If this is correct, it would have been because her therapy notes simply recorded her claims of Depp's violence and are therefore worthless as evidence. They are hearsay.
Years of reports and bruising observed in therapy. I believe her. I think it's ludicrous they weren't allowed in but I'm aware of the reasoning.
There is no medical evidence about her alleged broken nose. She was questioned on the lack of medical records in court and stated that she never sought treatment.
Untrue. She saw an ENT after the relationship ended but wasn't allowed to bring it in to her testimony.
Don't know about this - whether they were put forward as evidence and excluded (and, if so, on what grounds) or whether Heard's team didn't put them into evidence at all. In DV cases, it is not uncommon to find the victim agreeing with the abuser's version of events in an attempt to placate them, in much the same way that victims often blame themselves for their abuser's behaviour.
If you read the texts saying "When I told him he kicked you he cried. It was disgusting", referring to him as a lost little boy who just wants to get better and saying this will be a turning point, as agreeing with the abuser's version of events to placate them, that's your prerogative. It's as clear as day to me however that it doesn't fit that picture.
No, it wasn't. Depp stated that he ripped the phone off the wall. The only question was whether it had been smashed up or not. Depp accepted that he may have smashed it. I believe the manager of the apartment block said that the phone had not been smashed. The significance is that Heard alleged that Depp had cut off his fingertip smashing the phone. If the phone was not smashed, this was clearly untrue, although it does not prove that Heard was responsible for the injury
She thought he might have done, she never claimed to know exactly what happened. It was continually brought up as showing she lied and she was asked where the photos of a smashed phone were. Depp admitted in UK court he had indeed smashed up a phone.
The audio does not prove he headbutted her. It simply shows him using her characterisation of events. It adds some weight to her allegation, but it is far from conclusive. His position is still that there was no headbutt, but there may have been an accidental clash of heads when he was trying to restrain her. An accidental clash of heads is not a headbutt, so I don't see this as a pivot.
"I headbutted you in the fucking forehead. That doesn't break a nose."
I'd say that's conclusive. And it shows Depp’s lies.
There was no testimony from her friends in this trial. The only witnesses supporting her were her sister, people on her payroll and paid expert witnesses, something Depp's team emphasised to the jury in summing up.
Yes, a particularly horrible way to shame someone given victims of abuse often end up very isolated. I'm talking about the testimony from Rocky Pennington, Io Tillet Wright et al. And one of Depp's oldest friends saw finger mark bruises on her arm.
Which were undermined by showing that there are identical photos with no evidence of bruises. No-one knows whether photos with bruises were doctored to remove the bruises or vice versa, but you shouldn't doctor photos that are going to be used in evidence. Doing so will always cast doubt on their reliability.
There are pictures clearly showing her injuries. I agree two were identical, but they do show her bruises. Yes there was doubt cast on them, but there was also an expert rebuttal to that. Amber's experts were consistently more qualified in their fields as well. I'm not sure 'metadata grandpa' or whatever he was being called, is someone I'd put a huge amount of stock by.
To sum up, she had plenty of evidence. You can poke holes in it if you want to but it's a fact that she had evidence going back years. Obviously we disagree, I wanted to respond to your points but I don't think it will be helpful to keep going back and forth.