Tumgik
#elaine bredehoft
Text
After court hours, Elaine was seen going to the bathroom, visibly crying.
So I wanted to say, after all its said and done, no matter the verdict, I do feel bad for Elaine. She did the best she could with the crap case she was given. She did her job. Even if she was out of her depth in this case.
She’s a litigator, she’s usually good at her job. She’s among the top lawyers in Virginia, DC and Baltimore, with many other honours and recognitions, but she hasn’t been in court for a long time (most of her cases never go to trial).
When a movie sucks, I don’t blame the actors, I blame the writing, the source material.
Here I don’t blame Elaine, it’s not her fault the “source material” she was working with, AH, sucked.
I truly believe that at the beginning of this trial Elaine believed AH’s story and believed she was on the “right side”, but as the trial went on and spending time close to AH, she realized the person AH really is. You can see it on her face as the days go by (especially at the end, she looks empty). She’s just another person AH lied to. But she did her job, right to the very end, and I can’t fault her for that.
Let’s remember that she was also at the receiving end of AH’s anger and didn’t have any support from her team. Unlike the visible comradery JD’s lawyers share, AH’s team looked like people that don’t really like each other, but are forced to work together for a school assignment.
In the end all I can say, I wish Elaine the best.
185 notes · View notes
nightingale398 · 2 years
Text
I feel so bad for Elaine, her own client not only abused her but also ruined her career
24 notes · View notes
Link
Yesterday, a court in Fairfax, Virginia, ruled in favour of Johnny Depp on three counts of defamation. Amber Heard won for one count against Depp’s lawyer, Adam Waldman. Depp will receive $15 million gross, which has been revised down to $10.4 million in line with Virginia’s state limits for punitive damages. Amber Heard will receive $2 million in compensation, but no punitive damages. 
I was surprised by this verdict-- and very concerned. The judgement against Heard seems disproportionate, and I am puzzled as to why the jury is confident that her claims are false. If they had doubts, I could understand, but the jury also ruled that Adam Waldman had defamed Amber Heard when he called her sexual abuse allegations ‘a hoax’. If that claim is defamatory, then how are Amber Heard’s allusions in an op-ed that never names Depp nor specifies the claims so defamatory that she has to pay over $10 million to Johnny Depp?  
I am troubled by the precedent for freedom of speech here. Nobody doubts that defamation is unacceptable, but we must also recognise that freedom of speech is threatened if people cannot make a public allegation against an individual in power for fear of being ruined financially by a lawsuit. Amber Heard’s attorney, Elaine Bredehoft, confirmed in the above interview that Amber Heard absolutely cannot afford to pay Depp $10 million in damages and will therefore appeal. 
Even more disturbingly, Elaine Bredehoft claims that a great deal of evidence was suppressed prior to the Virginia trial, including medical reports from Amber Heard showing that she made allegations of physical and sexual abuse against Depp dating back to 2012. Text messages were also suppressed, showing that Depp’s assistants told him that he had kicked Heard, and he cried. I have personally seen screenshots of those messages. So Bredehoft argues that there are also evidence-based reasons to appeal this verdict, which she says sends a terrible message. 
I always insist that allegations be supported by evidence, and Amber Heard did provide extensive evidence to support her claims. She provided more evidence than I knew about, given that I did not follow the 2020 case or have access to some key facts about her TRO and divorce proceedings in 2016. 
I am not convinced that Johnny Depp responded sufficiently to that evidence in Virginia, especially in response to his exceedingly vulgar text messages. 
Will this ruling set a precedent where someone can make a public allegation and provide evidence, but, owing to the career damage that the accused suffers, be found liable for defamation and have to pay millions in damages? 
If so, this injustice could affect anybody, including Johnny Depp’s own fans. Journalists who report stories in the national interest could find themselves in court and potential truths could be suppressed. 
I know that the investigative journalist and author Catherine Belton was being sued by Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, Igor Sechin, Rosneft, and others after publishing a book about how Vladimir Putin’s friends helped him get into power (Putin’s People). Other journalists felt extremely concerned that the legal challenge against Belton would limit their ability to report damaging facts about powerful individuals. 
