Connect with us

Entertainment

Amber Heard takes the stand in Johnny Depp defamation trial

Published

on

Amber Heard takes the stand in Johnny Depp defamation trial

“I battle to search out the phrases to explain how painful that is. That is horrible for me to sit down right here for weeks and relieve all the pieces,” Heard mentioned in the course of the begin of her testimony.

Depp is suing Heard for $50 million over a 2018 op-ed she wrote for The Washington Publish wherein she described herself as a “public determine representing home abuse.” Although Depp was not named within the article, he claims it price him profitable performing roles.

Heard’s testimony comes 14 days into the trial, after weeks of jurors listening to testimony in regards to the explosive relationship between the actors, together with from Depp himself, who testified over the course of a number of days that he has by no means struck a girl and accused Heard of abuse.

Heard and Depp, who met in 2009 and had been married from 2015-2016, accuse the opposite of acts of bodily violence throughout their relationship. They’ve each denied the opposite’s claims.

Advertisement

Attorneys for Depp rested their case on Tuesday.

Heard’s testimony

When Heard took the stand to testify, she started speaking about how she and Depp started falling in love after filming “The Rum Diary.”

“Once I was round Johnny, I felt like probably the most stunning particular person on this planet. He made me really feel like one million {dollars},” Heard testified. “It simply felt very intense.”

The 2 started seeing one another romantically in 2011, and Heard testified they’d spend days collectively at a time in a “bubble,” studying books and listening to music collectively, after which then he’d disappear. 

Heard was requested by lawyer Elaine Bredehoft if she remembered the primary time Depp hit her. 

Advertisement

“I’ll always remember it. It modified my life,” Heard mentioned. 

Heard mentioned she believed Depp was doing cocaine, that there was a classic jar of cocaine close by and that they had been sitting collectively on a sofa when she requested him a couple of tattoo on his arm and that he instructed her it mentioned, “Wino.”

“I simply laughed as a result of I believed he was joking. And he slapped me throughout the face,” Heard mentioned. “And I laughed. I laughed as a result of I did not know what else to do. I believed this should be a joke. I did not know what was happening. I simply stared at him.”

Heard testified that Depp hit her twice extra. She mentioned she tried to will herself to stroll out.  

“I knew it was fallacious and I knew that I needed to go away him. And that is what broke my coronary heart. As a result of I did not wish to go away him,” Heard mentioned. “I want I may sit right here and say I stood up and walked out of that home and I drew a line and I stood up for myself.” 

Advertisement

Heard mentioned that Depp received down on his knees, cried and apologized saying, “I believed I put the monster away.” 

It was unclear what 12 months the alleged incident occurred. 

Heard mentioned she did go away shortly after the incident and that she received texts from Depp apologizing profusely saying, “I would relatively lower my hand off than ever lay it upon you” and that he understood she may by no means forgive him. 

Heard mentioned they two reconciled shortly after the incident, and that he promised her that he’d by no means hit her once more. 

“I believed there was a line he’d by no means cross once more and that was it,” Heard. 

Advertisement

However she described the connection persevering with with escalating violence that she believed corresponded to Depp consuming. Heard testified that Depp would shove her, hit her, push her and that fights escalated rapidly. 

In Depp’s personal testimony, he denied having ever struck a girl in his life.

Psychologist testifies

The primary witness referred to as by the protection was forensic psychologist Daybreak Hughes, who testified that she believed Heard has post-traumatic stress dysfunction because of intimate companion violence perpetrated by Depp.

“What these exams present is that there was a excessive diploma of great violence perpetrated by Mr. Depp towards Ms. Heard. There was violence extra on the gentle degree perpetrated by Ms. Heard towards Mr. Depp with one extreme indicator which was the punching that she indicated to me,” Hughes testified on Tuesday. “She was subjected to sexual violence the place Mr. Depp, primarily based on her report, was subjected to none.”

On Wednesday, Depp’s lawyer Wayne Dennison performed a recording of a dialog between Heard and Depp.

“I used to be hitting you; I used to be not punching you,” Heard’s voice was heard saying within the recording.

Advertisement

“Do not inform me what it feels prefer to be punched,” Depp’s voice was heard saying within the recording.

Dennison requested Hughes if she felt the scenario captured in that recording was Heard preventing again reactively.

“On this occasion, if true, if she mentioned she hit him first, then that may not be reactive violence,” Hughes mentioned.

Dennison pressed Hughes on her evaluation that violence perpetuated by Heard towards Depp was “gentle,” displaying a graphic picture of Depp’s partially severed finger, an harm Depp mentioned he sustained after Heard allegedly threw a glass bottle at him.

“That {photograph} does not replicate a low degree of violence, does it?” Dennison requested.

“That displays a critical harm,” Hughes mentioned.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

'Killer Heat' movie review: A mystic mystery

Published

on

'Killer Heat' movie review: A mystic mystery

Philippe Lacôte’s Killer Heat is a suspense thriller set on the tranquil island of Crete, Greece. The island’s stunning landscape, with rugged mountains and pristine beaches, creates the perfect setting for this atmospheric mystery. Initially, the film may feel too laid-back for its own good, but as the plot unfolds, it finds its groove, delivering a cohesive, engaging story. Much like its setting, Killer Heat is refreshingly straightforward, avoiding a forced sense of suspense. The mystery unravels at a measured pace, allowing the viewer to savour the journey.

