Current Johnny Depp - Assault Manager on Set of City of Lies *DARVO

[Kurve]

Of interest:
Marilyn Manson - Depp's bestie.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

We are daimetrically opposed in view that clearly isn't going to reconcile. The thread in any event isn't about Depp V Heard nor Manson nor other unrelated killers. I'm going to leave it there

 

[Kurve]

We are daimetrically opposed in view that clearly isn't going to reconcile. The thread in any event isn't about Depp V Heard nor Manson nor other unrelated killers. I'm going to leave it there

I'm prepared to accept that her behaviour looks bad, you can't accept anything else but Depp as the victim.

This thread's about DARVO anyway and continuing abuse using the system with connections to other established threads on this forum but I might tidy the OP up a bit.

Manson is now suing Evan Wood over her allegations. Depp's shown him how to do it.

 

[jason_recliner]

She is appealing. The guy i was following who is excellent called 'the lawyer you know" has suggested that the appeal will fail. Less than a 1% chance and he gives legal reasons for that.

You have shown in other threads that your understanding of statistics and probability is, ooh... less than 1%.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You have shown in other threads that your understanding of statictics and probability is, ooh... less than 1%.

Peter Tragos lawyer you know .....his assessment as expert of the % chance. She isn't winning any appeal.

 

[Kurve]

Peter Tragos lawyer you know .....his assessment as expert of the % chance. She isn't winning any appeal.

Attorney Rabia Chaudry of 'Serial' is on to this and she's actually telling people to 'go f*** yourself' for their ignorance and blind hatred of Amber Heard. Rabia's the expert on juries getting it wrong and she explains why they got it wrong in this case.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Attorney Rabia Chaudry of 'Serial' is on to this and she's actually telling people to 'go f*** themselves' for their ignorance and blind hatred of Amber Heard. Rabia's the expert on juries getting it wrong and she explains why they got it wrong in this case.

I don't listen to 'advice' when couched as go **** yourself. Its not advice. It's sentiment. And it indicates a clear lack of objectivity which for a technical adviser is pathetic. Not going to waste 30 mins of my time. Peter Tragos has no bias and doesn't care in the least what the result will be. Works in this area. Didn't before the case but evaluated the evidence and concluded it would be a Depp win ON the evidence. It was. He then explained that appeals are rarely won in these cases and usually only granted when there is something major excluded. He went through the evidence that was excluded before trial and concluded that 'counseling notes' were rightfully excluded and weren't probative anyway. There was nothing else of significance

Then it comes to the day to day rulings. He says that judges are given a great deal of extra latitude much more so than pre trial exclusions and there is a general rule that virtually none (unless extreme obvious and critical error are made) of day to day rulings are overturned for that reason. In his view having watched the whole trial there were none. Having listened to him I know and accept the quality of his advice.

Decide what you will. Imo based on my evaluation and the objective clear quality opinion of Peter Tragos she isnt even getting close to winning an appeal. There is simply nothing there of substance to overturn the result.

 

[Kurve]

I don't listen to 'advice' when couched as go **** yourself. Its not advice. It's sentiment. And it indicates a clear lack of objectivity which for a technical adviser is pathetic. Not going to waste 30 mins of my time. Peter Tragos has no bias and doesn't care in the least what the result will be. Works in this area. Didn't before the case but evaluated the evidence and concluded it would be a Depp win ON the evidence. It was. He then explained that appeals are rarely won in these cases and usually only granted when there is something major excluded. He went through the evidence that was excluded before trial and concluded that 'counseling notes' were rightfully excluded and weren't probative anyway. There was nothing else of significance

It's very unusual for Rabia, I've never heard her speak like that before so demonstrates how frustrated she is and after covering 24 wrongful convictions by juries, over her career.

Your unwillingness to consider another expert opinion isn't really surprising. Depp's social media campaign overwhelmed most

I jumped out over twitter early against the Heard hatred I could see dominating social media, after years of engaging in there with several thousand followers, my account was swarmed by Depp stans and targeted with mass reports, I could have lost it. Simply because I offered another opinion with four or five tweets, they tried to shut me down.

The sophisticated SM campaign against Amber Heard isn't organic.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

It's very unusual for Rabia, I've never heard her speak like that before so demonstrates how frustrated she is and after covering 24 wrongful convictions by juries, over her career.

Your unwillingness to consider another expert opinion isn't really surprising. Depp's social media campaign overwhelmed most

I jumped out over twitter early against the Heard hatred I could see dominating social media, after years of engaging in there with several thousand followers, my account was swarmed by Depp stans and targeted with mass reports, I could have lost it. Simply because I offered another opinion with four or five tweets, they tried to shut me down.