Is that the precedent set here? If so, then America’s Constitution has been undermined, and all Americans-- whether they believe Amber Heard or not-- are less free. 
23 notes · View notes
whistle-free · 2 years
Text
Elaine Bredehoft's Interviews post-trial
After the verdict was read Amber Heard's lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft, went on to do some interviews on the TODAY show, CBS Mornings.
In these interviews she claimed the verdict was "a major setback for women." She never brings up "victims" or "survivors" of domestic violence, and that fact is important. She centers the conversation on women. By specifying "women" and not "victims" she is sending the message that men cannot be victims. This is RadFem rhetoric, and it's important to note this.
Bredehoft also kept bringing up that a substantial amount of evidence AH had was suppressed and not allowed that would have turned the case in their favor such as medical records and texts. The implication was that Johnny's side would not allow the information to come in because they knew it would be devastating to his case.
It's important to note that one side cannot solely dictate what evidence get's to come in from their opponent. In the process known as discovery (where evidence is brought before the court for admittance) one side presents evidence that they would like to bring into the case. The other side may object to this evidence, but it's important to note that the decision is ultimately left to the judge. The judge can overrule a rejection if they don't believe the objecting team's reason for not wanting the evidence to come in was sound enough. However, if the judge agrees to the party's objection (and they must have valid grounds for objection for this to happen, for example, hearsay or relevance. It being devastating to one side's case will not get the judge to throw it out) then it's the judge's sole decision to not let the evidence come in.
The texts Bredehoft was referring to are the Stephen Deuters texts, where in a text exchange with Amber he said "when I told [Johnny] he hit you, he cried." The reason these texts weren't admitted were due to hearsay issues. There's also the matter that Deuters later claimed that he had no such conversation with Amber and claimed the texts were suspicious and he believed them to be doctored, claiming that he would be "willing to testify under oath that he never had a conversation with Heard about the alleged domestic violence."
The medical records Bredehoft referred to were therapist notes, [which have since been revealed in Amber's interviews.] These were also thrown out for hearsay reasons. The reason these are considered hearsay is because the therapist was not present when the alleged abuse occurred, and only had Amber's word to go off of. [In another post I'll also detail how it's come out that these particular therapist notes were not taken until years after the alleged abuse had taken place, and therefore wouldn't have counted as timeline evidence.]
Bredehoft also said "it's a tale of two trials," detailing how Johnny Depp brought a suit for the same case and lost in the UK. That the Sun proved he committed those acts of violence. However, this is incorrect. The two trials were very different, and here's a post that explains this in more detail.
She also claimed they weren't allowed to bring up the UK trial to jury. This is true, but some important context she left out was that it would have been illegal for them to do so. It is law in the US that you are not allowed to bring up the outcomes of previous trials or else you can bias the jury. It wasn't, like she implied, a circumstance special to this case.
15 notes · View notes
sullxo · 2 years
Note
Apparently Elaine hired her own lawyer.
Tumblr media
All good, and yep. Elaine hired an attorney noted in the triple insurance lawsuit battle.
Why? I believe it’s because ProSight (NY G. Marine) is trying to argue they shouldn’t pay any more money than they have because of two things (could be more, but these the def. argued reasons):
a. the counsel they hired was kicked off the case by Amber. they shouldn’t have to pay Elaine.
b. the actual malice tort.
Me? I hope that we see if Elaine was fired or did she quit. I’m betting she was fucking fired.
9 notes · View notes
my-brain-is-rude · 2 years
Text
I don't know why but I get Dolores Umbridge vibes from Amber Heard's lawyer, Elaine
Tumblr media
Anyone else agree?
9 notes · View notes
yelena-bellova · 2 years
Note
A lawyer was reacting to Elaine’s interview and he brought out a good point. Elaine says a lot of “Amber says this” and “Amber says that” (not to mention her two interviews are too similar like she has a script of topics). She probably has to do this and I’m just like “Elaine, blink twice if you need help.” But it’s just as likely that she believes AH.
