Thread by @sleeb01

Ben Chew admitted that he found Amber Heard credible during her deposition. Which is why he and those on Depp's side had to go out of his way to attempt to discredit Amber and anyone on her side. A 🧵about many of the strategies Depp's side used to accomplish this. #DARVODepp

There are a lot of reasons this is harmful, a particularly insidious one is that in refuting their words Amber's side has to repeatedly bring up what Depp's side injects and expend energy refuting it instead or not refute it and have that used against them later.

Depp's side would introduce matters unrelated to the issue at hand and these unrelated matters and their characterization of them were intended to portray Amber in a negative light.

In an email thread regarding whether cameras would be shown in the courtroom, Chew includes the substance of what they will argue to say Amber's rape allegations are false, gives their version of Depp chopping off his finger and accuses Amber of changing the timeline of events.

During a hearing regarding whether or not Depp's sobriety doctor could testify as an expert, Chew both says that Depp has not been accused/arrested/convicted for assaulting anyone and alludes to a time when Amber was arrested for an alleged assault on her then wife Taysa Van Ree.

Depp's side used strong and hyperbolic language to make their point. The fashion Depp's team used language was to define the frame through which the truth was evaluated. Being in control of the frame was the only change Depp had of prevailing.

This example from Chew uses emotionally charged adjectives i.e. "baseless", "transparently", "improper", "harassing", "retaliating", "fallacious", "appropriate for a schoolyard" to bolster a point that this paragraph does nothing to advance.

Camille Vazquez repeatedly refers to what Amber or her side was doing as inappropriate while objecting.

Adam Waldman referring to Amber testifying about the sexual abuse in the UK trial with words such as "false", "abuse", "hoax", "sword", "shield" and "inflicting".

Referring to the Rocky Brook's litigation (a litigation that settled with Depp paying) as "comically frivolous".

In addition to implying that the incident was out of the time frame of the relationship, an argument that apparently he disregarded when he brought up the allegations of Amber against her ex-wife which occurred 2 years before dating Depp.

Depp's side made Bredehoft, in particular, a target. As Amber's head attorney and a woman it was critical Depp's side attacked her competence and credibility.

Chew made many thinly-veiled "jokes" about his dislike of her.

Chew was very condescending and patronizing towards Bredehoft. Often giving her "pointers". Attacking a woman's competence is bread and butter of corporate sexism and drives many women away from male-dominated fields.

Unsurprisingly a male junior associate joined in on the attacks of Bredehoft's credibility. Why could a junior associate speak to Amber's head of counsel that way? Because the junior was a man and the head of counsel was a woman.

And after closing, Chew took one more opportunity to mention Bredehoft.

Depp's lawyers grandstanded

During a hearing on February 25th, 2018 the Virginia trial judge Penny A. Azcarate ruled that cameras would be allowed during the trial. Amber's lawyer Elaine Bredehoft argued that the cameras should not be allowed because Amber was raped and sexually assaulted by Depp.

The substance of the hearing was publicized due to their being news outlets in the courtroom. Bredehoft was appearing via zoom and was unaware that there were news outlets.

Depp's trial attorney Ben Chew took the opportunity to grand stand at the hearing.

Bredehoft was clearly used to this tactic in her response.

Chew argued that Bredehoft had destroyed his strategy of calling Amber's rape allegations false during their opening argument. This is another bad faith argument as while taking advantage of Bredehoft not being the courtroom he drew attention to himself for the cameras.

Depp's side took aim at Amber's expert witnesses as well.

In particular, Dr. Dawn Hughes, a clinical forensic psychologist who testified that Amber's account of IPV was consistent with the literature and her experiences and that Amber had PTSD.

This was the role of Dr. Shannon Curry who testified for Depp's side that Amber had Borderline and Histrionic Personality Disorder and did not have PTSD. This is despite the fact that no therapist Amber has seen for treatment nor Dr. Hughes has thought she has BPD or HPD.