The sophisticated SM campaign against Amber Heard isn't organic.

I evaluate technical advice throughout my career including legal. There are established procedures to it for me. The mere fact she spoke n that way just excludes it from the start. I look for impartiality technical expertise and competence, a cautious and non committal hesitancy that all quality adviser exhibit. Tragos very first comment before trial was that there likely would be no winner.that gradually changed contrary to his initial take and he surprised himself.

I have no idea what your comment "it doesn't surprise me" means. If it's to imply I'm biased you are very wrong. Having given high level tax advice for 40 years I abide a approach that makes it basically incapable. for to be biased. Frankly the suggestion offends me. I took to this the same as I give my advice. Totally open mind free and open and driven to an outcome by evidence alone. It's what I do. I happened upon Tragos to help with the more technical aspects because he was a clone of me in a different field.

I'm sorry you seem to get emotionally invested in outcomes than processes but ultimately it's not my concern you do. I do what I always do unaffected by it be because i enjoy the challenge technically

 

[Eaglette01]

I watched most of the Depp v Heard trial including both of their accounts on the witness stand (including disrespectful/comedic comments from Depp & him waving to his hordes of groupies in the courtroom and outside). He treated it like a circus act.

IMO the 7 members of the jury got it wrong.

I was bombarded with bots of "pro Johnny" on social media. It was overwhelming and inaccurate.

Trashing a dressing room is a form of abuse - not "rearranging a room" as worded by the "yes" men surrounding Depp.

Leopards don't change their spots and I have no doubt that Depps troubles/accusations will continue

 

[Kurve]

I evaluate technical advice throughout my career including legal. There are established procedures to it for me. The mere fact she spoke n that way just excludes it from the start. I look for impartiality technical expertise and competence, a cautious and non committal hesitancy that all quality adviser exhibit. Tragos very first comment before trial was that there likely would be no winner.that gradually changed contrary to his initial take and he surprised himself.

I have no idea what your comment "it doesn't surprise me" means. If it's to imply I'm biased you are very wrong. Having given high level tax advice for 40 years I abide a approach that makes it basically incapable. for to be biased. Frankly the suggestion offends me. I took to this the same as I give my advice. Totally open mind free and open and driven to an outcome by evidence alone. It's what I do. I happened upon Tragos to help with the more technical aspects because he was a clone of me in a different field.

I'm sorry you seem to get emotionally invested in outcomes than processes but ultimately it's not my concern you do. I do what I always do unaffected by it be because i enjoy the challenge technically

I didn't ask for your resume.

You're simply trying to look for an acceptable way out not to listen to an excellent analysis by pretending the whole thing should be ignored on one expression of frustration.

 

[jason_recliner]

I evaluate technical advice throughout my career including legal. There are established procedures to it for me. The mere fact she spoke n that way just excludes it from the start. I look for impartiality technical expertise and competence, a cautious and non committal hesitancy that all quality adviser exhibit. Tragos very first comment before trial was that there likely would be no winner.that gradually changed contrary to his initial take and he surprised himself.

I have no idea what your comment "it doesn't surprise me" means. If it's to imply I'm biased you are very wrong. Having given high level tax advice for 40 years I abide a approach that makes it basically incapable. for to be biased. Frankly the suggestion offends me. I took to this the same as I give my advice. Totally open mind free and open and driven to an outcome by evidence alone. It's what I do. I happened upon Tragos to help with the more technical aspects because he was a clone of me in a different field.

I'm sorry you seem to get emotionally invested in outcomes than processes but ultimately it's not my concern you do. I do what I always do unaffected by it be because i enjoy the challenge technically

You're COMPLETELY full of yourself - could that be considered a bias?

Oh, and you're clearly biased against women.

If you were even, oh, I dunno, 1% as objective and intelligent as you proclaim, you would consider that a Judge found that Heard was abused. A jury of 12 people influenced by Depp's celebrity status and unprecedented PR campaign decided he didn't do it.

 

[Kurve]

I'm sorry you seem to get emotionally invested in outcomes than processes but ultimately it's not my concern you do. I do what I always do unaffected by it be because i enjoy the challenge technically

You could remove that accusation of being emotional if you want to be taken seriously because there's a good case to be made that Depp's team has played on yours.

Here's the technical for you and it's very simple. Amber Heard could be the most awful person on the planet and she can be a bit messed up, she can also be a liar and still not have defamed him when she said he hit her. All she had to do to defeat his defamation suit, was prove that he abused her once. Not 12 times as the UK High Court found, just once and she did that.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You're COMPLETELY full of yourself - could that be considered a bias?

Oh, and you're clearly biased against women.