Hmmm, that’s a good point. I still think her going on these talk shows is classless.
10 notes · View notes
Text
I don't really follow whatever the fuck is happening with the heard depp trial but I do feel sorry for her lawyers like there's so much abuse towards them and for what, doing their job???
12 notes · View notes
Text
Apparently Heard plans to appeal the verdict. That was what her attorney, Elaine Bredehoft said in an interview on the Today Show 
3 notes · View notes
crown-royale-tea · 2 years
Text
I feel bad for Elaine, she looks so tired and burnt out.
4 notes · View notes
comradevo · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
wha
my sister-in-christ, YOU BROUGHT THE SOCIAL MEDIA INTO THE TRIAL AS EVIDENCE AND AS EXPERT TESTIMONY. like YOU were the one to expose the jury! that was a major foundation of your case!
Tumblr media
I feel like I'm being fucking gaslighted.
1 note · View note
antidam0n · 2 years
Text
I'm still working my way through all the evidence of the Depp vs Heard defamation trial but what I can say for certain is that as a lay person Elaine Bredehoft seems like such a bad lawyer. Surely in your opening and closing statements you should be clear so that the jury can understand you? Instead she rushes/rambes through a story like it's hot gossip, like she's a hype woman for a upcoming drama in a soap opera. It also seems like such a poor strategy to give away every minutiae of how they are going to use every piece of evidence to support Amber allowing the opposing lawyers to plan ahead? Really surprised that this is the lawyer we have for such a high profile case.
Just skipped ahead to see her closing and it's no better. She ends the closing with how much money she wants? Rottenborn made such a better case.
1 note · View note
Text
Depp Defender Logic
Amber’s admittance to hitting Johnny in an audio recording means she’s clearly guilty! Case closed! Oh, but Johnny’s admittance to headbutting Amber in an audio recording doesn’t necessarily mean anything, and neither do the texts he and his personal assistant sent to Amber apologizing for him kicking her. 
One of the worst things Amber did was cut off Johnny’s finger. This is definitely what happened despite the fact that Johnny said in multiple private conversations with close friends, doctors, and Amber herself that he cut his own finger off. His exact phrasing doesn’t matter because he clearly meant that she cut it off. Another piece of evidence that Amber’s lying is her accidentally admitting to using a bruise kit instead of a color correcting kit on the stand. There is absolutely no ambiguity in this phrasing and it’s completely unfeasible that she would have momentarily forgotten the exact name for a bruise covering kit and accidentally said ‘bruise kit’ before remembering that means something else already and immediately correcting herself.
She’s also called him cruel and horrible things like a fat old man and a baby. This is why she deserved to be called a ‘gold digging, low level, dime a dozen, mushy, pointless dangling overused flappy fish market’, a ‘waste of a cum guzzler’, a ‘50 cent stripper’ a ‘worthless hooker’, a ‘filthy whore’, and much more in verified texts sent by Johnny where he also said he would ‘smack the ugly cunt around’ ‘drown [and] burn her’ and ‘fuck her burnt corpse’.
All of Amber’s witnesses that testified to seeing bruises or witnessing Johnny hurting Amber must be getting paid by her. Johnny’s witnesses, on the other hand, are way more credible- the fact that they’re all on Johnny’s payroll doesn’t mean anything. Whitney Henriquez’s testimony doesn’t mean anything, because of course she’d defend her own sister!! Christie Dembrowski’s testimony, however, clearly shows what a good soul Johnny is. 
Also, Amber and her witnesses were clearly lying because there were minor discrepancies in the details between their testimonies. The 80+ times Johnny lied on the stand, backtracked from previous testimonies, and tried to deny having said documented incriminating phrases doesn’t mean anything because he was probably just confused because he’s a poor traumatized little boy.
