Is there somewhere we can see what was not allowed at this trial?
No you cannot; for the simple reason that, well, evidence not allowed in the trial was (a), deemed inadmissible; (b), not entered into evidence, which means it truly remains "secret".
Of course, we don't know why all the evidence was suppressed; most of it may have been suppressed because Amber Heard tampered with the metadata.
And yes, her counsel absolutely knows that when she is calling "evidence not allowed", could have been "evidence disallowed because it is rotten to the core"; and not because there is anything suspicious about the rationale behind it; and I'm pretty sure she has to have told Amber Heard this fact honestly. This is just standard nonsensical "losing side" bluster, IME.
You can, however, peruse a line item plaintext statement of Amber's "evidence", because they did file that.
Apologies to anyone whom I've spoken to about this already, but at the risk of stating the obvious, an "evidence list" overstuffed with 1080 items is ludicrous overkill; and if they didn't make it into evidence, we have no choice but to determine that this is because the judge decided it was rotten evidence.
I will say that, if you look at the list, 140 (!) of her putative and inadmissible "evidence" pieces are critical reviews of JD movies; which I have zero problem with Judge P. refusing to admit these because, as anyone with the vaguest knowledge of movie reviews knows, there's literally no way to determine anything about JD vis-a-vis these movies, because he's not the only factor in the movies (I believe her side was trying to say that all of these should count as proof of the devolution and devaluation of him as star. Again, unless we read all 140 of them, nobody has any idea);
And... I'm not a lawyer, but I'm also fairly certain that any time the entries say stuff like (I kid you not): "Amber Heard note to self"; "Amber Heard Diary", that these are WILDLY inadmissible because, well, I don't know what "talking to yourself" is supposed to prove... this isn't a law firm where you're writing memos to the file, lol;
and I've also got questions about multiple smaller blocks of items which seem like they state/represent the same thing, such as 20 photos of her with "bruise on arm", but you guys can be the judge:
I also note, that some of these are clearly items which the Depp side successfully placed into evidence (I can't say which ones for certain, but some of the descriptions sound super familiar for stuff we did in fact see).
That's kind of the point of discovery, although it often gets lost - since they trade items, either side of the case can draw from the contents of it and decide that they will in fact use it.
(And yes, in light of the above I really do wish that when AH had told JD on the one phone conversation, "(they) tell me I have the most evidence of any DV survivor they've ever SEEN!", that he had in fact said "I strongly doubt that, lol"; but, based upon his testimony, he said that he and the entirety of his team, knew and operated under the principle that it was better to placate her "so she wouldn't kick off", regardless of the cost.)
www.merriam-webster.com
