a copy. As to the legality of the decision, that is up to an appellate court to determine.
@@doggy6768 The thing you're failing to realize is that the photos being possibly faked helps Johnny's case. Johnny's team wouldn't want Amber's team to explain what the missing metadata means. They'd want to do it themselves. Their claim is that Amber is a liar and lied about the domestic abuse. They could SHOW that by using the missing metadata as a way to imply Amber and her team were being dishonest and deceitful about the proof of the abuse, which would be directly relevant to her honesty about the abuse itself. If Amber's team wrote an explanation for it, no matter how much Johnny's approves it, it will be an excuse that can be given benefit of doubt. They'd much rather impeach it and leave no excuses.
Been following along. You are absolutely wonderful. You've put in so much work into this. Thank you for making all of this easier for all of us follow. Also, thanks for playing so well with others. The lawtube panel has been awesome!
Omg thank you so much! I hope this will help expedite your super chats so you don’t spend your precious energy and brain power re-answering the same questions over and over. Great video and love all that you and LawTube are doing for the public at large!
I just saw this channel while watching the Johnny Depp trial, and I like the intonation of your voice when you explain it, it's very calm and peaceful and easy to understand. I thought I was hearing an angel talking when I saw this channel. that's why i subscribed. thank you for giving a lot of lessons about the science of law .. wish u all the best.
You’re looking well-rested during this break!! We all appreciate you and your hard work!! ❤️ Thank you so much!
Thank you and everyone who's been on your channel for covering this case fairly and professionally. I've seen many videos come at this case from many perspectives but none of those seem to grasp the gravity of this case nor cover it with the grace that you do. You are a voice of reason in the Chaos!
Thank you so much for taking the time to put this together. I feel very much enlightened, and I hope to God the jury can see through all the lies #justiceforjohnny
I listen & watch the testimony more than once, and appreciate your detailed explanations and continually evolving thoughts.
You're brilliant. Looking forward to your coverage in the coming weeks.
Thank you for being here and doing your thing! Much love to you and yours from Oregon 🙌🙏❤
Q: How would witness “DECLARATIONS,” official statements, etc. play into the trial? For example, AH’s makeup artist issued a “Declaration” that she observed absolutely no injuries,bruises, etc. when she did AH’s makeup for her appearance on the Corbin show. There are other witness “Declarations” that seemingly would support JD’s case. Just wondered how these declarations could be entered in as evidence, etc. for JD.
AWESOME VIDEO ALYTE!! This saves us so much time in repeating questions in chat, etc. It also allows those of us who cannot watch the entire trial to submit questions when we are unavailable to do so while watching parts of the trial. Love following your channel & also how you add members to your panel that have specific non-attorney viewpoints, like Nurse Liz, Spidey (behavioral expert) & the psychologist. I also watched your appearance on Popcorn Planet!! You are literally reaching thousands, if not millions, of people who are following the trial, but, like me, don’t understand trial proceedings, terminology, etc.
Thanks again for sharing your insight & thoughts to all of us. Praying that the truth will finally be revealed & JD will be able to regain his reputation & finally move forward. May God bless you!! Mimi
Omg love this as a series and will be so handy to link in comments for the next livestreams.
Great video, keep up the awesome work :)
Agreed
here in the first 3 minutes. My best time ever!! You are amazing LegalBytes
Best Depp/Heard video yet, thanks for all the great info.
Thanks for doing this video! I always miss the super chats that ask the original question and have to dig through the VODs to find the answer! Love your content and the whole panel.
Fantastic, thank you. I was losing my mind with the Kate Moss question being asked over and over again in the live streams! Great work with all of this. By the way, and by way of irony, if you re-watch the Kate Moss question in your own video, keep your eyes on Indie stealing the show in the background.
Ha ha, on another channel there was a question about "Elizabeth Moss."
They probably believed her in the beginning? Elaine got “love bombed.” 🤪
Thank you for sharing your knowledge! This was extremely helpful! 💜
Brilliant analysis.
Thank you, LegalBytes! 👏🏼
This is terrific! This tutorial should be mandated for all press reporting on this case - particularly the Court TV reporter who seems rather cozy with Amber Heard’s press team.
In regards to her attorney’s, believing her, Rottenborn is tough to read, but Bredehoft seems a little too passionate to not believe her, but that’s my thought
I feel like rottenborn doesn't like her lmao. At one point she was talking to him and he straight up ignored her. Then she made a face after he didn't say anything 😂
Actually in my opinion as the case has gone on Bredehoft to me looks as though she no longer believes Heard, and is now just going through the required motions of defending her, but not actually believing what she is challenging. She started off full of righteous indignation on behalf of her client, now she is almost distancing herself, making it clearer these days she is simply repeating what Heard said, rather than saying she believes what she is saying.
