Returning to this, and just to say I'm trying to look at it how I think the jury did...
Untrue. She saw an ENT after the relationship ended but wasn't allowed to bring it in to her testimony.
I'm not surprised. That is not contemporaneous evidence, nor does it prove that Depp was responsible for any fracture to her nose. If she had sought medical attention immediately, that would have been admissible.
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.
That is the case put by Depp in the UK. I'm not saying I agree with it. Having been in an emotionally abusive relationship and attempted to placate my then partner by agreeing with a version of events that I knew was untrue (admitting to something I had not done), I see that as possible but, of course, I am not saying that is definitely what happened.
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.
Agreed re Heard. However, Depp did not say admit to the UK court that he had smashed up a phone. His answer when questioned was that it was possible he had, but he only remembered ripping the phone off the wall. You are right that Heard only suggested that the injury may have been caused when he smashed the phone. The evidence from the apartment block manager that there was no smashed phone won't have helped her in that, regardless of how Depp's finger was injured, it suggests her evidence that there was a smashed phone was untrue. I would be surprised if that played any significant role in the verdict. I think her insistence that she has donated $7M to charity when she clearly has not probably played a much bigger role in the jury deciding they couldn't believe her.
"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.
Disagree. Approaching this from the point of view of the courts, it is persuasive, but it is not conclusive.
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.
Bryan Neumeister, the expert called by Depp, is the CEO of USA Forensic, which has given evidence in over 600 cases at federal and state levels, including homicide and money laundering. I don't know how many of those cases Neumeister personally appeared in. His company is certified to give expert evidence on audio, video, computer, cell phone and cell tower. He is an expert in digital videography and digital photography.
Julian Ackert, Heard's expert, has experience in consulting and project management in the technology and litigation industries. I can't find any evidence of similar certifications for his company or that he has acted as an expert witness previously. Of course, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. He may be better qualified than Neumeister, but I can't find evidence of that.
Heard's position was that these are two separate photos taken under different lighting conditions. Her expert was forced to concede that they have the same filename and were taken on the same date at the same time. He was unable to say which was the original - the one showing clear bruising or the one where it is not clear that there is any bruise. I suspect that, given the expert evidence, the jury discounted the photos.