Dr. Dawn Hughes, the board certified psychologist who’s been treating Amber for years, is lying on the stand about everything because she looks mean and ugly. Instead, we should listen to Shannon Curry, the young and beautiful psychologist who diagnosed Amber with two personality disorders within a day of meeting her and claimed that real PTSD victims are unable to function in day-to-day life.
Camille Vasquez is such an icon for ripping Amber Heard to shreds, mocking her SA story, claiming that Johnny was the reason she got her role on Aquaman, trying to argue that Amber posted a video at Coachella with friends to send a message to Johnny, and using medical records that describe Heard as a ‘well nourished male’. Ben Rottenborn and Elaine Bredehoft, on the other hand, are terrible and unprepared lawyers who made mean spirited reaches in their cross-examinations.
Amber smiling a few times in court proves that she’s guilty and that she’s revelling in all of this. It’s honestly disgusting. Also, she’s way too emotional in her testimony. Also, she’s not emotional enough, which makes her look ingenuine. Anyway, isn’t it so funny and cute how Johnny kept smiling and smirking and making little quips during his testimony?
Clearly Amber’s guilty here since she was arrested for domestic violence in the past, even though her charges were dropped immediately after and the ex in question has come out saying it was a misunderstanding based in homophobia and misogyny. Meanwhile, all of Johnny’s exes have supported him, proving his innocence- except for Ellen Barkin, who is old, jealous, bitter, irrelevant, and clinging to the past. Oh, did you say something about Johnny Depp’s public image as the ‘bad boy of Hollywood’ who repeatedly abused drugs, trashed hotel rooms, and got in trouble with the police for being aggressive all the way back in the 90’s? I conveniently don’t recall any of that. All I know is that he visits kids in hospitals sometimes.
Also, he’s the good guy in the assault case he’ll go to court for next month, because he was just defending a homeless black woman from being called racial slurs. This behavior is very in character for Johnny, who has defended racism, dressed up in racist costumes multiple times, used plenty of racial slurs (or at the very least, offensive and derogatory terms) himself and once joked that he ‘shot a few ne****s in a club on Sunset Boulevard’.
Amber is a terrible actress and she’s putting on the performance of a lifetime to convince everyone of her innocence. Johnny Depp is an amazingly talented actor and you can just tell that he’s innocent and genuine by the way he’s behaving.
Amber is dragging this out when Johnny just wants to move on with his life. It’s her fault that he sued her repeatedly for an article that never directly mentioned him, thrusting them both into the public eye with overwhelmingly negative attention surrounding her and overwhelmingly positive attention surrounding him.
Seven un-sequestered jurors found Amber guilty of defaming Johnny Depp in her statement ‘I spoke up about sexual violence and faced our culture’s wrath’. This is a more accurate conclusion than the three other judges who found her allegations of Depp’s abuse to be substantially true.
790 notes · View notes
sullxo · 2 years
Note
Since Elaine pledged to help Amber's new team of lawyers, do you think she's gonna do it in 10 years of instalments and then ask Elon to do it 😂
Nah, she’s going to blame Ben Chew and says it was because he sued her lmao.
8 notes · View notes
justiceamberheard · 2 years
Text
Dr Hughes testimony, part 1. TW//: SEXUAL ASSAULT.
Amber Heard's team's first witness is clinical and forensic psychologist Dawn Hughes, who is based in New York.
She says she has been practising for about 25 to 30 years and has examined "hundreds upon hundreds" of victims of interpersonal violence during the course of her career.
Dr Hughes says she has testified as an expert witness about 50 times before, with more than half of these as an expert in interpersonal violence and traumatic stress.
Dr Hughes treats adults mostly, MEN AND WOMEN, who have sustained some kind of tramatic events in their life.
Dr Hughes specializes in interpersonal violence and traumatic stress.
PV is a "pattern of manipulation and coercive control" which can include a variety of abuse - physical, emotional, sexual, economic, she tells the court."The abusive behaviours occur over time, not all at once," she says, and are also interspersed with "normal times" and "love and care" - which is what makes it difficut for a victim to leave.The overarching dynamic is of "one person wanting to have dominance in that relationship", Dr Hughes tells the court.
