Amber Heard - but wait hear me out!! Watch this

[MrsMingech]

So I was on the fence with these two, and I read the threads but didn't follow them and when I searched them I only found and old one.

My search efforts suck, clearly.

Theres many recordings, albeit put together by a clear DP Pom Pom shaker. But it can't be denied (unless it's suggested it's another woman).

Its so bullying, awful
and nasty, I couldn't list to it all.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=e5SaPZpFhcg

if there's a more relevant thread that I suspect I've have missed please link and I will ask for this to be deleted. I swear I did search first.

Based on what?

Because you're believing bullshit!

A tiny shred?

She refused the court order to surrender her devices - saying she no longer owned any of her devices from the time of her relationship.
I don't own any devices from 2016 either? She can't surrender them if she doesn't have them...

But if you were gathering information and evidence, as she was back then and before - then you would keep those devices. Unless of course you'd been told that sight of the original images on the device that took them would in some way damage your case. Then... well, then you might not.

@StormzyinaTCup have you got a link for those images, they're impossible to read!

Unless she took the images to show her husband and family what he had done. And never intended to have to use them in a court case. Then her ex husband forced her to show "proof" he abused her by taking her to court.
Hmmmmm. Its almost like, that's why she said she had the photos

It is very unusual when you are involved in legal battles and believe yourself to be a victim of violent crimes and you have photographic evidence of that - to get rid of devices.

The only reason we heard about the texts from Johnny was because he surrendered his devices. Something Amber refused to do. JOhnny could have said he didn't have ay devices either - but he chose to surrender them and abide by the court order. No devices or texts or original anything from her, no photographs produced as per the court order. Very suspicious given everything she claimed was happening.

FFS. I used to have screenshots of messages my ex sent other women. I don't anymore.
Does that mean I never had them and am a liar?
Does that mean I was gathering proof to take ex to court?

No, it means I wanted something for when the gaslighting fucker tried to explain his way out of what he'd done.

I'm pretty much 100% sure that's what Amber also did. She didn't take him to court, he took her.

In the end her lies were so egregrious, that her efforts to hide evidence and not produce anything that might make her look bad didn't matter.

Do you know who refuses to abide by court orders, tries and stall the case, refuses to cooperate, refuses to provide evidence, refuses to allow full deposition of their witnesses...not a victim. Somehow with things to hide.

Anyways - her efforts to thwart justice didn't work. 99% of the population who watched the trial and looked at the evidence saw right through the absurdity of her claims and the lies. As did the jury.

What about Depps lies?
thegeekbuzz.com/news/83-times-johnny-depp-lied-under-cross-examination-so-far/

@RosieRooster83 brilliant posts from you

Buzzfeed?

There is an entire website of evidence and exhibits and hours of testimony. No wonder you believe Amber if your source for news is buzzfeed!

But not one of those charges - (sorry if I'm wrong, i stopped around the 50 mark) relates in any way to his 'abuse' of Amber.

Does that matter? I thought a liar was a liar...

This one appears to be a similar standard of lie to the ones AH told

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/23/johnny-depp-amber-heard-severed-finger-defamation-trial

Well, no.

Because all that matters is whether Amber defamed him with her lies, and she did.

Whether or not he lied about his drug use is irrelevant.

If there was any evidence those photos or videos were doctored, they would either have not been allowed as evidence or the expert witness would have shown up the lie. Thar didn't happen. So I think they were genuine photos.

@AdamRyan Did you actually watch the USA trial?

Depp called Norbert Brian Neumeister as an expert who gave data analytic evidence that software for the files of the photos was not directly from an iPhone but that it was rendered in an editing program.

You can watch his direct testimony and his cross examination here:

There is so much material wasn't in evidence at all in the UK trial because Heard was not a party - so under UK law wasn't under disclosure obligations in relation to evidence.

And if a liar is a liar, where do we stand on Amber talking about her 'bruise' kit?

@minutesturntohours

This bruise kit you mean?

twitter.com/i/status/1526524075463647232

Or this bruise kit?

twitter.com/LillyJane916/status/1530628288921616384

Quite.

and the make up she claimed to use which actually hadn't been invented...

Yes I did. He refused to give an opinion on whether the files were intentionally altered. They had been resized and versions saved through the default iPhone photo package
A forensic expert for Heard 1) identified the original photos and 2) testified no changes had been made to the images. I guess they could also be lying

>>They had been resized and versions saved through the default iPhone photo package

I love it when people claim they watched something they demonstrably didn't!

His evidence was that NO forensic expert would be able to authentic or validate the photographs as unaltered because of the rendering they had undergone. In other words, the Heard expect was reaching a conclusion that was unsustainable.

“There’s no way to authenticate any photo that was presented in the way the evidence was collected . . .. This could not come out of an iPhone this way, this would go into a computer, be edited and rendered through the photo editor and this would then be embedded in the EXIF data.”

Seperately, a decent expert is going to obviously say they can't given an opinion as to intentional altering because how can they speak to intention?