If you were even, oh, I dunno, 1% as objective and intelligent as you proclaim, you would consider that a Judge found that Heard was abused. A jury of 12 people influenced by Depp's celebrity status and unprecedented PR campaign decided he didn't do it.

7 jurors actually but don't let facts get in your way

You don't know me or my belief systems. I have no bias against women. I'm in a long term happy relationship with one. I have bias against abusers and other miscreants male or female. People who judge without facts set themselves up to be judged by their conduct.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You could remove that accusation of being emotional if you want to be taken seriously because there's a good case to be made that Depp's team has played on yours.

Here's the technical for you and it's very simple. Amber Heard could be the most awful person on the planet and she can be a bit messed up, she can also be a liar and still not have defamed him when she said he hit her. All she had to do to defeat his defamation suit, was prove that he abused her once. Not 12 times as the UK High Court found, just once and she did that.

She was unable to do that because she lied and perjured herself on multiple occasions multiple ways. Her credibility was destroyed. A jury can still find randomly for unrelated reasons but didn't. That's nor surprising

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I'm not on social media so am not influenced by it

 

[Kurve]

She was unable to do that because she lied and perjured herself on multiple occasions multiple ways. Her credibility was destroyed. A jury can still find randomly for unrelated reasons but didn't. That's nor surprising

There was a heap of contemporaneous evidence that Depp hit her. Many want to ignore that.

 

[jason_recliner]

7 jurors actually but don't let facts get in your way

Are you implying that makes the jury more or less reliable than if there were 12 jurors?

I'm not on social media so am not influenced by it

Not sure if serious, or...

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Are you implying that makes the jury more or less reliable than if there were 12 jurors?


Not sure if serious, or...

Neither. Just pointing out facts don't seem to matter in analysis for you

Deadly serious. I watched the trail, The lawyer you know and not much else. Had all I needed. If there was some surge in social media I didn't see it nor care

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You could remove that accusation of being emotional if you want to be taken seriously because there's a good case to be made that Depp's team has played on yours.

Here's the technical for you and it's very simple. Amber Heard could be the most awful person on the planet and she can be a bit messed up, she can also be a liar and still not have defamed him when she said he hit her. All she had to do to defeat his defamation suit, was prove that he abused her once. Not 12 times as the UK High Court found, just once and she did that.

I think you mean remove accusation I'm somehow biased? Why? I can't control what others think or don't think. I'm not here to please them or you either. I do what I do and if people don't accept it or believe it or like it I don't care.

You want to try and rewrite what actually happened. She had zero credibility. When credibility is lost thinking becomes black or white. If she lied about injuries or donations or TMZ or exaggerated altercations or faked photos of injuries then it's naive to think they won't rule a line through every utterance. You are saying they had no right to do that because in you view there was at least one time he hit her. They didn't see it that way because she had no credibility and I can understand why

 

[jason_recliner]

Just pointing out facts don't seem to matter in analysis for you

No, you aren't "pointing out" anything of the sort.

I'm not on social media so am not influenced by it

Deadly serious. I watched the trail, The lawyer you know and not much else. Had all I needed. If there was some surge in social media I didn't see it nor care

You're typing this on an internet forum!

I think you mean remove accusation I'm somehow biased? Why? I can't control what others think or don't think. I'm not here to please them or you either. I do what I do and if people don't accept it or believe it or like it I don't care.

It's obvious you care deeply about what random strangers on the internet think about you. Why else would you engage in lengthy, tedious, reach-around conversations with one other poster in public threads that would be far more appropriate for private messaging? Why engage in lengthy, tedious arguments with random strangers on the internet who disagree with you? Why try to convince anybody who doesn't care that you are so intelligent and objectively correct about everything?

You lack any awareness of your behaviour and the world around you.

 

[Kurve]

I'm not on social media so am not influenced by it

How did you find out about the trial and where did you watch it?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

How did you find out about the trial and where did you watch it?

From the court

 

[Kurve]

From the court

Via Court TV. lol

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I didn't ask for your resume.

You're simply trying to look for an acceptable way out not to listen to an excellent analysis by pretending the whole thing should be ignored on one expression of frustration.

You pushed an adviser on me I wasn't going to watch and explained it. You think it's an excellent analysis but to me if it starts from that view point it simply can't be. Because it's imbued with bias. I don't want to listen to anyone who is biased because it's rubbish

I'm not frustrated. I watched it all I resolved what I thought was appropriate abd agreed 100% with the 7 jurors with whom Tragos agreed

Look it's 30 mins. I'll look. But I'll tell you now if I've decided something on evaluation of facts no one's biased view will sway me. sorry