The plot itself may not break new ground, with relatively low stakes, but what makes it work is the absence of unnecessary storytelling shortcuts. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Nick Bali, a private investigator hired to look into the mysterious death of Leo (Richard Madden), the heir of the wealthy Verdakis family.

The film opens with Leo climbing a cliff while Bali narrates the Greek myth of Icarus, the man who flew too close to the sun. Leo soon falls to his death, and the family—except for Leo’s sister-in-law, Penelope (Shailene Woodley)—considers it a tragic accident.

Penelope, however, is convinced otherwise, refusing to trust the local police, claiming her “family owns them”, and that “in Crete, no one goes against the gods”. The film’s integration of Greek metaphors adds a touch of mysticism.

What’s refreshing about Killer Heat is that it doesn’t trick the audience. From the first scene, it’s clear that the culprit isn’t an outsider, but that doesn’t take away from the suspense.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Entertainment

Kim Kardashian wants the Menendez brothers to be freed as D.A. reviews case

Published

on

Kim Kardashian wants the Menendez brothers to be freed as D.A. reviews case

Kim Kardashian wants Lyle and Erik Menendez, the brothers convicted in the grisly 1989 murders of their parents, to be freed.

The reality star, daughter of late O.J. Simpson attorney Robert Kardashian, has fashioned herself as an advocate for criminal justice reform. And, in a personal essay for NBC News, she wrote Thursday that she hopes that the brothers, who have already served 35 years in prison, could have their life sentences “reconsidered.”

“We are all products of our experiences. They shape who we were, who we are, and who we will be. Physiologically and psychologically, time changes us, and I doubt anyone would claim to be the same person they were at 18. I know I’m not!,” the Skims co-founder wrote.

Kardashian rehashed widely known facts in the case — that the brothers, then ages 21 and 18, shot and killed their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills home — as well as their high-profile 1996 trials. But, she said, “this story is much more complex than it appears on the surface.”

“Both brothers said they had been sexually, physically and emotionally abused for years by their parents. According to Lyle, the abuse started when he was just 6 years old, and Erik said he was raped by his father for more than a decade. Following years of abuse and a real fear for their lives, Erik and Lyle chose what they thought at the time was their only way out — an unimaginable way to escape their living nightmare,” she said.

Advertisement

Erik Menendez, left, and is brother Lyle, in front of their Beverly Hills home.

(Ronald Soble / Los Angeles Times)

Listing issues with the trials and other legal missteps, Kardashian argued that “the media turned the brothers into monsters and sensationalized eye candy” and that they “had no chance of a fair trial against this backdrop.”

The beauty mogul has visited the brothers in prison and vouched for their “exemplary disciplinary records,” adding that a warden there told her that “he would feel comfortable having them as neighbors.” She asserted that life in prison is not the right punishment for them and argued that the exclusion of abuse evidence from their second trial denied them a fair go.

Advertisement

“The killings are not excusable. I want to make that clear. Nor is their behavior before, during or after the crime. But we should not deny who they are today in their 50s,” she wrote. “The trial and punishment these brothers received were more befitting a serial killer than two individuals who endured years of sexual abuse by the very people they loved and trusted.”

On Thursday, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón said his office would review what he described as new evidence that the brothers were molested — a move that could lead to revised sentences.

While there was no question the brothers committed the murders, Gascón said, the issue is whether the jury heard evidence that their father molested them. Evidence detailing sexual abuse was presented during the brothers’ first trial, which ended in hung juries, but was largely withheld during their second trial, where they were convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

Lyle Menendez, left confers with brother Erik during a court appearance, April 2, 1991 in Beverly Hills

Lyle Menendez, left, and Erik during a court appearance in Beverly Hills on April 2, 1991.

(Kevork Djansenzian / Associated Press)

Advertisement

Meanwhile, a series of creative projects over the past year have contributed to renewed interest in the brothers’ case and their highly scrutinized trials. Ryan Murphy’s splashy “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story,” for example, raised questions, much like his past anthology series revived the discourse around the O.J. Simpson trial and the impeachment of former President Clinton. The Menendez brothers were also the focus of the Fox Nation documentary series “Menendez Brothers: Victims or Villains,” which premiered in March, as well as the Peacock docuseries “Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed,” which presented new evidence and included an accusation of rape against patriarch Jose Menendez.

Citing evidence related to molestation claims, attorneys for the brothers filed petitions last year to reopen the case, and family members have rallied to get the men released. Others, like Kardashian, have argued that times have changed, and that the brothers’ allegations of abuse might have been received differently at trial today.

Times staff writers Salvador Hernandez, Hannah Fry and Richard Winton contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Union movie review & film summary (2024) | Roger Ebert

Published

on

Union movie review & film summary (2024) | Roger Ebert

When Amazon workers on Staten Island successfully voted to unionize in the spring of 2022, becoming the corporate retailer’s first American workplace to do so, it was hailed as one of the most important labor victories in the United States in nearly 100 years. 