She's supposed to be completely honest w her attorneys so they can best represent her , I can't see her admitting that's she has made it all up even to lawyers. I feel Elaine knows and doesn't care she's making it up. The whole SA part and Elaine saying "I'm so sorry I'm so sorry" didn't seem authentic to me.
@@clevermissfoxI totally agree...she just doesn't care...but not sure what SA thing is.
@@clevermissfox Yes, but there comes a point when her lawyers will finally realise she is a unreliable liar, and that they look stupid if they say they believe her. Heard told them about the muffins, they followed that in good faith, and then realised she had lied to them about that. The same with the make up pack, they repeated what she had told them, then it has since been shown to be false. So now they know she lies to them, they are distancing themselves from her by presenting things as being her opinion, ie not necessarily theirs.
I love this format. Very straightforward, succinct and informative. Also, I love that t-shirt!
This was SO needed and answered so many questions I had. Excellent job!
Having the timestamps is perfect for this video format keep up the content Alyte you're slaying it! Enjoy the break and cuz you're in 5th gear for the last part of the trial and jury deliberations.
As a layman I feel like if they're going to lift the compact up and say "THIS is the compact she used", then that is in evidence at that point and it better be THE compact. A prosecutor doesn't lift up a random 357 and say "this IS the gun used to kill the victim" and it not be the actual weapon! They might say the defended owned this type of weapon but not that it is the weapon.
Aren't there rules about what can be said in opening?
fact: Elaine said that yes, that was the exact brand of compact she used, however.....it wasnt in production until after the divorce. Elaine is a toxic stew if a lawyer.
I've never heard that lawyers are ever under oath.
I have been warned by family in law enforcement that lawyers lie and push the envelope quite often and you should always be prepared for it.
Juries, on the other hand, see all these people swearing oaths to tell the truth in court. Not so much focused on who DOESN'T.
I could’ve listened for another hour. That was so informative! I am learning a lot about law through this case, which I hadn’t previously intended to do. It’s not merely entertainment for me. I really appreciate having you here as a reliable source for continued coverage and information!
Love this channel! Thank you for sharing your expertise with us
You know it’s going to be good when it’s a 40 minute video
It's gotta feel like a walk in the park to film after running day long streams ☺️
And completely interesting from start to finish...Usually, you'd have to pay me good money to watch a video this long.
Wow what a treat. Recently finished watching Hoeg's Live today where you popped in. Super Congrats to 🛏 Rob @Law&Lumber & his bed vid 💐
I love this video. You've answered all the pending and unclear questions about this case. BTW I love your channel and the way you explain everything so clearly. 👌🏾❤️
Excellent review. You covered and explained the trial so beautifully. Cheers 🥂
Love the format! And appreciate the segment header things so I can find questions I hadn’t had answered yet! I follow along with you so I’ve learned a lot 😅
This was very helpful in answering some of my unanswered questions like the Kate Moss reference. I liked the format, it was great! I have really enjoyed watching your channel over the past couple weeks.
Hello Jean. i hope you are doing fine and also having a terrific day so far ?
Thing is AH used the KM/stair story to trigger violence towards JD. The story doesn’t have to be true or even exist, if AH says she was told
the story, it can’t be proved one way or another. Even if KM says it’s not true it doesn’t alter the fact AH says she heard it. It will use up more
time if KM takes the stand , so they might go for the AH DV arrest.
Thank you for sharing all of this helpful information! It really does clear up a lot of questions I had, also! Hope you will continue to do this.
Thank You Alyte for your answers to all the questions that were swirling around in my head...
I'm no law nerd but your streams have been very insightful, Amazing stuff keep them coming! Also Hi from Australia :)
Question: if the door is open for JD to bring in Kate Moss, is it also open to bring up Amber's arrest for DV against her former partner, because that's also a prior act? Like this format, everyone has the same questions. Thank you.
My impression is that because Amber brought up Kate Moss, she allowed Johnny's team to rebuttal the claim as untrue, that Amber presented...
Bringing in Kate Moss wouldn't accomplish much because Amber could just say "oh well I heard the rumor and thought it was true". But what is important is her bringing up a supposed past "bad act". Prior acts are off-limits but the second she brought one up (yes I know he didn't do that) his team can now bring up hers. What looks worse, a false rumor or an arrest and more than one DV claim against you?
Awesome segment. Hard to catch these answers in live so this is super helpful!
By far the best commentary I’ve seen….subscribed, thank you!
“Gobbledygook” Perfectly explains Dr. Hughes and Ambers testimony lol all her claims, evidence and just her whole story.
I tried to listen objectively, but Dr. Hughes completely lost me when she started talking about how abusive partners are stalkers after we'd already seen/heard clips from hours of audio/video Amber secretly took of Johnny. That's not stalking?
I want this to help but I know people will still be asking on lives lol the worst is right after you've explained already haha 😅 thanks for all the hard work you put into this! 🖤💚
Excellent video! This is the first I've seen of yours. I love it. Extremely informative, without being verbose, or getting bogged down in legal mumbo-jumbo. I'm definitely following you, now. I hope your other videos are like this, or else you have such informative videos like this - you're so easy to listen to & understand, without being long-winded (not everybody has got time for long videos). 👍
Very good Q&A your research & how you made chapters about each question is appreciated, thanks.
Can Kate Moss still testify as a rebuttal witness if she's seen any prior testimony in the case? Since she likely wasn't planning on being there, I wonder how those rules apply, given that this case has been impossible to avoid.
Hello Elizabeth . i hope you are having a wonderful day today ?
She has not come out and spoke to any rumours. Maybe Johnny fans might be upset by what she has to say. She was there when he did 10,000 dollars of damage to a hotel room. This is intimidating and abusive and shows a similar behaviour being repeated. Jennifer grey has also spoke to hoe jealous he was, and how he was getting into fights and being arrested towards the end of their relationship (which was the reason she called off their engagement)
I hope Moss is called
James please.
I am sure Kate Moss, Ex Supermodel, has better things to do than to follow a raunchy court session from her ex in a different country 😂
@@jamescollins2499 she’s still not going to touch you dude
LOVE the Asked & Answered format. Here is another question: As Johnny's lawyer, would you bring up the NDA? Intuitively, this seems super risky to me, since it might make some of the jurors think "Isn't the fact that Johnny made her sign an NDA a sign that he has something to hide after all?" His lawyer would have to make SUPER clear that it was about things like him taking drugs, or maybe the verbal abuse, at most, but NOT any form of violence against her because that was totally invented by her. What is your take?
Thank you, love this format. I must have missed that the Kate Moss reference that day so that was very informative. You are efficient and not hard to listen to. Appreciate it.
Thank You for explaining all the questions. Following your channel from Austria.looking forward to the next livestream and update.
I thought 1 other reason why JD lawyer got happy after the comment about Kate Moss came was that NOW they can in cross ask about HER exes.
You are all doing a great job, it's hard to not bias in this case, but I feel you are doing your best and, atleast acceptable being unbiased.
New questions: 1) For Johnny to win, how many jurors need to side with him? 2) I believe jurors are not supposed to read or watch anything about the trial. What is to prevent them from going home and re-watching the court proceedings or reading some youtube comments? I Iove your Q and A format and you have answered many burning questions. Thank you!
All of them , no?
Really appreciate you clearing up so many of the questions I had. Thank you!!
Excellent analysis, really appreciated the explanations of the complex legal terms too. Great channel!
If you look close enough it’s clear, she snorted something. Immediately after she looks around to make sure she wasn’t caught.
Some people with very personality disorders will push the limits just to see if they can get away with it.
I think she was posing for the camera so the corrupt medias can run with it
I got married in November 2015 and used a similar product to the compact the defendants showed in their opening statements. Its not a milani product (i think), and it covered my highly red cheeks for my wedding photos, but I have since then tried to use it to cover up more extreme marks and bruising from pimples etc. and it did not do a very good job! It is mainly used to cover blemishes in the skin causing brown or redness, but not dark black spots. Those just tend to shine through, and if too much of the colours are used, it 'cakes' on the spot and is clearly visible as a thick mess of makeup...
Wow, I am so happy to have come across this channel, thank you so much, this answer’s all my questions.
This was super informative! I predict it’s referenced a lot in weeks to come… viral coming right up! 👍🏻
Yass!!! Thanks girl! 🥰
Great breakdown! Since the defense brought JD's ex girlfriends into the trial, did it kick open the door to allow Amber's assault of Van Ree into it? After all Heard is the one with a DV prior.
This was so informative and answered all the questions that needed answers. Love this so much!
Loved this segment! Keep up the great work! Thank you and looking forward to the next on.
I missed you!! Thanks for answering the questions, I stopped to make this comment and actually will have to finish later, but I sure have enjoyed all your coverage, and you expert guests when live. And look at the 171 subscribers, congratulations!
