Amber Heard defense strategy: how to win the Johnny Depp defamation trial
Quote from Connor Jackson on May 27, 2022, 8:06 pmMost Power moves do not work in the court, the person in the box always starts of power down, only way they can power back up is if the lawyer intentionally or inadvertently allows, them to . For a person on the stand during a cross, it is always a win-lose scenario and the best one can do is try to minimize one's losses.
Not really though.
Most obvious and "in your face" may be harder to pull off.
But all the subtle ones certainly do.
Johnny Depp snickering while the opposing lawyer read the tabloid titles and asked him "am I reading correctly" is a power move to frame the lawyer's attempt at discrediting him as "ridiculous".
And it worked great.
JD did it really well, the lawyer either did not realize it or know how to deal with it, there was one exchange between JD and the lawyers that stayed with me. It was so subtle, simple and brilliant!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7KHBxhZ7As
Enjoy 😀
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 27, 2022, 7:17 am
Persuasion failure: all Depp's most damning texts are conveniently not sent by him?
From the disadvantage point of only having a few vids, it seemed to me like the lawyers had some golden evidence to discredit Depp and his image of "good, innocent victim".
But totally failed to take advantage of it:
Transcript:
Instead of thread-expanding on the toxicity of the texts and the absurdity that Depp passes his phone around and only claims ownership of the "good" texts he sent, he largely accepts his version, moves on, and even lands credibility to it just a little later when he asks about Depp's asking his friends to "placate" Amber for him with this phone.
Of course, it might be totally true that Depp gives his phone around and the worst texts are not from him.
But the Amber's lawyers are still doing a poor job at not casting doubt on such a strange (and convenient) behavior.
Latest installment of the saga:
You guys are aware of the outcome. Here is an interesting interview from Amber Heard, a real-life case study of a narcissistic manipulator. Because now that we know about he trial, the witnesses, the testimonies, the evidence, we get an interesting insight in her psyche. Keep in mind, that all of this is AFTER she lost a trial in front of millions of people and that a jury condemned her.
It shows that these people are masters at lying and gaslighting into an art. They probably started as children. So, I think that just like sportsmen and sportswomen who start a given sport at a young age and become masters early on, these people are masters at lying, manipulation and deception. I have some strange respect for the skill these people have in these areas. That being said, it's wasted energy because the lies will come back to you.
Signs of "burn the witch", LOL, I couldn't help but think if she saw TPM's video.
Yeah, I agree with you John in the way of "strangely respecting" that level of attachment to their own "distorted truth" which can indeed substain gaslighting (you'd have to have some leverage over your partner though, plus your partner must be clueless of manipulation dynamics).
The problem for her is that she has no leverage over anyone right now and she's a bad type of lier who:
- Lies WAY too much
- Lies way too BIG
- Can't keep track of her lies
- Doesn't lie too well or convincingly
I don't see that as a skill, I see it as an important life handicap.
That's a one of the most important character flaws that makes Amber Heard is a dislikable woman.
Actually I agree with you. I’ll rephrase: gaslighting requires persistence in lies and these people do that. You have to have some kind of despise for people in general to do that.
Also, she takes as an example that she’s a victim because so many people love Johnny. That’s such a stupid argument. She’s trying to push the « he’s powerful and popular therefore it was not fair ».
Whereas to us it’s more: he has positive social credit (all the value we got from his movies) and he seemed credible.
So it’s the other way around: he’s beloved because people got value from him and his testimony seemed true. It means people are ready to forgive him his flaws. And the jury judged the case based on what it was presented to them.
People think she’s never going to work again in Hollywood. I don’t think so. I think people are looking for to use her for a baddie in a movie or adult entertainment. I’m sure some people would love to use the burning witch to warm their house or cook their meal. I mean that some people are already thinking how to use the fact that she’s disliked. But after that, she’s gone.
But yeah, there’s a petition to remove her from Aquaman 2 (5 millions people). Cancel culture is strong. I don’t agree with it of course. You don’t like her, don’t go to see her movies but don’t try to actively harm her.
And now the whole world knows she’s a bad actress. « My dog stepped on a bee! »
Quote from John Freeman on June 15, 2022, 9:23 amAlso, she takes as an example that she’s a victim because so many people love Johnny. That’s such a stupid argument. She’s trying to push the « he’s powerful and popular therefore it was not fair ».
Whereas to us it’s more: he has positive social credit (all the value we got from his movies) and he seemed credible.
Yeah, and another thing people forget:
Jurors didn't need to know about the social media storm to be biased against Amber Heard.
Why?
So simple:
Both groups are groups of people.
Jurors are people.
Just like those who lambasted her on social media are people.
So both groups are liable to pick on the same signals, and both are likely to like Depp, and dislike Amber.
It's not like whether the jurors knew or didn't know about the social media storm things would change completely.
In either case, they'd pretty much feel the same. They would still like Depp and sympathize with him, and still dislike Amber, and think she's a c*nt.
The contempt on her face at minute 9:20 of the video in this post here above is incredible to watch: she evidently raises only one side of the mouth, in a clear mixture of anger and disgust. A super-telling, unusually prolonged microexpression.
There is a book by Paul Ekman on how to recognize expressions and microexpressions from the face, which was invaluable to me to better spot deceit and manipulation: it's titled Unmasking the Face, and it is really good (with photos and exercises).
Quote from Bel on June 17, 2022, 10:38 pmThe contempt on her face at minute 9:20 of the video in this post here above is incredible to watch: she evidently raises only one side of the mouth, in a clear mixture of anger and disgust. A super-telling, unusually prolonged microexpression.
There is a book by Paul Ekman on how to recognize expressions and microexpressions from the face, which was invaluable to me to better spot deceit and manipulation: it's titled Unmasking the Face, and it is really good (with photos and exercises).
OFF-TOPIC
Yeah, many body language authors and "experts" have borrowed from him and marketed it into products.
There are also some good vids on YB actually.
I'm curious though: did it actually help you in real life to spot deceit, manipulations, and general assholes?
OFF-TOPIC
OFF-TOPIC
It is another tool in the toolbox. It is useful also for understanding the emotions of honest people who may not want to show what they are really feeling, eg a sad friend who tries to fake being happy.
So I’d say yes, in three ways:
- while the conscious immediate perception of expressions is still difficult, reading the book informed my intuition and undoubtedly refined my gut feeling when interacting with people;
- the book is invaluable when you have a chance to see a face after the fact, eg when you review photos of your interaction with someone or when you see a video;
- some teachings of the book are super. One of them is that expression of emotions takes place in three separate areas of the face, which usually combine in specific ways for each single emotion. Manipulators or even honest people who try to fake or not show an emotion are usually able to fake two out of three areas of the face into position, but it is impossible for anybody to fake all three areas. The book explains where you have to focus to see if someone is masking and to catch glimpses of real emotions underneath the masking.
I remember several personal episodes where people had a “strange face”, and usually my full understanding of the emotion they were masking came after the fact, ie with two/three days of unconscious reflection. I think the book was a catalyst for such reflections.
There is a more advanced book by the same author teaching to recognize emotions in real time titled “Facial Action Coding System”. Very complex.
OFF-TOPIC