Depp's side attempted to paint Dr. Curry as an independent witness which given that Dr. Curry had dinner and drinks at Depp's house and formed her opinions on Amber before meeting her is untrue.

Dr. Curry even leveled accusations that she couldn't assess medical records properly due to redactions, redactions that had been litigated and decided as not relevant.

Depp's side stated that Dr. David Spiegel, a psychiatrist who has worked for 30 years, was no more qualified than the jury to speak about whether Depp had committed IPV to a medical degree of certainty.

Depp's side also needed to focus on Julian Ackert and leveling as many accusation as they could against him because he was the expert testifying that there was no evidence that Amber had manipulated photos and that evidence that Depp produced revealed manipulation and alteration.

Depp's witness to counter Ackert, Brian Neumeister accused Ackert of being incompetent and using unliscensed software.

This was because Depp's side could not find any evidence that photos had been tampered with.

Neumeister talked out of the other side of his mouth when he said that just because a file has data changes to it it does not mean the contents have been manipulated or altered.

This is a ridiculous argument for Neumeister to make because at the trial he refused to answer a simple question that he had not proven any photos had been manipulated and insinuated Amber's side had an agenda.

Depp's side attacking the credibility of Amber's witnesses accomplished the desired effect. The jury admitted that they disregarded the testimony of many witnesses on both sides.

Depp's threw out accusations of Amber's side motives.

Depp himself did this often. In this example throwing out accusations of why Amber wrote the Op-Ed (in the UK trial which is not about the Op-Ed).

Depp, even though he wanted Marilyn Manson texts included that supposedly supported his side accused Amber's side of wanting to make Depp guilty by his association with Manson.

Chew implied that Bredehoft was intending to insult him and his firm by taking issue with how Depp's side was taking Covid precautions for Amber's deposition. To inflame he said she was Amber's "third lead counsel" and that he had received warnings about this "behavior".

Even while throwing out accusations against Amber's side, Depp's side continues to argue the logic of their own unfounded accusations. The want to gag Amber's side from advancing their position while making their position the default argument and imply that this reasonable to do.

Chew asserts that he knows Bredehoft wants to relitigate previous rulings as the reason for her arguing a position.

David Sherborne, the attorney who represented Depp in the UK trial, argues why Amber's side takes issue with Waldman tweeting during the trial and using terminology such as "in memorium" to supposed victories of Depp's side. His argument is that they must attack Waldman.

Morgan Tremaine, a hobbyist for TMZ, opined on why Elaine Bredhoft would want to represent Amber.

This is no where near an exhaustive list of everything Depp's side did to attack the credibility of Amber and her side. And it does not even include much of the unprofessional manner that Depp's side conducted itself during the trial.

It should be clear from this list that Chew and Depp's side has been from the beginning using extreme and unfounded accusations against Amber's side to control the credibility narrative.

Activity that stems from a poisonous root as Chew has now admitted that he found Amber credible while watching her deposition.

This tactic is very effective because even in this thread I've put out into the world Depp's side's allegations that they hide behind arguments such as "Amber's side opened the door" which you can see here regarding the "donate"/"pledge" of Amber's divorce settlement.

They argue that Amber broke the divorce agreement by speaking about it but that is in no way germane to the case itself or has anything to do with Depp. It is not relevant to the case and just another example of forcing Amber's side to expend resources refuting Depp's claim.

This tactic of throwing out unfounded accusations comes from Depp himself. Dr. Hughes describes how difficult this made things for Amber in their relationship. What Dr. Hughes details applies to how Depp's side treated Amber's during the trials.

The question is: why would Depp's side rely on these tactics? I would think if you had the truth on your side you would not need to spend so much time making accusations against and belittling the other side. Depp's side seemed to run as far as possible from focusing on the truth

Depp has modified a tattoo he got on his hand of his nickname for Amber, Slim, and it now says "Slam". His implication is that Amber has been slamming him. It is pretty clear the "slam" has been a one way onslaught from Depp's side to cover for the fact that Amber is credible.