OMG… This was so informative! Please do make “Asked & Answered” a regular commentary during the duration of this trial.
Hello Naomi. i hope you are having a wonderful day today ?
Thank-you. This was great, much needed.
This was great, really good that you gave us all the time stamps as I wasn't interested in all of the questions, thanks.
I am very interested in the trial having time limits. I have to admit I have never heard of that and is that a regular thing in all trials? I feel like I have heard about trials dragging on for longer than expected often over time and so the notion that each side is being timed was a big surprise to me. Can you explain more please?
17:28 Rekeita also pointed out that punishing people for testifying something that people don't believe would mean that no one would then testify to anything ever.
I was skeptical. This was really good. Thank you!
You are SO well prepared. This is the first time I've come across you and I enjoyed the way you present immensely. It makes me almost interested in the law. Great work.
Thank you! With the Kate Moss statement by AH - I understand that JD most likely can bring in prior partners as rebuttal witness - my question - did Ambers Kate Moss comment also open the door to bring in Ambers DV charges from past partner? DUI?
@LegalBytes AH's team mentioned the Australian tapes in their opening statement. Why haven't we heard the part where AH confesses to starting that fight and messing up that room etc.
Fantastic video! Can't wait for your coverage of the his case to continue 🤠🤠🤠
Short, precise, to the point, interesting question, unbiased answers - great video and fun to watch! Thank you!
I want to know if Johnny’s attorneys could see the trial online that Dr. Hughes testified, and see that the folder that she used to testify was a different color and was not the documents used
It wouldn't surprise me if someone back at the office picked that up.
Wow understood so much from this, thank you! Question: why are the lawyers not allowed to play audio clips with other people speaking other than Amber and Johnny? Couldn't they get those people's permission or have them present in the court room while the audio plays? I mean most of them have already testified anyway, the only issue would be Jerry Judge who passed away. #question #asked
I was wondering the same thing. Particularly the recording in Australia after Amber (allegedly) severed Johnny's finger. In it, the doctor, nurse & Jerry Judge discuss the horrific scene, Amber's culpability, and her attention-seeking, demented mental state. I don't understand why the cops weren't called and Amber arrested for DV?! It certainly seems Johnny was far too nice for far too long!!
Beautiful! Answered in a very detailed, intelligent and clear manner. Thank you! 👏
I like the Ask n Answered! Interesting and learned new stuff! Thanks.
Thank you for your hard work! My interest in law has tripled due to your lives & videos. Thank you so much. You’re amazing!
Keep it up, Alyte! Great stuff! What I'm trying to figure out about Amber are 2 things: During her testimonials in 2016 her whole demeanor is soooooo different - cocky and arrogant one would think. Is that the way an abuse victim acts normally? The second thing is why would an abuse victim taunt his / her abuser the way she did as on the recordings? No way someone who is afraid of a perpetrator acts that way!
This is fantastic! Thank you! To be able to go directly to the question is so cool. Although, I watched the entire video from start to finish because everything you had to say was so interesting. Subscribed!
I love it so much how clearly you communicate and differentiate these things. Makes me wanna be a lawyer because it must be fun to be able to think like that! But when I watch the actual case I get so bored of all the things around it, I totally can not focus on it and then I need your commentary :D So thank you so much for doing this!!
Great video... just one question, How do they keep the jury from accidently finding things out online or just anywhere on the media since it is everywhere? Do they monitor their computers?
Mercy Grace - At the question about sequestering, Alyte talked about the safety of the jurors. But most of the related questions I have seen are *exactly what you are asking* (and so am I).
> How can a juror return home (for an entire week plus weekends) and NOT have family or friends want to talk about the trial?
> Or watch TV without seeing something about the trial? Ditto for magazines or even newspapers.
> Or get on the internet and -- *without even looking for it* -- get bombarded with items related to the trial (example: thumbnails pop up that are linked to specific sites focused on the trial, and often express very strong opinions)?
> How would/could the court _verify_ that the jurors did not have contact with such influences during the break?
I too will be very interested if someone has a good answer.
@@johng423 Thanks johng423, I hope someone can answer....Thanks all!!!
Thank goodness, now you won't have to anwser the same question 47 times a day. What a relief 😅
@Mami Makala then they can all be redirected to this video! 🥳🥳🥳 it's genius! Haha
Wow, awesome video. Answered so many of my questions. Looking forward to your next video. Thank you.
Yaaay! Well done Alyte! And for having added timestamps, you are sooo good at what you do! Thanks for helping us understand the law one byte at a time ;)