Dr Hughes explains what psychological aggression means.
She talks about emotional, sexual abuse.
"This is one of the myths," Dr Hughes tells the court, that a victim would leave. "Nothing could be further from the truth," she says. Victims "bury it" and try to reach out to the "kind and loving" person they entered the relationship with.
In a "lull", the victim is back with the loving partner they wanted in the first place, Dr Hughes says.Pairing a violent dynamic with the love and attachment creates a "trauma bond, a psychological bond", she says.This makes it difficult for a victim to leave or even believe that she can and she should, she says.Asked to describe "love bombing", she says this is showering someone with affection and love - sending flowers, buying gifts, going on trips - which gets people "hooked" on the kindness.
Would a victim yell at a partner? Dr Hughes is asked. "Absolutely."A victim can be afraid but can also be angry at the same time, she says.Some will fight back "even though the risk of violence is there", she says.
Psychologist and expert witness Dawn Hughes is asked by Amber Heard's lawyer Elaine Bredehoft about domestic violence against men.Men can be victims of domestic violence, too, Dr Hughes tells the court - and says "we have to be careful of gendered stereotypes"
Dr Hughes says there are also myths about how trauma survivors present after an incident."People think 'oh, they should be hysterical'," the psychologist says. She says this isn't typically the first reaction - which is actually usually "suppression, emotional numbing"."Women who are beaten, they get up the next morning, they get their kids dressed, they get them to school, they go to work... they go on with life," she says. Just because someone is "smiling and happy" it doesn't mean they are not suffering, Dr Hughes adds.
Dr. Hughes discusses the term "mutual abuse."
She says Heard is not a client of hers so this was an objective evaluation, which involved an interview with the actress, a psychological test, and reviewing medical and psychological records as well as the records of the case. She tells the court she first met Heard in September 2019 and spent about 29 hours with her in total - 21.5 hours in person in New York and then a couple of sessions over Zoom.
She tells the court that Heard has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - caused by intimate partner violence by Depp.
Dr. Hughes says she disagrees with Dr. Curry's testimony and diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder in Heard.
"She was raised in a family of violence," Dr Hughes says, saying that the actress's father was "explosive" and that both parents struggled with substance abuse.Heard "learned very early" how to "caretake" and live in a sitation "mired in chaos", the court is told.Heard "learned that she could love someone who hurts her", Dr Hughes tells the jury.She says Head believed she could "fix" Depp, liked she tried to "fix" her parents.
The psychologist tells the court she found "coercive control" by Depp to be "quite significant".She says there were "many, many incidents" of Depp interfering in Heard's career. He didn't want her to appear nude or show "t*ts and a**" and didn't want her to work with certain actors.Depp would call actors and actresses and even directors she worked with, Dr Hughes says Heard told her, telling them: "I got eyes down there."
The number of film roles Amber Heard took on throughout the relationship dropped, according to Dr Hughes. She said AH said Johnny Depp got drunk and high and ripped off her nightgown and tried to force oral sex.
 Amber Heard said Johnny Depp threatened to kill her and sexually assaulted her in Australia and when he penetrated her with the vodka bottle she dissociated and thought "God, I hope it's not the broken one."
She says this "deteriorated" during the course of her relationship with Johnny Depp, saying that she lost weight - going from about 125-130lbs to 105lbs, and that by the end she was on more medication and suffering "more panic" and more "anxiety".Asked about the impact of Depp’s substance abuse on the relationship, Dr Hughes says there was a lot of lying, hiding and concealment, and a lot of blame - "blaming your partner for your inability to stay clean".
704 notes · View notes
yelena-bellova · 2 years
Note
elaine having a long history of wins sounds weird because of how unprofessional she acted ("fifteen minutes of fame" as a part of it). i understand that she basically had no case with ambuser, but you'd think that she'd handle it... more gracefully.
None of AH’s team has acted gracefully. They made fools of themselves.
16 notes · View notes