For the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) to organize employees at the JFK8 warehouse to vote in favor of union representation was a David versus Goliath story for the age of globalization — and a rousing reminder that collective grassroots efforts can still succeed despite massive employer concentration, management intimidation, and other hindrances to building worker power. And that an independent, worker-led coalition led the drive at this 8,000-plus-employee facility, rather than an established union, made its victory all the more impressive, even as the vote to unionize brought organizers into uncharted territory and set up a protracted legal battle with Amazon, which has since refused to recognize the ALU or negotiate a contract. 

Telling the story of how the ALU reached this historic moment, “Union,” a new documentary co-directed by Brett Story (“The Hottest August”) and Stephen Maing (“Crime + Punishment”), takes a detail-driven, ground-level approach, following current and former Amazon employees in Staten Island as they mount a grassroots worker-to-worker campaign, standing their ground against one of the world’s powerful corporations all the while. 

No talking-head documentary but a keenly observational chronicle of the unionization push and its aftermath, “Union” often plays like a thriller by virtue of its sharp, smart editing rhythms. Early on, Story and Maing juxtapose Jeff Bezos blasting off into space on a rocket made by his Blue Origin company and Amazon workers trudging wearily into work; it captures the unimaginable scale of the company’s operations while foregrounding the human scale often concealed by breathless (yet inevitably compromised) reporting of Amazon’s designs on empire. 

Made over the course of three years, Story and Maing’s film explores the human cost of the convenience economy and illuminates oppressive working conditions in Amazon’s factories. From constant surveillance to high injury rates and a lack of breaks, the pressures of working in Amazon warehouses compound to create punishing environments for workers, ones Amazon has steadfastly refused to address or even accurately report. And the threat of retaliation against workers who organize is ever-present; in addition to pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into union-busting campaigns that include mandatory “captive audience” meetings (which have since been banned in the state of New York), Amazon issues warnings of possible termination to workers involved with the unionization drive. 

Advertisement

Bookended by footage of vast cargo ships transporting goods, a reminder of the slow, perpetual motion with which the gears of modern capitalism grind on, Story and Maing’s film is smart in how systematically its narrative lays out obstacles to the union’s success. It also insightfully depicts ground-level dialogue between workers as a powerful tool with which to overcome them. Some of the most remarkable footage, inside Amazon headquarters, covertly films one of those captive audience meetings; here, the company’s anti-union propaganda (One reads: “We’re asking you to do three simple things: get the facts, ask questions and vote no to the union”) is disrupted by ALU organizers, who successfully push back on Amazon managers just long enough to make their case to workers. 

One of the ALU organizers, Chris Smalls, takes center stage in “Union,” though the documentary largely sidesteps the temptation to cast him as a conquering hero. (That’d be an easy trap, given that he became the organization’s public face across the period “Union” depicts.) Smalls, fired from Amazon after protesting inadequate PPE provision during the pandemic (and besmirched by the company’s general counsel as “not smart or articulate” in an internal meeting of executive leaders), is a father of three who was moved to activism by the flagrant injustice of the company’s abusive labor practices. As a leader, he’s at once charismatic and hard-charging, dedicated to his fellow “comrades” but ever driven to push forward even in the face of inter-union dissent.

One of the film’s great strengths is its ability to surface the multiplicity of tensions between organizers working toward a shared cause. Take the world of difference separating the experiences of two subjects: Maddie, a white college graduate using her campus activism experience to help the cause, and Natalie, an older Latina woman living out of her car for years. In one charged exchange, Natalie pushes back on the suggestion, made by white male organizers, that Chris intentionally gets himself arrested by New York police officers to draw attention to the unionization drive. Ultimately, Natalie’s dissatisfaction with the ALU—due to her disagreements with leadership as much as her desire to wait for larger union support—leads her to leave the organization. It’s a testament to the complexity of individual motivations and the absence of easy triumph in this type of effort.

“Union” documents the internal debates and disagreements over governance, organizing, and leadership strategies that divided the ALU before its successful unionization vote and were compounded by its subsequent failed attempt to unionize a second warehouse. Though Smalls’ force of personality, passion, and determination fueled the fight to unionize JFK8, the film carefully depicts this as a collective victory. It rarely gives in to the temptation to single out Smalls for praise at the expense of others, and making it clear that his leadership style also contributed to internal rifts in the ALU that at various points may have weakened its ability to further the union’s mission. 

This becomes particularly important in the film’s latter half, after the unionization vote, at which point the sobering realities of the long work ahead come more fully into view. The heroism of the ALU organizers will never be in question. But with only one battle won in the war for workers’ rights, and Amazon continuing to contest or undercut its results by every means available, “Union” concludes on a note of weary fortitude rather than declarative victory. The film captures both the pain and the power of people at the base of a global infrastructure. By not departing from the frontlines of the fight against Amazon’s labor exploitation, Story and Maing bring the true face of their struggle into focus. 

Advertisement

“Union” will be self-distributed theatrically, starting on Oct. 18. This review was filed from the film’s New York premiere at the New York Film Festival. 

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending