juryrigging

All things to no people.

My pronouns are identifiers, not an identity. If it's not obvious then I'm doing it wrong.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@BroodingElm @FrlessMatriarch @TheEmilyDBaker @RekietaLaw Judge said they weren't allowed dictionaries during the instructions before the case was put to them.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@Ak47Mouth @rhodefi @Jenna82962876 @ChanleyCourtTV @CourtTV yeah, it is confusing & easy to get tied up in knots over. But if they are asking questions on finding, it is likely they are getting close to a verdict. Still might not be today, but promising sign.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@Ak47Mouth @rhodefi @Jenna82962876 @ChanleyCourtTV @CourtTV Think the jury confused if A & B were statements within the text, was C another statement (just the title) or whole op-ed. Context defines if it's about JD, but the statements are judged on their merits. But if the whole is deemed defamatory, it would be hard to argue title isn't

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@TheInksy @colonelkurtz99 Not a pro-Amber tweet. Re-read with sarcasm mode turned on.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@IanRunkle @OiThePoodlesOK Google and Facebook will probably just stop linking to news sites. They've threatened/done it before in various European countries iirc. It doesn't benefit them to have to pay to drive traffic to news companies, who then profit from that traffic, so won't play ball.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@DebiDawson8 @aburkhartlaw Ah. Fair enough 🙂

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@DebiDawson8 @aburkhartlaw She's pointing out contradictions in AH's teams closing statements

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@EAI1919 @rosiepilsbury @lisamurray128 @ALKATEX @TheEmilyDBaker Rottenborn's "if you find he abused her even once, or if you have doubt he never abused her even once, you must find for Amber" plays here. If evidence suggests JD MIGHT have abused just her once, her statements aren't provably false and the bar for defamation is not met.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@Hydrosphere_13 @04Munekita @skhskh1996x @jamesfromcourt Deuters name was un-redacted in the participants field and was not the name with "(owner)" marked next to it. Incoming literally means "coming in", so it was a text being received by that phone. So not Deuter's phone, not him receiving it. Only the outgoing message was Depp's.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@KyDUIGuy I'd keep the law and ditch the tube, just in case you end up somewhere else at a later date.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@ChloeWD38 Amber's team called it today, but a) Johnny had to waive privilege for the Dr to testify that way, and b) both sides have to agree what's in the depo. Doing it this way, you felt icky and intrusive, hurting for Johnny. A forensic psych would be more clinical.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@ChloeWD38 It was almost certainly a legal tactic from Depp's team. It was probably that or forensic psychs like Drs Hughes and Curry for Amber.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@R_Lefebvre42 @sjanefrommaine @lilylysandra @IanRunkle @KyDUIGuy Face coverings hide features making them difficult to read, so it's definitely relevant trying to assess how the jurors are responding to testimony.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@WallOWithnail @ArteesticOne Absolutely. Also, she didn't say she'd never played a guitar, but that she'd never played the guitar—that is Johnny's guitar, the guitar in question. Gotchas on things not said don't help, especially when there's a wealth of other issues with her testimony.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@The_Big_HL Probably means the door is open to something they couldn't bring in during Depp's testimony.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@jossytweets It was Ben King, the house manager. Presumably as a record of what he had to get cleaned up and fixed.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@DiaryOtdGirl I understand it's standard for defence to move to dismiss after the prosecution rests. Seems more like Rottenborn is just going through the motions as a formality.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@PedanticPerson @RickRain04 @Samantharhill You were responding to a guy who correctly said eternal life does not necessarily mean eternal youth, presumably making him leery about the option. as written.
Specifying "as long as it comes with…" is absolutely the way to go, as it puts in safeguards rather than assuming.

[juryrigging @juryrigging]

@PedanticPerson @RickRain04 @Samantharhill Assuming the immortality mechanism is non-sentient or otherwise incapable of human-style lateral thinking (most likely), the only data it has is "live forever". Youth does not factor in unless explicitly stated—eternal youth.

Anything else is to assume facts not in evidence.