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.

@ChesapeakeEmbarrassed, my v simple understanding was Depp’s expert witness said they could tell the photos had gone through Apple photo 3 software which could be used to either simply re size or actually edit. It was impossible to say which of those was done by the metadata? Did I understand correctly?

In addition two photos AH submitted of herself she claimed were taken at different times when the time stamp showed they were taken at the same second and visually they were clearly the same but one showed redder cheeks?

So sad to read your last sentence, because the overwhelming majority are telling the truth about being raped and can’t get a conviction bc of the lack of evidence as in AH case.

Amazing that, because of lack of evidence she isn’t believed.

Pumperthepumper
Johnny Depp is in court again in July with a new assault case against a former colleague, who claims he punched him in the ribs. Wonder if that one will be televised?

A lot has been said about JD wanting this case televised but it was the judge that actually wanted it and allowed it to be televised.

I suspect that it will be the same in the trial that you have mentioned if it gets that far.

Amazing that, because of lack of evidence she isn’t believed.

I would say it’s not lack of evidence that made her lose but the evidence she provided did not match with her claims. She would describe a vicious beating that she said left her with black eyes, severely bruised face and a broken nose and then submit a photo of her supposedly after the beating with some indiscernible marks. From the description she would have been black and blue. It just didn’t match and her credibility was shot to pieces. Also twice after she claimed a broken nose and bruising she saw a doctor on one of the occasions and a nurse on another. Both their notes recorded no broken nose or bruising.

Exactly. Heards expert found the original and the image hadn't been altered even if the file had been.

I did watch the experts and I also am somewhat familiar with the topic. Amber's expert witness is a forensic examiner of devices and was very informative about what EXIF is,and what it does and doesn't tell you.

I always think if you have to say "you obviously didn't watch...." to make your point, you haven't understood what I'm saying.

Exactly. Heards expert found the original and the image hadn't been altered even if the file had been.

He agreed under cross examination he couldn’t say that for all photos. I have just gone and watched some of the expert witnesses on the photo evidence again. On cross examination Depp’s lawyer asked Heard’s expert witness if he agreed some of the photos (such as one showed by Depp’s witness of one of Heard with reddening on her face, note not black and blue as you would expect from her description of the beating) had been put through an editing software application. His reply was that he would say they were put through software that could either edit or sort, so editing was a possibility.

Also Depp’s lawyer got the witness to agree two photos of Heard he put up side by side looked visually different even though the data showed they were taken at the exact same second. The only logical explanation for that photo was one had been edited.

Sorry typo in my above comment, should be ‘those photos’ not ‘that photo’ in the last sentence.

And just one more comment to add to my one above, when I said not all photos I meant Heard’s witness agreed under cross examination that he could not say all photos that were submitted as evidence were originals as he didn’t look at them all.

Comparing ah to real rape victims is an absolute disgrace.

She made no attempt to go to a criminal trial!

AH is the one doing damage to real victims by muddling the waters with cases just like this

Amber is to blame for the low conviction rate for rapes? And for the fact that victims don't come forward? Because she's "muddled the waters"? Wow, all these years of pondering and now we know the root cause!

I also made no attempt to go to a criminal trial when I was raped @minutesturntohours what does that mean? What are you trying to say?

What is a disgrace is that a thread would descend into posters openly singling someone out and accusing her of lying about rape.
THESE actions harm rape victims, these fucking debates make victims feel they will be judged and called a liar. It's not this one woman who damages victims it's people like you, perpetuating this disgusting attitude. Arguing it for fucking days too..
It's not your fucking place to say whether ANYONE has been raped. Only an absolutely vile person would think it acceptable.

>>>It's not your fucking place to say whether ANYONE has been raped. Only an absolutely vile person would think it acceptable.

That's not really fair is it as a general statement? Society, as a democracy, has developed a system of justice that determines in law whether if someone is prosecuted for rape whether they commited that crime or not.

IF there has been a criminal trial AND that person has been acquitted, then in law they did not commit rape.

It's a bit much to say that only an absolutely vile person would think it was unacceptable to form a view in such a case.

In the Heard case, all of the evidence was broadcast live. Plenty of people watched the whole trial - as opposed to those who only watched sound bites or dipped in and out. It's all still available on line to watch. Again for people who watched the whole thing, they are in as good a position as the jury in that case to form their own opinion.

An opinion is just that though - it maybe right it maybe wrong but part of a democracy is that freedom of thought and opinion is permissible. Even if others don't like it or disagree.

What is a disgrace is that a thread would descend into posters openly singling someone out and accusing her of lying about rape.

I think the starting point should be to take any person’s claim of rape seriously. However, if there has been a trial - be it criminal or civil - examining the claims and a jury decides the person claiming rape is not credible due the various different factors presented at court and those watching the trial come to the same conclusion, a person is not vile to say they do not find the claim credible. Another person may make a different conclusion but neither is wrong to form their opinion if they have taken time to examine the case as much as a lay person can.

On a slightly different note I found this short video by an American attorney who has both prosecuted and defended in sexual abuse trials v useful. He says that Heard’s lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft, claim on shows after the trial that Heard’s case showed no victim will be believed if they don’t have hard evidence is utterly false and thus a damaging message to any victims who wish to come forward about what has happened to them and tell their story.

Assuming you haven't read the full thread.

I have said, repeatedly, that I don't think not going the police is proof of her lying, I understand that lots of people don't go forward. I just said that it wasn't a criminal trial, because, well , it wasn't.

Nobody is singling her out. It is a thread on her court case so naturally all allegations have been discussed. I don't remember blaming her for low convictions, what I said was cases like these (hers) could affect victims, we agree there. But that's Johnny's doing, not hers.

A judge found him successful which means her allegation has effectively been thrown out. I'm entitled to an opinion.

Several people on this thread have said similar - do you intend to address them all or just me?

I don't remember blaming her for low convictions, what I said was cases like these (hers) could affect victims, we agree there. But that's Johnny's doing, not hers.

minutesturntohours, are you able to explain what you mean by that’s Johnny’s doing? Thank you.

Sorry I forgot to bold the first paragraph in my comment above.

Oops! I meant the other way round!

Thanks minutesturntohours that makes much more sense!

Couldn't get past a minute, due to the highly annoying naked, gesticulating American lady with talons.

"Fits the profile" are you serious?!?!?! So because he's male, he must be "the least innocent?!" He was abused by Amber for years. He ended up terrified of her. Yes he lashed out eventually (reactive abuse - normal) but he never hit her. She battered the poor guy!

Mm.

Thankfully, absolutely hee haw of this is evidence, it would be thrown out as circumstantial, and Depp was cleared.

Btw, Amber was also done for "deliberate malice" towards her fake allegations - that's how the defamation was done.

Had she have stuck to the facts, she might have stood a bit more of a chance. Her lies cost her.

"Actual malice" is a US legal term and doesn't mean the same as malice in common use. The judge was very clear about that in jury directions.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice

Heard did show malice though - and intimidation of the jury that if Depp had shown, you've have been up in arms.

Malice as a legal term in the US means in this context saying something the person knows not to be true. The jury concluded AH knew she was lying saying JD abused her.

Camilla's interview was very interesting. She said their strategy was only to work on Amber's own words and prove they were lies.

Not quite the strategy used by Amber's team.